Lots of bad takes on Biden's proposed tax hike. I must be missing something. What is it?
1. Why do we need to increase taxes if we can print money?
➡️ Too much cash causes inflation. Take some of that cash out of the system through taxes. + tools, + precision on outcomes
2. If you print $ to increase capital gains and then tax them, ppl are worse off
A: You have $100 in stock, appreciates 7% in a year, 0% inflation, 20% capital gains tax➡️$105.6 at the end of the year
B: $100, 40% appreciation, 5% inflation, 40% capital gains tax➡️$118
3. It will disincentivize investments.
➡️What's these ppl's alternative?
Spending? That would be better for the economy. The savings rate of the top brackets is through the roof.
Capital flight? US income taxes are charged on global income, can't escape these like a business
Hiding capital gains abroad? Harder than before, with the tax info sharing agreements with other govs from the last 10-20 years
Investing in foreign companies vs. US-based? This doesn't incentive that at all. Business taxes are not proposed to change
4. Yeah but the Laffer Curve suggests maybe this might reduce overall taxation $
Or maybe not. We don't know. No good empirical data on this. I don't see a pathway for that right now (see pt 3).
And then there's the positives.
5. How does it make sense to have wages taxed at a higher rate than capital gains? You want to incentivize work. It should be at most equal. The only reason why it wasn't is because it was harder to tax capital gains & avoid flight/evasion. Before
6. It's only for families with >$400k in income, which have had one of the best years ever in the stock market, just out of sheer luck + gov handouts (money printing). Narrow minority of Americans.
I'm sure I'm missing lots of aspects to it. What am I missing?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scientists have something to learn from musicians.
Their business models are changing in a similar direction. The ones who realize it quickly will gather an impact and wealth that few could have dreamed of before. 🧵
The currency of scientists is references to their published papers: The more references they get, the more successful they're considered, the more likely they are to get tenure, go up the ranks, and make $
That business model means they need to please their peers and the scientific journals.
Both of these are traditional gatekeepers who have a strong incentive about reputation. The more on the cutting edge the paper, the better. The more jargon, the more it looks advanced.
How many times have you heard excuses of why the West couldn't control COVID? Only islands, only authoritarian regimes...
Alternative interpretation:
To be clear, I'm not saying it was sufficient to do test-trace-isolate well to control the virus. But it was necessary: without it, you couldn't succeed.
The countries who did test-trace-isolate well also did other things, notably all have a good fence. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
I think it can be improved: 1. Your setup is unnecessary (everybody shares that context)
2. The rest is mostly about the pbm. That part is strong and well structured. But 95% of your email is about the problem, while you state it's about resolution
3. You're missing a "midpoint", WHY this problem exists and hasn't been solved yet (recent change in resource alloc? Process broke?)
4. Your solution is 1 line but doesn't give confidence that it will solve the pbm: no root cause, no reason why it will solve the pbm
Some ppl make fun of those who say new technologies (like blockchain or AI today) change everything. They counter that ppl always say “This time, it’s different”, but they’re always wrong
Tell that to 19th century rural workers vs machines
Tell that to WWI generals sending their troops to be mauled by machine guns.
Tell that to the Catholic Church when the printing press broke it.
Tell that to the feudal knights made irrelevant by gunpowder.
Tell that to the Gauls when they saw Romans for the 1st time
Tell that today to cab drivers around the world
Travel agents
Western manufacturing employees
Yellow pages publishers
Encyclopedia salespeople
Those who laughed at COVID
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
The right aspect: When you disagree with other ppl, it’s very common to assume it’s because of their malice, and it’s usually wrong.
But stupidity isn’t the answer either
Ppl might have:
Different goals
Different incentives
Different data
Different experiences
Different assumptions
Different aspects of the same conclusion highlighted
Different processing of the same info.
A different processing of the same info might be better or worse.
If better, you might assume they disagree with you because of malice or stupidity, when in fact you’re just wrong.
If they have worse processing, it might be lack of training, youth, tiredness...