the old people back there wanted to restrict wealth and thought they were helping the poor, what happens if there are zero machines bought, there ar bob, r farms operating in fewer mines operating and there's older machinemachinesmachines into ths less productivwork force islesss depressed. this sort of plan moving in mr. action raises the pretax wages and that's where the big games come from. when we ru run to the model and calculate how much would be formed and how much would go up we get some very dramatic results. this plan even to the doesn't go towards the neutral base is so far along that line th but it gs about a 9% boost in gdp. it would be almost 30% larger, wages almost 8% larger and there werwould be a couple percentages more of people working, the

total increase would be split on the wag wage side and the higher wages per worker and more workers working. a big improvement in the bill. the initial cost would be offset in a large measure by the growth effect of the plan and we figured out over the decade it would be about $190 billion then further out you get even more revenue coming. >> vet to truly static loss should be looked at in that context. there's almost no revenue over the ten-year window and there's improvements further out. if you look at the distribution table from this basis if you are

lowering the tax rate from the corporate business and capital gains dividends a lot of it goes to the top but if you factor in the wage growth that looks like a much more even distribution. the total after-tax income of p. 8.7% on average between 8.429.3% higher for the bottom 99% of the population and it would be about 13% higher that the benefits to the 99% are huge and the benefits to the labor force are huge, and that's why you want to do this kind of reform. thank you. >> the first thing i want to say did you notice i dug out the tie from my closet i have to say it's lost its power.

i didn't want big government conservatism. what i want to do after we had to go to the presentations from jason and steve, i want to touch on a few additional issues so that we can wrap this up and i can figure out how to work the thing. we heard the tax policy so i don't need to reiterate that but i want to add one thing that i think jason and steve and david would agree with. you can't have good tax policy if you don't control the growth of government spending. i have a lot of faith in what the house has done for the last several years in the budget resolutions that the house is serious about controlling the government spending and therefore enabling and creating breathing room to do good tax policy. i'm not quite sure what we are

going to see out of the new president. he's said things that make me worry he might not want to reform entitlement and then i worry we will never have the chance to have good sustainable long-run tax policies so even though it isn't a principle of the tax policy if we don't control government spending, we will never get good tax policy, we will never achieve those things all of the panelists have already talked about but in than terms of those things, let me just reinforce a couple points. politicians understand tax rates matter when they want to. we need higher taxes. as a libertarian i don't think we should be trying to control peoples lives that i would give them an a+ for economics but then they turn around and say it

doesn't matter if you have high tax rates on investors and things like that. of course it matters people respond to incentives and we want to have the tax rate as low as possible. and i want to also emphasize with the other panelists us about the importance of the double taxation and this is where i thought he took the form are working to put together the tax reform plan and then in effect tried to break out the barriers for a plan that is even better. but the key thing to is reducing the double taxation and i want to say what gets this beyond the politicians i ask them if you had a borchard did you spend all those years planting the trees,

keeping away pests and finally a what is the best way to harvest the apples? do you pick them from the tree or to chop down the tree? that's exactly what we do on the tax code. technically we are sawing branches of the tree. in this example i have here it is the capital and the income. do not fall off the branches of the tree. that is what steve was talking about when he was referencing the fact that we would've lower people's income and there would be less in the future for

ordinary workers if we destroy the capitol and th capital in th data tax policies. the good news is in general, trump is pushing in that direction. there's no question brady is pushing in that direction and there's even some on the senate side people joke that's where good ideas go to die. i guess in my last couple of minutes i want to raise something we all need to think about as people who are friendly to the idea of tax reform and that's the sort of destination-based part of the tax reform plan. but first here is the chart i put out is the sort of goal to stand standard then i compare it to however you want to call it and you can see both are moving

significantly in the right direction. when i am giving them basically bees and b+ as committed as a move in the right direction but you will notice on the lower right i have these question marks under things like territoriality because what the house plan is doing is radically different. it might turn out to be acceptable that we are obligated to give some serious thought about what this means because you are exhibiting all income and you're not allowing any deduction for the inputs. is that a protectionist? is it going to be compliant? for those of us that have some

gray hair we remember when it ruled against provisions of the tax code and eventually after years and years they were forced to change it. though they do the same thing, is this an indirect tax structure lacks we have to think about those issues. but destination-based plan is because the wages are deductible defendants by the time they get

these cases and what happens if the politicians in the future that might not have the same interest in the government tax policy they get the decision and save a simple way to deal with this is to make the wages go to deductible even though it will be this, they will probably approve it and that of course i think you may as well .-full-stop shop because the chance would be very low. this is something i think we need to think about. also, we have to think about the implications that's one of the few good things on our side in the degree to the political class. in some senses it is based on the plan published for american progress which isn't an organization friendly to the limited government and tax rates and the first subtitle was avoiding the race to the bottom and that is a term the left uses because they don't like tax

competition. others are cutting taxes and other countries had to cut taxes. i think that's wonderful they use it as a race to the bottom. they want to avoid a race to the bottom by doing the destination tax that to me suggests we better be careful about doing this because people who don't like it wants that approach that worries me a lot and by the way, i don't want to get into the technical boring tax things that this is a system where the same thing that underlies the proposal and the sales tax cartel state governments want. the plan is create this is a new thing and i think we need to think about whether or not i tht would be good in the long run. two final points that are political. when you do this system in

effect, the goal is to maximize the taxes paid by americans and having no tax on the horrors. politically that doesn't make sense. the other political thing i worry about, normally all the things that are being talked about in the various tax reform plans, double taxation, territoriality, these are things the business community can be united behind that when you do o the cash flow tax, you are in effect saying to every company that there's a lot of importing. think about wal-mart or something like that. you will make them strong opponents of the plan. if republicans are doing something you have to go up against the left and the media and a lot of opponents doing the usual, do you really want to have part of the business community against you? i think the plan is great and the best thing to come out of congress in a long time. i think there's been a huge amount of work done on it but

when we are thinking about melding the plan i do worry about this one position because i don't know that enough thought has been given to it and these are just some concerns. everybody else covered the main things about taxation. i figured i would close by raising a few warning flags because this is something we need to think about. thank you very much. >> he wanted to say something with response to the other panels? >> one, controlling the growth of spending he's completely right and i think it's looking at what is good tax reform. one of the problems we have going forward, spending is so high, one of the oppositions is that it doesn't raise revenue.

we have to ge give spending outf control in the long term so you can avoid this. he's completely correct on that and also mentioned something i'm still enough to remember what it is before the sales corporation the idea was to set up some sort of a subsidiary that had a lot of sunshine and he would deter some of your sales if the u.s. export and it was called on holiday so a lot of them would set up a corporations in jurisdictions. at 35% tax rate you give incentives to find ways to be more competitive.

one more point than i will turn it over. how much job creation and economic growth will come out of this. you might hear some debate and criticism versus the static modeling. don't worry about it, get it out of your head. we know the baseline assumption is wrong. we've seen these activities services based on assumptions we have going up. in the static basis we can do tax reform.

we will turn around and hopefully get more work and investment. let's not focus on whether the static is right and whether it is going to 3%, 4% or 1.5 to three. we have to turn it around. >> some of us have enough gray hair to remember the desk. >> the growth will come from the spending and the border adjustment is perhaps the least worthwhile to press for and it

will cause a lot of trouble so i wouldn't worry much about it but he is right to raise the question will this be acceptab acceptable. we are wasting a lot of resources. the infrastructure notion that it will be countercyclical and do a lot of good the most we need to do is maintain what we already have. infrastructure increases will not be in the panacea. we've been growing for a number of years but it is just too low and to get that fixed you need an enormous increase for the taxes and regulatory burdens that is where most of the growth is great to comfort him so only

if it is going to yield a return because it's important. build a bridge to somewhere coming off nowhere and make sure you've done a good cost analysis before you start out. as you get more growth in the number of people needing public assistance will go down to. that's something we need to take account of. the model results i've shown are dramatic and some people think we can't get here from there because there won't be enough saving. if you put this in place there will be periods of lower rates encourage people to save.

models constrained to allow this to occur are simply wrong. you hear this sometimes if they quote you from the model the results are too big. finally our model is not robust in many ways but there's a lot of people that have left the work force. what if the people that are out come back in droves we are about 17% below in the 1960s. it's because the increased regulatory burdens holding us

back we got a huge amount of potential growth unutilized and we are only showing that we were capturing half of it with the exchange is. and maybe in a regulatory changes and we get the other 9%. we just need to do well and the administration to go along with it and the senate to just sit there. >> a couple quick things then we will move on to the audience. i will bring to your attention he roots for the georgia football team and i think everyone here probably can agree that is a mistake. i want to say a couple things on

the aspect of the plan first o off, the most important thing is to move towards the expensing and the secondary importance. what is put together on the business side is fundamentally similar with one difference way that it treats imports and exports. basically production in the united states and whether they are sold in the united states. if you produce things abroad, the income tax imposes not one

value. the consumption tax is different whether they are produced abroad or the united states and doesn't oppose any tax consumed abroad. that would be the business transfer tax. the question becomes do you want to encourage production overseas were set to system for producing things in the u.s. and abroad. the answer is a system that no longer encourages you to move offshore and a tax system that

is in that decision. chairman brady is moving in that direction and this will be undoubtedly litigated on the basis it's permissible if it's a direct tax. we know [inaudible] we don't know what ultimately would be the value added tax so this is an open question

legally. the economic question is different so the long and the short of it is the concerns on this matter are misplaced and the economic judgment. there's a lot of concern about the trade and i think everyone would agree they are counterproductive when you treat the production more adversely but it enables people to enact that concerned.

with that, let's open up to questions. >> if i am a business and i want to buy an input korean-american juror if i buy the same input i get no deduction at all. why is that not protectionist >> because the value of the good has already been taxed to the. it would be as if you had a retail sales tax if you produce

something abroad we don't impose any tax on it. that's what the current system does. i assume you would agree. >> it does come down to the debate. >> it's important for our side to hash through these issues you

made a comment in passing with some public policy outreach you said forget about that and i would say don't forget about that. you open up the newspaper and is a bug with the capital and potatoes are doing. what is missed is the scoring on the public outreach. in terms of outreach into the communication i don't think one person in a hundred understand how important this is a.

>> what tends to happen is they will find the differences are not to disparage the entire plan so if you go out and say our job is going to create 4 million jobs and maybe it creates 3.5, they got it wrong the whole plan must be wrong that's not to say the model is wrong and we shouldn't push it but what you will see his people from brookings, the center for american progress, they will say that it's wrong and start

quibbling on the differences so i want to focus on static is wrong. they are not accounting for these things. if we talk about the static dynamic are going to lose them. >> the house wasn't acquiring the dynamics for the committee and now it is. they are trying. we are not getting the pushback we used to get. it's not just to reassure the house members they are not voting for a deficit. it's to teach them what it's

likely to do. the dynamic scoring process will give them the information that they might not have if they tossed it out and didn't look deeper. but if i substitute this position for that. some of them came back 40 and 50 times that it educated them what the outcome would be and they were able to target the growth

of more efficiently by using a model that gave them that feedback. that is one of the biggest reasons is the policy. >> it takes into account the economic reality. we will change our language. that is a good point. >> [inaudible] >> i don't think the microphone is on. maybe i'm wrong. i want to return to the discussion. a manufacturer that has an input

because there is no domestic source my belief that would have a negative impact on the terrace on the input you have no domestic source so now you're saying that you would pay on that again. you pay tariffs on the input. it already exists. it's not going to get rid of the foreign terrorists. >> you're saying 5% isn't part of the revenue service, the part of the harmonized [inaudible] >> what i >> what is your follow-on question? >> i am agreeing that the foreign input if they are not treated the same as the domestic input fair to the domestic manufacturers that are trying to keep production in the united

states. >> since david isn't jumping in, i will jump in. that's one of the reasons why i'm looking at the same thinking we haven't paid enough attention to this issue and we need to. it might be that as we go down the road one month, two months my concerns will be eased but i can't help but look at it if i'm buying from a supply your overseas i get no deduction which might mean the tax rates that exists will be akin to a tariff. it is akin to the final corporate tax rate and i just think those of us that wants tax reform need to pay attention to this.

the house plan was a statement of principles. now all of a sudden this is an issue and we might have the chance to do some real things. no matter what, 80 to 90% will be things i like, not just looking at the one provision and worrying maybe the approach on this even though he gets rid of the deferral which i don't like so maybe we can mix the two plans and get rid of everything else which seems reasonable to me. >> the problem as you describe, not the proposed tax treatment which is to treat u.s. production and fou foreign production identically which is

the u.s. production taxed. >> part of the confusion in the area even among the experienced professors at leading universities when they get together to talk about this big kind of jumbled up. it depends whether you are looking at it back to the producers or whether it's being paid by the consumer's. if you've got more than one country that starting point in the assumption as to where it falls can lead to opposite conclusions which is why they say they have to be the same.

it is a 10% tax and if you think of it on the producer side but f that is coming into germany and they are paying the same tax in germany, no problem again. what you have here is different. the export didn't hurt. they substituted an increase and have some advantage. it probably doesn't matter very much. if, however we take our whole corporate tax and convert it to

what amounts, then we are getting the advantage back on everything. they might look at that and say we have to abolish the corporate tax to compete with what the united states should have done and i think to some extent they would feel some of that pain. so i need to think this through much more than i've been able to do because this is confusing. it is complicated and we have to think this through a bit more. i'm sure there's an answer out there we don't have it yet.

you wrote a paper i forget the name of it people that are interested and -- >> it's in the book and the old website. it was the secret chamber of the public square you can buy it for $5 or less on amazon because there's a lot of used copies. it addresses a number of issues we've been discussing. jason did a story on the distributional analysis. the book is probably one of the best ones out there.

[laughter] >> you have to spend $3 on amazon. any questions before we close? thank you all very much for coming. the session is closed. >> in 1953 they were convicted of espionage and executed. their sons went to the white house to present evidence of her innocence and to ask president obama to exonerate her posthumously. in [inaudible conversations]

in 1963 i was 10-years-old, the older brother even though he looks older. 53 years until i delivered a letter and today after over 40 years of research and struggles, we are sharing with president obama the fruits of that struggle and once again, asking for presidential action. this time we are not merely advocates for the family but for the country. it's never too late to learn from the mistakes of the past. >> we are giving the chance to acknowledge the injustice done to our mother. this is a text to see if our government has the courage and commitment to true justice to

acknowledge. with the letter that he presented in 1953 gave eisenhower the chance to pass the test. we hope president obama will demonstrate his compassion and decency. in [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] we've already done that okay. thank you very much anyway. they said there's no way to drop it. the only way to do that is to mail it. we understand these are different kinds. i had a tiny little letter.

we symbolically did this to replicate 63. i guess we can start. it's similar to things that have been done in the past. the recognition of the internment of japanese-america japanese-americans. there never was a code name.

how would we feel about it? >> guest: she was taken away from us. she was killed. there could be nothing more satisfying than to acknowledge this wouldn't have happened. it's the cautionary tale targeting people. we've done things.

when i said we are doing it for the country, not just our fami family. we are asking essentially for a nullification if this is something you should resonate with president obama that made the statement himself about there being times in the histo history. we've taken actions against people consider the threats. ..

>> been. >> this is the time when presidents issues statements

then we want to make sure fact we're not asking for a pardon it is not something that goes to the justice department a full rosenberg was not a guilty therefore she does not need a pardon. we are asking for is a presidential statement in effect nullifies the guilty verdict to say that this date was wrong. >> [inaudible] >> one of the principal architect of the prosecution president elect trump has said she is his mentor so the idea is david do anything that would put his mentor in a bad light from foreign is los of this is the time to do that if we

don't get obama to do we ever truly certain that trump will not and that is another reason for doing that. >> saw on the program "60 minutes" specifically roy came and said your wife just told us something new that she typed up. that there was no memory and doesn't even know if there was any that occurred in any type of typing and the architect active is very significant that he would end that being the mentor of the president-elect ricans say the ghost of ethel rosenberg will haunt the white house once he takes office.

>> through the grand jury testimony hot though we have not made any similar request and in fact, it was said to two of his september to valerie terret to get of process move of with their resolution. >> is our reside know there has spent no response from the administration but no specific response that there was the story bathhouse all i heard on the news that somebody asked the response

was we are considering these matters. so we don't know but the time for these in is usually the cheery some reworkings ahoy to get to the point where there is a statement made. it is a little more complicated so our father was framed to give the sacred the atom bomb but that was esplanades bet my mother there is virtually no argument

. >> after the great fires tried to take out of the landscape and the last 50 years after the history of our age engagement that has spent very difficult. >> i am the person who tells that story.

and then to get fundamentally creative. >> if you like it is career he was responsible both for cosponsoring and writing a huge amount to the citizens of the united states and it was a legislative and agency beverly has said nikon for the united states he was a person who represented the

interests of the of west. >> a rigidly born in connecticut and then travels over the santa fe trail

. >> as a look back over the last year the employees have a lot to be proud of regardless of what he just said that first and foremost, the top priority that city coulter is taking root in his. i have seen it is started when we shut the system down and those front-line people can up and said that they understand the risk we put ourselves and the other people in 24 inches of snow this does not make sense for a safety perspective. clearly the point was further driven home in march when one week after i was here last time and when we shutdown the system for the cable inspection and the reinforced to the customers and employees said stakeholders we do take safety as seriously as we

should. the just the talk after that. we don't see or feel as much through the miles of work we have done is unbelievable. and i know november 30th bond what i knew i would have started earlier but believe me i want to give our employees and 24/7 and