Transcripts For CSPAN3 Arthur 20240706

I am honored to be here and its kind of welcoming you. Everyone here to freedomworks adam brandon, president of freedomworks. Ive got an incredibly distinguished panel right here and there is more academic credentials probably up here in the rest of this room combined is pretty impressive and then theres me and steve moore, right . So first, the first person i want to introduce and when i thought we would do is just very quickly, i would introduce all the panelists and then Everyone Wants just a few minutes to speak. And then we have senator josh hawley. Since hes sitting up here next to me, i. Senator, would you please take the first question . So, yeah, so hes ask the first question. So hes thinking of a hard ball for you guys right now. So first, i just want to welcome dr. Arthur laffer, someone who comes from my part of the country of northeast ohio. Thats always a good thing, right here. Dht from stanford. And i was looking through one of the things i always appreciate about art laffer that he you know, in this era of, pretty hyper partizanship. Hes actually had a tremendous history of working with people on both sides, the aisle. And i think back about something that was remarkable. And that was when governor jerry brown ran for president and almost won democratic nomination. Working on flat tax, we wrote that. And what really impressive was not the fact he just ran on that ticket was that the New York Times endorsed, jerry browns flat tax proposal. And when i kept my name secret, i had to go into the footnotes because im like, there is no way this is true. But it was. So then moving down, dr. Brian. Even though im slavic, i tell you what, im terrible. These last names. Oh, you guys switched on me. The dmitri vick. Youve written five books on economic books, including what i being probably one of the best books on the history of supply side economics. So and your ph. D. Comes from a small school, harvard. So. So weve got stanford. Weve got harvard. And then, of course, it had dr. Gene sinfield, who is the only person on the panel who is in the chess hall of fame. Now, im still working on checkers. So were going to have a panel today to talk about about taxation. I think this is a pretty strong. Well, ph. D. Chicago. So these are all schools. I wish i would have applied to, but i knew i wouldnt have gotten in. And and then weve got my colleague steve moore who you know, steve, he wears a hat over here. He actually work does some work here at freedomworks. Hes over at heritage foundation. He has his own group that i love hanging out with the committee to unleash prosperity. And his steve is, hes a serial aide to multiple campaigns and and work in policy. And one of my favorite steve moore stories is during the middle of the tax fight, we were on the same trend in new york for a dinner. And i dont think steve realized i was sitting behind him. And if ever been around steve, he gets really excited. And so hes on a phone talking and people are starting to over and hes talking tax policy. And then he starts going, oh, come on, mr. President. And then you see the whole train car start looking over as hes actively engaged in a conversation with the president tax policy. So is our panel. My main is just to make sure we stay on time. So with im were going to i would like to open up for comments. And i have just a question for the panelists who wrote book. Number one, where did you get the title . Taxes have consequences. I know titles are very difficult to put and i think well well well start with where did you get the title and why did you write the book . So, i mean, i think youve got to start with the chess World Champion or chess hall of famer, uh, i got in a little bit late on this book and i did and didnt like the title. So what do you think . You like my title. Taxes have consequences. What was the first title . They cant. The title this, by the way, is the second time shes done the title of a book. Ive been on. The first one was in 2014 called the wealth of states, which she got for it too, as well. Im at naming things. Okay so how do you want to do you want to talk art . You want to play . Im changing field. Im a data freak. Hes a professor of history. Hes a world class economist. And the three of this taking are various decided to do a book looking at the history the taxes in america starting 1913 and their impact on economy and. What youll find by reading the book is that taxes have consequences so in 1913, the federal taxes were first charted and very few people paid them and they paid between one in 7 of their tax. And then by mid, you know, 1990 and it get up to 62 and guess what happened. And then in the early twenties. So when im going to have brian talk a little bit about the early twenties and the of a great wonderful so why dont you just say a few words. Sure. One fascinating statistic we discovered in our research was that the top tax rate of the American Income tax was exactly at the level of. 73 for three years in American History 1919 through 1921. And we kind of focused on that number 73 , because the fashionable economic literature from the left says that that specific number is the revenue maximizing rate for the United States right. Now emanuel says one an Honorary Degree from harvard for this work in 2019. And we looked at that number, a mathematical equation that produces that number 3 of raise revenue from top. If you take it all the way up 73 . And we well, its funny because weve had that rate exactly time from 1990 to 1921. And we have all the data. So what happened to tax after that rate went down . 1922 tax revenues, the top soared in the 1920s. What on earth is the left talking about . Okay. And the next words, the tariff people dont understand about tariffs, but tariffs essentially means the person whos sellininn product makes less and the people in who are buying the product from abroad are paying more. So start with that. And the thirties. But then i think some of youve really got to look back in the history. Are we going to repeat it in the thirties . Most states did not have income tax. They did not have a sales tax. Most of them didnt have property taxes. And guess what happens . When you go up to what was it 72 was a 79 . Okay guess what happened to the economy . We starting in the thirties and it lasted 14 years. So im going to art say a bit about the Great Depression and can i make one comment about Milton Miller . Youre not going to talk just me and brian. Oh, you shut my. You are me. Yeah, well, im im going to just do a little bit here because the political stuff i asked Elizabeth Warren to come tonight. Oh, well, she said no, we got Bernie Sanders as her replacement and, he said no as well. I went to aoc, i went to the squad i went to all and the whole thing is gerard bernstein, as you know, wants the rich to pay a little bit more. They want to raise rates. And the the one thing here and if i can, is im going to go through a little bit on the taxes there. We have had huge variation in income tax rates in the United States. Start off at 7 , 77 in 2019 18, then down to 25 . And then pop back up to 94 . And 1944 and then went down to 82 after the war, and then went back up to one when eisenhower came and at 91, then kennedy brought down to 70. But across the board. And then, of course, we had the four stooges, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, the largest assemblage of bipartisan ignorance ever on planet earth. And these high tax rates were not just democrats, were it not just i mean, it really is across the board and its amazing. We have huge amounts of variation. We have every single tax return. You know, this not about an opinion. This is about facts. We dont care how you feel this is what actually happens and what you find happening on the top tax rates and ill just skip it and then let them do the whenever you raise the highest marginal income tax rate on the rich whenever you do the economy underperforms and thats the gods truth whenever you lower the tax rates on the top 1 . I mean, these are the data people. This is not my. Well would let you know whenever you lower tax rates in the top 1 the economy outperforms and you can see clearly in all of the data just in the 1930s 1940s underperformed and you can see when the postwar period then get reagan you get clinton. I mean its its amazing what in that thats number one. Number two, whenever raise tax rates on the rich the rich do poorly and what they do earn they shelter and. But what happens is the true damage is done to the lowest echelons of the income ladder. You know, the damage is done to everyone when you raise tax rates. But very poor, the minorities, the disenfranchized get killed. So anyone who tells you that income inequality is good, its not good when everyone gets, its just the rich get worse. A little quicker than the poor get worse. All these periods where you raise rates the poor really get damaged a lot and you can see it clearly in the thirties, the 40. And i could go on and on. Whenever you lower tax rates in the rich the major are the poor, the minorities, the disenfranchized the rich too well to but thats pretty clear. Thats number two, the last one. And then guys have it for the thing. Every time you raise tax rates on rich, every time, you do it. The rich earn less. But what they do earn, they shelter like mad and tax revenues go every you lower tax rates on the rich the rich do really well and they stop sheltering and tax revenues go way up this is every single time you can see it over long periods short periods the exact antithesis of what says piketty. Zuckerman and sanjaya and the others are saying Bernie Sanders all its the exact you know everyone in some sense is allowed to have their own opinion. But youre not allowed to have your own facts and are the facts. We have 100 of all the tax returns. Its not a sampling process. We 100 of all the texture we exactly who the last person is in the top 1 . We have all these are the data are the results that have occurred. And, you know, its really important politically that we have these data, we have them all here for you to use in the best way possible to allow revolution to occur once again, the u. S. Is at a at a loss for leadership. And we need to bring back the agenda of, the being the stewards of the economy being the guardians of prosperity. That is the role that progrowth people have. We can do that and we are looking to people like you, josh, and others. This other stuff is not important if youre gay, but like tax cuts, we love you. If youre if youre straight and you like tax cuts, we love you. I mean, youre tall. Well, tall, maybe, god. But. But you understand its about economics. And economics and prosperity is the to winning elections. Its the key to winning the hearts and minds and its also the key to being a decent person and a decent government to provide prosperity. And with that im going to throw it over to these guys. Youre on. Okay. For the rest of the time. For the rest of the time. Now well get. No, were going to get him back. Dont worry about that. So the interesting, fun stories. We always had a lot of times if you read the book, there was a lady named mrs. Dodge in the 20. You know, if youve ever heard the last name before, she was the wealthiest woman in the United States. Marginal tax went up to 64 , 67 . She moved all of her funds into, Municipal Bonds and then the cities started with spending all that money in the thirties they had to raise taxes to pay it back. So guess what . Taxes have so brian, whos our historian, is going to give you a little bit more depth about the depression. Remember the Great Depression was not a monetary policy. It was taxes. Certainly when we think of the conditions in the United States, politically, economically, 1929, 1930, the very dawn of the Great Depression, we should recognize that only for 13 years of American History, for 17 years im sorry, in American History, at that point had the nation had an income tax, never had an income tax for any duration at all prior to 1913. So as new income tax in the united had always relied on the tariff to carry its revenue load, along with excise taxes like on alcohol. But then when they passed the biggest tariff in American History in 1930, the smoothawley, you had both the biggest tariff in American History, plus an income tax that at the top was taking 25 of income. This was a completely unprecedented governmental fiscal imprint, tax imprint on the american. So just naturally should expect that a Great Depression would have occurred then if youre a visitor from mars. Just looking at, you know, what changed in terms of american taxation from 1789 to 1930, you identify in 1930 as being the greatest compliment in all of American History. So we ask the question based on those facts, well, why we blaming the Great Depression on taxation. And then we found out that was only the tip of the iceberg because then in january 1932, the United States increased the marginal rate of the income tax by one and a half times from 25 to 63 , while having the biggest tariff in American History, which got bigger because the deflation of 1930 233 increase. So the real rates of the tariff then states couldnt pay their bills especially as the property for property foreclosure got going. So they had to impose taxes. Not one state in the union this unbelievable given our current conditions. We had a state sales tax, a general sales tax in 1928 and only a handful or maybe 12 had an income tax. Well, by 1936, what, 28 states had sales taxes and the whole compliment had income taxes. So it was just a tax carnival from 1930 to 1934 or five, six. And so, of course, thats when we had the Great Depression. So i actually to jump in and ask steve a question, if we could. Steve you worked very hard on. The tax bill under President Trump and could you just take us back to the year 2019 and almost go backwards was such a great economic year. Then we forget about it because what happened in covid but i was talking with the chief of staff the other day who pointed out that was the first time in like the last years you actually saw, you know, middle class, working class wages. Real wages actually go up. What happened in . The tax cut in 2017 that brought that forward . Thanks, adam. By the way, i love the congratulations. Yeah. The 2017 trump tax cut which joe keeps calling a tax cut for the was an extraordinary in every way by the way last we had record amounts of tax revenues huge increases in revenues. You probably know we had almost 5 trillion of tax revenues last just shy of that. We dont have a revenue problem right now. I think you know that, senator. And and i think of the people in this room know we have an overspending problem. Its just one quick story that id love to tell about tax bill, because it tells you a lot about donald, who i believe, you know, was a great president. No question about. But when we larry kudlow and i first started talking to trump this and i know, arthur, you had talked to him many times, the taxes we came in and we had a chart available for him. Trump likes to look at pictures. You know, we had a we had a chart showing, you know, we had the highest business tax rate in the world and we were way, way above the rest of the world. We were at 40 . In the rest of world was at about 20 . And we showed this chart to trump love the center and and larry said and thats why we think your plan should be to cut the Corporate Tax rate to 20 and trump sits back in his seat and he shakes his head. So now im not going to do that. And were going to publicly say i want 15 . I want 15 . Now, the reason story i think is interesting, just a historical matter is for the next year, in two months until we actually got that bill passed, every speech that trump gave, every time talked to members of congress, every time, talked to the senate and house, you can probably. Those 15 , hed say to Mitch Mcconnell dont even come back me with a bill unless it has that 50 tax rate and that was just his mantra and ill never forget you remember the, senator, just a few days before christmas when that bill finally passed the senate and we got the 51 votes that we needed. And i remember know, mcconnell comes in and he goes up to trump and he says, you know, sir, im so sorry. I just couldnt you that you know, 15 tax rate i made every argument i could to the senators and i just we didnt the votes and you know i apologize failing you but would you take 20 of yeah anywhere you want to 20 all around all along but you know, knew that if he started at 15, wed up at 20 and i will go to my grave thanking god that trump did not take our advice, because if we had started at 20, we probably would have ended up at 25 . Its the art of the deal. Hes great at that. So i want to ask each one of you a quick question, if i may, and then well take questions from the audience if we have time. The by the way, one other thing about that trump tax cut we have imported from the rest of the world about 1,000,000,000,000 of capital because of that tax cut. As we cut those rates, it was just like a magnet of money coming in that created jobs and investment. But want to start with you, arthur. You know, because youve worked for every president from Ronald Reagan to donald to richard nixon, Calvin Coolidge was they got one of your students so can you tell everybody that story that i love that you told the time . Really . I think taxes better any story have ever heard and its the story of robin hood can explain that one. Do you really want me to go . Yes. I love its an hour long story. I go along to like. Oh, come on. Come on. No, no no, ill do that. It is. Does take a long time. Okay. Well, if you dont want to wait, you know, i get. But its its just a real simple thing here. Can i do other. Just the theory of redistribution which is just critical here its critical to all politics not only the highest tax rate which is the centerpiece of the debate today. The theory of redistribute is when you take from someone else a little bit more. Right. And you give to someone has a little bit less, thats called redistribution. Okay. Youre me. When you take from someone who has a little bit more, you reduce that persons incentives to produce and that person will produce a little bit. You all with me on that the forgotten me when you give someone who has a little bit less, you provide that person with an alternative of income other than effort and that too will produce a little bit less. This is not republican, is not democrat, this is not liberal its not conservative, its not left wing. Its not right wing. Its called economics, called math. Whenever you redistribute income, you always reduce total income, period. Thats math. And i dont care who you are. Thats what happens. Now, the lemme from this theorem is pretty straightforward, and im not going to prove it to you verbally. But let me just tell you, the more redistribute, the greater will be the decline in total income. That sort of intuitively to you. Now is where i wish i had bernie and elizabeth and aoc and the others here. The limit of this theorem is if you were able redistribute all income. So that everyone came out exactly the same if you were to do that there would be no income whatsoever. Let me describe it to you in order to get complete redistribute of income so that everyone out exactly the same. What you would have to do, youd have to tax everyone makes above the average income 100 of the excess. You would me youd have to everyone below the average income up to the average income. Now if you actually did that, thats the only way you get them all equal. If you actually did that. Elizabeth warren, any ideas . Well, if you actually did tax above the average income, 100 of the access, and if you did actually subsidize everyone below the average income up to the average income, ill stipulate tonight counselor that everyone be equal at zero. That is math this is not left wing right wing liberal conservative republican group. Its just plain math. And that is the theorem, i think really is important. Steve, for the coming debate. Why do you want to cut Government Spending . Because it hurts the economy. You dont want to do it because not nice to some people. Others, it kills the economy. Weve a decline in the economy from what is it, 1999 to the present, just a secular decline of incredible proportions. We are the japan ification of america i mean, all of this purely simply because of redistribute in this society. And the more you put up with it, the longer its going to last and the worse its going to become. Let me turn it over to brian. Brian, can you just a couple of minutes talking about the laffer curve because you wrote your book on the whole supply side and i mean people at arthur laffer, right. I mean, he was he was, you know so criticized for radical idea and tell us about kind of environment of of why so many people didnt accept the idea that were talking about the lower rates would have a better economic impact. Sure steve the laffer curve is a curve that arthur created in 1974 that stipulates a tax, a tax rate on one axis and tax revenues on the other axis, axis and a bulbous curve. The higher the rate, up to 100 or higher, the revenue is zero. And then theres revenue maximizing point is the tax goes down. If you look at the debates on the tariff in the 19th century, its full of laffer curve, let let a debates about revenue in fact they use that that particular term of revenue tariff versus a prohibitive tariff constantly and its the single most debated issue in American History in the 19th century. So all the concept of the laffer curve was completely embedded in congressional dialog for over 100 years before 1913. If look at the 1920s again, you all sorts of argumentation famously of course from the secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon about the need to lower tax at the top. He specifically says in his book taxation is the peoples business in 24 that the bible shows that people involved in invested in their civilization will put up with a tithe well put up with 10 taxation after that they start for alternatives. And it was just the heyday of tax sheltering. Yeah. Did a lot of research on the laffer curve. I think ive pinpointed that he first drew that curve at the two Continents Hotel on the evening of december six, 1974, and i just might be right about that. And i actually found a document, his archives, in which he sketched it out with the mathematical equation beforehand, probably 1973. And i was just looking other day at the Pbs Television archive and watching louis rukeyser, his broadcast of wall street week from december six, 1974, probably broadcast that happened simultaneous to actually drawing the curve at that hotel in that date, december six, 1974, the date he drove that through that laffer curve for cheney and. Don rumsfeld actually the lowest close of the Dow Jones Industrial average between 1962 and the present. Well, my hunch is, is somehow the markets with their great powers of perception figured out that Something Like the reagan revolution was in the offing and. Im serious. He called the very historic bottom of the dow in watching louis that day after the markets closed down. He is mad at the American Economy and one 5 minutes later, he drew his curve on when we had. Thats a amazing. Okay, judy, before we turn it over to the audience, i wanted to ask you a question of you talked about state tax rates and we have nine states, as you know, in the united that have no income tax at all. I see my good friend, lisa nelson. Alec is here. We were the kind pied piper is to try to get more states, eliminate their income tax with alec does that matter. Do you find these effects . It certainly appears to be. If you look at these latest migration numbers where people are going and where theyre coming, you know, theyre going to florida. They live in california. And i just saw a statistic that in the last years on a net migration, california has lost a million people. Now theyve had International Immigrants coming in, but theyre losing people to florida and texas. Tennessee. Is that a coincidence. No. Taxes, consequences. So basically if youre a business person and youre starting a company, all of these things, affect your decision for. Example our company dimensional was located in california and now its headquarters is in austin, texas. The california income tax what 13 and a half percent. Now it was it wasnt wasnt then there was like, you know early early maybe 2006 that we moved over what was it . But its youre looking he moved to tennessee. Basically what youre seeing is will move to places that support businesses. And guess what when you have businesses, people have jobs. Yeah. And basically taxes. And the thing is, people dont even the state of missouri has what 3000 different sales taxes. Okay. Yeah, you can do these little gifts and things. How many state how many you and this things have earnings taxes in your state. I mean if hey if you ever see the impact that they had on detroit it and so of that its not just the federal taxes but all of these tax this matter and all of these sort of weird things to make sure the rich dont arent able to hide stuff you know, hurts things give you a practical example they limit amount that an individual can give charitable you cant give more than x percent of your income. Why would they if a rich person wanted to give more. Okay. Right. Youre discouraging. Why . Because the government wants to be the person who provides the services. And i think that in america Nonprofit Charities do better things. So one last thing, arthur, on this subject and then i want to ask you about the new jersey. You what happened in new jersey, because thats an amazing but new jersey has the worst Corporate Tax business tax there is i mean you just cant you cant if i read it to you, you die its like missouri sales tax, which jim mentioned you know the average sales tax jurist in missouri is 3000 people some much more some less. There are upwards of eight separate taxing authorities. And each of those. There are 25 separate schedules depending upon the product youre looking at. There are three separate schedules depending upon the purchaser and the wonderful legislature. Missouri had the infinite wisdom of that in their constitution, so it cant be changed. And you wonder why missouri sucks . Excuse me, but its true you can you can change this. And this is what has to be done. But but but its but its and. Well, it was all wisconsin. Oh, i mean, in ohio, there are 1440 separate incomes, earnings. I mean, its just crazy. You should look at kentucky with their property taxes there. Its crazy i mean, its just unbelievable that was the income tax in 1965 in new jersey, zero. What was their sales tax . Zero. And now they running one of the biggest deficits . Yes, because the guy before chris christie, jon corzine, was my student at the university chicago. And just for full transparency, you see student and just and just so were really honest about it after mf global im even sure youre in the but it was the highest sales tax highest property and one of the worst performing states before they 65 they were the second Fastest Growing state in the nation people were coming in in new jersey just flocking into new jersey and a balanced budget when corzine office they were the third slowest state growing in the nation. People were leaving like rats out of a sinking ship and they had a huge budget deficit. And look, tennessee facing story. Okay, do we have time one or two more questions. I mean, to make this rejoinder about missouri. Oh, okay, come on. Okay, let let last year we reduced our state income tax and right now theyre to get rid of the Corporate Income tax and other thing is, missourians are pretty smart and we have a database. So you can see what the sales tax is going to be and then you can go to another location. And senator, do you want to defend your great state of missouri . Well, i just want to give a plug. Anybody here looking to relocate a business or relocate to permanently come to missouri . Were open for business. Its a great place. Dont listen to art. Tell us. No, but can i ask a question . Ive got a question that art. You actually made me think of it. You talked about the japan ification of our economy. Me let me ask to the panel, whomever, but what i think is tough question beginning in the 1970s may be one of you can correct me if ive got the data wrong, but least since the 72 today weve seen a steady decline in the number of able bodied who are in the labor force. They be working, but fewer fewer of them are working. Theyre more and more dependent on government in some way. How do we turn that around . Can we use tax policy . Do it . Is tax policy have a role . How do we get people off of government and working, producing in our economy . Let me you an example i have a lot of people older people who work for me at my right they went out and retired and now they cant work me full time anymore because if you make more than a very small amount, the marginal rate is 70 . So you want more people to work. They actually do want to work they choose not to work if they have to pay 70 . Of. The questions for brian, you bring up in your book very curious creature, Henry Morgenthau was a secretary of the treasury for fdr and he figured it out right. Saw the writing on the wall. He saw the math right professor that this this isnt. But yet hes been subordinated over the decades. We dont even hear about and his claims. Could you speak to Henry Morgenthau please . Sure. Henry morgenthau was fdr is a long time treasury. Second one from 33 to 45. And so hes super the big expansions of the tax system under fdr fdr actually the line on hoovers tax system in 3334 and then as of january 1st, 19 7036, he had this huge at the top from 63 to 79 and then tried to have withheld profits tax and morgenthau testified to congress the next year that were not even coming close to the revenue projections here, the top. And its because tax sheltering and really what our book is about in very great part is the extraordinary lengths that the top earners will go to to shelter legally their income from taxation when is sharp profit incentive to do so . When you when you lose 0. 79 on your marginal dollar, the incentive and he just said i mean the ways they can up with to avoid legally are better than anything we could come up with. And he specifically said the tax bar which didnt exist before 1913 has grown to 45,000 lawyers in virtually all of them have had their training as young tax attorneys with the Revenue Bureau and he said, if we hire more agents, think of that, were only going to exacerbate problem because the private sector hires our best agents at ten times the salary. So lets say we hire more, he tells congress in 1937. Well, that just means the taxpayer bar will identify the top five 10 and then pay them ten times their salary. And we will win against those people and still going on today. I mean thats exactly whats happening today. The best people dont work for the irs they work for the individuals trying to defeat you know, the tax system. Right. Morgenthau had the credibility and the integrity in 1937 to say this is a game we cannot win. So you have to lower the tax rate. Yeah. Thank you and thank you for your present. You got to the adage, what was at the time oh, that tax rate of 91 sorry. The adage was at the time of jfk coming, the 91 tax rate was, well, yeah, thats the marginal rate, but no one actually pays it. I was wondering to what extent your analysis the effective tax rate time. Well if you look at the tax paid based on Gross Revenue you know youll see the rate paid the very top is lower than next category. So its its true its not the highest rate. But you have to think about what happens. Those assets, what business didnt start. You know what person didnt get employed so in the other is think about world war two. Heres a good example pensions really didnt exist much before world war they werent taxed and guess what . And since then theyve enforced. You changed it. So if you run a company, you cant put all your income into pension. Youre limited in the amount you have. So taxes have. Yeah let me try to hit that question. Right. Have you guys any you seen the releases from propublica on the tax returns the illegal if youve ever seen the ones recently coming out on trump and all the others, theyre these are people who use tax codes legally properly Warren Buffetts the classic case these when you have the high tax rates i think the piece i did i think in the journal in 2010 from Warren Buffetts letter is Warren Buffetts income in 2010 was Something Like if you were an economist 12 billion and he paid a total of 7 billion in income taxes all perfectly legally, etc. , that was 6 100 of 1 of his income he paid in taxes because of being able to shelter all legally. Trumps tax returns which were released all ive never heard anyone they were illegally done or anything. All these once released thats just what the now if you had a low rate lets say a flat tax like did with jerry brown for 13 across the board with, no deductions, exemptions, exclusions you would have you would have buffett in 2010 paying about 1. 6 1. 7 billion and hed be better off. Everyone else would be better off and thered be no warfare. Everyone knows, youve got to pay your fair share. Everyone. But when you start trying to steal from a group, they respond by trying to get around you and the rich have more money. They can hire more lawyers. Accountants deferred, income specialists, favor grabbers, lobbyists, etc. And you dont have a chance. Low rate. Broad based flat tax is the way to go thats the north star and have other taxes. I wish youd all go back and look at jerry browns. So can you speak hey you so the principle we all agree with the pragmatist is the question liz truss is an example tell us what happened with liz truss and what lesson what pragmatic pragmatic lessons can we learn from what z truss di wrong despite the fact that we know she has the principles . Correct. Let me classic parton, whos a dear friend of mine, was the member of Parliament Family from ghana, born and raised in there, but he was the one who did the supplies side economics or phenomenal the guy there liz truss, came in and did nothing except talk a little bit and get thrown out. There was no test there. The test was under gordon brown when he was chancellor, when he was prime and the chancellor of the exchequer. The thing from 40 to 50 p and if you go the chart of the exchequer documents that treasury built into their you can see that revenues dropped, the economy went into doldrums, you know, if anything liz truss had was bad politics. She didnt do economics because she didnt do anything. Now weve got rishi now weve got rishi sunak and and and you know, its a disaster here. Theyre going to reverse everything of the politics of that. Its a tragic shame, but sometimes things happen. Chapter nine of the book is, i think, 1945 to 49. Is that right . And rising. And in defense of missouri, again, the president at the time was truman who happily the congress overrode his veto multiple times on the 1948 i guess revenue act he then later ran against a do Nothing Congress and Phyllis Schlafly who i used to work with used to say that was the was the do Something Congress they passed the constitutional amendment for two terms of the president they passed a revenue that and a lot of things did a ton and truman lied. I mean im josh but and but heres what i want to ask about that that revenue also had the first time that you could file jointly married couples because of a problem that they assessed across the states and were watching in hungary poland profamily tax. And as much as i would love to see a flat tax, im for it. All these kinds of major changes this white house wont that they might sign some things that are profamily maybe maybe they wont but i think we can argue our colleagues are friends, our neighbors on policy are there are there when you see taxes have consequences, how can you envision creative anti what else is out there for a profamily policies would art actually spur the economy not just be shifting. I i think that thats something time is coming to america with holly behind me people want to hear this populist message on some of these things taxes. But i think this. I dont have a clue what it is i for those who werent aware was one time that some of the states you you and your wife to merge to handle money together divide it in half and pay the tax rate on each half and the other states the individual paid the one who was working it was what i call a get married approach after world war two. So then what was happening . So many states were switched in that they decided to just allow it because they were going to lose the money anyway. Thats what youre really talking about. But when you look at different things, its it is going the point where the taxes are so complex did okay you get a tax thing well maybe it was like 190 pages you sign it how how how would i even know what im signing. But i do know that everyone in this is doing things to avoid taxes right. How many a pension . Right. How many pay cash for things . How many just dont pay taxes. No one. Yet. And we have time for about one or two. And i just one thing there is one political thing. The tax act of 86, i guess got to mention it to you, jimmy. You remember that one. Well, in the tax act 86 week at the highest rate from 50 to 28 raise the lowest rate from, 12 and a half percent to 15 . We went from 11 tax brackets to two tax brackets and just make sure we everyone off. We cut the corporate rate from 46 to 34 . That was the tax bill of 86 and it passed in senate and it went there. Okay, now guess the vote in the senate, steve, youre not allowed the vote in the senate on that bill. Was 97 to 3 got senator from illinois voted against it levin from michigan voted against it. Merkel after montana voted against it, everyone else voted for it. Tall in pink. Bill bradley he voted it. Teddy kennedy voted for it. And who that senator from delaware at the time joe biden voted for . You know, al gore told me personally, im good friend. Just down the street from me. Al gore said it was the best he ever voted for in economics ever. You know, we have a way of reaching across the aisle and this to happen. It is time we get together and be a pro, progrowth agenda. There is i mean, im going lecture one more time. There is a governor, colorado, named jared polis. Jared polis has the best record on Covid Response i doing. I mean, listen, jared wants to get rid of the income taxes, property taxes dramatically. The track up, medical transparent state in the nation. I mean, its not just republicans. Its your public. Its growth. And we need to get growth in the democratic, in the Republican Party and across the board. Please. Its we be the stewards of the economy and guardians, perhaps prosperity, period. I was going to take one more from the audience and then well start wrapping up. Hello, Andrew Hilburn actually worked for liz truss and i agree her lowering taxes but at the same time she increased spending, agreed to pay for everyones winter heating bills and want to borrow public money to pay for them. I think that is actually a disaster. We believe in lower taxes. The did react to her autumn budget, put it forward by Kwasi Kwarteng and it was a disaster. Well any way you guys were here we hope that you go out and tell to buy the book okay whats the of the book tax is spelled consequences and its fun and i actually have one person senator holly me hes hes read the entire book and so have i. Any closing comments for everyone or i know we have an open barred just across the room. So. All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining. I look forward to seeing you