3 ms·

My topic statement was thus: > Economic theories that only looks to maximize economic productivity while ignoring philosophical or ethical concerns are idiotic

My topic statement was thus: > Economic theories that only looks to maximize economic productivity while ignoring philosophical or ethical concerns are idiotic. I did not claim that economic theories cannot address philosophical or ethical concerns, I claimed that economic theories which do not take these in to account are idiotic. I am not an economist, but I took quite a few economics classes in college. I am confident that I know enough to say that eliminating the capital gains tax is not a policy that would be pursued by someone looking to address concerns of regarding equality or the environment. The economic theory that supports the elimination of capital gains tax is one that focuses on maximizing productiveness above all else. It's the type of policy you come up with if you got your hands on a macro 101 textbook and you forgot other people exist.

harryh 8y ago
> I am confident that I know enough to say that eliminating the capital gains tax is not a policy that would be pursued by someone looking to address concerns of regarding equality or the environment. Your confidence is misplaced. On equality one might convincingly argue that by lowering cap gains rate we could increase the overall growth rate of the economy. By doing so we could increase other taxes on the rich without leaving them in a worse state than they would have been in the lower growth economy. We can then use this additional tax revenue to fund social services or otherwise redistribute income to reduce inequality. On environmentalism, one might argue that we should cut cap gains taxes and, in order to make up the lost revenue, institute a carbon tax or other tax on environmentally damaging activities. This could have a profound positive impact on our environmental footprint. Now, I'm not necessarily saying these are good ideas. But they are also not, prima facie, idiotic (to use your word). They are complex questions uncertain impacts. Reasonable people can disagree. Your assertion about "macro 101 textbook and you forgot other people exist" is also quite strange when you consider the fact that I'm not talking about college freshman's stoner thoughts on optimal taxation of capital. I'm referring to the ideas of professional PhD economists who are well respected in their fields.
- Declanomous 8y ago
  In context, I believe that OP was arguing for eliminating capital gains from our current system, not totally rewriting the way our taxes work such that capital gains was eliminated but we recovered those taxes in another manner. My argument accounts for this: > Of course you could argue that you can account for all of this using negative externalities. In that case you might as well tax capital gains to account for the negative externalities. I suppose you could tax something else, like lifetime earnings, but the point is I feel comfortable making the claim that not taxing capital gains is idiotic. I mean, ideally we would have a system where negative externalities were taxed appropriately, however that is a monumentally complicated task, and I somewhat doubt it could be done efficiently. This is especially true when you start dealing with externalities that arise from situations like "the reason why eliminating capital gains tax is productive is because people will continue to reinvest their money because it's the most productive use for their money," where reinvest effectively means you end up buying more and more of the economy. What regulations do you enact to prevent this from devolving into feudalism? How do you ensure that system you have put in place isn't destroyed by regulatory capture? What if having a ton of money is a negative externality in and of itself, even though it means you contribute more efficiently to the economy? I know that capital gains tax is inefficient, but it's an easy tax to levy, it's hard to evade, and politicians can understand it. Removing capital gains tax and accounting for the externalities is not idiotic. However, removing capital gains tax in our current system would almost definitely be an idiotic move.

harryh 8y ago

> I am confident that I know enough to say that eliminating the capital gains tax is not a policy that would be pursued by someone looking to address concerns of regarding equality or the environment. Your confidence is misplaced. On equality one might convincingly argue that by lowering cap gains rate we could increase the overall growth rate of the economy. By doing so we could increase other taxes on the rich without leaving them in a worse state than they would have been in the lower growth economy. We can then use this additional tax revenue to fund social services or otherwise redistribute income to reduce inequality. On environmentalism, one might argue that we should cut cap gains taxes and, in order to make up the lost revenue, institute a carbon tax or other tax on environmentally damaging activities. This could have a profound positive impact on our environmental footprint. Now, I'm not necessarily saying these are good ideas. But they are also not, prima facie, idiotic (to use your word). They are complex questions uncertain impacts. Reasonable people can disagree. Your assertion about "macro 101 textbook and you forgot other people exist" is also quite strange when you consider the fact that I'm not talking about college freshman's stoner thoughts on optimal taxation of capital. I'm referring to the ideas of professional PhD economists who are well respected in their fields.

Declanomous 8y ago
In context, I believe that OP was arguing for eliminating capital gains from our current system, not totally rewriting the way our taxes work such that capital gains was eliminated but we recovered those taxes in another manner. My argument accounts for this: > Of course you could argue that you can account for all of this using negative externalities. In that case you might as well tax capital gains to account for the negative externalities. I suppose you could tax something else, like lifetime earnings, but the point is I feel comfortable making the claim that not taxing capital gains is idiotic. I mean, ideally we would have a system where negative externalities were taxed appropriately, however that is a monumentally complicated task, and I somewhat doubt it could be done efficiently. This is especially true when you start dealing with externalities that arise from situations like "the reason why eliminating capital gains tax is productive is because people will continue to reinvest their money because it's the most productive use for their money," where reinvest effectively means you end up buying more and more of the economy. What regulations do you enact to prevent this from devolving into feudalism? How do you ensure that system you have put in place isn't destroyed by regulatory capture? What if having a ton of money is a negative externality in and of itself, even though it means you contribute more efficiently to the economy? I know that capital gains tax is inefficient, but it's an easy tax to levy, it's hard to evade, and politicians can understand it. Removing capital gains tax and accounting for the externalities is not idiotic. However, removing capital gains tax in our current system would almost definitely be an idiotic move.