Good morning. This is John Richardson speaking with you from Toronto. Canada today is Saturday, November the 30th, 2024. And these we are living an exciting time for sure after the election of President Trump. We know for sure that there is going to be tax reform and we know for sure that it is going to be a much more open-minded, lively discussion with opportunities that probably have not existed in my lifetime in any case. And that brings to mind Steve Hayes and Jim Bennett of Fair Tax Fame. And you know, I've got to say that if there ever were a time to get the Fair Tax legislation up and running, I think the time is probably now. So I welcome Jim and Steve and how are you today? I'm doing great. Thank you. Thanks for having us, John. Well, this should be great because I mean, this is maybe, this is the fifth or sixth of these podcasts we've probably done over the years. And when we met before, I think we've always done them with the assumption that we have this sort of steel wall of the inevitability of the internal revenue code forever. And now we have an administration that appears to be open-minded and to create a stage to return America to the American people in a couple of years. So what do you think? Good times for the Fair Tax movement. Jim, go ahead. Well, I think based on some of the things that Trump said during the campaign, no tax on tips, no tax on social security, no tax on overtime, no double taxation of expatriated Americans, which is a theme that's near and dear to my heart, and replacing the income tax with terrorists, which I don't think is feasible. I think there's only one place that Mr. Trump can go. And I see that as being the Fair Tax. Now, the challenge will be to make him think it's his own idea. So, let's see where we got with that. You can send them a note saying here's an idea for you. His, he actually is a closet supporter since 2015, meaning that he knew about the Fair Tax. He was on some interviews with, you know, just after he announced running and they said tax reform was very important. He didn't know if it was going to be a black tax or the Fair Tax, but it needed to be dramatic and it needed to be very strong. This was back in the spring of 2016. So, it's always been my idea, and I don't know if it's actually going to be true or not, that in a second term, Trump, if he had won, would have learned how to manipulate Congress instead of being manipulated by Congress and would have more than likely promoted something even though the McConnell Group in Congress and on both sides, frankly, oppose it. So, now he's even got more, let's just say, training and experience. And he's, you can tell by his. Let's just say his staffing picks, you know, his cabinet picks, that he's not going to go traditional. And I really believe there is a strong likelihood. I mean, let's not be fools. He's going to try to push through immediately extending and/or making permanent to 2017 tax cut. That's not, I think, even on the table. But after that, you've got his son, Barron, saying, "What about getting rid of the income tax?" And a tweet. You've got, you know, people all around him talking about it. Peter St. Orange from Heritage, saying Trump wants to abolish the income tax, you know, pointing to things that he said. So, I think, John, there's a very good opportunity. I just think it's one of those, like you said, once in a lifetime, we can't be naive. 90% of DC will oppose it, just like Bill oppose his cutting down the bureaucratic number and everything else. But I think he has the ability to go to the people and put the proposition such, you know, Mr. X is opposing getting rid of the income tax in the IRS. If you agree with me that we should, you should call his office or go see him. And I think that would be pretty powerful. It seems to me that the, you know, regardless of your views of President Trump, which are all over the place, it seems to me that everybody would agree that his election means that an awful lot of things are possible now that weren't possible a month ago. Right. And, you know, to me, that's really the key point. I mean, you know, Steve, you're a lifetime student of taxation. Call yourself a recovering tax attorney. You know, the, you know, the impression, you know, frankly, arbitrariness, unfairness of the internal revenue code. I mean, who would oppose getting rid of that system? Well, remember, John, the biggest enemy of this is that 90% of Americans don't really confront it because they don't have to meaning their meaning up there. They're either filing this platform, or they have a fairly simple return. They have income. They have probably, and this was what Kevin Brady bragged me about in 2017. He was the chairman of the Ways and Men's Committee that he had taken us a step closer because he had gotten rid of the dependence of most of over 90% of America on things like the mortgage deduction because most people just take a standard deduction. They total up their taxes, you know, cost them a couple of hundred bucks with a tax preparing service, and they file. There are some who get hammered anyway, of course, but it's, you know, it's usually the people who are itemizing or are going to be the ones that are most suspect. Obviously, one who owns you and or end to some sort of a dialogue who invited dialogue or a conversation. Yeah. Yeah. Great. I was going to say that most people see the income tax as a force savings plan. They get a refund at the on April 15th or some time before, and they use that to go on vacation. So for them, the IRS is not the enemy. And those are the people we have to try to convince that there's a better way to collect taxes and fund the government. Well, yeah. The one thing at Jim's point is very good. The one thing that John, I think, is appeals to everybody, no matter how much money they may, is wouldn't it be nice if money was given to you? And you had the ability to decide how to spend it, just like what happened when you became an adult. Here, we've got, you know, nanny papa government taking your money and pretty much dictating how you're going to spend it. We're going to give you the money. We're going to let you pay taxes based on what you spend. We're going to give you a family allowance, which means that for a family of four, the first 40,000 is not going to pay any fair tax. And you're going to just pen decide. And if you don't buy a new car, you don't pay the fair tax. You buy a new car, you pay the fair tax, but you get to be an adult again. And I have found in groups that I've gone to retirees, lower income retirees, you know, in a particular place in Massachusetts, to people, many of whom were on government assistance, that was an idea they all cheered for. The idea of, so I think that's a solution. Yeah, sorry. You know, that's certainly a good way of putting them. You know, it occurs to me that there may be some people haven't heard our previous podcast. And I think, you know, perhaps what about a brief outline here exactly what the fair tax is, and yeah, I'm going to give it to Jim. Okay, sure. Well, the fair tax briefly is a federal legislation. So it's not a pipe dream. And it replaces and replaces the operative word subtitles A, B, and C of the American Internal Revenue Code. Subtitle A is your income taxes. And that includes interest and dividend income, capital gains, which is what you pay when you sell your house. It concludes the alternative minimum tax, which which affects more and more Americans, although I'll be at a small amount. It replaces a state gift and generation skipping taxes. And I think most of the point, it replaces Social Security and payroll on self-employment taxes. And whether or not you pay a lot of income tax, everybody who works for a paycheck pays payroll taxes. And if you have your own business, and you're not, and you're not paying yourself as an employee, you pay self-employment tax, which is double the payroll tax. So those are all things that affect everybody. And it doesn't leave the government without money. It replaces all those taxes dollar for dollar. So we call that revenue neutral with a national consumption tax or retail sales tax on all services and all new tangible goods. And new and tangible are the operative words. It does not tax, it does not tax used goods with a national sales tax. And in order to make it fair, because a lot of people, when they hear the word sales tax, they think, oh, that's unfair to the poor. And without an adjustment, it would be. But it provides for a family consumption allowance. And what we call it now jargon, the rebate, and that goes to every household in America, whose members are lawful residents. And they get back at the beginning of the month, what they pay in tax on essentials. So up to the poverty level, nobody pays a dime of tax to the federal government, which is what you can't say today. And above the poverty level, everybody pays tax on consumption, which you have a degree of control over at the same rate. Since it's a retail tax, there's no tax on business to business. There's no tax on exports. So what it does for the economy is enormous. So I think that's pretty much the cliff notes version of what the fair tax is. And if there's anything Steve, you can add, let's go ahead. No, the only thing I would say, it's almost identical to the state fair tax or the state sales tax that's paid in 45 of the states with the addition that it's just broader, because it also covers retail services. And so, you know, and the interesting thing about it is that people talk about evasion. Oh, you know, if you're going to have a rate that could be 30%, my gosh, you're going to have people evading it all the time. Well, the actual question is how? Because 92% of the retail purchases of goods, new goods in this country, is from the top 8% of retailers. Amazon's not going to not pay the sales tax. You know, it's not it's like, that's not going to happen. It may be a mistake, but they're going to pay it. And you're going to have a situation where it's very much more difficult to evade because the people collecting it are going to be every bit as tough as the IRS on retailers, John. That's the people collected in the state, because they have system set up, they're going to enforce it. For the merchant, it's very simple to another button on the checkout register that calculates the fair tax. And the only way you avoid it is if you have effectively a retail sales permit, which says, I'm a person buying this to use in my business. And then you don't pay this fair tax, but every consumer does. The difference though is they determine how much tax they pay, by how much they spend, they're treated like an adult again. They get the money, they decide how they're going to spend. It was interesting. I worked in an office where we had many clerical personnel who worked for W-2 wages. And I told them about the fair tax. And I said it would get rid of the income tax. There would be nothing to do on April 15th. And they said, sign me up. And I said, well, you do know that prices could rise somewhat because of the sales tax. And one lady, she was an African American lady, said, I don't care. I want to be in control of what I spend. And when I paid the tax, so we came up with the slogan, take back control. And I think that's what the fair tax is all about. It puts you in control of when you pay tax and how much tax you pay. What would have one of the tax preparation industry? What would they do? They would find other jobs for the most part. There are going to be a number of businesses that will do fair tax, retail sales tax returns that don't do it at the state level. I think only what three states have a retail tax, retail services. So there'd be people filing a return. I don't think most of them would have a job because it's going to be a very simple return for almost everyone. For people like the three of us or all lawyers, if we have retail clients, we're going to have to collect the fair tax. Somebody comes to me and says, Steve, I want to do a will. And I say, okay, they're going to pay the fair tax on that. So I'm going to become a tax collector. But I don't have to pay any taxes on April 15. I don't have to do payroll tax. I don't have to pay income tax. I only pay as I spend myself personally. But as a business, I would have to collect and remit the fair tax I collected. Now, if all I do is work with businesses, which is pretty much all I do, I would not be collecting the fair tax because it's they're going to give me a permit showing that my services are helping them develop their product, which when it is finally sold at retail, is going to be taxed. Several of my friends are accountants and a lot of their business is tax preparation. And they're 150% behind the fair tax because they interact with the internal revenue code on a daily basis. And they know just how bad this code is. And so like Steve, they would much rather be have a lot more fun helping their clients in business accounting than trying to game the tax system. So I don't think you'd get as much pushback from tax preparers and accountants and tax attorneys as one would think. I think your pushback is frankly, and I call it VC related because interestingly enough, the tax preparation income of the big accounting firms is a decreasing percentage every year of their income. Tell me more. How's that? Well, because what they're doing is most of them are pushing consulting. I mean, I have a good friend, Jim and I do, who's a partner and a big four accounting firm. And he was going over some and their public numbers, he wouldn't given us in the inside secrets. But I think it was like 12% of their income came from tax preparation used to be like 22%. And it's going down every year. And part of it's because they're only taking it for certain they no longer or any way at all retail, like their big clients, they'll handle the preparation for them for their personal return. But they're not really seeking that business like they used to. And so a lot of them are looking at providing like Jim said accounting services, helping people grow their business through consulting. And so you've got a group of people though in DC who, and you read, you read this, it just tears me up when I read how eagerly some of these law firms send out these notices, John, about, oh, the latest regulations are going to be out about blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, some little obscure point, right? That they just love because it gives them something to do. There are a lot of people there that are going to be sort of like the buggy whip manufacturers looking for something else to do. But they're going to likely find it. It's like, you know, we talk about getting rid of the, it's not just the IRS. Look at all the people in Treasury that are devoted to working on the income tax that wouldn't be needed anymore if all the money is collected by the states. It'd be a much smaller division to audit the states and collect the money. And auditing is very simple. You know, it's not a complex job. You're going to have those people. You're going to have a lot of other related non-profits, a lot of lobbying firms that make most of their money off of the income tax code. You're going to have a lot of those people displaced. And as far as the IRS employees that get displaced, put them on a long severance package, you know, give them six months, nine months a year to find another job. Now, they're going to get a job, pays in the US anyway, approximately 40% less than they're making for the same skills with the IRS in the private sector. They're very, very much more highly paid. And I'm talking about including the holidays and other benefits, as well as the salary. So, you know, they're going to need to find another way of earning money. So, let's not be, you know, throw them to the lions, let's be compassionate and give them a runway of where they can get started. But, you know, tax is so important in the United States. I mean, I think there are a few countries that, you know, where life is ruled by the tax code to the extent that it is, just because of the ways we place like a horrible website, you know, I mean, nobody's, you know, thought thing through. So, this is a seismic, I would call, so this would be a seismic sociological shift. It is, I'd say, to really what it's far more than taxation. But, you know, one of the things we've talked about before, and I think we ought to get this in, is from, now, we're, you know, we're talking about this from sort of inside looking, right? I mean, let's talk about this from outside looking in for a minute. You know, wouldn't it be, and maybe you can explain why this would attract investment to the United States? It's not much better. I mean, well, one of the things that we've known about for a long time and talked about is that you've got two sources of outside investment. One is what they call the shelf, which are my old friend Charles Adams and I used to talk about because that's where money is hidden, like, you know, through Panama and through these other countries, that's stolen from African dictators, by Russian oligarchs, by Chinese, whatever, that belongs to no country. So, they really have no benefit of any tax treaty. They're looking for investments. If they invest in the US, they're looking at a situation where it's all going to be at the same tax rate as US citizens today. They invest in Canada. Same thing. They don't get any benefits. If you take away the income tax or the taxes on investment, then you're talking about someone saying, okay, now, do I invest in a 7/11 store in the US where any distributions I don't get taxed on? If I sell it, I don't get taxed on it. Or do I invest in Canada where I pay tax on all my distributions and I pay tax on the sale and maybe the tax up there is 30%, you know, right? So, if I've got a similar return, I have a 30% improvement by going to the US. That's a pretty much no-brainer. Oh, absolutely it is. I mean, what it does is, I mean, at the moment, the United States around side looking at widely considered to be a tax payment or sort of, you know, investment income and stuff like that. But what it does is it turns the United States into a complete tax saving, you know, for business as well. So, I mean, I could not imagine a more attractive way to attract investment to the United States than to transition to the fair tax. But John, what does it do to Canada? If you start to see all of this money flowing out of your country or not coming in, the only thing they can do to counteract that is what? Make a similar system. Well, you know, now you're speaking rash and I think the current Canadian government probably reason, well, they're used to paying this much tax. So, why don't we get back to this? I was thinking of Tim Hortons, which is a concrete example. Tim Hortons is now the owner of Burger King and years ago, it was the other way around. Now, why did Burger King decide to become a subsidiary of its former subsidiary? And that's because Burger King got tired of paying tax on his worldwide income, which was the US tax system. And so it decided that if we become a subsidiary of Tim Hortons, which we own, then we only pay tax on our US derived income. And that actually makes sense. So now if we had the fair tax, Burger King might decide we may want to become the owners of Tim Hortons again and have Tim Hortons belong to a US conglomerate. So I think that's a very clear reason why the fair tax would be such a superior solution to what we have today. Well, it would make something like, and when did this all start? I think it was like in 1966, this Foreign Investors Tax Act or something, you know, some nonsense, right? I mean, it would make that whole concept completely obsolete. And frankly, I think that's one of the strongest arguments for the fair tax because, you know, the benefits of foreign investment for all countries are just so absolutely clear, you know, in terms of job creation, raising the standard of living. And you're right, it would absolutely be a no-brainer. You know, add to the efficient US capital markets, all the natural advantages that already has. I mean, this would be just, you know, tremendous for the US economy. Now, let me ask you the question from the perspective of, you know, so, you know, Jim, you know, Jim, in your intro comments today, you know, you called attention to Trump's pledge in double taxation on Americans abroad. Now, how would this affect the situation of Americans abroad? Say the US moves over to the fair tax. Oh, that would be huge. And you and I have personal experience with that because I lived in Germany for six years, three years with the military. So I was exempt from the German tax system. But once I left the military and joined a German insurance company, I was subject to the full panoply of German and US taxation. Now, I didn't pay a lot of tax to the internal revenue service because I got to take a credit for the most part for taxes that I paid to Germany. But if you think about it, you get the worst of both tax worlds and to use a concrete example from those times. If I won a million marks, that was the coin of the realm back then. In the South German lottery, that would have been tax-free in Germany, but it would have been taxable in the United States. And conversely, if I had bought tax-free municipal bonds, which would have been tax-free in the internal revenue code, they would still be taxable in Germany. So you can't win. And I was talking with a friend of mine in the UK a couple of days ago about why I'm reluctant to move out of my house and summit because it's had such a huge gain in value. And I'd have to pay capital gains tax on that. Now, if I lived in London, there was no capital gains tax on one's home. And I said, wow, that's a big deal. But if the problem is, as a US citizen, I would pay capital gains on the tax on the appreciation to the internal revenue service, even though that would be tax-free in London. Plus, the inconvenience of having to fill out two sets of tax forms. And then there was, there's something now that didn't exist when I lived in Germany called FATCA. I forget what that's an acronym for, but the result is that foreign banks are reluctant to open bank accounts for US citizens because they don't want to subject themselves to American banking regulation. So those are all reasons why examples of unintended consequences. Let's put it that way of imposing two different tax regimes on American citizens who live outside the United States simply because of their citizenship, which no other country except the African dictatorship of Eritrea imposes. So it's just a bad system all around. Now, what would the fair tax do? The fair tax imposes tax only on consumption that takes place in the United States. So as long as I'm an American citizen under the fair tax living in, let's say, Germany, and I buy my purchase my goods and services there for my consumption in Germany, I wouldn't have to deal with the American tax system. So that'd be a huge boon encouraging American citizens to go to Germany. And American citizens in Germany tend to help foreign investment in the United States because the foreign company in Germany or wherever has some internal expertise in dealing with the United States market. And it would also be a boon to American exports because American exports would not have the incidence of income taxation attached to their goods and services. So all in all, it's just a win-win. Well, it certainly is. And you raised another dimension to it is the impact the result of the US income tax system in terms of his exporting regulations, foreign companies, banks and things like that that would also end. And these leaving aside the penalties, I mean, the costs I've heard for the implementation of that just staggering, like one Canadian bank, 100 million. It's hard for me to believe this. But there's enough evidence out there that it really is this high. And this is money. This is just, you know, it's just the erosion, the sucking up, the wasting of productive capital. I mean, just think of how that money could be used with all I mean, although on the level of all the poverty in the world, you know, how that money could be more effectively used. So I mean, what is there to not like about getting rid of this horrible, horrible, antiquated, you know, system of income taxation that is not even rooted in the modern world. I mean, it's based on sort of, you know, wages being the primary source of income and the sort of stuff, right? Right. No, it's there is not any precedent or not getting rid of it. And the reason I say it that way, you know, Charles Adams, who we've talked about who wrote this wonderful book for Good and Evil, he talks about that the English in order to finance Napoleonic wars in the early 1800s had put in an income tax. And then against the advice of many of the, quote, counselors, bureaucrats, they eliminated it. And that led to what's been called the Industrial Revolution. And it was an incredible of growth and prosperity for not only England, but for other countries that they were working with and touching, because that spread across all of Europe. And so you've got a lot of precedent for what happens when you unhinge people from the cart. You know, we're no longer pulling this big cart behind us. We're able to go out and do what we want. Now, the people that were riding in the cart, you know, and using the whip to slap over us are going to be a bit disconcerted, because we're going to have to find another way to operate. But we would be much less expensive, both morally, ethically and economically, if we gave them a severance of six months, to find something else to do. Or longer, or longer, you know, you have to figure what you have to matter. I mean, you know, the point is that at the moment we have a system that, you know, punishes the vast majority to sort of, you know, help, you know, an extreme minority on this. And, you know, we look at the, you know, the attitude of the incoming travel administration, I mean, as much as we can discern. I think we'd all agree that, generally, it's somewhat hostile to regulatory overreach. Yes. Yes. And the Supreme Court, I mean, if you read Gorsuch's book, Overroove, it's quite interesting, but he talks about all of the overreaching. That's why it was so easy to understand why he would be against the Chevron doctrine. Sure. And in another case, coming where they're going to cut more power away from the bureaucrats. So I think that's there. The issue, of course, just like in all, quote, modern countries, is that you can't fire these people like that. You've got to be very clever. You can do a size reduction in the staff, you know, and what happens though, is that anybody new gets fired and you get the old guys who have perhaps been the somewhat corrupted by the system, John, if I may say, you think, to stay. So, you know, it's not a great way necessarily of going. It reduces the numbers, but I'm not sure how really effective it is at handling, you know, the ingrained bureaucracy. But you've got a real intention. In fact, I think it's really an animosity to a lot of these regulators who have cracked the whip on people arbitrarily with no rationale except their belief. And that's going to backfire. It's not going to be as bad as the French Revolution with a guillotine, but I think they should be very happy. We don't have a guillotine anymore because there are some people that are that frustrated and concerned. And I think for good reason, you know, listening to you talk about this, I just had my idea, how much money was allocated to the IRS and the inflation, this Biden inflation reduction act. They were talking up to a hundred billion. What about taking that hundred billion and make that the severance package, you know, for all of these. Yeah, I mean, Congress passed a law which says, this is how I don't know if it's true in Canada, but if you as an apartment get an amount of money allocated to you, you can't give it back. You have to spend it. So, you have people buying additional laptop computers that they don't need that just go into the closet and become obsolete. I mean, there are stories about going into a government offices where you go back into their storage and you'll find computers and other things they bought 10 years ago to spend the money. And one of the reasons why I was listening to a little debate on one of the channels and they were talking, "Oh, you can't do that. You can't just cut. You're not going to save any money. You got to spend the money." No, use that to pay severance. Yeah, absolutely. What a wonderful use of the money allocated to the IRS and the inflation reduction act. Right. We set up pensions for long-term IRS employees. I mean, it would be a fantastic investment, actually, a far better investment than pumping the money into trying to prop up this horrible system. You know, you've got a good one for you. In my Jag office, they had some budget money that they had to spend, so they bought wet stones to sharpen knives. No. That sounds pretty hard. They're still perfect to figure out how to spend the money. What is your job? Well, you know, I spend money to make use of our budget. I think that's probably true. Whether it's the law or not, I think it's probably true in any bureaucracy. It is. They want to make sure they can justify expanding their bureaucracy because for no other reason, if they can hire new people, if there's ever a cutback, they're the ones that go. Second reason isn't gives it more power. These are really exciting times. You mentioned Charles Adams a couple of times, and I agree with you, his book for Good and Evil Taxes and Silver Nation is an incredible book. It's a classic. It should be read. Actually, it should be read by everybody because it would, you know, it would get you interested in this topic. But what would Charles Adams say about this moment in history? He would characterize it similar to some of these other times because it's not just the English that got rid of their terrible tax system. All through history, you've seen civilizations prosper when they made this change and go down when they went back to a system like ours. And so Charles used to, I used to be on panels with Charles. Charles would say, in fairness to Charles, if we had some type of a flat tax that we could figure out a way to make it constitutionally unable to be changed, flat income tax, that would work. You mean as sort of like a revenue tax? Yes. But he always thought that the tax on consumption was much smarter because he said every, I forget it was a quote from somebody, but every person or no, the widow should also pay toward the tax. Everybody should contribute. It was some saying from England and like pay a farthing, you know, some type of small amount. But that was his idea that the only way you could do that was the consumption tax. Charles was also very big on the idea that if you look at the way everybody else uses a value added tax in our trading partners, including Canada, you know, their form, that if you eliminate the income tax and simply do a retail sales tax, you effectively equalize our treatment of imports with everybody else's because when we import into Europe, they add the value added tax on it. When they send it over to our country, they take it away. We're not adding any of the cost of government if it's exported because it's not a retail sale. So you get to the same place. You just do it more economically and easier because the value added tax can be gained. It can be manipulated by the government. You know, they can say, John, if you'll hire three woke people, we'll let you have this much reduction in your value added tax rate, or we'll let you claim a credit of this much. You can't do that with a sales tax at the retail level. Everybody sees them. You know, listening to the two of you talk about this, and you know, our conversation generally, it's always fascinating to me. But really, I think we would all agree that all taxation results in the erosion of productive capital, it's available in some ways, right? We all agree with that. So really, the issue here is, I think, mostly, what's the best way to tax and have at least erosion of productive capital, right? Isn't that really the issue here? It totally is. And it's also, sorry, John. I still say it's also a question of who should understand what's going on, the people or the government? Well, yeah. I mean, one of the biggest problems because, no, because I'll just finish it quickly, with the retail sales tax, everybody sees the cost of government. It's clear. Yeah. Nobody has to put in those taxes into the prices. So those are hidden. How much did all the people that made the product in Amazon sold you have to increase their price because of payroll taxes, income taxes, a loan? Forget regulations. How much price increase? People say 10, 15, 20 percent increase. So a dollar product from Amazon maybe should have cost 80 cents. Well, if the manufacturer can make the same profit at 80 cents, John, and they may not, they may want to charge a dollar, but if they're competitive, you're going to charge less and less. You're going to see prices come down. So you may have a price that you're paying 30 percent on that would have been a dollar today. That's 80 cents tomorrow. Right. My income tax professor once said there are two ways wealth is created. People at work and property at work. So the two components that create wealth would be income would be property would be capital and labor. And so in addition to penalizing capital and income tax penalizes labor, and what do people opt for instead of capital labor leisure and consumption? And while we all want leisure, we want the ability to have more leisure by creating more capital and more labor. So I think in that case, if you switch the tax base from income, which punishes capital and labor to consumption in a way that doesn't really punish consumption, then society. It's a big win for society. Well, that's absolutely right. I think there's another, another aspect to it that I think we've kind of talked around, but not really mentioned explicitly. And this is something that I personally feel very strongly about is that I think the taxpayers should be able to understand the taxes they're paying and why they're paying taxes and how they're calculated. We do agree. 100% absolutely. And we are so far away from that at the moment. I mean, nobody. You know, I mean, Steve, you're a lifetime tax guy. I'm going to ask you, do you fully understand your own tax return? Of course not. I mean, there you have it. I mean, I don't think any one of us does, and we're far better positioned than humanity in general. So I mean, we're, we're captive to this horrible system that not only is completely arbitrary, but the arbitrariness and the discrimination is hidden, you know, through language that can't be understood. I mean, the way that tax laws are made, nobody can ever see what it looks like after the laws written, you know, this part of that part. I mean, it's absolutely incredible stuff. I mean, no matter how I look about, look at this, you know, I think that as bad as things are, I mean, they're so bad. I think we've probably entered into a golden age of tax reform. Yes. There are no other options. I think it's true. The last time I saw this was in the early 90s, when there was a revolt against the IRS, they were going in and taking homes and doing all things. And you got the taxpayer bill rights. But then Congress said, Oh, declared victory and stopped. You know, everybody shut up because the biggest abuses were no longer being done. You know, the most public people were committing suicide over being assessed taxes. They didn't know and things like that to get the life insurance for the fair. There was actually a case of that that was the cause celeb to help the taxpayer bill of rights. And this is the time though, when we've got this confluence of things, people against overreach of government overregulation, we've got people saying these bureaucrats who've been running our lives, we should run our lives. You know, we should not be subject to some little guy in DC who decides or gal that that stream running through the back of our property is the wetland situation. And therefore, in order for us to keep the property as a home, we have to spend a million dollars. Yeah, yeah, do this. You know, that's the kind of thing that still happens every day in the US. I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US, you occurs of all first world democracies, right? I mean, they sort of start out, you know, with a reasonable level of freedom. And then, you know, as as as government grows and grows and grows, I mean, you have a corresponding decrease in freedom. But you know, you set something there, well, everything you say is interesting, but this, this really resonated with me, was, you know, in the early 90s, there's this backlash and they get the taxpayer bill of rights, but they didn't finish the job, right? This is the problem. And I think that this is a very important point. This is a moment in history when the job needs to be finished, yesterday, that this is not a question anymore, you know, tweaking the internal revenue code. Okay, this is a question of rethinking, you know, what is the way to have a taxism that involves the least erosion of productive capital? And it is pretty clear that in Canada, the Income Tax Act, the US, the internal revenue code, I mean, you know, and all these countries are under stress now, right? You know, in the UK, there's a question. There's this, I was actually in the UK last week, and all over the papers, you know, they were talking about, you know, essentially the death tax on farm, you know, they say, oh, you know, yeah, it's all a farm to pay the death. That was exactly what they're talking about over there. Right. Right. And you know, this stuff has got to come to an end because a tax code and revenue collection should be in the service of the people, the people should not be in the service of a revenue rate. Yep. And and I think that's maybe a good way for us to end it. It's like, who should be in charge? Actually, I think the two of you should be in charge of getting the question. Well, thank you for that. That's very kind of you. Well, well, the server, I mean, you have a long long distinguished history of, you know, putting this together and standing beside it through thick and thin. And you know, I think you deserve a tremendous shout out because it's not like you're being paid the big bucks or any bucks for that manner. In fact, to be doing this. No, it's been, it's been sort of like that kid that got the tiger by the tail, but he couldn't get loose. Because we let it loose. The tiger turned around and eat him. So he held on. Because I've had an advantage that a lot of people don't have with the income tax, the IRS is that even when they sent me not so veiled threats, I would tell them that'd be great. Because I'll go on all of these talk shows. And I'll talk about it. I'll tell who the agent is, I'll even give their phone number if I can find it so people can contact them. So bring it on. And I, and I've never had a problem because I've always had a pulpit, so to speak, people like yourself and others, who have that controversy. Well, I mean, the reality is, look, I mean, the two of you are uniquely qualified. You know, I think to push this thing through, because the problem is that, you know, one of the things I've learned over the years is that advocacy, mass advocacy, although necessary is not as efficient condition. Got to have spokespeople who can speak language and converted to a message, you know, generally for the masses. And, you know, I mean, you're right, other than the bureaucracy, the entrenched bureaucracy. I mean, if anybody really, you know, there's this, you know, what's that phrase of the fear? If you understand it, you'll demand it, you know, right. I think that that's absolutely true, absolutely true. Oh, John, we appreciate the platform that you've been providing us. Yeah, very much so. It's always a pleasure. These are always fascinating discussions. Well, actually, as we bring this to an end, probably we should get in. What are your coordinates? Where do people learn more about the fear of tax and all that great stuff? Well, if they go to fairtax.org, sign up. We'd love for you to become a member. You're right, Jim and I are volunteers. We're not getting paid. And we want to see this happen because we think it's best for the country. We think it's best for our kids and grandkids and their kids and grandkids, because we want them to have the opportunity to have a country, which I think because of all the economic reasons we've talked about, if we grow instead of at 2% at 5%, then my grandkids will have a much better standard of living than I ever had, assuming they work. They've got to be willing to work. But that's what we're talking about is not only freeing them from government oppression, but giving them the economic opportunity of prosperity that we had when we were starting our lives. Absolutely. That's what we can do here. And that's a cause I think all of us and get behind because we're not talking about just us and our kids from freedom from the government. We're also talking about freedom from want and giving people the opportunity to prosper as well as their efforts allow. Absolutely. And I would add that you're talking about this. Obviously from the perspective of inside the United States looking in, but I mean, man, the benefits to the rest of the world on this as well, including Americans abroad, obviously, are absolutely huge. So this is something that not only people in America, but the world will definitely benefit from. And Jim, what are your closing thoughts here? Well, we certainly appreciate the opportunity that you've provided us. And we're excited about the prospect of making some headway with the new president and the new administration and the economic opportunity that the fair tax would provide to everybody, not just in the United States, but it would be a spark that would set off prosperity in the world. So we think that the fair tax seems to have the brightest future that it's had in a long time. And thank you very much for having us on your podcast. Well, my pleasure. And we should as you know, as this is this unfolds, we ought to do these with some regularity and just, you know, see how the progress is coming on this, but this is great. So thank you very much. And again, it's John Richton. I'm speaking with Steve Hayes and Jim Bennett of Well Deserve Fair Tax and Appetal Letters fame. So check out fairtax.org. Thanks very much.
