►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
we
were,
we've
been
waiting
with
baited
breath
this
entire
time,
and
actually
jocelyn
may
have
already
done
that,
but
we're
going
to
be
providing
a
link
if
she
hasn't
already
to
the
to
the
interim
guidance
and
the
fact
sheet
that
just
came
out,
so
it
should
be
in
the
chat
box
there.
It
is
right
on
cue
jocelyn,
thank
you
and
yeah,
so
so,
and
also
going
to
be
sending
out.
A
A
B
Oh
okay,
I
get
it,
I
get
it
okay
anyway.
Thank
you
so
much
erlinda.
I
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
well
to
actually
see
everybody
again.
No,
I
don't
really
see
you,
but
I'm
like
yourself.
I
can't
wait
until
we're
all
back
in
person
doing
what
we
do
best,
but
welcome
to
all,
and
I
hope
that
everyone
in
your
orbits
are
safe
and
well,
as
can
be,
these
are
challenging
times
trying
to
do
stuff
virtually.
B
I
know
that
almost
all
of
the
hearings
that
I
conduct
as
well
as
the
the
sessions
are
done
virtually
so
we're
all
getting
used
to
it,
but
I
think
we're
still
getting
the
people's
jobs
done.
I
would
also
like
to
take
just
a
second
to
thank
any
and
all
sponsors
who
keep
us
going,
and
you
know
without
the
help
of
the
sponsors.
These
kind
of
conversations
just
would
not
be
happening.
So
thank
you
so
much
and
we
hope
that
you
continue
to
support
us
in
the
future.
B
You
know
this
is
going
to
be
a
timely
discussion
today.
I
believe
you
know
just
in
my
own
art,
but
I've
got
I've
had
dozens
and
dozens
and
dozens
of
tax
bills.
We
just
finished
some
last
week
and
that's
where
I
think
the
second
most
number
of
constituents
are
always
concerned
about,
so
it's
up
to
us
to
keep
up
to
date,
both
federally
and
in
our
own
states.
B
With
that
you
know
the
the
federal
overview
is
important
to
us,
because
it
then
helps
us
figure
out
how
we
as
state
our
leaders.
You
know,
do
our
thing,
so
this
is
so
helpful
to
be
able
to
talk
to
a
lot
of
our
colleagues
to
learn
from
them
and
then
learn
from
each
other.
So
I
hope
that
you
enjoy
the
conversation.
I
know
that
I
will
unfortunately
I'll
have
to
leave
before
it's
over,
but
that's
to
get
ready
for
some
other
stuff
tomorrow.
But
thank
you
for
being
here.
C
C
C
I
think
it'll
only
just
enrich
things
altogether
and
then
the
last
thing
I
would
just
ask
everybody
to
do
is
think
in
terms
of
topics:
it's
not
easy
for
linda
and
the
team
or
marvin,
and
I
to
come
up
with
things
we're
talking
about
that.
We're
talking
about
stress
testing
and
I
see
wayne
is
on
from
our
state
of
utah.
C
You
know
how
that
you
know
some
of
those
conversations,
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
have
again
to
provide
the
tools
that
we
have
secretary,
buda,
judges,
talking
about
a
vehicle,
miles,
travel
conversation
and
how
do
we
actually
fix
and
pay
for
transportation
and
infrastructure
funding
and
I'd
love
to
have
more
conversation
on
that
states,
rights
and
federalism,
which
I
think
we're
going
to
hear
a
lot
more
about
today.
In
fact,
so
any
other
topics
that
you
have
keep
in
mind.
C
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you.
So
much
representative,
abney
and
representative
marco
always
wonderful
to
have
you
here
and
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
out
to
join
us,
given
your
all
of
the
other
competing
priorities
that
you
have.
So
thank
you
so
much.
Okay!
Well,
I'm
jocelyn
next
side,
please
and
just
sort
of
again
just
sort
of
a
run
of
the
show
for
today.
A
Gonna
just
be
giving
a
brief
federal
overview
here
and
let
my
panel
do
most
of
the
the
heavy
lifting
and
then
we're
going
to
be
taking.
I
think
we
factored
in
a
five-minute
break
some
time
after
the
federal
overview.
I
think
that's
what
we
said
right
jocelyn,
but
of
course
you
are
welcome
to
take
a
break
as
needed
since
we're
going
until
4
30,
but
maybe
we'll
start
a
little
or
leave
a
little
earlier
or
finish
a
little
earlier.
A
A
Fantastic
well,
as
you
know,
my
well,
my
original
intent
was
going
to
be
giving
an
actual
analysis
of
the
arpa
guidelines
that
literally
just
came
out
about
five
minutes
ago.
So
that
isn't
happening
right.
This
moment,
although
I
think
my
colleague
joe
will
have,
will
be
handling,
maybe
some
of
those
questions
as
we
go
on
as
he's
dissecting.
It
really
quickly,
but
let
me
at
least
give
an
overview
of
the
of
the
coveted
spending.
A
That's
already
been
enacted
from
from
a
sort
of
a
higher
level
and
then
talk
about
some
of
the
proposed
spending
that
the
binding
administration
has
put
forth
and
again,
the
rest
of
my
colleagues
will
really
delve
in
deep
as
we
go
through
the
panel.
So,
as
you
know,
we've
spent
about
five
trillion
dollars
in
covid
spending,
which
is
supposed
to
over
the
which
will
cost
5
trillion
over
the
next
10
years.
A
And
you
can
see
here
the
six,
some
will
say
five
and
a
half
public
laws
that
were
passed
to
to
deal
with
the
crisis
since
its
inception
over
over
a
year
ago.
The
most
recent
being,
of
course,
the
american
rescue
plan
act,
which
gave
out
350
billion
dollars
for
state
and
local
and
tribal
territories
to
to
address
the
the
the
coveted
pandemic
from
more
of
an
economic
standpoint.
Next
slide,
please.
A
And
again
of
interest
has
been,
and,
of
course,
the
cares
act
which
gave
500
billion
dollars
to
stay
in
local
aid
in
the
the
most
or
the.
The
pot
that
we
were
dealing
with
more
closely
in
my
committee
and
also
with
salt,
was
the
carnovirus
relief
fund
which,
and
its
inception
ended
up
not
being
as
flexible
as
some
states
had
wanted
it
to
be
to
help
deal
with
the
revenue
losses
that
were
expected
to
be
occurring.
A
But,
however,
the
plan
did
allow
for
money
to
be
used
for
unbudgeted
virus
related
expenses
and
with
respect
to
the
guidance.
If
you
recall
it
came
out
in
sort
of
a
piecemeal
fashion
which
made
it
challenging
for
states
to
to
figure
out
how
to
use
or
how
to
use
correctly
or
within
the
intent
that
was
given
by
the
by
the
administration
and
also
put
some
restrictions
on
when
the
funds
had
to
be
spent.
A
A
These
are
the
other
payroll
tax
credits
and
businesses.
I've
been
sold
out
through
all
the
kobe
relief
packages
you
can
see
here
and
we'll
get
into
more
of
the
tax,
of
course
related
issues
further
on
the
panel.
But
this
is
just
an
overview.
You
can
see
what
has
been
given
out
and
enacted
since
a
year
ago,
since
the
first
bills
were
passed
to
help
families
and
businesses
address
the
coveted
relief
crisis.
A
A
A
In
conjunction
with
with
that
proposal.
His
infrastructure
proposal
was,
of
course,
this
other
his
next
economic
proposal,
which
is
to
cost
1.5
trillion
dollars.
I'm
sorry!
This
is
the
budget,
I'm
sorry
we're
going
the
budget
proposal
now,
which
is
still
we're
still
waiting
actually
for
his
official
plan
to
come
out.
A
We've
gotten
sort
of
straw,
man,
proposals,
we've
seen
the
outline
the
guidelines,
but
we're
still
waiting
for
the
actual
bills
to
be
to
come
through,
but
you
can
see
here
again
what
his
priorities
are
over:
the
major
federal
agencies,
14
billion
dollars
to
address
climate
change,
2.5
billion
for
agriculture
and
interior
department
and
his
various
priorities
here,
which
we
expect
to
to
see
come
forth
in
some
sort
of
budget
plan.
We
hope
soon
next
slide.
A
D
Thank
you
so
much
for
linda,
chair,
abby
and
jeremiah
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
and
linda
jackson
and
jocelyn
for
including
me
on
the
program
jocelyn.
You
won't
need
to
advance
any
slides.
My
slides
were
pretty
useless,
leading
up
to
it
because
we
didn't
have
any
guidance,
so
there
wasn't
much
to
say
and
now
they're
completely
irrelevant
or
relevant.
D
In
light
of
the
fact
that
some
guidance
has
come
out,
I
had
about
about
18
minutes
to
print
it
out
and
look
over
the
16
of
the
151
pages
that
address
the
so-called
tax
mandate,
which
is
the
provision
in
the
american
rescue
plan
act
that
speaks
to
the
ability
of
state
and
local
governments
receiving
the
federal
aid
to
cut
their
taxes,
and
so
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
I
was
able
to
go
through
it
and
I
think,
create
the
few
high
points.
D
So
the
law,
I
think,
no
longer
matters.
What
matters
is
the
guidance
and
I
say
that
totally
partially
adjust
the
law
still
matters
if
you're
an
attorney
general,
who
wants
to
sue
the
federal
government.
It
still
matters
if
you're
a
legislature
which
disagrees
with
the
rule
and
wants
to
sue
the
federal
government
or
if
you
want
to
write
a
law
review
journal
or
just
engage
in
the
sort
of
fun
arguments
that
us
tech
people
enjoy
doing
all
the
time.
D
But
for
the
purpose
of
legislators
who
are
crafting
budgets
and
looking
at
making
tax
changes,
you
know,
I
think,
really
the
rule
as
it's
come
out
right
now
and
then
forthcoming
guidance,
because
this
is
not
the
end
of
it
is
what's
most
important,
so
I
you
know
basically
there.
There
are
three
salient
points,
as
I
read
it
going
through
the
rule.
D
First
is
you
need
to
determine
what
your
baseline
is
and
they
define
the
baseline
tax
revenue
in
there,
as
tax
revenue
essentially
reported
to
the
census
bureau
for
fiscal
year
2019,
so
for
most
states,
that's
going
to
be
july,
1
2018
through
july.
Excuse
me
through
june
30th
2019..
So
that's
the
base
year
and
then
your
next
step,
if
you
want
to
make
a
tax
change,
is
determine
whether
that
tax
reduces
net
revenue.
D
So
you
add
everything
up
and
determine
whether
it
is
a
reduction
in
revenue,
and
you
do
that
by
using
the
quote
ordinary
method
of
determining
changes,
so
whatever
your
ordinary
fiscal
estimating
process
would
be
appears
to
be
what
the
rule
suggests.
You
should
use
to
determine
whether
you
know
whether
a
tax
change
is
a
net
reduction.
D
So
if
you,
if
you
determine
that
your
change
is
a
net
reduction
in
revenue
or
changes
collectively
or
net
reduction
in
revenue,
then
you
have
to
determine
whether
your
overall
revenue
is
higher
than
the
base
year,
plus
inflation.
So
if
you're
looking
to
say
fiscal
year
22,
you
would
look
at
revenue
from
fiscal
year.
19
increase
that
by
inflation
and
if,
after
the
tax
cuts
you
you're
still
above
the
base
year,
then
you
stop
you're
done
it's
presumed
that
organic
growth
has
provided
you
with
the
revenues
necessary
to
cut
taxes.
D
So
that's
all
you
really
need
to
do.
The
interesting
thing
is-
and
I
maybe
it's
in
there
and
I
didn't
find
it
yet
it
doesn't
def
define
inflation.
We
know
there
are
various
different
measurements
of
deflation
used
at
the
federal
level.
There
is
you
know
this,
for
example,
the
measure
of
inflation
that
is
used
for
social
security
changes
year
after
year,
there's
the
price,
the
price
deflator
that
the
fed
uses.
D
So
I
don't
know
if
they're
going
to
further
define
that
or
if
it's
in
there-
and
I
just
didn't-
see
it
yet,
but
you
know
it
does-
that
could
be
an
important
number
what
inflation
means.
The
other
thing,
too,
is
that,
ordinarily,
when
you're
looking
at
state
and
local
government,
if
you
were
creating,
say
a
baseline,
you
would
look
at
inflation
and
population
growth,
and
this
doesn't
mention
population
growth
at
all.
So
if
you're
a
faster
growing
state,
you
know
I
saw
a
wall
street
journal.
D
Article
saying
coeur,
d'alene,
idaho,
is
the
place
to
be
now.
You
know
if
you're
a
faster
growing
state
it
may
not.
You
may
not
even
need
to
worry
about
this,
because
if
your
population
is
growing
sufficiently
fast,
revenues
might
be
growing.
Well,
faster
than
inflation,
providing
you
with
essentially
a
safe
harbor.
We
wouldn't
need
to
worry
about
this
if
you're
a
state
with
a
flat
or
declining
population,
some
census
numbers
indicated,
for
example,
california,
experienced
its
first
population
decline
since
1850.
D
D
You
need
to
worry
about
if
they're,
not
reduction
as
long
as
your
revenues
at
the
end
of
the
game
are
above
the
baseline,
you're,
fine
and
then
the
third
step
is
if
your
changes
are
a
net
reduction
and
if
your
revenue
following
the
reductions
is
lower
than
the
baseline
as
a
result
of
the
changes,
then
you
need
to
determine
how
you're
replacing
those
revenues
and
you
can
replace
them
either
through
tax
increases
in
another
area
or
through
spending
cuts
that
are
not
related
to
arpa.
So
that's
the
remaining
you
know,
100,
and
so
on.
D
D
There
are
a
few
safe
harbors
as
well
that
are
sort
of
outside
of
this
number
one
is
if
the
changes
are
de
minimis,
so
in
diminished
de
minimis
is
defined
as
less
than
one
percent
of
tax
revenues.
So
let's
say
you
know
you
determine
your
baseline,
you
determine
your
cut
and
your
revenues
are
actually
going
to
end
up
lower
than
they
were
in
the
baseline
year.
As
long
as
the
difference
associated
with
the
cut
is
less
than
one
percent
of
revenues,
then
you
have
a
safe
harbor.
D
The
other
safe
harbor
is,
if
you
changed,
administrative
interpretations
to
correct
a
prior,
faulty
or
erroneous
interpretation,
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
at
least
spend
some
more
time.
Thinking
about
this,
but
I
think
what
they're
getting
at
is
you
know
if
a
court
or
administrative
tribunal
finds
that
a
tax
is
being
improperly
imposed
or
collected,
and
some
sort
of
administrative
interpretation
needs
to
be
corrected.
D
D
Now
the
interesting
thing
in
here
is
that
the
interim
final
rule
uses
different
words
than
the
notice
they
put
out
a
few
weeks
ago.
They
noticed
they
put
out
a
few
weeks
ago
said
that
whether
income
tax
changes
that
simply
conform
a
state
or
territories,
tax
law
with
recent
changes
in
the
federal
income
tax
law
are
subject
to
the
offset
provision,
regardless
of
the
particular
method
of
conformity.
D
So
the
first
notice
they
put
out
said
it
doesn't
matter
if
all
you're
doing
is
making
some
change
associated
with
the
federal
income
tax
law
that
that
doesn't
implicate.
This
offset
provision
in
the
interim
final
rule
that
came
out
today,
it
said
treasury
previously
determined
and
announced
that
income
tax
changes
that
simply
conform
with
recent
changes
in
federal
law.
D
But
under
the
tcja
law
there
are
a
number
of
actions
that
states
have
taken
to
decouple
which
arguably
reduce
revenue,
and
so
it's
a
question
I
think
as
to
whether
decoupling
would
reduce
revenue.
Clearly,
what
treachery
has
in
mind
here
are
instances
where
states
conform,
for
example,
to
the
federal
treatment
of
the
paycheck
protection
program
loans
or
with
the
new
treatment,
the
income
tax
treatment
of
unemployment
insurance.
But
so
that's
an
open
question
and
speaking
of
open
questions.
D
Finally,
the
guidance
poses
a
number
of
questions,
but
doesn't
answer
them,
presumably
at
some
point
in
the
future
we're
going
to
get
answers
to
those
questions.
It
also
contemplates
that
further
guidance
is
going
to
be
forthcoming,
which
is
any
of
us
who
have
done
this
for
any
period
of
time.
Know,
there's
never
really
an
end
to
the
guidance
until
people
have
forgotten
that
the
program
existed
and
even
then
sometimes
you
still
get
guidance
after
the
fact.
D
So,
even
with
the
cares
act,
I
think
there
were
three
or
four
rounds
of
guidance
within
within
the
you
know,
first
six
months
of
it
being
adopted.
So
at
this
point
in
time
I
would
say
that
the
guidance
on
balance
is
good,
in
that
we
have
some
guidance
and
that
provides
some
certainty
to
state
legislatures.
D
So
if
you're
a
state-
and
there
have
been
some
states
out
there-
that
have
really
been
looking
at
tax
cuts,
because
revenues
have
performed
much
better
than
anticipated.
If
you
can
look
at
that
fy
2019
year
and
you
can
look
at
your
current
year
and
you
can
figure
out
how
much
above
that
baseline
you're
performing
including
inflation
that
essentially
tells
you
we
have
this
amount
that
we
can
cut
if
we
want
to
and
still
not
run
afoul
of
the
so-called
offset
provision
and
thus
be
subject
to
recruitment
of
any
arpa
funds.
D
E
I
was
looking
at
this
right
before
the
call
as
well,
and
one
of
the
things
I
stuck
out
to
me
was
the
limitation
on
spending
cuts
as
an
offset
to
tax
cuts.
Obviously
we
know
what
treasury's
trying
to
do.
They
want
to
address
that
indirect.
You
can't
replace
you
know
the
money
with
the
fiscal
recovery
funds,
but,
as
I
read
it,
it
was
fairly
categorical
based
on
agency
or
department.
E
So
if
a
department
received
the
benefit
of
any
fiscal
recovery
funds,
it
appears
that
any
reduction
in
spending
within
that
entire
department
would
lead
to
recoupment
if
the,
if
that
funding
was
within,
that
reduction
was
used
to
do
it
net
tax
cuts.
So
you
know
I
mean
given
that
this
covers
education,
yeah,
social
services,
health,
public
safety.
All
of
these
different
areas,
it
seems
like,
if
you
receive
any
funding
within
any
department.
You
can't
cut
anything
in
that
department
and
use
it
for
tax
cuts.
Is
that
your
interpretation.
D
Yeah,
that
was
my
gut
reaction.
I'm
gonna
have
to
read
it
more
because
I
looked
at
that
and
then
I
said
you
know,
I'm
gonna
have
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
just
thinking
about.
If
there's
an
area
you
could
cut
spending
which
would
fall
outside
of
this
and
right.
If
you
could
find
that
area,
would
it
even
sufficiently
large
to
worry
about
and
then
finally
politically,
are
you
gonna
actually
cut
that
spending,
so
I
kind
of
ignored
that
jared
I
mean
I
looked
at.
D
I
said
this
is
not
really
how
states
are
going
to
be
to
the
extent
that
a
state
wants
to
cut
taxes.
It's
probably
not
going
to
come
as
a
as
a
function
of
some
sort
of
spending
cuts.
It's
going
to
become
it's
going
to
come
because
organic
revenue
growth
is
going
to
be
sufficient
to
be
above
the
baseline
year
so
that
they
don't
need
to
go
into
any
machinations
to
worry
about
it,
and
then
you
know.
D
I
wouldn't
be
surprised,
though,
if
there
are
some
states
as
they
look
at
this,
that
say,
you
know
we're
we
think
treasury's
interpreting
this
too
narrowly
and
or
we
think
that
the
10th
amendment
still
is
a
part
of
what
the
federal
government
is
trying
to
do
to
us
here,
which
is
an
interesting
thing,
and
I
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
there's
a
case
on
that,
simply
to
prove,
if
you
will
that
the
federal
government
can't
impose
these
conditions
on
states
or
you
know
at
least
that
would
be
one.
I
think
perspective.
B
B
F
B
That
we
have
in
the
state
of
illinois,
we
have
a
live,
theater
tax
credit
and
we
wanted
to
increase
the
tax
credit.
It's
right
now,
two
million
dollars
a
year.
We
wanted
to
increase
this
to
four
million
to
boost
up
the
industry
under
this
under
the
federal
program
states
to
do
that
would
be
punished,
or
at
least
that's
what
we
heard
is
there
anything
that
shows
that
to
be
true
is
what
are
you
guys
seeing
if
anyone
wants
to
give
more
enhancements
to
help
an
industry
out?
It
sounds
like,
under
the
federal.
D
You're
breaking
up
a
bit
senator,
but
I
think
we
got
the
gist
of
the
question
and
you
know
so,
I
think,
prior
to
the
guidance
that
was
the
concern,
because
strictly
reading
the
law
as
it
was
written
would
suggest
that
any
reduction
in
tax
would
run
afoul
in
the
provision.
I
think
the
treasury
guidance
is
helpful
in
a
couple
of
ways.
First,
it
sets
up
the
baseline
year.
D
So
if
your
revenue
is
growing-
and
I
know
in
illinois-
you
may
not
be
in
as
advantageous
position
as
some
other
states,
then
you
do
have
some
scope
to
cut
taxes,
but
then
also
if
the
changes
are
these,
what
so
called
the
minimum
so
less
than
one
percent
of
total
revenue.
Now,
as
I
read
it,
you
can't
calculate
it
provision
by
provision
because
then
you
know
that
would
that
would
be
really
convenient.
D
You
could
just
make
lots
of
little
cuts
that
added
up
to
a
lot
to
a
big
cut,
but
I
think
you
know
if
the
the
change
that
you're
suggesting
in
a
state
like
the
size
of
illinois,
all
else
being
equal,
would
fall
under
the
minimus
provision
and
would
not
run
afoul
of
arpa
and
thus
not
subject
any
of
your
funds
to
recruitment.
So
I
would
say
that
would
be
safe.
If
that
were
all
that,
illinois
is
doing
and
I'd
have
to
go.
D
Do
the
math,
which
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
right
now
about
how
big
that
you
know
what
one
percent
is
equivalent
to
for
the
state
of
illinois.
But
I
think
you
know
every
legislative
fiscal
office
can
do
that
relatively
quickly.
You
know
here's
one
percent
of
our
baseline
revenue,
plus
inflation,
and
if
you
keep
your
changes
under
that,
then
you
don't
have
anything
to
worry
about,
or
if
you
ensure
that
any
reductions
are
not
greater
than
the
increase
in
revenue
over
the
baseline
year.
D
A
Thank
you,
joe
and
as
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
expect
to
also
see
some
information
from
us
coming
out
in
shortstead
too,
as
we
delve
deeper
into
what
these
guidelines
mean
and,
of
course,
continue
to
look
to
us
as
being
a
resource
between
you
all
and
treasury
too.
As
I'm
sure,
more
clarification
continues
to
come
out
in
the
coming
weeks
and
months.
G
Hey
everybody
boy:
if
you
want
to
know
what
it
stress
is
on
a
speaker.
Try
following
that
topic,
the
one
everybody
has
been
waiting
about,
and
my
topic
is,
of
course
a
little
bit
of
looking
to
the
past,
but
still
something
that
we
care
very
much
about,
and
I
just
really
wanted
to
draw
some
attention
to
what
this
all
means.
So,
if
the
topic
ever
comes
up
again,
god
help
us
all.
You
have
a
little
bit
more
information
to
work
with
so
moving
the
traditional
income
tax
by
tax
filing
deadline.
G
So,
as
everybody
has
figured
out
by
now
with
every
big
move,
comes
unintended
consequences
and
confusion,
and
that's
part
of
what
I'm
going
to
address
here
this
year
in
march
17th,
the
irs
moved
that
announced
that
the
april
15th
deadline
would
move
to
may
17th.
So
that
is
two
months
two
months
to
take
action.
They
announced
it
in
march.
The
deadline
had
been
april.
G
So
that
created
a
crisis,
and
we
all
know
that
we
like
to
take
advantage
of
a
crisis
and
make
good
things
come
of
them,
but
the
tax
administrators
would
tell
you.
We
had
no
crisis
here
that
this
was
moving
the
deadline.
Creating
this
extension
was
something
that
came
from
a
sector
of
an
industry
but
did
not
come
from
anywhere
else.
B
G
Was
doing
what
it
could
do
to
publicly
say
we're?
Not
we
don't
want
to
do
this.
We
can't
do
this.
I
actually
spoke
to
the
incoming
administration's
transition
team
on
tax
in
january,
and
they
assured
me
the
administration
had
no
interest
in
moving
the
deadline.
Then
the
accounting
community
was
not
on
board.
With
this.
Only
the
asepa
and
one
sector
there
had
asked
for
an
extension
software
providers
I'll
get
into
the
more
of
this.
In
just
a
moment.
G
G
What
the
accounting
community
said
was
that
the
sector
that
had
asked
for
an
extension
of
the
deadline
was
that
this
would
help
the
tax
agencies,
because
it
would
help
them
stop
having
backlogs
lost.
That
word
for
a
minute,
and
the
fact
is
that
backlines
aren't
necessarily
a
bad
thing,
but
we
would
far
rather
have
backlog
in
our
building,
and
then
you
can
make
decisions
as
to
whether
or
not
a
tax
return
should
be
processed.
First,
you
can
make
your
priorities.
G
G
G
G
When
deceit
deadlines
are
delayed,
basic
human
nature
kicks
in
and
most
people
procrastinate
when
the
filing
season
was
extended.
Last
year,
irs
data
showed
that
a
large
number
of
people
delayed
filing
their
taxes,
9.7
million,
more
taxpayers,
who
were
due
a
refund
in
2020,
waited
to
file
until
april
after
april
15th
on
the
federal
side,
their
average
refund
was
2
788,
so
that
took
close
to
30
billion
dollars
in
refunds
out
of
the
economy
during
a
critical
period
of
time.
G
Same
thing
happened
this
year,
although
we
don't
have
the
data
on
it
yet
to
know
exactly
what
the
volume
is.
These
are
all
taxpayers
who
needed
and
wanted
that
refund
and
yet
because
of
the
basic
human
nature
they
had
another
month
to
file
they
delayed
filing.
In
that
point,
so,
instead
of
extending
the
filing
deadline,
what
already
exists
for
people
who,
who
think
that
something
is
happening?
You've
made
the
decision
that
that
we
need
to
take
some
action.
G
They
simply
can
file
for
an
extension
of
time
to
file
and
if
you're
getting
a
refund,
that's
it.
You
basically
fill
out
a
name
and
address
and
for
a
state
many
of
them,
it's
automatic.
You
don't
have
to
fill
out
anything
at
all.
So
you
do
have
that
option
to
decide
that
hey.
I.
I
really
think
people
need
to
be
able
to
have
more
time
to
deal
with
some
sort
of
crisis.
We
already
have
that
in
place.
G
Here's
what
happens,
though,
when
you
change
what
already
exists
the
extension
of
time
to
file
everybody
knows
about
that.
You
already
have
the
guidance
out
on
that.
The
work
that
goes
into
making
a
last-minute
change
of
a
deadline
is
distressingly
depressingly
long
and
distressingly
long.
I
can't
begin
to
cover
it
all
here.
I
will
just
say
that
for
one
every
reference
to
april
15th
has
to
be
changed
in
code.
That's
a
lot
of
code,
changing
the
last
minute
we're
talking
about
much
much
more
than
just
saying.
G
G
All
of
those
deadlines
claims
for
refunds.
Those
deadlines
have
to
change
as
well.
You
have
to
make
policy
decisions,
and
these
take
quite
a
lot
of
time
because
they're
the
big
decisions
on
estimated
payments
you
may
recall
this
year.
The
irs
was
adamant
that
it
would
not
extend
the
deadline
for
making
estimated
payments
because,
frankly,
there
was
just
way
too
much
money
involved
and
the
service
and
treasury
said
that
the
benefit
would
flow
to
the
very
high-end
taxpayers
and
would
not
be
of
any
help
to
those
who
needed
the
special
help.
G
You
have
to
make
a
decision
exactly
which
of
my
deadlines
are
being
extended
and
which
are
not.
At
that
point,
you
have
to
rewrite
all
the
letters
and
notices
many
of
those
that's
coding
as
well
taxpayer
guidance.
I
can't
tell
you
how
much
taxpayers
get
confused
by
all
this
and
you
have
to
train
your
assisters,
but
then
the
phone
lines
begin
to
blow
up
so
next
slide.
G
What
work
do
you
want
us
to
delay?
What
work
do
you
want
us
not
to
do
you
don't
have
time
to
gear
up
a
new
budget
you're,
not
getting
extra
money
for
this,
if
you're
being
honest
with
yourself
when
you're,
making
these
decisions
or
the
people
who
are
in
charge
of
these
decisions
are
you've
got
to
say,
we
know
that
there
will
be
work
and
deadlines
and
taxpayer
assistance
and
other
coding
that
is
not
happening
as
a
result
of
this.
G
Yes,
please
don't!
I
know
it's
not
quite
that
simple.
I
know
that
these
decisions
are
not
made
in
a
vacuum
that
first
off
what
happens
at
the
federal
government
is
something
that,
for
the
most
part,
you're
going
to
either
decide
to
follow
or
don't
follow.
The
decision
starts
there.
I
wanted
to
bring
this
attention
to
you
this
year,
though,
because
it
has
happened
for
two
straight
years
and
we
all
know
that
when
something
becomes
normalized,
it
is
far
more
likely
to
happen
in
the
future.
G
So
whatever
you
can
do
now
to
prepare
yourself,
your
administration,
your
committees,
your
tax
agency,
have
discussions
with
them
about
what
is
involved
with
their
state.
How
difficult
this
might
be
anything
that
you
might
be
able
to
do
now
to
prepare
your
taxpayers
and
your
pr
people,
whatever
your
marketing
is
for
you,
so
that
the
taxpayers
are
not
expecting
another
extension,
which
again
is
unnecessary.
Things
are
in
place
if
you
can
just
calm
down
the
push
for
this
now
in
the
coming
year
before
it
starts
to
become
a
habit.
H
Yeah
thanks
for
linda
and
thanks,
linda
and
jackson,
johnston
and
the
committee
for
inviting
me
to
participate
we're
going
to.
If
you
look
at
the
next
slide,
we're
going
to
try
to
unpack
a
few
items
here
that
there's
what
this
slide
really
shows
is
just
a
tremendous
acceleration
in
the
amount
of
federal
tax
reform
that's
occurred,
I
mean
we
had
this
period
1986
to
2017
a
30-year
period.
When
we
didn't.
H
You
know
there
were
some
federal
taxes
reform,
but
but
not
that
much
and
then
you
know
we
had
a
very,
very
significant
bill
coming
into
the
trump
administration
and
anytime
there's
significant
tax
reform.
The
question
always
is:
do
the
states
conform
to
it?
You
know
it
could
be
corporate,
could
be
personal
income?
Do
they
conform?
Do
they
conform
to
particular
provisions?
Do
they
have
rolling
conformity?
H
So
what
I'm
going
to
try
to
do
in
a
limited
time
frame
here
is
just
describe
briefly.
What
are
the
core
elements
in
these
plans?
Which
ones
do
we
think
are
going
to
have
the
most
impact
on
the
states
if
enacted,
and
that,
if
enacted
is?
It
is
a
gigantic?
If
you
know
we
don't
know
yet,
what's
going
to
happen,
there's
a
very,
very
narrow
majority,
obviously
in
the
senate
and
also
in
the
house
for
the
democrats.
H
The
both
of
them
are
about
two
trillion
dollars,
but
they're
tied
to
you
know
equal
amount
of
of
spending
on
the
other
side
for
infrastructure
and
social
programs
and
so
forth,
and
so
the
other
thing
that's
important
here
is
we
can
see
from
the
chrome.
You
know
the
cares
act
and
the
other
five
to
six
trillion
dollars
the
federal
government's
spending.
H
B
H
To
look
at
the
fiscal
environment
and
we
really
learned
that
with
the
pandemic,
you
know
we
had
sort
of
an
unprecedented
amount
of
federal
spending
about
you
know:
half
a
billion
that
was
noted
before
to
the
states
as
part
of
the
five
plus
trillion
dollars
and
that
changed
very
much.
The
dynamic
of
you
know
what
the
revenue
situations
were
at
the
states
and
reduced
significantly
in
many
states
the
need
for
additional
revenue
that
would
have
been
there
if
there
hadn't
been,
you
know,
federal
aid
to
the
state.
H
So
again,
you
have
to
keep
the
overall
fiscal
situation
at
hand.
So
turning
first
to
the
made
in
america
tax
plan,
this
is
the
corporate
tax
provisions
that
are
on
the
the
next.
The
next
slide
here,
what
are
the
biggest
ones
and
which
ones
do
we
think
will
affect
the
states
and
so
in
a
lot
of
ways.
This
has
been
described
as
something
that's
just
a
reversal
of
the
tax
cuts
and
job
act.
H
So
there
was
some
very
large
tax
cuts
in
in
the
tax
in
the
tax
cuts
and
job
act,
both
on
the
corporate
side
and
the
personal
income
side,
and
certainly
part
of
this
would
be
and
we'll
get
to
the
personal
income
tax
side
on
a
little
bit
later
on,
but
the
most
important
changes
here.
I
think
that
could
affect
the
states
or
the
corporate
tax
changes
and
it's
interesting,
because
if
you
put
this
in
historical
perspective,
the
if
you
remember
what
the
federal
rate
was
before
all
these,
the
tcga
happened.
H
It
was
35,
which
was
you
know,
one
of
the
highest,
if
not
the
highest
marginal
corporate
tax
rate
in
the
world
that
came
down
to
21.
What
the
biden
administration
is
talking
about
now
is
not
going
back
to
35,
so
those
days
seem
to
be
gone.
It's
just
going
to
28
and
already
there
seems
to
be
some
recession
and
maybe
it'll
end
up
in
25
percent.
Again
we
all
know
that
the
rates
don't
matter
to
the
states
right,
we
don't,
we
don't
conform
to
the
changes
in
the
in
the
corporate
rates.
H
What
does
matter
is,
is
the
next
provision
and
we're
going
to
break
it
out
a
little
bit
on
a
separate
slide.
It's
so
important,
but
if
you
remember
there
was
a
sea
change
with
the
tax
cuts
in
job
act,
not
just
in
lowering
the
corporate
tax
rate
from
35
to
21
percent,
but
also
in
getting
rid
of
a
system
that
had
lasted
100
years,
which
was
worldwide
taxation
on
u.s
corporations,
so
that
the
u.s
corporations
were
subject
to
attacks
on
their
worldwide
income
of
their
foreign
subsidiaries.
H
But
it
was
on
a
deferred
basis.
It
was
when
they,
you
know,
had
foreign
dividends
and
they
repatriated
the
dividends.
Many
companies
didn't
do
that
over
a
long
period
of
time,
and
so
most
of
that
money
was
sitting
abroad
and
so
part
of
the
tax
cuts
and
job
act
was
to
change.
That
and
put
in
this
thing,
we
all
know
called
guilty
and
guilty
was
really
a
much
more
limited
tax
base,
but
on
a
current
basis.
H
H
There
was
not
a
single
democratic
vote
for
the
tax
cuts
in
job
act,
but
this
provision,
the
democrats
didn't
like
the
rates
going
down,
but
the
guilty
provision
is
one
that
they
seem
to
like
very
much
and
in
fact,
the
major
proposal
within
the
biden
administration
and
I'm
going
to
break
this
down
for
you
a
little
bit
more
on
the
next
slide.
But
the
major
provision
was
to
take
the
guilty
concept
to
expand
it,
so
it
really
becomes
synonymous
with
worldwide
taxation.
H
Again,
you
know
of
us
companies,
but
on
a
current
basis
and
unlike
the
current
rate,
which
is
around
13.125
percent,
the
rate
would
go
up
to
21.
So
this
is
the
by
far
the
most
important
change
that
would
occur
within
the
corporate
tax
reform,
and
it's
one
that,
as
we'll
see
from
the
map
in
a
moment.
H
A
third
or
more
of
the
states
have
conformed
in
to
some
degree
5
to
50.
With
these
guilty
provisions.
The
question
is:
would
they
stay?
That
way?
Would
more
states
join
them,
and
so
we're
going
to
break
that
one
down,
because
it's
so
important,
but
just
quickly,
there's
also
a
15
minimum
tax.
So
this
one
is
different
than
the
global
tax,
which
is
really
more
focused
on
foreign
source
income
earned
by
u.s
companies.
H
This
one
is
more
for
companies
that,
for
whatever
reason
you
know
could
be
losses
could
be
lots
of
expenses
and
deductions
and
investments
and
deductions,
but
for
whatever
reason
they
don't
pay
federal
taxes,
even
though
they
have
book
income
for
accounting
purposes.
This
would
put
in
a
minimum
tax
so
that
everyone
who
had
book
income
would
have
to
pay
at
least
15
percent
on
it.
Don't
know
where
any
of
these
will
go.
H
Don't
know
where
that
want
to
go,
probably
wouldn't
affect
the
states,
because
it's
minimum
taxes
don't
typically
get
conformed
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
other
changes
going
on
anti-inversion
rules.
Getting
you
know
made
tougher
so
u.s
companies
can't
change
to
be
formed
because
that's
going
to
be
really
important,
more
preferences
now
for
solar
and
renewable
and
not
for
fossil
fuels.
H
Elimination
of
you
know
this
fitty
thing,
which
was
a
sort
of
incentive
to
keep
your
income
here
and
they
want
to
change
it,
but
a
lot
of
different
changes
going
on,
but
I
want
to
turn
to
the
next
chart,
which
is
really
really
important.
I
think
for
the
states
to
understand,
if
you
look
at
the
next
slide-
and
this
is
how
guilty
would
change,
because
this
has
been
such
a
major
topic
of
debate,
how
should
the
government
federal
government
tax
the
worldwide
income
of
u.s
companies?
Should
they
tax
it
at
all?
H
If
so,
how?
What
rate
and
then
should
the
states
do
the
same?
Because,
historically,
you
know
minority
of
states
about
a
third
of
the
states
taxed
a
part
of
the
foreign
dividends
which
the
federal
government
taxed
100
of,
but
that
there
often
was
not
a
lot
of
money
from
that,
because
it
was
a
deferred
tax
and
if
the
dividend
didn't
come
home,
you
never
got
it
guilty.
Is
changing
that?
So,
if
you
look
at
the
top
line
here,
that's
the
the
tcga
is
guilty
and
the
bottom
line
is
the
bytem
one.
H
So
the
key
concept
here
is
both
of
them
are
on
a
current
basis.
There's
no
more
any!
You
know
we'll
tax
the
income
earned
by
u.s
multinationals,
foreign
subsidiaries
only
when
they
dividend
that
concept
is
pretty
much
gone.
Now
it's
on
a
current
basis.
The
question
is
at
what
rate
and
what's
the
base,
and
so
you
can
see
right
here.
H
The
biden
proposal
is
to
change
the
rate
to
21
a
huge
increase
in
the
rate
the
tax-based
determination
there
there's
a
deduction
in
there
now
really
if
you've
got
a
lot
of
physical
investment
capital
investments
abroad
in
factories
and
so
forth.
You
get
to
multiply
that
times.
Ten
percent
and
you
get
a
deduction
so-called
q
by
deduction
that
would
be
gone.
So
basically,
now
you're
talking
about
a
worldwide
tax
on
all
of
the
income
of
your
subsidy,
foreign
subsidiaries
on
a
current
basis
at
21
and
then
there's
some
sort
of
other
changes
in
there.
H
H
You
know
that
have
come
out,
we
sort
of
know
the
general
contours
of
them,
but
there's
no
legislative
language.
So,
let's
just
think
about
that.
How
would
that
affect
the
states
because,
as
I
said
before,
and
if
you
go
to
the
the
next
map,
you
can
sort
of
see
it,
here's
a
map
of
what
happened
over
the
last
three
or
four
years.
H
All
of
the
states
that
are
in
the
light
blue
did
not
conform
to
the
guilty
provision,
all
of
the
ones
all
of
the
ones
that
did
not
conform
or
not
taxing
any
foreign
source
income
generally
or
a
very
de
minimis
amount
of
it.
The
states
that
are
in
sort
of
the
darker
blue
colors,
a
lot
of
them
in
the
northeast
or
up
in
the
you
know,
mountain
ranges,
the
rockies
they
conform
to
varying
amounts
5
to
50.
H
You
can
impose
a
global
minimum
tax
on
somebody
else's
foreign
multinationals,
which
is
a
very
important
point
here.
So
how
might
the
states
react
if
the
biden
administration
proposal
goes
through?
You
know,
based
on
estimates
from
treasury
department
and
joint
committee
taxation.
If
the
biden
proposal
goes
through,
it
would
essentially
end
profit
shifting.
So
all
of
this
talk
over
the
last
20
years
about
companies
moving
things
around
or
moving
to
the
cayman
islands
or
whatever
it,
it
would
be
gone,
and
you
know
for
a
lot
of
states.
H
H
If
you
put
the
state
rate
on
top
of
the
21,
so
you
get
up
to
maybe
26
or
whatever.
If
state
taxes
guilty
as
well,
you
would
have
us
multinationals
at
a
five
or
ten
point
differential,
paying
more
on
their
foreign
innings
and
their
competitors
from
china
or
germany
or
japan
or
whatever.
That
would
immediately
become
a
big
issue.
H
H
If
these
changes
happen,
but
the
other
way
of
looking
at
it
is
that
the
us
government,
if
it
does,
this,
could
actually
crowd
the
states
out
completely
because
if
the
federal
government
raises
the
rate
to
21
or
even
if
it
goes
up
to
15
or
18
percent,
basically
you're
saying
I
don't
care
if
you're
a
us
company
and
you
have
foreign
subsidiaries,
I
don't
care
where
you
earn
your
money
anywhere
in
the
world.
They
want
to
tax
it
at
0
or
5
or
10
or
15..
H
I
don't
care
I'm
going
to
take
the
rest,
I'm
going
to
take
it
up
to
15
or
18
or
21.
that
effectively
does
in
profit.
Shifting
the
problem
is:
if
the
other
countries
only
set
a
rate
at
12
or
15,
and
the
us
rate
is
four
five
six
eight
points
higher
u.s
companies
are
going
to
be
at
a
disadvantage
and
then,
if
a
state
comes
in,
on
top
of
that
in
california
is
considering
language.
H
Now
our
legislative
proposal
under
assembly
bill
71,
which
would
expand
the
taxation
of
tax
and
guilty,
which
they
currently
don't
do
now
to
50,
and
they
wouldn't
allow
any
apportionment
factors,
foreign
factors
to
it.
If
that
was
to
pass
and
the
buy
thing
passed,
then
all
of
a
sudden
u.s
companies
would
be
maybe
a
10
point
to
percentage
point
would
pay
10
percentage
points
more
on
their
foreign
income
than
their
competitors
would
be
a
serious
problem
for
the
u.s.
H
H
If
that
reason
is
gone,
then,
what's
left
and
what's
left
is
you
know
imposing
you
know
getting
more
corporate
income
taxes,
but
again
you
can
only
get
them
from
u.s
multinationals.
You
can't
impose
this
on
any
foreign
multinationals,
so
it
puts
states.
I
think
in
a
particular
bind
that
it's
going
to
be
very
hard
for
them
to
tax
foreign
source
income.
H
If
the
federal
government
sort
of
crowds
out
the
field
and
has
a
rate
that's
equal
or
higher
than
the
rest
of
the
world,
so
this
one
really
bears
watching
it's
a
huge
issue
and
if
you
think
about
it,
it's
really
a
return
to
residence
based
taxing
which
we
had
for
the
last
100
years
at
the
federal
level,
except
at
the
federal
level,
it
was
always
on
a
deferred
basis,
only
tax
foreign
source
income
when
it
actually
gets
dividended,
which
is
more
under
the
control
of
companies.
This
is
not
under
the
control
of
companies.
H
H
You
know
for
u.s
businesses,
because
if
the
rate's
higher
than
what
the
international
rate
is
set
out,
assuming
the
international
community
agrees
to
a
rate
it
could
put
u.s
companies
at
a
disadvantage,
just
want
to
go
to
the
last
slide
and
just
quickly
go
over.
If,
if
a
tril,
if
two
trillion
dollars
of
corporate
tax
increases,
you
know
weren't
enough,
then
there's
another
one
and
a
half
to
two
trillion
of
personal
income.
H
This
is
not
that
unusual
between
democratic
and
republican
administrations
over
the
last
50
years,
there'll
be
tax
cuts
on
the
republican
side
and
the
rates
will
go
right
back
up.
Like
you
know,
the
top
marginal
rate
would
go
back
up
to
you
know
39.6
federally
again.
Most
of
this
doesn't
affect
the
states
in
the
sense
that
the
states
don't
follow
the
rate
changes.
It
may
affect
the
debates
on
progressive
income,
taxes
and
other
things.
H
So
conceptually
a
lot
of
these
things,
even
if
the
states
don't
conform
to
them
can
still
affect
the
states,
but
they
don't
directly
affect
you
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
direct
conformity,
but
there
are
a
couple
things
to
keep
in
mind.
One
of
the
ones
here
is
the
capital
gains
rate.
I
mean
right
now.
The
capital
gains
rate
has
been
a
preferred
rate.
You
know
if
you
are
very
wealthy
and
you
pay,
you
know
a
top
federal
tax
of
37
or
40
percent.
H
Your
federal,
your
your
capital
gain
rate
is
only
about
20
or
23
percent
that
would
change
and
for
people
who
earn
over
a
million
dollars.
That
would
go
all
the
way
up
to
43
again.
That
might
be
something.
If
it
happens,
I
don't
know
if
anything
doesn't
happen,
but
if
it
happened,
states
are
having
some
of
those
same
debates.
Should
we
tax
our
house,
you
know
our
high
income
households
more
again.
That
could
cut
both
ways.
It
could
be
a
green
light
in
the
sense
that
well,
the
federal
government
did
it.
H
H
What's
very
interesting
about
this
package
is
that
the
federal
changes
don't
necessarily
mean
the
states
will
follow,
because
they
could
actually
crop
crowd
out
the
states
and
make
make
there
less
room
for
them
to
have
similar
provisions,
the
other
one
that
I'm
sure
you're
all
interested
on.
This
is
the
salt
deduction,
so
there's
large
elements
within
the
liberal
part
of
the
democratic
party,
particularly
the
ones
from
the
blue
states
along
the
coast
that
want
to
go
back
to
the
old
system.
So
you
don't
have
a
ten
thousand
dollar
cap
on
state
and
local
tax
deductions.
H
That
was
one
of
the
major
provisions
in
the
tax
cuts
and
job
act
that
one
so
far
doesn't
have.
President
biden's
support
that
one
would
cost
you
know,
half
a
trillion
three-quarters
of
a
trillion
or
more
depending
on
how
you
do
it,
so
it
would
be
very
hard
for
them
to.
I
think,
do
it
as
part
of
this
package,
because
they'd
have
to
come
up
with
those
funds
or
deficit
fund.
H
It
will
have
to
keep
an
eye
on
what
happens,
but
that's
one
that's
been
very,
very
important
to
a
lot
of
the
states,
particularly
the
ones
that
are
you
know,
higher
income
and
and
higher
income
tax
and
or
property
tax,
so
that
that
bears
waiting.
So
that's
you
know
where
we
are.
I
don't
know
that
we'll
know
a
lot
more
until
the
summer
I
mean.
If
this
happens,
it
probably
will
happen
under
reconciliation
almost
for
sure
and
probably
happen
this
year,
because
I
think
everyone's
learned
the
lesson
from
2017.
H
The
us
is
actively
encouraging
now,
under
the
by
demonstration
they
didn't
under
the
trump
administration
for
the
oecd,
both
to
set
a
minimum
global
minimum
tax
on
the
foreign
earnings
of
every
country's
foreign
multinationals
and
they're
actively
involved
in
the
sort
of
the
digital
part
of
the
oecd's
project,
which
is
to
change
the
rules
so
that
it's
easier
for
all
countries
to
tax
digital
countries.
Companies
under
the
income
tax.
We
don't
know
where
that's
going
to
go,
but
there's
going
to
be
some
big
moments
on
that
in
the
summer
and
in
the
fall.
H
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
carl.
I
don't
see
any
questions
now,
but
of
course
our
members
are
free
to
put
questions
in
the
chat
box
throughout
the
presentations
and
I
think
we're
just
going
to
take
a
few
minute
break
here.
In
fact,
let's,
let's
reconvene,
maybe
at
10
after
the
hour,
if
that's
okay,
then
we'll
get
started
with
the
tax
foundation.
Okay,
see
you
all
in
about
four.
A
A
F
F
F
F
Another
aspect
is
that
there's
a
certain
feeling
of
injustice
that
they're
getting
so
much
of
their
assets,
free
from
consumers
and
very
actually
the
turns
out
that
that's
their
greatest
asset
makes
them
super
profitable.
It's
also
turning
out
to
make
them
very,
very
powerful
and
the
consumers
don't
benefit
never
in
any
way.
They
do
obviously
get
google
service
on
something,
but
there's
a
there's,
a
sense
that
justice
is
not
being
served
so.
F
The
focus
of
that
has
been
on
of
the
states
has
been
on
using
a
grocery
seats
tax
on
digital
advertising
to
get
money
from
these
giants,
it's
a
narrower
base
and
a
narrower
concept
than
the
taxation
of
data
more
generally
and
I'll
get
into
that
a
little
further
on.
But
there
are
reasons
why
this
was
thought
to
be
a
good
base.
People
are
familiar
with
the
gross
receipts
tax.
F
F
There
are
legal
scholars,
including
well,
I
won't
say
I'm
a
legal
scholar,
but
I
have
my
concern
that
the
tax
violates
the
internet
tax
freedom
act.
The
internet
tax
freedom
act
says
that
you
can't
tax
a
digital
product
differently,
certainly
more
worse
than
you
tax,
whatever
you
want
to
call
a
real
world
price
product,
and
so
here
there's
a
tax.
That's
only
on
digital
advertising
and
the
argument
would
be
well
what
about
newspaper
ads
and
what
about
television
ads,
and
I
think
that's
a
valid
argument,
maybe
even
a
winning
argument.
F
F
They
suggested
that
what
was
happening
to
them
was
a
penalty,
not
a
tax
and
in
a
way,
I
think,
by
doing
that,
they
may
have
played
into
the
argument
that,
okay,
let's
say
it's
a
penalty
and
and
you're
being
asked
to
pay
extra
because
of
the
dislike.
You
know
dislocation
that
social
media
has
caused
and
there's
plenty
of
that.
So
that's
interesting.
There
was
a
new
york
case
which
bears
on
that
involving
opioids
where
new
york
wanted
to
run
a
100
million
dollar
program.
F
It
just
told
the
eight
or
ten
folks
that
were
in
the
opioid
industry.
Well,
we
we
need
a
hundred
million
dollars
and
we're
going
to
collect
this
from
you
based
on
market
share
and
the
state
was
sued
and
the
state
was
upheld
in
the
second
sort
of
court
of
appeals.
So
I'm
not
sure
exactly
if
that
bears
on
it.
F
But
I
think
it's
interesting
that
states
may
be
able
to
isolate
an
industry
that
is
having
ramifications,
that's
costing
the
state
money
and
impose
a
tax
and-
and
you
know,
collect
based
on
market
share
or
some
other
way
of
differentiating
how
who
pays?
Why?
So
I
think
jared
is
going
to
talk
much
more
about
gross
receipts
on
advertising,
so
I
worked
for
senator
krueger
and
we
decided
to
try
to
go
about
things
a
different
way.
F
The
the
conversation
went
pretty
much.
The
pandemic
is,
is
killing
new
york,
you
know
we're
draining
leading
revenues,
there
are
all
sorts
of
industries
that
are
suffering,
and
then
there
are
some
that
are
thriving
and
google
and
amazon
and
facebook's
did
incredibly
well
and
are
still
doing
incredibly
well
during
the
pandemic.
F
The
note
and
heart
feeling
was:
is
there
a
way?
Is
there
a
way
to
get
at
the
ones
who
are
doing
well
and
kind
of
leaving
along
the
ones
who
aren't
doing
well,
and
then
we
had
a
second
part
of
the
conversation
was
and
it's
sort
of,
and
it
calls
her
that
these
companies
get
so
much
of
this
consumer
data
for
free
and
the
consumers.
F
Don't
get
a
piece
of
the
action,
let's
say
so
we
were
looking
to
do
something
that
responded
to
both
those
concerns
and
it
turned
out
to
be
a
very
specific
tax
on
data
so
different
from
tax
on
digital
advertising.
This
is
actually
tax
on
data
and
it's
imposed
on
companies
that
collect
data
from
not
only
consumers
but
other
sources,
but
about-
and
in
this
case
new
york,
consumers
and
I
like
to
think
of
it
a
little
bit
like
a
severance
tax.
F
Seven
stack,
you're
you're,
taking
oil
out
of
the
ground
in
oklahoma
and
oklahoma's
gonna
make
you
pay
for
that
and
in
a
way.
What
we're
arguing
here
is
that
we
have
all
this
consumer
information
that
belongs
to
new
yorkers
and
in
that
sense,
belongs
to
the
state
of
new
york
and,
if
you're
going
to
make
use
of
it
and
take
it
and
put
it
into
a
business
activity.
F
Well,
then
you
can
pay
for
it.
So
that's
that's!
Definitely
you
know
novel
territory
that
we've
gotten
to,
but
so
the
tax
works
that
the
baseline
numbers
you
have
to
have
more
than
a
million
customers.
You
collect
data
from
let's
say
consumers:
you
collect
data
from
every
month.
Now
these
numbers
pertain
to
new
york.
F
F
Google
might
have
been
paying
150
million
dollars
a
year
in
new
york,
because
if
you
have
15
million
people
you're
getting
data
about
and
charging
them
each
ten
dollars
a
year,
that's
that's
probably
too
much
money.
So
it
was
interesting
that
so
you
could
charge
a
very
small
amount
for
for
a
whole
year's
use
of
new
york
consumers
data
and
it's
still
amounted
to
a
fair
amount
of
tax.
F
F
Again,
that's
a
lot
of
money,
but
if
you
look
at
it
from
the
other
end
well,
it's
just
that
seems
fair
four
dollars
a
year.
So
that's
where
it
stands.
New
york
had
no
intention
of
actually
introducing
it.
This
year
it
came
pretty
late
in
the
budget
season.
The
federal
money
came
in
so
it
hasn't
really
been
tested.
F
It
did
get
a
letter
of
opposition
from
cost
nothing.
I
would
say
that
was
fatal.
The
cost
did
not
even
suggest
that
it
was
unconstitutional
or
violated
it.
So
from
drafters
point
of
view
that
was
positive
and
so
far
all
the
action
has
been
with
the
grocery
seats
tax.
But
it's
pretty
clear
now
that
if
you're
going
to
impose
a
grocery
season,
you're
going
to
be
waiting
five
years
to
find
out
whether
it
flies
or
not,
I
was
involved
in
attacks
involving
amazon
filed
april
2008
and
finally
got
a
decision
december
2013.
F
I
would
expect
it
to
be
something
like
that.
So
states
should
know
that
they're
hoping
for
money
anytime
soon,
that's
obviously
one
problem
with
the
gross
receipts,
tax
and
and
whatever
odds
you
get
it.
They
could
be
close
to
50,
50
or
more
that
the
state
of
maryland
will
lose
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
jared.
Now.
E
Thank
you
rob
and
thanks
everyone
on
the
call.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
you
know
talk
with
some
people
about
this.
I
think
it's
a
really
important
issue
and
I
do
want
to
discuss
in
a
little
more
length
some
of
the
taxes
that
rob
wasn't
talking
about,
and
that's
not
really
in
response
to
him
because,
as
he
says,
his
focus
legislatively
really
is
just
the
data
tax,
but
the
panel
is
sort
of
about
digital
taxes.
More
broadly,
so
I
want
to
bring
them
in.
E
He
did
talk
a
little
about
the
digital
advertising
tax
approach,
but
there
are
basically
three
different
types
that
are
being
considered
in
the
states
right
now.
One
is,
as
he
said,
the
digital
advertising
taxes
on
the
gross
revenues
from
digital
advertising
in
a
state,
sometimes
with
tax
rates
that
are
based
on
global
platform
revenues,
not
the
in-state
activity.
That
was
the
maryland
model.
It's
been
adopted
in
most
of
the
legislation
that's
been
copied
since,
but
not
all,
there's
also
a
social
media
tax
idea.
E
This
is
essentially
the
same
concept
as
the
digital
advertising
tax,
but
it
applies
to
a
narrower
base
of
payers.
It's
just
social
media
companies
and
not
all
advertisers,
but
with
an
added
twist
that
often
there
is
a
per
account
fee
sort
of
in
the
same
way
that
rob
was
talking
about
on
the
data
tax.
In
this
case,
it's
you
know,
maybe
a
dollar
per
social
media
account
registered
to
someone
in
the
state.
One
obvious
proviso
is
that
right
now,
most
social
media
companies
don't
know
your
address.
E
They
might
have
ip
addresses
associated
with
your
use,
but
that's
not
something
that
is
necessarily
on
file.
There
are
a
lot
of
anonymous
accounts
on
social
media
at
this
time
and
then
the
final
form
is
a
data
tax
which
can
either
be
essentially
a
gross
receipts
tax
on
the
sale,
washington
state's
looking
at
something
like
that
or
something
on
the
possession
of
data,
and
there
there's
two
models:
there's
something
like
what
new
york
is
looking
at,
where
it's
per
individual,
it's
basically
the
customer
and
it's
the
same
amount.
E
Regardless
of
how
much
data
you
have
or
there's
the
intangible
property
tax
approach
which
west
virginia
looked
at
last
year
and
quickly
abandoned
where
you'd
be
valuing
the
data.
So
all
of
these
for
at
least
a
few
minutes
and
discuss
some
of
the
considerations
behind
them.
I
think
the
first
thing
to
acknowledge
this
is
especially
true
with
the
rationales
for
the
digital
advertising
taxes,
but
it
applies
to
all
of
these
is
there's
not
a
loophole.
I
think
that
that
was
something
that
a
lot
of
policymakers
believed
initially
because
they
looked
to
europe.
E
They
saw
digital
services,
taxes
being
adopted
in
europe,
of
course,
in
international
tax
regimes
we
don't
have
economic
nexus,
we
don't
have
market
sourcing,
so
the
various
digital
business
models
had
a
unique
situation
where
you
know
they
could
be
selling
into
a
state.
They
didn't
have
customers
in
us
and
I'm
sorry
in
a
country,
but
they
don't
have
physical
presence
or
I
guess,
as
you'd
call
it
on
the
international
level.
You'd
be
speaking
of
permanent
establishment
rules,
so
there'd
be
no
taxability.
E
That's,
of
course
not
how
it
works
at
the
state
level.
States
use
apportionment.
Most
states
are
at
this
point,
moving
very
rapidly
towards
single
sales
factors
so
where
the
sale
takes
place
is
what
matters
and
a
lot
of
states
use
market
sourcing
of
services.
So
they're
saying
that
the
sale
of
services
is
sourced
to
where
the
benefits
received
or
where
the
market
is
for
that
states
are
of
course
free
to
do
that
if
they
don't
already
so
what's
really
important
to
note
here
is
one
digital
advertising,
digital
services.
E
More
broadly,
they
are
being
by
state
corporate
income
taxes
they
weren't
necessarily
being
taxed
at
the
european
country
level.
They
are
being
taxed
here
and
two
if
states
feel
well
we're
not
getting
it
where
we
are
where
the
services
are
the
company's.
Not
here
you
can
go
single
sales
factor
or
if
you're
already
there
or
highly
weighted
sales,
you
can
adopt
market
sourcing
and
attack
both
of
those
things
within
the
existing
tax
structure.
E
You
know
rob
mentioned
the
thinking
of
this
as
a
severance
tax.
I
would
briefly
note
that
severance
taxes,
as
we
currently
have
them.
They
involve
the
extraction
of
scarce
resources,
usually
non-renewable,
but
at
least
things
that
take
time
to
replace
the
idea
is
depletion
and
states
are
often
also
on
the
hook
for
things
like
environmental
remediation
reclamation.
You
know
when
oil
is
extracted,
there's
a
loss.
There
are
economic
benefits
that
can't
be
enjoyed
by
a
future
generation.
None
of
this
is
really
true.
With
data,
even
a
royalties
model
doesn't
really
work.
E
There
was
a
data
dividend
idea
in
some
states
at
some
point
that
you
did.
You
know
you'd
pay
for
this
you'd,
give
it
to
individuals
we're
not
really
seeing
that
in
these
proposals
right
now
so
yeah.
I
think
that
there's
just
a
real
difference
in
that
there's
in
my
mind,
also
no
justification
for
a
targeted
tax
taxes
again
should
be
on
broad
basis
with
low
rates.
Digital
services
are
already
taxed,
like
I
said,
under
existing
corporate
taxes,
there's
some
competing
rationales
for
this
targeting.
E
I
think
beyond
that
notion
that
maybe
it
was
on
tax
which
again
it's
not
one
of
them
has
been
the
tech.
Companies
are
just
earning
a
lot
of
money
and
we
should
tax
them
extra
because
of
that
success,
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
model
to
just
look
at
which
companies
which
industry
is
doing
well
right
now
and
build
additional
supplementary
taxes
on
top
of
them.
Some
of
it
is
that
targeted
advertising
is
undesirable
and
should
be
penalized.
But
again
note
this
doesn't
actually
target
and
cover
targeted
advertising.
E
It
hits
all
advertising
or
all
data.
Then
there's
the
punitive
aspect
of
this,
and
you
see
this
on
both
the
left
and
the
right
punitive
taxation
due
to
maybe
a
bit
distaste
for
big
technology,
that's
more
on
the
left
or
opposition
to
content,
moderation,
policies
which
has
been
more
on
the
right
in
both
cases.
I
don't
think
that's
a
path
that
we
really
want
to
go
down.
E
Policy
makers
do
put
a
thumb
on
the
scale
with
business
incentives,
but
it's
really
a
different
thing
altogether
to
design
taxes
to
penalize
particular
industries
or
business
models
because
of
their
real
or
perceived
support
or
opposition
to
political
causes
or
how
they
run
their
businesses.
I
feel
like
a
republican
criticism
of
some
of
the
democratic
proposals,
and
motivations
would
be
that
it's
inappropriate
to
use
the
tax
code
as
a
cudgel
against
disfavored
businesses
and
the
democratic
criticism
of
some
of
the
republican
proposals
would
be
exactly
the
same.
They're
just
different.
E
You
know
different
rationales
behind.
What's
disliked
so
you
know,
this
is
a
non-neutral
and
non-transparent
tax,
those
bearing
the
costs
advertisers.
Many
of
them
local,
as
well
as
in-state
consumers,
have
those
costs
hidden
from
them.
Ultimately,
we're
taxing
a
business
input
and
the
burden
is
fundamentally
in
state.
There
was
a
study
of
the
french
digital
advertising
tax.
It
concluded
that
55
of
advertising
costs
would
ultimately
be
passed
along
to
consumers
and
that's
not
even
counting
the
cost
worn
by
the
businesses
themselves.
Now,
advertising
costs
are
dynamic.
E
Even
if
the
bill
theoretically
prohibits
an
add-on
charge
to
cover
digital
advertising
taxes,
the
prices
will
reflect
those
taxes
and
those
advertising
fees,
which
will
mostly
be
in-state.
Businesses
are
going
to
bear
this
cost,
as
well
as
in
some
cases,
the
consumers
I'm
going
to
briefly
touch
on
both
legal
and
administrative
issues
for
all
of
three
of
these
taxes
at
once.
If
I
can,
firstly,
especially
with
the
digital
advertising
tax,
but
I
don't
think
limited
to
it,
there
is
as
rob
notes
the
permanent
internet
tax
freedom
act,
which
prohibits
imposing
discriminatory
taxes
on
electronic
commerce.
E
Electronic
commerce
is
defined
as
transactions
conducted
on
the
internet
or
through
internet
access.
It's
sale,
it's
offer
it's
delivery
of
goods
or
services
or
information
information
important
on
the
data
side,
whether
or
not
for
consideration
and
discrimination
means
that
it's
not
a
tax.
That's
generally
imposed
and
legally
collectible
on
transactions
involving
similar
services
accomplished
through
other
means
so
attacks
just
on
the
digital
just
on
the
data,
not
on
other
things,
there's
also
a
dormant
commerce
class
challenge,
at
least
for
some
types.
E
So
if
you've
got
a
maryland
style
bill,
the
external
consistency
test
comes
into
play
where
you're
using
activity
outside
of
the
state.
You
know
you're
using
maybe
global
revenues
to
set
the
rates.
That's
clearly
a
problem,
there's
something
else
that
richard
pump
has
raised.
You
know
that
I
think
is
really
significant
here
that
you
know,
even
if
we're
not
doing
that,
there's
a
lack
of
specificity
in
a
lot
of
these
in
the
definitions
and
I'll
get
into
that
on
the
administrative
side.
E
But
this
creates
due
process
violations
which
can
make
the
bills
void
for
vagueness
and
there's
an
internal
consistency.
Element
of
this
internal
consistency
rule
basically
says
that
if
every
state
adopted
the
same
provision,
it
would
not
result
in
double
taxation,
but
if
every
state
adopted
the
same
bill
and
all
of
the
administrative
decisions
are
up
to
someone
outside
the
legislature,
there's
no
methodology
and
I'll
get
into
that.
Then
even
adopting
the
same
system
could
yield
radically
different
results.
The
external
consistency
is
again
the
idea
that
we
are
using.
E
You
know
that
we're
using
outside
exogenous
factors.
So
let's
think
why
is
this
so
tough?
What
are
the
challenges?
Well,
one,
it's
incredibly
difficult
to
determine
exactly
when
advertising
is
served
in
a
state.
What,
if
it's
blocked
by
an
ad
blocker?
How
effective
is
ip
tracing
the
geofencing?
Really,
the
answer
is
often
not
very
the
apportionment
formulas
functionally
don't
work.
Maryland
has
an
apportionment
formula
that
says
that
they
use
the
percentage
of
u.s
gross
revenue.
E
That's
attributable
to
maryland
then
multiplied
by
all
u.s
gross
revenue,
and
you
might
have
caught
that
as
a
fraction
multiplied.
You
know
by
the
denominator
that
just
yields
where
you
started
from
it's
not
doing
anything.
It's
just
the
policy
makers
were
told
hey.
This
isn't
fairly
apportioned,
so
they
put
in
legislative
they
put
in
language
that
apportions
it
by
just
saying
you,
you
know,
find
a
definition.
E
We
don't
even
know
what
defines
advertising
and
there's
been
some
subsequent
legislation
in
maryland.
To
try
to
address
this,
but
is
voice
over
ip
telephony
is
that
digital
advertising
sponsored
content.
The
streaming
of
a
terrestrial
broadcast
that
includes
advertising
was
purchased
for
over
the
airwaves
email
newsletters.
You
know,
lots
of
things
can
be
captured
in
this
and
maryland's
trying
to
define
some
of
that
now.
But
these
are
really
tough
data.
E
Taxes
like
what
new
york
had
would
be
imposed
on
the
possession
of
consumer
data,
the
notions
the
company
should
have
to
pay
for
information
on
their
residence.
Again,
there's
been
proposals
to
do
this
on
a
property
tax
side,
and
then
you
have
to
you
know
somehow
determine
what
the
value
of
that
is
yeah,
as
rob
mentioned,
senator
kruger
proposal
is
just
to
go
with.
E
Basically,
the
number
of
people
that
they
have
information
on
what's
notable
here
is
that
information
is
basically
anything
a
company
that
simply
has
a
name
and
address
is
taxed
in
the
same
way
as
a
company
that
has
all
of
your.
You
know
socioeconomic
information.
It
has
your
browsing
history,
it
has,
you
know
your
purchase
history,
but
it
doesn't
matter.
It's
just.
E
You
know
it's
basically
per
person
in
the
same
way,
some
of
the
social
media
taxes
imposed
not
only
on
advertising
revenue,
but
also
on
in-state
accounts,
where
social
media
networks
would
be
required.
I
guess
to
have
a
full
name
and
address
of
account
holders.
If
this
were
to
work,
it's
unclear
if
they'd
be
required
to
shut
down
existing
accounts
to
someone
who
wouldn't
provide
that
if
they
did
it
based
on
ips,
that's
already
imperfect
it's
complicated
by
travel.
E
E
Consumers
might
well
pay
more,
not
just
because
some
businesses
might
pass
along
a
share
of
the
advertising
costs,
but
also
because
such
taxes
could
change
their
own
access
to
online
services.
If
an
advertising
supported
model
is
less
profitable,
then
more
of
the
internet
might
go
behind
a
paywall,
and
would
people
really
be
better
off
expensive
or
too
much
of
a
hassle
for
retailers
to
offer
loyalty
which
have
data
of
course
associated
with
them
on
the
consumer's
purchasing
or
member
perks?
E
These
things
could
theoretically
go
away,
or
at
least
have
a
few
dollars
per
account
holder
associated
with
them.
If
social
media
companies
are
taxed
on
both
their
revenue
generating
ads
and
per
account
yeah,
you
could
see
restrictions
on
content,
cr
account
creation
or
subscription
fees
for
some
types
of
services,
and
even
if
that
doesn't
happen,
because
the
legacy
players
just
don't
want
to
change
that
model,
innovation
in
the
space
might
be
reduced
if
the
model
becomes
less
profitable.
E
E
Why
are
we
taxing
this
industry
and
this
activity
in
particular,
given
that
it's
already
subject
to
general
taxes,
it's
covered
by
the
corporate
income
tax,
it's
covered
by
all
of
the
other
normal
range
of
taxes
that
businesses
pay.
You
know
what
purpose
is
served
and
you've
heard
you
know
the
argument
where
there's
money
there.
You
know
it's
an
argument.
E
Obviously
the
policy
makers
often
use,
but
we
want
to
be,
I
think
very
careful
about
saying:
we've
got
our
general
business
taxes,
our
general
taxes
and
then
we're
going
to
pick
one
industry
at
a
time
based
on
they're,
doing
well
and
start
taxing
them
or
there's
the
argument
that
they
are
disliked
in
some
ways
and
that
dislike
can
run
across
partisan
beliefs.
You
see
opposition
on
the
right
more
the
populist
right
about
you
know
the
you
know
what
social
media
companies
are
and
aren't
allowing
to
be
written.
E
You
see,
maybe
opposition
on
the
left
on.
You
know
sort
of
really
big
companies
that
have
a
lot
of
control.
Maybe
there's
overlap
there.
Maybe
those
are
intention,
but
you
see
this
idea
that
we
should
use
the
tax
code
to
go
after
particular.
Companies,
because
of
their
business
model-
and
that
strikes
me
as
regulatory
policy-
not
tax
policy
if
there
is
a
discernible
harm
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
I'm
not
an
expert
on
whether
a
state
should
try
to
address
some
of
these
things.
E
I'd
be
skeptical,
probably
of
whether
they
should
be,
but
that's
a
regulatory
solution.
It
is
not
something
where
you
just
say:
well,
let's
tax
them
more,
there's
not
an
externality
that
we're
trying
to
internalize
it's
not.
You
know
like
like
we
have
with
some
excise
taxes.
It's
not
a
user
pays
system.
It's
just.
We
don't
care
for
this
industry,
so
let's
penalize
them
or
encourage
them
to
do
something
else.
E
As
a
policymaker
should
ask
themselves
not
only
whether
the
proposal
is
practical,
not
other,
whether
it's
not
only
whether
it's
legal
and
again,
the
permanent
internet
tax
freedom
act
is
gonna,
be
a
pretty
significant
bar
to
most
of
these
proposals
and
the
dormant
commerce
clause
is
going
to
be
a
potential
impediment
as
well,
but
also
whether
it's
justified.
We
know,
of
course,
that
at
the
international
level
the
biden
administration
is
fighting
digital
services
taxes.
They
are
arguing
that
they
are
inappropriate
and
those
ones
are
theoretically
much
more
temporary.
E
Most
of
the
countries
that
have
introduced
them
have
said
that,
once
the
oecd
pillar,
one
negotiations
are
complete
and
there's
a
framework
for
dealing
with
problems
that
do
exist
at
the
international
level
that
don't
exist
at
the
state
level
that
they
plan
to
eliminate
those
taxes
and
still
the
us
government's
position
is
that
these
taxes
are
impermissible
at
this
time.
We're
fighting
them
but
at
the
same
time
we're
complicating
that
analysis
by
states
doing
this,
even
though
the
activity
is
already
subject
attacks,
unlike
at
the
international
level
in
some
cases.
E
So
I
think
that
we
need
to
think
very
carefully
about
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
with
this
tax,
whether
it
accomplishes
any
of
those
aims
and
who
ultimately
pays
because,
yes,
it
is
going
to
be
at
one
level.
You
know
the
googles
and
the
facebooks
and
others
of
the
world
who
remit
the
tax
it's
imposed
on
platforms,
but
how
much
of
that
will
be
borne
by
either
in-state
businesses
that
are
advertising
to
individuals
in
the
state
or
by
the
consumers
themselves.
E
And,
of
course,
that's
going
to
depend
on
different
elasticities
how
much
can
be
passed
along,
it's
very
reasonable,
assume
much
of
it
will
be
borne
by
the
business.
It's
gonna
be
more.
You
know,
there's
more
analysis
on
how
much
of
it
goes
to
the
consumer
themselves,
but
again,
sort
of
the
question
of
why,
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
might
think
you're
taxing
google,
but
to
some
extent
you're
taxing
the
restaurant
that
wants
to
advertise
that
they
have
reopened
the
dining
room
and
are
ready
to
welcome
you
back.
E
H
B
F
Get
nothing
under
the
data
taxi?
No,
I
I
think,
that's
true
that
they
do
get
benefits
and,
depending
on
how
you
measure
it.
If
somebody
took
your
google
away,
you'd
probably
be
willing
to
pay
a
fair
amount
of
money
for
it.
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
what
it
costs,
google
to
add
one
more
customer
is
is
quite
low,
but
I
still
think
that
that
well
it's
a
combination
of
intrusiveness
that
they're
getting
your
personal
information.
F
You
don't
know
how
much
of
it
they're
getting,
but
it's
more
than
you
think,
and
you
don't
know
exactly
where
it's
coming
from
and
it's
more
than
you'd
like,
but
it's
yours
and
it
has
monetary
value,
and
the
question
is:
should
state
help
new
york,
consumers
monetize
that
value?
I
don't
think
we
would
give
the
money
directly
back
to
the
consumers
if
it's
not
much
money,
if
it's
four
dollars
or
eight
dollars,
but
but
if
it
turns
out
to
be
a
significantly
higher
number,
the
money
right
be
sent
right
back
to
consumers.
B
F
B
E
Or
whatever
it
may
be,
you
know
if
I
actually
have
a
serious
objection
to
it.
That
is
not
remediated
by
the
four
dollars
going
to
the
state
and
if
it's
significantly
more
than
that,
if
you're
positing
it's
going
to
be
a
very
large
number
at
some
point,
that
could
be
enough
to
actually
write
checks
to
people,
bearing
in
mind
that,
typically
for
states
it
doesn't
there's
not
even
any
residual
to
send
if
it's
not
less
than
more
than
ten
dollars,
because
it
costs
money
to
process.
E
Now
I
mean
maybe
the
biggest
search
engines
can
pay
that,
but
there
are
an
awful
lot
of
companies
that
have
data
on
a
wide
number
of
consumers.
Supermarket
chains
are
among
them
a
lot
of
sellers
that
aren't
going
to
be
in
your
biggest
technology
companies.
How
much
do
we
want
to
charge
them
for
a
customer
or
how
much
do
we
want
to
limit
their
ability
to
have
even
something
as
simple
as
an
address?
E
Maybe
it's
going
to
cost
10
20
to
have
some
consumers
address
that
becomes
very
prohibitive
for
companies
large
enough
to
reach
these
thresholds
at
four.
Even
that's
an
awful
lot.
I
think,
or
even
at
the
some
of
the
lower
levels
and
and
then
just
you
know
more
broadly,
the
okay,
they
have
money
and
we
need
it.
New
york,
of
course
ended
up
having
revenue
flatline
over
the
last
year.
Many
states
had
revenues,
mildly
up.
E
New
york
is
also,
I
think,
receiving
15
billion
dollars
in
federal
aid
through
the
the
the
fiscal
relief
funds
that
are
available
and
that's
not
counting
the
local
aid.
So
I
guess
this
is
a
very
big
step
talking
about
like
an
excise
tax
on
something
as
broad
as
data
or
in
other
states.
Talking
about
it.
Tax
on
digital
advertising
to
very
likely
runs
afoul
of
the
permanent
internet
tax
freedom
act.
F
I'll
just
make
a
quick
comment
that
I
think
in
terms
of
where
the
burden
of
the
tax
goes.
One
of
the
things
that
I
thought
was
attractive
is
that
some
portion
of
it
is
going
to
be
borne
by
new
york
consumers.
But
if
it's
borne
by
consumers,
more
generally
than
new
york,
has
exported
its,
you
know
the
burden
to
consumers
in
other
states.
The
extent
that
it's
advertisers
in
other
states
to
the
extent
that
it's
you
know
the
big
companies
themselves.
F
You
have
a
tax
where,
if
you're
collecting,
whatever
700
million
dollars,
it's
not
like
a
700
million
dollar
sales
tax
increase,
you're,
probably
imposing
less
of
it
on
your
consumers
than
if
you
you
know,
did
some
more
straightforward
sales
tax
law.
And
so
I
mean
that's
not
the
reason
it's
done
necessarily.
But
I
I
think
there
is
an
argument
that
in
this
particular
case,
there
would
be
the
benefit
of
some
exporting
of
the
tax
liability.
F
I
know
states,
you
know
they
love
to
tax
rental
cars
at
airports
high
and
that's
because
everybody
who
does
it's
going
to
be
out
of
state
if
you
start
to
look
closely
at
who
might
bear
the
burden
of
the
data
tax
that
we've
created,
it
might
well
be
that
a
pretty
good
chunk
of
it
is
not
new
york.
Consumers.
F
F
The
law
does
not,
if
you
only
collect
contact
information,
you're,
not
subject
to
the
tax,
if
you
only
collect
information
which
is
then
aggregated
stripped
of
its
you
know,
personal
identification,
that's
also
not
subject
to
the
tax.
I
forgot.
The
next
thing
you
asked
about
is
there
is:
is
there
a
significant
threshold
that
limit
this
to?
Yes,
it's
a
in
new
york.
We
made
it
a
million
subscribers
again,
that's
a
number
that
should
probably
slow
based
on
your
population.
F
E
In
practice,
I
would
just
note,
though,
that
it's
unlikely
that
someone
would
have
an
address
and
not
also
a
purchasing
history,
and
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
bill
where,
if
part
of
your
data
is
literally
what
they
bought
from
you,
that
that
wouldn't
trigger
the
tax,
no,
it
would
yeah.
So
I
there
aren't
a
whole
lot
of
situations
where
you
have
addresses
of
customers,
but
don't
know
what
the
customers
order
at
that
address.
F
Well,
it's
it's
really
pretty
hard
to
believe
that,
although
it's
possible,
you
know,
is
google
gonna
start
charging
new
yorkers
since
we're
the
only
ones
doing
it.
If
it
happened-
and
you
know
it
hasn't
happened
and
the
fiscal
situation
is
better,
but
you
know,
are
they
going
to
change
their
business
model
over
a
relatively
modest
tax
and
I
think
the
likelihood
is
not
if,
if
they
wanted
to,
you
know
somehow
punish
new
york
for
doing
this,
then
conceivably,
they
could
figure
out.
F
E
E
I
would
add,
though,
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
can
be
affected
by
this,
that
aren't
a
search
engine
and
they
do
have
accounts,
of
course,
but,
like
you
know,
a
lot
of
streaming
services,
some
of
them
are
free
and
not
supported.
Some
of
them
have
a
fee
associated
with
them,
but
are
also
partially
ad
supported
in
their
different
tiers.
You
could,
I
think,
very
much
see
some
of
the
free
services
become
premium
services
or
the
you
know,
hybrid
services
that
might
have
some
ads,
and
you
know
some.
E
Eventually,
you've
got
to
pass
that
along,
and
you
know
there
are
a
lot
of
services
that
are,
you
know,
free
right
now.
The
revenue
associated
with
each
account
is
probably
only
a
few
dollars
a
year
and
if
you're
suddenly
charging
a
few
dollars
a
year,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
provide
that
service
anymore.
So
I
think
we
need
to
think
more
than
just
will
the
world's
largest
search
engine.
You
know
blacklist
new
york
and
what
about
everything
else?
We
receive
online
because
yeah
a
million
people's
a
lot
but
new
york's,
a
big
state.
E
F
F
E
All
right,
I
just
you,
know,
comment
that
you
know
generally
people
we
do
talk
about
broad
bases
and
low
rates.
There
are
a
lot
of
taxes,
so
yeah
I
mean
every
tax
has
an
impact
on
business,
yeah
and
individual
choices,
and
we
care
about
those
and
we
care
about
the
distinction,
because
every
tax
is
different
in
what
it's
targeting
you
know.
So
we
have
a
corporate
income
tax
in
those
states.
Of
course,
and
it's
you
know,
on
net
profits,
this
is
targeting
an
activity
and
it's
very
narrow.
E
It's
saying:
let's
go
after
depending
on
the
design
companies
with
lots
of
consumer
data
or
you
know,
that's
your
bill,
you're
talking
about
or
let's
go
after
large,
digital
advertising
or
let's
go
after
social
media
and
then
have
them
figure
out
how
in
the
world
to
determine
how
many
accounts
are
in
the
state
which
is
going
to
be.
I
think,
a
huge
issue
in
a
privacy
issue.
E
There's
privacy
issues
associated
with
a
few
of
these
things,
which
a
little
ironic
and
sometimes
they've
been
talked
about
addressing
the
privacy
issues
associated
with
big
tech,
but
they
might
require
unmasking
the
privacy
that
individual
counselors
already
have
in
the
cases
of
social
media,
in
particular.
Recognizing
that's.
J
E
Tax
that
rob
is
primarily
talking
about
so
yeah.
I
think
the
burden
of
proof
is
higher
when
we're
talking
about
creating
some.
You
know
very
new
types
of
tax
in
an
area
where
we
already
have
multiple
levels
of
tax
that
are
applying
to
all
these
businesses.
There's
not
a
loophole
that
they're
exploiting
where
this
is
some
unique
activity
that
somehow
doesn't
you
know,
become
subject
to
state
tax
codes.
F
E
I
I
think
that
indicates
just
how
large
of
a
tax
you're
suggesting
and
how
significant
this
is,
that
it
would
be.
You
know
a
four
percent
increase
on
a
corporate
income
tax
that
raises
some
of
the
most
money
in
any
state
in
the
country.
Both
you
know
effective
rate
and
everything
else,
because
new
york,
I
think
cox,
is
a
study
that
says
that
you
know
all
taxes
on
business.
E
Not
just
corporate
income
tax
is
about
10
500
per
job
in
new
york
and
that's
the
highest
of
any
state
other
than
just
like
pure
oil
states.
It's
about
6
500
on
average,
so
yeah
I
mean
a
four
percent
increase.
I
would
say
I
would
have
some
huge
concerns
about
that,
because
it's
economically
damaging,
but
I
think
that's
just
this
is
a
new
type
of
tax,
we're
talking
about
creating
an
entirely
different
type
of
tax
and
imposing
those
on
top
of
the
taxes
that
already
exist.
E
You
know,
I
think
you
need
a
strong
justification
for
why
new
taxes
like
this
should
be
created
on
one
industry
and
the
fact
that
you
know
you're
talking
like
50
of
your
corporate
income
tax
burden,
functionally
being
imposed
rough
math
right
math,
but
you
know
being
imposed
on
targeted
industries
through
a
new
excise
tax.
That
is
a
really
big
thing
to
be
talking
about
here.
F
Okay,
going
back
just
the
initial
conversation
with
the
senator
was
you
know,
we're
trying
to
hit
companies
that
are
doing
well
and
not
touch
everybody's
not
doing
well.
Obviously,
a
broad-based
corporate
income
tax
would
hit
a
lot
of
businesses
that
weren't
doing
well,
and
then
there
is
this
sense
of
rough
justice
which
you
can
disagree
with
that
folks
are
getting
something
in
return.
For
you
know
all
this
personal
dating
you're
giving,
but
some
folks
definitely
see
it.
A
We'll
think
sorry
we're
we're
running
a
little
over
this
panel.
Thank
you
so
much
and
of
course
again
we
can
always
continue.
The
conversation
always
can
have
a
chat
going
and
also
we'll
be
sharing
all
the
information
and
contact
information
for
all
of
our
panelists,
with
our
with
the
rest
of
our
salt
members
today.
So
thank
you
so
much
folks
and
we'll
move
on
to
our
next
panel
now
and
barry
tavin
from
aarp.
I
think
will
kick
us
off
the
next
panel.
A
I
I
A
I
G
I
G
I
I
So
we're
going
to
turn
the
tables
a
little
bit.
We're
going
to
talk
for
the
next
few
minutes
about
some
tax
credits
and
tax
relief,
that's
important
to
the
individual
taxpayer
and
in
particular,
to
moderate
and
lower
income
taxpayers,
and
I'm
going
to
start
I'll
talk
about
two
issues
that
are
really
important
to
arp
members.
I
So
many
of
you
know,
of
course,
the
importance
of
property
tax
revenue
and
that
it's
such
an
important
source
of
revenue
for
local
governments.
So
we
know
that
the
property
tax
generates
approximately
one-third
of
local
government
revenue
nationwide
and
more
than
half
of
revenue
in
five
states.
And
of
course,
you
all
know
they
fund
services
that
are
very
important
and
very
visible
to
taxpayers
like
schools
and
police
and
fire
emts
parks
etc,
and
we
also
know,
particularly
in
the
wake
of
the
pandemic,
that
demands
for
these
local
services
have
increased
quite
considerably
jocelyn
next
slide.
I
I
Okay,
great
so
just
another
distinction
about
the
property
tax,
and
that
is
that
it
is
not
directly
related
to
taxpayers
income.
So
again,
the
property
taxes
are
based
on
the
value
of
a
home
rather
than
related
to
a
taxpayer's
income
or
ability
to
pay
and
that
differentiates
them
from
other
taxes,
for
example.
So
maybe,
if
your
income
decreases
you're
going
to
see
an
decrease
in
or
reduction
in,
your
income,
taxes
and
taxpayers
concur
purchases
to
avoid
paying
sales
taxes,
and
that
is
much
less
true
of
the
property
tax.
I
Next
one
please
jocelyn,
okay,
so,
as
many
of
you
might
know,
aarp's
membership
and
that's
folks,
50
plus,
whenever
we
serving
our
members,
we
always
hear
that
property
taxes
are
among
the
both
burdensome
tax
for
our
members.
But
of
course
we
want
to
try
to
balance
this
with
the
important
revenue
that
the
property
tax
brings
to
local
governments.
Our
members
also
rely
on
those
services
and
programs.
So
how
do
you
then
come
up
with
targeted
relief
that
balances
the
need
of
local
governments
but
also
helps
the
taxpayer?
I
And
so
what
we've
done
with
these
objectives
of
denied
is
we've
put
together
three
different
model
pieces
of
legislation,
and
let
me
just
say
that
they
can.
You
know
we
put
down
some
specifics
in
the
bills,
but
certainly
they
can
be
amended
in
any
way
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
states
and
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
discuss
them
with
you
all
here
today.
So
one
of
them
is
a
circuit
breaker
bill
and
that
will
direct
relief
to
seniors
with
the
highest
tax
burden
relative
to
their
income.
I
The
next
will
be
a
tax
deferral
measure
and
that's
going
to
allow
seniors
to
defer
paying
some
portion
of
their
property
tax
until
they
sell
their
home
or
they
die,
and
the
last
one
is
a
monthly
tax
bill,
and
so,
rather
than
paying
property
taxes
once
or
twice
a
year,
you
would
potentially
allow
a
taxpayer
to
pay
their
property.
Taxes,
like
you
do
other
bills
on
a
monthly
basis.
I
Next,
one
jocelyn,
okay.
So
then,
the
next
few
pages
and
we'll
post
this
presentation
online
as
well.
So
you
can
see
the
details
and
in
fact
I
have
even
more
details
than
in
this
presentation
are
just
some
more
specifics
about
the
way
the
model
bills
are
created.
So
you
can
see
with
the
circuit
breaker
the
circuit
breaker's
tripped
when
the
level
of
property
tax
exceeds
that
percent
of
income
and
that
helps
to
target
the
relief
to
those
who
really
need
it.
I
So
folks,
with
the
highest
tax
burdens
relative
to
their
income
and
as
a
result,
it's
a
pretty
cost
effective
way
of
providing
relief
and
right
now
over
30
states
have
some
kind
of
circuit
breaker.
Although
many
of
them
are
not,
they
don't
correlate.
You
know
the
income
to
the
property
tax,
they
just
sort
of
set
a
level
of
income,
and
then
they
provide
relief
for
folks
who
have
under
that
level
of
income.
And
let's
go
to
the
next
page,
please,
okay,
and
so
here
in
the
model.
I
I
And
then
you
can
see
some
of
the
other
components.
Let's
go
to
the
next
one,
jocelyn
great
and
then
the
next
piece
of
model
legislation
we
have
is
our
property
tax
deferral,
and
here
is
an
overview.
You
can
see
that
over
20
states
have
some
sort
of
deferral
program.
One
of
the
important
things
is
that
there
is
no
long-term
cost
to
other
taxpayers,
since
the
tax
is
repaid
when
the
property
is
sold
or
transferred,
and
a
key
to
deferral
programs
and
certainly
to
all
relief
programs
is
to
making
sure
the
taxpayers
know
about
them.
I
Importantly,
we've
drafted
this
as
a
local
option,
so
the
state
can
give
the
local
government
the
authority,
and
then
the
local
government
makes
the
determination
that
they
want
to
implement
something
like
this
and
we
suggest
an
interest
rate
of
4,
although
that
can
be
made
different.
Certainly
and
then
there
are
some
other
components
and
you
can
have
a
look
for
yourself
and
let's
go
to
the
last
one
and
the
last
model
property
tax
bill
like
I
talked
about.
I
I
State
would
give
the
locality
authority
and
in
fact
we
were
doing
research
for
this
proposal.
I
had
read
about
it
somewhere
and
in
fact
found
that
I
think
in
wisconsin
there
are
some
communities
that
are
doing
this.
So
let's
go
to
the
next
page
jocelyn
and
you
know
you
can
sort
of
see
some
other
components
of
the
legislation.
I
So
those
are
the
three
property
tax
bills
to
provide
relief
to
you,
know,
modest
and
lower
income,
homeowners
and
renters
that
I
wanted
to
share
with
you
and
again.
If
you
have
any
questions,
you'd
like
to
talk
to
me
or
state
offices,
that
would
be
terrific
and
then
before
we
go
when
I
turn
it
to
samantha
we're
going
to
go
to
the
next
page
jocelyn.
I
I
wanted
to
talk
to
you
about
another
issue
that
we've
seen
become
get
increased
attention,
certainly
during
the
pandemic,
although
I
will
tell
you
that
this
is
always
a
significant
issue,
and
I
one
term
heard
someone
say
that
you
know.
Probably
all
of
us
at
some
point
in
our
lives
are
either
going
to
be
a
care
recipient
or
a
caregiver.
So
this
becomes
very
meaningful.
I
I
think
to
all
of
us-
and
this
is
the
about
aarp
state
level,
family
caregiver,
tax
credit-
and
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
just
some
data
about
why
we
are
you
know,
are,
are
talking
about
this,
so
this
is
some
information
in
alabama
and
this
is
from
2019.
We
have
this
for
every
state
and
you
could
see
some
of
the
numbers:
760
000
family,
caregivers
in
alabama
and
how
their
efforts
translate
into
dollars
and
cents.
I
I
wanted
to
briefly
mention
next
page
jocelyn
fabulous
some
highlights
of
our
caregiver,
our
family
caregiver
tax
credit
model
bill
and
again
any
of
these
levers
can
be
changed
to
meet
your
state
needs.
But
broadly
it's
a
non-refundable
tax.
Credit
of
50
of
eligible
expenses
up
to
a
thousand
max
up
to
a
thousand
maximum.
I
I
So
I
really
wanted
to
make
sure
we
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
with
you
a
little
bit
more
about
the
individual
taxpayer,
especially
in
light
of
the
pandemic
and
some
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
to
provide
assistance
in
those
ways
and
with
that
I'll,
take
questions,
and
I'm
also
glad
to
turn
it
over
to
samantha.
Now.
K
Great
hi
everyone,
it's
really
great
to
be
with
you
this
afternoon.
My
name
is
sam
waxman
and
I'm
an
analyst
with
the
center
on
budget
and
policy
priorities
I'll
be
speaking
today
about
state
earned
income
tax
credits
and
their
really
crucial
role
in
helping
families
make
ends
meet,
especially
during
the
pandemic.
Next
slide,.
K
So
first,
I
think
it's
important
to
ground
this
conversation
in
you
know
just
the
magnitude
of
how
people
are
struggling
right
now.
The
kova
19
pandemic
and
economic
downturn
have
really
hit
hard
as
people
who
are
payload
wages,
they're
more
likely
to
have
lost
their
jobs
and
people
of
color
women
and
immigrants
are
over-represented
in
many
of
these
jobs
due
to
things
like
wealth
and
income
disparities,
inadequate
access
to
health
care
and
discrimination
and
hiring
over
a
quarter
of
adults
had
trouble
paying
for
the
usual
household
expenses
according
to
a
recess.
K
In
addition,
state
tax
systems
that
ask
the
most
as
a
share
of
income
from
families
earning
the
least
is
another
thing
that
contributes
to
squeezing
families
between
inadequate
wages
and
increasingly
expensive
basic
needs.
In
nine
out
of
every
ten
states,
families
earning
the
lease
pay,
a
higher
share
of
their
income
in
state
local
taxes
than
higher
income
families
do.
K
Excite,
and
so
this
is
really
where
the
earned
income
tax
credit
comes
in
and
along
with
higher
minimum
wages,
state
and
federal
eitc's
help
families
make
ends
meet
during
the
pandemic
into
the
recovery
and
hopefully
beyond.
So
here's
how
the
credit
works.
Working
families
with
children
earning
up
to
between
41
to
56
thousand
dollars
generally
qualify
for
an
eidc
with
the
largest
benefits
going
to
families,
earning
between
about
10
000
to
24
000.
K
Workers
without
children
can
also
qualify,
but
the
benefit
is
small
and
they
can
receive
and
only
if
their
income
is
below
about
16,
000
or
21
000.
For
a
married
couple,
the
american
rescue
plan
act
increased
the
credit
for
these
workers,
but
currently
this
expansion
is
temporary
and
only
for
one
year,
so
this
chart
shows
the
credit
for
a
family
with
one
child
in
2020.
K
K
Refundability
is
a
really
key
feature
of
the
eitc,
because
it
means
that
the
full
credit
is
available
to
families,
no
matter
how
much
they
owe
it
tax
time
in
most
state
tax
cred
most
state
eitcs
are
refundable.
Just
like
the
federal
tax
credit,
as
we
see
on
this
chart
as
well
across
the
50
states
and
the
district
of
columbia.
The
median
income
of
eligible
families
is
between
11
and
20
000,
and
the
most
common
industries
for
eitc
eligible
workers
include
retail
health
care
and
food
service.
K
Research
also
suggests
that
the
income
from
tax
credits
like
the
eitc,
helps
children
from
birth
through
retirement.
For
instance,
this
income
is
associated
with
improvements
in
maternal
health
and
children,
and
families
receiving
such
income
tend
to
do
better
in
school,
are
likelier
to
attend.
College
are
likely
to
earn
more
as
adults,
and
women
in
particular,
are
likely
to
see
a
more
secure
retirement.
K
K
K
I
know
we
talked
about
this
earlier
in
the
call,
but
the
treasury
department
just
released
guidance
related
to
the
american
rescue
plan
act
and
given
that
the
eipc
is
a
tax
reduction,
the
net
tax
provision
that
we
discussed
does
come
into
play
here.
You
know
this
is
something
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
further
in
working
to
understand
the
full
implications
of
in
the
coming
days,
but
as
states
are
thinking
about
eitc's,
you
know
having
a
separate
revenue
source
is
certainly
something
that
can
help
alleviate
those
concerns.
K
So,
between
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic,
and
now
seven
states
have
improved
their
eipcs,
california,
colorado,
indiana,
maryland
new
mexico,
new
jersey
and
washington.
Five
hundred
have
made
their
credits
inclusive
of
filers,
who
use
itins,
which
is
very
exciting
and
for
just
a
few
examples.
This
year,
california
is
issuing
additional
600
payments
to
eitc
recipients
in
the
state,
and
just
I
think
about
two
weeks
ago,
indiana
increased
their
eitc
match
from
nine
to
ten
percent
of
the
federal
credit,
and
this
might
not
be
all
some
state.
K
K
Just
this
year,
washington
state
recently
enacted
and
expanded
its
working
families,
tax
credit,
and
that
shows
how
an
eitc
could
work
in
a
state
that
doesn't
have
an
income
tax
eligible
families
would
apply
to
the
washington
state
department
of
revenue.
The
state
will
then
verify
eligibility
by
matching
its
information
with
the
irs
information
that
it
receives,
and
the
law
also
directs
the
revenue
department
to
work
with
the
irs
to
pay
the
rebate
automatically.
If
that
becomes
feasible.
K
K
K
So
I've
just
given
a
short
overview
about
the
eitc,
how
it
builds
on
the
success
of
the
federal
credit
by
helping
families
afford
the
basics,
reducing
poverty
and
helping
families
thrive
in
the
long
run,
I'm
happy
to
take
questions
and
to
be
in
touch
with
anybody
who
wants
to
talk
about
this
one.
Thank
you,
ms
waxman.
This.
C
C
C
That
would
be
beneficial
to
me
as
a
policy
maker,
because
then
I
would
know
who
I
should
be
targeting
that
for,
and
so
I
think
part
of
the
problem
I
have
with
arpa
is
that
we're
spending
tons
and
tons
of
money
and
giving
it
to
folks
and
organizations
that
really
don't
need
it
and
the
folks
that
do
need.
It
are
essentially
getting
short
change.
So
it
would
be
more
beneficial
to
me
as
a
policy
maker
if
we
could
differentiate
between
the
ramifications
of
and
again
I
realize
what
this
will
show
us.
C
Our
revenues
are
up,
everything
is
booming,
and
organizations
that
continue
to
move
forward
are
moving
forward,
taking
care
of
their
employees,
raising
the
standard
of
living,
raising
their
their
hourly
rates.
And
so
what
would
be
valuable
to
me
is
if
your
organization
could
differentiate
that,
because,
as
we
look
at
policy,
we
would
be
able
to
determine
whether
that's
prudent
in
declaring
some
work
is
essential
and
some
not
and
the
profound.
What
I
think
you'll
find
is
the
profound
ramification
of
the
non-essential
people,
which
you
are
right.
C
K
Yeah
thanks
for
that
question,
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
the
census
pulse
data
that
I
had
in
in
the
first
slide
about
how
it
a
lot
of
folks
are
finding
it
difficult
to
meet
their
routine
expenses.
I
don't
think
they
have
that
in
terms
of
essential
versus
non-essential
workers.
My
my
general
understanding
is
that
at
least
under
arpa
states
can
define
who's
an
essential
worker.
So
I
think
it'd
be
really
hard
to
generalize
about
that.
Nationally.
C
Yes,
I
agree
and
that
I
guess
that's
my
point
and
so
the
danger
in
in
quoting
data
like
that
is
that
that's
not
that's,
not
the
experience
in
wisconsin.
That
is
the
experience
with
a
segment
of
that
particular
population.
The
other
half
of
that
population
that
continued
to
stay
gainfully
employed
that
continued
to
see
their
wages
rise
during
this
last
recession
do
not
are
not
experiencing
the
issues
you
just
talked
about,
and
so
again
I
I
totally
understand
that
that
is
probably
hard
data
to
get
to.
C
If
you
will
again
use
they'll
be
going,
and
we
know
if
you
just
look
at
m1
and
the
cash,
the
liquidity
that
was
pumped
into
the
markets
and
so
again
it's
I
think
it's
disingenuous
and
unfair
to
talk
in
general
terms.
If
we
can't
actually
get
that
data
and
break
that
out,
then
that's
a
concern
of
mine.
So
I
would
like
to
see
you
know
the
data
that
we
could
use
in
really
targeting
health
in
the
states
and
so
that
I
realized
that
it
would
be
hard
to
do.
A
J
So
you're
probably
wondering
why
a
988
suicide
prevention
topic
is
before
the
task
force,
and
I
guarantee
you
that,
within
in
the
tech
next
10
minutes,
you'll
you'll
have
the
answer
to
that
question.
If
you
can
go
to
the
first
slide,
I'm
just
going
to
briefly
talk
about
the
telecommunications
tax
policy
principles
that
have
been
a
long-standing
policy
position
of
this
task
force.
J
Talk
very
briefly
about
the
law
that
congress
passed,
creating
the
hotline,
how
the
wireless
industries
principles
concerning
state
implementation
of
the
988
hotline
and
then
briefly
talk
about
what
states
have
done
so
far.
So
if
you
want
to
go
to
the
next
slide,
please
jocelyn
for
one
of
the
earliest
things.
This
task
force
did
more
than
20
years
ago
was
come
up
with
some
principles:
encouraging
states
to
reform
their
telecommunications
tax
policies
because
they
were
administratively
burdened.
They
were
not
competitively
neutral.
J
J
So
last
year
congress
passed
the
federal
988
legislation
which
basically
designated
988
to
be
a
the
national
suicide
prevention
hotline,
similar
to
the
way
911
is
the
emergency
services
number
that
everybody
remembers,
and
it
requires
telecom
companies
and
the
states
to
be
prepared
to.
As
of
july
of
of
this
coming
year,
20
next
year,
sorry
2022
to
switch
over
so
that
anybody
calling
918
988
anywhere
in
the
country
will
be
connected
to
a
suicide
prevention
hotline,
that's
staffed
by
professionals
that
can
assist
them
with
these
kind
of
crises.
J
So
this
is
the
situation
states
have
until
july
22
to
prepare
and
in
terms
of
the
wireless
industry's
position.
If
you
want
to
go
to
the
next
slide,
the
wireless
industry
supported
the
federal
legislation
and
supported
designating
988
as
the
hotline
and
we've
already
started,
making
changes
to
our
networks
to
make
sure
that
when
we
do
the
switch
over
that
all
of
the
technical
issues
in
terms
of
getting
people
to
the
right
place
will
be
in
place
we've.
J
Also,
our
position
is:
we
do
not
oppose
the
imposition
of
988
fees,
but
we
feel
like,
if
you're
going
to
do
them
on
wireless
and
voip,
they
should
be
on
everybody
competitively
neutral,
same
way
as
one
of
the
ncso
principles,
and
then
we
also
think
that
states,
while
they
can
consider
988
fees.
This
is
a
very
important
broad-based
service
and
states
should
consider
looking
at
funding
a
lot
of
these
services
out
of
state
general
funds.
Next
slides,
please,
and
specifically,
when
it
comes
to
fees.
J
If
states
are
going
to
do
fees,
they
should
be
kept
as
low
as
possible
because,
as
I
mentioned,
wireless
consumers
are
already
heavily
burdened
with
taxes
and
fees
and
that
the
fee
revenues
should
be
limited
to
those
things
that
are
directly
related
to
the
expenses
related
to
call
taking
and
dispatch.
So,
if
you
think
of
the
911
system,
as
an
analogy,
the
calls
fund
the
911
peace
apps
and
the
dispatch
and
the
in
the
equipment
and
the
professionals
that
staff
the
911
centers,
but
they
don't
fund
police
and
fire
and
ems.
J
The
actual
people
who
are
responding
to
the
988
calls-
and
I
think
you
know,
unfortunately,
some
of
the
states
have
been
looking
at
a
huge
array
of
services
to
be
funded
out.
Potentially
out
of
these
988
fees.
Things
like
mobile
crisis
teams,
acute
care
and
follow-up
services,
and
it's
our
feeling
that
the
988
fees
should
be
limited
to
those
those
things
that
are
analogous
to
9-1-1
and
that
these
other
important
services
very
important
services
should
be
funded,
not
be
funded
from
988
fees.
So
in
terms
of
an
overview
of
where
states
are.
J
J
The
number
of
calls
some
states
have
come
out
of
the
gate
in
2021
and
gotten
sort
of
an
early
jump
on
it
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
categories
on
this
map,
the
states
sort
of
in
beige
have
passed
legislation
either
putting
in
place
studies
or
actually
funding
the
the
startup
costs
for
988
out
of
general
revenues,
and
you
can
actually
add
kansas
to
this
list
because
they
their
bill
did
not
pass
and
they
did
put
money
into
their
budget.
They
adjourned
on
saturday
night.
J
So
there's
actually
five
states
that
have
started
doing
this,
either
studies
or
preparation.
Without
imposing
new
fees
on
consumers.
Two
states
have
passed
bills
to
enact
new
fees
on
consumers,
the
state
of
virginia
12
cents
a
month
to
fund
the
call
centers
and
the
state
of
washington
24
cents
a
month.
There
are
seven
remaining
states
that
have
introduced
bills
that
would
impose
fees.
J
Some
of
the
fees
are
specified
in
statute,
but
some
of
them,
disturbingly
sort
of
say
the
public
utility
commission
sells
set
the
fee
to
cover
whatever
the
expenses
are,
which
obviously
makes
us
very
nervous.
When
we
don't
know
the
full
range
of
services
and
the
scope
of
that,
and
we
would
discourage
legislatures
from
granting
that
open
or
ended
authority
and
asked
to
set
the
statute
and
fee
the
fee
and
statute.
J
J
That
really
should
be
of
broad
interest
to
the
public.
Broad
availability
aren't
really
aren't
really
a
fee
because
they're
not
really
tied
to
the
988
call.
And
again,
if
you
choose
to
impose
these
new
fees,
we
respectfully
request
that
they
be
limited
to
those
extensive
expenses
related
to
call
taking
and
dispatch.
I
I
know
I
went
through
those
slides
very
closely.
J
I
tried
to
get
you
guys
back
on
on
timing
here
in
terms
of
the
meeting
I
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
questions
I'll,
put
my
contact
information
on
the
next
slide.
If
you
have
follow
up
questions
or
would
like
further
information
on
any
of
the
states
that
are
highlighted
on
that
map,
I'm
happy
to
share
that
with
you
and
again.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
just
very
briefly
outline
what's
coming
on
988
and
the
wireless
industry's
position.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
A
B
C
Yes,
yep,
I
would
say
the
other
thing
too
then
erlinda,
you
and
I
are
working
on,
hopefully
having
assault
an
in-person
salt
event
sometime
in
september,
correct,
so
we'll
do
the
base
camp.
Hopefully
that's
the
last
online
thing
we
get
together
face-to-face
and
talk
about
some
of
the
issues
they
talked
about
at
the
outset
of
this
meeting,
where
you
have
breakout
sessions
running
into
a
person
getting
coffee,
I
think
that's
where
a
lot
of
the
dynamics
and
the
relationship
building
comes
so
I'm
really
really
looking
forward
to
getting
back
to
that.
C
I
know
you've
got
some
bids
out
for
that.
So,
in
addition
to
the
base
camp
online
event
and
then
the
national
summit
event
and
if
you've
never
had
a
chance
to
go
to
a
summit,
it's
worthwhile
bring
your
staff.
Everybody
show
up
how
many
people
come
to
those
things.
I
mean
last
the
one,
the
last
one
in
nashville,
how
many
thousands
of
people
were
there.
C
Yeah
something
like
that:
there's
breakout
sessions
all
over
you
know
from
immigration
and
taxation
to
corrections,
reform
to
you
name
it
transportation,
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
that
you
can
get
at
at
the
summit.
So
I
encourage
everybody
to
go
there
and
then
again,
as
we
get
more
information
on
our
salt
budget
and
revenue
and
fiscal
leaders
discussion
for
september.
Hopefully
everybody
will
come
to
that
thanks.
Orlando.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
representative,
marco,
yes
and
like
like
representative
marco
mentioned,
we
are
looking
to
have
an
in-person
meeting
in
september
as
well,
so
stay
tuned
for
the
details
on
that,
and
al
also
want
to
always
thank
our
sponsors
for
their
support
and
of
our
salt
task
force.
Of
course,
and
here
we
have
them
listed
and
yes
well.
Thank
you
all
for
joining
us
this
afternoon
and
again
feel
free
to
reach
out.