There is an interesting controversy brewing in California after four California university professors threatened a political candidate, Richard Lucas, for criticizing them for their roles in the “Billionaire Tax” and sent him a “cease and desist” letter. David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated anti-doxxing laws by sharing contact information. They are clearly wrong. One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas “a clown,” but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.
Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal claims and those of her clients.
I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California’s Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable. The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, these wealth taxes have a terrible track record and, on the federal level, face serious constitutional challenges. In California, the drafters included a retroactive clause that can also be challenged.
One of the four professors — who Lucas referred to as “the looter dream team” — destroyed the claims of many supporters that this is just a one-time tax. Some of us have written that this is simply the first salvo. Once they succeed in targeting billionaires, the same measure will likely be used for those in lower tax brackets.
In a recent debate, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez admitted that he could not seriously claim this would be a one-time tax, as many in the public have asserted. He said they would have to wait to see if it passes, but it is likely to be repeated, and noted that there may also be a federal wealth tax on the way.
He said:
“I don’t think it’s going to be a one-time tax…because you can’t surprise billionaires more than once.
Even then, you know, maybe some of them were expecting something like this.
So it’s going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that’s going to last for a number of years.”
Saez has publicly taunted the wealthy who are fleeing the state:
He noted the move on the left to create a federal wealth tax which has been pushed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
The legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.
It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.
Now back to the legal threat. I believe that the threatened legal action is wildly off base. Putting aside the fact that this is protected speech, the two anti-doxing statutes, Penal Code §653.2(a) and Civil Code §1708.89, contain clear scienter or intent requirements.
They must show that Lucas demonstrated an “intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family.” Penal Code §653.2(a); Civil Code §1708.89. There is no evidence of such intent. If simply posting such identifying information is a violation, a significant range of protected speech would be proscribed.
There are ample reasons to criticize this tax and the claims made by its champions. There is a type of self-sustaining pattern on the left in support of such measures. Universities have largely purged conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving most faculties with professors who run exclusively from the left to the far left.
These professors then added intellectual support for radical proposals like wealth taxes. The media then reports that experts have reviewed and approved the measures. It becomes an entirely closed loop from political groups to academics to media creating a uniform narrative.
The ADF wrote a strong letter pointing out the flaws in the claims of these professors under anti-doxxing laws from the lack of intent to the protection of free speech. These professors became public advocates for this ill-conceived plan and, as a result, have drawn criticism for that advocacy.
Lucas was one of those critics:
Nevertheless, the professors sent two cease and desist letters to Lucas, requesting that he remove their names and contact information from his website “California Wealth Exodus.” Lucas has remained adamant that he will not remove their contact information.
The site for figures like Galle link to his academic page, as I have done above. We routinely link to such sites for people to look at the background of figures discussed in columns. In the case of Lucas, it is also meant to allow citizens to express their views to those pushing this proposal.
In my view, the threat of legal action is fundamentally flawed and would not prevail in the courts. These professors will need to respond to their critics rather than work to silence them.
SPLC pays $4,000,000 to white supremacists to manufacture hate, which they told their donors they were fighting.
SPLC staffers also romantically dated those same white supremacists. Eww, ick.
It takes money to make money.
Billionaires – move out of CA and let the people pay for all they want and need themselves. Perhaps it is time for a reality check!
They are doing so. See: Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Travis Kalanak, Don Hankey, and Steven Spielberg, to name a few. And that doesn’t count billionaires leaving other blue states, such as Howard Schultz, Jeff Bezos, and Rich Barton leaving Washington State, or Carl Ichan, Stephen Ross, and Daniel Och leaving New York, or Ken Griffin leaving Chicago.
That’s a lot of tax money leaving high-tax states. As someone said below, states would do better to encourage more tax-paying billionaires than forcing billionaires to pay more taxes. The right to travel, to change one’s residence, to move out of state or even out of country, means that money will flow to where it’s treated the best, just as water will find its own leve. People can wail and gnash their teeth about that, but that’s the reality. It’s better to deal intelligently with reality than to yell and scream about not liking that reality.
Please. Any wealth leaving ‘blue states’ is not moving to the Texas panhandle or lower Alabama. Most of the wealthy people you list above have their own islands and a couple of yachts to get there.
The ‘Epstein island billionaire class’, in particular, are an obstacle to fair competition and a functional free-market. A drain on human progress and innovation. .. you would have to hold your nose to even eat rotting rich like that.
In theory, the role of the U.S. government is to protect the marketplace from these ultra-wealthy stateless leeches.. . rather than serve their interests.
*see China, e.g.
Please. They’re moving to Texas, Florida, and Tennessee. States that have no income taxes. States that promote economic freedom. Please, pay attention. Please.
No they are not moving to islands.
No the role of the US governments role is not to protect us from people who do us no harm.
You are not harmed by the wealth of Bezos – just as you are not harmed by the wealth of your neighbor.
You are just more envious of Bezos and more willing to steal his weatlh – to YOUR detriment.
Every wealthy person has given YOU something you did not have before – that is how they became wealthy – they made something YOU wanted more than YOUR money. And they exchanged YOUR money for those things YOU want over and over – taking the Money you gave them and using it to make even MORE things YOU want
While many billionaires were born rich – incredibly few were born with more than a tiny fraction of what they have today.
The made that – by trading things you want for money – over and over again.
Patience is a fur chew.
Trump’s Now Hackneyed Playbook
Donald Trump is “inventing fraud” in California’s primary elections, and likely to ramp up unfounded allegations when more races go against him, pro-democracy experts have warned.
While the US president has used this playbook for years – from his loss at the Emmys as a reality TV star to his defeat in the 2020 presidential election – election integrity campaigners fear this time could be different.
“California’s election is not the problem here,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice-president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, a pro-democracy watchdog group. “The problem is that we have a president in the Oval Office who continues to lie and sow doubt over elections instead of facing accountability from voters.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/09/trump-election-california-fraud-claims
………………………………………
Johnathan Turley is helping Trump villify California. Because casting doubt on the midterm elections is going to be Job # 1. And California is the lynchpin of that strategy. Trump toadies are already hard at work, creating the impression that California is a corrupt, enemy state. It’s scorched earth politics. In order to ‘save’ America, MAGA forces must burn it down.
oh gawd. you quote UK’s The Guardian? rated far left by the independent media raters??
I think Turley should retain an independent rater to rate people who submit comments here. You would sink pretty dam fast
The commenter you responded to is not a human, but a bot programmed by the Chinese Communist Party to post lies about Trump here every day. You can always tell by this:
……………………………………………………
The CCP is evidently not creative enough to vary the format.
This is a lie.
If it were a lie, then why isn’t CCP varying the format?
The CCP is evidently not creative enough to vary the format.
I wish I had said that.
Outside of left wing nuts – most EVERYONE grasps that CA elections Stink to high heaven.
Is their proof beyond a reasonable doubt of large scale fraud ? Not yet. Is there excellent evidence that large scale fraud is likely ?
Absolutely.
There is a reason 80% of americans want the SAVE act – to end this garbage.
CA is roughly 60:40 democrat – neither Hilton nor Pratt got near 40% of the vote. That alone is dubious – particularly with Hilton who ran statewide.
Separately Trump is actually doing extremely well in his election endorsements.
No MAGA is not looking to burn anything down – that would be the exlusive domain of the left.
Though given Bass Burning LA down it is od you choose that metaphor.
California IS a corrupt state. It is not an “enemy state”. But it is a disasterous slowly failing mess.
Which is a real crime – because no other state is so wonderfully endowed.
California is a Jewel and the left if tarnishing it.
Many are leaving – and not all republicans. They are leaving a paradise you have turned to schiff.
But some are staying – and fighting – Like Pratt, and your pi$$ing all over them and cheating them.
Regardless it was always unlikey that Pratt (or Hilton) can win in CA. But they are a message that all Californians are not left wing nuts.
With specific respect to the LA Mayor race – you either have to accept that all the polls – which nearly always over estimate democrats were off by 3 times their margin of error – which I do not think has ever happened in a significant race, or that something improper is going on.
That evidence ALONE is enough.
Polls are often Wrong – they are NOT often ALL wrong by 10pts in major election – they are NOT EVER ALL wrong by that much in a major election.
Polls are extremely important – in the US and elsewhere in the world – specifically because of their ability to highlight likely fraud.
The tax is akin to you standing in the middle of the road as an Australian road train is bearing down on you. Even if you trust that the driver will not hit you, would it not be prudent to get out of the road?
Australian Road Train
OT:
Hopeful is the right word. I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic or pessimistic. optimism is a matter of optics and who knows what the future holds. Hope though is a virtue, and it’s a virtue that Christians in particular are required to nurture in themselves and try to spread to others. Hope is an active thing. Hope involves the resolution to do your part to make sure that well for one thing valuable things endure. And I believe that this great experiment in ordered liberty and
self-government, republican government, bequeathed to us at great cost by our founders, is a very good thing and
should be preserved and should endure
– Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and Director of Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions
https://robertpgeorge.com/about/
Those tolerant liberals are only tolerant as long as you agree with them 100% on everything. If not they get very angry. His suit has no chance of winning in a fair civil court. But they don’t have fair courts in Communist California.
Robin Hood didn’t steal from the rich and give it to the poor. He recovered the excessive taxes that were collected by the corrupt government and gave back to the shop owners, farmers craftsmen workers etc. from whom it was stolen. Making Robin the early poster child for supporting capitalism,
OJ thought he could steal back his stolen memorabilia. How did that go for him?
It’s not “capitalism”; it’s freedom. Freedom means free people conducting free enterprise in the free markets of the private sector or free people accepting employment from a free enterprise. Freedom creates wealth, which creates prosperity for owners and employees. The sick, lame, and lazy are left to beg “alms for the poor,” and it is up to their benefactors to determine their authenticity. The Bible teaches that we are our brothers’ keepers and that we should be charitable.
Actually he stole taxes from an Illegitimate Government.
X disappeared again after s. meyer, Lin, and others smacked him again (He already took his lunch break earlier.)
But He be back, after he finds some more bullets for his gun. p.s. it’s a cap gun.
X is on a potty braek. Deulsional Gigi is filling in for X (see below).
It’s not delusional Nutchachacha, it’s parasitic Nutchachacha.
Everyone owes her/it/they/them “free stuff” and “free status.”
Estovir, no one has the time you have to sit on this blog all day long like you. The only question is, “Who’s paying you??”
You have EDS. Estovir derangement syndrome. And the other kind, too.
X won’t be back until he is sure that all the mistakes he made (and got shot down on) are buried under another 50 more recent comments. That’s the game he plays.
The NEXT PROBLEM is, NONE of the written ‘Laws’ seem to matter anymore – DEPENDING ON which
State, which Court, and which Judge hears the arguments.
You can follow ‘the letter of the written law’ 100% – and some Judge somewhere will rule against you,
we see this ALL THE TIME, even a few times in the SCOTUS.
The judicial branch has the judicial power, that is, the power to judge or to ensure that actions comport with statutory and fundamental law.
The judicial branch has absolutely NO power to legislate, modify, or amend, or to legislate, modify, or amend through the nonexistent power of “interpretation.”
The judicial branch has no power to usurp and exercise any aspect, facet, or degree of legislative or executive power.
But it is OK for a State Official or Politican to name of the names and addresses of ICE Agents
that are performing their legal lawful acts of enforcing the laws of this country?
That is dangerously illegal for state officials, politicians, citizens, or illegal criminal aliens.
It is a MAGA talking point that there is a massive shift of population from blue to red states because of ideology and taxation. Here’s an excerpt from “Factually” about that:
“The picture is far from uniform: several sources caution against exaggeration — North American Van Lines found no single-state mass exodus and many moves remain motivated by standard economic and family reasons [3], Statista shows that movers from blue states historically split between blue and red destinations [8], and by 2025 overall American mobility had slowed, reducing the onward momentum of any partisan redistribution (Axios) [8] [4].”
So, no. Taxing billionaires is not causing them to move from California or other blue states to red states.
Meanwhile, WHY did Trump have to show up and ruin Game 3 for the Knicks and their fans? Why? He’s a jinx. They had to cancel several watch parties because of him, traffic was snarled while he went cruising by in our limo, getting flipped off and booed by people on the streets, and fans were not allowed to bring anything into MSG. They had to arrive 2 hours early. When Trump was shown on the Jumbotron, there was a loud chorus of “boo”. Why does he have to insinuate himself into every high-profile event? Does he really not believe the polls and how unpopular he truly is? And, WHY is there going to be some slug match on the lawn of our White House, sponsored by a group in which Trump is an investor? Trump didn’t bother to secure the necessary permits to use White House grounds for this purpose, because he just doesn’t care. There’s nothing about 2 men beating the snot out of one another that is patriotic. And, what about the private event using the Lincoln Memorial as a backdrop, in which Trump also stands to benefit?
Obama was booed at various games, this as well as at Clemson U. https://www.okayplayer.com/obama-booed-at-nfl-games-across-the-league-during-9/11-tribute/582208
“By citing this example, Glickman suggested that, contrary to Joe Scarborough’s sentiments, booing presidents is an American tradition. It is important for people to understand that this event is not an anomaly, nor is it a Trump-specific phenomenon.”
“MSNBC correspondent Steve Kornacki tweeted a video of NASCAR fans booing Bill Clinton at a race in 1992 and protestors flew a banner that read “No Draft Dodger for President”.
“If I’m remembering correctly, Obama was booed at the All-Star Game in 2009, GWBush was booed at a Nationals game in 2008, and GHWBush was famously booed at the 1992 All-Star Game: pic.twitter.com/spZjEj1vqh — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) October 28, 2019
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/the-history-briefing-on-presidential-booing-how-hi
wANNA try again, gigi? You already have two strikes today, one more you are O U T!
If you actually watch the Video – the Boos were quickly drowned out with chants of USA, USA
You honestly beleive in Jinx’s ? Clearly you are a left wing nut.
Yes some people Booed Trump – and many chanted USA, USA – drowning out the boos
The executive branch is the domain of the president – you can not require permits of the president for anything on WH grounds – or any federal property for that matter.
This is not specific to Trump, it is true of ALL presidents.
WH events do not have to get any permits from anyone.
Breaking: Karmelo Anthony found guilty of murder.
OMFK
Because he is guilty of first degree murder. Too bad he didn’t get elected to public office, then he would have walked with a man slaughter charge.
Billionaires should be praised and saluted and given a massive societal credit and enormous tax deductions and exclusions for their colossal contributions to their nations.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”
– Aesop, “The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.”
This is a ridiculous discussion. The judicial branch is a complete failure; it cannot perceive the difference between the Constitution and the Communist Manifesto. Americans should have enjoyed the equal protection of the law in 1789, long before the unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”
America is neither a church nor a charity.
The “HEAD TAX” represents the ultimate application of procedural fairness and strict legal equality. By treating the state as a neutral service provider and charging every citizen the exact same “price of admission,” it completely removes arbitrary political brackets, wealth redistribution, and government intrusion into personal finances.
“Government should treat individuals as equals before the law and protect their basic rights.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
“All men are created equal.”
– Declaration of Independence
___________________________________
It asserts a moral and political principle: every person has the same fundamental worth and equal natural rights (not that everyone is identical in abilities or status). Historically, it declares that political authority derives from consent and that no one is born with an inherent right to rule over others—so laws and government should treat individuals as equals before the law and protect their basic rights.
I may be on a fool’s errand, but I’ll try anyway.
First, the Reconstruction Amendments are part of the U.S. Constitution. It makes no sense to say they’re unconstitutional. That’s like saying the Constitution violates itself. Again, that’s illogical on its face.
Second, the Declaration of Independence is not law. It is an explanation to the King of England, but it does not lay down binding laws that anyone in the US is required to obey. The Constitution, on the other hand, is law.
Have a good day.
In order for the “Reconstruction Amendments” to be constitutional, one must subscribe to the nonsense that secession is prohibited because secession is not prohibited.
There was no legal basis for the wholly unconstitutional Civil War—reprehensible slavery was duly legislated to be legal, as was secession, which is not prohibited and was clearly presented in the constitution ratification documents of many states.
You must be the only person who believes the Declaration and the concept of equality in all things (i.e. taxation) do not represent the thesis of the American Founders.
I figured I was on a fool’s errand.
You must be the only person who believes the Declaration and the concept of equality in all things (i.e. taxation) do not represent the thesis of the American Founders.
Where did I say that? What I said about the Declaration, is that it is not law. Try reading for comprehension next time, instead of responding to something I didn’t say. You are particularly dense to put words into someone else’s mouth and then insult them for saying those words, when in fact they never said them. So GFY, troll.
Thank you for your concession in defeat. I very much appreciate that.
^ Moron ^
If those rons are really that good, then, yes, we do need morons.
^If those rons are really that good, then, yes, we do need morons.^
Where in the constitution does it say that Secession is allowed ?
The constitution gives specific powers to the federal govenrment – nowhere is there any provision for any state to revoke those powers – except by amending the constitution.
You focus on the Declaration – which DOES contain the criteria for a justified separation.
Read the declaration of independence and explain to me why the mere election of Lincoln is equivalent to the myriads of violations of rights by King george ?
Sorry – your own documents prove you wrong.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
Here is the General outline in the declaration for when you can unilaterally alter or abolish a Government.
Elsewhere in the declaration are the specifics.
Please explain how the federal government in 1860 was destructive of individual rights ?
You brought up the declaration of independence.
The Declaration of Independence was an expression of ideals which were fulfilled by abolition of the slave trade by 1808 and abolition of slavery after a bloody Civil War.
The “expressions” of the Founders in the Declaration became the Constitution without missing a beat. Check the laws. Slavery was duly legislated; the Civil War enjoyed no legal basis, as secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional and is in the constitution ratification documents of multiple states, and Lincoln had no legal basis to issue any proclamation and no power to nullify or amend statutory and fundamental law, like the Naturalization Act of 1802, as one example, which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.
Reprehensible slavery was known to be withering on the vine in 1789.
George Washington did his part to end British colonial slavery in 1801, 12 years after the creation of the United States of America.
AI Overview
George Washington’s enslaved workers were legally freed on January 1, 1801. In his 1799 will, Washington stipulated that the 124 enslaved individuals he owned outright were to be emancipated following the death of his wife, Martha. However, fearing for her safety, Martha signed a deed of manumission in December 1800, freeing them early.The emancipation only applied to the people Washington owned personally. Nearly half of the 317 enslaved people at his Mount Vernon estate were “dower slaves” (part of the estate of Martha’s first husband, Daniel Parke Custis). By Virginia law, these individuals could not be freed by George or Martha Washington and were instead dispersed among the Custis grandchildren after Martha’s death in 1802.
KK
it is more than Ideals – while OMFK is correct that it is not US law – The declaration is absolutely a “legal Document” – it is a legal brief to the world at the time stating the purpose of Govenrment, the violations of that purpose by King George an the right as a consequence of KG’s failure to form a new government.
It also establishes the extent to which the people must tolerate an abusive government before taking up arms against it.
It makes it clear that “insurrection” is not easily justified, but also that it is not never justified.
“Everyone loves bells. I don’t know why they left it broken for so long. That’s the way the Democrats do things. They just leave things in a state of disrepair. It’s sad. I’m the only president who could fix it.”
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-repairs-the-crack-in-the-liberty-bell
The image of the repair job, complete with rivets and a solid-appearing repair without any regard to asthetics, was pure gold.
It is unconstitutional to single out billionaires for punitive and confiscatory taxation, denying them the equal protection of the laws.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
No State shall…deprive any person of…liberty…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I’m sure the dems don’t care.
It is just as illegal for rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges and steal bread to stay alive.
Did the judge immediately strike these vexatious litigants?
Tax uniformity is the fairest tax policy – and in a happy coincidence, is also one of the most conducive to job creation and economic growth. A Tax Uniformity Amendment is needed, which would apply to both the feds and the states:
Taxes shall be uniform. The effective rate of taxation on a thing cannot depend on the quantity of the thing being taxed.
That’s it, done, finito. Save blue state voters from themselves.
Old Man, the billionaire can afford to pay far more than the dishwasher. Don’t insult us with your wacky math.
Please cite the Constitution for “can afford to pay,” comradette.
the billionaire can afford to pay far more than the dishwasher.
That is correct, and the billionaire will pay more (way more) if they both are subject to the same tax rate.
Old Man knows you can’t tax the dishwasher more than ‘X’ percent because they can’t afford to pay anymore.
So if that ‘X’ percent is 20, that’s nothing to a billionaire. A multi-million income taxed at 20%, is almost like ‘no tax’ to a billionaire.
Why do Joe The Plumber types want a class of super rich lords? Like Victorian England is a model to emulate..??
A flat tax would probably be well below 20%, as that would be politically unpopular. And 20% would be unneded. By specifying “effective tax rate” (not just “tax rate”) in the amendment I’m proposing, you get rid of deductions. 10% of a billionaire’s income, if the billionaire cannot claim any deductions, is huge.
More job growth, more economic growth, and that dishwasher can definitely afford a 10% flat tax. Wealth creators would not flee the jurisdition, and tax revenues would be higher, so benefits for needy individuals, including low-income workers, would be more easily afforded.
The only glitch in the above is if massive illegal immigration depresses wages. So perhaps the amendment would have to also include some provision to stem the flow of illegals. If you have any constructive suggestions on that topic, I’d like to hear them.
The most efficient and effective and least economically damaging form of ta is a sales tax.
One other point about the dishwasher: it is only fair that he or she contribute their fair share of the cost of government, even if they don’t make as much money as other people. They benefit from having an orderly society with infrastructure and police protection, etc., and so it is only fair that they make some contribution propotional to what they earn. If people want to live in a society that is free and ordered, they can’t just get everything for free. If they are low-earners, fine, then their tax burden should be low. But it should not be zero.
While so far this has gone nowhere – Trump did propose eliminatng income taxes on people earning under 150K in return for tariffs.
“the people” then pay the cost of government hen they buy things.
When you tax billionaires they must liquidate the investments that provide YOU with jobs and other thing that you like.
People become billionaires by giving those like YOU something you want MORE than the money you pay them.
Then they take that money and make even MORE things YOU want.
No one becomes a billionaire by stealing or using force.
See, you just proved how dumb you really are. Check the IRC records on who pays the most.
Or try Goggle.
Sorry IRS records
Hee hee.
Oddly ignorant of how tariffs work.
Professor Emmanuel Saez strikes me, from the linked videos, as someone enamored and firmly committed to the brilliance and correctness of his economic theory. He seem oblivious to any consequences of the wealth tax such as entrepreneurs leaving. This is in sharp contrast to the cultivation of Silicon valley entrepreneurship by Stanford and UC Berkeley universities as well a the aerospace and movie industries much earlier. Those are examples of how states can develop environments suitable for wealth creation. To quote Thomas Sowell, “…the political left has long had a remarkable lack of interest in how wealth is created. As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.” The goal for a state government should not be to tax the millionaires more but to tax more millionaires. The ingeniousness of our Federal system is that states are laboratories for good and bad ideas – thus providing some limitation on the spread for bad ideas and a gestation environment to develop good ideas. Prof. Saez, a dual French and American citizen and associate of fellow French economist Thomas Piketty, is about to find out. Piketty, likewise fixated on the distribution of wealth, assumed that productivity would drop – clearly not foreseeing the application of AI is practically every endeavor. So these very smart well spoken professors speak a good story and yet can be utterly wrong.
As far as they are concerned, wealth exists somehow and the only interesting question is how to redistribute it.
This is illustrated in the famous story of the goose that laid the golden eggs. The best thing to do is make sure the goose thrives and keeps laying those eggs. The leftist approach is to kill the goose to get at the gold inside and redistribute it. What they don’t realize is that, even if a little bit of gold is found inside, that pales in comparison the quantity of gold that would come out of the gooes if it had been allowed to live.
Or maybe they realize it and they are just trying to get power through demagoguery.
The ingeniousness of our Federal system is that states are laboratories for good and bad ideas
The laboratories of democracy idea (per Justice Louis Brandeis) works well where there is freedom to travel. That is happening now with the massive flow of wealth out of deep blue states like NY, WA, IL, and CA, and toward red states like TN, TX, and FL.
Just like with North and South Korea, the results of the experiment are clear. What’s unclear is whether the voters in the failed-experiment states will ever wake up and realize their preferred policies have led to misery and destruction.
You don’t know that any experiment has failed. Perhaps the destination states will collapse under the new population. The wealth won’t all flow to red states; freed from taxation the wealth will find its way to foreign countries at the expense of American jobs.
You employ a standard that no scientist has ever endorsed: we must wait until the end of time, billions of years from now, to determine for sure if an experiment succeeded or failed. Nice try, but maybe you could try a little hard next time by actually thiking.
The wealth won’t all flow to red states
What universe do you live in? Taxpayers are moving in droves to red states, where they will pay taxes, silly goose. Job creators are moving in droves to red states, where they are already creating jobs. Starbucks’s just added thousands of jobs in Tennessee. You are celarly grasping for straws, not a serious or thoughtful commenter at all.
Look, you are suffering psychologically because your favored communist economic policies are not working in blue states. So your response is to deny, deny, deny, rather than face reality. It would be healthier to adjust your theories to reality, rather than trying oh so hard to conform reality to your theories. Facts are stubborn things. They will not be conformed to your theories, just because you like your theories. Ultimately, the biggest problem leftists have to deal with is reality.
End of time? The movement of people is only a couple of years old at most; society takes decades to settle out from shifts.
The movement of jobs is moving income, not wealth. Migrant farm workers are a prime example.
There are over 7 Million people in Tennessee; thousands of jobs is a fraction of a percent of that.
“Starbucks plans to open a regional corporate office in Nashville with a $100 million investment and 2,000 jobs, but a $30 million incentive package is drawing criticism from a conservative group.”
https://www.newschannel5.com/news/state/tennessee/davidson-county/tennessees-30m-starbucks-incentive-deal-draws-scrutiny-over-taxpayer-funded-corporate-grants
They want to move to Tennessee to cut their costs and the amount they spend in salaries. If Tennessee wants to be part of the race to poverty for wage earners, great for them. The corporations won’t keep their wealth in Tennessee.