Below is my column in the New York Post on the sharp decline in millionaires in New York, costing the state billions as many flee. The exodus has been building for years but may now be accelerating. As Mayor Mamdani holds another press conference promising to end the “violence of evictions,” businesses are reading the writing on the wall. Rather than work to make the state more attractive to wealthy residents and businesses, Democrats are seeking to diminish the appeal of two-tax states. They want to tap into a long-barred area of taxation: the wealth rather than just the income of citizens. By passing a national wealth tax, Democrats will reduce the benefit of fleeing high-tax states like California and New York.
Here is the column:
“Start spreadin’ the news, I’m leavin’ today” — that’s how the famous song “New York, New York” captures the Big Apple’s draw.
Today, the line is becoming more ironic than iconic: Many people are indeed leaving … from New York, New York.
Worse yet, those “vagabond shoes” that “are longing to stray” are on the feet of the wealthiest New Yorkers.
And as they flee, according to a new study, they’re taking away billions in badly needed tax revenue.
As Mayor Zohran Mamdani and others pledge massive social programs and free services by taxing the wealthy, the wealthy are just melting away.
The reason is simple: if “you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”
In today’s economy, it’s no longer necessary or even particularly beneficial to be in New York to make money in financial and other areas.
When any business meeting is a screen and a click away, you can go to a low-tax state like Florida or Texas and do as well as you can in the Big Apple.
Not surprisingly, many are choosing the money over the mystique and the madness.
This week the Citizens Budget Commission reported that New York’s share of millionaires fell from 12.7% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2022 — the largest drop of any state.
The exodus of wealthy citizens left New York short $10.7 billion in tax revenue.
By denouncing the remaining wealthy as effectively freeloaders who are “not paying their fair share,” Mamdani is only spurring them on.
It’s a demonstrably false claim that I discuss in my book Rage and the Republic — and part of a growing class-warfare theme the left is deliberately using to fuel political rage.
Yet it’s easy to form a mob — and far more difficult to control it.
That is particularly the case when your economic policies destroy your economy, and your ability to pay for all the free services that you’ve promised.
There’s a good-faith debate to be had over optimal tax levels, but the fact is that the top 10% of Americans pay more in taxes than the other 90% of the country. The top 1% pays roughly 40% of federal taxes.
As rational actors flee the state, Mamdani and New York Democrats are forced to cull the shrinking herd of high-end taxpayers who remain, layering on special fees like a pied-à-terre tax to be imposed on NYC’s luxury property owners.
And rather than change course to make New York a more attractive place to do business and live, national Democrats are moving to make other states no better — by nationalizing wealth taxes and by taxing fleeing citizens as if they still lived in the state.
Many are following Sen. Bernie Sanders’ and Rep. Ro Khanna’s call to impose a federal wealth tax they’ve dubbed the Billionaire Tax.
The idea is to stem the exodus from California and New York by giving the highest earners no place to go . . . except out of the country.
That’s the option many took when similar wealth taxes were attempted in countries like France, only to be rescinded after doing massive economic damage.
Fleecing the wealthy is a revenue loser.
New York is losing billions, and California has reportedly lost trillions due to top taxpayers’ departure.
Unwilling to adopt greater fiscal restraints and truly compete for businesses and residents, Democrats are looking for pockets of new areas to tax.
The wealth tax is a virtual bonanza of untapped revenue — if it can make it through the courts.
Our Constitution was amended in 1913 to allow for an income tax, not a wealth tax.
Once you pay taxes on what you earn, you’re supposed to be able to use your hard-earned money to buy whatever you wish, from bikes to boats.
Democrats now want to tax those possessions: “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts,” as Sen. Elizabeth Warren once dramatically warned.
And Khanna recently confirmed what some of us have been saying for years: The Billionaire Tax isn’t only for billionaires.
“The tax should not stop at billionaires,” he said in a pitch to his party’s rising socialist movement; “it must reach centimillionaires. The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.”
Khanna and others hope that, once taken nationally, a wealth tax would destroy the benefit of moving to low-tax states — and open up literally trillions in new potential revenue.
In the meantime, New York will continue to burn billions as it taps its dwindling number of millionaires.
As their wealthy neighbors depart, those remaining will have to make up for their loss.
Being among the last to leave New York will be a costly distinction.
They will indeed “wake up” — and find that they’re “king of the hill, top of the list” for wealth redistribution.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times bestselling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The American Left looks at our nation and sees a mouth watering array of “taxable events” that is low hanging fruit ripe for the picking. This talent is their replacement for the entrepenurial spirit that they detest. Their minds are boggled by the tax opportunities they see that are within their reach. Unfortunately, their minds appear to have a high capacity for boggling.
Turley’s obsession with bashing NYC’s “socialist” mayor ignores a glaring reality: the mayor’s policies are actually being successfully implemented. The narrative of a massive millionaire exodus is a statistical exaggeration.
When the ultra-wealthy move to Florida, they shift their legal paperwork, not their actual infrastructure. Relocating physical business assets to Florida is a financial nightmare. Case in point: Ken Griffin’s Citadel HQ in Miami saw its budget skyrocket from $1 billion to $2.5 billion due to extreme local construction premiums. Florida lacks premier commercial high-rises—most skyscrapers in Miami are condos, driving office rents to Manhattan highs. Add in a dysfunctional commercial insurance market, and the corporate tax savings rapidly evaporate.
Furthermore, Florida’s low-wage economy cannot support this influx. Tech and finance workers are resisting relocation due to poor infrastructure, severe public school shortages, and mandatory car dependency in a state with the highest auto insurance rates in the country. Local governments can’t fund solutions because a 3% property tax cap restricts revenue.
Florida is mimicking NYC’s displacement crisis without NYC’s high-wage baseline. Working-class families are fleeing to Tennessee and South Carolina. Eventually, Florida’s elite will face a stark reality: you can’t run a luxury enclave when you’ve priced out the entire workforce required to service it.
So Mandami’s policies have been successful or successfully implemented? I don’t think there was ever any doubt about the latter. Who is there to oppose him? Florida is, what it is. No one is forcing anyone to relocate there. Many of us feel that the state is already full. Many seem willing to pay slightly higher auto insurance rates than live with the alternative.
You don’t have to have a car in nyc. Home insurance is stable in nyc. Why pay car insurance when you don’t need a car in nyc? Long commutes and traffic are not as serious in nyc as Miami. In nyc while commutes are on average longer you don’t spend it driving, taking the subway or bus allows time for chillin’, reading, doing some work, etc. In Miami you’re driving all the time. Most commutes require a personal car. That’s more stressful and taxing to and from work vs sitting in a subway and just going on a ride.
no. you can’t have a car in NYC. even a scary stressful horrific bus ride cost you more than it would in gas.
do you take the bus?
X/george
You don’t have to have a car in nyc
_________________________
Yep and you ride the subway, hoping no one stabs you, rapes you, beats you.
Shall we bring up the rats and homeless who take over the subways 7/24.
Personally, if Florida’s people continue to build in hostile climate areas regarding hurricanes and floods etc I hope Florida pays for it and reimburses any federal assistance.
” the mayor’s policies are actually being successfully implemented.”
nope not a single one X. This commie is lame.
name ONE success pls.
“name ONE success”
I think that poster defined “success” as Damned Nanny’s ideas being codified unchanged into laws and regulations, not a broader definition that requires actual improvements to be realized…
X
That’s what trailer parks and mass density apartment complexes are for silly! Bigger deal in Florida is getting rid of property taxes and cutting bureaucracy to the bone.
As usual. You were asked to name one george. So you switch to trailer parks.
Name one moron,
What we are seeing in NYC is a war against capitalism fought by the red-green alliance. Millionaires are leaving the city, and that bodes poorly for its economic future, as it is driving many from the city.
Does Mandami care? We cannot know what is in his mind, but studying history, one experiences many similar events leading to catastrophe. On the one hand, the city loses many of its needed citizens, financially and otherwise. Could this open the door to replacement, where one of the most important cities in the country could become an Islamist stronghold?
Meyer, you’re worried our cities could become ‘Islamist strongholds’..??
I don’t think either socialism or Sharia law will dominate America. Many have more knowledge than you, and fight for America, while the Anonymi try to tear it down. A vigilant eye can prevent such occurrences. When such vigilance is inadequate, things of this nature can happen, and historically, they happen all the time.
Were the British significantly vigilant? Was the majority Menshevik party in Russia aware of the abilities of the minority Bolsheviks? Some of the brightest and most educated Jews in Germany before WW2 could not believe what would happen in the future
Yet you ask, are you worried? Worried, yes; panicked, no. Both in business and politics, I keep my eye on those who might do me harm, and that worked out extremely well.
SM, I agree with your history. Vigilance matters, and complacency is how the Mensheviks lost and how good Germans looked away too long. But vigilance alone isn’t the whole answer. You can watch the threat closely and still lose if the thing you’re defending has gone hollow underneath. That’s my real worry. Our roots run deep. They don’t disappear overnight. But deep roots left unattended still weaken.
I’ve been outspoken regarding citizen formation, to which it’s been suggested I’m just making it up. Our form of government was made for citizens formed a particular way. This is a great essay that describes how that formation happened to George Washington and that generation. It’s by Richard Reinsch on the new film Young Washington, “Natural Right on Horseback”: https://lawliberty.org/natural-right-on-horseback/
“Our form of government was made for citizens formed a particular way. “
Olly, I agree. That is why we need to take small bites of immigrants with very different cultures, assimilation is necessary, mandatory civics, and English as the official language. If you are interested in Washington’s ethics and morals, see Richard Brookheiser’s biography of Washington, which deals with such things. He is my favorite president, and Brookheiser doubled down on my fondness for Washington. Thanks for your interesting article.
SM, agreed on all of it, small bites, assimilation, mandatory civics, English as the common language. Those are the practical fixes. Formation is what’s underneath them, the reason those fixes actually matter instead of just being rules on paper. A shared civic language, in every sense of the word, is what lets a self-governing people actually talk to each other instead of just past each other.
I appreciate the Brookhiser recommendation. I just ordered “Founding Father.” Washington earns that kind of favorite-president loyalty because his formation shows so clearly in how he acted, restraint, duty, walking away from power when he had every excuse to keep it. That’s not an accident of personality. That’s formation on display. From another angle, Washington’s 101 Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour is also a formative book.
Richard Brookheisr grew up in a suburb of Rochester, NY.
Then he must have been your neighbor. When I knew him, he lived in Manhattan in the village.
The American Founders established a Nation, its Law, and its Population.
The United States of America, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Free White Persons.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
What is your point?
On the money, Meyer.
Thanks.
Trump’s Wounded Psyche
Observations from last night’s horror show.
* * * *
It does feel a little like Captain Ahab in ‘Moby Dick,’” said Trevor Potter, a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Trump is just fixated on his claim that he didn’t lose the 2020 election. Armchair psychiatrists can say he doesn’t like losing, he can never admit he lost anything. But it’s clearly become an important part of his psyche and in some ways an important part of this administration.”
On one level, according to people close to him, Mr. Trump’s fixation on rewriting the history of 2020 is about salving the wounded ego of a man who constitutionally resists ever admitting that he has lost anything. He has made it a litmus test for anyone working for him to accede to, or at least not contradict, the lie that he won back then, not Joseph R. Biden Jr.
From Today’s New York Times
Yeah, yeah, the NYT would say that. But Hillary said she won the election in 2016, Al Gore and many others said Bush stole the election in 2000, and Barbara Boxer wanted to challenge Bush’s reelection as well.
Odd how the dems forgetting that.
NYT? Nuff said.
did you read the PDF’s released? go read them and tell me if you are still a stupid moron.
Underlying the socialist’s program is a belief in a stagnant economy, a fixed amount of total wealth, a zero-sum game. This is so wrong – certainly historically so. I think that this no growth mindset is behind rent controls and it dovetails with the various “green energy” mandates that effectively throttle any growth in the economy. Instead of restricting growth and taxing the billionaires more the governments should be figuring ways to set conditions to grow the economy so that they can tax more billionaires.
In addition, the mantra of “pay their fair share” is seldom, if ever, accompanied by a cogent, honest, analysis of exactly what a fair share is. Furthermore, this is viewing taxes in completely the wrong way. We should not be increasing taxes to add burden to one group or another. Rather we should be raising taxes for a defined purpose (and before that having a strong audit to root out fraud and waste in what we currently spend). I don’t get the palpable giddiness of the socialists with the thought of raising taxes.
Finally, the socialist politicians visions of ever decreasing thresholds for their national wealth tax is advancing faster than their slogans. Rep Ro Khanna says about the wealth tax, “it must reach centimillionaires.” Then he goes on to say, “The tax has to reach all fortunes $50 million and up.” . But Websters defines a centimillionaire as being 100 million and above. This sounds like a situation where the threshold has crept lower than the original slogan would have us believe.
I am pleased to report that the downward spiral to oblivion of SpaceX stock continues unabated.
The stock is down another 5% midday, at $124, down 45% from its high.
This means Musk’s net worth is now $790 billion, down a total of $662 billion in just over a month. His losses are closing in on 50% of his peak net worth of $1.45 trillion.
According to Ortex and S3 Partners, 49% of tradable shares of SPCX have been sold short. There is no sign of short covering.
Morningstar values SPCX at $63. We are only half way into the spiral to oblivion.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fellow.
The markets are telling us that Musk is a scammer.
Listen to the markets, they are always right.
Capitalism is such a wonderful thing.
“I am pleased to report that . . .”
Why do you keep exposing your envy in public?
The anonny-moron comes here every day to confirm all the worst leftist stereotypes: that they hate everyone, that they are motivated by envy, that they wish poverty on others, that they take pleasure in others’ losses, and that they are blithering idiots to boot.
I am hardly a leftist.
I am a hardcore capitalist who spends my day watching the markets and trading.
The real capitalists and the markets recognize the SpaceX IPO as a contrived scam by Musk. He merged X (formerly Twitter) and his AI company into SpaceX just before the IPO. He did this to unload the massive personal debts he had been carrying within those companies onto the public who are stupid enough to buy SPCX stock.
On top of that, just 2 weeks after the IPO, Musk floated a $25 billion bond issue. The bonds are rated at BBB or BBB+, just barely above junk status, but the market is trading them as junk bonds.
This entire escapade by Musk is a scam to unload his personal debts on unsuspecting retail “investors”, although that is a very loose term to describe the idiots who have bought into this scam.
Listen to the markets, they are always right.
Did you short SPCX? Sell calls? Buy puts?? Don’t think so–so STFU!! IDIOT MORON ANON!!
I don’t play the options game. Too complicated.
But since you brought it up the Wall St. heavy hitters sold a MASSIVE quantity of long dated out of the money puts with a strike of $80 as soon as SPCX started trading.
They collected a premium of $16.80 per contract. What they are saying is that they will be happy to pay $63.20 for SPCX 2 years from now, which is exactly what Morningstar has said is the fair value. If SPCX stays above $80, the puts expire worthless and they walk away with a 21% profit from the premium.
The market is telling you that SPCX is grossly overvalued.
Listen to the markets, they are always right.
“He merged X (formerly Twitter) and his AI company into SpaceX just before the IPO.”
I was the one who had to tell you that, you phony.
I am quite confident that what you are is a lying POS.
“肏你妈”
It’s an inculcated pathology, the same type that you saw in the rabid Mao followers that killed millions, the islamists since their inception, the Stalinites who murdered and tortured millions, the insidious Iranian regime, the devout followers of hitler and his SS…I could go on. It is a fever in unhinged brains who are willing to accept the most heinous lies and actions in order to keep the faith to which their otherwise vapid and meaningless lives cling. The only way to stop them is with a force that they cannot resist.
*. Buy low. ☺
The relevant point is that the wealth of many of our richest taxpayers consists primarily of stock, whose value is subject to change on a daily basis. That’s one of the many reasons a wealth tax is so insidious.
If anyone wants some more details about SpaceX and its future, I’ve found this guy’s presentations to be informative. Bottom line, SpaceX’s future profitability may depend to a large extent on the success of Starship. It is also moving from a “dumb pipe” model to more of an outer space AI and data center model. This video has very recent info, it was published yesterday:
Spacex may generate income, but it is not profitable.
Last year it lost $5 billion. In the entire 24 years of its existence it has turned an annual profit only once in 2024.
It is not a profitable company. It loses money every year. The losses have been compounded by Musk’s massive investment in his AI business which does not make any money at all.
He is desperate for cash, because he thinks he can win the AI and data center race. In fact if you read the S1 filing for the SPCX IPO, you will note that he claims in the future that 90% of SPCX profits will come from AI, not from rocket launches. But he is last one to come to the AI party and he cannot win. He is dreaming.
The current state of AI is like the very early days of the internet when there were many internet browsers battling for supremacy. There were a dozen different browsers but Google eventually won the battle.
Musk is a latecomer to the AI battle.
Amazon is far ahead of the pack with AI and data centers. They are by far the biggest provider of cloud services to businesses. They already have massive data centers all over the world. They also provide a complete suite of proprietary business software for their cloud customers that locks those customers into their cloud services.
Not only that, they have their own AI chip, Trainium, that they use in their data centers. This chip rivals the products from Nvidia, and Amazon have just announced that they will begin selling the chip to other providers of cloud services, which will lock the other providers into their software.
It is almost certain that Amazon will win the AI race, because they are so far ahead and are completely vertically integrated with their own AI chips, their own software, and their own data centers. They already do everything in-house without outside suppliers. They have total control of their AI business.
The markets are fully aware of this situation and Spacex is being treated accordingly as a loser.
Listen to what the markets are telling you, they are always right.
Listen to what the markets are telling you, they are always right.
Using that as an ironclad rule, nobody would ever buy stock. At any given time the market would be accurately reflecting the value of a share of stock. But people buy stock every day based on the premise that the market price is lower than the value, looking out into the future. Are you saying that, 100% of the time, everyone who ever buys a share of stock is wrong? And if that were true, then nobody would ever make money by investing in the stock market, right?
oldman
You clearly have no understanding of what I mean, and no understanding of how to read the markets.
The markets are almost never wrong.
Individuals are frequently wrong.
You are correct that individuals buy stock with the premise that the market price is less than the true value. But they are often wrong. They often presume that there is a potential upside where there is none.
Take the current situation with Spacex. There was a frenzy of buying at the IPO that drove the price from $135 to over $225, because people believed that Elon Musk knows how to run a profitable business, when in fact Spacex has lost money every year except 2024. This buying came from retail investors hoping to make a quick buck. A lot of the buying came on platforms designed for retail traders such as Moomoo and Robin Hood. These are not savvy investors. On the other hand the market pros knew exactly what was going on. They knew that SPCX was, and still is, grossly overvalued. Consequently they immediately shorted the stock. Currently 49% of the tradable stock has been shorted by those who understand the reality. And none of them have moved to cover their short positions indicating that they know there is still a long way for SPCX to fall. This is an astronomical short interest held by the market pros.
In this case many individuals who do not understand the markets or know how to read the information it provides made very bad decisions and are losing money hand over fist as the stock collapses.
You have to know how the markets operate, and you have to understand the massive amount of information they provide.
Unfortunately, many individuals do not know that this information even exists, let alone how to read it.
You have to subscribe to analytic companies such as Ortex and S3 Partners, as I do, to get a full picture of the markets and all their nuances.
When you are fully informed by these sources, you can understand the markets and make good decisions.
The objective, unemotional markets are almost never wrong, but subjective, emotional individuals are very frequently wrong.
The objective, unemotional markets are almost never wrong, but subjective, emotional individuals are very frequently wrong.
Okay, that is a different proposition from your previous, generic, “the markets are never wrong.” So, if you want to lead by telling me, “You clearly have no understanding of what I mean,” perhaps you should acknowledge that what you mean as you now clarify it, is different than what you actually said. I’m not a mind reader, so if you mean something different from what you say, there is no way for me to know that. And being sarcastic about my inability to read your mind and discern that you meant something different than what you wrote is low-value commenting.
Now . . . back to the topic at hand. So it seems you’re saying, the markets reflected an overly inflated value of SpaceX stock during a buying frenzy based on inaccurate information held by people who are not sophisticated investors. Granted, that seems a very reasonable proposition. But you’re going further and saying the price is still overvalued, right? So, you’re saying the “subjective, emotional” market is still in control, and we won’t know what “objective unemotional market” will say once the frenzy dies down. So you’re saying, don’t listen to the market now, but listen to it in the future when the frenzy dies down. Is that what you’re saying? Because it’s hard to tell, since you’re that, right now, “the markets are fully aware of this situation and SpaceX is being treated accordingly as a loser.”
Some clarification would be appreciated, since it seems like you’re saying two different things which are incompatible. And even more importantly, how does a person know when the “objective unemotional market” has taken control back from the “subjective emotional market”?
Unfortunately, you continue to reveal that you have no understanding of the markets and how the sentiments of individual investors can influence prices in the short term, and are trying to conflate the two to come to an absurd conclusion. The market is NEVER “subjective and emotional” as you are trying to suggest. Individuals are “subjective and emotional” and can influence short term prices, but the “objective and unemotional” market will correct them in the long term.
Here is what happened. The IPO offering price of $135 was set by Musk. If you read the S1 filing, it was clearly written in large part by Musk. It reads like a science fiction fantasy novel where he makes outlandish claims about having 1 million people living permanently on Mars and makes comments that the primary operational objective of the company is to “extend the light of consciousness to the stars”. He also claims that he will be able to launch 10,000 Starships per year, and that would require a launch every 52 minutes, 24/7/365. He make many other outlandish claims, but perhaps the most outlandish is that Spacex has a total addressable market of $28.5 trillion a year. The total GDP of the USA is $32 trillion.
Musk has clearly been indulging in far too much ketamine and probably other illicit substances.
Here is a link that explains this insanity in more detail.
https://marketwise.com/investing/spacex-ipo-prospectus-outlandish-details-investors/
So Musk set an IPO price of $135 that market analysts universally agreed was grossly overvalued even before the IPO. The markets did not set that value. It was purely arbitrary, and set by Musk. It was in fact a distortion of the market. On Day 1, uninformed, emotional retail investors piled into the stock and drove up the stock. This emotional response was not from the market. It was from the individuals who drove up the market price. At the same time, Wall St pros were aggressively shorting the stock to the point that 49% of the tradable shares have been sold short. They also aggressively sold a massive quantity of long dated out of the money puts with a strike of $80 and a premium of $16.80, implying that a fair value of SPCX in 2 years time is $63.20.
The net effect of these two opposing forces is that the share price has crashed down to $124, well below the IPO offering of $135, and it has dropped every day. This is the completely objective and unemotional market exerting its influence. The objective, unemotional market always corrects the subjective, emotional actions of uninformed individuals to bring prices to a steady state reflecting the reality of true values. You are talking nonsense trying to say that markets can be subjective and change to objective. The markets are the totality of the actions of all the players. They can be distorted by emotional investors in the short term, but they always correct back to reality in the long term.
^^^^ this is all X, plain and clear, afraid to use his logo
You are talking nonsense trying to say that markets can be subjective and change to objective.
No, I said that is what it seemed like *you* were saying and I was asking for clarification. Read my comment again, you’ll see.
So, by your own telling, subjective emotional individuals are participating in “the market” at any given time, right? That includes right now, and it includes a year from now. If they had no effect, then there would be no point talking about them. I think we can agree they have some effect. As you say, markets “can be distorted by emotional investors in the short term.” We can agree on that. At any given moment in time, a share of stock has a market clearing price. That is its value, according to the market. So you went from “the market is always right” to “markets can be distorted by emotional investors.” So if I understand you correctly, the “market is always right” proposition only applies to the long term, and it might not apply to the short term when emotional investors are distorting it. Am I summarizing you correctly so far?
Now, it also seems like you’re basically saying that if we look at the history of the price of a share of SpaceX stock, and observe that it has gone down from its IPO price of $135 to $124 – a 9% drop – that we can somehow tell that means it will go down in the future. Is that what you’re saying? And if so, on what basis do you say that? On the basis that the emotional frenzy hasn’t yet died down, but it will within a year? And it will die down because all those emotional investors will no longer be participating?
Anonymous,
Why be so snarky? I am a securities lawyer, but I am not inclined to comment on your posts.
One other question. What do you think the price of a share of SpaceX will be in one year (the minimum holding time to qualify as long-term capital gains)? I personally have no clue, but I did ask google, whose AI (Gemini?) spit out this answer:
AI Overview
Wall Street analysts project SpaceX’s (SPCX) stock price will reach an average of $240.29 in one year. Price targets from 21 analysts vary widely, with a high estimate of $800.00 and a low of $62.00. Shares are recently trading around $123.99. Wall Street bases these numbers on the following metrics:
– The Revenue: SpaceX is forecasted to bring in $45 billion in revenue.
– The Growth: Analysts predict an 85% revenue growth rate.
– The Risks: High capital costs mean some analysts predict the stock could fall as much as 50%
Presently, I look at SpaceX as a long-term play where short-term thinking has made a $100+ difference between its opening and today. Most emotional buying and selling only consider the short term. I am considering purchasing it for all the grandchildren when I depart for my own personal space trip, wherever. If SpaceX fails, I won’t know, but if it succeeds, it will make the grandchildren very excited. Whatever happens, I have a good deal of time to dream about their excitement.
“Spacex may generate income, but it is not profitable.”
From the time it became a public company, it took Amazon *14 years* to turn a net income. If you had sold then, you’d be a fool today.
Grand scale entrepreneurs, and their investors, have a much longer term horizon than what they’re having for dinner tomorrow.
If your demand is for immediate gratification, I suggest you try DoorDash. Or the internet.
Sam
Actually, it only took 9 years for Amazon to turn a profit.
Spacex was founded 24 years ago and it still has not turned a significant profit except for one year in 2024.
Amazon was an example of a relentless, perfectly executed business plan that was laser focused purely on a single objective- build an online retail platform.
In contrast, Musk is all over the place, with no single focus for Spacex. He merged X and his AI business into Spacex just before the IPO. Those businesses have been hemorrhaging cash and the merger has allowed him unload his personal debts from these businesses onto the Spacex shareholders. It is a cynical move for his own financial benefit. Wall St has seen right through this scam and is treating Spacex accordingly, as the scam that it really is.
^georgie signs in as anonymous for a certain reason.
“^georgie signs in . . .”
Geesh. I didn’t catch that. Thanks.
Always the deceitful one, isn’t it.
You are being intentionally obtuse.
The fact is that it took Amazon years *after* its IPO to become profitable. (And then for years at only pennies on the dollar.)
But now you and the other kneecappers demand that SpaceX be profitable NOW, a mere months after its IPO.
Like I said. Go with DoorDash. Or the internet.
Sam
Unfortunately, you are the one being obtuse.
You are making a completely false comparison. The point is not how long after the IPO to profitability. The point is how long after starting to do business to profitability.
Amazon first opened its doors, so to speak, as a private company, on July 16, 1995.
They went public 2 years later on May 15, 1997.
Their first profitable year was 2003.
From the date of founding to profitability was just over 8 years.
Compare that to Spacex, founded in 2002 as a private company.
They lost money for 22 straight years, until 2024, the only year that they have made a profit.
It took them 22 years from founding to profitability, almost 3 times as long as Amazon.
^X/georgie again, hiding behind anonymous for good reason.
And yet if the stock had reached its peak on Dec 31 you would have been willing to tax the $1.45 Trillion paper fortune he would have been worth at the time. The fact he has lost $662 B (according to your numbers) shows the fallacy of the “wealth tax” and yes the “market” is a wonderful thing and much better to depend on it than on the wealth destructors of collectivism no matter how “warm” it’s claimed to be.
And I’m waiting for the stock to get to $100 to BUY, the last few years have taught me NEVER TO BET AGAINST ELON MUSK.
Are Florida and Texas immune to natural disasters? ..NO..!! Texas has been experiencing Biblical-like rainstorms this week. And Florida is hurricane alley.
Houston was built on a giant floodplain. Miami was built on porous rock. Texas and Florida may have already reached their limits of growth. So let’s not pretend those states can keep growing indefinitely.
We could see growth in other red states. As state govt realize that low taxes broaden the tax base and increase state revenue could we see growth in Montanna and Idaho?
Florida and Texas are enormous states. It may be premature to suggest they’ve reached the limits of their growth. Tennessee is also growing rapidly, most likely for similar tax-related reasons.
There’s good water in Tennessee, as every Illinoisan knows.
You have never been to TX have you
There is way more nuance that Turley lets on with his “analysis.” I think some commenters overstate the issues, however.
The real loss of billionaires in NY will not take a significant toll on income tax revenue because of the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that many use to avoid incurring income tax, as others below have noted.
However, there certainly are significant secondary effects beyond income tax collections that are material. There is likely a trailing effect for multimillionaires because the move of billionaires can create an entire ecosystem shift. Also, there are corporate taxation effects because any passthrough LLCs will change domicile as a result of the move as well. Third, and rather obviously, NY loses any capital gains windfalls.
All of this is to say that this article from Turley is embarrassingly poor. Things are rarely black-and-white, and articles written with such a shallow lens read like a Fox News talking point rather than something worthy of a professor’s blog. Come on Professor. Please do better.
You correctly observe that this remarkably shallow piece by Turley reads like a Fox News talking point.
That’s because it is actually a Fox News talking point, most likely written by one of the minions employed by his overlord, Rupert Murdoch.
Virtually all of the links he provides to support this piece go back to the NY Post, which is also owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Stop talking to yourself.
It’s not a complicated subject. We have allowed both Parties – but especially Democrats – to tax WAY more than is required to provide the basic services our government should provide.
Now, almost entirely, only one Party (Democrats, and their satanic offspring, the DSA) keeps insisting that you should give THEM more of YOUR money so THEY can provide more Somali “Learing” Centers, CA hospice scams (both of which only put money in THEIR pockets), and cut off the genitals of minors, even without parental knowledge or permission.
Hopefully we can soon cut off all federal tax dollars going to cities and states that enable such unconstitutional garbage.
It seems that voters who vote for socialist mayors would rather live in squalor, crime, filth, and poverty so long as they can vindicate their hatreds at the ballot box, than live in a city that thrives and recognizes the value of taxpaying businesses and job creators.
Playing out in real time in deep blue cities like Chicago, Seattle, and NYC, is that very movie in which the voters who have common sense are outnumbered at the polls by the voters who choose misery and a venting of their hatreds.
They are outnumbered at the polls. But are they outnumbered in the population? It may be just that they are too apathetic to vote whereas the hatful “eat the rich” socialist voters are filled with passion. If so, then it’s their own fault.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming
Oldman,
But after Trump’s speech I am even less convinced that the nuts are getting elected by a majority of the vote. I knew there was cheating but I hadn’t guessed the scale of it.
On another matter I said about a week ago that some of the absurd notions appearing in the media and universities resembles a psyop operation by foreign powers. Trump confirmed it last night.
Using Yeats to lecture people about ‘common sense’ and democratic voting is a terrible choice. Yeats wasn’t a defender of democracy—he was an elitist who openly despised ordinary voters. His fear of the ‘passionate masses’ eventually led him to support Benito Mussolini and write marching anthems for the Irish fascist Blueshirts in the 1930s. If you are quoting a literal fascist sympathizer to complain about people legally exercising their right to vote, the problem isn’t the voters. The problem is your own anti-democratic bias.
I quoted two lines of a poem, not the man’s entire life philosophy, about which I couldn’t care less. You could hold forth all day long about the political philosophy of Shakespeare and it wouldn’t make me find any less enjoyment in King Lear, MacBeth, or The Merchant of Venice.
I chose those two lines because they accurately describe one possible reason for why elections in deep blue cities go only in the direction of more misery and never in the direction of improvement.
AI Overview
“Ad fontes” is Latin for “to the source.” In logic, it refers to a family of fallacies where you attack the source of an argument, rather than the argument itself. The most common example is the Genetic Fallacy. This happens when you judge a claim as true or false based purely on where it came from.
Oldman, even if we use your New Criticism literary lens, you are misapplying it.
As a fan of originalism and textualism, you know the Whole-Text Canon in the law dictates that you cannot isolate a single phrase from a document; rather, you must interpret it in the context of the entire text. In literary theory, New Criticism demands the exact same standard through the tenet of “Organic Unity,” which is the rule that a poem is a single, interconnected machine where individual lines cannot be ripped away from the whole.
The context of ‘The Second Coming’ is a literal, violent apocalypse filled with a ‘blood-dimmed tide’ and ‘mere anarchy.’ A peaceful, legal municipal election where voters use ballots to choose a tax or housing policy you disagree with is not a civilizational collapse. By pulling those two lines out of context to dramatize a standard, low-turnout election, you are violating the literary theory you tried to hide behind. You aren’t doing objective text analysis; you are just dressing up a standard partisan complaint about losing an election.
If you are actually interested in how adherents of New Criticism properly apply their theory, look at the common example of Robert Frost’s, “The Road Not Taken.” The line in question is “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— / I took the one less traveled by, / And that has made all the difference.” The common misconception that this is an appeal to non-conformism, individualim, and making brave, independent choices. However, the rest of the poem clarifies that Frost is mocking human nature. He is saying that years from now, when he is an old man, he will invent a dramatic, heroic story about his life. He will lie to himself and others, claiming he took a unique, “less traveled” path that “made all the difference,” when in reality, he just picked a random road in the woods.
Here is an article to read on this common misconception: https://www.southern.edu/academics/english/english-matters/5-20-21.html
Anonymous – all I said was that I don’t care about all the stuff you went on about concerning Yeats’s political philosophy. Then you pivot to interpreting the poem as a whole, a completely different topic.
You notably have given up relying on the poet’s political philosophy. So your comment is not responsive to what I said. And you can’t seem to stay on one topic.
To illustrate from the opposite perspective: suppose I said something artists giving up the fight due to apathy, and then ended with this quote:
And the poets down here don’t write nothing at all
They just stand back and let it all be
-Bruce Springsteen, Jungleland
Now, if a Trump supporter jumped down my throat about Springsteen having TDS (which he does), I would equally say: “So what, I don’t care about his political philosophy. The lines of his song work to describe what I’m talking about.”
That’s all we’re talking about here. If you want to respond to this comment, please, stay on topic, don’t just pivot to a new topic because you lost the argument.
“So what, I don’t care about his political philosophy. The lines of his song work to describe what I’m talking about.”
Exactly.
That is why art has a *universal* appeal, while politics does not.
Ever notice how millions of people, from vastly different political persuasions, can have precisely the same reaction to an opera? They all cry, laugh, and cheer at the same scenes and arias.
That bizarre excursion into literary criticism is an obvious attempt to muddy his waters to make them appear deep.
His criticism of your Yeats quote is tantamount to saying: Reject Einstein’s physics, because he was a socialist.
Oldman- It’s a great poem and I was glad to see you use part of it.
Thanks, Young. And Jungleland is a great song. I don’t care if Springsteen has TDS, his poetry and music are first rate.
Oldman,
That level of discernment and appreciation of quality seems beyond the reach of most liberals. If they don’t like someone they must despise everything he does. Caravaggio was not a particularly nice person but his paintings are moving. The same might be said of Jacques Louis David or Benvenuto Cellini. Newton had some ugly traits as well. Civilization could not advance if we demand ideological purity from every creator. Again, thank you for the bit of great poetry.
The former “Big Apple” is now the Rotten Apple.
X is not posting about NYC today because he lost the same argument on califonia’s weath exodus he said wasn’t happening.
ROFL! Nope. Didn’t “lose”that argument. It seems you miss me mostly. Awww that’s so sweet. If you must know I’m doing research.
Cutting and pasting from AI is now called research?
ya lost that argument X!
Everything Turley says here in this absurd piece is provably false.
All the articles that he cites in support of this nonsense are from the Rupert Murdoch controlled propaganda machine.
Let’s consider the MAGA myth that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40 % of the taxes and that therefore the mega-billionaires must be already paying their fair share.
It is correct that the top 1% pay 40% of income taxes, but the problem is that the mega-billionaires are not included in that 1% because they pay little to no income tax. They do not have taxable earned income. Musk does not draw a salary from any of his companies. Bezos draws a nominal salary of $81,400 from Amazon. They finance their lifestyle with low interest 3% loans by pledging their vast stock holdings as collateral. Their fancy cars and jets and yachts are owned by their companies. Their homes are owned by their companies and they simply pay rent to themselves using the money they borrow from the banks. They NEVER sell their stock to pay for their living expenses. They have no taxable personal income.
As far as the IRS is concerned they are not part of the top 1% of income tax payers for the simple reason that they do not pay personal income taxes. The IRS calculates that to be included in the top 1%, a single taxpayer must earn over $675,602.
The point is that the mega-billionaires completely escape any significant taxation. They simply do not pay any form of personal income taxes, because on paper they have no taxable personal income. The wealth taxes are an attempt to force them to at least pay something rather than nothing.
The mega-billionaires are indeed leaving California and New York to avoid the wealth taxes. But this does not create a tax loss to the states, because they are not paying anything in the first place. The states cannot lose something that they never had in the first place. And while the billionaires may move their personal residence, they cannot move the infrastructure of their businesses. Their businesses remain in California or New York. And the businesses continue to pay whatever taxes are applicable with absolutely no change.
And when the billionaires leave California, they are not taking TRILLIONS of dollars in cash with them. They do not have trillions of dollars in cash. They have paper assets that may amount to trillions of dollars, but that is not cash. They never touch their stock holdings because when they sell they trigger massive capital gains taxes. They simply take out loans using the stock as collateral. No cash leaves California or New York.
And the linked article from the NY Post that Turley cites as evidence for TRILLIONS of dollars leaving California does not even claim that. The word “trillion” does not even appear in the article. The article talks about California losing $100 billion over a 4 year period.
The only effect of billionaires moving their residence is to avoid the wealth tax. It is absolutely NOT a tax loss to the state, because they are not currently paying any income taxes, and there is no outflow of cash, because the billionaires never convert their holdings to cash.
Everything Turley says hers is nonsensical MAGA myths and garbage.
Nothing he says is true.
Did X quit? I didn’t know they were looking for someone to fill the Chief of Insipidity position.
Take all their money. Take all their wealth put them on skid row. In 10 years or less we will all be there. The left needs more time studying classic economics. Adam Smith didnt say “this is the best way” he looked around and described how things actually worked. When these fools trip on the sidewalk the law of gravity will faceplate them. When they impose Socialism the law of supply and demand will face plant us all.
Everything you say here is nonsensical libtard myths and garbage.
Nothing you say is true.
So prove it. Saying “it ain’t so” is not an argument.
That’s not how it works X. you make the insane nonsense so YOU defend it!
typical lefty wants everyone else to do their work for them.
“Let’s consider…”
“Let’s copycat others’ style.”
The money funding the federal goverment is largely from the top. THAT is the truth and you are an idiot if you can’t accept this FACT.
When we talk about deranged, you are the one we are indicating.
Also, you have narcissitic TDS so enjoy that.
2025 tax rates for a single taxpayer
For a single taxpayer, the rates are:
Tax rate on taxable income from . . . up to . . .
10% $0 $11,925
12% $11,926 $48,475
22% $48,476 $103,350
24% $103,351 $197,300
32% $197,301 $250,525
35% $250,526 $626,350
37% $626,351 And up
Elon Musk exercised a number of Tesla stock options in 2021. That was a taxable event. Musk paid $10 BILLION to the IRS to settle his tax liability. We know that because Tesla is a publicly traded company. He was required to report it to the SEC, meaning it is publicly available.
It was reported everywhere. Not just the Rupert Murdoch organizations you have an irrational hatred for.
Natacha is a congenital liar. A liar since birth.
I could understand your statements and give them serious thought but you ‘spoil’ your thesis by venting against the man who gives you this forum: Jonathan Turley
Excellent explanation of the situation. Kudos!
^ X compliments his own anonymous comment. Giveaway: “Let’s consider….”
Even if what you say was completely true, which it isn’t, all the money those billionaires spend in CA or NY would be then spent in other states taking hundreds of millions out of the state economy. And yes, they can take their infrastructure with them, plants can be disassembled, planned expansions can be started elsewhere, their logistics support from personal staff to private jets would be relocated creating a shift in expenditures (which provide income and taxes) from one state to another. Margaret Thatcher was right, “pretty soon you run out of other people’s money”.
Wealthy ,much like the loss of men from the reach of the Democrats they continue to do the thing that drives them away while stamping their feet they are leaving. The answer is at the end of their nose apparently not in the field of vision.
So, you’re claiming Mamdani is responsible for something that happened between 2010-2022? The dude was 19! This is such classic Turley. Make up a rage-bait claim – go search for evidence that will support his claim and then massage that data to try to make the narrative fit. Oh yeah – then advertise his book. He could have actually had a substantiative post where the pros and cons of varios tax policies could be discussed, but those books aren’t going to sell themselves, I guess.
No, what Professor Turley notes is that Democrat “tax the rich” policies began to drive decisions to leave New York as early as 2010, and that Mamdani’s aggressive approach will accelerate that process.
If you believe Turley is bad, why are you logged into his blog? A glutton for punishment, much like a child screaming to have their parents give them their favorite toy? Let it go Anon, you’ll feel better.
“Holy ‘there’s no such thing as a free lunch’, Batman!”
“By denouncing the remaining wealthy . . .”
You can see the socialist/communist worldview being played out in NYC.
Vilify, control, and loot those who are productive. Declare that they are subhuman and have no rights. Protect a bum’s “right” to pollute the streets. Create equal poverty for all.
And then the final chapter: Embrace criminals (e.g., like Mamdani did at Rikers Island). You know who else romances criminals? The Mafia. And dictators. Those criminals are loyal jackbooted thugs. Once, of course, the socialists/communists have defunded legitimate law enforcement.
Know them for who they are: https://jonathanturley.org/2026/07/03/survey-democrats-turning-heavily-in-favor-of-socialism/ and https://spectator.org/yes-theyre-communists-and-yes-theyre-lying-about-it-for-now/
“And then the final chapter…”
If that is the final chapter, the epilogue is when all descends into complete chaos that will engulf and destroy everything and everyone, including the self-hating, demented idiots who want to inflict this madness on us. I think that at some level they realize that they, too, will be consumed, and derive some masochistic pleasure from it. Of course, they want to make damned sure that the rest of us who are actually fond of ourselves are completely ruined first.
The problem arises when the Dems take the Senate and the WH they will end the filibuster and pack the Court thereby allowing 5 new KBJs to decide that the Constitution does allow a wealth tax.
Just because the plain language of the Constitution says something doesn’t mean the deconstructionist judges won’t have a “different” understanding of what the Framers actually meant. It means anything they want to it mean.
Thankfully the Dems will need 51 votes because Fetterman is the new Manchin and Sinema and he won’t vote to end the filibuster.
The Kuomintang (KMT) bypassed the democratic provisions of the 1947 Constitution through a combination of pre-existing authoritarian frameworks and emergency wartime measures that legally suspended constitutional rights. This is how they brought suffering to millions of chinese.
Wow, it’s a good thing the millions of Chinese did so well under Mao and the Gang of Four.
Without Mao China would not have a space station or cities filling with middle class Chinese.
The founders of the USA brought suffering to millions of enslaved people, across multiple generations.
When China is seen denying ugly parts of its past, US conservatives say it’s a bad thing.
When Trump is seen denying ugly parts of US history, US conservatives say it’s a good thing.
See how easy hypocrisy is for conservatives?
“Without Mao China would not have a space station or cities filling with middle class Chinese.”
Good lord. Commie sympathizers can’t even get recent history right.
Mao died 35 years *before* China’s first space station. And he was still dead 25 years *before* China had a middle class.
And what triggered the creation of China’s middle class? Free market policies — aka “reform and opening up” policies. Those *free market* policies included massive de-regulation of business, massive privatization of government-owned businesses, the de-collectivization of agriculture, removing government imposed price controls, and a semblance of private property and the rule of contract.
Maybe America’s communists (Mamdani) should take their cue from China — just not Mao’s dictatorial China.
Sam and others, if you haven’t seen this interview of Dikotter on Mao. It provides a different view based on independent documents. Fascinating. It provides alternate stories and is a warning to us.
https://www.hoover.org/research/frank-dikotter-and-true-history-communist-china
SM, that was a fascinating interview. I’ll have to watch it again. It’s a history I’ve never been taught. Thank you for sharing that.
OLLY, you aren’t the only one to have an eye-opening event by Dikotter. Think of all the experts on China and Mao, and then think of how many of them approached the subject wrongly. I had some inklings of what Dikotter said, and that led me to a bit of extra caution.
A wealth tax is not a tax on income. It is a tax on ownership itself. The Founders drew that line on purpose. Also, the 16th Amendment opened the door to income taxation. It never touched property already earned and held.
Once government can tax what you own, not just what you make, there is no natural stopping point. Today it is $50 million. Khanna already said it will not stop at billionaires. Tomorrow it is $5 million. Then it is your house.
Before you support anything government proposes, ask one question: what is the limiting factor? Is there a sunset clause? Is there a hard line it cannot cross? If the answer is no, that alone should stop you cold. A wealth tax with no floor and no expiration is not a policy. It is a ratchet. It only turns one direction.
OLLY,
Well said.
On paper, we are worth somewhere between 1.2m and 1.5m. I am looking at this and wondering when would they come to tax us.
We have a friend who is that “millionaire next door.” You would not know it as she lives below her means.
I am looking at this and wondering when would they come to tax us.
As we all should. I don’t care which party is proposing this. A National Wealth Tax will be the private property line they will rue the day they crossed it.
@OLLY @Upstate
I think so too. I am hoping that the idiotic lesson NYC is giving the rest of the country, in such close proximity to Florida who are doing the opposite, no less, we can shift before it gets truly nasty. Young leftist idiots calling for revolution, such is their ignorance and pampering, think it’s a video game or comic book convention where they just get to go home when they are done playing; and the over-eager on the opposite side do not seem to have any consideration for the people that would be stuck with little recourse in the middle. Let’s hope we can further stop it in its tracks this November.
Absolutely James. The question for me is: are there more adults in the Democrat party than just John Fetterman?
While looking at NYC, look at Boca Raton, Florida, for more insight.
“I am looking at this and wondering when would they come to tax us.”
We are worth slightly more, but in that same ball park. We didn’t inherit any wealth, we worked our tails off at multiple jobs, scrimped and saved, then finally prioritized sound investing over indulging in luxuries to achieve that. Ho Khann-artist has already admitted having designs on those with assets of $50MM. That is a factor of 20 less that the $1BLN number that was originally being tossed around. Apply one more factor of 20 reduction, and you and I are squarely in their cross-hairs. That is concerning. I currently hold some physical gold, but only enough to potentially get through a short-term patch of the economy tanking. As much as it would pain me to give up on our current ROI, if the Democrats make substantial gains in 2026 and/or 2028, I will need to seriously consider liquidating a large part of those holdings in favor of locally held, physical metal.
As the Dem candidates for Senator of ME said at their lame debate last night “Washington doesn’t have enough money”. Everyone knows they have a spending problem and not a revenue problem but the Dems never miss a chance to take the 20 side on an 80-20 issue.
hullbobby, agreed, and I would add one more layer. We do not just have a spending problem. We have a major fraud problem, and for whatever reason the Democratic party will not touch it. Improper payments across federal programs run into the hundreds of billions every year. That is not a revenue shortfall. That is money already collected and then lost, stolen, or misdirected before it ever does what it was taxed for. Any honest conversation about “not enough money” has to start there, not with a new tax on top of a system that cannot account for the money it already has.
“A wealth tax with no floor and no expiration is not a policy. It is a ratchet.”
I just mentioned yesterday afternoon how Olly and X/George/Svelaz somehow share the same, kinda recent, way of expressing themselves: It’s not a this. It’s a that.
facetious Examples: “It is not ice cream. It is colored milk loaded down with sugar and food coloring.”
Or, “It is not clever approach to a horse. It is a deceptive example of how to get kicked.”
Or, “It is not purple or violet. It is a dirty prism that distorts the wavelength.
And it’s always the last or next to last sentence.
Are they both just copying and learning from each other, or ?
This has become so common between them that either they are both lifting from AI or each other, OR they are both ___________?
Anonymous, you say I make things up that no one understands, and now apparently a closing line is one more thing you don’t understand. The ratchet line sums up the argument and ends it. That is the whole function of a closer. Turley does the same thing in nearly every column he writes. Read today’s piece. He closes on a callback to “New York, New York,” bookending the whole column with a lyric. Different device, same purpose: land the point and get out. Pointing at how a sentence is built is not a rebuttal. It’s an admission you lack both style and substance.
“Anonymous, you say I make things up that no one understands, and now apparently a closing line is one more thing you don’t understand.”
Really Olly? where did I say that. Of course, I didn’t. No where. Not even close.
My entire observation was about the rather recent similar styles that you and X share.
Now you sound even more like X, creating arguments that were never made.
You’re reminding me that some taxation powers are reserved to the states, like property (wealth) taxes. And property taxes are well established as local government revenue sources to support police and fire protection. I’m not sure about taxation of intangible property though — is that unconstitutional in some states or just a bad idea?
Creekan, that’s a fair distinction. Property taxes on real estate work for a reason. The asset is fixed. It cannot move. It cannot hide. Police and fire get funded off something the county can always find and always value.
Intangible property is different. Stocks, bonds, partnership interests, the value of a private business. Some states have tried to reach that kind of wealth and mostly backed off, because it is nearly impossible to value fairly year to year and nearly as easy to move or restructure to avoid it.
That is my point exactly. A wealth tax on intangible property has no fence around it at all. No limiting factor means it starts as a bad idea. It ends worse, because the people it targets have the means and the motive to leave before it catches them.
California taxes boats and vehicles. Those aren’t real property, but they’re tangible and they do move.
My state senator (Laird) is on the state senate finance committee and seems to be highly influential in state Democrat politics. He’s a proponent of sales tax over income tax because it’s less volatile. He sponsored bills to allow our county to exceed state limitations on local sales taxes by an extra 1% (locked and loaded, but untapped as of yet). The beauty of sales tax is it can go to 100% and beyond. Currently our local rate is 9.75%. Where you live it’s 7.75% — is that correct?
Good catch on boats and vehicles. Those are taxed, and you’re right they’re tangible and they move. But that actually proves my point instead of breaking it. You can’t drive that boat or that truck without the state already knowing where it is and what it’s worth, because you had to register it to use it on the road or in the water. That’s the leash. Intangible wealth doesn’t wear one. Nobody registers a stock portfolio.
Sales tax works the same way as a slow bleed instead of a leash. Nobody notices a quarter point here and there. Every increase gets sold as small and temporary, and none of them ever get rolled back. Your own example makes the case for me. An extra percent your county already has the legal green light to charge but hasn’t pulled the trigger on yet, that’s not restraint. That’s a loaded gun sitting on the table. Somebody eventually picks it up.
First of all, you’ve gone too far with the loaded gun analogy — that’s what movies and short stories are about. In my semirural area outside city limits, we have a few local districts plus the county government. Before Prop 13 (in 1978), each district was created under state law with a certain limit of property tax authority and never even reached halfway. The problem was assessed valuations went up exponentially, which led to Prop 13. Now local governing boards are always at their limit of property tax unless there’s an election.
Secondly, as to sales tax, California created it for local government in 1/8-cent increments, but no one even talks about “a quarter point” any more. We had an election for a half-cent sales tax two years ago and there’ll probably be another this year and in two years.
Where I was going was really two points: 1) we really do vote for these taxes, they aren’t being done to us by leaders like Mamdani and Newsom, and 2) the different choices locally even within California. And those are two good things, right?
I’m still curious about your local sales tax rate. It must be a lot different than mine.
Fair enough on the loaded gun line, I’ll drop it. Straight version: an unused taxing authority on the books doesn’t vanish just because nobody’s used it yet.
Your Prop 13 history actually proves my point. Districts started with real limits and stayed way under them for decades. Then valuations shot up, the tax rode along automatically with no vote needed, and the backlash was big enough to rewrite the state constitution. The limit only showed up after it hurt enough people to force one.
On your two points, half yes. Voting for a tax is real consent, I’ll give you that. Different animal than Mamdani or Newsom handing something down. But an election every two years for another half cent isn’t much of a limit either. It’s a limit that keeps getting renegotiated until somebody finally says no, and so far nobody has. Local variation is a good thing, no argument there. That’s people choosing their own burden at the smallest scale. I’m not against that. I’m against wiping it out with one national number, which is exactly what a wealth tax does.
And yeah, mine’s different. San Diego county is at 7.75. Yours at 9.75 is two full points higher, which kind of makes my point for me about local choice being real. A federal wealth tax erases that overnight.
Thanks for bearing with me. There are a few other points about California I want to make. In some ways, California approaches a pure democracy, not a republican form of government at all: the state constitution can be amended by a majority vote, individuals can write their own law or repeal one with a majority vote, and taxes can be passed by a majority vote.
There was for many years a requirement for a 2/3 majority for “special” taxes for a dedicated purpose like police or public transit, but several years ago, our supreme court rather spontaneously and unnecessarily decided the 2/3 requirement didn’t apply to initiatives. I’m not sure whether there were initiative tax measures before, where individuals propose a tax and the government merely accepts graciously, but there have been some in the last few years.
There’s an amendment to the state constitution on the ballot in November to put back the 2/3 limit even for initiatives, but it will leave those that already passed in place. (And “general” taxes that can be used for any purpose have always only needed a simple majority.) But it sure looks to me like more than 50% of voters in every Bay Area county plus a few more in northern California will vote for ANY tax. Our sales tax one year from now could easily be 10.75%.
As to initiative tax measures of yore, now I remember the Rob Reiner statewide tax initiative in 1988 which passed 50.5% to 49.5%.
“Sales tax works the same way as a slow bleed instead of a leash. Nobody notices a quarter point here and there. ”
The ultimate limitation on sales tax is that, long before it exceeds 100% a(s touted by the OP), nearly everyone will stop buying anything beyond the bare necessities of life. That would have several seriously negative effects. The increases in government revenue that had been allowing the idiot politicians to continue their ever increasing wasteful spending will peak and begin to decline, probably quite suddenly. Politicians and bureaucrats being as clueless as they are, will raise the sales tax rate even further in a futile attempt to compensate. The end game there is identical to where all excessive taxation leads. Also, as people halt their discretionary spending, entire sectors of the economy that depend on recreational, entertainment, or other no-essential expenditures will die off, and those employees will lose their jobs. They will stop paying taxes and become a net burden, which will induce more government spending. Again, this is the classic vicious circle that all socialists embrace and are eager to impose on us. There is no category of tax that is not essentially harmful, and palpably destructive if increased beyond a fairly low threshold. The types only differ in timing, and the impact point of the initial destruction.
Don, that’s the Laffer Curve in plain terms. Every rate hike works right up until it doesn’t, and past that peak, more rate means less revenue, not more.
“A wealth tax with no floor and no expiration is not a policy. It is a ratchet. It only turns one direction.”
Excellent!
Thanks SM. There’s a meme going around that is sadly true: “Imagine how terrible you must be to steal everyone’s money and still end up $39 trillion in debt.” I’ve said before: The ceiling of government competence is set by the floor of citizens’ capacity for self-government.
More than fifty years ago there was a Libertarian bumper sticker that said, “Don’t steal. It’s a crime to compete with government.” I thought that was amusing, but I’m certainly not a strict Libertarian. Of course we need some tax to provide for common defense, etc. I can’t tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy the same way I can’t tell the difference between defund ICE and open borders.
It is terrible to have $40 trillion in federal debt, though.
Creekan, that bumper sticker holds up, and I’d draw the same line you’re drawing. Wanting limited government isn’t wanting no government. Common defense, courts, basic infrastructure, that’s what taxation is for in the first place. My argument was never that taxes are illegitimate. It’s that a tax with no limiting factor stops serving those legitimate functions and becomes a tool for whatever government wants next.
I’d push back gently on one thing though. For a lot of people, “limited government” gets heard as an invitation to anarchy, the same way you can’t tell libertarianism from anarchy or defund ICE from open borders. I think that’s exactly backwards. Limited government isn’t the road to anarchy. It’s the alternative to it. Self-government requires discipline, and discipline requires limits. Remove the limits and you don’t get more government, you get a government answerable to nothing, which is its own kind of chaos.
And you’re right about the debt. Forty trillion isn’t a rounding error, it’s the record. Any other entity managed this way, run into debt it can’t cover year after year, would at minimum be audited and at maximum be altered or abolished. The federal government gets a pass because it can print, borrow, and tax its way around consequences that would sink anyone else. That’s not strength. That’s delayed accountability. Forty trillion dollars of evidence should be the wake-up call that we stopped practicing real self-government a long time ago, whether we’re willing to say so or not.
The first time I became aware of what you call “citizen formation” came in 2016, at about 10 pm after it became clear that Trump defeated Hillary, when a mob of high school girls descended (by the miracle of social media) en masse on the local downtown chanting, “Not my president!” and I wondered what they learned in civics class. There seems to be not so much loyal opposition anymore.
Creekan, that arc matches mine, just on a different timeline. Civic literacy is where everyone starts, because it’s the visible symptom. People don’t know the three branches, can’t name their senator, don’t know what’s in the Bill of Rights. Fixable with a textbook, you’d think. But you dig deeper and find the textbook was never the problem.
The grievances in the Declaration read eerily close to today’s, and that’s not a coincidence. History doesn’t repeat because the same events come back around. It repeats because the same emotions do. Grievance, humiliation, the sense that you’re being ruled rather than governed, that you have no voice and no recourse. Those feelings show up generation after generation, and they are what actually forms people, for better or worse. The founding generation had those emotions and built a form of government to answer them. Somewhere along the way we kept the government and stopped teaching the emotional and civic formation that was supposed to sustain it.
That’s why I stay locked on formation and nowhere else. Every other fight in this country, spending, immigration, the courts, the culture war of the week, is downstream of it. Fix the formation and the rest starts correcting itself. Ignore it and you can win every other fight and still lose the country.
That’s not strength. That’s delayed accountability.
You can say that again. 😉
I was making fun of you.