Just look at the numbers. Harris will probably finish 15 million votes behind Biden 2020. Those are people who could have voted, but didn’t.

Nobody is under the illusion that Trump is better for the situation in Gaza than Harris.

But, too many left-leaning voters feel they have to “take a stand” by staying home or voting third party. I have several friends who did exactly that, even though it’s abundantly clear that staying home is effectively a vote for Trump.

Meanwhile, NOBODY on the conservative side is doing that shit. It’s been true since the Reagan era, the conservatives put aside any personal distaste they have, and they get behind their candidate.

I mean, there’s a whole lot that went wrong, but the big one was subverting the democratic process with primaries that didn’t really pick a popular candidate (2016 and 2024).

The primaries are the time for the candidate to energize a base of support. Harris has never energized anybody, and it was silly to think that affection for Biden would carry her.

Conservatives vote in force to signal their loyalty to their chosen community.

Progressives stay home when they perceive that their community doesn’t chose them. Harris’ vote totals at the end of this will sit somewhere below Biden 2020, for that reason.

People can come to their own conclusion. I did not vote for Trump and I won’t defend him, but I think the people complaining are ignoring the full context.

Here’s the quote in context:

“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face. You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying ‘Oh gee, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ But she’s a stupid person, and I used to have, I have meetings, with a lot of people, and she always wanted to go to war with people.

I smell the poop of a warrior!

That was my reading in 2016 – before the election, I realized that the “thrill vote” would go to Trump, and the average folks were going to sit it out because Hillary Clinton couldn’t energize anybody.

I’m getting a lot of those feelings around KH too. I just hope folks come out for the anti-Trump vote, at least.

They just took an old Matt Gaetz investigative report and did a search-replace on it.

Is the US government (or any national government) going to evaluate the value of paintings or baseball memorabilia or the portfolio of song rights for the The Turtles?

My sense is that it’s easier to establish value for things – and make a case for taxes – when they are sold in a market or used as a financial instrument (e.g. to collateralize a loan).

making compliance easy and cheap/mostly free

I’m not sure that’s how taxes work, though.

That wealth is just paper until somebody spends it to buy something… capital goods, or services, or political influence, or whatever. Let people sit on their paper fortunes, but tax it consistently whenever it’s used to buy stuff, or collateralize a loan, or whatever that allows people to realize value.

I wouldn’t necessarily oppose a wealth tax, I just don’t think it solves the problem. The problem we need to solve is passive income being taxed far less than wage income, and then we need to tax both kinds of income at rates that make sense.

n some special financial scheme that effectively hides/reinvests any profits without triggering the tax obligation

If that happens, then the system is fundamentally broken. If cross-border complications allow for hiding of passive income, then they are effectively hiding the wealth itself.

the obligation to track and report individual wealth in a standard way

I just don’t think that’s possible. The US can’t force reporting requirements on “art” in Switzerland or Botswana. And wealth is difficult to measure anyway – if the wealth is invested in art in a safe in Switzerland, how do you even value it? How can you possibly know what the next person is willing to spend for that art?

Instead, wait for the owner to sell it, and THEN tax the sale. It’s very hard to measure and capture “wealth”; it’s relatively easy to capture transactions.

I think we need to mentally compartmentalize Elon Musk, the rich dingbat, from the output of his companies.

Tesla single-handedly brought the electric car to the American market in a sustainable way, where every US and Japanese car maker was in a pause state waiting for somebody else to take the first move (although, credit to Nissan for the Leaf, but I think that by itself the Leaf wasn’t going to open the floodgates).

For all the goofiness around SpaceX, I think they’ve proven that they are the right model for developing orbital boost systems. Other major players are trying to be more like SpaceX.

Should the US have effectively subsidized these efforts? Yeah, we should have. Arguably Tesla and SpaceX were the only serious players in these markets with the chutzpah to be successful, after a lot of false starts by others (incl. bigger companies in the same markets).

It’s a shame that they enabled and enriched a giant dingbat, but in the end, Tesla and SpaceX have done things that nobody else could.

So by all means, tax him. And point out how Tesla and SpaceX depended on gov’t subsidies and tax rebates. But let’s also keep focus on the fact that electric car success and a more competitive space program are good things that were, and are, worth taxpayer involvement.

Also, to go back to the subject of the article. We don’t really need a wealth tax. We don’t need a corporate tax (which is just the political cowards tax).

We need to stop giving capital gains a free ride. Tax income when it is realized, consistently. Investment income should the same tax – or just very slightly less – as wage income. 15% tax on investment returns is laughably low.

Rich in what?

Money.

Ah, excellent point, thank you.

Check the label before you drink it, especially if you’re watching your sugar intake for medical reasons.

Umm. How would checking the label help? If the drinks were labelled correctly, there would be no reason for a recall.

Ah, Wikipedia makes it really easy to list by per capita representation.

The top 10 in “lowest population per electoral vote”:

 Wyoming
 Vermont
 District of Columbia
 Alaska
 North Dakota
 Montana
 Rhode Island
 South Dakota
 Delaware
 Maine

Well I did link to it in my response.

The NPVIC has a number of problems. The biggest one is impermanence: Many states, faced with assigning their electoral votes to the least popular candidate in their own state, will rush back to the their halls of legislature to gut the compact.

I mean, can you really see the progressive legislators in MA or CA assigning their electoral votes to a conservative winner who got whipped in their own state something like 60-40? The only states willing to enforce the NPVIC are the states whose internal popular vote mirrors the national popular vote.

Yeah, it’s a hopeless quest. Truly eliminating the EC would require 3/4 of state legislatures, an almost impossible task when the majority of states would be effectively voting against their self-interest.

Effectively neutering the EC only requires that the states with 50% of the EC votes agree to follow the national popular vote. But, it would be a fragile detente, since any state legislature could back out and break it.

It’s also really good for making sure that whoever wins the most acres of land gets a huge electoral boost. Because that’s important.

Is it? The most disproportionate representation in the EC belongs to the people of Delaware, last time I ran the numbers of EC votes per capita.

State population is all that matters. Very small populations still get an EC vote for each Senator, which is the root of the problem.

Women can be victims of women too, though. Look at how many mothers have subjected their daughters to genital mutilation, for example.

I think it’s pretty reasonable to say, “please don’t use exclusionary language that implies some victims are more valid than others”.