Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to >diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous >publications and citations under his belt, and his oh-indexo (which--
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniaAs proposed wealth tax on >billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded >analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and >carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he >concluded that a aone timeA 5% tax on the stateAs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state.
Except thatAs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnAt just
support the billionaire taxuhe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent >feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for >months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that
oI donAt think itAs going to be a one-time tax,o and, oIAm not there to >pretend that itAs once and never again.o At a separate interview when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of
the state, his response was three words: oSo be it.o
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonAs answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityAs aggressive >taxation was simply, obye!o)
ItAs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, oWould it be >beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?o
the answer would be a resounding oNO.o It is mathematically impossible
to credibly make that argument.
And even if an aexpertA like the Professor were to try, they would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatAs precisely the problem:
these people arenAt objective researchers and policymakers; theyAre >irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and >self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their >wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itAs going to be far worse. >Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to >mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItAs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent >roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityAs own Draft 2026 Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatAs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money >went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state >even less competitivea and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that >voters continue to reward.
AmericaAs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that >happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are >starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainAs Labour
Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will
turn before itAs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to
diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax on
billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded
analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and
carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he
concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just
support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent
feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for
months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that
rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of
the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs aggressive
taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it be
beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?rCY
the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically impossible >> to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent
roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026 Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money
went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state
even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that
voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are
starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs Labour
Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will
turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate.
Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesuincluding Democrats Katie Porter, Xavier >Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans
Chad Bianco and Steve Hiltonuhave expressed opposition to the proposed >wealth tax.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
--
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to
diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his oh-indexo (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniaAs proposed wealth tax on
billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded
analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and
carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he
concluded that a aone timeA 5% tax on the stateAs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state.
Except thatAs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnAt just
support the billionaire taxuhe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent
feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for
months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that
oI donAt think itAs going to be a one-time tax,o and, oIAm not there to
pretend that itAs once and never again.o At a separate interview when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of >>> the state, his response was three words: oSo be it.o
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonAs answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityAs aggressive
taxation was simply, obye!o)
ItAs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, oWould it be
beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?o
the answer would be a resounding oNO.o It is mathematically impossible
to credibly make that argument.
And even if an aexpertA like the Professor were to try, they would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatAs precisely the problem:
these people arenAt objective researchers and policymakers; theyAre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itAs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItAs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent
roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityAs own Draft 2026 Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatAs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money >>> went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state >>> even less competitivea and will drive away the very people they aim to tax. >>>
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that >>> voters continue to reward.
AmericaAs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are >>> starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainAs Labour
Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will
turn before itAs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
On Fri, 15 May 2026 12:31:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate.
wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
so shutup.
Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesrCoincluding Democrats Katie Porter, Xavier
Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans
Chad Bianco and Steve HiltonrCohave expressed opposition to the proposed
wealth tax.
Because, of course, increase taxes for anybody is political
kryptonite. Death on contact.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
One might almost accuse him of having a conscience. Oh, dear, we
can't allow that.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to >>>> diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which >>>> tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax on >>>> billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded
analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and >>>> carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he >>>> concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was >>>> sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just >>>> support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as >>>> a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent >>>> feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for
months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that >>>> rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview when >>>> asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of >>>> the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs answer >>>> to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs aggressive >>>> taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it be >>>> beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?rCY >>>> the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically impossible >>>> to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at >>>> least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre >>>> irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and >>>> self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent >>>> roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles. >>>> The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026 Business Plan >>>> now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money >>>> went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So >>>> the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state >>>> even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that >>>> voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that >>>> happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are >>>> starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs Labour >>>> Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will >>>> turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action. >>>>
- James Hickman
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax on billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that
rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview when asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of
the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs aggressive taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it be beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?rCY
the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically impossible to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse. Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026 Business Plan now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs Labour Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will
turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
On 5/15/2026 1:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 12:31:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Alright then, that's a wrap.
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate.
wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
so shutup.
You've not thought this through, or even watched the debate. Tara was
not wrong. Where's Nick?
--Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesuincluding Democrats Katie Porter, Xavier
Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans
Chad Bianco and Steve Hiltonuhave expressed opposition to the proposed
wealth tax.
Because, of course, increase taxes for anybody is political
kryptonite. Death on contact.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
One might almost accuse him of having a conscience. Oh, dear, we
can't allow that.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to >>>>> diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his oh-indexo (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniaAs proposed wealth tax on >>>>> billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded >>>>> analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and >>>>> carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he >>>>> concluded that a aone timeA 5% tax on the stateAs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state. >>>>>
Except thatAs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnAt just
support the billionaire taxuhe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as >>>>> a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent >>>>> feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate
stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for >>>>> months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that >>>>> oI donAt think itAs going to be a one-time tax,o and, oIAm not there to >>>>> pretend that itAs once and never again.o At a separate interview when >>>>> asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of >>>>> the state, his response was three words: oSo be it.o
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonAs answer >>>>> to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityAs aggressive >>>>> taxation was simply, obye!o)
ItAs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, oWould it be >>>>> beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?o >>>>> the answer would be a resounding oNO.o It is mathematically impossible >>>>> to credibly make that argument.
And even if an aexpertA like the Professor were to try, they would at >>>>> least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious >>>>> risks and uncertainties involved. But thatAs precisely the problem:
these people arenAt objective researchers and policymakers; theyAre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and >>>>> self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their >>>>> wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itAs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to >>>>> mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItAs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent >>>>> roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working >>>>> track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles. >>>>> The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityAs own Draft 2026 Business Plan >>>>> now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatAs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money >>>>> went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is
always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So >>>>> the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state >>>>> even less competitivea and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that >>>>> voters continue to reward.
AmericaAs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that >>>>> happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are >>>>> starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainAs Labour >>>>> Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will >>>>> turn before itAs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action. >>>>>
- James Hickman
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:17:37 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/15/2026 1:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 12:31:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Alright then, that's a wrap.
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate.
wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
so shutup.
You've not thought this through, or even watched the debate. Tara was
not wrong. Where's Nick?
And you have very slickly avoided responding to what I said.
--
Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesrCoincluding Democrats Katie Porter, Xavier >>>> Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans
Chad Bianco and Steve HiltonrCohave expressed opposition to the proposed >>>> wealth tax.
Because, of course, increase taxes for anybody is political
kryptonite. Death on contact.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
One might almost accuse him of having a conscience. Oh, dear, we
can't allow that.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career to >>>>>> diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which >>>>>> tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax on
billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational, grounded >>>>>> analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus benefits and >>>>>> carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking analysis, he >>>>>> concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was >>>>>> sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the state. >>>>>>
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just >>>>>> support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it as >>>>>> a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a permanent >>>>>> feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate >>>>>> stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them for >>>>>> months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged that >>>>>> rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people out of >>>>>> the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs aggressive
taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe >>>>>> mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it be
beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax base?rCY >>>>>> the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically impossible
to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious >>>>>> risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem: >>>>>> these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre >>>>>> irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and >>>>>> self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their >>>>>> wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse. >>>>>> Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to >>>>>> mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on >>>>>> taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the >>>>>> promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since spent >>>>>> roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working >>>>>> track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger miles. >>>>>> The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026 Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the >>>>>> entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the money >>>>>> went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is >>>>>> always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to spend. So >>>>>> the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes the state >>>>>> even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking that >>>>>> voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that >>>>>> happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world are >>>>>> starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs Labour >>>>>> Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide will >>>>>> turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action. >>>>>>
- James Hickman
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
On 5/15/26 10:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career
to diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax
on billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking
analysis, he concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs
billionaires was sensible policy that would enhance long-term
prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just
support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it
as a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a
debate stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to
them for months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged
that rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not
there to pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate
interview when asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most
productive people out of the state, his response was three words: rCLSo
be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs
answer to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs
aggressive taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it
be beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax
base?rCY the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically
impossible to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at >> least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since
spent roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of
working track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero
passenger miles. The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft
2026 Business Plan now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the
money went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer
is always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to
spend. So the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which
makes the state even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very
people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking
that voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world
are starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs
Labour Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the
tide will turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
it prolly doesn't help that instead of helping facilitate the govt doing things properly... a huge block of voters believe it can't, and then actively impedes on it ever doing anything properly
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've never
seen anything that might actually generate long term accountability on anything, just cutting programs they don't happen to like
On 5/15/26 9:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:17:37 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/15/2026 1:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 12:31:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Alright then, that's a wrap.
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate.
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all
things tax.
so shutup.
You've not thought this through, or even watched the debate. Tara was
not wrong. Where's Nick?
And you have very slickly avoided responding to what I said.
there's nothing slick about dud switching topics he can't respond to
Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesrCoincluding Democrats Katie Porter,
Xavier
Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans >>>>> Chad Bianco and Steve HiltonrCohave expressed opposition to the proposed >>>>> wealth tax.
Because, of course, increase taxes for anybody is political
kryptonite.-a Death on contact.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
One might almost accuse him of having a conscience.-a Oh, dear, we
can't allow that.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire
career to
diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous >>>>>>> publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which >>>>>>> tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth >>>>>>> tax on
billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded
analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and
carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking
analysis, he
concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the
state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just >>>>>>> support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling >>>>>>> it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent
feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate >>>>>>> stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to them >>>>>>> for
months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally
acknowledged that
rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not
there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview >>>>>>> when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive people >>>>>>> out of
the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs >>>>>>> answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs
aggressive
taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe >>>>>>> mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould >>>>>>> it be
beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax >>>>>>> base?rCY
the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically >>>>>>> impossible
to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they >>>>>>> would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious >>>>>>> risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem: >>>>>>> these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre >>>>>>> irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully
righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away >>>>>>> their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse. >>>>>>> Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years,
not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on >>>>>>> taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the >>>>>>> promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since >>>>>>> spent
roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of working >>>>>>> track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger >>>>>>> miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026
Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the >>>>>>> entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program. >>>>>>>
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where
the money
went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is >>>>>>> always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to
spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes
the state
even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they >>>>>>> aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring >>>>>>> America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of
thinking that
voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will >>>>>>> that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the
world are
starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs >>>>>>> Labour
Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the tide >>>>>>> will
turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of >>>>>>> action.
- James Hickman
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment.
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology
and ecology."
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/15/26 10:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career
to diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his oh-indexo (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniaAs proposed wealth tax
on billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking
analysis, he concluded that a aone timeA 5% tax on the stateAs
billionaires was sensible policy that would enhance long-term
prosperity in the state.
Except thatAs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnAt just
support the billionaire taxuhe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it
as a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a
debate stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to
them for months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged
that oI donAt think itAs going to be a one-time tax,o and, oIAm not
there to pretend that itAs once and never again.o At a separate
interview when asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most
productive people out of the state, his response was three words: oSo
be it.o
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonAs
answer to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityAs
aggressive taxation was simply, obye!o)
ItAs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, oWould it
be beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax
base?o the answer would be a resounding oNO.o It is mathematically
impossible to credibly make that argument.
And even if an aexpertA like the Professor were to try, they would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatAs precisely the problem:
these people arenAt objective researchers and policymakers; theyAre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itAs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItAs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since
spent roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of
working track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero
passenger miles. The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityAs own Draft
2026 Business Plan now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045. >>>
ThatAs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the
money went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer
is always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to
spend. So the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which
makes the state even less competitivea and will drive away the very
people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking
that voters continue to reward.
AmericaAs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world
are starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainAs
Labour Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the
tide will turn before itAs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
it prolly doesn't help that instead of helping facilitate the govt doing
things properly... a huge block of voters believe it can't, and then
actively impedes on it ever doing anything properly
The actual performance of said governments will go unremarked.
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've never
seen anything that might actually generate long term accountability on
anything, just cutting programs they don't happen to like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by
the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment.
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology
and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:11:47 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/15/26 10:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career
to diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which >>>> tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax >>>> on billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking >>>> analysis, he concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs
billionaires was sensible policy that would enhance long-term
prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just >>>> support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it
as a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a >>>> debate stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to
them for months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged
that rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not
there to pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate
interview when asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most
productive people out of the state, his response was three words: rCLSo >>>> be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs
answer to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs
aggressive taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it >>>> be beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax
base?rCY the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically >>>> impossible to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at >>>> least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre >>>> irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous and >>>> self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since
spent roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of
working track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero
passenger miles. The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft >>>> 2026 Business Plan now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045. >>>>
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the
money went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer
is always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to
spend. So the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which
makes the state even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very
people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking
that voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will that >>>> happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world
are starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs
Labour Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the
tide will turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action. >>>>
- James Hickman
it prolly doesn't help that instead of helping facilitate the govt doing >>> things properly... a huge block of voters believe it can't, and then
actively impedes on it ever doing anything properly
The actual performance of said governments will go unremarked.
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've never
seen anything that might actually generate long term accountability on
anything, just cutting programs they don't happen to like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by
the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
How is that for a confession smoke screened out by a unfounded
accusation? Neat trick, huh?
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology
and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and >instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a >camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it >encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an >observer across multiple senses.
Hope that helps. Where's Wilson?
On 5/15/2026 9:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/15/26 9:14 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:That's slick. You posted nothing and then butted in, with nothing to
On Fri, 15 May 2026 17:17:37 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/15/2026 1:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2026 12:31:07 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Alright then, that's a wrap.
On 5/15/2026 11:47 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:so shutup.
On Fri, 15 May 2026 13:59:51 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:Not sure if you've thought this through, or even watched the debate. >>>>>
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
And we all, each and every one of us, do so feverishly detest all >>>>>>> things tax.
You've not thought this through, or even watched the debate. Tara was
not wrong. Where's Nick?
And you have very slickly avoided responding to what I said.
there's nothing slick about dud switching topics he can't respond to
add. Nice, Nick!
Based on 2026 gubernatorial debates and statements, most major
California governor candidatesrCoincluding Democrats Katie Porter, >>>>>> Xavier
Becerra, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Matt Mahan, as well as Republicans >>>>>> Chad Bianco and Steve HiltonrCohave expressed opposition to the
proposed
wealth tax.
Because, of course, increase taxes for anybody is political
kryptonite.-a Death on contact.
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
One might almost accuse him of having a conscience.-a Oh, dear, we
can't allow that.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire >>>>>>>> career to
diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous >>>>>>>> publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which
tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth >>>>>>>> tax on
billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded
analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and
carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after painstaking
analysis, he
concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the staterCOs billionaires was
sensible policy that would enhance long-term prosperity in the >>>>>>>> state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just
support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters,
selling it as
a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent
feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on a debate >>>>>>>> stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to
them for
months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally
acknowledged that
rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not
there to
pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate interview >>>>>>>> when
asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most productive
people out of
the state, his response was three words: rCLSo be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs >>>>>>>> answer
to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs >>>>>>>> aggressive
taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe >>>>>>>> mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker,
rCLWould it be
beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax >>>>>>>> base?rCY
the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically >>>>>>>> impossible
to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they >>>>>>>> would at
least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the
obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem: >>>>>>>> these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre
irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully
righteous and
self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away >>>>>>>> their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse. >>>>>>>> Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, >>>>>>>> not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on >>>>>>>> taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the >>>>>>>> promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has
since spent
roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of
working
track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero passenger >>>>>>>> miles.
The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft 2026
Business Plan
now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by 2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the >>>>>>>> entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program. >>>>>>>>
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where >>>>>>>> the money
went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer is >>>>>>>> always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to >>>>>>>> spend. So
the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which makes >>>>>>>> the state
even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very people they >>>>>>>> aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring >>>>>>>> America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of
thinking that
voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. >>>>>>>> Will that
happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the >>>>>>>> world are
starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs >>>>>>>> Labour
Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the
tide will
turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of >>>>>>>> action.
- James Hickman
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/15/26 10:59 AM, Wilson wrote:
Emmanuel Saez is an expert.
A PhD economist from UC Berkeley, Saez has devoted his entire career
to diligent research in a complex and dynamic field. He has numerous
publications and citations under his belt, and his rCLh-indexrCY (which >>> tracks research productivity) is off the charts.
So when Saez came out in support of CaliforniarCOs proposed wealth tax
on billionaires, it must have been from a position of rational,
grounded analysis. Clearly he considered the potential costs versus
benefits and carefully weighed the risks. Then, only after
painstaking analysis, he concluded that a rCyone timerCO 5% tax on the
staterCOs billionaires was sensible policy that would enhance long-term >>> prosperity in the state.
Except thatrCOs not what happened. And, to be clear, Saez didnrCOt just >>> support the billionaire taxrCohe helped to write it.
Saez has been a key figure in pitching the tax to voters, selling it
as a necessary, single dose, emergency measure. One time. Not a
permanent feature of the tax code. But a few days ago, Saez stood on
a debate stage and admitted to the audience that he had been lying to
them for months.
Contrary to everything he had said before, he finally acknowledged
that rCLI donrCOt think itrCOs going to be a one-time tax,rCY and, rCLIrCOm not
there to pretend that itrCOs once and never again.rCY At a separate
interview when asked whether a wealth tax would drive the most
productive people out of the state, his response was three words: rCLSo >>> be it.rCY
(At least he used three full words; Seattle mayor Katie WilsonrCOs
answer to the same question about wealthy people fleeing her cityrCOs
aggressive taxation was simply, rCLbye!rCY)
ItrCOs difficult to characterize this as anything other than a severe
mental derangement. If you asked any rational policymaker, rCLWould it
be beneficial for a state to lose a substantial portion of its tax
base?rCY the answer would be a resounding rCLNO.rCY It is mathematically >>> impossible to credibly make that argument.
And even if an rCyexpertrCO like the Professor were to try, they would at >>> least have to heavily caveat their conclusion by stating the obvious
risks and uncertainties involved. But thatrCOs precisely the problem:
these people arenrCOt objective researchers and policymakers; theyrCOre >>> irrationally evangelical. They view their ideas as fully righteous
and self-evident, with zero degree of uncertainty.
California had a giant deficit before they started chasing away their
wealthiest citizens and businesses. Now itrCOs going to be far worse.
Businesses and billionaires alike have been leaving for years, not to
mention countless others who are fed up and have had enough.
ItrCOs also interesting how experts like the professor only focus on
taxes. They rarely consider how effectively it is spent.
Consider that California voters approved a rail bond in 2008 on the
promise that trains would be running by 2020. The state has since
spent roughly $14 billion on the project, yet not a single foot of
working track has been laid in the seventeen years since. Zero
passenger miles. The California High-Speed Rail AuthorityrCOs own Draft >>> 2026 Business Plan now puts the full-system cost at $231 billion by
2045.
ThatrCOs about as much as NASA spent, adjusted for inflation, for the
entire Apollo program, and more than the current Artemis program.
Every audit comes back the same way: nobody can tell you where the
money went. The failure never produces accountability. And the answer
is always to spend more. Unfortunately there is no more money to
spend. So the experts have churned out a wealth tax proposal which
makes the state even less competitiverCa and will drive away the very
people they aim to tax.
This is not the type of objective thinking that is going to bring
America back from the brink. Yet it is exactly the kind of thinking
that voters continue to reward.
AmericarCOs trajectory will not change until voters demand it. Will
that happen in time? Perhaps.
There are plenty of signs of optimism that people all over the world
are starting to wake up; the recent humiliating defeat of BritainrCOs
Labour Party is just one example. So we can certainly hope that the
tide will turn before itrCOs too late.
But, as we used to say in the military, hope is not a course of action.
- James Hickman
it prolly doesn't help that instead of helping facilitate the govt
doing things properly... a huge block of voters believe it can't, and
then actively impedes on it ever doing anything properly
The actual performance of said governments will go unremarked.
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've
never seen anything that might actually generate long term
accountability on anything, just cutting programs they don't happen to
like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by
the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
On Sat, 16 May 2026 18:47:39 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it
encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an
observer across multiple senses.
Hope that helps. Where's Wilson?
We used to say things like protective coloration, mimicry. Did you
ever wonder by squirrels have big bushy tails that tend to move a lot
more than the rest of the body? It is to make foxes and lynxes think
that the tail is where the meat is. They pounce on the tail and the
squirrel escapes.
As for billionaires, the thing is that they are really looking at tiny amounts relative to their wealth. They can well afford to pay the
taxes, but many got where they are by pinching every penny, and are
not about to stop now.
Steyer is thinking, taxing billionaires is a popular political
position to take especially if it makes me look different from the
other assholes. In the end it will probably cost him less that an add campaign would.
There is only one genuine generosity for them. That is the anonymous donation. Anything public is pr. Period. Even then it is still a relatively tiny amount. Sorry Wilson. I know you want to dispute
that so badly.
Of course, it is possible to be humbly thankful for whatever crumbs
drop from the table. Nah, I don't play that game.
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has
supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology
and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an observer across multiple senses.
On 5/16/26 9:11 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've
never seen anything that might actually generate long term
accountability on anything, just cutting programs they don't happen
to like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by
the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
am i not supposed to be personally insulted by this?
apparently me, my wife, and my baby having healthcare is an /actively
bad/ thing
-a > pray for the ungodliness that inhabits wilson EfOAEfOAEfOA
-a >
-a > #god
On 5/16/2026 9:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance
concealment.
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage,
it encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection
by an observer across multiple senses.
A billionaire claiming that he supports confiscating assets from billionaires is an attempt to say he's on their side, one of them. So
maybe when the mobs arrive they might spare him.
It's not going to be a winning strategy, claiming to be friends with the alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.
On 5/16/2026 9:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it
encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an
observer across multiple senses.
A billionaire claiming that he supports confiscating assets from >billionaires is an attempt to say he's on their side, one of them. So
maybe when the mobs arrive they might spare him.
It's not going to be a winning strategy, claiming to be friends with the >alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.
On 5/17/2026 3:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/16/26 9:11 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've
never seen anything that might actually generate long term
accountability on anything, just cutting programs they don't happen
to like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by
the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
am i not supposed to be personally insulted by this?
apparently me, my wife, and my baby having healthcare is an /actively
bad/ thing
a > pray for the ungodliness that inhabits wilson ???
a >
a > #god
It's not just all about you, Nick.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:08:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and
instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it
encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an
observer across multiple senses.
A billionaire claiming that he supports confiscating assets from
billionaires is an attempt to say he's on their side, one of them. So
maybe when the mobs arrive they might spare him.
It's not going to be a winning strategy, claiming to be friends with the
alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.
What a nasty invidious comparison. People who want to tax rich folks
are alligators who want to eat them.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:11:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/17/2026 3:33 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 5/16/26 9:11 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 5/15/2026 10:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
cons have been screeching about accountability for ages but we've
never seen anything that might actually generate long term
accountability on anything, just cutting programs they don't happen
to like
The ability of Republicans to do nothing of value is only surpassed by >>>> the Democrats to do things that are actively bad.
am i not supposed to be personally insulted by this?
apparently me, my wife, and my baby having healthcare is an /actively
bad/ thing
-a > pray for the ungodliness that inhabits wilson ???
-a >
-a > #god
It's not just all about you, Nick.
No, it is about helping all people in a similar situation. Nothing
wrong with that mr "govt should not be in the business of helping
people" person.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:08:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to
avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize.
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and
instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it
encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an
observer across multiple senses.
A billionaire claiming that he supports confiscating assets from
billionaires is an attempt to say he's on their side, one of them. So
maybe when the mobs arrive they might spare him.
It's not going to be a winning strategy, claiming to be friends with the
alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.
What a nasty invidious comparison. People who want to tax rich folks
are alligators who want to eat them.
On 5/18/2026 1:19 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:I'm sure you will recover, wilson.
On Mon, 18 May 2026 12:08:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:47 PM, Dude wrote:
On 5/16/2026 2:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2026 12:09:11 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>>
wrote:
On 5/15/2026 3:31 PM, Dude wrote:
Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer is the only major candidate who has >>>>>>> supported the tax, while current Governor Gavin Newsom has also
criticized it as damaging to the state.
"Crypsis is the broad biological term for strategies animals use to >>>>>> avoid detection by predators, making themselves hard to recognize. >>>>>>
It includes morphological crypsis wich is physical camouflage and
behavioral crypsis which is specific behaviors that enhance concealment. >>>>>>
This is a key anti-predator adaptation studied in evolutionary biology >>>>>> and ecology."
Now explain what that has to do with billionaire taxes.
In some cases billionaires can use loopholes to avoid paying taxes and >>>> instead make themselves look like big charity donors, but it's just a
camouflage.
While most people associate crypsis strictly with visual camouflage, it >>>> encompasses a variety of techniques that hinder initial detection by an >>>> observer across multiple senses.
A billionaire claiming that he supports confiscating assets from
billionaires is an attempt to say he's on their side, one of them. So
maybe when the mobs arrive they might spare him.
It's not going to be a winning strategy, claiming to be friends with the >>> alligator in the hope that it will eat you last.
What a nasty invidious comparison. People who want to tax rich folks
are alligators who want to eat them.
So accurate it hurts.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 01:04:41 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |