Subject: Re: o/t, Harris and taxes,
Since so many high net worth people are vigorously coming out to support Harris, I believe she has assured them that she opposes a tax on unrealized capital gains, which is great news for us.

It's interesting that things have changed in recent years so much that in the US, income is no longer a predictor of left/right voting intent at all. (It is predictive in some places in the US, but not overall). Tax policy changes may or may not be nice for the well-to-do, but maybe it doesn't matter that much for the election?

Education level is now a very strong predictor of voting intent in the US, and in the past it was almost useless.

The old rule of thumb (statistically across the US) was rich=right, education not predictive to any meaningful degree.
The new rule of thumb (statistically across the US) is educated=left, income not predictive at all.


In 20 other democracies studied at the same time, the rules and the changes since 1970 have been similar but not so one-poled.
The old rule of thumb was rich and educated=right, poor and uneducated=left.
The new rule of thumb is rich and uneducated=right, poor and educated=left.

From an amazing article in the Economist summarizing some research “Brahmin Left versus Merchant Right”, by Amory Gethin, Clara Martínez-Toledano and Thomas Piketty (working paper, 2021)
"...the relationship between education and ideology began to reverse as early as the 1960s. Every year, the 10% of voters with the most years of schooling gravitated towards left-wing parties, while the remaining 90% slid the other way. By 2000, this had gone on for so long that, as a group, the most educated voters became more left-wing than their less-educated peers. The gap has only grown since then.
This trend is strikingly consistent. It developed just as fast in the 20th century as in the 21st, and appears in almost every Western democracy studied."

Jim