Destiny vs Tom Wheelwright on Taxes & Economic Policies in 2025
In a recent discussion, I had a spirited debate with a colleague about the implications and management of the unrealized capital gains tax. I vehemently oppose this proposal for several reasons:
- It shifts money from long-term investments to short-term consumption, reducing investments overall.
- It poses substantial management challenges and acts as a disincentive to invest.
To further illustrate, let's consider a scenario:
- I invest in an opportunity with a 5% tax rate that appreciates at 100% annually.
- Other options appreciate at only 2% annually.
Even with increased capital gains tax, it's still more profitable to maintain the lucrative investment rather than switch to lesser-taxed, lower-return options.
The key point here is assessing where your money would go. More taxes might push people to consume rather than invest, affecting the economy and production. Current top tax incentives in the US tax code include:
- Business Investments: Investing back into your business is tax-free.
- Technology: The research and development deduction, which has massive benefits globally, was removed.
- Real Estate: The bonus depreciation incentive has significantly boosted housing since 2017.
- Energy: Biden's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 offered renewable energy incentives.
- Agriculture: Possibly the biggest tax incentives are in agriculture, supporting food production.
When you heavily tax investments, you redirect that money towards consumption, reducing investments in housing, technology, and agriculture. This abrupt reallocation can lead to inflationary pressures due to increased demand and reduced supply.
The argument here isn't to eliminate necessary consumption. Balance is crucial. It's about the proportion between investment and consumption. Solely focusing on consumption can induce inflation as it pushes demand up without growing supply.
Looking at the broader economic implications, both demand and supply sides fuel economic growth. A lack of investment diverts money away from development and supply expansion, while excessive consumption creates unsustainable demand.
Even during Trump's administration, despite lower taxes, significant deficit spending indicated increased government-induced demand. The same applies to Biden's administration, where increased expenditure is driving deficits, albeit in a post-COVID environment.
Ultimately, the Federal Reserve's objective is to maintain a balance between inflation and employment through interest rate adjustments, without addressing government spending. In doing so, it indirectly influences the intricate balance of supply and demand in the country.
Full Transcript
I disagree with you so much, but I enjoyed getting to talk. It's fun to talk to. I don't know how much you debate taxes or whatever, but you know, it's nice to be able to actually go through some of this stuff sometimes. I'm going to say this is one of the worst proposals out there. It is, it's, it's really, you know, I know you hate the tariffs. I hate the unrealized capital gains tax. And I hate it for a number of reasons. One is that you are taking the enormous amount. Remember, when you take money out of the investment class and you put it into the consumption, then what you're doing is that you are, you're reducing the amount that's being invested long term. And you're putting it into short term consumption, which yes, it's like a sugar high. Okay. So that's what goes on. The worst part of the unrealized capital gains tax though is it is completely unmanageable. And it's such a disincentive to do anything. It's a, it's a complete disincentive. Hold on. We, we need to, when we talk about incentives, we have to compare these things to other things, right? Let's say that I live in an environment where, let's say that I live in an environment where I am taxed at 5% if I invest in a particular thing. Okay. That, that, that appreciates at 100% per year. And let's say that all of the other investment opportunities around me appreciate at 2% per year. It doesn't matter if you triple or quadruple my tax. My overall gains, my index is going to be way higher investing in that ultra profitable opportunity rather than investing in less taxed other things. So I, like, when we talk about how the tax will increase and it'll disincentivize one thing, what, what we should be talking about, you have to, what else is the money going towards? This is what I was saying earlier when I'm saying, like, let's say that I have a, a million dollars invested and the capital gains tax goes up, or let's say I have a million dollars to invest and the capital gains tax goes up. It's not like I'm just not investing my money. It's not like all of a sudden it's a good idea to keep my money in the bank. Yeah, my, my tax rate might go up on my appreciated asset, but I'm still making money, right? As opposed to just sitting there losing money to inflation or whatever, or I guess like hoarding treasury bonds. So there, there, there has to be some other place where the money is going, it, for disincentivizing things because at the end of the day, tax rates and profits and all of these things, all of these things are just competing for what is your, like, what is your good investment opportunity and all of these things are factors in that I think, yeah. But you're presuming that there's just as much money to invest. When in fact, when you're taxing there isn't as much money to invest. And so now what I have to do is I have to spend a higher proportion of my money on consumption than I do in investment and there's not that investment going back into the economy. There's not that investment going back into production. I mean, how is it? Look at the top, look at the top four or five incentives in the US tax code right now. There's four or five of them, okay? The first one's business. You mentioned it several times. If I put my money back into my business, I don't have to pay tax on that money, okay? The second would be technology, which Trump wants to bring back the research development deduction, which is a huge need, by the way, in our country. The fact that it went away is a really horrible, disadvantaged us versus the rest of the world that has much better tax incentives for research development. But then go to real estate, okay? Look at how much housing has been built in the last since 2017 in large part because of the additional incentives to invest in real estate through the bonus depreciation. And then you look at energy. What did Biden do in 2022? The big bill was the so-called inflation reduction act, which what was the main part of that? Well, that was in energy renewable energy incentives. Those are tax incentives, credits and deductions. And then you've got fossil fuel tax incentives. And then you have agricultural incentives, which are probably the biggest incentives that there are in the tax law, our agricultural tax incentives. Because here's what the government wants. They want to produce housing. They want to produce food. They want to produce energy. They want to produce jobs. And so that's where those incentives go, okay? But if you take out, if you take the money out of those incentives, you have less money going in. And again, it's this mass problem. It's like compound interest works really well. The fifth, sixth, seventh time you compound it, but it works terrible. The first time you compound it. You keep saying we're taking money out. Can you explain? You're putting it, you're putting it, you're taking money from the investors and you're putting it into consumers. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Because we keep doing the consumer, set it on fire. Where does the money go next? So you're assuming it's going right back to the rich people? But yeah, to the, to, if, if a poor person gets money from the government via taxation and then they spend that money, they're probably spending it in places that are like heavily capitalized by capital owners, right? Yes, but there's, but that is, that is, as I'm saying, okay, a sugar calorie is just as valuable as a, as a, as a protein calorie or a vegetable calorie. They have different values, okay? And, and this is your argument. I presume is that you can't, you can't just rely on its place side, which I agree you've got to have consumption. But what's that proportion? That's my question. What's the proportion of investment versus consumption? If it's all consumption, here's what happens. The biggest problem is inflation. Because what happens is is that remember the, the people who are investing, they have extra money. Okay? So, and that's the argument for taxing them because they have extra money. So they can afford to do it. They can. Okay? That's a fact. They can afford to do it. The challenge is that you're taking that money. It's like selling your, your gold supplies. Okay? You're, you're taking that money and now what you're doing is, is you're consuming it, which means that you're pushing up heavy on the demand side, but you're not increasing the supply side because you're taking money out of the supply side. So at the same time, you're taking money out of the supply side, you're adding to the demand side, which is natural inflationary pressure. Yeah, but I mean like, like, that's a, it's a balance, right? We have to talk about both ends, right? Because we can also like, right? It is a balance. Hold on, wait, we remember, we all remember the, the graph, right? Our quantity, produced quantity supply, right? Not all of those pressures are necessarily bad, right? Having people that are willing to pay more for certain goods or services can increase on the supply side, the, the willingness to produce a given good or service, right? At a quantity demanded more will be produced at a higher price paid. So the idea, I, I feel like it's just when you talk about like, when you remove money from one area and give it into another, you're talking about all the potential negatives, which are true, right? Removing money from investment can be bad. We want to capitalize our businesses, giving an infinite amount of money to create upward pressure on demand could be bad. You're increasing inflation, you're making things less affordable, but every single economic transaction has another side to it, right? If you've got some guy who has a billion dollars invested in his, in his company and his tax basis for this is like a million dollars, one, whatever the tax rate is, we haven't realized any of it from the government, right? And two, who's to say that the money is better off not even being taxed versus you tax the money from him, you pour it into people that are going to consume. When people go to Walmart and they buy goods and services, I mean, what is the money ultimately end back up in, right? And the suppliers that are now going to be expanding stores, hiring more workers, not to mention the social goods from giving people money so they can consume things and increase their standards of living and everything else. And, yeah, so like I understand what you're saying, obviously, again, I said Lafayr curve like 50 times, right? There's going to be an ideal level of taxation that we have to talk about, but we can't just pretend that all of these transactions are just bad on one side. I totally agree. My question, my question for you then is what I'm hearing from you. Tell me, tell me I'm wrong. But what I'm hearing from you is you think it's imbalanced right now. And that you that we need to rebalance it by actually increasing the demand side and decreasing the supply side. That's what I'm hearing. I mean, now, right? So I mean, I'm not going to, I can't seriously debate like Macro, Eccata, it's going to be difficult for me, right? But I mean, my understanding is as long as the inflation is around 2%, we can stimulate the demand side a bit more. As long as unemployment is below 5.5%, right? I mean, like the Federal Reserve has its two targets and that's kind of how it conducts monetary policy. And as long as our stuff is staying there, then pumping the supply side and the demand side is good, but we look at our government budget next to see, okay, well, what's going on? If we're overspending like crazy, which everybody seems to do Trump included, well, then maybe we need to tax a little bit more, right? Or spend a little less. Yeah, because again, like even something you said, even something you said earlier, you mentioned something about how when tax rates are lower, like the growth is higher. Well, that's a bit of a, that's a sneaky statement. Not, I'm not saying you're intentionally saying something like that. But like when people said, for instance, that the Trump tax cuts spurred on the economy, that's true, of course, it's deficit spending. You would expect it to. Trump cut a whole bunch of tax receipts from the government, but continued to spend. But it's not fair that Trump gets to take credit for what's essentially deficit spending and say, well, the reason why is because we gave suppliers more money. You did, but you did it by not only allowing them to keep more money, but in a roundabout way, you're stimulating the demand side as well by continuing to spend at an exorbitant rate for the government as well, right? There's always like two sides to all of these transactions that everybody seems to ignore. Trump was just as much a demand side stimulator as any supply side alleviator because he's deficit spent at record levels, even before COVID. Well, before COVID, his deficits were not nearly as big as they are right now under Biden. That's true. Coming out of, but Biden has an excuse, right? Biden has an excuse. What's the excuse? His excuse is, here's the problem. And I want to get just to this and I really appreciate you bringing this up. His excuse is, we have inflation. Okay? So because we have inflation, we have higher interest rates and it's the higher interest rates that are causing that deficit, that deficit to be so high. And the higher interest rates do, in fact, have a huge impact on the deficit. Okay? But where are the higher deficits come from? They come from the higher spending of the of the 2021, the March 2021 American Rescue Plan and the Trump 2020. Okay? Both of those, neither one of those, my opinion, just in my opinion, were necessary to stimulate the economy. Both of them pushed demand side up without taking to account that we had this huge supply side disruption caused by COVID. Okay? Well, there's two quick facts on that. So one, you can say that they weren't necessary. I don't know what we're competing against as a legendary hypothetical, mystical or mythical version of America. We are outperforming every other country when it comes to inflation. So if we say that we could have done even better, that's fine. But you're talking about going from rank one to rank like, like, super one. Like, the reality is, is whatever financial stimulus we did, which was higher than every other country in the world except I think Japan, it obviously, it clearly helped us to some extent because we are buoying off, like, inflation, better than every other country. Number one, number two, Donald Trump's pre-COVID deficits were still larger than Biden's current deficits, even with COVID. Trump had no excuse to run deficits at that level prior to COVID. His economy was booming. Everybody involved in the markets and watching the GDP knew this. Why if Trump was going to spend that crazy with no crisis, who's to say he wouldn't spend even more and say now, still after COVID with inflation being high or the year of a year at least, the cumulative being high. So prior to COVID, his deficits were lower than Biden's. His spending, if deficits, his deficits were lower. I'm not saying it's spending more, but his deficits were lower. He wasn't, he's spending at that point was the highest it had been in, in US history for deficits, right? Before COVID, right? It was higher, but Biden has far surpassed him. Sure, but again, we're at $2 trillion this year. Do what? We're at $2 trillion for the first time this year in an, in an annual deficit. Sure, but again, it's in a post-COVID environment, right? So there's, right, but we're, we're, we're two years post-COVID. We're not, we're not six months post-COVID. We're two years post-COVID. And my point is, so here's what I want to get back to if I can, Destiny, I appreciate your thoughts. Is that if you have this, you're putting all this money in and you're going to get inflation, because what I heard was that some inflation may be fine, maybe fine if you get inflation. The, the, the, the Federal Reserve, they have been very clear that their job is not to deal with spending. It's not the demand side from a spending standpoint. In other words, that's the government's job. Sure. Their job is to, um, their job is two things only. One is interest rates, the, the, the, the, in interest rates and employment. So sure. Basically inflation. That's what you know. When you say, when you say, when you're talking about the government spending, right? Yeah, government spending. Yeah. Right. So inflation and, and inflation, they want to bring inflation down, they, they, and they want to balance that with employment, right? That is, that's their two mandates according to, um, according to them. Okay, so what happens if you get this upward pressure on inflation that we're talking about now? What happens is is that now you get higher interest rates. What happens with higher interest rates? Now, um, you're, you're going to get some, you get severe disruption in the economy. I think we're lucky, frankly. I think we're lucky that we have not had a, a, a bigger downturn in the economy than we have. I don't, I don't think this was the Fed being smart as much as it was. I think we got a little lucky in that. Well, again, isn't this a, this a two sided thing? No, like, like higher interest rates can also cool off the economy and cool off inflation as well. No. Well, that's, that is what they did. Okay, it does. That's what they did. That's why we've had, we've had, uh, we've had higher interest rates than we've had in 40 years. Yeah. Okay. So we've got these high interest rates. What they do is, yes, they cool down, but remember, they also cool down investment. So they've had a huge impact on the supply of housing, huge impact that the housing is not being built. Why is that? Well, because interest rates are so high. And why are the interest rates so high? It's not that 5% is a bad interest rate. I mean, I grew up when I bought my first house, it was 16%. That was bad. Okay. So historically, 5% an average rate. What's bad is when you go from 2% to 7% in a year and a half. That's what's bad because you, you put such a jolt to the economy that you have an enormous risk. I think we got lucky. I think we got lucky, but you put that enormous risk to the economy. And so inflation pressure and the other thing is, yes, inflation has come down, but prices haven't come down from where they worked two years ago. Sure, but prices are going up as fast. Right. Yeah. The average person is clearly feeling the inflation. Yeah. There's still inflation will be cumulative. The right, it's never going to deflate. Right. Right. Right. It's not going to deflate. Sure. And then also just to revisit. Okay. So according to the, for the committee for responsible federal budget, for the debt that these two presidents accumulated, Donald Trump's non-COVID spending was $4.8 trillion the CARES Act. And then COVID relief that he provided was $3.6 trillion. Biden's the American rescue plan was $2.1 trillion. His non-COVID debt was $2.2 trillion. Trump spent like crazy. No, that 2.2 trillion. The deficit this year is 2.1 trillion. One year. The, okay, this, this was something released by the Trump Biden on the national debt. This came out June 24th. US Budget Watch 2024, I guess, but I can't speak to it because if you look at what the deficit is through September for the fiscal year, any September is right around $2 trillion. So I'm not sure how they come up with 2.2 over four years, non-COVID. Which, well, I appreciate the start. What is your guys thoughts on the national debt? Because it seems like both parties aren't talking about it or they're kind of talking about it, but no one's really taking it seriously. I think that's an area I are going to agree. Well, I'm just, I honestly think it, I am scared for my grandchild. Because of the, right, well, debt. So there's only two ways. What's the solution? Because it's either it's raise more money. It's probably a combination. Honestly, it's a combination of raising more money and spending less. It's both. You have to do both. You can't do just one. You can't just reduce spending. You can't just increase taxes. It won't work. You've got to do some combination of them. I, and I'm not, you'll, you'll be shocked at this cable. I'm not opposed to let's say a surtax on somebody making over $5 million. They're not, they're not going to miss it. It's not, I don't think that fiber. So, you want to explain what that is? Hillary Clinton. So Hillary Clinton proposed a surtax on people making over $10 million. I think it was a 4 5% surtax. I have no issue with that. I think that's, I actually think that's fine. There's a revenue razor right there. Okay? It's just another tax rate. It's a surtax. Okay? It's not a tax on investment. It's just tax on income. So it doesn't, it doesn't single out investment, which is the, which is, which is the important thing. And it didn't apply to capital gains. It only applied to ordinary income. So I don't have an issue. There are, we do need to, I have no question. We need to raise some revenue. But we also need to reduce expenses. One of our challenges, of course. And this is a question I have for you, Destiny, is, are you concerned, because you seem to be concerned about the national debt, like I am? Do I have that right? First of all, are you concerned about the national debt? I'm not concerned about the conversation about the national debt, because I feel like the conversations around it are just really bad. Like, the issue is that, like, if you ask somebody, like, what is the, or I guess I could ask you, what do you, how, how much debt should the United States have? I have no idea. Okay. That's a better answer. That's good. Okay. Because a lot of people will say zero, which is not true, right? You always want to be, that's not true. And if you look at Japan, they're at 200% of GDP. They're not failing. Sure. Yeah. So, so I don't know what the ideal debt should be. I do think we are spending a lot, and we've added a lot recently. But the, I guess the thing that's confusing to me that, that I don't understand about conservatives is if we talk about the debt, and they talk about their concerns for the debt, like you said, you either have to raise more money or spend less money. And, you know, people can sit here and talk about the budget, but like a lot of people when they talk about the budget, they're only talking about the discretionary spending, which is what, like, 30% of the federal budget, very small percentage. Yeah, we're not even talking about non-discretionary. What are you going to have Republicans cutting, right? Like, so- So security? Yeah. That's not happening. So, I guess the confusing thing is for being so concerned about the debt, it feels like Donald Trump has a platform that would apply an unfathomable amount of upward pressure on things related to inflation. So, global tariffs, these are massively inflationary, destructive to consumption and supply chains. You've got a mass deportation of labor here, right? That's you're going to drive up prices, right? You're going to drive up the cost of labor to untenable amounts potentially, right? Which is going to be inflationary. He's talking about pressuring the Fed. He admitted to trying to pressure Powell, right, into keeping interest rates low in his own term, and he says he wants to keep interest rates low when he comes back. He wants to eliminate all these random income taxes, reducing tax receipts. He wants to maintain his prior tax cuts, right? Reducing tax receipts. I don't know where these spending cuts are supposed to come from. He doesn't talk about them ever, and he talks about all these income reducing cuts. We have to serve his interest on the debt. I just don't know how anybody could ever look at Donald Trump, a guy who spent like crazy when the economy was good, and think that this is the guy that I'm going to choose for fighting the debt and fighting the deficit. Let's go back to the deficit. I agree. I mean, we don't have a, I don't know what the magic number is. Frankly, I don't think anybody knows what the magic number is. I don't think the smartest economist in the world knows what the magic number is, because we've never been here before. This is new territory because it's a worldwide economy. It's not a U.S. economy only. It's a worldwide economy. So you can't say, well, it's like, you know, the Byzantine area or whatever, because that was a, that was a country not a global. My question for you, Destiny, though, is let's go back to something you brought up at the very beginning, which was the child tax credits, which socially we go, okay, we're all empathetic for that, okay, especially the child care credit. I'm actually more empathetic for the child care credit than child tax credit. Tom, what's the difference? The difference is is that one's a credit because you have, for it's helping you to pay to take a drop of child off at a daycare center while you go to work, while you be productive, okay? Whereas the other is a credit for the fact of having a child, okay, and that's nothing to do with whether you're working on it, okay? So that's the difference. My question is, are you concerned, Destiny, because this is one of my concerns. I'm concerned that you get the child tax credits or earned income credits or these other Harris proposals become entitlements because once you give them, it's really hard to take them away. Now, you can give them during COVID and take them away and say, oh, that was COVID. That's different. But you give them now, now, how do you take those away? Because what you're doing is, if you do take them away, you're actually giving that family a decrease in their standard of living. Are you really going to do that? And that just puts more pressure on the deficit. So what do you think about? Do you think that they'll become entitlements? I don't know, I mean, maybe, but regardless of if that's true or not, and we could go into the benefits and the pros and cons, I guess, of those credits, all of this would pale in comparison to any hypothetical destruction. It would rot on the economy compared to the global tariffs that Donald Trump is suggesting, which is just, that's like a Doomsday scenario. Yeah, so let's talk about that for a second if we can, Terrible. Let's talk about the pair. So right now, today, the US has a severe tax disadvantage to the rest of the world because the US has no value out of tax. So if we export to France, that export gets a value out of tax of 20% tacked on. If we import from France, there's no value out of tax tacked on. So what that means is that the French production has an advantage on their exports over a US export. Now, a tariff is one way. Wait, can I ask a quick question on that? Yeah, I genuinely don't understand what I thought that a value added tax. I thought that you pay tax when you add value at a part in the in the production. If I were to export a good to France and they were to sell it as is, how can they VAT that? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, you VAT imports, you don't VAT exports. Exports are excluded, imports are taxed. 100%. Okay, I'll take your word for it, sure. Yep, 100%. So we have that disadvantage. And while I'm not a fan of a tariff being the solution to that, what is the difference in your mind from a 20% tariff on a good coming in from France and a 20% VAT on a good going into France? What's the difference? It's the same number, it's 20%. I mean, I would have to read more of the comparison for the tariff stuff because I feel like let me think, let me think about that for a second. Yeah, this is my whole thoughts on tariffs, we're just increasing the costs. We're indirectly passing down the cost to it increases the cost of goods. Absolutely. Yeah, so it can in a way. There's no question in my in all of the literature, there's no question that the consumer pays that tariff, most of the time. Sure. Well, I think it ends up being split kind of 50, 50, right? Ultimately, I think it's higher than that. I think the consumer pays more of that than you mean than the producer? Yeah, because you have to eat some of the costs because the consumers are going to eat all the goods for one rating. Presumably, there's one difference. Wouldn't one difference be for a tariff that a VAT is going to be applied evenly to everything in your economy, like things that are produced domestically as well, whereas for a tariff. And that is the argument for the VAT over a tariff. You hit it right on. And that's why the tax foundation prefers, doesn't have a problem with VAT, but they do have a problem with tariff. But when you're looking at comparative purposes and you're going, still, we're giving a, we're making it cheaper to buy a French good, a good from France, than the French buy the same good. Perfect example is Boeing versus Airbus. Airbus, no VAT when they send it to the US. Boeing, VAT when you send it to France. That's a perfect example of a competitive disadvantage that we have. And absent us doing a VAT, which is wildly unpopular in the US, they actually tried that during Trump's first term. Something similar, a border, you know, something like a VAT. It's not popular. Frankly, the only way it would ever be popular is if you eliminated the income tax entirely by repeating the 16th amendment. And then I think people might be okay with that. But until then, the challenge is you still do have a competitiveness issue when it comes to goods made in America, shipped to France versus good made in France, shipped to America. Yeah. Is so, okay, let's walk down this path for a minute. Sure. If that is the case, are we not just gaining an advantage by their government spending money to make a good or service cheaper for a US citizen? For who? An advantage to whom? So, like, let's say for the producer. You are, you are making it cheap. You are saying it is an advantage. It is an absolute advantage to the American consumer. Yeah. Absolutely. We are human beings. It's a disadvantage to the American producer. Well, so the issue that I have with saying is a disadvantage to the American producer. I would agree with that if our production was hurting. But if we're deploying our capital in more productive ways, then isn't that just a net win for us? In the United States, let's say that we make macro widgets, but we don't make any micro widgets. But the micro widgets are what are used to make macro widgets. Let's say that we import something from China standard. Let's say that China is like, we're going to subsidize the fuck out of and VAT and whatever to make us so we can export you a ton of micro widgets. Would your economy, wouldn't you go, okay, well, if you guys want to waste your government spending and tax your citizens and all that to subsidize your shit, then we'll just buy that at reduced cost and we'll just make macro widgets, which is more a more productive deployment of capital anyway. We're just like winning from that exchange. Isn't that good? Like, the other hand, it feels like what we're saying is like, hold on. We're not going to let you do that. You're not allowed to fuck your citizens over and give us an advantage. We're going to destroy citizens over too so that nobody wins. And now we're going to bring all this base manufacturing back here. We don't want to make testless anymore. We want to make gear boxes and we want to make wheels and we want to make fenders instead. Like, I don't know why that would be the answer, I guess. I don't understand that. The connection area. If you are saying, well, China is going to give Chinese, they're going to make up for it to the Chinese producer, okay, in order for them, those two to offset, you might have a point. But the US doesn't do that. We don't say, look, Boeing, we're going to somehow reduce your costs by 20% because you're going to have to increase your price by 20% when you send to France. We don't do that. So maybe if we did some kind of a mechanism like that, maybe you're right. Maybe that would work. Well, why do we why do we even need to do some kind of? Well, you're just talking, you were just talking about China, you're going to, they're incentivizing that, but they're penalizing the producers if they're incentivizing us, right? There's going to free us up to do more like productive stuff though. Like, do I, like, would I be more proud? And this gets into very loaded, like normatively loaded territory because people feel a certain type of way about base level manufacturing, you know, like, oh, I want to make cars again and then destroy it and the whatever jobs, right? And I understand that some extent, like there are emotional ties to that. But like, people aren't scrambling to buy China's airplanes or Russia's airplanes. They're scrambling to buy F-35s in the United States, right? Elon Musk didn't go to make SpaceX or Tesla. Right. There's a reason that they're not scrambling to buy Chinese electric cars and it's only because of tariffs. Do you really think that you don't? Absolutely. Because we actually prohibit it. We don't just add tariffs. We don't let them sell their Chinese cars. When was the last time you saw a Chinese electric car in the US? Do you think that all of the higher level goods that the United States produces? Do you don't think they're that much better than any other part in the world? No, no, absolutely not. No, do you think do you think you think US cars are better made than Japanese cars? Do you think you think you think a Chevy is a better made car than a BMW? I don't think I don't think automobiles would be the thing I would would point you. I'm just looking at an example that is I think a pretty relevant obvious example because cars are one of those things that we make and other countries make. Sure, but what we're thinking about like, I will tell you, my wife loves the Honda's and she loves the BMW's. I've never seen her never esteem or even considered buying a Chevy. Sure, but when we think about like one of the largest export markets, I think we have is related like information technology and services around like services around that. This is something that America does better than the rest of the world, right? Right. And I just I don't know what right now what you're seeing right now. So let's go to that one. So that's where we come back to this global minimum tax. What you're seeing is their Europe is after those global technologies to tax them heavier because yes, we're better. I mean, we're first we're better. We're I mean, we own that. We literally own that market worldwide. Now, we're not better in things like semiconductors. Taiwan owns that market. We're trying to get that over here. My backyard in Phoenix where we got two big plants going on. One, you know, we're trying to bring those those Taiwanese semiconductors over here, which I think is a actually I like I like the semiconductor bill because of that. But the question and so what other countries are doing is that they're actually I think what's missing in the tariff discussion and I'm not a huge tariff fan per say what's missing the tariff discussion is what other countries are doing. And and so I think where you have to be able to say well wait a minute, you can't do this with impunity. We are not going to allow you to ship your cheap goods to the US with impunity and then tax our goods with impunity so that we can't export those goods, which is exactly what Europe in particular is trying to do with the technology. Why wouldn't those if we think that taxes are bad? If we think that taxes are bad in the United States, if you're telling me that they distance incentivize investment and they disincentivize all these other things, why is it that taxes are good when other countries use them against us? I don't I don't think taxes are I actually don't think our current tax rates I actually think our current tax rates are pretty appropriate. I don't want to see them increased significantly because I think I do for everything right, which I think because there's again the one what we were talking about there's but you know, what is the explanation for because it feels like it feels like when we talk about tax in the US it's like taxes are bad. We don't want to you know like taxes stuff because it discourages all these horrible things and we don't want the government using the money but then when it comes to other countries and it's like they put huge VATs on our stuff and they put massive you know, taxations on all of our imports. Why is it that like taxes are good for those countries and it helps them but it doesn't help them. You said earlier our inflation rate is lower and our production is higher than every other country in the world. That's part of the reason. If you look at Germany Germany has a 70% tax rate. 70% which isn't that the point that tarot like tariffs might not be a good thing. Right. Well look there there I think there are strong arguments because I've I spent a lot of time with my friends at the tax foundation and they really hate tariffs okay they really do. My challenge is I don't like this idea that a that we pay taxes to other countries and don't expect them to pay taxes to us. I don't know like that. It's a comparison. How do we pay taxes to other countries if there's a VAT and we said that most of the cost is passed down to the consumer. Are they just making their own citizens pay the taxes? Well yeah but their citizens are are paying those taxes but some of it as you said some of it is passed on to us the producer is going to pay some of the tax. Well it makes us less competitive. And it makes us. The the the tougher part is it makes us less competitive because I mean would you disagree that which is why Trump wanted tariffs and the cost of production in the US the reason we import so much is cost production in the US has a general rule is higher than the cost of production in a lot of other countries that's why we buy clothing from Vietnam it's cheaper to buy clothing from Vietnam than it is to buy clothing from made in the US. Yeah but it also frees up it also frees up our citizens to one have a higher standard of living in two by other things right like if I want to buy a new instrument for my kid at a local shop that produces you know high quality trumpets if I can go to Walmart and buy cheap clothes I can buy like a custom made US instrument at home if all of us in we bring all our manufacturing back and now I have to buy you know $50 for you know a pair of like children's like t-shirts or whatever because they're all made at home I feel like there's an opportunity cost to dismisses once like a broken windows fallacy I actually agree with that I think that that you have a that you I would not want to bring manufacturing back to the US at any cost okay what the cars are designed to do right I like to hear voices and every cell is in the way what I'd like to see is I'd like to see the investment the investment incentive so that for example I mean take take musk and uh Tesla's okay not a lot of people to make a Tesla that it's all robotics right and so it's innovation it's technology that's the so what you want to see is rather than having it cheap because it's cheap labor and they're in sweatshops in Vietnam and Indonesia you want it cheap because the technology's good that's what I would like to see I would like to see that's why it becomes cheap not because of cheap labor sure I but I mean at the end of the day these are all market forces competing with each other right like at some point machines are going to outperform humans it just depends on how low the wages can be but I but I mean like like there's weird moral values we say like we don't want like there be sweatshops in other countries well what if you take away the sweatshops and then they go to like subsistence farming right like sweatshops aren't great in the US of course and a lot of country sure but it might be like a a country's path towards industrialization in middle class wages eventually like there are roads and steps and the country is free to negotiate as well right it's just one thing that I noticed when we talked about a lot of like tax and and econ policy is that for some reason other countries are doing things that somehow are so good for them and they're screwing us over but then if we were to do those things if they become bad for us and it makes me wonder like I think that deportation and tariffs these are both great examples of this people will say you know in one breath they'll say tra they'll say Mexico has this unfair advantage because they have so much cheap labor they're killing us in manufacturing we can't allow this to happen and then in the next breath they'll say we need to deport all these guys back to Mexico and I was like well hold on if they're killing us in manufacturing because of all their workers why don't we just let them fuck it come up here and then make it in the US like wouldn't that be better like if we really think that that's like killing us why not just like eat all their workers and have them come up here and yeah so you can make it here right wouldn't that be bad I mean that's a that's actually a supply side argument yeah so I guess when I look at like the people that support like the Trump tariffs are just they're just so bad and like if you want to subsidize your economy and you want to make things cheap as hell and and you know you want to do that to the detriment of your own economy because I think in a lot of ways subsidies can be good and subsidies can be really bad I think I think they're good subsidies bad subsidies if you want to subsidize the craziest stuff out of your economy and then we get to you know import that I mean we're just like gaining off of your crazy tax planning and again there's pros and cons everything but man a 20% tariff across the board that would just like you agree that would be like devastating to the US economy right like that would be more devastating than any $6,000 child tax credit right well certainly more devastating $6,000 child tax credit baby tax credit um credit um you know what what's interesting is Biden the one thing that he kept he only kept one thing of Trump's and that was tariffs the only thing he kept I I just find that interesting well I'm not I'm not going to make coming up but he did he kept the property of the difficulty I think when it comes to terraces it's very easy for me to tear up somebody I can look at somebody go 20% tariff screw you but obviously they're going to retaliate right okay well fine 20% tariff screw you to put up to leviate tariff is easy but to bring it down well now I have to negotiate some kind of deal because I can't just remove my tariff on you while you've tariffed me because now well now I get screwed right so I think it's the one of the reasons why the tariff state around is because we're already engaged in kind of an awkward trade war thing going on with China you know geopolitically with Taiwan economically um and trade wise with with chip manufacturing everything um so like the it's easy to to leviate tariff it's hard to take it down so I'm not going to give Biden the same penalty for maintaining a tariff that Donald Trump laid on somebody right and I think that like the chip sack was better for bringing manufacturing here for for sending a document manufacturing than even just the tariffs you know from from time to time I told I totally agree with that um I'm another question for you so Harris has proposed um price controls yeah I was a little bit of that right controls are on groceries price controls on rent price price lots of different price controls historically that has not played well in different other countries what makes you think or what makes even the Democrats think that that's going to work here when it hasn't worked other places um this is my favorite thing about the Democrats um I I don't care what Kamala Harris says about price controls because price controls are one of the most devastating ways that you can annihilate an economy so I don't think that'll ever go through I mean that if Kamala said we're going to do price controls there would be 50 million people around here that would go absolutely not this is insane go out there and apologize and say you're not doing that shit if Donald Trump says he's going to do 20% tariffs you have to fall in line or he's going to annihilate your career right I think that's the difference so there are some things um you know we not to revisit it but like like like the like the concept of unrealized capital gains taxes and wealth taxes for a large number of reasons these are almost inconceivably difficult to levy it's how do you evaluate certain it's it's very very difficult I'm not even really concerned about it there's I just don't think that an unrealized capital gains taxes ever coming because of how difficult it'll be to levy and how much pushback she would get because the the democratic party is such a wide-temperty look at what happened to Biden when he had a disastrous debate performance the leftist media bullied him he got bullied internally and then people internally bullied him externally make him leave you know we can say the same thing about Trump's proposal to not tax Social Security that that's it's it's frankly because that money actually goes back into the Social Security Fund the income tax on Social Security goes into the Social Security Fund and that would be untenable to to pull that to pull that money so that's the example of and congress has to pass that so I would say Trump has made I think some of Trump's tax proposals are not logical are the scary thing about some of Trump's stuff is that he can do a lot of it by executive action which is the scary thing he can taxes tariffs tariffs yes taxes no taxes probably not for the tariffs yes in the tariffs no tariffs are one of the scariest things that he's talking about though right tariffs tariffs yes tariffs yes now you do you do you think though do you think that an executive action like tariffs is I suspect you do is particularly worse than just um unconstitutionally just wiping out uh student loan debt um no I think unconstitutionally wiping out student loan debt would be atrocious which is what Biden attempted several times no I don't think so I'm pretty good he was he was shot armed by the courts sure so well so what you just said defeated the argument that you made right so the constitution is what powers the legislature the courts and the executive Biden his statutory interpretation of the of the education bill that said that in times a president can forgive certain types of debt or whatever he attempted his executive their interpretation was well I can forgive this debt and he tried it and the supreme court said we disagree with that interpretation you can't and then he said oh okay well I can see what else I can do I don't think that's violating the constitution the executive tried something that they thought that they had the statutory construction to do and the court said no you don't have a thing he actually said I know the I know they're going to shut us down because I know this is is not legal I'm going to do it anyway because maybe I'll get away with it I don't know if that's exactly what he said not exactly but but but it's it's basically anyway I'm just I was right you're right you're right you and I agree on one thing and that is that anytime we can have balancing powers is a good thing okay and if I was worried about stuff like that not to not be a one trick pony but I'd be way more worried about like Donald Trump trying to remain an office after he lost the election because that was the thing they were trying to do unconstitutionally they were advocating for breaking a law the ECA underpants and Eastman himself said that not only can we break this law we won't we there will be no checks and balances because the Supreme Court won't touch this because they'll invoke the political questions doctrine and they won't get involved so we can just do this that's arguably above the constant or above the court and eliminating checks and balances so arguably so so you have it on both sides which doesn't make either one right well hold on that's not on both sides it's on it's on it's absolutely what they tried to do on the Trump side unequivocally and they said as much I don't believe Biden said I'm gonna go above the constitution and I'm gonna defy the Supreme Court and do all these things Trump side did say that and destiny I don't want to put words in your mouth but you're essentially saying price controls bad idea even un-realized capital gains probably not gonna happen but you're saying that probably won't happen whereas you're you're saying that Trump if he gets elected he can almost be a mob boss due tariffs without any checks and balances and he's way more likely to do that yeah I don't want that I want to I don't want to come up I was like overly political but like Trump I'm gonna sell here Trump operates like a like an authoritarian and insofar as he wants to centralize a lot of power in the executive and not really the executive the presidency so Donald Trump will outfit himself with a lot of people that are willing to go really far with the things that he wants to do in terms of executive control and he's got a court that's very favorable to him right now so I'm worried about the types of things that Trump could do because if you go against Trump Trump will try to destroy your career that's what he does right he attacks everybody that that opposes him in the party whereas in the Democratic party you kind of have to play ball more with everybody in the party because it's a wider tent and you got a wider constituency and and the party is just a little bit more live where like if like if today Kamala Harris said screw the Democrat party I'm walking away you know the Pelosi and everybody else we're like okay I guess we're gonna throw somebody else up in here if Donald Trump said screw the Republican Party I'm running as an independent the Republican Party loses 75% of their constituents it's like it's so that's a lot scarier to me I feel like the the potential for executive power overreach and abuse is a lot higher with with Trump that's my feeling I think this is a really interesting conversation I I do want to take this back to the the tax and economy and let's talk about what Kamala and Trump seem to agree on which is no attacks on tips I personally think that's the terrible idea well I would love to hear why you think that and then destiny what is your why why why are you why are you what's the benefit to the economy what's the benefit to the US do not tax tips what's the benefit I take a different approach I worked in McDonald's and I hate tip workers screw you pay taxes on your tips because you guys both agree the thing is here's the thing if we've decided that an income tax is part of the way that we tax income is part of the way that we gain you know money for the federal government and the state governments then you tax income you don't pick like imagine something comes out I agree like we think the lumberjack's are the most important people so we're not gonna tax anybody that cuts down trees like why stupid like why would you not tax next question the $25,000 first time home buyers that Kamala is talking about you you even reference that this early on destiny that you're not necessarily in favor of that I I see problems with it I see it kind of could screw up demand supply and all what is what are your guys' takes on the $25,000 and I also want to just point out that both Trump and Kamala are just trying to buy votes they're trying to say all kinds of things and will any of this stuff actually happen I don't know there's 25,000 there's a quick thing there's nothing wrong with buying votes you're a politician that's what you're supposed to do on my vote right it's gonna be through tax cuts or through stimulus far I don't care as long as I get money I don't care the the I personally as a quick thing some people view certain things that people should have and they think that it's unethical to have a free market do these things because they're essential goods or services right you the you know everybody should be guaranteed a house or food or whatever I don't think that I don't think that matters what matters is what can market solve for and what can markets not solve for we don't have to give people free food and clothes because markets solve for food and clothing pretty well houses are solved for really well by the free market when they have the ability to create supply the issue that you're running into right now it is a is a physics problem which is you're you're trying to take every single person in the country and have them live in seven cities and you're assuming that we just give these people enough money it'll be possible you can't it's not gonna happen you have to free up the ability for people to make houses and and how that happens is a whole other thing but giving money to people is just gonna make everything more expensive when it comes to housing I think Tom do you agree with that well I I do think that so one thing I would definitely agree with Connellas approach is I do like the idea of improving the low income housing tax credit that has proven over the years to work it's I know it's confusing it's confusing credit it's a very big credit and what it does is it's it's it's almost as much as 70% of the cost to build is is a credit over the lifetime of the building okay so basically the the entrepreneur who's building the the housing actually basically pays 30% of the government pays 70% over time okay it's not a one-time credit it's it's it's complicated but it has proven to work and the the private private public partnerships are very interesting and that's what a low income housing tax credit is that's what frankly the solar energy credits are that's what the intangible drilling cost deduction for oil and gas is that's what that's what business deductions are these are all basically a partnership between the government and the entrepreneur and so I like that kind of a partnership if we're going to have an income tax now I'm not a huge fan of an income tax because that's a tax on production I would I think they're better taxes but we have an income tax we're stuck with it it's not going to change Tom if you could change it the income and note income tax do you see a world where that would make sense well I mean you mean I can wave a magic wand and eliminate yeah like you were yeah I don't I put in a value out of tax instead what is your thoughts on that destiny that's a whole it's like asking me if like humans could be based on silicon instead of it is just like actually it's it's just not it's not politically possible there I don't I said it I'll just say Churchill said it because everybody gives every quote to him it's like what Americans consider imagine like the end of the world and the end of capitalism or something I can't even I like I've heard people argue for the AT I've heard people argue for land value tax I don't know would be the better I've heard a consumption tax well that's a value out taxes a consumption tax well yeah I don't like consumption taxes as much because I'm a big believer in marginal utility it's a lot easier for me to give up 10% of my income than for a poor person give up 10% of their income and I don't think that your consumption scales percentage wise with the money that you make so I feel like consumption taxes hurt I like I think progressive income taxes are good or some kind of progressive taxation is good because it hurts poor people more to pay taxes than wealthier people trump just said that you know no taxing over time is that you guys have the same belief as what you get is manipulation now think about yes think about this Caleb everyone of your employees wants to be non-exempt because they want over time and they're gonna they're gonna they they're gonna be less efficient that there's there's there's nothing good in this you can't not tax over time it's it's it's it's it's just a bad idea it's like not taxing to okay so and destiny I would assume you would agree yeah I have taxes here if you want down like we need to have the taxes we need to not have like if like if Trump comes out tomorrow and he's like I'm not gonna tax white cars and combos like I'm not gonna tax cars that are the colors of the rainbow I was like what are we gonna tax or not like figure yeah all right so here's and this is really and we talked a little bit early on but I think this is like this is the real question is one party is literally we will pay less in taxes across the board I I know that maybe some people say that in Kamala's world you'll keep the you could talk about that Tom but at the end of the day Trump's economy we are gonna pay less in taxes and versus pay more taxes under Kamala Harris's like number one do you agree with that statement that I just made and number two why is one better than the other I think that really comes down there's we we agree on lots of things and like I just fundamentally lean towards I can do better with my money than the government but maybe that's a libertarian conservative talking point and I'm very open to hearing thoughts on this especially from you destiny because I would imagine you would disagree with that that statement you're going to be the answer first or yeah go ahead I'm really interested so this is what I would say the what you pay in taxes is is is is only half of the question and the other half is how much money did you make like not exaggerating I probably pay about a hundred times like two orders of magnitude in taxes more now than I paid when I was a carpet cleaner I much prefer my life now than when I cleaned carpet it's not even close okay I think when I live in California my effective tax rate was climbing north of like 40 percent my life was way better than when my effective tax rate was almost zero when when I was working before I streamed so taxes are one part of the equation and income is another part and that same equation blows up to the entirety of the economy right if there's an economy that has higher levels of taxation that produces an overall better welfare for a citizenry that economy might be better than another economy that taxes people less but is overall smaller right if you tell me you're a top 1 percent earner in your country I'm like damn that's awesome and you're like yeah I'm from Somalia it's like not not knocking Somalia but like okay well I mean like could job I guess whereas like if you're in the United States do we pay more taxes yeah I do but I wish the people would just kind of like keep in mind like when you pay taxes like for me to work in the United States okay I'm sitting in front of a camera and I am speaking to a lot of people and I make a lot of money doing it I can only do that because people are willing to be janitors at electric power plants with materials that are you know brought into this country by guys working at harbors who are you know willing to drive trucks across the country and do all this miserable labor for one tenth one twenty one fifty of what somebody like me gets paid the only way that I can do what I do at the top of this income chain is because of all the other people down the stairs from me so and the difference is is that like if I break my leg I can do a donation drive on my stream go to the hospital pay cash and be fine if a truck driver's daughter gets sick and he has to stay whole from work he might be facing financial ruin so if you're going to come to somebody like me and say destiny you got to pay an extra twenty thousand in tax man to keep this shit working I don't even have to think about it I'm like yeah sure obviously I'm in one of the best countries in the world that lets me be the best version of myself and the only reason I can do that is because of all the other people that are working to keep it going so when you pay taxes like that's the system that you're building towards and I wish people to keep that in mind a little bit when it comes to thinking of taxation rather than just the government stealing my money because they hate me and so I'm going to ask a question a different way if it wasn't Trump if it was like Kamala versus Kamala but Kamala on one side was saying hey we're going to raise taxes versus no like would you like hey this is this is the way that I like it very simply I don't care about I don't attach normative value to taxes if you're a billionaire then fucking a you're a billionaire that's great if you want to tax somebody a lot or a little okay whatever at the end of the day here's what I care about this is what you want to spend this is your spending and this is how much you need to earn to spend it so when it comes to figuring out what our tax rate should be it's just like if you give somebody you if you guys do financial consulting you know if somebody comes to you and they say fuck man I'm running out of money every month the first thing that you tell them you don't tell them you need to earn more money or you need to spend less what you tell them is make a budget what are you trying to spend money on figure out what our programs are that we need and then once we figure that out figure out the appropriate level of taxation of the best way to raise the money so when you ask me right now like do I want more or less taxes I don't know I don't know I think about like right now it seems like we need more taxes because we've got a lot of spending if there are spending programs that we can get rid of or if they're spending we can decrease they won't have a massive negative outlay on our country or our citizenry then we cut those programs if there's not then we need to tax more because I like living in the United States and I like the things that we offer here and I think there's a reason why people like Elon Musk come to the US to build things and I want to maintain that but yeah that's that's what I would look at I don't have like a normative value on like taxes are good or bad or spending is good or bad just like find out what we want to fund and then fund it yeah but for some reason I thought you were more progressive when it comes to like higher tax but you the answer the way you answer that is something I respect appreciate and probably would give a very similar answer because I am not in favor of of out of control spending and it's it's a problem no one wants to talk about it and the problem with our financial system is no one's incentivized to talk about it sure which is we're just be careful to talk about that out of control spending like people will say things like because earlier we were talking about how much we love the low income credit for like housing and everything right I'm pretty sure this comes through like housing and urban development and you're talking about Trump wants to put people like Elon Musk in charge we're probably going to look to slash those programs first so I mean what do you know what are you going to do yeah so I think it's I think it's a little more complicated than raising taxes or not we by the way historically we have one of the lowest tax rates in the world and we have one the lowest tax rates we've ever had if you look at everything combined so the tax rates really are not exorbitant right now okay could they become exorbitant yes they could and is that a slippery slope yes it is I'm more concerned about what's taxed and how we're taxed because like I said if you put a want to put a 5% surtax on every of you making over $10 million a year I have no issue with that go for it that nobody's nobody's going to care they're not going to care the people may more than 10 million dollars they're not in care they pay an extra 5% no no problem I think they'd be just like destiny on the other hand you put a you raised the tax on investment on capital gains by 60 60 percent that's challenging for me because any drag I'd like to see less drag I'm a huge our our laffer fan as it turns out I actually destiny I know art laffer and I'm a big fan of his work I think you you do you can put a very big drag on investment okay and it can drag down an economy and reducing certain taxes can spur an economy now can you reduce them to nothing no but for example Trump's proposal to reduce the man the income tax the corporate income tax on manufacturers from 21 percent 15 percent I think that's a good I like that proposal I like that one that that's actually reducing a very specific tax for manufacturers it is encouraging manufacturers I thought the corporate tax rate being reduced from 35 percent to 21 percent was excellent because what I didn't like was the Democrats the day after it was it the day after the the Democrats took power in 2023 they said we're going to get rid of the we're going to raise the tax rate back up on corporations because what it does is it creates instability when it comes to the rest of the world the rest of the world would like to seem some stability which I know is like an oxymoron in the US stability in the US right we just have none okay part of it's our election system part of it is you know just who we have and and what's going on in the world but my point is is I think you do have to look at that there are both candidates have good policies and bad policies okay I'm hopeful that you know there's enough negotiation in it that some of the good policies went out the bad policies don't just like you're suggesting destiny we don't have a unrealized capital gains tax we don't have a tax on gifts we don't have a 33 percent tax I actually think that one probably would happen if the Democrats swept next week I think we'd get that 33 percent tax rate on capital gains and I think that would that is I think that's that would hurt I think that would hurt would it be devastating not like Biden's proposal to raise it to 45 percent Biden had proposed raising it to 45 percent Harris said no we're going to raise it to 33 percent much more reasonable proposal I still think I like capital gains rates low I think tax is uninvesting are a bad idea in general because I think that the more capital that people have for investing the better they the better off we are because I like to see money go back into investment not just into consumption destiny thank you I really appreciate you taking time yeah yeah I say also I disagree with you so much but I enjoyed getting to talk it's fun to talk I don't know how much you debate taxes or whatever but you know talking to me hundreds of different one exchangeers or talking to me who knows like a marginal tax rate it's it's nice to be able to actually go through some of this stuff sometimes because Jesus most tax stuff is is absurdly stupid when talking to me also thank you and ironically destiny if you need a good person to help you with your tax strategy you're you're talking to one of the best in the world so Tom thank you for thank you for being here I know that this you don't necessarily do conversations like this all the time I love it I so I yeah you know I lived in France for a couple of years when I was younger and people are saying that you are obsessed with France and what I love about the French is they love an a good argument because that's how you learn and that's why I like a debate like this with destiny because I learned new things today tonight and I want to I want to learn I think you raise the consciousness of the world when you have people debating legitimately legitimately debating different views I think it's awesome so thank you Caleb for hosting it yeah absolutely hey thank thank you guys both have an amazing night and I'm sure this won't be the last time our paths cross so thanks very much bye bye thanks a lot bye