I would be honored if I have enough wealth to worry about wealth tax.
I was thinking you want to bootlick the bosses 
so need to move to where they are.
I donât see why folks get worked up on a moonshot proposal like this. First, itâs far from certain it will pass. Second, even if it does, there will be tons of loopholes and exemptions. Pretty sure they wonât touch tax-exempted IRA for example.
So letâs say itâs passed exactly like what the article says: 1% tax on wealth over 50M per tax payer. If you have 50M + one dollar, your wealth tax bill comes to a whopping 1c. Itâs 50M per tax payer. That comes to100M between husband and wife. How about kids? Do they have some quota too?
Maybe you guys are far more loaded than I imagined. Iâd worry about getting to that level of wealth first.
Btw I posted the same article in the lounge few hrs earlier⌠it is not a Texas vs Cali issue. Guess not many have access to lounge 
Note my proposed title of the article. So I am implicitly saying should worry about going there FIRST.
In a country where most people donât even have $2k, this is just the start The goal is to equalize outcomes (eg. wealth). Theyâll come up with some funny math about how great and effective the new programs it is funding are. Thatâll be the excuse to lower the threshold for the tax more and more, so they can keep expanding the programs. If you canât see that is the end goal, then we live in different worlds. It used to be theyâd at least hide that, or those were the extreme ideas. Now itâs mainstream.
I donât worry about hypotheticals. Wake me up when they charge tax on wealth of $2k.
in other Texas news, there are now no regulators.Texas PUC Chairman Arthur DâAndrea Resigns 2 Weeks After Gov. Abbott Appoints Him â CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
Lots of drama right now where the Texas utilities are suing ERCOT, and the Texas Senate is trying to reverse the billions in overcharges.
what this means, cause we are a capitalist country, is that energy developers arenât going to build in Texas and if they do, they are going to ask for a higher prices. So back to a more old school, regulated market.
its going to get $$ to cool those 4K sqft housesâŚ
1 Like
do you agree with this? at some level I do. Something has to change as AI eats up all the jobs and gives the spoils of capital to fewer and fewer people
While national headlines have focused on residential consumers stuck with five-figure electricity bills, those horror stories are limited to a single provider, Griddy. In competitive markets like Dallas and Houston, where customers can pick their electricity provider, most have fixed-rate contracts, which will mute the immediate impact. However, they may be forced to find new providers or accept more expensive contracts when they renew. And many of those providers may be forced out of business entirely as the costs of the outages ripple through the market.
Donât go to Dallas and Houston, come to Austin
1 Like
It wonât stop there. The original income tax was in the single digits and didnât apply to wages which were considered âvalue for valueâ and therefore not really âgains.â
There arenât enough 50M + people to raise a significant amount of money. Once that is realized watch the threshold drop. It also wonât likely be indexed to inflation.
1 Like
I donât agree that AI will eat up jobs. I think it will create more and better jobs.
1 Like
yes, but LESS jobs. so the ones who have jobs will be gaining more capital as the ones whose jobs are eliminated will have to retrain and lose years of income
Existing businesses will have less jobs to offer BUT⌠AI should sponge many NEW businesses
1 Like
I think we can just look at human history. People were hunters and gathers. Then there was the agriculture age which completely disrupted the way of life. The industrial revolution followed that. Now weâre in a new era of disruption. Humans managed to somehow survive and thrive despite prior innovations that disrupted how people lived and worked. Humans are designed to survive. I think it could be good if less people work, but they earn more money. We could get back to parents having more time for their kids.
I honestly hate anything that uses âfairnessâ as a reason for doing it. Itâs a completely arbitrary measure that means something different to everyone. A homeless person may think a home owner having unused bedrooms is unfair. Does that mean they should be able to live in one of them in the name of fairness? Most people have too much food at home and will throw out some. Should hungry people be allowed to come take it?
We take things that people would never agree to if it was person-to-person, then we throw the government in the middle as administrator (creating massive bureaucracy and waste) and suddenly they are ok. Thatâs beyond dangerous.
Humans are literally wired to adapt and survive. I think the far greater danger is replacing that instinct with an entitlement that the government will provide. Thereâs a reason kids raised in homes on government assistant repeat the cycle vs kids who are in equally poor homes without assistance. You canât take a lion that was kept in a zoo and release it into the wild. Thatâs literally how tons of kids are being raised, and they have zero survival skills. We are leaning more and more into taking away survival skills.
I would rather see us spend money up skilling people for the new wave of jobs. Thatâs far more productive and useful than just trying to figure out how to make it so people get everything they need to survive for free. Exactly how fulfilling and rewarding would that life be anyway?
5 Likes
Since when has any form of automation ever created LESS jobs.
Automation makes humans more productive so they can concentrate on higher value-added work. It also opens up new possibilities, creating whole new industries. To believe that AI will replace humans is to believe that human imagination and human creativity will somehow just go away. When given added bandwidth humans always find a way to use it.
3 Likes
Amazon has automated a crazy amount of work yet the headcount number keeps growing. Robots bring bins to employees who pick the right item from the bin. Employees donât even have to walk around the warehouse anymore. Amazon has also automated placing orders with vendors and inventory management. Humans just have to watch reports and look for issues.
There was a belief the ATM would eliminate tons of jobs at banks. Instead, the jobs moved up in skill and pay. Banks employ more people than ever.
3 Likes
Thatâs an American problem.
Could be due to increased business volume. Any new businesses sponged?
Amazon is always adding warehouses to make delivery faster and cheaper. So employees per warehouse probably declined, but total employee count increases due to new warehouses. Itâs also entering all sorts of new businesses.
1 Like
Itâs universal - for a few hundred people.
Say what?
1 Like