We discuss the preposterous demands for Greenland, look at the Shapiro-Harris feud, try to define a woman (harder than you'd think!), and consider the already-backfiring California billionaire tax.
The piece I think you’re all missing about the “billionaire tax” in California is that it’s narrowly targeted at specific people. We already saw with Trump’s election and the whole shift from people like Andreesen that a lot of it grew from a feeling of betrayal from the state government and the citizens - that they’ve been the “engine of progress” driving the California economy, making the state great, making everyone in the state’s lives better, and now the state and the people are replying “Fuck you, evil pigs, everything that’s wrong in America is your fault”. And that hits two major nerves for them - (a) I think when you have all those material needs met, self-actualization and things like reputation and gratitude matter a lot more - Elon seems to have moved mostly because Alameda County offended him, and (b) if the people and the state have turned on silicon valley itself, there’s major uncertainty about whether or not they’ll continue to be able to innovate in tech at all. So it’s not just “I’m uncertain whether or not I’ll have to pay $x% at some point”; it’s “will we even be able to build companies and create new tech at all?”
(I’m not commenting on whether or not these feelings are justified or whether their perceptions are accurate - just that they’ve clearly been A Whole Major Thing)
Even relatively bleeding heart, chill silicon valley friends and colleagues of mine are livid about this. Not grumpy, fucking livid. They see it as fundamentally different than an income tax hike. They see it as *California wants to rob my kid’s college fund” and “California wants to rob me of control of my company.” It’s not a general tax increase. It’s not even a la the “mansion tax” a tax against all of some particular product or service, where you can kind of tell yourself “well, I could have bought a cheaper house, so I guess it’s worth it.” They view it as a “fuck you, evil assholes, give me 5% of your stuff and you better hope I don’t take more” grab. And given a lot of them have flirted with the idea of moving for years but haven’t wanted to give up on (kid’s school/the ocean/their house/their neighborhood/whatever), I think we’ll find this is actually the last straw for them.
"California wants to rob my kid’s college fund” - isn't this patently delusional at that wealth level? or is that kind of the point (i.e. that this level of wealth is essentially a mental disability)?
populism is the ultimate face-eater, to be sure...
That’s not necessarily a pretext either. I’m not a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, but I’ve been in a smaller version of that scenario, where technically on paper I owned $bignumber in startup stocks and assets….stocks and assets that were not possible to liquidate, never became possible to liquidate, and are now worth $0.00. If CA showed up demanding I write them a check for 5% of that phantom value, I’d have to declare bankruptcy. 🤷♂️
[edit: but yes, you’re probably right that for at least some people it’s a self-serving fantasy.]
My suspicion is that it’s highly person- and fact- specific. When you’re taxing not just actual income or liquid assets, but things like illiquid assets, public stocks, private equity, personal belongings, etc., and you’re doing so with the kind of technical valuation rules the proposal includes, especially given the restrictions that often come with startup equity, you can easily end up in a position where someone is a billionaire on paper but doesn’t have anywhere near $50-$200m that they can use to pay a tax bill. The measure does have some options for deferral that try to fix that problem, but it’s unclear how effective they’d be.
Also, with the tax pegged to the person’s net worth on 12/31/2026, you create scenarios where e.g. a founder owns a boatload of stock in their new startup which spikes in popularity, causing them to have a high net worth “on paper” on 12/31, but then the stock crashes and becomes valueless - you’re still taxed on what it was valued. It’s a more simplistic version, but think of the way you can technically/temporarily “have” a bunch of cryptocurrency or stock options in a startup that, on paper, are worth a ton. But then 2w later your memecoin collapses and it’s worthless, or the company never gets to IPO so you never have the chance to sell those stocks.
The Shapiro book reminds me of old books on the truths of sorority rush and how the selection process was biased to keep out anyone who didn’t fit the secret definition of who is or isn’t a: fill-in-the-Greek-letter.
Back to pies which is more important to me than Greenland: it isn’t the crust since Ben has had savory pies. So that leaves texture and sweet stuff not being a fit. Are pie-like cookies eg jam thumbprint cookies a stepping stone to a sweet pie? Linzer Torte? How about a sweet potato pie?
Regarding “what is a woman” I mostly see it as a case of euphemism vs reality. “Trans women are women” and “correct pronouns” are polite euphemisms we use in casual conversation and with children, but when discussing medicine or law we need to discuss reality.
Trans women are men who, to varying levels of effort and success, want to live as women in society. We can’t allow the euphemism of “trans women are women” be an “I win” button that allows trans women unquestioned access to any space reserved for women.
I also think it’s useful to look to the Americans with Disability Acts for the example of “reasonable accommodation”. I think it makes sense to let trans women use most public restrooms since there’s no fool proof way to distinguish all trans women from more masculine looking cis women. Some trans women pass really well.
With sports, where we already often require sports physicals, sex confirmation could be rolled into that process.
Trump can put his Nobel on the mantle right next to his Purple Hearts. (People apparently gifted him their Purple Hearts after the assassination attempt.)
There is (unfortunately) some precedent of California taxing residents long after they leave the state. Specifically, if you receive an equity grant while a resident of California, the state will tax that equity as it vests even after you leave the state.
Hi guys! Thanks for another thoughtful episode. I really value how careful and non-ideological this podcast usually is, and I find myself agreeing with most of your conclusions.
I wanted to gently push on one part of the discussion about defining men and women, Megan. Binary definitions work for most people, but biology itself isn’t strictly binary in all cases. There are roughly 18 recognized differences of sex development (DSDs), which together are often described as a biological spectrum. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an XX fetus is exposed to excess androgens in utero, which can result in genital anatomy that doesn’t fit typical female categories, despite female chromosomes and ovaries. On the other end of the spectrum, androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) involves XY individuals whose bodies cannot respond to androgens, often resulting in a typically female phenotype despite male chromosomes. Estimates vary depending on definitions, but taken together these DSDs affect hundreds of thousands to over a million Americans. They are not hypothetical or terribly rare, and they illustrate why biological sex can’t always be reduced to a single trait like chromosomes or anatomy. As a nurse practitioner, I’ve cared for patients with these conditions. Some people are unaware of their difference until puberty, when expected physical changes don’t occur. For example, a person who appears female at birth and has always understood herself to be female may later learn, after failing to menstruate, that she lacks ovaries or a uterus, or that she has an undescended testis with real medical risks. These are biologically grounded realities, not philosophical abstractions. At the same time, I think the fairest argument on gender is partly what Josh alluded to. While sex has a biological basis, gender also includes social roles, norms, and identity, which helps explain why lived experience doesn’t always map cleanly onto biology alone. I raise this in the same spirit you bring to the show, not to score points, but to argue for precision and reality over overly simple conclusions. I agree with you on most of the broader discussion and really appreciate the consistently thoughtful approach.
The "what is a woman" segment was peak Barro. The point is, if you are going to make laws, there must be precise rules, even if the issue is nebulous. Personally, I think the primary point to accept there are 3 biological genders. Male, Female, and Other, this is a biological fact that must be in the law. You can define male, and you can define female, however, due to the magic of life, some humans are born with mutations that do not conform to the binary (this is separate from social gender). Given this, how do we handle what to do with the "others"? This brings me to my main point... Why is the government involved at all in making laws addressing gender in the first place? Most parts of the law involving gender are stupid anyway. I mean, how well can you truly enforce anti-discrimination anyway? And youth sports? Who cares. I'm completely OK with decoupling youth sports from government public schools. I think we should do it anyway, but if the gender stuff is what kicks it off, all the better. When it comes to men's and women's jails, I think the best you can do is a panel evaluating on a case by case basis. A trans woman worked in orange is the new black if I remember right.
I (sadly) rise to somewhat disagree with Megan on vice presidents. Isn't the modern vice presidency where the president is sort of a co-president based on the Carter/Mondale relationship? And that Reagan/Bush transitioned that over to Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney?
The piece I think you’re all missing about the “billionaire tax” in California is that it’s narrowly targeted at specific people. We already saw with Trump’s election and the whole shift from people like Andreesen that a lot of it grew from a feeling of betrayal from the state government and the citizens - that they’ve been the “engine of progress” driving the California economy, making the state great, making everyone in the state’s lives better, and now the state and the people are replying “Fuck you, evil pigs, everything that’s wrong in America is your fault”. And that hits two major nerves for them - (a) I think when you have all those material needs met, self-actualization and things like reputation and gratitude matter a lot more - Elon seems to have moved mostly because Alameda County offended him, and (b) if the people and the state have turned on silicon valley itself, there’s major uncertainty about whether or not they’ll continue to be able to innovate in tech at all. So it’s not just “I’m uncertain whether or not I’ll have to pay $x% at some point”; it’s “will we even be able to build companies and create new tech at all?”
(I’m not commenting on whether or not these feelings are justified or whether their perceptions are accurate - just that they’ve clearly been A Whole Major Thing)
Even relatively bleeding heart, chill silicon valley friends and colleagues of mine are livid about this. Not grumpy, fucking livid. They see it as fundamentally different than an income tax hike. They see it as *California wants to rob my kid’s college fund” and “California wants to rob me of control of my company.” It’s not a general tax increase. It’s not even a la the “mansion tax” a tax against all of some particular product or service, where you can kind of tell yourself “well, I could have bought a cheaper house, so I guess it’s worth it.” They view it as a “fuck you, evil assholes, give me 5% of your stuff and you better hope I don’t take more” grab. And given a lot of them have flirted with the idea of moving for years but haven’t wanted to give up on (kid’s school/the ocean/their house/their neighborhood/whatever), I think we’ll find this is actually the last straw for them.
"California wants to rob my kid’s college fund” - isn't this patently delusional at that wealth level? or is that kind of the point (i.e. that this level of wealth is essentially a mental disability)?
populism is the ultimate face-eater, to be sure...
That’s not necessarily a pretext either. I’m not a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, but I’ve been in a smaller version of that scenario, where technically on paper I owned $bignumber in startup stocks and assets….stocks and assets that were not possible to liquidate, never became possible to liquidate, and are now worth $0.00. If CA showed up demanding I write them a check for 5% of that phantom value, I’d have to declare bankruptcy. 🤷♂️
[edit: but yes, you’re probably right that for at least some people it’s a self-serving fantasy.]
My suspicion is that it’s highly person- and fact- specific. When you’re taxing not just actual income or liquid assets, but things like illiquid assets, public stocks, private equity, personal belongings, etc., and you’re doing so with the kind of technical valuation rules the proposal includes, especially given the restrictions that often come with startup equity, you can easily end up in a position where someone is a billionaire on paper but doesn’t have anywhere near $50-$200m that they can use to pay a tax bill. The measure does have some options for deferral that try to fix that problem, but it’s unclear how effective they’d be.
Also, with the tax pegged to the person’s net worth on 12/31/2026, you create scenarios where e.g. a founder owns a boatload of stock in their new startup which spikes in popularity, causing them to have a high net worth “on paper” on 12/31, but then the stock crashes and becomes valueless - you’re still taxed on what it was valued. It’s a more simplistic version, but think of the way you can technically/temporarily “have” a bunch of cryptocurrency or stock options in a startup that, on paper, are worth a ton. But then 2w later your memecoin collapses and it’s worthless, or the company never gets to IPO so you never have the chance to sell those stocks.
Okay, I took my money out of the market and gave it to Central Air. Now what?
" ... Profit!" I'm assuming?
Our undying gratitutde
The Shapiro book reminds me of old books on the truths of sorority rush and how the selection process was biased to keep out anyone who didn’t fit the secret definition of who is or isn’t a: fill-in-the-Greek-letter.
Back to pies which is more important to me than Greenland: it isn’t the crust since Ben has had savory pies. So that leaves texture and sweet stuff not being a fit. Are pie-like cookies eg jam thumbprint cookies a stepping stone to a sweet pie? Linzer Torte? How about a sweet potato pie?
Regarding “what is a woman” I mostly see it as a case of euphemism vs reality. “Trans women are women” and “correct pronouns” are polite euphemisms we use in casual conversation and with children, but when discussing medicine or law we need to discuss reality.
Trans women are men who, to varying levels of effort and success, want to live as women in society. We can’t allow the euphemism of “trans women are women” be an “I win” button that allows trans women unquestioned access to any space reserved for women.
I also think it’s useful to look to the Americans with Disability Acts for the example of “reasonable accommodation”. I think it makes sense to let trans women use most public restrooms since there’s no fool proof way to distinguish all trans women from more masculine looking cis women. Some trans women pass really well.
With sports, where we already often require sports physicals, sex confirmation could be rolled into that process.
Trump can put his Nobel on the mantle right next to his Purple Hearts. (People apparently gifted him their Purple Hearts after the assassination attempt.)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/veteran-gifts-trump-purple-heart-rally-virginia
There is (unfortunately) some precedent of California taxing residents long after they leave the state. Specifically, if you receive an equity grant while a resident of California, the state will tax that equity as it vests even after you leave the state.
https://dimovtax.com/state-tax-obligations-after-relocating-from-ca-to-tx-or-wa/
Is the Substack live video chat still on?
Hi guys! Thanks for another thoughtful episode. I really value how careful and non-ideological this podcast usually is, and I find myself agreeing with most of your conclusions.
I wanted to gently push on one part of the discussion about defining men and women, Megan. Binary definitions work for most people, but biology itself isn’t strictly binary in all cases. There are roughly 18 recognized differences of sex development (DSDs), which together are often described as a biological spectrum. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an XX fetus is exposed to excess androgens in utero, which can result in genital anatomy that doesn’t fit typical female categories, despite female chromosomes and ovaries. On the other end of the spectrum, androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) involves XY individuals whose bodies cannot respond to androgens, often resulting in a typically female phenotype despite male chromosomes. Estimates vary depending on definitions, but taken together these DSDs affect hundreds of thousands to over a million Americans. They are not hypothetical or terribly rare, and they illustrate why biological sex can’t always be reduced to a single trait like chromosomes or anatomy. As a nurse practitioner, I’ve cared for patients with these conditions. Some people are unaware of their difference until puberty, when expected physical changes don’t occur. For example, a person who appears female at birth and has always understood herself to be female may later learn, after failing to menstruate, that she lacks ovaries or a uterus, or that she has an undescended testis with real medical risks. These are biologically grounded realities, not philosophical abstractions. At the same time, I think the fairest argument on gender is partly what Josh alluded to. While sex has a biological basis, gender also includes social roles, norms, and identity, which helps explain why lived experience doesn’t always map cleanly onto biology alone. I raise this in the same spirit you bring to the show, not to score points, but to argue for precision and reality over overly simple conclusions. I agree with you on most of the broader discussion and really appreciate the consistently thoughtful approach.
The "what is a woman" segment was peak Barro. The point is, if you are going to make laws, there must be precise rules, even if the issue is nebulous. Personally, I think the primary point to accept there are 3 biological genders. Male, Female, and Other, this is a biological fact that must be in the law. You can define male, and you can define female, however, due to the magic of life, some humans are born with mutations that do not conform to the binary (this is separate from social gender). Given this, how do we handle what to do with the "others"? This brings me to my main point... Why is the government involved at all in making laws addressing gender in the first place? Most parts of the law involving gender are stupid anyway. I mean, how well can you truly enforce anti-discrimination anyway? And youth sports? Who cares. I'm completely OK with decoupling youth sports from government public schools. I think we should do it anyway, but if the gender stuff is what kicks it off, all the better. When it comes to men's and women's jails, I think the best you can do is a panel evaluating on a case by case basis. A trans woman worked in orange is the new black if I remember right.
I (sadly) rise to somewhat disagree with Megan on vice presidents. Isn't the modern vice presidency where the president is sort of a co-president based on the Carter/Mondale relationship? And that Reagan/Bush transitioned that over to Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney?