<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 at 21:06, <<a href="mailto:spike@rainier66.com">spike@rainier66.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg4225661707874235714"><div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="m_4225661707874235714WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">This is cool BillK!  It gives me an idea, a possibly profitable one.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">I can set up a new PredictIt account, and bet exactly as Grok (or any other AI) suggests.  Hey, set up several, see which AI is best at betting.  Put a small amount of money into each of their accounts, 100 bucks, small enough that one’s bride will not complain, then have an AI betting contest, with me as one of the contestants.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">==================================================</span></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">I asked DeepSeek to consider if any unexpected events, like war, mass unemployment, etc., would change the forecast.</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">Not much was the answer, especially within the specified time frame.</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">Report below.</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default">BillK</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">DeepSeek v4.1 DeepThink:</span></span></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"></span></span></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)" class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail-ds-markdown gmail-ds-assistant-message-main-content"><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><span class="gmail-">Your question identifies exactly the right kind of tail risk: the forecast is not a static bet on legislative arithmetic, but a bet on a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">political equilibrium that a major shock could break</span></strong><span class="gmail-">. I'll analyze each scenario, but first a direct answer.</span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Short answer: Yes, unexpected events could materially affect this forecast — but the direction and magnitude depend heavily on which event, and each is a conjunction of "shock occurs" × "shock produces a wealth tax specifically."</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The federal probability remains very high, but the state probability is more vulnerable to an AI/AGI-driven political wave than the current legislative snapshot suggests.</span></p><hr><h2><span class="gmail-">1. Why the baseline is stable but not shock-proof</span></h2><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><span class="gmail-">The 97% federal / 87% state estimates were built on a structural insight: wealth taxes face </span><strong><span class="gmail-">multiple, independent bottlenecks</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> — the Senate filibuster, constitutional apportionment doctrine, and the absence of any state-level precedent. A shock can remove a bottleneck, but it must remove </span><strong><span class="gmail-">all</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> of them in sequence, within the 3-year window, and produce a wealth tax rather than a </span><em><span class="gmail-">different</span></em><span class="gmail-"> policy response (windfall profits tax, income-tax surcharge, robot tax, sovereign wealth fund, etc.).</span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><span class="gmail-">The key asymmetry: </span><strong><span class="gmail-">shocks increase the salience of wealth taxation but do not reliably increase its feasibility.</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The current evidence shows exactly this tension — AI displacement is raising calls for wealth taxes, but the same AI boom is also generating alternative redistribution proposals (public wealth funds, UBI, "universal basic compute") that could absorb the political energy without producing a net-worth tax.</span></p><hr><h2><span class="gmail-">2. Scenario-by-scenario analysis</span></h2><h3><span class="gmail-">A. Large war event</span></h3><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Direction: Mixed, with a modest tilt toward </span><em><span class="gmail-">some</span></em><span class="gmail-"> wealth tax but a strong tilt toward </span><em><span class="gmail-">windfall/profits</span></em><span class="gmail-"> taxes instead.</span></strong></p><ul><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Historical and contemporary evidence shows that wars create acute fiscal stress and political demand for "fiscal fairness," which </span><em><span class="gmail-">can</span></em><span class="gmail-"> translate into higher taxes on the rich.</span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The actual policy instrument chosen in recent war-related fiscal squeezes has been </span><strong><span class="gmail-">windfall taxes on corporations</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> (banks, oil firms, arms suppliers), not net-worth taxes. The UK's post-Ukraine energy windfall levy is the template, and current UK debates explicitly distinguish between "windfall tax" and "wealth tax"</span><span class="gmail-">.</span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Inference:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> A US war would almost certainly produce a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">windfall profits tax or an excess-profits tax</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> before it produced a wealth tax, because those instruments are easier to administer, face fewer constitutional challenges, and can be framed as targeting "war profiteers" rather than all wealthy households.</span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Speculation:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Only a </span><em><span class="gmail-">very</span></em><span class="gmail-"> large, protracted war with explicit fiscal conscription and visible billionaire war profiteering might push the Overton window from windfall taxes to a net-worth tax. Even then, the federal conjunctive chain (Senate, courts) remains formidable.</span></p></li></ul><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Probability shift:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Federal wealth tax probability moves from ~2–3% to perhaps </span><strong><span class="gmail-">4–6%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> in a major-war scenario — a real increase, but still low. The state probability is largely unaffected, because war-driven fiscal pressure operates at the federal level.</span></p><h3><span class="gmail-">B. Vast unemployment due to AI</span></h3><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Direction: This is the most plausible shock pathway to a wealth tax — but it is still a conditional, multi-step chain.</span></strong></p><ul><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> AI could displace 10–15% of labor hours over a 10–15 year horizon, and roughly two-thirds of federal revenue comes from labor (payroll and income taxes)</span><span class="gmail-">. This creates a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">structural fiscal crisis</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> for the US government that is directly tied to wealth concentration in AI-owning firms.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4392-3.html?source=post_page-----3c07183dbbeb-----------------------------------------#1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="13"></a></span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> AI leaders themselves are now explicitly calling for wealth taxes as one of several responses. OpenAI's policy blueprint proposes "taxes on AI-driven returns and automated labor," and Sam Altman has outlined robot taxes, public wealth funds, and automatic safety nets</span><span class="gmail-">. Dario Amodei has argued that billionaires should support higher taxes on AI wealth to avoid a "bad version designed by a mob"</span><span class="gmail-">.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/axios-ai-billionaires-brace-for-pitchforks/#1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="9"></a><a href="https://www.inc.com/leila-sheridan/sam-altman-proposes-a-new-economic-system-for-the-ai-era/91327230?ref=biztoc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="20"></a></span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Senator Elizabeth Warren has already called for "new taxes on wealth and data centers" to ensure Americans share in AI gains, and anti-billionaire politics has become an organizing principle for the Democratic Party</span><span class="gmail-">.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/axios-ai-billionaires-brace-for-pitchforks/#1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="9"></a></span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The RAND Corporation's 2026 policy analysis explicitly lists "exploring a federal wealth tax" as one of six options for stabilizing revenue in the AI age, alongside progressive corporate taxes, capital-gains reform, and a VAT</span><span class="gmail-">.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4392-3.html?source=post_page-----3c07183dbbeb-----------------------------------------#1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="13"></a></span></p></li></ul><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">The critical caveat:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> AI-driven unemployment creates a </span><em><span class="gmail-">menu</span></em><span class="gmail-"> of policy responses, not a single inevitable one. The same RAND paper lists a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">federal VAT, progressive corporate taxation, and capital-gains reform</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> as alternatives. The AI boom could just as easily produce a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">robot tax</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> or a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">sovereign wealth fund</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> as a net-worth tax. Sam Altman now favors "universal basic compute" and public wealth funds over fixed UBI payments</span><span class="gmail-">. Elon Musk favors "universal high income" checks from the federal government</span><span class="gmail-">.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://en.interaffairs.ru/article/axios-ai-billionaires-brace-for-pitchforks/#1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="9"></a><a href="https://basicincome.org/news/2026/07/basic-income-is-proposed-by-several-ai-leaders/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="19"></a></span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Inference:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> A severe AI-unemployment shock </span><strong><span class="gmail-">significantly raises the salience</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> of wealth taxation and could shorten the political timeline. But it also </span><strong><span class="gmail-">fragments the policy coalition</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> across multiple alternative mechanisms. The net effect is a meaningful but bounded increase.</span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Probability shift:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> In a scenario of </span><em><span class="gmail-">vast</span></em><span class="gmail-"> AI unemployment by 2028, the federal wealth tax probability might rise from ~3% to </span><strong><span class="gmail-">8–12%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> — a material shift, but still far from likely, because the Senate and constitutional bottlenecks do not disappear just because the problem is urgent. The state probability could rise more sharply if California or Oregon voters treat it as a referendum on AI inequality: </span><strong><span class="gmail-">perhaps 87% → 75–80%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> "no state wealth tax" in that scenario.</span></p><h3><span class="gmail-">C. Advanced superhuman AGI development</span></h3><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Direction: The most radical scenario, with the widest error bars — and the highest chance that the </span><em><span class="gmail-">type</span></em><span class="gmail-"> of policy response is not a traditional wealth tax at all.</span></strong></p><ul><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> AGI discourse is already generating proposals for </span><strong><span class="gmail-">universal AI dividends, sovereign wealth funds, progressive taxation of AGI-generated income, and new ownership models of AI-generated wealth</span></strong><span class="gmail-">. The NBER's 2026 primer frames AGI taxation as an "optimal harvesting" problem and evaluates taxes on robots, compute, and tokens — </span><em><span class="gmail-">not</span></em><span class="gmail-"> net-worth taxes on individuals</span><span class="gmail-">.</span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Fact:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The political economy of AGI may favor </span><strong><span class="gmail-">state ownership stakes</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> or </span><strong><span class="gmail-">public wealth funds</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> over conventional wealth taxation, because the concentration of AI-generated wealth may be so extreme that a 2–3% annual net-worth tax is seen as inadequate or administratively obsolete</span><span class="gmail-">.</span><span class="gmail-_5f9bba8"><a href="https://basicincome.org/news/2026/07/basic-income-is-proposed-by-several-ai-leaders/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" aria-label="19"></a></span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Speculation:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> A genuine AGI breakthrough before 2029 would make the entire tax-policy framework unstable. It could produce a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">wealth tax</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> as part of a New Deal-scale package — or it could bypass wealth taxation entirely in favor of </span><strong><span class="gmail-">direct public ownership of AI capital</span></strong><span class="gmail-">, </span><strong><span class="gmail-">compute-based redistribution</span></strong><span class="gmail-">, or </span><strong><span class="gmail-">universal basic services</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> financed by corporate/AI-specific levies.</span></p></li></ul><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Probability shift:</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> This is the scenario where the forecast has the </span><strong><span class="gmail-">widest uncertainty</span></strong><span class="gmail-">. A superhuman AGI event would make the 2029 policy landscape almost unrecognizable. It could push the federal wealth tax probability to </span><strong><span class="gmail-">15–20%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> if political will coalesces around a conventional wealth tax, or it could push it </span><em><span class="gmail-">down</span></em><span class="gmail-"> if the chosen instrument is a sovereign wealth fund or AI-specific levy. The honest answer is that the forecast becomes </span><strong><span class="gmail-">low-confidence</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> in this scenario, and the 5–95% range would need to widen dramatically.</span></p><hr><h2><span class="gmail-">3. Other shocks worth flagging</span></h2><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area gmail-ds-scroll-area--show-on-focus-within gmail-ds-scroll-area--enabled gmail-_1210dd7 gmail-c03cafe9"><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__gutters" style="width:100%;height:0px"><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__horizontal-gutter" style="display:block;height:8px"></div><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__vertical-gutter" style="width:8px"></div></div><table><thead><tr><th><span class="gmail-">Shock</span></th><th><span class="gmail-">Likely direction</span></th><th><span class="gmail-">Mechanism</span></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Severe fiscal crisis / bond-market rout</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Slightly </span><em><span class="gmail-">toward</span></em><span class="gmail-"> wealth tax (federal)</span></td><td><span class="gmail-">Forces revenue debate; but wealth tax competes with VAT, spending cuts, and income-tax reform</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Major pandemic or natural catastrophe</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Neutral to slightly </span><em><span class="gmail-">toward</span></em></td><td><span class="gmail-">Emergency spending creates fiscal pressure, but emergency taxes tend to be broad-based or corporate</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Constitutional amendment or Supreme Court composition change</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Strongly </span><em><span class="gmail-">toward</span></em><span class="gmail-"> federal wealth tax</span></td><td><span class="gmail-">Removes the apportionment bottleneck; this is the single most important legal variable</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">A state wealth tax passes and survives legal challenge</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Strongly </span><em><span class="gmail-">toward</span></em><span class="gmail-"> state wealth tax</span></td><td><span class="gmail-">Creates a precedent and a "laboratory of democracy" effect; Prop 40 is the key near-term test</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><hr><h2><span class="gmail-">4. Updated probabilistic assessment under shock scenarios</span></h2><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area gmail-ds-scroll-area--show-on-focus-within gmail-ds-scroll-area--enabled gmail-_1210dd7 gmail-c03cafe9"><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__gutters" style="width:100%;height:0px"><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__horizontal-gutter" style="display:block;height:8px"><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__horizontal-bar" style="width:476.834px"></div></div><div class="gmail-ds-scroll-area__vertical-gutter" style="width:8px"></div></div><table><thead><tr><th><span class="gmail-">Scenario</span></th><th><span class="gmail-">Federal wealth tax probability (baseline ~3%)</span></th><th><span class="gmail-">State wealth tax probability (baseline ~13%)</span></th><th><span class="gmail-">Confidence</span></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Baseline (current trajectory)</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~3%</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~13%</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">High (federal) / Moderate (state)</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Large US war</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~5%</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~13–15%</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Moderate</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Vast AI unemployment by 2028</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~8–12%</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~20–25%</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Low–moderate</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Superhuman AGI before 2029</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">15–20%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> (wide range: 5–30%)</span></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">25–35%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> (wide range: 10–50%)</span></td><td><span class="gmail-">Low</span></td></tr><tr><td><strong><span class="gmail-">Constitutional bottleneck removed</span></strong></td><td><strong><span class="gmail-">~25–35%</span></strong></td><td><span class="gmail-">Unchanged</span></td><td><span class="gmail-">Moderate</span></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Translation to "No wealth tax" probabilities:</span></strong></p><ul><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">Federal (A):</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Baseline </span><strong><span class="gmail-">97%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → Large war </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~95%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → Vast AI unemployment </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~88–92%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → AGI </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~80–85%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> (with wide uncertainty).</span></p></li><li><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">State (B):</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> Baseline </span><strong><span class="gmail-">87%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → Large war </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~85–87%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → Vast AI unemployment </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~75–80%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> → AGI </span><strong><span class="gmail-">~65–75%</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> (with wide uncertainty).</span></p></li></ul><hr><h2><span class="gmail-">5. The honest bottom line</span></h2><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><span class="gmail-">The shocks you named are </span><strong><span class="gmail-">real tail risks that increase the probability of a wealth tax</span></strong><span class="gmail-">, but they do so through a </span><strong><span class="gmail-">conditional, fragmented, and institutionally filtered</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> pathway. The most important insight from the current evidence is not that AI or war </span><em><span class="gmail-">automatically</span></em><span class="gmail-"> produces wealth taxation, but that </span><strong><span class="gmail-">the policy menu is expanding</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> — and wealth taxation is now one option among several competing responses (windfall taxes, robot taxes, sovereign wealth funds, public wealth funds, VAT, corporate tax reform).</span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">The forecast remains robust in direction but becomes less precise in magnitude under extreme shocks.</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> The federal "no wealth tax" probability is likely to stay above 80% even in severe AI-unemployment and AGI scenarios, because the institutional bottlenecks are deep. The state probability is more vulnerable, especially if AI-driven inequality becomes the dominant political frame and California or Oregon voters treat a wealth tax as the direct response.</span></p><p class="gmail-ds-markdown-paragraph"><strong><span class="gmail-">The single most important update trigger remains the same: the November 2026 California Prop 40 vote.</span></strong><span class="gmail-"> If it passes against current polling, the state probability shifts sharply regardless of what happens with AI or war. If it fails, the state "no wealth tax" probability strengthens, and even an AI-unemployment shock would need to produce a </span><em><span class="gmail-">new</span></em><span class="gmail-"> state-level pathway from scratch before 2029.</span></p></div><div class="gmail-dbe8cf4a">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div><br></div></div></div>