Blake Faulkner 🌉

Having a wife is crazy because its like Palantir for what we need from the grocery store

Calling all those with a desire to make our nation's infrastructure beautiful 🇺🇸

@ndstudio Natl park site reworks would be awesome

To federal government agencies: if you have small blogs or static sites and you'd like them to be redesigned at no cost, please reach out

@cremieuxrecueil if any freemasons want to help on identifying the era of my newest fb mktplace purchase that'd be awesome!

I am requiring all Freemasons to identify themselves.

why not just raise income tax rates? because your real intent is not to just “provide healthcare”. you’re masking that you are proposing the creation of, for the first time in the 250 years of this American republic, an organized government seizure of private property from citizens. you’re calling it a “wealth tax” or a “billionaires tax” or “millionaires tax” or whatever nom du jour polls well. but at the end of the day, it’s the seizure of private property from citizens by the government. citizens that earned money, paid their fair taxes on those earnings (53% if they live in California) and are now being told they need to hand over after-tax assets because the government has failed to provide promised services with the revenue it’s collected, and are now re-casting their own failure to be a socio-economic inequity that must be justly resolved... a slippery slope that has never gone anywhere good (see economic effects in USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, France and Norway wealth tax etc.) the American founders fled tyranny in Europe and this amazing nation was populated by immigrants (myself and your parents) from around the world not just looking for a “better life” but for a place where they could have freedom from tyrannical governments that can take what they want from private citizens. a great nation borne of property rights, the rule of law, and endowed freedoms to believe, speak, or act. these principles led to the greatest run of innovations, successes, and widespread increase in prosperity, for all citizens, ever seen. the citizens, the individuals, not the institutions, delivered this progress. those who invented, who toiled, who bled, who sacrificed, who took risk and persevered, who led, and who changed the world, are not charlatans, kleptocrats, or oligarchs. they’re what made us all better off. prosperity is a measure of america’s success, not its failure. it is your principle that is so offensive, as evidenced by the broad disdain for your flippant flirtation with the darkest of human fantasy - socialism. you and other neo-socialists have led so many of us to reflect on America’s history and what it is becoming. that now leads so many to consider, so unnecessarily, leaving their homes for a place where everyone stands up to shout down the principle you suggest. because if your ideas are now considered moderate, it’s clear this titanic is sinking. that a “simple tax” of taking assets that have been earned, through toil and tribulation, rightly taxed, and preserved, should now be unjustly seized, is your solution to a problem of obvious government mismanagement and outright fraud, tells us that your true motivation lies not in giving people healthcare but in cutting down success and deleting the system of prosperity and opportunity for all. i don’t care, and neither should anyone else, what the sum total market value of a private citizens private assets might be. it is none of my business and should be none of yours. because, again, once you open that pandora’s box, we might as well study Lord of the Flies … there is literally nothing stopping 51% of citizens demanding that their government go out and seize 100% of the private property of the 49%. want to give healthcare to people in need? do your job and fix healthcare. make it affordable. want to be lazy about it? then do your job lazily and raise income taxes. want to take private property from private citizens who have paid their fair share of taxes and legally earned their property, then honestly declare that it is envy, not inequity, that you strive to resolve…

Sure thing. You asked for a post explaining the nuance so here you go! I'm sorry for the length; you'll see that at the end it all ties back to funding health insurance for your constituents… As you know, companies can be private or public. Holders of public company stock can trade in liquid, public markets after the lock-up period expires. Let's ONLY focus on startups that are private because this is an absolutely critical policy point. It's very easy to accidentally kill the goose (Silicon Valley) that lays the golden eggs (startups that get big and create tax revenue for California). From your reply, I think you are assuming that the situation where a private company founder has "truly illiquid" stock is an exception. This is not the case. Example: a private company raises a new round at a multi-billion dollar valuation! Everyone is excited! This thing might actually work! Some shareholders like the founders (and potentially early employees) might now need to pay the wealth tax, but they can’t pay a tax in company stock. Assuming a typical situation where the founder’s net worth is entirely tied to their company, they will need to sell more than the $$ amount levied by the wealth tax because they need to first pay capital gains. In other words, they face a double tax event. Now let's fast forward a single year. Unfortunately things haven’t gone according to plan (either due to macro events or other factors) and the company can’t raise an up-round or even execute a tender offer at the same valuation again. There isn't any secondary demand at the last round price; there are simply no buyers. Now the founders need to pay the 1-2% wealth tax again. But all their “wealth” is “paper money” from the company stock they hold at the last valuation. What can they do? Three options come to mind. LMK if I’m missing something. (1) Since the founders can’t sell stock at the last round valuation, they could reduce the valuation of the company through a down round. This risks key team members leaving. It also might be harder to recruit new key talent. And this is assuming there's an investor willing to do a down round, which is not always the case. This is also ethically complicated… if the founders choose this option purely due to a personal tax situation, they might be prioritizing their needs above the needs of their team. (2) The founders could take out a big loan to pay a tax bill that might not even be accurate. This is very risky. Even if the company executes perfectly, the macro environment might falter and the founders might never be able to repay the loan. The founders are potentially risking personal bankruptcy. (3) If it's a California wealth tax... then the founders could just leave California. This is not a contrived situation. Most startups don't work out. Almost all private startups have ups and downs... even in the “growth” stage with "billions" in market cap. And the oscillations of these ups and downs are happening faster and faster these days for many private companies. The best startup founders plan ahead and feel responsibility for their employees. If they think staying in California is a risk to their business, their employees, their families... then they will simply leave for somewhere else. Silicon Valley startups (ironically) follow the herd. Once enough respected companies / founders establish a pattern, other startups will follow, even if the wealth tax does not apply to them yet. (Every startup founder believes their company will be the next big thing.) So, in summary, if there's a California wealth tax that applies to the founders of private companies: 1. There are many situations where the founders of private companies will not be able to pay it and will be forced to consider leaving California. 2. Smart founders thinking ahead will mitigate this risk by leaving California before the situation applies. 3. The herd will follow the best and brightest founders / companies. 4. California will lose the next generation of big, important, job / tax generating companies. 5. This will lead to less tax revenue, less state healthcare funding, less education funding, etc. I hope this post helped explain why it's a bad idea to try and implement a California based wealth tax that targets the unrealized gains of private company stock. This is just ONE aspect of why a California wealth tax is bad policy. Happy to discuss further…

@1776pax @uaustinorg Didnt know that - super cool!

@imblakefaulkner @uaustinorg Banger. That's a Cutler chute. They did many letter boxes for the USPS in the late 19th c. postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibition/cus…

Lovely old letterboxes

@1776pax @uaustinorg

@1776pax Theres a really cool one in the lobby of the @uaustinorg building!

@ElizabethHolmes Where do we sign up fr

Starting a book club. If you would like to join comment here. How can I curate a group on X for private conversations? Subscription, group chat, something else? Let me know your thoughts. Going to post weekly about the book and want deep discussions.

@CatuliEamus @andrew__reed Its on 1st dibs and says in the listing, I looked at it awhile back because it was an interesting piece

@imblakefaulkner @andrew__reed Can watch fans tell by looking or do you have to open it to confirm it’s a refurbished model?

Not a watch guy but

On the 24th anniversary of 9/11, we honor the lives lost, the heroes who emerged, and the resilience of the American spirit. America will never forget.

@laserboat999 sick

My first time hearing that but 🙏🏾 lol but fr I need investors I don't think they on twitter

@E_Bruxxx This is sick

As an OSU alum, could not be happier for this collab 🇺🇸

@georgep_18 Thats so sick

Guess the tube station

@growing_daniel this is great

I went to the colonial McDonalds and they said death to burger Kings

@creatine_cycle Lmao

Excuse me San Francisco I’m here from El Segundo and wtf