If you already own highly appreciated QQQ in a taxable account then your options are limited, since moving to a different ETF would realize the capital gain. It may be preferable to hold even if you think you're losing money buying SpaceX at an inflated price, if selling would lose even more in taxes.

If you own an ETF that buys SpaceX but without overweighting vs. float, then you're not contributing to the inflated price in that sense. You're still buying at the inflated price though, so the NASDAQ rule change still affects you indirectly.

I guess the point of the "wealth tax" comment is that any higher taxation of the wealthiest individuals would reduce their power to shape the rules to their favor, and a wealth tax is potentially harder to avoid than income taxes. I think most prior attempts just made them emigrate, though.

As soon as you try to do something more efficient than:

mv some_rich_ppl_money some_poor_ppl

You're making it more inefficient; any other hop in such a system is inefficiency.

Such a tiny minority of real people are not that important to the species. Maybe that important to some mind palace of some contemporary meat suits but they're going to die anyway; kicking the can down the road for future people. If we can fuck the future, fuck us then. Our existence is just as forfeitable

My neighbors and family have been expressing such. If we're just going to screw the next generation via environmental collapse and serfdom to rich overlords they opt to give up on the living enabling it

oh baby, that's the just 'new' way they screw ya

> Why bend the rules[?]

> for a trillionaire[!]

This writes itself. It shouldn't, but "should" as a concept needs a lot of work.

And even that isn't accurate. They are not bending the rules for a trillionaire, they are maintaining the consistency more systemic rules. This is how it has always been. We can all point to real or perceived ethical islands. They certainly exist, and are worth creating and preserving. But for now, the sea still sets the rules, and the sea is deep. For the deeper system, island visibility is a useful distraction. Sometimes something heavy moves near the surface and we misinterpret visibility as exception.

By now, questioning "who are they" is naive or plain weak.

The unknown subject is a valid construction in language. It is not necessary to be able to answer "who's they?". It is semantically equivalent to saying "I knew the rules would be changed."

There are also perfectly ordinary situations in which this pattern is used to imply the influence of an unknown party. "They built a bridge over the river." Clearly the speaker does not believe that bridges over rivers construct themselves. She doesn't need to know who built the bridge.

Open your eyes? Everyone on the top 1000 Forbes and at trumps inauguration?

Yes.