WSJ Opinion -- FutureView

We want to hear from you. Future View is a new WSJ Opinion series that will showcase student opinions on timely and important topics. Our goal is to surface a range of views and allow students the opportunity to contribute to the national conversation. A selection of interesting and thoughtful opinions will be edited and published directly on the WSJ.com Opinion page. Please complete the form below to submit your opinion in response to the next Future View question: https://futureview(dot)wsj(dot)com/ Directions: Review the following question and take a position on the content. Then, individually write a 150-200 word paragraph response. Consider the aspects learned in our sessions: 4 communicative elements (audience, message, purpose, value) rhetorical situation (ethos, pathos, logos), 6 framing principles, tonal categories, etc. in your response to increase persuasive appeal. – Make sure to include a compelling title and list your name and major. An April poll found that 1 in 5 Americans believe political violence may be justified to get the country back on track. Is violence rising? If so, why and what can be done to stop it? (150-200 words max.) Should you choose to submit to WSJ Opinion, click here and input your paragraph of fewer than 250 words by 9/29. You should submit under New York University as the affiliation. Example from last week’s posts: A Workable Wealth Tax A wealth tax seems to be politically popular largely because it promises to raise revenue from only the wealthiest citizens. As is often the case, however, the politically popular option isn’t the most effective. Calculating the wealth of a multibillionaire, as opposed to income, is famously difficult. The tax would require substantial work to enforce—especially as existing loopholes are exploited and new ones are added, and every assessment is challenged by the best accountants and tax lawyers that money can buy. There are worries that the whole tax could even be found unconstitutional and never get off the ground. High earners can be made to pay more in taxes, but not this way. Since much of their wealth is stored in capital investments, it would be more effective to raise the top tax rate for long-term capital gains. The highest income-tax rate is 37%; for long-term capital gains, it is a comparatively pitiful 20%. Democrats propose to raise it to 25%. A higher long-term capital-gains tax, matched with regulation of the tax dodge of securities-backed lines of credit, would capture revenue with significantly less difficulty. — Nicholas Tunks, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, finance, economics and accounting Don’t Tax Unrealized Gains In 1963, President John F. Kennedy said, “The tax on capital gains directly affects investment decisions, the mobility and flow of risk capital from static to more dynamic situations, the ease or difficulty experienced by new ventures in obtaining capital, and thereby the strength and potential for growth of the economy.” That was 58 years ago. Today’s Democrats have gone beyond defying JFK by seeking to raise the capital-gains tax. They are now proposing a tax on unrealized capital gains. The proposal is unserious. Our current capital-gains tax applies to the cash that flows when financial assets are sold. Unrealized gains, however, are only on paper. In a given year, investors might see 10% growth in the stocks they own. But they realize that 10% only if they sell the stock, which might occur decades in the future. Under this new proposal, the government would tax investors on unrealized gains, even if they have no money in-hand to show for it. My generation will rely on the future economic growth spurred by investments made today. We want a country that values hard work and doesn’t take away more of our money—especially money we don’t even have. — Joe Pitts, Arizona State University, civic and economic thought Immoral Tax Avoidance As Benjamin Franklin put it, “Nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” He might as well have mentioned a third item: tax avoidance. We have all heard from the ultrawealthy the argument that they started from nothing but worked hard and therefore deserve their fortunes and should not be subject to high taxation. The argument does not work. Political philosopher John Rawls’s distinction between expectations and moral deserts shows why. Even though individuals can form “legitimate expectations” to receive rewards from their efforts or great talents, they do not morally deserve such outcomes as Elon Musk’s $297 billion fortune. We have expectations of keeping our wealth because we happen to live in a society that values the particular skills we have, which is nothing of our own doing. Most would agree that we do not morally deserve the prize from a winning lottery ticket, because it is up to random chance. The same logic applies to Mr. Musk: His possession of spectacular wealth is due to the morally arbitrary reason that our society happens at the moment to value online-payment systems, spacecraft and electric cars. His wealth owes as much to social conditions as it does to his personal talents. Like all successful CEOs, Mr. Musk has dedicated hard work to build his empire. But can he claim to deserve everything he owns? No. Is his act of legal tax avoidance a refusal to acknowledge this social origins of this wealth? It most certainly is. — Eugene Pan, University of California, economics and data science The Right Choice Elon Musk is selling 10% of his Tesla stock, valued at $1.1 billion. He had held these shares for more than a year, so the proceeds will be categorized as long-term capital gains, which are taxed at lower rates than income or short-term capital gains. By selling now, Mr. Musk will be taxed on his gain at the maximum rate, 20%. The House Democrats proposed to raise the long-term rate to 25%. If that passes, Mr. Musk will have saved $55 million in taxes by selling now rather than later. Smart move. — Jessica Hrabovecky, Quinnipiac University, accounting