

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Asked to provide any evidence of fraud in California, the best Trump could come up with over the weekend was, "All I have to do is look, and I listen." As one journalist pointed out: "That's not evidence."
US President Donald Trump and world's richest man Elon Musk sang to the same dishonest tune once again on Monday to allege—without evidence—that the mayoral election in Los Angeles was somehow fraudulent or rigged against Republicans after their preferred candidate, former reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, dropped to third place in the open primary.
With incumbent Democratic Mayor Karen Bass already sitting in first place, it was progressive City Council Member Nithya Raman who overtook Pratt on Sunday after more votes were counted. The top two finishers in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will face off in a runoff election, but it was Pratt's slip out of the second slot—with approximately 80% of ballots now counted—that inspired Trump and Musk to call into question the results.
"No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!" Trump declared in a social media post on Sunday night. The president infamously refused to admit he was defeated by former President Joe Biden in 2020, a denial that ultimately led to the insurrection attempt by his supporters on January 6, 2021.
The election results in Los Angeles, however, are very much in line with polling that took place ahead of last week's vote and Los Angeles is known as a Democratic-leaning city.
In a series of retweets and comments on X, the social media behemoth he owns, Musk echoed Trump by suggesting that the mayoral race was fraudulent, though he offered no substantive evidence.
"It takes a conspiracy theorist to believe California’s election is secure," stated one post Musk shared to the more than 240 million accounts that follow his.
As Raman climbed out of second place into third as Pratt's share of the vote total dropped, Musk perpetuated the idea that the counting of ballots indicated fraud of some kind and stood on that insinuation to advocate for the Republican-backed SAVE Act, which voting rights experts have warned is a key part of a coordinated GOP effort to make it harder for Americans to vote in upcoming elections.
Trump stormed out of his weekend interview with NBC New's Kristen Welker on "Meet The Press" after the host challenged Trump over his repeated lies that the 2020 election was rigged, and his new unfounded claims that something similar was now happening in California.
WOW -- Trump crashes out and cuts his interview with Welker short as she presses him on his lack of evidence for claiming elections are rigged
"You're either crooked or you're stupid. Let's call it quits. Because I've had enough. Thank you darling," he tells her."
"I traveled… pic.twitter.com/qQaNIDnX4y
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 7, 2026
Trump claimed that because the results had not been officially decided after four days in California, the nation's largest state with millions who vote by mail, that "They're cheating on the election."
"Do you have evidence to support that?" Welker asked.
"All I have to do is look, and I listen," the president replied.
"But that's not evidence," Welker countered.
The progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, which backed Raman in the election, said in a social media post that a second-place showing in the race would be in keeping with the city's political profile.
"No way Los Angeles was ever going to send a MAGA reality star with zero governing experience to a general election for mayor. Not this city," the group said. "Nithya Raman advances. Now let’s have the conversation LA actually deserves—housing, affordability, and a real vision for this city’s future."
Elon Musk would need to work 58 times longer than the age of the universe to "earn" his wealth.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) kicked off a storm when she said in a podcast interview last week that a person cannot “earn” a billion dollars.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by saying that the statement was “bizarrely foolish” and then pointed to the worst possible example he could think of to counter Ocasio-Cortez’s point: mega-billionaire Elon Musk.
In the eyes of the US government, and specifically the IRS, there’s no question about it. Elon Musk did not “earn” his wealth. Otherwise, he’d be paying a tax rate at least 17 times greater than he is—and generating a tax bill bigger than the GDP of Nevada.
Unless you’re immortal, Ocasio-Cortez is indeed correct that it’s impossible to earn a billion dollars.
The average US worker, earning $64,505 a year, would have to work over 15,500 years to “earn” a billion dollars. Want to be as rich as Elon Musk? You’d have to work 41 times longer than humans existed—over 12 million years.
But what if you are Elon Musk? How long would it you take then? A billion years to earn a billion dollars, and 800 billion years to earn $800 billion—so, 58 times longer than the existence of the known universe.
Now that’s bizarre.
The average US worker, earning $64,505 a year, would have to work over 15,500 years to “earn” a billion dollars. Want to be as rich as Elon Musk? You’d have to work 41 times longer than humans existed—over 12 million years.
Elon Musk—like Mark Zuckerburg, Larry Elison and many of the world’s other richest men—only “earns” $1 a year. He is what's known as a $1 CEO because he gets paid an annual salary of $1.
What most people don’t realize when we talk about wealth and wealth taxes is that we’re talking about two types of wealth. There’s earned wealth, which is when you get paid for you what you do (eg salaries, wages, etc). And then there’s collected wealth, which is when you get paid for what you own—eg dividends for owning stocks or rent money for owning real estate.
Most people primarily rely on earned wealth for a living. Billionaires on the other hand, their wealth is almost entirely collected wealth.
And that matters, because collected wealth tends to grow a lot faster than earned wealth, but more importantly, because governments tend to tax collected wealth a lot less than earned wealth.
In fact, billionaires very often deliberately reshuffle their wealth around into collected types of wealth specifically to underreport what they “earn” to the IRS and pay less income tax. It’s why Elon Musk can be the world’s richest man on an annual salary of $1. It’s why he and Jeff Bezos have been able to pay zero income taxes in some years while topping the Forbes richest people's list. It's also why Bezos was able to receive a family tax credit for families earning less than $100,000 a year.
But it gets even more bizarre.
Many billionaires aren’t just not earning much, they’re hopelessly in debt—apparently. Many of them are actually living off huge loans that they don’t expect to pay off in their lifetimes. It’s a scheme called “Buy, Borrow, Die.”
Taking their tax allergies to the extreme, rather than selling assets to get the money they need to actually pay for things, some billionaires take out loans against their assets instead. This way, they don’t have to pay the taxes that would have applied if they sold their assets, plus they get to hold on to the assets which can become worth even more over time. And because the money they get this way is technically loan money, it doesn’t count as earned income—and so they can continue to underreport their “earnings” to the IRS and underpay tax.
It might come as a shock to Sen Cruz, but many US billionaires, like his example Elon Musk, have done all they can to “earn” as little to none of their wealth, and some have even gone so far as to “indebt” their billions instead.
But why should we care about any of this?
Because it’s this two-tier tax system that gives special treatment to collected wealth over earned wealth that has allowed the extreme wealth of super-rich individuals to quadruple since the 1980s.
The rise of extreme wealth is directly linked to lower economic productivity, to more households going into debt, and to people living shorter lives. A G20 report co-authored by winner of the Nobel prize for economics Joseph Stiglitz warns that extreme wealth is a threat to democracy.
What makes wealth taxes so powerful—and so opposed by a vocal minority among the superrich—isn’t just the huge sums of public funds they can bring in. It’s that by specifically taxing collected wealth, wealth taxes directly challenge this two-tier tax system. It’s about protecting economies, people and planet from the harms of extreme wealth.
Whether you’re a wealth earner or a wealth collector, we all have an equal responsibility to pitch in our fair share.
As the Trump-backed oligarch tries to grow even more wealthy and with longstanding rules changed to his benefit ahead of the SpaceX public offering, "retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
Billionaire Elon Musk has ambitions to become the world's first trillionaire when his company SpaceX makes what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering in history—and money unwittingly invested by ordinary Americans may help him get there.
Progressive media outlet More Perfect Union on Wednesday published a video detailing how the Nasdaq stock market exchange changed its own rules so that SpaceX can be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year "seasoning" period that used to be required for newly public companies.
The reason companies in the past had to wait a year to be included in index funds is that such funds contain a large chunk of Americans' retirement savings, and are thus supposed to be more averse to risk.
Watch the 12-minute video:
NEW: Elon Musk wants a SpaceX IPO valuing the company at upwards of $1.75 trillion.
To get there he got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in.
Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out. pic.twitter.com/DviJEt0XAu
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 27, 2026
This means that ordinary investors could see their money plunged into an unproven company while investors who have bankrolled Musk's previous ventures now rolled into SpaceX could cash out at inflated prices.
"Every piece of evidence we have is that the IPO is being engineered to rise very rapidly after it prices, and then fall very dramatically after that," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, told More Perfect Union. "That is a recipe for retail investors, especially, to take large losses."
SpaceX is a particularly risky bet, Preakes added, given that it is seeking a $1.75 trillion valuation with its IPO. For a company that made only $19 billion in profits last fiscal year, critics say a valuation 54 times larger than its projected revenue multiple, a measure of its value based on expected future earnings, is a huge red flag.
"This combination of extreme size and this extreme multiple," Peakes said, "is completely unprecedented."
Pearkes isn't in the only expert concerned about the structure of the SpaceX IPO.
Writing at Seeking Alpha, independent equity researcher Julia Ostian similarly argued that the SpaceX IPO is structured using a "calculated mechanism that will feed the artificial demand generated by the forced index fund buyers," and thus at least initially send share values soaring beyond what the company's fundamentals would suggest, and giving insiders an opportunity to quickly cash out.
Ostian added that "it is clear who is the beneficiary here and who pays the price for this engineered system," and said that "the rich are getting richer openly, without hiding it or even without trying to pretend it’s something else."
As More Perfect Union emphasized, the entire IPO was orchestrated by Musk for maximum advantage to himself and his closest allies, but he needed regular Americans to put up the money for the scheme to work.
"He got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in," the outlet noted. "Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."