Community wealth versus private wealth.

I've never had that much interest in accumulating personal wealth even though I'm not in poverty.

My interest is more in community wealth, the buildings, parks, bike lanes and so forth.

Some community wealth is privately owned which is okay also. Even the wealth of billionaires, if it's serving the community; such as the buildings of a business. I have little interest in the fancy private homes, however.

On bike trips down the California Coast, I camped in San Simeon State Park a few times, but I never bothered to take the time to go up the hill to the Hearst Castle. That's the opulent mansion of the historic Hearst Family. It's now a museum and tourist attraction.

The big mansion I never bothered to visit at San Simeon.

Along south part of Big Sur Highway.

I'm headed down Highway 1 in San Simeon area 2006.

Ragged Point eatery. A place to buy food after the long Big Sur Road through mountains along the sea. One day's ride from Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park to San Simeon.

A beach near San Simeon.

A few photos from other trips in that part of the California Coast.

Big Sur in 2003, but then I had a camera with a date stamp that I never bothered to set. It stamped everything with 1994.

The kind of private property that's not open to the public. I took this for effect. A mansion view along 25 Mile Drive outside Monterey. 2003.

Bixby Bridge in Big Sur Area.

My friend Rick Segreda who joined me during my 2003 bicycle trip down the coast. Posing in a pedestrian tunnel crossing under the highway.

Riding bikes to shoebox-sized apartments can still be a prosperous vision of the future.

Some Trump supporters might think my vision of the future is riding bikes to shoebox-sized apartments and eating crickets, to quote a DOT spokesperson interviewed on NPR.

Except for the crickets, some of that is correct, but my vision of the future also involves chatting with AI, following the news from space telescopes. Biking around town following the progress of construction projects. Enjoying the sight of new construction. Looking forward to technological breakthroughs like hydrogen fusion. Having lots of friends who are millionaires (these days, just being a homeowner can mean being a millionaire).

I've experienced riding in a Rivian all electric truck, it was fun and interesting. I've also been on all electric buses and the Skytrain in Vancouver, BC. I look forward to the days of safer, self driving cars. Among my favorite travel destinations are the observation floors of tall skyscrapers.

Part of my view from observation deck of Columbia Tower in 2025 during a transit / bike trip to Seattle.

My vision of the future seems bright and prosperous to me. I still find biking a friendly way to follow the construction sites and serendipitously meet up with friends along the way. It's a more interesting way to stay in shape than working out in a gym.

As bike information is being removed from Trump's Department of Transportation, a DOT spokesperson told NPR in an emailed statement, "This is a common sense approach despite the Left's belief that everyone should ride a bike to their shoebox-sized apartment to eat crickets to achieve a phony climate agenda." <

Bellingham has been called the "Tijuana of Canada."

Some people notice empty storefronts in downtown Bellingham. I remember when I came here for college, I was amazed how many stores Bellingham had compared to my hometown of Pullman.

Bellingham was not that much bigger than Pullman, but it seemed to have many times more stores. Then someone said it's supported by Canadian shoppers. Yes, at one point, during my college years I read that around half of the dollars, supporting Bellingham businesses, were Canadian. That figure varies over the years due to exchange rates and so forth. Today, many Canadians are staying home due to dislike of Trump.

During the 1980s, I remember one national TV network (maybe CBS) doing a feature on cross border shopping. It called Bellingham the "Tijuana of Canada."

It does seem like there is a lot of floorspace devoted to retail, compared to how much the local population can spend.

Property values and rents have gotten so high that they squeeze out other spending. Today, retailing is also competing with online shopping.

Years ago, when Georgia Pacific Pulp Mill and other factories closed taking away many family wage jobs, I wondered if retailing would take a hit. Those big industries brought outside money into the local area by selling products that were used all over the world.

Some of that loss was more than made up with retirement dollars. Lots of people moving to this area bringing their retirement incomes and home equity with them.

A few years ago, I jokingly said that Bellingham's economy is based on home equity loans.

Yes, it does seem like there still is lots of floorspace devoted to retail with the downtown and all the outlying districts as well as the mall. This is a problem in many American cities.

Pullman, where I grew up, has a lot more shopping now than it did during my high school years before the development of Bishop Boulevard. Bishop is to Pullman what Meridian is to Bellingham.

Is AI a better tutor? AI to the rescue when the time of professionals becomes a scarce commodity.

AI seems like it can be good at one on one individual tutoring. Yes, it's good to have redundant ways to fact check. Still, AI has time when lots of professionals advisors are too busy.

I had a conversation with someone who had recently graduated from college. I was amazed how hard she said it was to get an appointment with her faculty advisor. Advisement was sometimes booked out over a month.

I don't remember that being a problem during my college years. Faculty advisors and other faculty were easily available. I had many an informal conversation in faculty offices. If I needed something signed or an official consultation, it was easy to make an appointment within a day or two.

I assumed that would still be the case, but maybe not. How long does it take to get an appointment with a doctor? I can see why people go to AI for advice.

Republicans say cut government spending, but it's harder to be specific. Meanwhile there's still lots of money at the top of the wealth spectrum.

Washington State is facing a budget shortfall due to lower than expected state revenue. This news is met with the typical Republican response that spending needs to be cut with no specific cuts mentioned, so far in the news. What cuts to schools? What cuts to state salaries, parks and so forth? It's easier to just say spending is out of control than to really say what needs to be cut.

On the revenue side, there is good news that the state's capital gains tax is bringing in more revenue than expected. It's one bright spot in the otherwise weak revenue picture. This is due to the rising stock market and the continued rising fortunes of the very wealthy.

If the stock market takes a hit, however, it's seen as a volatile source of revenue that would be difficult depend on.

These issues face governments nationwide.

AI and other new technologies are often a boom to consumers, but a mixed bag for workers.

There is worry that we are in an AI bubble. Could it burst?

Through most of my life, new technologies, from automated factories to the internet, have brought a plethora of useful and sometimes free things for the consumer. This has not always been a blessing for workers.

During these decades, asset values have also gone way up compared to most wages. Assets like land, homes and stocks have appreciated so much in value that there is a lot of loose money, around the world, looking for lucrative parking spots. This vast amount of private capital drives a lot of investment in emerging technologies, such as AI.

There is great pressure to keep up with the Joneses. Everything from keeping up at work to the US feeling pressure to keep up with China has created a pressure cooker that leaves many workers behind.

In past decades, such as the 1970s and 80s, automation and globalization in manufacturing brought more abundance for consumers, but also brought layoffs and the hollowing out of high paid manufacturing employment to many communities.

The internet boom of the 1990s brought many low cost and free services to consumers. We have free long distance phone calls and 24-7 banking from home without having to conform to banking hours. We have social media as well as millions of websites and media channels at our fingertips. These blessings have been more dubious for workers and in the long run for consumers as well. Since consumers are often also workers, lower wages effect consumers as well.

The benefits of online services has brought the cost of more surveillance. There are algorithms pushed by the need for clicks so advertising can pay the bills. From this we get echo chambers of similar belief as well as what's called "manufactured outrage."

Now we have the AI boom, also driven by a desire to keep up, plus all that private capital, from rising asset values, looking for lucrative places to park money. Huge fortunes drives the AI buildout.

Consumers are now seemingly benefiting from the free AI services while workers fear the loss of control over the fruits of their intellect. Admittedly, I use AI quite a bit as it sorts through lots of reading saving me time as I research and fact check for my own writing. In the past, teachers often didn't have the time to provide individualized instruction for people, like me.

Yes, I know, AI can make mistakes.

AI can benefit the user providing personalized services, such as teaching, tutoring and counselling, while Professional services, from humans, can cost a pretty penny and have been subject to budget cuts.

Still, this comes with hidden costs and consequences that we can't predict for the long run, let alone the moment.

Behind these buildouts, whether it's been automation in factories, internet technology, or the most recent rush to AI, is the question of whether the whole thing is sustainable. Will AI ever make a profit, or will the bubble burst and lead to a panic?

Will there ever be a sustainable business model of paying consumers and workers, with livable wages, for continuing these business models into the future?

These are questions that we keep needing to ask?

In some cases, a slower economy might be better.

An expanding GDP isn't always good news. If the GDP goes up, it could be just due to inflation. This doesn't necessarily mean progress.

Some people think an ideal world would not have money, but I don't go that far. I think money is a needed tool to keep track of the math. Instead I just think a high GDP should not be the bottom line goal. Health, happieness and good stewardship of the planet should be the bottom line. These things can be measured also. In some cases, a slower economy might be better.

Some economists do call this Triple Bottom Line Accounting, I hear. I apply it to the whole economy.

Higher GDPs and faster growth, just measured in dollars, isn't necessarily better. It can also mean higher costs of doing business and more hardship for people as well as the environment.

I do find economics interesting, so I still think about money, but I don't see it as a god or the ultimate goal. I see it as a tool for running business and government, but the ultimate goal is not just money.

Does a billionaire business owner need a huge personal yacht as business asset for the business to serve the public?

Mark Zuckerberg's 300 million dollar yacht is an example of wealth that I think should be taxed more. I can see a billionaire business owner needs to keep the wealth that runs the business, like server farms for instance, but a huge yacht for personal private use? Maybe he needs it to entertain for recruiting top talent to the company? That's all I can think of for it's possible justification. Somewhere, a line does need to be drawn.

Excerpt exchange from comments on my Facebook page.

YIKES. You're making the case that its cost was tax deductible as a business expense. -Phil.

My Reply. I don't know the specifics in these cases, but right wingers often say, "the rich need their money as they create the jobs and provide the products and services." Right wingers and other members of the rich do seem to find ways to justify whatever. They can afford the best lawyers money can buy. -Robert.

Phil's reply. We have the best Congress that money can buy. -Phil.

Redefining progress and the American Dream.

Hearing a radio interview about career opportunities for today's young people brings me back to my first years out of college as if nothing ever changes.

It's said that this generation may be the first to have lower standards of living and smaller homes than their parents. I heard that before and I keep thinking, smaller homes, but maybe better social lives?

Since my college days, I've been thinking that we are running out of room on planet Earth. If not actually running out of room, at least economic development has been constrained by more and more regulations. These regulations are attempting to protect the environment, such as farmland preservation, wetland rules, zoning and so forth.

If not actual limits to growth, we have imposed red tape limits which is basically what people, on the right, keep harping on. I still think most of these limits are there for good reasons. Yes, we do need to protect the environment. Still, this does have an effect on the ease of attaining economic growth and prosperity.

For years, I've kept thinking it's a tradeoff. We can live better without necessarily consuming more space on the planet.

Examples of this come from social progress in personal fulfilment and community life. Progress in gay rights is one example. More use of public transit, versus the space hogging private automobile, is another example.

For the entirety of my adult life, at least, cities, such as Seattle, have delt with traffic congestion. I keep thinking we could solve that, but people have just acquiesced to it instead; for the most part.

Back in my days right out of college, the big issue was lack of job creation. Industry faced red tape limits. Mining was going overseas and so forth. We faced the energy crisis with gas rationing during my college years. Since then, new technologies have brought more fossil fuel energy from fracking and so forth. Innovation and substitution has brought new wealth around the limits. We've had the tech boom.

Lack of affordable housing is a big issue now, whereas back in my past, it was more the lack of jobs. Today, there are more jobs, but they don't pay enough to afford the same space in housing.

Somehow, I still keep thinking we need to make fundamental changes in the way we define as the American Dream. I still think life can be better now than in (for instance) the 1950s. "Better" can be defined in different ways. Information and personal choices can be seen as wealth. Free time can be seen as wealth.

We need to think differently about the definition of the American Dream. Just taxing the super wealthy isn't going to solve this problem. Yes, I'm for taxing the rich, but even just taxing the super rich still has consequences for all consumers. Today, people are worried about Washington State's wealth tax chasing away the super rich and businesses with them. Will this impoverish our state?

We may need to learn to redefine what wealth means. Can one have a happy life while not necessarily living in a bigger house than their grandparents lived in?

Windfall for American oil under Trump.

As the Strait of Hormuz continues to be closed, oil production is ramping up in other parts of the world, including USA. This may make the straight less important in the long run. USA is now the biggest oil producing country in the world. Since oil is more expensive, US oil companies are making lost of money on the world market. The BBC said that this is one factor pushing up the Stock Market.

I add that this basically lines up with Trump's philosophy which is basically pro big business and pro billionaires. Much of the world, including even in USA, in spite of Trump is gradually transitioning more to cleaner energy. Possibly an unintended consequence of Trump's governance as well.

I heard this on BBC business news from London.

The idea of reparations to poor countries for climate change has gone over like a led balloon.

A few years ago, there was talk at the climate conferences about richer countries making climate reparation payments to poorer countries. Seems like that idea has been a non starter all along. In today's world even the regular foreign aid that richer countries were contributing to the world is being cut back.

The idea of reparations hasn't worked, but green technology continues to advance in both rich and poor countries.

There may be a flaw in the idea that the Demographic Transition to sustainable population depends on prosperity.

During college I studied something called the Demographic Transition. It basically said that before there was modern medicine and sanitation, both deathrates and birthrates were high. As deathrates decline, there comes a transition period where birthrates remain high and populations explode. As time goes on, this is followed by a drop in birthrates and stable population.

Economic development was seen as the key to a stable world of low death and sustainable population. Problem is, now that the world has over 8 billion people, economic development, for all those people, can bring ecological catastrophe. The good news is that aside from economic development, there can be a change in value systems. Many poor countries have been able to reduce their birthrates without necessarily becoming rich. Others, however, have lagged behind in reducing birthrates. This is one reason why I connect issues like gay rights, feminism and overall modernity to sustainability. Getting rich doesn't necessarily have to be a prerequisite for sustainable cultures with low deathrates.

Simple living and less materialistic aspirations, combined with modern values on sexuality, are needed.

Meanwhile, the idea that prosperity and material wealth is the key to sustainable populations has it's problems. Yes, people do need enough to survive, but much of the opulent wealth in the world is unneeded. Over consumption in rich nations, but also the opulent wealth of leaders in many poor nations is a problem. Military spending is another large and growing problem worldwide. Rich nations are now ramping up their military budgets while many poor nations have long spent large percentages of their small GDPs on warfare.

Here is something I just thought of. Population growth is a key to economic prosperity. These days, as the world's demographic transition is trending toward lower birthrates, many are worried that less young people can bring economic stagnation. As populations age, there are less young people to pay into Social Security, for instance. This creates an incentive to try an boost population growth.

I think the philosophy behind the Demographic Transition is broken. The road to sustainable population, through increasing prosperity, is an environmental minefield. Changing values about overall culture and sexuality are needed instead.

Here are some things to ask about the future.

Will more labor be needed in a world with more automation and AI technology?

Another question is, if there is a labor shortage, why don't richer countries jump at the chance to fill their labor shortage needs with immigration? There is no shortage of people wishing to migrate to better living situations, worldwide.

Most rich countries in the world are now cutting back on immigration. This might be because all 8 billion people, in the world, can't live like people live in rich countries. As people migrate to rich countries, it does put strains on housing, water, resources and transportation systems as people adopt richer lifestyles. Just look at the traffic. This, of course also assumes dependency on the automobile and the vast amount of space it takes up for parking and transportation.

Things need to be done differently. Our value systems need to change all over the world. Just increasing prosperity will not fix it.

A reason why changes in lifestyles may be more important than political changes for reducing carbon footprint.

Some people say that promoting individual actions, like driving less, doesn't do much good for reducing climate change. They say we need reform of political and business institutions instead.

The problem is that reforms, such as taxes and regulation on business, often lead to higher prices for consumers. Then, if consumers don't change, they rebel against the political changes. An example of this is the 2018 Yellow Vest Rebellion in France as working class people struggled with higher fuel prices.

Higher gas prices was one thing that lead to Trump's popularity in 2024. A carbon tax has recently been repealed in Canada.

Here in Washington state, some folks complain about our state's higher gas prices, compared to other states. These prices are partially the result of Cap and Trade laws attempting to address climate change. So far, Washington's voters have continued to support Cap and Trade when repeal of it was on the ballot in 2025. In future years, the cost of Cap and Trade cost will continue to ratchet up. There are goals of gradually weening us off of fossil fuels by decreasing fossil fuel cap imposed on industry. This ratchet is built into the law. If people remain dependent on fossil fuels, there will be a time when support for Cap and Trade breaks. Another initiative could repeal it, even here in liberal Washington State.

I think voters need to understand the "big picture." Institutional changes that are placed on business and government does have an effect on the consuming public. We can't "have it all." We can't just expect that corporations will make the change for us. When government forces change on business, it usually does effect consumers and workers. This often means that the public ends up rebelling against the higher prices. Then, instead, people need to accept change in lifestyles such as driving less to save money.

Changes don't always have to mean sacrifice. More urban lifestyles, where things are more convenient can help. Using public transit can be less stressful than driving in traffic. Bicycling can improve one's health.

Washington State should find a way to tax McMansions more since the mansion is rooted in the state and less likely to flee.

Some of Washington State's billionaires have moved to redder states, while leaving their mansions behind. They still use their Washington mansions as "vacation homes," so I hear. This state has just passed a millionaires tax and some folks fear it will lead to a flight out of state by most of our wealthy entrepreneurial class.

I think we should do more to tax the residential real estate left behind, but our state constitution prohibits progressive taxation of property. I looked up on Google AI that our state constitution has a uniformity requirement that blocks progressive taxes on property. This uniformity clause has also been used to stop progressive state income taxes as courts have defined income as property. If we could remove that clause, we could have more progressive property taxes and possibly even a progressive income tax in this state. I would be in favor of that.

Washington did pass a large capital gains tax applied to the most wealthy citizens. It's been allowed to stand as it's considered an excise tax (a tax on transactions such as sale of stock; like a sales tax). This tax is now in effect, but there is worry that its focus on business and stock is causing some business to flee from the state. Even lower middle class people do benefit, or at least consume from the jobs, products, services and tax revenues derived from a healthy business climate.

I think we could remove the barriers to progressive property taxes, especially residential property. I think that has been done in New York State where there is a new tax on second homes (like vacation homes rather than the primary residence) valued at over 5 million dollars. New Your City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is known for promoting that.

Temporary suspension of gas tax might be a bad idea in the long run.

Temporarily suspending gas tax could bring long range problems. Increasing the debt or less funding for roads. We seem to be having a repeat of the fossil fuel crisis in the 1970s. I don't drive though I admit I eat food delivered by truck and prepared by folks who drive to work.

Here in Washington State, the high state gas tax gets complaints also. We may not get lots of road bang for the buck as some state money goes into salmon habitat restoration. We can't have it all. Whales in Puget Sound are large animals and they use the salmon for their food.

Inexpensive use of airconditioner for studio apartment.

Living in an era of inexpensive products, versus medical bills and rents, I decided to get an airconditioner.

For several years, I thought I didn't need it. Bellinham usually has a cool summer breeze. I'm on the northside of a building and I'm out on my bike quite a bit anyway.

Still, there are predictions of a warm summer, this year, and likely more to continue due to global warming. I've been thinking about getting one for warm nights when it can be harder to sleep. So I decided to get it, thinking I would use it sparingly.

I don't pay a powerbill. That's included in my reasonable rent in subsidized housing. Still, I think about energy usage.

Spring is a good time to buy, before a potentially hot summer sets in and supply of such items diminishes.

All the local ones, I found, were more powerful than my needs, plus finding a way to bring it to my apartment besides on my bicycle.

This became one of the few things I bought off Amazon. Larger selection; though admittely I only looked in one Bellingham store due to the traffic sprawl of going all over town to comparison shop.

It's rated for just the size of my studio and delivered right to my door.

I've retrotfiited it to my space.

I've added to the window fitting so it can be easily removed from the window and stored, unless I'm actually using the airconditioner.

I close my 7th floor windows at night unless it is hot as traffic on the street below my apartment is amazingly loud.

When unit is running, it does drown out the traffic. Often I just use it on "fan only" mode to bring in cool night air from outside.

Most of the time I just keep it stored as just the window breeze is usually sufficient.

AI has time to work with individuals while people often don't have the time. That's a good thing, but AI has downsides as well.

I'm sure there are both good and bad things coming from the advent of AI technology.

One potentially good thing is that AI has more time to interact with individuals. Many of the people, who's job involves interacting with the public, seem to be overwhelmed and don't have the time; for instance teachers, counselors, doctors and politicians. AI can answer questions and carry on a conversation with each individual.

I use Google AI quite a bit to answer questions. Some of the questions are medical. Others are fact checking of historic news events.

I often use the news, I remember from the past years, in my own writing. My own memory is pretty good, but I don't remember the details exactly. AI can factcheck my own thinking.

I realize that AI isn't always accurate as in "garbage in, garbage out." Still, much of it's input is curated and Google AI includes citations to its sources. Many sources, such as Wikipedia and articles written by professional journalists, are cited. I can fact check the AI. Reputable publications in science and medicine are also cited.

There's lots of snake oil sales and fake news on the internet that people fall for, but AI doesn't seem to bring that up. Part of that is possibly being driven by the way I use the AI as I already have a scientific background.

AI tends to answer my questions by condensing pages and pages of writing that I don't necessarily take time to read through. Yes, I could research those things, myself, but I tend to spend more time on my bicycle than reading through many books and articles. I do read some, but I'm not a bookworm.

Nowadays, lots of quality writing is going behind thousands of paywalls. AI can provide information without me having to subscribe to thousands of publications.

I also use AI to critique some of my own writing. It seems to work good for grammar, clarity and organization.

I've found that some of my own writing tends to ramble over so many topics that people can find it confusing. AI has caught that and the two of us have had dialog about it. Most people wouldn't have time for that. I don't always agree with everything the AI is saying, but at least I'm learning and having the conversations. Real people are often too busy or distracted, though I do have lots of friends. I'm actually quite social with real people.

I think one of the biggest problems with AI is simply the human problem of greed. AI is being pushed as an economic engine to prosperity. There is also the US push to try and stay ahead of China. This haste, to development, could be dangerous.

There seems to be no end to the hunger for money, so people can earn their livings in an increasingly expensive world. There are so many needs, from charity to public safety to national defense that are crying out for funding.

Like any tool. AI has both its good and bad sides The main problem is how we humans, who are still in the driver's seat (at least for now) are pushing it forward.

* AI stands for Artificial Intelligence.

Beyond just tariff refunds, imagine if Trump remembered corporations and wealthy that avoided taxes.

Trump is now saying he will remember companies that don't seek tariff refunds. Yes, the federal debt is growing and if all the 166 billion collected in tariffs has to be paid back, the debt grows even more. I guess he is showing some concern about the debt and the public good.

Imagine what would happen if so many wealthy people, who oppose and avoid income taxes, felt enough concern for the public good that they paid up. The debt would go down. I'm not holding my breath.

It does seem like everyone in this country is on the take. Everyone seems to want retribution, reparations, compensation and lower taxes. The math never adds up and the public good is held hostage.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone paid their taxes, including the income tax, out of altruism with the rich, who have the most money, paying the most. I don't see that happening.

In our divided society, there is little trust in the public sphere. Right wingers often say that their tax dollars will go to abortion while left wingers worry about all the killing done by the military.

Trust of government and to some extent the public space is low. Still, we somehow need to put energy in to get the things that a great society provides.

Tariffs did hurt lower income consumers more than graduated income taxes would have. They were a bad idea which seems typical of Trump who's looking out for the wealthy.

The Supreme Court, which is usually in Trump's Court did rule against him on the tariffs so now there is a mechanism for refunds.

The refunds are likely to go to corporations that paid the tax. They passed much of that cost on to consumers. Whether consumers beyond those corporations will benefit is a murky question at best. As usual most people will likely feel, as always, that they have been ripped off.

About wealth taxes, Washington State could learn from New York's 2nd home tax idea. It's hard to move homes out of state.

Homes are a form of wealth that can’t be easily moved out of the taxing district.

New York City’s Mayor Mamdani and Governor Hochul have secured New York state’s first tax on luxury second homes, calling it a major win for taxing the rich. The annual fee applies to homes worth more than $5 million for owners who mostly do not live in New York full time. It is aimed at ultrawealthy people who use New York real estate to store wealth without actually living here. They say around $500 million dollars per year could be raised. That's a lot of money. There's that much money just in second homes worth over $5 million? Wow.

I think it could work a lot better than taxing portable wealth, such as stocks, that folks could move out of state with them. Homes and land are attached to the earth.

I think it would work better than focusing most of taxing on business. That could diminish business in the state.

Detractors to the home tax fear that it could reduce the value of the homes. Maybe more of those second homes would go onto the market as some folks would still bail out of the state, but that seems like a lesser unintended side effect than crippling business or having a tax that wealthy people can easily avoid by just switching their legal residence to another state.

Reduced home value could lower projected revenue, but it seems like the lesser of the unintended consequences from a wealth tax.

It's harder to move home equity wealth out of state than stock portfolio wealth.

A windfall profits tax on selling inflated real estate is less vulnerable to people moving than Washington State's millionaires tax.

I think a windfall profits tax on selling homes and real estate would be less vulnerable to people leaving the state than the millionaires tax in Washington State. It's easier for someone to change their legal residence to another state sheltering stocks and other portable wealth. Real estate is attached to the land of the state so it doesn't move. It may not bring as much money, but it's less vulnerable to people moving out. Possibly less vulnerable to Washington State's constitutional prohibition on income taxes.