3 ms·

Here is a good explanation of why you should be against it https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1832869758179381487 https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/183286

by namlem 2y ago

Here is a good explanation of why you should be against it https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1832869758179381487 https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1832869758179381487

_uhtu 2y ago
This is a terrible argument. It implies the money is destroyed by taxation. In reality that money would go towards relieving the governments need to collect other tax revenues. So for example you could increase the standard deduction. Now everyone pays less tax and can either contribute more to their 401k (boosting stock values) or buying more things (boosting stock values). If you want to say the government is incompetent and will waste the money, that doesn't apply here because it applies to every tax, not specifically this one.
- namlem 2y ago
  Value is destroyed by deadweight loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss?wprov=sfla1
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  There's no world where the government takes money from taxpayers and doesn't just turn around and spend it. Often this spending is several orders of magnitude more wasteful than private individuals spending their own money, because government agencies have extremely weak incentives to spend efficiently. They spend, run out of money, and just stop whatever they were doing because, oops, out of money until the next budgeting cycle. Value is destroyed by taxation, money is just a proxy. We spend on government because there are things we need that only government can do. Wealth transfer is not one of them.
hd4 2y ago
That's actually hilarious. "The rich won't invest if you tax their unrealized gains", or said differently an argument for trickle-down economics. News for you: they already don't. Not sure if some of you know how bad things are for the less well-off in the world right now but they are actually fucking hellishly bad. We're on the brink of a recession if we're not already in one.
- ithkuil 2y ago
  > they already don't? Do you mean "They already don't invest"? I'm confused. Then how can they have unrealized gains if they're not investing? Aren't we talking about gains coming from investment? If the rich are not investing then there are no unrealized gains and so they won't pay any tax under the proposed law and there are no problems in the first place.

by namlem 2y ago

Here is a good explanation of why you should be against it https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1832869758179381487 https://x.com/memeticsisyphus/status/1832869758179381487

_uhtu 2y ago

This is a terrible argument. It implies the money is destroyed by taxation. In reality that money would go towards relieving the governments need to collect other tax revenues. So for example you could increase the standard deduction. Now everyone pays less tax and can either contribute more to their 401k (boosting stock values) or buying more things (boosting stock values). If you want to say the government is incompetent and will waste the money, that doesn't apply here because it applies to every tax, not specifically this one.

namlem 2y ago
Value is destroyed by deadweight loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss?wprov=sfla1
slowmovintarget 2y ago
There's no world where the government takes money from taxpayers and doesn't just turn around and spend it. Often this spending is several orders of magnitude more wasteful than private individuals spending their own money, because government agencies have extremely weak incentives to spend efficiently. They spend, run out of money, and just stop whatever they were doing because, oops, out of money until the next budgeting cycle. Value is destroyed by taxation, money is just a proxy. We spend on government because there are things we need that only government can do. Wealth transfer is not one of them.

hd4 2y ago

That's actually hilarious. "The rich won't invest if you tax their unrealized gains", or said differently an argument for trickle-down economics. News for you: they already don't. Not sure if some of you know how bad things are for the less well-off in the world right now but they are actually fucking hellishly bad. We're on the brink of a recession if we're not already in one.

ithkuil 2y ago
> they already don't? Do you mean "They already don't invest"? I'm confused. Then how can they have unrealized gains if they're not investing? Aren't we talking about gains coming from investment? If the rich are not investing then there are no unrealized gains and so they won't pay any tax under the proposed law and there are no problems in the first place.