►
Description
Part of the NCSL Task Force on State and Local Taxation Virtual Meeting Series.
A
A
Of
course,
this
was
actually
the
day
we
were
supposed
to
have
our
flagships
all
task
force
meeting
in
Miami,
but
here
we
are
in
our
kitchens
or
whatever
so
anyway,
but
again.
Nonetheless,
we
welcome
the
opportunity
to
share
ideas
and
share
insight
and
expertise
more
so
than
ever.
Your
research
analysis
and
insight
into
how
states
are
handling
this
crisis
with
respect
to
to
taxes
and
revenue
streams
are
very
important,
so
we
appreciate
our
sponsors
again
for
being
willing
to
transition
with
us
as
we
continue
to
engage
with
our
members
today.
A
A
A
No
just
like
yourself
well
I,
want
to
thank
all
of
our
colleagues
who
have
taken
the
time
out
of
their
busy
schedules
all
across
the
country
different
time
zones.
To
do
this.
It's
been
a
great
joy,
I
hate
to
see
it
come
to
an
end,
so
maybe
do
some
others
that
we
can
do
this
on,
but
certainly
thank
you
to
to
your
staff
or
Linda.
Everybody
at
NCSL
has
been
so
great
in
providing
us.
A
This
information
and
I
certainly
want
to
thank
the
sponsors
without
whom
this
would
be
difficult
to
do
and
and
the
presenters
the
percentage
that
worked
hard
to
give
us
information.
That's
important
to
us.
These
are
challenging
times.
They
were
all
dealing
with.
You
know,
I,
think
of
us
as
being
on
the
frontline
of
democracy
and
that
the
information
we
get
from
NCSL
and
from
each
other
is
helping
in
that
the
diverse
questions
we
get
from
diverse
parts
of
the
country
or
import
fast
to
understand
the
big
part
of
the
program.
A
You
know,
there's
only
there's
just
a
shy.
Less
than
seven
thousand
four
hundred
of
us
legislate
state
legislators
that
are
working
hard
for
over
three
hundred
twenty
eight
million
Americans.
So
we
are
doing
a
tough
job,
we're
on
the
front
lines
and
I
appreciate
that
and
finally,
what
what
we
do
matters
and
what
NC
L
self
NCSL
does
matters
Linda.
A
B
I
can't
really
add
much
to
what
Marvin
said.
He
really
nailed
it,
but
I
do
want
to
just
say
thank
you
to
the
NCSL
people
and
our
sponsors
and
and
Erlinda
you've
been
just
phenomenal.
I've
had
some
issues
the
last
couple
weeks
from
a
personal
standpoint.
So,
but
even
then
thank
you
for
feeding
back
information
to
us
and
Marv
is
absolutely
right.
B
We
are
on
the
front
line
and
democracy
and
I
think
the
and
I
think
we'll
come
back
better
I
have
said,
even
as
of
March
12th,
having
been
through
so
many
different
things
that
the
risk
everybody
makes
it
that
takes
is
that
is
the
concept
the
saying
yeah,
but
this
time
it's
different
nope.
The
boogeyman
is
always
different.
That's
for
sure,
but
it's
not
any
different
than
the
oil
embargo
and
gas
rationing
is
74.
It's
not
any
different
than
the
market
crash,
and
in
1987
it's
certainly
not
any
different
than
9/11.
B
A
Received
chairs
I
appreciate
the
compliment.
That's
that's
what
we're
here
for
so
just
doing
our
duty,
but
thank
you
very
much
and
alright.
Well,
we'll
get
right
into
our
panels
now
and
here's
the
we
have
a
slide
with
our
agenda
for
today,
and
our
first
topic
will
be
tax
policy
in
the
COBIT
19
era.
Bill
Fox
from
the
University
of
Tennessee
is
going
to
be.
Addressing
that
issue
followed
by
revenues,
must
be
a
part
of
the
state
solution
to
state
budget
shortfalls.
A
States
have
many
options
by
Mike
nazarov
from
the
Center
on
Budget
and
Policy
Priorities,
and
finally,
a
presentation
from
the
Tax
Foundation
Gerald
wall
check
the
pandemic
and
the
damage
done
in
revitalizing
state
revenue
streams.
So
we
appreciate
the
three
panelists
that
we
have
today.
Jocelyn
is
going
to
be
taking
questions
in
the
chat
box
and
if
you
could,
please
just
remember
to
meet
yourselves
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that
would
be
fantastic
and
without
further
adieu
we'll
continue.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
It
is
certainly
my
privilege
to
participate
in
today's
session.
It's
always
a
privilege
to
be
a
part
of
an
NC
SL
session
and,
as
both
of
the
co-chairs
just
noted
what
you
do
really
does
matter
in
terms
of
the
services
that
impact
people's
lives
every
day,
you're
the
responsible
group
that
we've
elected
and
so
thank
you
for
what
you're
doing
it's
again,
always
a
privilege
to
be
with
Michael
and
with
Jared,
and
they
have
great
ideas
and
so
I
look
forward
to
this
time
together.
C
So
with
we
go
with
the
slides
in.
Let
me
start
by
talking
about
two
things.
First
of
all,
how
I
think
about
financing
in
this
particular
environment
and
then
some
ideas
that
I
would
have
on
what
kind
of
changes
would
make
sense
and
I
think
my
basic
theme
is
kovat.
19
does
not
change
good
tax
policy,
keep
doing
tax
as
well
and
and
I
have
this
fear
that
we'll
be
one
group
we're
thinking
just
any
way
we
can
raise.
Revenues
is
a
good
idea
and
that's
not
good
policy.
C
Similarly,
just
giving
tax
cuts
or
granting
exemptions
in
a
hope
to
stimulate
the
economy
is
also
not
a
good
idea
when
it
comes
right
down
to
it.
We
are
not
having
this
problem
because
of
state
tax
policies,
they're,
not
the
problem,
they're,
not
the
solution,
leave
it
to
the
federal
government
that
can
print
money
that
runs
the
federal
reserve
to
stimulate
the
economy.
All
that
we
can
do
with
with
new
exemptions
and
and
lower
rates
is
to
further
erode
your
capacity
to
deliver
key
public
services.
The
next
chart-
well,
I,
just
remind
you
of
the.
C
Characteristics
of
a
good
tax
system-
nothing
new
in
this,
but
I'm
gonna
focus
on
the
fourth
of
those.
But
let
me
just
remind
you
that
limiting
compliance
and
administration
cost.
This
is
an
important
goal.
All
the
money
that
goes
into
those
is
just
kind
of
lost.
From
the
economic
perspective,
though
they're
important
to
do,
we
want
to
limit
the
way
that
taxes
keep
good
economic
activity
from
taking
place.
C
We
want
an
appropriate
degree
of
fairness,
that's
in
the
eye
of
the
beholder,
but
it's
important
to
all
of
us,
but
the
thing
I
really
wanted
to
emphasize
with
almost
all
of
my
comments
today
is
that
in
the
Cova
19
era,
right
now,
these
months
and
this
year
or
to
appropriate
revenues,
are
really
key
goal
and
and
I'm
not
actually
saying
whether
revenues
ought
to
be
high
or
low.
They
need
to
be
the
appropriate
revenues
to
fund
what
you're
trying
to
do
in
your
state.
C
But
what
I
really
want
to
emphasize
is
the
need
to
think
about
the
volatility
of
state
taxes
and
and
what's
happened
in
really
class
4050
years.
A
long
time
period
is
state.
Taxes
have
become
ever
more
volatile.
A
big
part
of
the
reason,
for
that
is
we
keep
narrowing
down
tax
bases
and
narrow
tax
bases
are
almost
always
going
to
be
more
volatile.
C
So
far,
there
can
are
better
ways
to
deal
with
the
equity
issues
of
sales
tax
and
further
a
progressive
rates.
I
meant
to
include
here
and
and
growing
share
of
the
income.
Tax
I
think
is
an
important
reason
for
volatility.
Income
taxes
are
not
always
more
volatile
than
sales
taxes,
but
in
most
economic
environments
they
will
be
and
then
corporate
tax
revenues
as
we
do
it
if
you're
doing
their
corporate
income
tax.
C
This
is
very
volatile
and,
as
I've
said
to
our
legislators
here
a
couple
of
months,
if
no
revenues
are
going
to
is
going
to
just
crash
corporate
income
taxes,
the
next
chart
shows
you
how
tax
systems
have
been
changing
over
the
last
50
years.
To
give
you
some
perspective
on
it,
the
red
line
shows
you
the
share
of
taxes
paid
by
the
sales
tax.
You
can
it's
kind
of
where
it
was
50
years
ago,
went
up
a
little
bit
in
the
mid-2000s,
but
it's
it's
stabilized
back.
C
Raising
about
30
percent
of
revenues,
income
taxes
and
I'm
talking
personal
now
have
almost
doubled
in
their
relative
role
in
state
taxes,
when
we
put
all
the
states
together.
The
alkyl
of
this
is
a
more
volatile
tax
system,
particularly
those
components
of
non
labor
income
and
and
what's
actually
different.
Of
course,
what
I'm
not
showing
you
is
the
rest
of
the
tax
system
and,
what's
really
missing
from
this
chart,
is
the
tank,
the
selective
sales
taxes
that
if
we
went
back
50
years
ago,
were
such
an
important
role
in
state
government.
C
But
what's
happened
over
time
because
in
so
many
states
you're
taxing
these
with
fixed
rates
per
unit
of
consumption,
you
simply
had
no
growth
in
the
tax
source
and
so
ideas
like
indexing
those
to
inflation,
so
that
you
get
some
growth
so
that
their
relative
role
in
the
tax
system
isn't
eroded
as
much
would
certainly
make
a
lot
of
difference
and
and
would
have
helped
you
in
this
particular
environment.
My
next
chart
begins
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
I
would
be
thinking
about
budgeting
here
and
I.
C
Just
wanted
to
remind
you
that,
in
my
experience,
I've
been
doing
this
a
long
time
and
in
my
experience,
recessions
are
never
single
year.
Events
for
states,
you're
gonna,
of
course,
be
hard
hit
here
in
fiscal
2010
in
fiscal
21,
but
the
likely
scenario,
the
one
you
ought
to
at
least
be
planning
for,
is
the
problems
at
least
go
on
then
to
22.
C
Remember
back
those
of
you
who
are
in
your
legislatures
in
2008/9
that
not
only
did
you
lose
revenues
going
forward
from
2008
or
9
in
many
states
it
was
2012
or
3
or
14
before
you
had
as
many
nominal
dollars
as
you
did
in
2008
plan
for
multi-year
problems
here
and
so
things
like
well,
let
me
just
cover
the
problem
with
rainy
day.
Funds,
in
my
estimation,
is
not
very
good
policy.
You
need
to
be
saving
even
into
the
future.
C
That
doesn't
mean
they
play
no
role,
but
I
know
in
Tennessee
this
year,
for
example,
we're
gonna
have
to
use
some
rainy
day
funds
to
to
close
out
fiscal
20
before
we
even
get
into
the
the
part
of
the
year
that
we're
planning
for
it
and
one
reason
why
the
recessions
go.
Multi-Year
I
just
noted
here,
your
corporate
income
taxes
and
I'm
happy
to
talk
about
this
later.
C
If
anybody
has
a
question,
but
just
structurally
the
way
you've
built
them,
the
Cova
19
effects
this
fiscal
year
next
fiscal
year
and
fiscal
22
just
by
the
way,
they're
structured
and
that
doesn't
even
get
into
laws
carry
forward
issues
further.
You
want
to
be
planning
for
a
significant
downside
risk
now
I.
We
all
hope
this
is
doesn't
happen,
but
nobody
has
seen
a
pandemic.
C
This
is
kind
of
what
will
happen,
but
the
key
issue,
the
most
important
issue
in
terms
of
the
economy,
is
when
do
consumers
feel
comfortable
getting
back
out
in
groups
going
to
restaurants
going
to
concerts
I'm
I'm,
looking
over
here
at
the
University
of
Tennessee
football
field.
It's
right
to
my
right:
when
are
a
hundred
thousand
people
back
in
that
stadium?
C
When
is
it
that
consumers
get
comfortable
spending
again,
but
having
said
that,
the
supply
side
of
the
economy
is
going
to
matter
a
lot
I
think
a
lot
of
trends
in
the
economy
have
been
accelerated,
none
more
so
than
what's
happening
in
retailing
and
as
you,
as
you
know,
a
bunch
of
retailers
have
already
declared
bankruptcy
there's
more
to
come,
and
what
this
is
giving
them
is
an
opportunity
to
try
to
right-size
themselves,
and
so
how
will
they
do
that?
Well,
though,
not
out
reopen
a
lot,
the
stores
they
have
they
formerly
had.
C
That
means
a
lot
of
people
without
a
job
at
the
other.
End
of
this
I
want
to
remind
you
that
many
of
you,
if
not
all
of
you,
have
delayed
filing
dates
for
your
personal
income
tax
for
your
corporate
taxes,
so
that
might
have
been
good
policy
I'm,
not
questioning
the
policy.
I
am
saying
as
you're,
putting
together
your
budget
for
next
fiscal
year.
C
The
challenge
is,
if
you
have
a
July
15th
due
date
now,
and
your
corporate
income
tax
you're
not
going
to
know
until
early
August,
how
your
corporate
income
taxes
did
even
this
year.
So
you
need
to
keep
in
mind
that
you're
going
to
be
planning
with
very
little
information
in
Tennessee
they're,
putting
together
the
budget
in
early
June.
What
I've
told
them
is
it?
The
best
case
we
can
see
is
one
month
of
sales
tax
collections
in
a
pandemic.
We
won't
know
about
any
of
the
other
taxes
very
difficult
environment
in
which
the
budget.
C
For
me,
that
means
being
very
conservative
on
the
budgeting
side
next
chart
just
reminds
us
all
of
how
volatile
tax
revenues
are.
I
could
have
drawn
this
for
any
state.
It
would
have
looked
very
similar.
This
is,
what's
happened
over
time
in
Tennessee
with
tax
revenues.
You
can
see
how
volatile
they
can
be
during
a
recession
and,
of
course,
how
well
they
can
do
after
the
recession.
The
next
chart
brings
us
to
what's
different
about
Kovan
19.
As
the
co-chair
represented
macro
said
this.
C
This
is
clearly
another
one
of
the
the
many
kinds
of
experiences
we've
had,
but
but
what's
different
from
anything
I've
ever
seen
is
the
pace
at
which
the
economy
has
slowed
down.
We
shut
things
down
and
we
see
it
in
two
important
revenue
areas.
First
of
all,
if
you're
worrying
about
your
unemployment
insurance
system,
you're
doing
it
with
good
reason,
we've
had
as
many
people
filed
for
unemployment
insurance
in
eight
weeks
as
we
had
in
the
first
seven
B
weeks
of
the
2008
nine
recession.
C
One
thing
I've
noted
here
is
what
we've
seen
so
far
in
which
we're
very
early
in
this
environment
is
much
more
substitution
across
activities
than
I,
otherwise
would
have
expected
look
at
the
next
chart,
and
this
is
based
on
actual
sales
tax
collections
for
Tennessee
for
the
month
of
April,
and
if
we
can
get
that
next
chart
up
what
it
shows
is
where
there
we
go.
Thank
you.
You
can
see
where
revenues
decline.
This
is
by
industry.
I,
have
you
know
five
or
six
hundred
categories?
C
I
chose
a
dozen
or
so
to
give
you
a
vision
of?
What's
going
on
so
hotels
and
motels,
of
course
they
were
shut
down.
Restaurants,
you
can
see
them
not
totally
shut
down
and
then
in
Tennessee
we
shut
down
around
the
middle
of
March
and
and
marches
economic
activities,
April
sales
tax
collections
and,
and
so
that's
a
half
a
month
of
eating
places.
C
We
lost
thirty
percent
of
revenues
and
so
forth,
but
but
what
I
also
want
you
to
see
is
all
those
areas
where
we
gained
revenues
notice
grocery
stores,
as
I
mentioned
before,
if
you're
not
taxing
food
on
for
consumption
at
home,
you're,
not
going
to
see
that
kind
of
revenue
growth
that
we
were
fortunate
to
get
in
Tennessee,
but
notice,
people
apparently
went
home
to
work
on
projects,
they're
hardware
stores
and
lumber
and
building
materials
did
great.
We
had
a
lot
of
substitution.
C
The
question
is:
what
happens
from
there
this
morning,
retail
sales
for
the
US
was
released.
It
was
about
16
and
a
half
percent
decline
for
the
month
of
April.
No
that's
a
month
later
than
what
I'm
showing
you
here
and
and
I
just
noted,
for
example,
vehicle
sales
down
33
percent
furniture
store
sales
down,
66
percent
clothing
stores
down.
C
Can
you
imagine
90%
I
mean
just
huge
declines
across
some
things,
but
again
some
growth,
particularly
in
online
sales,
and
so
we
can
all
be
really
happy
that
we
had
way
first,
our
legislation
and
how
it's
helped
on
the
tax
revenue
side.
The
next
chart
just
emphasizes
what's
been
happening
in
terms
of
remote
purchasing.
C
You
know.
I've
argued
for
many
years
that
that
the
important
thing
is
the
tax,
remote
purchases
and
other
purchase
is
the
same
way.
Fair
has
allowed
it
to
do
that
to
a
significant
degree,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
remember
that
what's
happening
is
more
than
just
remotely
or
me
sitting
in
Tennessee
ordering
something
from
the
state
of
Washington
a
lot
of
remote
sales.
C
Now
is
me
ordering
something
from
the
local
grocery
store
and
going
by
and
picking
it
up
target
reported
this
last
week
to
get
this
two
hundred
and
seventy
five
percent
growth
in
online
sales.
This
April
by
comparison
with
last
April,
and
what
target
has
pointed
out
is
that
that
their
fulfillment
costs
are
down
90
percent.
If
you
can
come
by
and
pick
it
up,
a
curbside
or
a
ship
delivers
it
for
them,
and
so
so
what
we're
getting?
Is
this
really
big
change
in
behavior
taking
place,
we're
accelerating
a
trend
that
was
already
underway?
C
There's
no
going
back.
The
other
end
of
this
retailers
will
continue
to
shrink
their
footprint
again
targeted
I'm,
just
using
them.
As
an
example.
Target
is
already
doing
that.
A
number
of
cases
you
can
imagine
what's
gonna
happen
is
a
lot
of
the
activities
of
these
data
firms
will
be
much
more
like
warehousing
the
notion
that
they're
going
to
pay
somebody
to
put
something
on
the
shelf.
C
C
Let
me
re-emphasize
I
understand
what
what
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
I
understand
that
this
will
take
time,
but
but
it
is
not
in
the
country
or
the
state's
best
interest
to
have
two
tax
systems,
one
for
small
businesses,
one
for
big
businesses.
We
need
a
single
system
that
doesn't
have
thresholds
and
notches
that
yet
give
firms
incentives
to
distort
behavior.
We
want
all
firms
to
be
considered
in
very
similar
fashion
in
terms
of
how
they
comply
with
taxes
and
the
people
that
they
represent
as
they
sell.
C
You
know
you
may
need
some
special
treatment
for
compliance
for
smaller
firms,
but
in
the
end,
if
you're
operating
in
multiple
states
I
mean
just
like
I,
don't
hire
a
lawyer
unless
I'm
big
enough
to
need
one
full-time
I
need
to
hire
the
service
of
a
vendor
to
provide
these
fulfillment
goals.
For
me,
the
goal
in
the
long
term
ought
to
be
a
single
effect
system.
My
next
chart
just
I,
wanted
to
emphasize,
while
we're
thinking
about
these
kinds
of
issues
that
that
federal
legislation,
I
suspect
everybody
in
this
call
agrees
with
me.
C
Federal
legislation
is
a
really
bad
idea
to
try
to
bring
some
kind
of
order
in
their
view
to
state
tax
systems
really
easy
to
give
away.
Somebody
else's
tax
base
get
all
the
political
benefits
for
exemptions,
and
none
of
the
revenue
costs
and
further
tax
systems
and
the
way
the
economy
is
altering
is
changing
so
fast.
The
federal
government
will
never
stay
where
stay
up
with
where
it
needs
to
be
next.
Chart
I
wanted
to
to
just
emphasize
two
things
that
I'd
be
thinking
about.
C
If
I
was
trying
to
stabilize
state
tax
systems,
first
thing
I
would
do
is
I
would
look
at
a
gross
receipts
tax
now
there's
a
there,
unfortunately,
are
more
bad
examples
out
there
than
good
ones.
I
think
the
Ohio
cat
is
a
really
good
tax
system
for
for
stabilizing
business
tax
revenues,
no
deductions
really
low
rate
on
all
forms
of
business
levied
at
the
destination
I
mean
since
many
states
are
already
going
to
single
sales
factor
of
portion
on
the
corporate
income
tax,
just
turn
it
into
a
gross
receipts
tax.
C
It's
a
quasi
gross
receipts
tax.
Anyway,
it's
simpler,
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
combined
reporting
issues.
Revenues
are
much
more
stable,
doesn't
distort
how
businesses
structure
themselves.
The
disadvantage
everybody
talks
about
is
all,
but
it
pyramids
keep
the
rates
low,
like
Ohio
did
and
pyramiding
is
not
a
problem.
C
My
next
chart
is
to
emphasize
also
the
importance
of
keeping
your
taxes
broad
now
I've
noted
here
you
can
expand
the
sales
tax
to
appropriate
services,
while
that's
happening
and
I
think
I
have
a
list
here
which
I
won't
emphasize
on
what
Kentucky
has
done
state
still
when
they,
when
they
talk
about
broadening
their
services,
don't
go
out
to
the
important
to
the
big
ones.
Health
care,
of
course,
is
the
biggest
one.
C
We
could
add.
A
port
and
few
people
are
going
to
expand
to
health
care,
but
construction
repair
services.
This
is
where
the
where
the
money
is
really
looking
keep
this
sales
tax
base
is
broad,
the
same
thing
with
the
income
tax,
avoid
age
based
exemptions,
which
is
instead
of
the
the
current
concern
that
that
I
have,
because
the
population
is
aging
so
fast,
broader
basis,
more
stable
tax
last
chart
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
remind
you
of
this.
C
This
is
this
is
the
speed
of
adoption
for
major
technologies
and
over
the
last
hundred
years
and
I
want
you
to
look
at
what
was
happening.
Your
telephone,
electricity,
automobiles
took
50
years
60
70
years
to
get
these
adopted.
Look
at
the
recent
technologies.
This
is
why
it's
so
challenging
for
you
to
maintain
your
tax
systems
and
why
it's
so
important
for
you
to
keep
them
maintained,
because
new
technologies
are
evolving
and
being
adopted
so
rapidly.
So
thank
you
for
the
time
I
appreciate
it
and
I'll
be
happy
to
respond
to
any
questions
or
comments.
A
B
Erlinda
this
is
John
I,
just
wonder
if,
if
dr.
Fox
could
comment
a
little
bit,
he
talked
about.
Obviously
I
think
I
understand
the
trend
that
was
already
underway,
as
you
said
in
retailing,
and
this
only
exacerbates
that
issue.
But
as
we
look
at
other
recessionary
pullbacks,
is
there
any
difference
in
in
your
forecast
moving
forward?
So
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is?
B
No,
that's
not
true
that
when
you
talk
about
the
clothing
animal,
the
I
know
in
talking
to
Senator
corker,
just
a
couple
of
weeks
ago,
they
were
working
on
getting
the
Volkswagen
plant
up
in
Chattanooga,
and
then
they
pulled
back
a
little
bit
got
that
going
and
thinking
was
get
it
get
some
of
these
big
pieces
moving
forward
and
then
that'll
fix
itself.
So
are
those
pent
up
demands
that
are
there
so
I
guess
a
little
comment
from
you
on
what
the
mark
macroeconomics
are
of
what
we're
going
into?
B
If
you've
done
any
of
that
assessment,
sure
I
guess
the
flipside
of
that
then.
The
other
side
is
that
this
was
just
an
external
phenomenon
that
applied
itself
to
the
market
like
a
9-1-1
situation,
for
example,
that
was
an
external
thing
applied
to
the
market
and
that
we
were
able
to
rebound
from
that
once
we
eliminated
that
external
force.
So
could
you
Connaughton
on
that
thought
so
I
do
expect.
C
It's
these.
These
are
really
important
sources
of
jobs
in
Tennessee,
but
but
I
think
we
need
to
also
recognize
that
what
people
want
to
buy
isn't
just
goods
anymore.
It
I
mean.
First
of
all,
the
single
biggest
item
is
healthcare.
Twenty
percent
of
how
we're
spending
our
income-
and
this
is
a
service-
it's
not
a
good
and
and
go
through
the
list-
I
happen
to
have
not
one
but
two
cell
phones
here
in
front
of
me,
and
while
these
are
goods,
the
reality
is
once
I
get
that
good.
C
C
In
that
we're
able
to
deliver
a
lot
of
those
services
remotely
I
I
engaged
with
my
wife
and
some
telemedicine
a
week
ago
with
some
people
at
Vanderbilt
hospital,
and
it
worked
out
just
fine
and-
and
you
know,
that's
an
advantage
over
and
over
goods.
What?
What
I?
Back
to
the
specific
example,
you
were
talking
about
retailing
that
was
not
caused
by
coab
in
nineteen.
C
It
was
caused
by
technology
changes
that
are
allowing
you
and
I
to
order
and
get
things
in
new
ways
and
and
faster,
and
you
know,
if
you
have
you
this
may
be
you
yourself
or
your
your
children
who,
with
my
daughter,
I
noticed.
For
example,
I
go
to
her
house
and
she's
ordering
things
for
our
delivery
kind
of
through
the
day.
C
As
we're
planning,
I
mean
this
is
the
world
that
young
people
want
and
the
technology
allows
it,
and
it
requires
retailing
to
be
dramatically
different,
and
so
so
it's
it's
technology
and
the
new
option
to
us
and
what
people
want
to
buy.
That's
what's
causing
this
macro
changing
and
covert.
Nineteen
only
gave
a
whole
bunch
of
people
a
chance
to
find
out
how
easy
it
is
to
order
from
your
local
store
and
pick
it
up
on
the
way
by
so.
C
Think
that's
a
really
optimistic.
You
know,
you
know
we
all
hope
they're
right.
So
let
me
be
clear
with
what
I
hope
for
and
what
I
expect
are
really
different
here.
I
think
that
that
some
of
the
changes
that
just
took
place
are
with
us
forever
and
the
retailing
is
the
example
of
that.
This
I
think
I
mean
look
at
gap.
C
Gap
has
3,000
stores
to
its
chain,
they're
reopening
800
up
front
now,
I'm
betting,
they
never
get
to
3,000
I,
don't
know
what
the
number
is,
but
it'll
be
a
lot
less
than
3,000
Neiman
Marcus
is
only
opening
a
hundred
of
116
stores.
What
that
means
is
that
the
other
end
of
this,
a
bunch
of
people
who
had
jobs,
aren't
going
back
to
her
and
now
there
may
be
some
job
for
them
in
other
places.
C
A
B
A
D
Must
be
part
of
the
solution
to
state
budget
shortfalls
and
states
have
many
options
for
raising
revenue
in
the
current
context,
and
the
next
slide
sort
of
creates
the
context
for
that.
It
shows
just
how
much
more
deep
this
recession
is
likely
to
be
how
much
bigger
the
budget
gaps
that
states
are
facing
are
compared
to
even
what
we
saw
in
the
Great
Recession,
which
and
up
until
that
point
had
been
the
deepest
economic
downturn
since
the
Great
Depression.
So
the
next
slide,
please
so.
E
D
Most
of
that
almost
all
of
it
from
revenue
shortfalls,
but
a
small
amount
from
increases
in
Medicaid
expenses
and
the
the
based
on
what
those
unemployment
forecast
from
those
two
organizations
are.
We
expect
budget
gaps
as
I
said
of
650
billion
dollars
in
the
current
in
the
next
two
fiscal
years.
That
calculation
doesn't
include
the
direct
in
costs
in
public
health
and
medical
care
that
are
being
imposed
on
state
governments
by
the
pandemic.
D
And
it
would
also
you
know
the
laying
off
of
teachers,
the
laying
off
of
highway
maintenance
workers
and
and
faculty
and
universities
wouldn't
lead
to
just
a
enormous
withdrawal
of
purchasing
pot
powerfulness
from
state
economies
and
deepen
and
prolong
the
recession,
and
we're
already
starting
to
see
this
just
last
month,
saying
local
governments
either
laid
off
or
fur
in
one
month,
almost
a
million
workers.
So
the
first
take
away.
I.
D
Think
for
you
is
that
I
think
every
Task
Force
member
should
be
an
advocate
for
more
direct,
flexible
aid
to
state
local
governments
to
help
them
backfill
the
revenue
losses
that
they're
experiencing
and
that
are
not
of
their
own.
Making
now
granted
I
understand,
there's
a
lot
of
controversy
over
the
size
of
that
direct
aid.
What
conditions
might
be
attached
to
it,
how
it
might
be
structured
so
as
not
to
compensate
States
for
that
have
mismanaged
their
pension
funds
and
so
on?
D
D
So,
regardless
of
how
that
all
plays
out-
and
it's
clear
that
it's
going
to
take
a
couple
months
to
play
out,
the
amount
of
federal
aid-
that's
likely
to
be
forthcoming-
is
just
not
going
to
be
sufficient
to
eliminate
the
shortfalls
that
most
states
are
facing.
So
my
second
takeaway,
for
you
is
that
states
are
going
to
have
to
take
a
balanced
approach
to
closing
their
budget
gaps
that
is
going
to
have
to
include
revenue
increases,
as
well
as
tapping
rainy
day
funds
and
no
doubt
cutting
spending.
D
But
in
all
cuts
approach
to
closing
these
budget
gaps
of
this
magnitude
will
just
harm
critical
services
and
is
just
would
be
unconscionable
and
and
and
would
would
drag
down
the
economy.
So
next
next
slide.
Please
so,
of
course
the
you
know.
The
reaction
that
many
people
will
have
to
this
argument
is
that,
while
you
have
a
tax
increases,
are
a
drag
on
the
economy
too.
D
But
the
basic
logic
is
particularly
if
you
target:
if
tax
increases
are
targeted
on
people
at
the
upper
end
of
the
income
scale
there,
that
dollar
increased
taxes
that
they
are
going
to
pay
is
not
going
to
result
in
a
dollar
of
reduced
spending
in
the
economy.
They're
going
to
make
up
some
of
that
lost
that
tax
reduction
on
their
income
by
drawing
on
their
own
savings
or
borrowing,
and
so,
whereas
the
dollar
spending
cut
that
goes
to
a
teacher's
salary.
D
D
Tax
increases
again,
particularly
if
they're
focused
on
people
at
the
upper
end
of
the
income
level,
have
less
of
a
negative
impact
on
demand
and
the
intestate
economy
than
and
an
equivalent
amount
of
spending
cuts
will
be
well
have
okay,
skip
by
three
slides
forward.
Please
hustling,
one
more
and
so
and
and
I
would
say.
The
previous
slide
showed
that
the
that
a
similar
logic
applies
to
imposing
higher
taxes
on
those
corporations
that
managed
to
stay
profitable.
D
Of
course,
many
corporations
won't,
and
if
you
increase
corporate
taxes,
it
doesn't
affect
the
corporations
that
manage
to
stay
profitable,
but
during
this
recession,
but
for
those
corporations
that
do
stay
profitable
with
demand
so
low
in
the
economy
there's
going
to
be
and
those
among
those
corporations
a
significant
increase
in
retained
earnings.
That
is
not
going
to
be
injected
directly
into
the
economy
in
the
short
term,
because
there
won't
be
demand
for
their
output.
D
And
so
the
same
logic
applies
that
that
higher,
that
that,
if
the
choice
is
between
cutting
spending
or
imposing
higher
taxes
on
corporate
profits
that
otherwise
aren't
going
to
be
spent
into
the
economy
or
aren't
going
to
be
spent
in
your
state's
economy,
then
that's
preferable
to
an
equivalent
dollar
of
spending
cuts.
So
what
are
some
of
the
policy
options
that
are
consistent
with
this
analysis?
Well,
that
would
include
increasing
personal
income
tax
rates
on
the
existing
high
income
brackets
in
your
state.
D
A
number
of
people
have
been
talking
about
windfall
profits
taxes,
as
we
had
during
World,
War
Two
and
during
the
oil
crisis
in
the
1970s,
where
you
would
enact
a
small
surcharge
on
profit.
That's
an
excess
of
say
an
average
of
recent
profit
levels
next
slide,
please.
So,
in
addition
to
the
taxing
tax
increases
on
upper
income
brackets
and
and
companies
and
succeed
in
staying
profitable
during
the
downturn,
there
are
a
whole
other
range
of
tax
policy
implications
of
the
situation
that
our
state,
the
states
are
in
right
now
and
I.
Think.
D
D
There
are,
as
bill
said,
some
states
that
are
tempted
to
try
to
stimulate
their
economies
by
or
otherwise
helping
businesses
by
cutting
taxes-
and
you
know
businesses
are
in
trouble
right
now,
because
demand
for
what
they're
selling
is
plunging
so
trying
to
encourage
them
to
expand
on
by
cutting
their
taxes
is
the
equivalent
of
pushing
on
a
string.
It
doesn't
work.
Small
businesses
need
aid,
definitely,
but
the
federal
government,
as
bill
said
earlier,
needs
to
be
the
one
providing
it
and
it
is
providing
it.
D
Doing
sort
of
across-the-board
tax
cuts
for
anybody
in
the
hopes
of
stimulating
economic
growth
is
just
not
going
to
work
right
now
and
the
next
slide.
Please
states
can
also
not
afford,
in
the
current
context,
to
remain
coupled
to
ineffective
or
unfair
federal
income
tax
provisions
and,
as
the
presentation
session
last
week
indicated,
for
example,
there
are
still
states
of
handful
of
states
that
are
still
allowing
net
operating
loss,
carry-back
sand
tears
act
really
dramatically
improved
them,
and
that
is
something
that
is
such
a
self-inflicted
wound.
D
You
know,
in
the
current
context,
for
states
to
be
allowing
carry
backs
you're
already
going
to
see
your
corporate
income
tax.
Corporate
income
tax
is
plummeting
because
of
what's
happening
and
the
thought
of
compounding
that
loss
by
now
allowing
companies
to
go
back
and
get
refunds
of
previously
tax
previous
taxes
that
are
previously
paid
on
earlier
year.
Profits
is
just
completely
unwise
when
states
have
to
balance
their
budgets
again.
D
It's
arguable,
you
know,
for
the
federal
government,
that's
a
way
of
providing
liquidity,
but
states
don't
have
the
luxury
of
that
because
of
balanced
budget
requirements
either.
You
know
other
areas
of
other
aspects
of
coupling
to
federal
tax
breaks.
That
states
should
really
take
a
serious
look
at
decoupling
from
include
full
expensing.
D
Gary
presentation
of
this
task
force
about
opportunity
zones
not
being
a
wise
thing
for
states
to
be
coupled
to
that's
just
as
true
now
there's
a
number
of
states
that
are
still
coupled
from
to
the
pass
through
tax
deduction
that
the
tcga
a
enacted
and-
and
they
should
be
couple
from
that-
and
then
there
was
this
rather
controversial.
Provision
of
the
cares
Act
that
greatly
expanded
the
ability
of
pass-through
businesses
to
pass
through
losses
to
be
used
to
offset
non-business
income.
D
I
think
it
seems,
like
a
great
number
of
states
are
coupled
to
that,
and
they
need
to
decouple
from
it
the
next
slide.
So
those
are
the
those
are.
The
kind
of
first
do
no
harm
things,
classes
of
things
that
states
could
do,
but
they
also.
This
is
also
a
golden
opportunity
to
for
states
to
eliminate
their
own,
ineffective
or
unfair
tax
breaks.
There
are
still
states
that
gives
there's
still
handful
of
states
that
treat
capital
gains
more
favorably
than
ordinary
income,
not
a
wise
policy.
As
bill
noted
there.
D
You
know
one
of
the
most
troubling
trends
in
state
income.
Tax
policy
is
the
growing
exclusion
of
the
growing
number
of
tax
breaks
for
senior
seniors
that
are
not
tied
to
income
at
all.
That
are
not
means-tested
states,
as
he
said,
cannot
afford
to
do
that.
As
the
population
ages,
there
are
states
that
don't
that
don't
tax
any
unemployment
benefits,
and
obviously
that
would
be
a
very
tough
thing
to
change
in
the
current
context.
But
it's
it's
really
unfortunate.
D
It
creates
a
situation
where
you
have
a
two
earner
couple
that
where
the
one
or
one
member
of
the
couple
has
so
as
a
defying
job,
but
there
are
the
unemployment
compensation
is
extinct
of.
The
of
the
other
spouse
is
completely
a
tax
exempt
in
eight
states
and
finally,
if
there
was
ever
time
for
states
to
scrutinize
and
limit
their
economic
development
incentives,
this
is
sales.
Tax
holiday
is
another
problematic
policy.
D
Please
and
then,
finally,
you
know
states
need
to
close
loopholes
and
fix
long
structure,
long-standing
structural
flaws
in
their
tax
bases
and,
as
bill
said,
they
need
to
broaden
their
tax
bases
as
well,
examples
that
come
to
the
fore
in
the
current
context.
They're
still
only
you
know
a
relative
handful
of
states
that
are
taxing
online
streaming
services,
which
is
which
is
really
unfortunate
in
the
current
context
where
this
is
a
growing
aspect
of
state
state,
the
state
sales
tax
base,
many
states
have
never
started
taxing
shipping
and
handling
charges
or
tax
membership.
D
Memberships
that
provide
discounts
in
purchasing
like
Amazon
Prime.
We
have
the
online
travel
company
loophole
that
this
task
force
talked
about.
We
have
the
the
issue
of
international
income,
domestic
and
international
income
shifting
because
of
the
structure
of
corporate
taxes.
That
states
have
not
addressed
so
again,
long-standing
problems.
Let's
not
let
this
crisis
go
to
waste
and
let's
well,
let's
fix
those
problems
and
potentially
raise
some
additional
revenue
with
the
present
time
and
then
next
slide.
D
Please
and
then
finally,
I
think
the
things
that
want
another
thing
that
the
members
of
this
task
force
and
other
state
policymakers
can
do
is
that
they
they
should
be
pushing
Congress
to
take
action
to
enhance
state
revenue
raising
capacity.
So,
for
example,
they
should.
They
should
push
the
federal
government
to
reinstate
the
federal
credit
for
state
estate
taxes
that
the
federal
government
took
away
almost
two
decades
ago
violating
a
pact
with
the
states
that
enabled
states
to
have
a
uniform
estate
tax
and
that's
something
that
that
could
raise
additional
revenue
for
states.
D
They
should
repeal
the
prohibition
on
non-discriminatory
sales,
taxation
of
Internet
access
services,
the
provision
of
the
internet,
Tax,
Freedom,
Act
and
I
was
really
pleased
to
see
that
the
Tax
Foundation
a
couple
weeks
ago
put
out
a
report
saying
that
it
states
ought
to
be
allowed
to
tax
internet
access
services
if
they
do
it
under
their
sales
sales.
Taxes
and
I
totally
agree
with
that.
D
There
are
a
number
of
a
number
of
other
things
that
states
could
do
to
to
eliminate
preemptions
and
and
the
states
could
you
to
push
Congress
to
eliminate
preemptions
as
bill
alluded
to
before
and
and
help
them
raise
revenue.
So
a
final
slide.
So
again,
just
to
summarize
cutting
budget
shortfalls
of
the
size
states
are
facing
through
an
all
cut
strategy
would
be
very
harmful
to
the
people
who
rely
on
state
services.
D
In
the
current
situation,
especially
revenue
increases
must
be
part
of
the
solution
and,
if
they're
targeted
at
people
at
the
top
of
the
income
and
wealth
distribution
and
there's
businesses
that
do
manage
to
remain
profitable
in
the
current
economy,
they'll
be
they'll,
have
less
of
an
adverse
impact
on
on
state
economic
growth
and
then
an
equivalent
cut
in
services
and
and,
as
I
said,
the
current
crisis
should
also
spur
states
to
fix
long-standing
problems
in
their
tax
structures.
Thanks.
A
E
Right,
thank
you
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
today.
If
this
title
looks
very
similar
to
the
title
of
the
overall
presentation.
I
didn't
put
a
title
on
this.
So
apparently
this
is
the
title
of
the
overall
discussion
today,
but
if
we
go
to
the
first
slide,
I
do
want
to
talk
about
a
number
of
options,
states
have
for
revenue
and
then
some
issues
that
you
need
to
think
through
before
you
move
forward
with
revenue
options.
E
Firstly,
I
agree
with
both
of
the
previous
presenters
that
there's
an
opportunity
right
now
to
clear
out
some
targeted
incentives
in
both
the
corporate
and
the
individual
income
tax.
There's
definitely
a
reality
as
you've
already
heard,
and
I
won't
spend
much
time
on
that
states
are
going
to
experience
significant
revenue
shortfalls.
There
are
disagreements
on
exactly
how
much
that
will
be.
For
instance,
Moody's
the
ratings
agency
indicates
that
they
think
states
themselves
will
lose
about
330
billion
between
fiscal
year
2020
and
fiscal
year
2021
compared
to
at
the
baseline
of
FY
20
projected
revenues.
E
You
heard
a
higher
estimate
earlier.
There
are
a
range
of
estimates,
both
lower
and
higher.
Certainly
states
are
looking
at
losing
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
over
the
next
two
years
and
there
will
be
further
losses
in
the
out
years
as
well.
This
recovery
will
take
time.
There
will
be
significant
losses.
E
Local
governments
maybe
lose
half
to
two-thirds
of
what
the
federal,
what
the
state
governments
do,
both
because
they
are
smaller
in
their
overall
budgets
and
also
they
do
have
reliance
on
a
slightly
better,
more
stable
source
of
revenue
in
the
form
of
the
property
tax,
which
is
going
to
be
much
more
yeah
stable
in
this
particular
time
but
yeah.
There
are
some
opportunities
for
revenues
that
we
can
talk
about
like
clearing
out
those
incentives.
E
Michael
mentioned
Opportunity
Zones,
which
states
already
had
their
own
versions
of
those,
but
they
often
piggybacked
on
what
the
federal
government
did
under
the
tcga
a.
But
there
are
a
variety
of
different
economic
development
incentives
that
have
a
pretty
poor
track
record,
they're,
pretty
popular
but
they're,
probably
not
serving
a
purpose
under
the
old
environment.
They
certainly
are
serving
even
less
of
one
right
now.
E
We
do
want
to
make
sure
that
businesses
have
the
ability
to
grow
and
prosper
and
really
come
back
after
this
crisis,
but
those
targeted
incentives
probably
aren't
the
way
to
do
it.
This
isn't
a
panacea.
Sometimes
we
think
of
this
as
being
an
enormous
part
of
the
budget
in
most
states.
It's
not
but
there's
an
opportunity
to
clear
those
out
modernizing
the
sales
tax
is
another
important
way
when
you're
looking
at
revenues-
and
you
know
dr.
Foxx-
talked
about
this
and
there's
two
different
ways-
you
can
look
at
modernizing
the
sales
tax.
E
One
of
those
is
to
talk
about
the
personal
consumption
of
services
that
is
usually
untaxed
in
most
states.
A
lot
of
that
is
just
the
accident
of
history
that,
when
sales
taxes
were
created,
these
were
not
nearly
as
significant
and
we're
also
harder
to
track.
Some
of
is
the
change
in
our
patterns
of
consumption
in
very
recent
years,
a
lot
of
things
that
used
to
be
Goods.
We
now
purchase
as
services,
even
though
functionally
they
are
the
same
thing.
It
makes
sense
for
states
to
modernize
this,
as
dr.
E
Fox
already
alluded
to
think
about
the
way
that
we're
consuming
right
now
and
during
this
current
pandemic,
we
are
buying
a
ton
of
groceries.
We
are
buying
certain
staples,
we
are
getting
streaming
services,
we
are
doing,
buying
digital
goods,
we're
not
buying
a
lot
of
the
traditional
goods,
and
that
really
is
bad
for
sales
tax
collections,
so
the
services
side,
both
for
now
and
in
the
future
as
a
lot
of
the
other
activity,
comes
back.
That's
a
way
to
broaden
tax
bases
increase
collections.
E
It's
also
progressive
in
the
sense
that
services
tend
to
be
consumed
more
by
higher
income
individuals
and
we
are
excluding
those.
The
other
aspect
of
this
that
I
do
think
needs
to
be
part
of
the
conversation
is
the
taxation
of
groceries
and
dr.
Fox
also
alluded
to
that,
and
the
immediate
obvious
pushback
is
well
that's
regressive.
That
groceries
are
a
higher
share
of
the
total
consumption
and
of
the
total
income
of
lower-income
people,
and
that's
absolutely
true,
and
it's
a
very
legitimate
concern.
E
If
luxuries
cheaper,
it's
easier
to
do
prepared
foods,
those
are
taxed,
groceries
the
ingredients
aren't
some
states
have
groceries
in
the
sales
tax
base,
but
have
generous
credits,
grocery
credits,
refundable
within
the
income
tax
or
within
other
stretch,
to
make
sure
low-income
individuals
get
that
relief.
The
groceries
are
in
the
base.
I
think
that
would
look
really
good
right
now
for
revenues
and
a
lot
of
states,
but
it's
also
a
good
policy.
Something
to
consider.
Obviously,
states
are
also
going
to
be
thinking
about
new
sources
of
revenue,
and
these
are
not
immediate
per
se.
E
If
you
tax
gaming
right
now,
well,
no
one's
going
out.
Maybe
you
can
do
some
online
betting,
but
there's
no
sports,
there's
no
one's
going
to
a
casino
right
now,
but
if
states
are
expanding
into
this
during
a
recovery
that
is
an
additional
source
of
revenue,
Gaming
marijuana,
other
things-
states
are
already
thinking
about.
It's
also
a
good
time
to
think
about
inflation.
Adjusting
taxes
that
are
eroding
like
the
gas
tax.
Many
states
have
not
adjusted
their
gas
tax
for
a
very
long
time.
It
has
lost
value
over
time
now.
E
Gas
taxes
are
ideally
earmarked
for
transportation
and
infrastructure
expenditures.
They
should
not
be
going
into
the
general
fund,
so
it
might
not
sound
like
that's
much
of
a
solution,
but
the
reality
is
many
states
are
subsidizing
their
infrastructure
through
the
general
fund
through
other
tax
collections,
because
the
gas
tax
and
tolls
aren't
raising
enough
raising
the
gas
tax
in
such
a
way
as
to
cover
more
or
maybe
all,
of
the
infrastructure
expenditures.
Freezes
up
general
fund
frees
up
other
tax
dollars
to
higher
values
and
I
think
that
can
be
very
valuable
right
now.
E
You
know
there
was
also
a
reference
of
the
pass-through
deduction
and
that's
something
that
we
we
talked
about
a
lot
of
the
tax
foundation.
We
thought
it
was
bad
policy
when
it
was
implemented
within
the
tcga.
It's
bad
policy
now
most
states
do
not
conform
to
that
because,
generally
speaking,
you
have
to
have
a
starting
point
of
taxable
income
rather
than
just
at
gross
income
to
conform
to
that.
But
a
handful
of
states
do
and
haven't
decoupled
one
state
doesn't
but
conform
to
it.
Anyway.
A
couple
states
have
it
just
separately
as
a
partial
provision.
E
It's
really
not
an
economically
efficient
way
of
approaching
taxes.
The
idea
is
theoretically,
oh
the
you
know.
The
tax
rates
need
to
be
equalized.
Corporate
income,
pass-through
income,
but
the
reality
is
corporate.
Taxes
are
sort
of
double
tax,
pass-through
income
taxes
aren't
so
it's
really
not
a
fair
comparison,
and
that
pass-through
deduction
is
not
an
economically
efficient
way
of
providing
for
economic
growth.
It
would
make
sense,
as
the
states
are
looking
for
revenue
to
approach
that
and
something
that
wasn't
on
my
list,
but
Michael
mentioned
it
the
sales
tax
holiday.
You
know.
E
That,
for
a
long
time,
there's
really
no
justification
for
sales
tax
holidays.
They
shift
consumption,
they
don't
generate
more
consumption,
their
administrative
Lee,
calm,
Plex,
really
not
worth.
You
have
a
hassle
and
there's
not
a
ton
of
revenue
attached
to
that.
But
there
is
revenue.
All
of
those
things
I
think
can
make
sense.
Now
states
want
to
be
careful
in
the
revenues
that
they
try
to
generate
because
tax
increases
have
consequences,
but
these
are
some
things
that
maybe
don't
have
as
much
of
an
economic
impact.
If
there
is
a
need
for
revenues,
these
are
options.
E
If
we
could
come
to
the
next
slide,
please
there
are
some
things:
I
think
that
we
really
want
to
avoid,
because
we
have
obviously
you
know
one
of
the
steepest
declines
we
have
ever
seen
in
this
country
economically
we're
looking
at
more
than
a
year's
worth
of
the
Great
Depression
Great
Recession
compressed
into
a
handful
of
weeks.
We've
seen
that
a
lot
of
employment
with
just
unprecedented
numbers,
at
least
that's
the
great
depression,
we've
seen
that
with
the
business
closures
generally.
E
This
is
a
very
different
scenario
and
businesses
are
going
to
struggle
to
come
back,
there's
going
to
be
an
actual
loss
of
capital,
businesses
that
go
under
that
just
have
lost
everything.
Businesses
are
going
to
struggle
to
rehire,
and
the
first
priority,
of
course,
is
to
make
sure
that
wherever
possible,
people
can
go
back
to
the
jobs
that
they
lost.
E
Now,
there's
important
health
questions
about
the
win
and
I'm
not
talking
about
when
that
is,
but
obviously
at
some
point
we
want
people
to
be
able
to
reclaim
those
jobs
or
better
jobs,
and
you
can
have
really
short-sighted
policies
that
try
to
raise
a
little
bit
of
revenue
now,
but
doing
it.
The
cost
of
making
employment
far
more
expensive
or
making
reinvestment
far
more
expensive,
because
these
things
are
going
to
matter.
Businesses
are
going
to
have
significant
losses.
We
need
them
to
stay
open.
We
need
them
to
reinvest.
E
So
I
would
disagree
with
Michael
on
some
of
the
policies
that
he
talked
about.
I
would
say,
avoid
restricting
your
net
operating
losses.
Remember:
corporate
income
taxes
are
supposed
to
be
imposed
on
net
income.
They
are
on
your
profitability
over
multiple
years,
because,
of
course,
you
can
have
a
lot
of
profits
in
one
year.
You
could
have
losses
in
the
next
or
vice-versa.
E
You
want
to
smooth
that
if
you
curtail
net
operating
losses,
you
are
making
it
much
more
difficult
for
businesses,
you're
taxing
more
than
there
it's
and
you're,
making
it
difficult
if
they've
had
significant
losses
to
have
the
cashflow
that
they
need
right
now.
The
federal
government
has
a
very
important
role
in
that,
but
states
have
a
role
as
well
the
same
with
the
net
interest
limitation
or
curtailing
expensing
provisions.
It
makes
sense
to
ensure
that
business
is
the
ones
who
invest
have
the
capacity
to
invest.
Right
now,
so
I
say
caution
on
those
things.
E
Those
are
not
good
sources
of
revenue.
Also,
there's
going
to
be
clearly
a
desire
to
raise
unemployment,
insurance
taxes
after
the
crisis
ends,
and
that
is
probably
necessary.
You
know,
there's
just
not
going
to
be
enough
revenue
to
replenish
these
funds,
otherwise,
but
there's
a
really
important
timing
issue,
because
we
want
to
make
sure
again
that
businesses
are
able
to
rehire
when
the
health
crisis
abates-
and
this
is
both
any
sir
taxes
or
increased
rates
that
may
be
necessary
to
impose
yeah
there
during
the
you
know
during
the
immediate
recovery.
E
But
it's
also
a
matter
of
changes
in
experience
rating,
because
the
way
the
social,
the
social
insurance
function
of
unemployment
insurance
works.
You
are
essentially
taxing
businesses
based
on
whether
they've
had
previous
layoffs,
those
are
charges
against
them
and
this
makes
sense
in
normal
times.
But
it's
a
huge
problem
right
now,
when
businesses
are
forced
to
close
they've,
really
had
no
option.
In
many
cases,
they've
had
all
these
layoffs
or
furloughs.
E
We
want
them
to
be
able
to
hire
people
back
and
if
those
experience
ratings
immediately
mean
much
higher
rates
on
all
of
their
employees
when
they
hire
back.
That's
a
huge
dissing
doucement,
and
especially
that's
true
if
there's
concern
about
a
second
wave
and
they're
rehiring,
but
don't
know
how
long
that
will
last
so
a
lot
of
states
I
think
23
now
have
frozen
those
experience
ratings.
E
That's
a
tax
cost
at
a
time
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
desire
for
tax
costs,
but
it's
a
good
investment,
because
it's
allowing
people
to
get
off
the
unemployment
rolls
where
that's
option
a
possibility
and
get
back
into
employment.
We
also
want
to
be
very
careful
about
taxes
that
are
indifferent
to
ability
to
pay
and
I
saw
a
comment
about
sneaking
fast,
I'm.
Sorry,
I'm,
watching
the
clock,
but
I
will
slow
it
down
a
little.
E
We
want
to
be
careful
about
taxes
that
don't
reflect
or
respect
the
potentially
low
it's
very
low
profits
or
losses
that
businesses
are
experiencing
right
now,
so
I
would
disagree
with
dr.
Fox
on
gross
receipts.
Taxes
I
certainly
agreed
that
if
you
have
a
very
low
rate
like
Ohio
does
that
even
a
poor
tax
structure
can
look
pretty
decent
for
a
lot
of
businesses
if
the
rates
are
low
enough.
Many
states,
of
course,
have
had
much
higher
rates
on
gross
receipts,
but
fundamentally
it's
just
a
bad
way
to
raise
revenue.
E
It's
a
revenue
generation
source
that
has
tax
permitting,
as
he
acknowledged
where
multiple
transactions
are
taxed,
it
attacks
over
and
over
again
on
the
same
base,
and
it's
also
one
where
the
different
profitability,
the
profit
margins
of
different
businesses,
come
into
play.
Think
within
the
retail
category,
you
have
your
boutique
retailers
that
might
have
30%
profits
on
what
they
say.
There's
also
grocery
stores
that
have
one
two
percent
profit
margins.
E
If
you're
taxing
them
the
same,
those
are
really
different,
effective
rates
that
don't
make
sense
when
we
have
a
much
more
intuitive
measure,
which
is,
of
course,
net
income.
So
I'd
say
you
know.
That
is
not
a
solution.
Yes,
it
is,
you
know
it
is
a
stable
source
of
revenue,
I
mean
so
our
head
taxes,
but
that's
not
a
good
enough
reason
to
impose
them
same
with
capital
stocks,
taxes,
tangible
personal
property
taxes,
things
that
are
in
different
ability
to
pay
things
that
are
imposed
on
assets,
even
if
they're,
not
returning
an
investment.
E
We
should
also
think
as
we're
doing
this
about
modernizing
a
tax
code
both
because
the
current
crisis
is
changing,
how
our
economy
works
and
because,
if
there
are
revenue,
increases,
it's
a
good
opportunity
to
pair
those
necessary
increases
with
serious
reforms
that
reflect
a
modern
economy.
This
crisis
is
going
to
bring
about
permanent
changes,
particularly
in
regard
to
employer
and
employee
mobility.
We've
clearly
demonstrated
that
it's
no
longer
necessary
for
everyone
to
work
in
the
same
place
as
their
employer
is
located.
E
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
are
not
going
back
to
an
office,
or
at
least
not
going
back
as
often
once
this
crisis
is
over
and
we
need
a
tax
code
that
reflects
that.
So
we
should
talk
about
modernizing
tax
rules
to
be
friendlier
to
this
new
trend
towards
promote
work
and
teleworking
arrangements.
This
means
that
we
don't
have
hopefully
tax
codes
that
yeah
Anthony
that
have
Nexus
attached,
just
because
single
employee
is
working
in
a
stage,
especially
for
a
short
period
of
time.
E
We
that
we
have
provisions
that
understand
withholding
a
little
better
than
a
single
day
within
a
state
working,
isn't
enough
to
create
a
withholding
requirement
or
a
reporting
requirement.
You
know
we
need
to
start
thinking
about
how
Nexus
and
apportionment
and
withholding
all
work
in
an
economy
where
we
have
that
greater
mobility
and
greater
flexibility.
There
was
a
brief
reference
to
PLA
e6
272,
that
is
a
safe
harbor,
essentially
for
businesses
that
don't
operate
in
the
state,
have
no
payroll,
no
property
there,
but
do
have
sales
into
the
state.
E
If,
under
current
law
federal
law
may
those
sales
are
only
of
tangible
property,
then
that's
not
sufficient
for
corporate
tax
Nexus.
The
proposal
that
we
heard
was:
maybe
you
repeal
that
I
would
say
that,
in
fact,
we
need
to
modernize
that
that
that's
an
important
provision,
but
we
need
to
have
it
reflect
other
forms
of
sales
as
well,
because
this
is
not
the
economy.
We
work
in
anymore.
E
We're
only
tangible
property
makes
sense,
so
thinking
about
trying
to
avoid
needless
double
taxation
that
impact
new
economy
models
being
more
competitive
for
businesses
that
do
cross
these
lines.
That's
very
important
and
that's
something
that
can
be
cut
done,
I
think
in
tandem
with
other
changes
that
will
in
fact
be
necessary
during
this
crisis
and
if
we
go
to
the
next
slide
and
there's
an
elephant
in
the
room,
and
that's
that
we
don't
know
what
a
new
federal
relief
package
for
state
and
local
governments
will
look
like.
It
probably
will
happen.
E
E
It's
about
1.1
trillion
dollars
in
aid
to
state
and
local
governments,
of
that
996
billion
can
be
deemed
flexible
or
largely
flexible,
and
915
billion
of
that
is
the
direct
assistance
to
state
and
local
governments
with
broad
flexibility,
and
it
can
be
applied
to
anything
that
is
either
backfilling
revenue
losses
or
is
any
sort
of
economic
response
to
the
crisis
and
economic
response
to
the
crisis.
I
think
is
a
very,
very
flexible,
generous
term.
E
Both
tax
and
spending
questions
will
be
affected
by
whatever
policy
is
offered
because,
as
mentioned
earlier,
there's
about
77
billion
dollars
in
state
rainy
day
funds
there's
another.
Roughly
fifteen
million
dollars
in
unallocated
general
fund
reserves,
so
90
odd
million
dollars
the
states
have
in
reserves,
estates
will
be
making
some
cuts.
That
will
be
necessary.
States
may
be
increasing
revenues
in
some
cases
and
then,
of
course,
states
will
be
receiving
federal
aid.
If
we
could
go
to
that
next
slide.
E
This
is
what
state
revenues
would
look
like,
and
this
is
just
the
state
side,
not
the
local
side.
This
is
what
state
revenues
would
look
like
if
states
spent
their
full
heroes,
Act
allocations,
and
you
can
see
that,
contrary
to
what
you'd
expect
fiscal
years
2020
and
fiscal
year,
2021
would
be
significantly
more
spending
than
in
fiscal
year.
2019
now
the
yellow
part
or
the
orange
part,
that's
dedicated
funds,
and
some
of
it
might
offset
things
that
things
might
otherwise
want
to
do.
But
a
lot
of
it
really
is
responding
to
the
crisis.
E
C
E
E
The
funding
flows
through
by
the
end
of
fiscal
2021
and
you
can
easily
see
states
coming
back.
This
is
a
lot
of
money.
This
is
also
probably
not
going
to
happen.
There
will
be
negotiations,
I'm
sure
that
whatever
is
offered
will
be
less
than
this,
but
states
want
to
take
into
account
what
they're
getting
because
it
may
be
very
substantial
and
you
don't
want
to
raise
taxes
substantially
and
receive
so
much
money
that
you're
growing
your
budget.
This
is
probably
a
very
inappropriate
time
to
be
spending
more
especially
outside
of
the
direct
Ovid
response.
E
E
It's
going
to
take
a
all
of
the
above
strategy,
so
revenues
will
be
part
of
that,
but
be
careful
in
how
you
do
it
look
at
this
as
an
opportunity
to
pass
some
of
the
holes
to
make
a
more
neutral
tax
code
by
getting
rid
of
some
incentives
that
really
don't
work
by
broadening
bases
wherever
that's
possible,
don't
look
at
it
as
a
way
to
target
the
sort
of
activity
that
we
really
need
to
happen
right
now,
like
reinvestment
and
job
creation,
but
yeah.
This
is
me
paying
for
everyone.
E
A
You
so
much
appreciate
that
you
heard
okay,
I'm
sure
we've
got
a
pretty
lively
chat
box
here.
Jocelyn.
Do
you
want
to
run
through
the
questions
for
us
sure,
I
think
these
next
two
questions
are
for
Bill.
What
will
cause
W
recovery
to
result
in
a
greater
tax
revenue
loss
than
au
recovery
over
the
same
period
of
time.
C
W
recovery,
of
course,
is
going
to
meet
another
significant
slowdown
in
economic
activity,
so
the
notion
is
means
we
come
back
this
this
summer
and
into
into
the
fall.
We
have
a
resurgence
of
the
pandemic
and
economic
activity
slows
radically
again.
It
certainly
would
lengthen
out
the
period
of
recovery,
so
that
part
we
can
be
sure
of,
but
it,
but
it
also
is
likely
going
to
mean
a
deeper
recession
if
it
takes
place
and
so
well,
what
will
happen
is
sort
of
a
deeper
and
a
longer
recession.
C
I,
don't
think
a
v-cut
v-shaped
recovery
is
in
anybody's
cards.
I
think
everybody
kind
of
realizes,
that's
not
going
to
happen.
I've
said
from
the
beginning:
what
I'm
expecting
is
the
front
end
to
be
a
V
we've
fought
very
very
fast.
This
second
quarter
is
going
to
be
extraordinarily
bad
when
we
hear
the
GDP
numbers
announced
in
July
and
then
we'll
recover
and
it
sort
of
I
hope
steady
pace
across
the
course
of
the
next
year
or
so
and
and
so
a
much
slower
recovery
than
we
do
it.
A
C
So
what
I'm,
anticipating
is
less
retail
space
and
less
parking,
freeing
up
a
lot
of
available
space,
particularly
in
the
biggest
cities,
but
even
in
towns.
I
will
open
up
land
possibilities,
and
so
so
I
think
we,
as
cities
and
states
need
to
be
really
creative.
How
does
that
land
get
used
now?
Some
of
it
perhaps
will
be
used
to
have
people
move
from
the
suburbs
or
further
out
into
cities,
but
it
also
opens
up
the
chance
to
really
plan
cities
better,
put
in
a
park,
for
example,
and
make
them
much
more
livable
environments.
C
A
C
C
Goats
simply
to
pay
interest
costs.
It
means
that
businesses
face
higher
interest
rates
when
they
borrow
in
order
to
invest,
and
so
it
will
slow
down
the
economy
and
and
clearly
Congress
needs
to
think
about
that
at
the
same
time,
losing
the
kind
of
economic
activity
we're
going
to
lose
in
the
short
run
is
even
more
problematic
the
best
solution.
A
E
If
I
could
jump
in
on
that
briefly
toll
revenue,
I
think
can
make
a
lot
of
sense.
Now,
in
the
very
very
short
term,
tolls
are
raising
next
to
nothing
because
people
aren't
driving
substantially
and
to
the
extent
that
they
are
there's
no
congestion
on
untold
roads,
but
in
the
intermediate
and
long
term
it
does
make
sense.
This
is
a
user
pays
system.
They,
they
can
be
an
important
part
of
a
solution
for
making
sure
that
transportation.
C
E
Funded
through
transportation,
specific
taxes
and
allow,
you
know,
allow
other
taxes
to
fund
the
rest
of
government.
This
is
also
significant
with
shipping
and
commercial
transportation
capturing
a
lot
of
that
as
well.
I
think
that
makes
sense.
Eevee's
that's
been
really
interesting
because
in
some
states
has
been
entirely
uncontroversial
to
have
special
taxes
on
electric
vehicles
in
other
states.
It's
been
extraordinarily
controversial
because
it's
a
tax
on
you
know
something
that
people
think
of.
As
you
know
more,
you
know
more
green.
C
E
C
C
E
Aside,
whether
it's
something
we
want
to
encourage
was
perhaps
it
is,
there
is
a
challenge
that
it's
it's
outside,
of
how
we
usually
fund
roads.
If
you
are
not
fueling
up,
you're
still
contributing
to
congestion
and
you're
still
contributing
to
wear
and
tear.
Eventually,
there
needs
to
be
a
way
to
tax
those
vehicles,
as
well,
I
think
for
a
lot
of
people.
The
long-term
solution
is
a
vehicle
allows
travel
tax,
but
there
are
complexities
in
implementing
that
both
privacy
concerns
and
interstate
concerns.
E
C
Could
just
add
a
couple
of
thoughts
on
that
I've
actually
written
a
paper
which
is
under
Pew
foundation,
website
I
presented
some
aspects
of
that
and
a
whole
variety
of
NCSL
meetings,
particularly
focused
on
on
autonomous
vehicles
and
and
where
that's
likely
to
go.
But
v's
are
a
big
part
of
the
autonomous
vehicle
story
because
they
almost
surely
will
be.
C
The
autonomous
vehicles
will
be
electric
and,
and
so
I
agree
with
most
of
what
Jared
said,
but
in
the
long
term,
what
you
you,
in
my
view,
ought
to
be
thinking
about
is,
as
mobility
changes
the
way
in
which
we
get
around.
We
need
to
rethink
the
way
in
which
we're
taxing
it
and
the
notion
that
we're
going
to
impose
fixed
fees
for
electronic
electric
vehicle
or
we're
going
to
impose
gas
taxes
is
really
going
to
disadvantaged
people
radically
in
your
state.
C
You
can
imagine-
and
you
know
five
years
from
now
in
New,
York
City
in
Washington
and
the
big
city
and
whatever
your
state
is
autonomous
vehicles
and
electric
vehicles
are
much
more
important.
Well,
in
the
rural
places,
people
are
still
using
gasoline-powered
vehicles
and
what
you're
going
to
get
is
big
differentials
as
to
who's
paying
taxes.
What
you
want
is
a
system
where
everybody
pays,
taxes
on
their
mobility
and
that's
gonna
require
a
whole
rethinking
of
how
we
do
this
kind
of
taxation.
As
I
said,
you
can
see
some
ideas
on
that
in
this
paper.
A
E
Think
we
should
remember
that
the
experience
of
the
Great
Recession
is
the
temporary
taxes,
often
aren't
temporary.
Now,
sometimes
they
are.
There
are
states
that
have
in
fact
allowed
them
to
expire,
but
frequently
you
get
used
to
that
additional
revenue
and
do
not
you
know,
do
not
allow
them
to
expire.
So
I
would
encourage
states
not
to
adopt
a
temporary
tax
if
they're
not
at
least
somewhat
comfortable,
with
the
idea
of
it
not
being
a
temporary
tax
increase,
and
you
know
I'll
be
beyond
that.
Just
again.
E
I
think
that
base
broadening
is
a
far
better
policy
and
that
doesn't
have
to
be
temporary.
Then
rate
increases
I'm,
not
saying
that's
entirely
off
the
table,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
you
can
do
to
make
your
taxes
more
neutral
and
more
efficient
within
the
additional
revenue
goals.
Before
you
look
at
tax
increases.
C
I'd
certainly
agree
with
what
Jared
just
said
that
that
longer-term
solutions
such
as
base
broadening
make
a
lot
more
sense
now
and
and
and
always
make
a
lot
more
sense
and
and
they're
things
that
should
remain
in
place
at
the
other
end.
Obviously,
some
critically
sales
tax,
temporary
sales
tax
rate
increases
have
been
relatively
common
over
the
last
thirty
years.
They
are
a
way
to
raise
revenues,
but
it'd
be
great
to
both
raise
revenues
and
end
out
with
a
tax
system
that
operates
better.
A
C
Seems
nobody
wants
to
take
that
one
on
again,
I
think
a
lot
of
what
needs
to
happen
here
is
federal
government
solutions
to
this.
You
know
the
notion
that
we're
somehow
going
to
tax
advantage
small
entrepreneurs
to
get
them
to
operate
again,
but
ok.
So
so
how
do
we
do
this
kind
of
thing?
We
make
sure
that
government
operates
well.
What
that
means
is
we?
You
know
we
have
only
appropriate
regulations.
We
make
it
relatively
easy
for
firms
to
startup.
C
We
we
assist
them,
perhaps
with
with
something
a
little
bit
on
the
tax
side,
but
but
not
really
much
and
you're
not
going
to
incentivize
through
the
tax
system
firms
to
get
going
again.
You
know
things
like
again
on
the
education
side,
helping
workers
and
companies
know
best
ways
to
start
a
business
entrepreneurial
centers.
This
kind
of
thing
are
likely
to
be
much
more
successful
than
tax
concessions
or
whatever
to
allow
firms
that
are
making
little
money
to
not
also
pay
taxes.
E
When
are
you
confident
if
no
one
else
is
looking
confident
so
23
states
have
frozen
those
experience
ratings
where
a
layoff
that's
directly
responding
to
the
Cova
19
crisis
and
business
closures
is
not
held
against
you,
you're
not
charged
for
it.
I
think
that's
really
good
policy
from
now,
and
it
will
help
States
help.
Businesses
in
the
state's
reopen
I
agree
with
dr.
E
Fox
that
we're
probably
not
going
to
have
tax
policies
that
make
the
decision
for
businesses
to
reopen
there's
so
many
other
factors
that
are
going
to
be
far
bigger
than
almost
anything
states
can
do,
especially
in
the
tax
policy
realm.
But
there
are
taxes
that
can
stand
in
the
way
and
attacks
on
rehiring
people
which
that
would
function,
as
is
probably
bad
in
the
short
term.
D
D
You,
want
to
raise
income
taxes
or
corporate
taxes,
rather
than
cut
state
aid
to
local
schools,
which
is
going
to
translate
into
higher
property
taxes
that
are
going
to
be
that
a
new
business
starting
up
if
they
hate
you
know,
if
they're,
renting
a
facility
or
building
a
facility,
is
going
to
be
paying.
So
that's
part
of
the
benefit
of
income
taxation
is
that
you
know
business
is
getting
off
the
ground
again
or
not
going
to
have
profits
did
that
are
going
to
be
taxed,
and
so
it's
preferable.
C
C
What's
going
to
happen,
is
the
rates
going
to
rise
even
with
no
changing
the
experience
rating
of
firms
and
in
Tennessee
the
rates
will
triple,
for
example,
as
our
trust
fund
comes
down,
and
not
only
do
the
rates
go
up,
but
we
actually
actually
increase
the
taxable
wage
base,
as
the
trust
fund
goes
down,
and
so
it
would
take
much
bigger
kind
of
changes
to
prevent
significant
increases
as
the
trust
funds
move
towards
zero.
It's
a
challenging
problem.
The
best
solution
with
is
build
them
up
right
during
the
good
times.
A
E
Yeah
I
think
that's
right.
One
thing
I
liked
about
the
hero's
act
is
that
it's
paid
out
in
two
installments
I
do
have
some
issues
with
the
way
it's
allocated
and
also
I.
Think
the
size
is
perhaps
a
little
generous,
but
it
makes
sense
that
there
would
be
multiple
installments
so
that
states
can
adjust
over
a
year
or
two
of
time,
but
that
is
correct.
That
states
are
probably
going
to
have
to
in
many
cases
already
have
budgeted
for
fiscal
2021.
E
Most
states
have
adopted
a
budget,
but
of
course
they
budgeted
without
properly
anticipating
these
revenue
losses.
In
most
cases,
even
if
you
were
adopting
a
budget
in
March
and
thought
that
things
were
getting
bad
most
states
just
trimmed,
it
was
that
it
was
a
haircut
on
their
budgets.
So
this
additional
aid
that
might
come
is
going
to
backfill
a
lot
of
those
losses.
E
D
Mean
I
think
it
you
know.
It
is
sadly
true
that
that
whatever
the
next
package
is,
is
probably
going
to
be
enacted
after
July
1st
in
all
likelihood,
but
and
that
is
really
going
to
be
terribly
problematic
for
states
that
have
have
balanced
budget.
You
know
they
have
provisions
of
their
constitutions.
That
say
they
must
pass
a
balanced.
You
know
must
enact
a
balanced
budget.
D
D
You
know
it
that
if,
by
the
end
of
June,
there
seems
to
be
significant
movement
toward
another
another
package
that
that
does
have
some
significant
amount
of
federal
aid
in
it
I
think
that's
probably
going
to
encourage
a
bunch
of
states
to
delay
enacting
their
up
y21
budgets
in
in
hopes
that
that
the
the
rebbe
aid
will
be
enacted.
You
know
by
the
end
of
July,
say
so
that
they
they
won't
have
to
make
such
deep
cuts
if.
C
I
could
just
reinforce
the
point
that
I
made
earlier.
Not
only
do
you
have
no
information
about
what
the
federal
government
might
provide
you,
but
if
you
extended
payments
for
filing
deadlines
into
July
for
corporations
and
individuals,
you
don't
know
very
much
about
where
you
are
in
terms
of
your
own
tax
revenues,
and
so
it
is
an
incredibly
challenging
time
to
be
budgeting
and
you
have
to
make
the
judgment.
C
If
you
are
going
to
set
a
budget
before
July
1,
then
you
have
to
make
the
decision
am
I
going
to
budget
really
conservatively
because
I
don't
know
where
that
either
the
federal
revenues
or
my
own
taxes
are
going
to
be,
and
then,
if
revenues
turn
out
better
than
we
thought
hey,
we
can.
We
can
always
spend
that
down
the
road
or
do
we
get
aggressive
and
then
need
to
do
something
during
the
fiscal
year
to
try
to
make
big
cuts.
C
A
It's
true
I
mean
I,
think
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
We
are
in
some
unprecedented
times
now
having
to
make
decisions
and
really
essentially
a
vacuum
in
a
lot
of
ways.
So
this
is
just
your
presentation,
save
and
very
timely
and
very
very
important
to
our
members
and
sponsors
that
are
here.
So
thank
you
all
three
of
you
for
your
presentations
today.
As
is
noted
on
the
slide,
we
will
be
I'm
having
our
slides
from
this
meeting
posted
on
our
website,
so
please
do
check
that
link
later
on.
A
For
that
and
again,
we
appreciate
everyone's
out
today
and
thank
all
of
our
sponsors
that
are
listed
here,
as
we
always
mentioned.
You
know
we're
grateful
for
the
support
that
you
extend
to
our
task
force
task
force,
especially
during
this
time,
and
please
do
stay
tuned
for
some
changes
and
transitions
as
we
go
forward
in
the
months
ahead.
A
Again,
we
are
so
planning
on
doing
our
in-person
meeting
at
the
capital
forum
in
December,
where
we
hope
to
have
our
salt
task
force
meeting
as
a
pre-conference
event
there,
so
stay
tuned
for
developments
on
that
and
some
other
things
that
some
other
seminars
that
we
do
plan
on,
having
involving
you
all
before
them,
so
stay
tuned
and
we'll
keep
you
updated.
Thank
you
so
much
and
have
a
wonderful
weekend
and
hope
to
see
you
all
soon.
Thank
you.
Thank.