ZOHCOLD

I’m impatiently patiently working & investing for the millions. All positive vibes here. ✝️ Peace be with you all. Don’t sleep on $GOOG $ASTS $PLTR $UNH $OSCR

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

On June 3, 2026 Jesus told me that with him —-> You lead by following. 🙏🏾

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@solventx_ @ManagerTactical We shall see😊

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

Happy Sunday!! 🙏🏾

https://t.co/iu0WuCykcT

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

Say NO to the “wealth tax” ‼️‼️

[Steven Fiorillo @stevenfiorillo]

California’s proposed one-time 5% billionaire tax is being sold the way every wealth tax is sold: as a surgically precise levy on a couple of hundred people. But if American history teaches us anything it’s that a tax built for the top never stays there.

In 1913, Americans were told the brand-new federal income tax would only impact the rich. This was pitched as the ultimate tool to make the robber barons pay and started at a modest 1% on income over $3,000. It topped out at 7% on earnings over $500,000 (roughly $16 million in today's dollars).

Yet by 1944, the top rate had skyrocketed to 94%. During that same era, wartime legislation quietly introduced paycheck withholding. In just a few decades, a tax designed for a few thousand tycoons morphed into the machine that funds the entire federal government straight out of our paychecks. Rates eventually came down after the war, but the baseline ratcheted up forever. Today, the tax that was supposed to only touch the Carnegies and Vanderbilts takes a slice out of a barista’s paycheck.

Keep that history in mind this November, as Californians vote on a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of the state’s billionaires. Once again, we are hearing the same soothing promise: Don't worry, it only touches a few hundred people at the very top.

Let me be clear about what I am defending and what I am not. I am not a billionaire, nor am I carrying water for the billionaire class. I am defending entrepreneurship. I am defending the simple radical idea that any American with a good idea and a relentless work ethic can build something enormous out of nothing. That drive is the engine of our economy and a tax on net worth is a direct penalty for building that engine.

Here is what the measure actually does: it levies a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of any California resident worth more than $1 billion. It is due with 2026 tax returns and payable over five years, with a surcharge if you choose to spread it out. It targets roughly 200 to 250 individuals and is projected to raise around $100 billion, primarily earmarked for state healthcare. To make this legal, it requires amending the California Constitution, which currently caps the tax rate on this kind of intangible property.

To be fair the proposed tax excludes directly held real estate, pensions, and ordinary 401(k) accounts. In addition to cash and brokerage accounts, it could target art, collectibles, vehicles, and private business stakes above a $5 million floor. That is where the practical nightmare begins.

Who decides what a private unsold business is worth? Or a classic car? Or a private art collection? The measure would need to rely on hired appraisers and a tax-specific formula that uses book value and earnings multipliers. It sounds tidy on paper until you realize you are taxing people 5% on a number pulled out of a theoretical model with no sale, no buyer, and no actual cash changing hands.

Here is why this should matter to people who will never come within a mile of a billion dollars. For most billionaires, net worth isn't cash sitting in a checking account. It is tied up in the stock of the companies they founded. When you force a founder to raise massive amounts of real cash against an illiquid fortune, the cleanest way to do it is to sell shares. This forced selling of the mega-cap companies that anchor every index fund doesn't just politely shrink a billionaire's brokerage statement. It actively depresses the value of the exact same stocks sitting in your retirement account and your pension.

When a tax becomes too punitive, the targets simply leave. France ran this exact experiment with an annual wealth tax. As the threshold drifted down to around 1.3 million euros, tens of thousands of millionaires fled the country. In 2017, President Emmanuel Macron was forced to gut it, narrowing it to a real estate tax after watching the nation's capital walk out the door.

You don’t even have to look across the Atlantic; it is already happening here, before the tax has even passed. Billionaires like Peter Thiel @peterthiel , Larry Page, and Sergey Brin have reportedly relocated ahead of the residency cutoff. That doesn’t even include the long list of individuals and companies who left California over the past several years, including Oracle, Tesla, and Chevron.

The most damning indictment of the tax, however, comes from Governor Gavin Newsom @GavinNewsom. Despite calling for a national billionaire tax, Newsom admitted he will personally vote "no" on California's version. His reasoning is exactly what I just laid out: “Capital flows and moves. When the governor pushing for wealth taxes won't sign off on his own state's version because he knows the targets will just leave, it tells you everything you need to know about how this works in practice.

Watch how fast the goalposts are already shifting. California's measure is pitched as a "one-time" 5% tax. Yet the national bill proposed by Ro Khanna @RoKhanna and Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders is an annual 5% wealth tax. Governor Newsom's national plan drops the threshold to $100 million. One-time becomes annual. Billionaires become nine-figure millionaires. Does anyone seriously believe it stops at $100 million? Or $10 million? No tax in American history has ever stayed where it started, and the people writing these proposals are telling you out loud that they intend to keep going.

We once fought a war over this principle. The slogan "no taxation without representation" didn't come from nowhere. The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first direct internal tax Britain tried to impose on the colonies. The colonists objection wasn't merely the rate on paper and playing cards, it was the principal. They declared that no tax could be imposed on free people without their consent. That fight rolled forward to the Boston Tea Party, and from there to a revolution.

Here is the bottom line. The people this tax targets played inside the lines of a tax code they did not write. If those lines are too generous, rewrite the tax code in the open where voters can see it. A net worth tax is unlikely to remain as a tax on the wealthiest Americans.

We need to stop treating the people who risked everything to build something as the villains of the American story. They created jobs and built the companies sitting in your index funds. The lesson we should pass to the next generation isn't that once success crosses an arbitrary line it should be clawed back. The lesson must remain that if you outwork everyone and never give up that anything is still possible in this country. That is the engine worth protecting.

I would love to continue this conversation because it's worth discussing. Why do so many people want to penalize success instead of celebrate it?

@PBDsPodcast @Jason @friedberg @DavidSacks @bgurley @BillAckman @chamath @GavinSBaker @Scaramucci @elonmusk

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@FunOfInvesting Yes! Make one!

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@Sam_Badawi 😂😂

[Ike Ekeh @IkeEkeh]

Using a basket short-leg hedge strategy on $SPCX is flawed if the sole reason is to hedge the liquidity risk of an IPO position

Most in the trade are unaware of the technical progress and derisking events of $ASTS, $PL or $RKLB , they're simply hedging volatility in a $2T company with $20B in revenue and high risk of execution

Those shorts may become longs when they see execution in an industry they're forced to follow due to the exposure they already have. At the very least they'll question the short position they have in place

If $ASTS can PR the next bluebird shipment + announce major contracts over the next few weeks, I'd be interested to see how that affects the short float on the stock

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@KrisPatel99 @Murk441

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@ManagerTactical Let’s go Croatia!!

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@aseaborne @BOGBackup1 @USMNTOtaku 💯👍🏾

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@joecarlsonshow 💯💯

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@aseaborne @BOGBackup1 @USMNTOtaku I agree w/ this.

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@aseaborne @BOGBackup1 @USMNTOtaku That’s why Pulisic came all the way back as help defense.

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@aseaborne @BOGBackup1 @USMNTOtaku You know trusty was playing on 1 leg at that point right?

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@HeinzYKetchupY @asklivermore If these stats are accurate it adds to my theory that $OSCR will continue to grow further into the year.

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

Agreed - back line 3rd game was trash. But if we are talking people that can sub I would trust trusty if needed. I mean the starting back line is the best we have. So he may not even be needed unless someone gets injured or coaches notice fatigue. I’m cool leaving berhalter on the bench. When i analyzed trusty last game it was not including the goal. Goal is a cherry a top for me. But let’s hope he is even fit to play first and foremost. Cheers🙏🏾

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

$OSCR 👀

[AskLivermore @asklivermore]

Health Care has a 100% win rate in the back half of midterm election years.

Not 80%. Not 90%. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

I looked at every midterm year since 2006.
Here's how each sector performed from July to December:

1. Health Care $XLV: +8.46% avg, 100% win rate
2. Industrials $XLI: +7.18%, 80%
3. Materials $XLB: +6.71%, 60%
4. Financials $XLF: +6.68%, 80%
5. Cons. Discretionary $XLY: +6.35%, 60%
6. Cons. Staples $XLP: +6.29%, 80%
7. Utilities $XLU: +6.18%, 80%
8. Technology $XLK: +6.08%, 60%
9. Energy $XLE: +3.26%, 60%
10. Real Estate $XLRE: -7.94%, 0%

The S&P 500 $SPY averaged: +5.95%.

Three things nobody is talking about:
1. Health Care outperforms EVERY sector in midterm H2. Not tech. Not discretionary. Health Care. Five for five.
2. Tech drops to #8. The darling of every other year becomes middle of the pack when midterm volatility kicks in (60% win rate).
3. Real Estate has NEVER been positive Jul-Dec in a midterm year. 0 for 2. Negative every single time.

2026 is a midterm year.
The rotation is underway. It always does.

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@joecarlsonshow Shows that are good imo

Paradise
Sugar
Silo
Snowfall
Cross
Fallout
The Lincoln lawyer (Netflix)

Shows you will probably like in relation to better call Saul ——>

Ozark
Peaky blinders
Billions
Sons of anarchy
Your friends and neighbors
Animal Kingdom

[ZOHCOLD @ZOHCOLD]

@aseaborne @BOGBackup1 @USMNTOtaku Trusty if healthy for sure