Later earned and their subsidiaries. We want to close that loophole. In the end is determined by how much money we need to raise to have that type of economy we are able to make investments we need to take care of seniors in retirement. That number is a little hazy. It depends that individuals will pay. Also raising the rate or whatever. What is your favorite top rate . I assume you want to put a territorial. My is not surprisingly. A lot of the income in the Current System is uncountable by the irs and the structure we have. We can see that through filings and others come up actually being able to capture that would be very difficult. Its a very competitive environment. The United States economy was more the sophisticated peers firms are locating their intellectual properties offshore in engaging in these strategies. They will continue to do that and we can think of that is and im just and on right, but we also need to think about the tax system that is regional. The incentives for firms to engage. I am agreeing with frank that they do engage. But the difference between our tax system in the tax system of our trading partners. We have a tax rate of 35 . What is the taken a tax break . They generally pay that amount of taxes. If they engage in france or germany. With the u. K. For sure or canada or mexico or anywhere else. That is not fail or write. Their obligations to shareholders. They are complying they are compliant and is that their obligations. They are truly breaking money around the world and off shore and also engaging in strategies to max knight the extent to which they have money off shore. They are doing both. I dont think we can capture that money. Certainly not by raising the protection. The question is there another way that plus distortionary where we could collect an appropriate amount of money. That might actually be less if it was more competitive if we had a rate like other countries rates, then companies would earn were they truly earn it and they wouldnt have those things to offshore their profit because republicans have put forward a proposal. Its quite elegant to quite elegant to call it a border adjustment tax at the heart of this issue in the repeat that tax collection. The other thing i would note is when we think of magnitude on things, about 10 of the federal tax receipt comes from the tort reform tax. Where does the federal government gets the money that it can . Generally from income taxes. Low and moderate incomes that the federal income tax liabilities. Most of the money collected in our system are friendly income tax system. If we went to reform the tax code in a way to raise more money, it would seem we would want to do that, if that is the goal, go with the money is in collect more money from individuals. Also make the point that a lot of business taxes coming through the initial code to incorporate a pastor business, a ridiculous term. It gets passed to you and you pay the individual tax return. Over the last 30, 40 years, a lot of business income tax has transferred. Just two quick points. Most of the money thats offshore from the 75 is owned or held by 50 corporations. 40 is held by 10 corporations. A small number of corporations we talk about but have the vast amount of profit with apple, microsoft, ge and pfizer. Apple is 10 of the profits ensured. Theres a lot of Companies Paying 30 . Domestic companies so detailed Domestic Companies through detailed bacon dog ears with multinationals arent close to their fair share. Because i point it would make on this is most of the money is not in france or germany or britain, countries that are true competitors of ours. Most of the offshore profit in tax havens for their sincere tax rate for 1 or 2 tax rate. We will never compete with that. It means that tax rate they pay is profit. Its going to make the world a tax haven. They pay tax right now. In the United States government. But are you going to do . Im not a corporation. [laughter] im not talking the question. 25 rate. No more deferral. We make sorry, 20 . I dont know. At some point when the rate is low enough, the important deferral is the same with the whole spectrum and other provisions in the deductibility should go away. When the rate gets low, and the distortions in the code gets small. Its one reason to have a low rate. We have a low rate, the other things matter a lot less. It also matters a lot less with the budgetary issue. It doesnt matter as much when we have deferral or not. Lets talk specific tax rates because theyre not going to resolve Corporate Tax rates as much as i was hoping to. Earned income tax credit. What can they do to improve on the credit with a better target to the people who need it most . Is a sub optimal takeup rate. It does take advantage of the program. When he decreed a little bit of awareness fair. We assigned a problem with improper payment. The people are not an eligible program. We need to figure a way to tackle that program wont make any other problem go away. The vector or two things lawmaker show. Antiabuse and advertising. First of all, lets preserve it. Thats not what we have. We also have blair without children they get a smaller credit. But if someone is under 25 or over 65 come and they are not eligible. We see a lot of seniors that have to work. They just want a little extra money. They are over 65, not eligible to a credit. Looking at how can we expand that if you think about a worker under 25, maybe 23 years old and they are not getting the credit. They could still be in poverty because theyre only making 16, 17,000 a year. They dont care if their soundtracks credit. Under 25 or over 65. Looking at both of those. Not increasing the value of it. Not expanding it so it hits people under 25 in people over 65 is low income. The eit see, there is one of the best mechanisms we have to encourage work. If we think about corporations that need to have demand, the families receiving the tax refund that they are using it to put a down payment down on a card. They are using it during times they are not getting a paycheck, and that they saving the money. They are spending the money back in the economy that stimulates jobs and increases demand. It is just a very powerful mechanism we could have to encourage workers and the lot where workers when we talk about income tax in the whalley raise money to pay for programs or pay for things, we have to have workers working. If they are not working because they cannot afford to go to war, we cannot do what most of you are talking about. Just on mireyas point, and i believe for individuals, that they arent eligible above 50,000 each year. Audio mark so basically you might get some help up to minimum wage, but beyond that you cant live on minimum wage. Sorry. So i think that is the most critical. [inaudible] single people without kids generally. I would say in the grand scheme of things regenerating the federal budget. When you look at where you want to make your investment, hopefully at the end you have more money to invest and this might be one of those places overall. Childcare costs are big. Weve gotten a lot of suggestions the Trump Administration is interested in helping people pay their childcare costs. But how its done really makes a difference. Broadly, tell me if im wrong about this, this thus tax break in the road to does that come this month. Its not going to come for 12 months or more. Is there a way to make it more available to them . And the subsidy that the Affordable Care offers assertive advance to you. Is there a way to do that with childcare . Audio mac they can be. On a quarterly basis, monthly basis there is a slightly cost of things. Theres an issue on how to rectify that at the end because you dont know until the end of the year with the annual income is going to be. He think youre eligible for the program for the first six months. If it turns out youre not eligible for the program, its sort of operational mechanical issues. But if that supported are you happy with the childcare tax credits as they are today . I think therell always be improvements to everything. That is one of the Biggest Challenges for workers is a lot of families are paying this much as a mortgage or rent for childcare. So when they are making 12, 13 an hour and its costing them if they had two children a thousand dollars a month for childcare problem is one of the biggest reasons employers say they have high turnover because families cannot afford childcare and some employers are working to put childcare at the place of work because its such a challenge. That is something we have to think about. President obama made a major proposal since the grand and it cost a billion dollars over 10 years. 80 billion. Audio mac that wouldve helped 2 million families. I cant remember how much each family wouldve gotten her on average, it wouldve made a much more viable to work. One of the discussions weve heard is what issue is most helpful if lawmakers do manage to get it over the finish line, which is a big, big question. Maria, in particular, have you heard anything at washington . Anything . [laughter] at all. Wow, that is not a fair question right now. Well, i am hopeful that they are talking about tax reform. But there is an opportunity with tax reform that need be we can look at when we look at whether it to preserving for charitable deductions for families, i am hoping theyre going to look at all of that. I cant say right now. But im hope well because they are talking tax reform. One of the things we talked about for the meeting and i was saying nobody seemed to get rid of the proposals. Then i remembered they want to repeal the estate tax. The reason a lot of people give to charities is because they want to avoid the estate tax. So yes, how is that going to work for you . I talked to some Financial Planners and they brought that up as a concern. Do you agree with that . So why so important when we are sitting back and are major the work we do to help families and raise families out of poverty and a lot of the burden fall in notforprofit to provide a lot of services and if we keep hearing programs that are going to be cut and they start thinking that means we have to step up as notforprofit to do more work to help families because we want communities to thrive and we care about everybody in our community. If the charitable reductions are reduced, its almost like we are giving double whammy is how we are getting hit. The federal funding will come down to us, nor the reduction. At this time we start thinking what are we going to do at that point . Its very important however false. It is something we are watching closely because its very important to everyone in our community. I would add when they became aware were dollars come from, some of them come from the states. Overwhelmingly individuals who make contributions. Many people make terrible contributions that dont get a tax deduction. Because they dont itemize. And many people have high income earners are getting a federal tax subsidy. That encourages them and they do respond. They do get more because the charitable deduction. That would have an adverse effect. Going back to a trump said during the campaign. He did have a proposal in that policy would have an adverse effect. My decision as it would have less of an impact on programs because of the way the distribution dollars come, but it would certainly have an effect. Quite frankly the proposals to the deductions would make fewer people itemize them limit that. So even if they preserve the charitable production and push more people into coming to think that will also they are not coming up well in this. Its not too what they said in their blueprint. They were very aware. There were certain elements of the blueprint that has not been laid out. To ensure people continue. Just back to the first question about do we want tax reform . Is there something to look forward to in tax reform . As an organization that the system needs to raise a lot of our revenue for the system. The proposals around it are going to complete opposite direction. We are much better off trying to stop tax reform at this stage of the game. We think with President Trump in the white house and the Republican Party on both sides that we will not get what i call progressive tax reform that would benefit most americans. I want to turn it over to the audience. We also talked about socalled benefit on tax breaks meaning if i earn a certain amount of these benefits from the social Welfare Program that they need to sustain my family. Is there something they can do in the tax code to appease that effect . They think maybe i wont work. Its sort of ways horrible options because i wont work because ill lose the benefits et cetera not much. The macro is there is a can be mitigated and so you can mitigate those by scaling out those benefits from people as incomes rise and then making the programs available to people at higher levels of income and doing so experienced the possibility. So there is a tension between targeting people who are most in need and not providing the programs to high income individuals. If at some point you flip from being able to get it to not get it. As you sort of relaxed the rules , you can take away some of that state. Yeah, you know, we talk about training. Career edge is one of our programs that we raised the private funding to invest in the low to mid level workers to provide training dollars to the company to be able to upscale their workers and let them up to make higher wages. We often run into the employer saying to us, help us because our turnover rate is 90 is a lowwage worker and whether we need to get into that they dont quit because they do. Again, if they lose that happens, they now report they are making 12 an hour and three months later they have to have childcare they are receiving and food stamps and they get cut off and at that point the parent has to make a decision i cannot afford to go to work. This is why think we believe in the eic because thats more of a curve. As employees earn more, the tax credit is lower, but they see wages going up and we can have that conversation but now you are making too much money and you dont need those services. That is the true economic power of lifting people up. The benefits are very real and i believe employees suffer because of employees they cannot afford to go to work. Its something we talk about on the state level. I do have a gradual process has workers are training to make higher wages so they are out of that benefit situation. Another thing to add. I think raising immigration is critical. They are getting a little wage. Then the question becomes okay, folks are 15 an hour. Is there still going to be a close and it depends whether its urban or rural. If it is, obviously weve got change in the Eligibility Criteria for food stamps, it better. The most important thing is a solid minimum wage. That gives people so much more dignity. They can afford to survive the family. So if it to you guys. They think they will be passing the make around. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. [inaudible] agree my design. There we go. Larry checker, check communications. I am just wondering, has anybody ever done any studies on the impact of promoting Birth Control on the budget . For example, what we are looking at now is the total decimation of planned parenthood and i think this has impact on the budgetary stuff we talked about. Child care, people having kids they dont want them having to leave their jobs, job training, goes on and on. There is a ripple effect. Is anyone doing any investigation . Is it worth doing . [inaudible] hi, my name is karl pulls her. I started a project called the Center Capital approach which is trying to put everybody in our economy. I noticed in the background material there is a lot of emphasis on tax exclusions committed that ability in savings accounts. For example, a retirement accounts, 100 billion audio mac but if we rearrange those a little bit . And you reduce the tax advantage at the top in produced to the bottom for everybody. Its like 40 or 50 billion a year. Or you can go somewhere else by raising the Corporate Tax. But i mean, stuff like that needs some discussion. Do you mean if i save a billion dollars i get a tax credit for the government . The initially to go once and for all gift. Every year the government would pay 200 or 300 for everybody. You wouldnt have to keep it. Small amounts so they have somewhere to go if they go to a job, they have an account. To challenge any focused on Retirement Security because there is a crisis or on retirement for a lot of population. But you are referring to is tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are spending by another name. What this says is there is tax for money they put aside in pensions and theres tax breaks in your 401 k if youre lucky enough to have enough income you can put money in a 401 k . I think the two combined costs are about 150 billion a year. So a lot of money. Our organization helping people save on retirement is quite important. The problem with the way the tax expenditures are designed now is what you are reasoning, which is most of the benefits are able to be taken by folks at the top of the income scale because they are the ones who actually have disposable income when they put it in a 401 k or a child for the employers that for them. What happened this folks at the bottom arent able to save for retirement because first of all they just dont make enough money. To help there probably isnt enough money. I agree we need to revise how these programs are structured so a lot more benefit is going to folks lower down the scale. The problem in the retired security areas, people with disposable income, 50,000 bucks a year you probably dont have that much money to save away every year. Whats critically important to understand sort of the economics of this policy is that it is not that alone. It is also, and this also seems to bother some people, but you have to understand sort of the way these two factors work together. The other part of the border adjustment tax is the, collusion for the revenues associated exclusion for the revenues associated with imports. Equal in uniform measure. And it is that factor that the symmetry of this policy with respect to imports and exports that finance economists will tell you will have a, the effect is a wash. Theres a theoretical effect thats a wash x. The reason is this change on both sides of the ledger, imports and exports, will result in an adjustment of the value of the dollar. Theres a dispute, a debate, sort of an argument among economists whether that Exchange Rate effect will occur, whether it will occur immediately. The theory is simple and elegant that it will adjust. Thats the idea.