Silicon Valley’s Case Against The Wealth Tax

Ever had an idea for a business or side hustle, but never actually launched it?

“With Hostinger, you can turn that idea into something real in minutes instead of weeks.”

Hostinger is an all-in-one platform that brings everything into one place. Your domain, website, email marketing, AI tools, and AI agents. You can create websites, online stores, and custom maps with simple prompts, then use AI agents to automate tedious tasks and grow your business. Go to Hostinger.com/thepropg to bring your ideas online for under $3 a month.

Use promo code the PropG for an extra 20% off. Welcome to PropG markets, I'm Ed Ellson, it is May 20th, let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices ended the day in the red with tax stocks declining ahead of Nvidia's earnings due to night, rent crude, climbed back above $110 per barrel with no progress

“on Iran, and the yield on 30 year treasuries hit its highest level since 2007 on long-term”

energy inflation expectations, traders are increasingly anticipating a rate hike from the Federal Reserve, and on calcium the odds that we will see a hike this year, have climbed to 43%. Okay, what else is happening, billionaire wealth has more than doubled since 2019, and now voters want to tax it.

The 2026 billionaire tax act is officially on the November ballot in California, it would

impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of Californians worth $1 billion or more.

The union backing the measure says the goal is to prevent hospital closures across California and fund state programs, but the proposed tax has drawn fierce opposition, critics argue that wealth taxes target the people driving investment and job creation, and could push them out of the state.

“California is just the start, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Rokana have introduced”

a federal version that would go even further with a 5% annual tax on every American billionaire. So, we figured that this was a good time to have a discussion about the wealth tax with two people who have thought very hard about it. Today we are speaking with Jason Calacanis, investor and host of the all-in podcast, and also Bradley Tusk, founder and CEO of Tusk Ventures, Jason and Bradley, thank you so much for

joining me here on Prophecy Markets Bradley, I'm going to start with you because you've just written about this.

I'd like to just sort of set the stage here, with talking about taxing billion has not

just in California, but also across the rest of the nation or out of federal level. How do we get here? And when you look at California, what are the chances that you think this will actually go through? Yeah, I mean, there's, in my view, no question that we have an economic quality problem

in the United States, the question is how do you best go about solving it and to me, there's half a dozen ideas that are a lot better than a billionaires tax, and I'm saying this is someone who ran the state of Illinois, I was the deputy governor, I oversaw the state's budget and operations, and so every year I had to figure out how we were going to take in money, and then how we were going to distribute it, and I know for a fact every time

that someone like Adelson sent us a dollar in tax revenue, by the time that money reached the people in need, 30, 40 cents in that dollar was gone, and so sure we could make billionaires pay more in taxes, but odds are a lot of that really, it's just about, you know, further full-time employment for the public sector, and public sector unions will be democratic donors, and so I do think that people will have more should have to pay more.

I don't think that this is the way to do it, but the reason we're here is there is political opportunity in exploiting the anger of people, and you see that from both sides, Trump is a master of that at the right, and people like Sanders are masters on the left, and you take people's frustrations with their lives, and you stoke their anger, and you promise them revenge in justice, they will vote for you, and therefore the more they vote for you,

and the more they pay you attention, and more they donate money, the more you do it, and so we're in the self-fulfilling cycle now, we're both sides are incentivized to be as demagogues as possible, and ideas like billionaires taxes or whatever else become very popular, in terms of your second question that will this pass, I'm not sure, so the latest polling that I saw did have it at about 50% support, 28% opposed, and the other 23, wherever it was,

But if you look at calcium polymarket, it's much more like two to one against, so that kind of gives you a mixed thing, on a more basic level, on the 30 something years I spent in politics, the way I would look at this is to say, the average person, when

“they see the ballot question is going to say, does this affect me, no, do I think billionaires”

should pay more? Yes, do I want to see health care cut, no, and so that would argue that people will vote for it, however, there were some pretty fatal flaws, whether you just add a sort of greed or stupidity by the proponents, and one of them is that it allows the California legislature to expand this to any group they want, as long as consistent with the intent and purposes

of the referendum, which means that 1.1 billion could fall to 110 million, or 11 million,

or 1.1 million, what's your 1.1 million, and that's every homeowner in California pretty much, and so the opposition will have a lot of money to spend, and I think that if they can craft the right message, they can win this thing, but I think it's probably going to be pretty close. Jason, you speak with politicians, lawmakers, and you also speak with many Silicon Valley

investors. I think Silicon Valley billionaires on your podcast, and through your investing, what do you make of their reactions, how are they reacting to this, and then what do you think about this California tax?

“So I think first you have to understand, it's not a tax in the traditional sense, this”

is a seizure, so they're not just saying, "Hey, you got to pay 5% more." If it was, I don't think they would have had any reaction to it. If they said anybody with equities that are valued over this amount, or if it was, you know, wealth over a certain amount, nobody would have complained. It might have had some hand-wringing, but generally, they've been boiling the frog in New

York and in California where people pay over 50% when I live there, quite well over 50%. I think New York's up to 54%, and Bradley would know. 54. Yeah.

So, people are not complaining too much about that. If they want to opt out of it, they can, they can move to a no-tax state and say 14, 15, 16%. Okay. Great.

And this is, tell me everything in your house, Ed, tell me every painting, tell me every car.

Oh, you have the first model S, what's it worth?

Okay. Go find somebody to appraise my two, you know, classic cars, what are they worth? And then we want 5% of those, so, and then what do you have in private companies? So, it's a seizure of assets. I've already paid taxes on, all of my wealth, and so, why am I then having to organize everything

higher orders? It's just impossible to execute on these. In addition, the way it was written, people who have preferred shares, or what's called founder shares, like 10 to 1, super voting rights, would get valued at the voting rights not the actual asset.

“That's why Larry and Sergei Zuckerberg immediately left.”

Travis has left David Sachs has left the list of people leaving his huge, why? It is incredibly disruptive to have to then go, make a list of everything you own, and pay 5% of it. Nobody is upset about paying more taxes, so it's the seizure part. So it's incredibly poorly constructed.

The second piece is, everybody knows that once you start a tax, you never take it away.

It is incredibly hard to get rid of taxes, and if you smoke cigarettes, or you stay in hotels, you see the taxes, they never come down. Nobody is eliminating taxes. In some Republican states, they do lower taxes when they have a windfall, where they'll do like a tax moratorium for some period of time, if they have a surplus.

Things like universal health care, the minimum wage, there are things that we can do, but this is specifically designed as Bradley, a student pointed out, to villainize the rich, to villainize successful people, and being a modestly successful person, and knowing a lot of people who are extremely successful, there are student people, and when they hear that you want to put the eye of every socialist lunatic in New York on Ken

Griffin's house, or you want to villainize Larry and Sergei, they leave. And it's partially because, well, they know it's going to get worse. They don't want to be in a state where they're not wanted, and also it's dangerous. We've now tipped over with the United Healthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, being murdered. This is basically politicians like Rokana and others, Mondami in New York, Ernie, they're

literally putting targets on people's back, and the target they're putting on their back is this person's successful, and you should hate them for being successful.

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to have to step in and play the devil's advocate here.

I was hoping that Rokana could do it, but I'm going to do it for him, and hopefully we'll have Rokana another time we can discuss this.

“I think one response to your points, Jason, would be that there is this question of, would”

it be effective? The idea of can you appraise everyone's assets and do that every year and count up how much your art is worth in your cause and your private companies, and would you do all of that? Does that make sense? Does it, is it possible? There are very, very big questions there. But it does seem that in a lot of ways, it seems like the, the very richest, the sense

of millionaires, the billionaires, in a way, I think a lot of people would say that that is an excuse in order to not be taxed properly. And the things that people would point to, in terms of the reason that you need something like this, the reason that you would need something quite dramatic, is the fact that wealth inequality has gotten some would say way out of control, a top 19 households owning 2% of

all the household wealth up from 0.1%, just around 20 to 30 years ago, the fact that top 1% owns more of the household wealth than America than the entire middle class, that wasn't true 30 years ago. There are things that have changed here, and it seems as though this wallet might not be the most effective or easiest way to do it to Bradley's point. This is something. And then when we propose something, then suddenly the billionaires say,

this isn't possible. This isn't fair. I don't like this. I'm out of here. Some would say,

“maybe you just don't want to pay taxes. What would you say to that argument?”

Well, I want to let Bradley get in here, but I'll answer it as quickly as I can. Yeah. I don't want to monopolize the time, but what I would say is, if you think there's a better way to tax, then we should do that as opposed to villainizing folks and doing something completely impractical that's unconstitutional. I actually have some recommendations here. And as a free market capitalist myself, I've invested in 700 companies. Some of them have gotten

very big, and I invested 100 new companies a year. I do this week in startups. I've done 2,500 episodes where I interviewed startups. I'm a fan of entrepreneurship. It is the greatest force for change in the world. There's very simple things you can do before. I would like to get solutions, I think it's a born. I just want to understand where you stand on this. Do you believe that billionaires, that the richest in our society, that there should be more redistribution,

“that there should be more taxation, that they should be paying more in taxes, just generally?”

So the short answer is yes. And the reason is capital gains has not anticipated the concept of capital gains, which we want. We want people to be investing. It wasn't really designed for people to have large amounts of wealth, and to be able to set up margin loans. Anybody who's got more than $10

or $20 million can just set up a low interest mortgage, a low interest margin loan for people who

don't understand what that is. Essentially, like a credit line, you might have against your home, like a home equity line, except as against your stocks. And you can just draw down from it, pay a back. And if your stocks are growing, more than 10% a year, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10% a year. And your margin loan is mine, which is as low as 2%, which is essentially free money. Now, it's maybe more like 5%, given the, but which is still kind of free money. You know, that is an actual loophole.

And people will just keep drawing down on their margin and their equities keep going up. For a simple solution to all this is to look at capital gains and income tax and find something in the middle where we move to sort of a flat tax. And then when you take out and you're

regenerating a margin loan, you could put a tax on it. So let's say you had $10 million in net worth,

you had $2 million in a $2 million margin loan just to make this easy. You could pay the capital gains on that $2 million margin loan or pay half of them. And then if you pay the margin loan back, you would get the credit for the tax in the future, very simple solution. And then finally, I'll just say, I think we should really have a conversation about minimum wage in this country, which I didn't use to think, but my thinking on it so far, but I'll let Bradley jump in here.

Yeah, Bradley. So two suggestions there. It sounds like Jason's advocating for maybe equalized capital gains versus income tax, also some sort of borrowing tax. What do you make of Jason's thoughts and what do you agree with the disagreements? Yeah, I mean, I think those are, those are both good ideas, but let's take a half a step back, if that's okay, which is, yes, if you take your devil's advocate position, the question is, what are you solving for, right? So there are two

different things. One would be giving people who have less more, and the other would be promoting a concept of fairness. And I would say these two things are at the moment not linked together. So for example, in New York City in 2012, we had 12.7% of America's millionaires. In 2022, after tax increases,

everything else, that fell to 8.7%. And I'm certainly millionaires, not billionaires.

The resulting differential in money for New York City's and state budget was $13 billion

year in less tax revenues. She take mandami in all of his ideas and all of his plans and is deficit. All that would have been funded, if we had just maintained our percentage of millionaires, and this is why jurisdictional tax increases tend to not work particularly well, because, as Jason said, people can move, people have been moving already, and then if you are a poor person, right, and you need public housing, you need Medicaid, you need food stamps, you don't care about social

justice. You care about the money being there and the budget to provide you with these things.

“So if California, which I believe it would, at the conclusion of, if they do an act this tax,”

or New York right now, has the last money to be able to help the poor, then you're not

solving for the problem of inequality. You might be solving to make people who are upper

middle class and highly progressive feel better emotionally, because they feel like now the people who did better than them are being justly punished. I don't care about their emotional state or needs. I care about helping poor people. So the two ideas Jason threw out there, I think, are good ones. I'll throw some more out there. I think that universal basic income, where you give someone a dollar is a lot more effective than a system of taxation and then

appropriation. Now you need taxation and you need government for things that require collective action, a military, a hospital building a road, things like that, but most social services, to me would be unnecessary and you could make government smaller. You could reduce that part of the tax burden and instead direct that money and more into a system of a direct wealth transfer, where if people need money for rent or food or close for their kids or whatever it is,

they would get it. And by the way, let me give you a couple of ideas of which I'm going to depend on at this point. So to Jason's point, I left the Democratic Party about 15 years ago.

“So I have ideas that offend both sides, right? So I think when yours would be a scam,”

I think Bernie was right about Medicare for all. It is a successful government program and there's no reason not to let more people have access to it if they want. You still have private insurance that's an option as well. I think we need to take things that would really make life

more affordable. That includes tort reform. We have $367 billion a year spent on frivolous lawsuits.

That results in all of us paving higher insurance premiums. I think you need a lot more affordable housing. And as a result, that means taking a lot of the sort of sacred countless of the last. Sound like you're running, brother. No, I'm not. But I certainly have a platform at five per day. Why inless environmental review, endless community review, having to use needs to build everything. And it probably makes a very good point about people moving in geography.

This is the truth in today's era, the people who are on the top half, who are business owners and who have equities are running away with it. The people on the bottom half of society who don't own equities are stalled because America is the greatest wealth creation machine in the world. Our equities are phenomenal. That's the win of America. So instead of talking about how do we take more money from the rich, we should be really concentrating on how do we get rid of waste, which is

about 30% of all these budgets we found out. And then number two, how can we look at the systematic things that people in the lower half, non equity holders? How do we make them equity holders?

“That's what this Trump accounts, America, USA accounts. They'll handle that. That's going to take”

a 20 or 20 year story. So we close that gap from kids up and then we have the rich. So what do you do with the people in between? I've been studying minimum wage and you know, I travel all over the world in New Zealand or Australia, the Nordics. It's 15 to 20 bucks, you know, in US dollars, as high as 20 to 25 dollars. I think Switzerland or Norway might be the leader right now in the low 20s. In America, it's still federally seven and different locations. It's 15 to 18 dollars,

you know, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, etc. We really should be looking at that because when they raised the rates in those other countries, there was a lot of hand-wraining that it would have a negative impact on employment and it would have a negative impact on the economy and what the study showed in those markets and they're not perfectly analogous but they're worth studying and considering and I'm not finalized in my thoughts on this. But it turned out there was no discernible

increase in the cost of goods, like added 50 cents to a cup of coffee or a dollar to a hamburger. In other words, it was no big deal. You got rid of tipping because people were living at a livable wage and then what happened for the companies because everybody did it in US and they were forced to do it because of regulations. We had more customers who could afford

actually take the, if you're in the bottom half of society, if you make it under $100,000 a year,

“you're probably saving zero, except for mandatory savings, like Social Security, you're saving zero.”

So you spend it all. So then you just make more consumers, which is good for the rich people and you get the virtuous cycle going. And it's really like, if I say on all in, I'm for you know, reassessing the minimum wage, all your lib talk, whatever. I'm a moderate independent. Every time I bring this up, rich people have, you know, a very dogmatic approach to this. Minimum wage has to be free market. It doesn't. It doesn't. It isn't right now.

And so what would it kill society to try raising it $1 a year for five years to go from seven to 12 dollars? I can tell you, none of these motherfuckers would last a week, making $7 an hour or $15 an hour. Because they'd be taken Uber black and ordering door dash and spending 150 bucks, you know, for their lunch and to commute. So I think that's like where we need to spend her cycles. Stay tuned for more of this panel right off to the break. And by the way, I'm going to be going live

“on Substack today at 1230 Eastern. So if you want to see that head to profftymedia.com and subscribe”

to Proffty Plus. It will only be for Proffty Plus members. I hope to see you on the stream. Hey, I'm Matt Bishel, comedian, writer, and floating head. You may or may not have seen on your for you page. And I'm starting a brand new podcast. Wait, wait. Don't swipe away. It's called that sounds like a lot. As in, that feeling when you check your phone in the morning, you read three headlines and you immediately think, "Oh, that sounds like a lot. I can't deal with all this,

but guess what? I can deal with it." And I'm going to get into it every Friday. I'll break down whatever chaos is happening in the world. Then I'll sit down with a comedian. You can be progressive and not be like fucking annoying. Maybe an actor. They go, "I'm a nithom is going too far. You go, why? Does the Sadie Hawkins dare to happen?" Maybe a filmmaker. Since leaving that show, I'm challenged to sparing. I just got to hang out and try to do it. Do it alone with a charm

play. Could be a politician, basically anyone who responds to my cold DMs. We're recording the whole

thing in a beautiful studio, so yes, you can watch it on YouTube or you can listen wherever you get your podcasts. This is not the place to get the news, but it is the place to feel a little better about it. That sounds like a lot, part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Hi, I'm Maria Sharapova. Host of the Pretty Tough Podcast. Each episode, I sit down with high-achieving women to discuss the pursuit of excellence without apology. This week on the show,

comedian and best-selling author Chelsea Hamler gives her tips on independence and aging gracefully. I would argue that 50 now that I am 50 and I understand life more than I did when I was 30 or 40 is that you get so much more wisdom and you get so much more experience that you actually feel like you're beginning again. Check out Pretty Tough. New episodes on Wednesdays, you can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app.

This week on Network and Chill, we're joined by Danielle Robay, the journalist Forbes called The Queen of Questions and the host behind Reese Witherspoon's Book Club podcast and her own show, question everything. We're exploring a skill that can transform your career, relationships and bank account, knowing how to ask the right questions. Danielle breaks down the art of getting real answers and professional settings from coffee chats to career pivots and shares

the money conversations we should all be having but aren't. Get ready for hard-hitting advice on defining success beyond the dollar signs, asking better money questions with partners and friends, and the mindset shifts that separate people who stay stuck from people who keep growing. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on YouTube.com/yourrichbff. We're back with profty markets. Jason, your point that when you suggest raising the minimum wage

and then you're immediately dubbed as a libertard gets to something important here, which is that a lot of people would say that the same thing could be said for one the wealth tax but we could go a step further and say, you know, for example, Zoron Mondani's recent Pietta tax proposal. Yeah, which you know, a lot of people have been making the point where if you raise taxes

“then they'll leave and then Mamedani says, well, why don't we tax people who have already left?”

This is their second home. They're already gone. Their tax dollars are gone. Why don't we tax this?

And then again, the response is this is a libertard. This guide doesn't know what he's talking about. I think on the other side of the way that people start to feel is that we're just shooting down as many ways that we can tax rich people as possible. And we're using things like this is ineffective, you're a lip-tod, you're a communist, you're a socialist to the point where are we going to do anything? Yeah, I look, but I think a lot of it again gets to the question of,

in favor of the Pietta tax in New York and said that wasn't going to oppose it or run any

“campaigns against it, but when Mamedani then chose to make Ken Griff in the face of it,”

which was totally a necessary because the the issue is not up for debate. Like everyone supports

it. So you didn't need to do anything. Now, Griffin, who was planning a $6 billion or $350

park Avenue might instead do that in Florida in Miami, which would mean 15,000 jobs that would have gotten to New Yorkers going to people in Florida instead. And so if you care about New Yorkers and they're well-being, you wouldn't take away 15,000 jobs, but the reason why Mamedani did it, and I understand politically why he did it is he ran for office, promising social justice, promising to tax the rich, and that was an appealing message to help get him elected. He thought

he'd be able to bully Kathy Holkl into doing an income tax increase. He was totally wrong. Wasn't able to do anything. He got this effectively pretty meager tax increase, and he had to make it feel meaningful to his base. So he could get political credit for it because otherwise it would look like he failed. It was informative. He was right. And the way to do it was to make it as controversial as possible. So he deliberately picked the fight with Ken Griff and knowing that we

'd all then talk about it constantly. Yeah, what if Ken Griffon is the next person to get shot by the next mangeoni? I mean, that is literally what people are thinking, but I can tell you like everybody working in Silicon Valley. The number of people I see would security teams now, and I'm like, do you really need, I'll go to dinner with five people, and there's 15 security people. And I'm just like, what do we, what are you guys doing here? And they're like, oh, I just had a

deathrette. Oh, somebody just shot the front of my house. Somebody threw a fire bomb at my house. Oh, somebody sent a dead, you know, whatever. This is like really happening. And the answer to your question earlier, which is important, is if we're villainizing everybody, that's not helpful. But just to just to interrupt Jason, because agreed, we should not be villainizing people. We should not be posting images and videos of where Ken Griffon's house is. Yes, but

we shouldn't also assume that the anger there is just because media people have decided to villainize rich people. Sure. I think we could also assume that the anger there is real. Oh, the anger doesn't really exist in the system and it just satisfaction in the inequality that is gotten worse and worse. And the brave thing for a politician to do is say, hey, I know it's frustrating that some people are making a lot of money, and we should look at the tax code and figure

“out ways to increase their taxes. And we think there's a big win for everybody here. If you want to”

pay out a tear, we're going to ask you to pay 5% or 2% normally pay 1.5% taxes on that place. We're going to ask you to pay 5%. Why are we going to ask you if it's 5% because we have a crisis in New York of it's not livable. There's not enough homes, rent is at a record high. Yes. So we think it's reasonable for you to either sell your place and let a rent or live there or put it into Airbnb or whatever you want to do. Or just pay that 3.5%. We're taking that 3.5

by the way, and we're assigning it to this pressing issue, which is building more affordable housing. So you can feel great about paying that extra 3.5. If Mondami presented it like I just presented it, you would win 95% of people, even the rich people. They'd be like, yeah, I'm rich who cares.

Prophetic even said this on the potty, so I got a $10 million house if I pay an extra $100,

okay, what do I care? It's no big deal. I have the same position. But if you villainize people, if you put a target on their backs and you make a billionaire tax, that isn't really a tax, it's a asset seizure. That's when people go, you know what? We live in the United States of America. There are 50 options for me. I'm going to make a list of the best options. And I have a plane and I already have forehomes. So I already summer in Aspen and I go to California for two

months in the summer and I go to Hawaii. This makes no sense. I'm just going to dominole myself in Austin, which is three hours away from every other city in America. It's like being in Dubai. It's like the perfect central location to be. Spend six months here. Spend the other six

“months wherever you feel like it. So that's what politicians have to realize is rich people have”

options. Yeah. Bradley, you're going to jump in there. Yeah. Look, ultimately, if you know how to

get elected in a world of 10% primary turnout and you know who you need to appease in things you need to say, that going up to 30 40% is terrified to you. Even though it would actually free you from being hostage to the extremes, which most politicians would actually probably like. But none of the last, you know, I ran legislation in five different states this year and lost in all of them because fundamentally, I was asking the system to choose to reform itself. And it's not going to

do that. So that now puts me in the position where I've just got to try to build a big national grassroots movement, stoking the anger of people across the board and say, if you want to keep living in a world where we ignore all the solutions and just keep screaming and tweeting instead,

and if people could vote on their phone, we could get turnout up to 30 40 50% in primaries and then politicians just because they want to keep their jobs. Not because they become better people in any

“way, move to the middle and start working together and compromising simply because that's what”

the people now voting their primaries, expect of them and want from them. And so like in order to sort of actually seriously debate, discuss and implement the kinds of ideas of the three of us have been throwing around, around reducing inequality, you've got to have a political system that

actually is incentivized to want to have change in the first place and you only do that

through changing the composition of the electorate. And so to me, that's why something like mobile voting that we're working on and you can go to mobile voting.org if you want to learn more about it. It's so necessary because otherwise, you know, we're having these great conversations we might as well be sitting in the ivory tower because none of it's actually going to happen. Now we're going to reach millions. We're going to reach millions. I'm just going to

try to wrap this up. Tie a bow on this. Come next time, Rokana. I like Rokana. Actually, but he's not doing politician things. Right. And, you know, it is a shame. I'm sure

the audience will might wish that there was someone there was someone like Rowe

pushing back. I hopefully have done it a little bit. I hope we would love to have you

“on the show to discuss this at some point. But I think what we can all agree are. I also need some”

stock tips and enough enough. I think one thing we can all agree on here is that if this wealth tack doesn't go through or if it, I mean, it sounds like we all agree that it's probably not going to work because it's not actually going to be effective. It's going to be cumbersome. I probably won't even go through for a lot of reasons. But I think what we can all agree on is that if the system doesn't change itself or reorganize itself in some way,

then we will continue on this path in this trajectory where Jason is going to dinner and there are five security guards behind him because his dinner buddy literally got shot at at his home the other week because there is so much anger and because of anxiety. Well, he needs to security guys just to keep all the fans away. All the paparazzi, all the all the fans. I don't need people of me. I'm funny. People love me. I'm not creating a super intelligence to take all the job.

But what we need, then what we need a message, I have it, that other people that everyone can sort of get behind. And I guess the question for politicians, the question for lawmakers and anyone listening to this podcast and let's end with your thoughts, both of you, on what that message should really look sound and feel like. Okay, so number one, we should get rid of waste for our abuse because that's 30% and everybody can agree on that. Number two, we should really look at

“the minimum wage and I think everybody can agree that it wouldn't kill the system to just make modest”

increments there. Number three, I think rich people should be donating more to these America Trump accounts and should there should be greater philanthropy in America by the top half of Americans. Doesn't mean giving to NGOs or nonprofits, just doing interesting things with your money that helps society. And then finally, for technologists, we need to change the view of AI. I don't if you saw this week, all the commencement speeches getting booed whenever anybody evoked AI.

AI could be a profoundly powerful force. If we can solve a small set of problems that make people

who are poor or lower middle class anxious and frustrated with their lives. And I come from a lower middle class background. And my parents were basically living paycheck to paycheck. And the things that are breaking people are the cost of education, the cost of health care and the cost of homes. These are three areas that are the highest regulation in the country. And this is where the opportunity lies at. If we could have the government start taking out the regulations for

accreditation that universities for building homes faster like we do here in Texas and Nevada and Florida do as well. And we could spread that to the Democratic cities and NGOs. And then we could look at health care and use the power of AI. And the power of, you know, individually lead health care where individuals are driving it. We could lower the cost of these three things so dramatically. If we unleash the same entrepreneurs who are being vilified, those same entrepreneurs could solve

those three things. Why don't they? Why don't they attack those three categories? I've had investments in all three of those categories. The regulation and the roadblocks the government puts on any company that wants to work in housing, education or health care is insane. And then venture

And the government has a monopoly on them. We need to break that monopoly dramatically lower

the cost of homes education and healthcare. And then people would appreciate entrepreneurs because they would feel it every day. Oh, my kids getting educated. Oh, my daughter has a house near us. Not two hours away or in another city. And oh, I can go get, you know, a scan or a blood test for free or

“close to free and a body scan instead of prenovo being $3500. It could be $300 or $30. That's what”

technology could achieve. And that's where I think, you know, if I do run for office, which I've been

considering, um, I would run on that platform is unlocking those three. Proudly your message on the morale. Yeah, I'd probably a little simpler even, which is just there are reasonable, achievable solutions to almost every single problem we face, whether it is education or healthcare or taxes or

“climate or guns or immigration or anything else. But the only way we can do that is to take the power”

away from the extremes who currently dictate and control the agenda and give it back to the middle and the very people who are screaming the loudest right now are doing so because they are the ones that are the extremes and they are the ones that are using their power to empower themselves at our expense. And so if we want our country back, if we want to solve these problems,

“we don't need to come up with these brilliant new ideas or already there. But we have to choose”

to finally take the power back, participate in elections, reform the system itself and make it possible

so that all the ideas that could actually work the ideas that Jason and you and I have sort of already explained on this podcast can actually happen. Proudly Tusk is the founder and CEO of Tusk Ventures in Jason Calacanis is investor and host of the all-in podcast Jason and Bradley. Thank you for joining us. Ed, thanks for having me. Okay, that's it for today. A lot in now, we appreciate you joining us for another prof to your markets panel. If you have a guest, do you think we should

speak to on this topic or any other? Please drop us a line in the comments or email our producer Clare at [email protected]. We hope to hear from you. This episode was produced by Clare Miller and President Donald Hugh and Mia Salvario and our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profty markets from Proftymedia. If you like what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Ellison. I will see you tomorrow.