Prof G Markets - Silicon Valley’s Case Against The Wealth Tax

Episode Date: May 20, 2026

Ed Elson is joined by Jason Calacanis and Bradley Tusk to break down their perspectives on the proposed wealth tax in California. They debate the chances of it passing, whether a wealth tax would actually reduce inequality, and what other policies could more effectively redistribute wealth in America. Jason Calacanis is the Host of the All In Podcast. Bradley Tusk is the founder and CEO of Tusk Ventures. Subscribe to the Prof G Markets Youtube Channel  Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Hostinger. 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-on-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 apps with simple prompts. Then, use AI agents to automate tedious tasks and grow your business. Go to Hostinger.com slash the Prop G to bring your ideas online. for under $3 a month.

Use promo code the ProvG for an extra 20% off. Support for the show comes from Shopify. Every worthwhile journey starts with a handful of what-ifs, but one day you'll be able to look back and realize that all those what-ifs or small steps towards turning your dream into a thriving business. Shopify can help you get there. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S.

Join them and turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash Vox Business. Go to Shopify.com slash Vox Business. That's Shopify.com slash Vox Business. What does it take to be prepared for disaster? You have to be confident. You have to be calm.

Will you be perfect? No. But the idea is that you'll have your bearings and this won't be something new to you. This week, unexplain it to me, How to stay ready so you don't have to get ready. New episode Sundays, wherever you get your podcasts. If money is evil, then that building is hell. Welcome to Profi Markets. I'm Ed Elson.

It is May 20th. Let's check in on yesterday's Market Vitals. The major indices ended the day in the red with tech stocks declining ahead of Nvidia's earnings due tonight. Brent 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 height from the Federal Reserve, and on Calci,

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. and California is just the start. Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Roe-Kana 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 Profi 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. We're talking about taxing billionaires, not just in California, but also across the rest of the nation or at a 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 income and equality problem in the United States.

The question is, how do you best go about solving it? And to me, you know, there's half a dozen ideas that are a lot better than a billionaire's 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 that every time that someone like Ed Ellison sent us a dollar in tax revenue, by the time that money reached the people in need, 30, 40 cents on that dollar was gone. And so sure, we could make billionaires pay more in taxes. But odds are a lot of that really is just about, you know, further full-time employment for the public sector and public sector unions who are big Democratic donors. And so I do think that people who 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 or masters on the left. And when you take people's frustrations with their lives and you stoke their anger and you promise them revenge and justice, they will vote for you. And therefore, the more they vote for you and the more they vote for you and the more

they pay you attention, the more they donate money, the more you do it. And so we're in this self-fulfilling cycle now where both sides are incentivized to be as demagogous as possible. And ideas like billionaires' taxes or whatever else become very popular. In terms of your second question, out of, will this pass? I'm not sure. So the latest polling that I saw did have at about 50% support, 28% opposed and the other 23, whatever it was, undecided. But if you look at Calchene polling market, 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 billionaire should pay more? Yes. Do I want to see a health care cut? No. And so that would argue that people will vote for it. However, there were some pretty fatal flaws whether just out of 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 it is consistent with the intents and purposes of the referendum, which means that $1.1 billion could fall to $110 million or $11 million or $1.1 million. Once you're at $1.1 million, 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 and 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've 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 wealth over a certain amount, nobody would have complained. You 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, I played well over 50%. I think New York's up to 54%. Bradley would know.

54. Yeah, 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 save 14, 15, 16%. Okay, great. 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, hire auditors? It's just impossible to execute on these. In addition, the way it was written, people who have preferred share. 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 Sergey Zuckerberg immediately left. Travis has left, David Sachs has left. The list of people leaving is 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's eliminating taxes. In some Republican states, they do lower taxes when they have a windfall or 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,

astutely 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, they're astute 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 and Brian Thompson being murdered. Yeah. 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. Full disclosure, we were going to have Rokana on to discuss this. 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 Rowan another time, and 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 and your cars and your private companies and would you do all of that? And does that make sense? Is it possible? There are very, very big questions there. But it does seem that in a lot of ways, it seems like the very rich, the cent 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, the 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 in 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, while it 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 billionists say, 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. 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 invest in 100 new companies a year. I do this week in startups. I've done 2,500 episodes where I interview 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 we... Sorry, just Jason, because I would like to get to solutions. I think it's important. 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. Okay. 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 it's against your stocks. And you can just draw down from it, pay it 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 was 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. Very 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 originate 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, 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 used to think, but my thinking on it's evolved. 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 or disagree with? Yeah, I mean, I think those are both good, good ideas, but let's take a half a step back if that's okay, which is, 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 millions. In 2022, after tax increases, a really bad way to handle COVID, excoriation of people who are successful, more regulations, everything else, that fell to 8.7%.

And I'm sorry, millionaires, not billionaires. The resulting differential in money for New York City's and state budget was $13 billion a year in less tax revenue. She take Mondami and all of his ideas and all of his plans and his deficit, all of it 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 in the budget to provide you with these things. So if California, which I believe it would at the

at the conclusion of if they do an access tax or New York right now has less 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 throughout 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 transatlantic. where if people need money for rent or food or clothes 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 an independent 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 you're based income.

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 should still have private insurance as 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 having 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, you know, sacred callas of the left. Sounds like you're running, Bradley. No, I'm not. But I certainly have a platform if I ever did. Like endless environmental review, endless community review, having to use unions to build everything and not doing that. Bradley makes a very good point, though, about people moving and 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, that's a 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. And in New Zealand, Australia, the Nordics, it's 15 to 20 bucks, you know, in U.S. dollars as high as $20 to $25. I think Switzerland or Norway might be the leader right now in the low 20s. In America, it's still federally seven and in different locations. It's $15 to $18, you know, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, etc.

We really should be looking at that because when they raise the rates in those other countries, there was a lot of hand-wringing that it would have a negative impact on employment and it would have a negative impact on the economy. And what these studies 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. It's 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 had a livable wage. And then what happened for the companies, because everybody did it in unison.

They were forced to do it because of regulations. We had more customers who could afford to go to Starbucks and buy a $5 coffee or could afford to buy the next pair of Nikes. So you actually take the – if you were in the bottom half of society, if you may go 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, oh, you're a libtard, 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, for, five years, to go from seven to $12. 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-blocked and ordering DoorDash and spending $150 bucks, you know, for their lunch and to commute. So I think that's like where we need to spend our cycles. Stay tuned for more of this panel, rights after 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 toprofgeemedia.com and subscribe to Profgey Plus. It will only be for Profftie Plus members. I hope to see you on the stream.

Hey, I'm Matt Bichelle, comedian, writer, and floating head you may or may not have seen on your 4U 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 through headlines and you immediately think, oh, that sounds like a lot. I can 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, feminism has gone too far. You go, why? Because the Sadie Hawkins dance happened? Maybe a filmmaker.

Since leaving that show, I'm challenged sparing. I just guy to hang out and try to do stuff. You're the one with a charmed life. 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 podcast. 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 Sharpova, 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, journalist Dean at USC, and now, along with her husband, Bob Iger, owner the Angel City FC women's soccer team. Willow Bay. I said, Bob, are you interested in doing this? And he said, absolutely. But I was definitely the driving force, I think, in the conviction about Angel City.

Check out Pretty Tough. New episodes on Wednesdays. You can watch it on YouTube or listen in your favorite podcast app. Okay, so today we're driving to Southern New Jersey. And heading to a data center. A couple weeks ago, I read a story in NJ.com. And it was all about how there's a data center going up in Cumberland. the poorest county in New Jersey that's receiving some community pushback.

And this immediately got my attention because data centers are going up all across the country. I feel like we should be hearing politicians talk more about this, but we haven't really heard a consensus. Are data centers really a necessary evil? Let's find out. This is technology we've never seen before. Right. Experiment. Right.

And we're the getting picked down here. And we're the guinea pigs. Right. And where the guinea pigs are. Exactly. One thing that happens in this country is there's no planning for the future. Is it benefiting people or is it benefiting the elite and the money that's going into their pockets? This is not about abstract politics. It's about people's everyday lives.

That's this week on America Actually. We're back with Profi Markets. Jason, your point that when you suggest raising the minimum wage and then you're immediately dubbed as a Libthard 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, Zeranamani's recent Pieter 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 Mamdani 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, this is. is a Libthad. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. I think on the other side, 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 Libthard,

you're a communist, you're a socialist, to the point where are we going to do anything? Yeah. And look, but I think a lot of it, again, gets to the question of, are you trying to solve problems or are you just trying to support political point? So, you know, I came out in favor of the Petitare Tax in New York and said that I wasn't going to oppose it or run any campaigns against it. But when Madami then chose to make Ken Griffin the face of it, which was totally unnecessary because the issue's not up for debate. Like everyone supports it. So he didn't need to do anything. Now Griffin, who was planning a $6 billion renovation of 350 Park Avenue might instead do that in Florida in Miami, which would mean 15,000 jobs that would have gone to New Yorkers, going to people

in Florida instead. And so if you care about New Yorkers and their well-being, you wouldn't take away 15,000 jobs. But the reason why Mondani did it, and I understand politically why he did it is he ran for office, promising social justice, promised into tax the rich. And that was an appealing message that helped get him elected. He thought he'd be able to bully Kathy Hockel 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 performative. Right, and the way to do it was to make it as controversial as possible, so he deliberately picked the fight with Ken Griffin, knowing that we'd all then talk about it constantly. Yeah, what if Ken Griffin is the next person

who gets shot by the next Mangione? I mean, that is like literally what people are thinking. But I can tell you, like, everybody working in Silicon Valley, the number of people I see with security teams now, and I'm like, do you really neat? Like, I'll go to dinner with five people, and there's 15 security people. And I'm just like, what are we, what are you guys doing here? And they're like, oh, I just had a death threat. Oh, somebody just shot the front of my house. Somebody threw a fire bomb at my house.

Oh, somebody sent the dead, you know, whatever. This is like really happening. And the answer to your question, Ed, earlier, which is important, is if we're villainizing everybody, that's not. helpful. But just to interrupt, Jason, because agreed we should not be villainizing people, we should not be posting images and videos of where Ken Griffin'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 is certainly real. Because of a dissatisfaction in the system and a dissatisfaction in the inequality that has gotten

worse and worse. Right. 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 own a Pia d'A. Deere, we're going to ask you to pay 5 percent or 2 percent. Normally you pay 1.5 percent taxes on that place. We're going to ask you to pay 5 percent. Why are we going to ask you as 5 percent? Because we have a crisis in New York of it's not livable. There's not enough homes. Rent is at a record high. 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 three and a half. We're taking that three and a half, 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 three and a half. If Mandami 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? Prof. She even said this on the potty. He's like, oh, I got a $10 million house. If I pay an extra $100K, 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's tax, that isn't really a tax, it's an 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 four homes. 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 domicile 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, percent primary turnout and you know who you need to appease and things you need to say, that going up to 30, 40 percent 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 nonetheless, 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, then just keep things the way they are. But, you know, if most people by definition are moderate and if people could vote on their phone, we could get turnout up to 30, 40, 50 percent 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 in 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 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, is 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. No, we're going to reach millions. We're going to reach millions here. I'm just going to try to wrap this up, Ty Bow on this.

Come next time, Roe-Connor. I like Roe, actually. But he's a politician doing politician things. Right. And, you know, it is a shame. I'm sure. the audience might wish that there was someone, there was someone like Roe pushing back. I hopefully have done it a little bit about job. Or AOC. Or Roe. We would love to have you on the show to discuss this at some point. But I think what we can all agree on.

I also need some stock tips. Enough. Enough. I think one thing we can all agree on here is that if this wealth tax 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 and it 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 and 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 a security guards just to keep all the fans away. I mean, all the paparazzi, all the fans. I don't need it. People love me. I'm funny. People love me.

I'm not creating a super intelligence to take all the jobs. But what we need then, 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 fraud and 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 there should be greater philanthropy. in America by the top half of Americans, does it 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 know if you saw this week, all the commencement speech is 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 accreditations at 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 led health care where individuals are driving it. We could lower the cost of these three things so dramatically if we unleash the same. 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 capitalists and entrepreneurs just say, you know what, not worth it to go after those three. And the government has a monopoly on them. We need to break that monopoly, dramatically lower the cost of homes, education, and health care. And then people would appreciate entrepreneurs because they would feel it every day. Oh, my kid's 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 Pernovo being $3,500, 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, I would run on that platform, is unlocking those three. Bradley, your message, and then we'll wrap. Yeah. 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 health care, or taxes, or climate, or guns, or immigration, or anything else. But the only way we can do that is to take power away from the extreme. 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

they're already there, but we have to choose to finally take the power back, participate in elections, reform the same, 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, you know, explained on this podcast can actually happen. Bradley Tusk is the founder and CEO of Tusk Ventures and Jason Kalakanis is an investor and host

of the All In podcast, Jason and Bradley. Thank you for joining us. Ed, thanks for having. It's a pleasure. Okay, that's it for today. lot in there. We appreciate you joining us for another Profi Markets panel. If you have a guest you think we should speak to on this topic or any other, please drop us a line in the comments or email our producer Claire at Markets at ProfgMedia.com. We hope to hear from you.

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss, edited by Joel Patterson, and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalin Isabella Kinsel, Chris O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio, and our social producer. is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profty Markets from Profitie Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.