• tax - determines whose efforts
• tax - should be the one thing interested in when voting
• information needs to be freely available in a democracy

TRANSCRIPT IN PRODUCTION AND WILL BE IN THIS FOLDER

The reason the wealthy Americans are able to avoid taxes is because they are able to avoid income taxes by following the three steps of what I call the tax avoidance playbook. And those three steps are, the first one is that they avoid salaries and other common forms of taxable income. The reason they’re taking such small salaries is not because they’re generous beings, it’s because they know that salaries are for suckers. The second step of the tax avoidance playbook is they have their stock and other assets that go up in value, but they don’t sell it. If they sold it, they’d have to pay capital gains taxes. If they don’t sell it, they never have to pay taxes on it. And if they pass it on to their kids or gift it to their kids, they never have to pay taxes on it. Now you might say, yeah, but how are they going to support their lavish lifestyles? And the answer is they borrow against the stock. And that is the way that they get tax-free access to their wealth. All of these people are doing massive borrowing. It enables them to control their asset, but still not pay any taxes on it. This is an indictment of what’s going on, but it’s also a playbook. Someone could read this book who’s a wealthy person and say, geez, I didn’t realize that I had so many different levers that I could pull to avoid these taxes. Anyone say that to you ever? Well, I think the interesting thing is that… Welcome to Open Book. I am your host, Anthony Scaramucci. Joining us today is Professor Ray Madoff. She is a legal scholar and professor at the Boston College Law School. And the title of the book is The Second Estate, How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy. And so I’m going to throw the first question out. This is the weirdest question you’re probably going to get today. Do you remember Professor Ault, A-U-L-T? Of course. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So he was my corporate tax professor at Harvard. You’re kidding me. And so he was a visiting professor. This is going way back into the 1980s. And so he was visiting Harvard. He was lecturing there. Yeah. And he was my corporate tax professor. I loved him. He was a great guy. Amazing. He’s a stellar person in the field. He’s extraordinary. Okay. Well, please, if you can remember, please give him my regards. So we’ll start there if you don’t mind. Okay. A little bit of name dropping from my past because I know you guys are on the same faculty. Absolutely. But, you know, when I was learning about this, and of course I read the Sherylstein Horn book and I went through all of the different things that you had to do in law school. And I was a blue collar kid from a blue collar family. And I was like, okay, so the whole system is rigged. That was basically my thoughts about it. I said, so the goal for me would be to get into the system and then to use the system to perpetuate some type of generational wealth for myself and my family. And so that’s unsettling. But your book is super revelatory because it takes us through the background of how this happened. So why don’t we start there? Why has this reality remained so hidden for so long? Okay. And I’m going to stipulate that the reality is that that tax code that you and I look at, and we have to adhere to does help the very wealthy. Yeah. And I think the reason is because it wasn’t always the case. And in fact, the rules that we have and the rules that you learned about and I learned about are actually specifically designed to impose its greatest burdens on those that have the most money, right? So when you look at it on its face, there is a progressive income tax, which a lot of people are aware of. So those who have high income pay higher taxes. And we have an additional estate tax, right? That some say is an unfair double tax, but it’s designed to add progressivity into the tax to make sure that inheritances and gifts are also subject to tax. And the story that I find so interesting is how it is that these rules could be on the books in largely the same form they have been in since they were first enacted over a hundred years ago. And yet today, they do just the opposite. Today, they actually take the richest Americans and they give them an exit path off the highway. You can pay taxes or you can choose not to pay taxes. It’s your choice. Whereas for the rest of Americans, it’s not our choice. And it wasn’t always this way. And I think the fact that it for so long, wasn’t this way, it has caught people off guard that it’s this way. You’re right about this, right? And so if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, right? Because one of the things he wrote about consistently was the fear of concentrated wealth, which would lead to concentrated political power, which would disrupt a potential, the American experiment of meritocracy. So if you were alive today, and let’s say he joined us on this podcast, Professor Madoff, what would he say about what’s going on right now? Yeah, he’d say it’s a real threat to democracy because he was very concerned. He wanted to have the aristocracy of merit, but not the aristocracy of wealth because he felt it resulted in elevating and empowering people that we really didn’t want to empower. He saw how that was causing a lot of problems throughout Europe and the rest of the world. And the United States was supposed to be different. And our tax code was written to express this difference, right? So the reason the book is called The Second Estate is because The Second Estate was the name for the aristocracy in pre-revolutionary France, and they were explicitly written out of the tax code. So at the time, it was understood that rich people wouldn’t pay taxes. But now it has sort of snuck back in, but not directly, kind of under cover of night. And that’s what I think it has made a kind of catch people off guard, because there’s a seeming disconnect between how Americans experience the tax code, which is something that is burdensome, difficult to avoid, and those who earn more have to pay more. And that much is true. But that’s talking about people with a lot of earnings and not about people with a lot of wealth. Let’s go to the dead hand control. Okay. So what is that? What is, I mean, I know what it is because I’ve read your book, but tell us, tell our viewers and listeners what dead hand control is, because you’ve written that the dead hand control is back. Who exactly benefits from that or who pays the price? Well, I think the problem is the enormous power that we are giving people to control wealth far into the future. And this isn’t, again, isn’t supposed to be the case in our minds. And this is something, again, going back to Thomas Jefferson. He famously said, well, let me just say, famously in my world, he said, the world belongs in usufruct for the living. And usufruct basically means that people can use it during their lives. And after death, they have no more control over it. He believed that the rules and the control of wealth and everything should be largely in the hands of living people. But now, of course, we give the wealthy all sorts of power, including the power to extend their hands far forward into the future in ways that were never imagined before. So there’s a critical distinction that you’re making in the book about offshore schemes and illegal activity, but also about what the law intentionally allows. So literally, intentionally, you can do a lot of things to avoid taxes. Take us through some of those things. Yeah. So what I’m particularly interested in is how the law explicitly writes the wealthiest Americans out of the tax code. And I think that it’s important for people to be aware of this, because if they think the problem is these highly complex schemes and hiding their money offshore, which indeed are problems, but those feel like problems beyond average Americans’ understanding and being able to take action against. What I’m interested in showing people is how our most basic rules have allowed the richest Americans to avoid taxes and have allowed this kind of duping of the public about who actually pays taxes. So basically, the reason the wealthy Americans are able to avoid taxes is because they are able to avoid income taxes. And because the other taxes are, they’re able to avoid them too. But the main way that they do is they’re able to avoid income taxes by following the three steps of what I call the tax avoidance playbook. And those three steps are, the first one is that they avoid salaries and other common forms of taxable income, right? When you were a kid, when you were starting out, blue collar background, right? The only way that you could acquire wealth was through work. And that work is taxed very heavily. And it’s taxed at the highest rates, right? Up to 37%. And it’s subject to a second layer of tax, payroll taxes, which have been called the hidden taxes, because there’s all sorts of ways that people aren’t aware of it. And so you have earnings are subject to very, very heavy taxes. And therefore, the first step of the tax avoidance playbook of the richest Americans is to avoid taxable income. And if you take a look at some of our most famous rich people, right? Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. Well, Elon Musk is a separate case. We’ll get to him later. But Buffett, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, right? All of them take shockingly small salaries. Warren Buffett, the greatest stock picker in the world, he has a salary of $100,000, including his bonus. Jeff Bezos, $82,000, an amount so little that he has been able to claim the child tax credit, which he has. And then of course, Zuckerberg and others, they’re dollar a year guys. One year, Elon Musk earned only zero and the state of California went after Tesla to say like, hey, you’re not paying enough salary here. You’re violating our Fair Standards Act. But the reason they’re taking such small salaries is not because they’re generous beings. It’s because they know that salaries are for suckers, right? Salaries, you’re going to be paying a very heavy tax. So instead, what they do is they forego salaries and they take their compensation in the form of the growing value of their stock. And so the second step of the tax avoidance playbook is they have their stock and other assets that go up in value, but they don’t sell it. If they sold it, they’d have to pay capital gains taxes. But under our system, if they don’t sell it, they never have to pay taxes on it. And if they pass it on to their kids or gift it to their kids, they never have to pay taxes on it. Now you might say, yeah, but how are they going to support their lavish lifestyles? And the answer is they borrow against the stock. And that is the way that they get tax-free access to their wealth. All of these people are doing massive borrowing. It enables them to control their assets, but still not pay any taxes on it. The problem with these huge tech companies is they don’t just want your money. They want to know everything about you. Shadowy data brokers making a living compiling detailed profiles of your online activity and selling them to marketers and other corporate interests that want to control you with targeted ads. They’re not selling a product. They’re selling you. You don’t have to let them. There’s always a way to keep your browsing history truly private. And I use it every day. It’s an app called ExpressVPN. Data brokers use your IP address to follow you around online. It’s like a digital fingerprint that not only identifies your device, but also shows where you are. ExpressVPN hides that IP address, which basically puts up a wall between you and all those companies trying to track, collect, and sell your browsing habits. They can’t monitor what they can’t see. I finally pulled the trigger on ExpressVPN. And honestly, I should have done it years ago. Right now, they’re running their lowest price ever. Plans start at $3.49 a month. That’s literally 12 cents a day, which is less than I spend on basically anything else. But here’s what sold me. It encrypts all my network traffic. So when I’m working from coffee shops or using airport Wi-Fi, hackers, they can’t touch my data. It works on every device I own, phone, laptop, tablet, and I just tap one button and I’m protected. No complicated setup, no tech degree required. Plus they have this optional dedicated IP service that’s genuinely next level. Not even ExpressVPN can trace it back to you. And if you’re in the United States, certain plans come with Identity Defender, which actively removes your data from broker sites, alerts you if your info hits the dark web and insures you for up to $1 million against data theft for 12 cents a day. I travel a lot for work, which means I’m constantly using airport and hotel Wi-Fi. A few months ago, I was in an airport checking my flight status and decided to check my bank balance real quick. The second I logged in, I had this sinking feeling, what if someone’s watching this? Airports are full of people and hackers love public networks because they’re so easy to exploit. That was my wake-up call. I downloaded ExpressVPN right there in the terminal. Now, every time I connect to Wi-Fi, airport, hotel, coffee shop, wherever, I turn it on first. My data is encrypted, my IP is hidden, and I can actually do what I need to do without the paranoid feeling in the back of my mind. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com slash openbook. That’s E-X-P-R-E-S-S vpn.com slash openbook to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Expressvpn.com slash openbook. Okay. I mean, it’s obviously fascinating, and I just want to ask you this one question, then we’re going to go on to something else, but Musk did pay about $11 billion in taxes a few years ago, so take us through that. Why did he- And what’s interesting, of course, is that he actually, I believe, posted, should I pay taxes, right? Because he knew these things were optional. And so the point isn’t whether rich people ever pay taxes. The point is, why should it be optional for them? Why can that be a question that he throws out to the universe? Do you think it was politically motivated for him to decide to pay them to take some of the regulators off his back? Well, no, I don’t think, I have no idea why he decided to. I think the main thing that should be of interest to people is, why should he be able to decide? And a similar thing, I think, is about when Warren Buffett said he thinks that he can do better with his money by giving to charity rather than by paying to contribute to pay down the national debt. That, too, is a choice that none of us are able to make. If we were to take our entire salary and donate it to charity, we would still pay significant income and payroll taxes because there’s limits. But, yeah, so. No, not to interrupt you, but I just wanted to ask you this because when I, when you wrote the book, did your editor come to you and say, Professor, this is an indictment of what’s going on, but it’s also a playbook. Someone could read this book who’s a wealthy person and say, geez, I didn’t realize that I had so many different levers that I could pull to avoid these taxes. Anyone say that to you ever? Well, I think the interesting thing is that the reason I was able to use so many examples in writing the book is because so many people are well aware of it, right? So this is, these are really common features of the tax avoidance playbook. So the policy drifted, basically. It’s, it’s not explicit policy choice. I feel like the policy drifted. I’m going to make a statement. You react to it. I feel like after Citizens United, which was the Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited amounts of money into the political process, absolutely transformed the legislative agenda in the United States. It made it all about fat cats. It made about big business, big food, big pharma, tax cuts for the wealthy, estate tax exclusions. And I think it’s really systemically caused the rise of populism. But, but my question is since Citizens United, has the tax code gotten better for the rich and more favorable? I think that it, it absolutely has, or I would say that the, it wouldn’t necessarily be that the tax code itself has become more favorable. I think that what has happened is that Congress has become more reluctant to do its job to maintain the tax code so that it does what it’s designed to do. So it’s not the case. There have been some new loopholes. There were certainly some real estate loopholes that have been included in Trump’s tax bills all the time. And, but I would say the bigger problem is the quiet quitting that has been done by Congress. Uh, they used to, it wasn’t always the case. And so, um, particularly in the estate tax, like if you see, so when I started, uh, in this area, there was, uh, there had been a lot of activity in the estate tax. There was a whole new tax that was enacted, the generation skipping transfer tax to back up the estate tax in 86. And in 1990, they added four more sections of the code, the special valuation rules designed to avoid gaming of the tax code. And, um, and those things were signs of a, of a function in Congress. Those happened under Republican presidents, by the way, it was, so it was a sign of a well-functioning, um, tax system where loopholes were closed. And of course, um, estate planners continue to find workarounds, but what’s happened since 1990 is that Congress has given up on the estate tax. And so we have kept it on the books, but 35 years later, not a single loophole has been closed. And as a result, the estate tax now serves as a cover for the rich, making it seem like they pay taxes while it imposes no burden at all. So I want to, I want you to imagine a scenario where we’ve transported our founders, uh, into this conversation and they’re looking at the same thing that we’re looking at. They’ve all read your book and we’re now sitting there in a conference room with them. Uh, and they’re obviously aghast. What would you say they would recommend for us to do given the current situation? I think the first and most important thing is that we find a way to bring honesty to the conversation. I would say that those on both the left and the right have helped cloud, uh, clear discussions about our tax system and its problems. And, uh, and in a democracy, the public needs to be informed. And that’s really the reason I was so driven to write this book. Really it was, it was from both sides. I mean, you know, we like to think that it’s one side, it’s, it’s the other side’s problem, not this side’s problem, but really both sides have contributed to this problem. And, uh, and there’s a natural, uh, aversion for people to be, or intimidation factor of taxes, right? People don’t want to pay taxes and people feel that they’re too complicated. And I think getting people over that aversion is tremendously important for people to realize that tax is something they can understand, should understand. And really the future of the country depends upon addressing this fundamental problem of the wealthiest Americans controlling massive amounts of wealth, but contributing nothing to the most basic costs of government. Yeah. I mean, listen, you know, I, I’ve made this argument, look, I’m a lifelong moderate Republican. I’ve made this argument to my fellow Republicans. They’re, they’re not hearing it. Uh, this also harkens to monopoly control, you know, then the monopoly powers, sort of the breakup. The monopolies happened in the Renaissance. I mean, the idea was that you would break up these uber powerful things because they sit on technologies, they alter pricing. Monopolies take pricing power in a weird way. You know, it’s sort of a monopoly of the wealthy, you know, they’re, they’ve taken over a large swath of the society in a way that is not manageable anymore and is diverging from the interests of the average person. So, so let’s go to the tax code for a second, because you write in here, 7,000 pages of taxes and everyone looks at the same thing, throws their hands up and say, I have no idea. Let me call my accountant. Yeah. But what elements of the tax code can you speak about that alarmed you the most in terms of, okay, wow, that is just egregiously unfair to the average person. Uh, wow. So many to choose from. Okay. Give me the highlights. Give me the top three that you really say, whoa. Excellent. I’m going to give you the top three. So, first of all, I think there’s been a massive duping about, to the public about inherited, inherited wealth, right? People think that inheritances are subject to double taxes. And in fact, inheritances are overwhelmingly entirely tax-free. Tax-free to the donor, tax-free to the recipient. And this can go on forever. So somebody who finds $100 on the street is expected to report that to the federal government and pay taxes on it. Someone who was given $100 million is not, doesn’t have to tell anybody about it, doesn’t have to pay taxes on it. And that strikes me as completely unfair and inappropriate. Um, I would say the second is about charitable, this is a season of charitable giving and philanthropy. And, um, 90% of Americans get no tax benefit for their charitable giving, but the richest Americans can get tax benefits worth 74% of the gift. That means that when we see somebody funding their private foundation with $100 billion, American taxpayers need to realize that we are contributing as much as $74 million to that transfer in foregone taxes. So, and the biggest problem is there’s no assurance that that money will ever get paid to charities because there’s no obligation anymore for that money to come out. Um, so, and I would say the third thing is, is calling people, not people who don’t pay income taxes, non-payers. Um, so, uh, Mitt Romney famously was caught on a hot mic saying 47% of Americans are takers, not makers, and they are going to vote for Obama because they don’t want to contribute to America. And yet the payroll taxes are extraordinarily significant. Somebody who earned $60,000, which is a very, which is the average salary, but it’s, you know, hard to get by on still has to pay about $14,000 in taxes. And most of that is in payroll taxes. That’s quite a heavy burden. And yet we call somebody like that, uh, you know, uh, a non-payer. You know, I, I, I find the whole discussion fascinating from a cultural angle as well. I want to test another theory on you get your reaction. Okay. A lot of Americans, it’s a, it’s an interesting culture we have in our society because I don’t feel there’s a lot of begrudgement of the wealthy. Like I, I can tell you when I, when I was growing up as a kid, I didn’t begrudge anybody. I just wanted to be wealthy. Yeah. And I, and I feel like people look at it and say, okay, yeah, it’s an unfair advantage for them, but they got there and maybe I can get there too. What’s your reaction to that? Yeah. So first of all, I think this is a, uh, one of the mistakes on the left is this turning this into an argument about whether I interrupt you professor, but you do agree with my sentiment about the culture. Yes. Or no. That people do or don’t begrudge the wealthy. Yeah. The people don’t begrudge the wealthy. I would say that I have learned not to, I think that one of the challenges about talking about this issue is that I think the country is really divided. Some people really begrudge the wealthy, right? Otherwise we wouldn’t have politicians saying every billionaire is a failure and other people think, Hey, the there, they deserve it. They’ve done good things. Are you saying JK Rowling shouldn’t have money? She’s created this fantastic book and all these kids reading, you know? And, um, so I think that is why, uh, it is a mistake for arguments to be based upon whether rich people are good or a problem because naturally there’s going to be differing views because differing people are different situations. You know, there’s so much variety about it and there’s a lot of differing perspectives. Um, however, uh, I think the issue about whether people who have acquired massive amounts of wealth should be able to avoid taxes altogether is something where we can get widespread agreement. I don’t think that people, uh, if people understood the system, uh, that it’s not a matter about whether billionaires are good or bad for society, but the question is, you know, whether everybody should, who has the capacity to contribute should contribute. Um, that’s an easier question and a more appropriate question for us to be engaged with. Okay. Um, is reform possible? Yes, definitely. Okay. So I am an optimist by nature. Okay. So tell me how we would do that. Me too. I’m an optimist as well. Tell me how we would do that. I think the first thing we have to do is we have to realize that the estate tax is dead and gone. The campaign that was put forth by Frank Luntz to rebrand it as a death tax and an unfair tax that her family fires to business that was massively successful throughout the country. And I think that, uh, people who don’t know what century the, uh, civil war was fought in know that the estate tax is a, uh, a death tax, you know, all of this stuff. So it’s, uh, there’s been a, uh, um, uh, it, the tax is no longer legitimate in too many people’s eyes. And so I think that restoring it is a fool’s errand, but I think that there’s a lot to be gained by getting rid of the cover of the estate tax, because then we can look at our income tax, which is the system that all of us are subject to and familiar with, and then wonder, well, why would it be the case that somebody who finds a hundred dollars on the street pays taxes on it and reports it, but someone who’s handed a hundred million dollars doesn’t even have to tell anyone, right? We should bring inheritances into our income tax system is the first thing. The second thing we need to do was a, uh, is to make sure that this gains in wealth that are, you know, so many of our richest Americans have acquired massive amounts of wealth, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth, entirely tax-free through its growth. And we should make sure that there is a time when that is subject to tax. And the natural time would be when that person disposes of the property, not just by sale, but also by gift or at death. And, um, and that’s the rule in Canada. And that was the rule that was proposed both by President Obama and by President Nixon. So it has in its own way, some bipartisan support. It makes sense. I think it is easier and more, uh, and, and easier to, uh, to work with than the wealth tax, which I think is ultimately, uh, not going to be successful. It’s not going to be found constitutional. I think it’s, uh, that that is, uh, is again, too broad of a step, but I certainly think that taxing gains whenever the property is transfers is highly appropriate. And I think certainly we can also reform the rules about philanthropy. These strike me as really pretty low hanging fruit and would make a significant difference and would simplify our code. So a lot of people listening in feel overwhelmed by all this, by the complexity, they’re discouraged by the scale of the problem. Okay. Uh, but you’re offering some real hope. And so, uh, what would you do if you’re the average citizen? Like what would you say to the average citizen say, okay, system is unfair. It’s rigged against you, but you yourself want to operationalize and try to do something to make it more fair. Go ahead, go. What would you suggest to them? Most importantly, arm yourself with the facts so that when people say things like it doesn’t make a difference if we tax the rich, they don’t have enough money with respect to the size of government, right? Look at the facts and see how the size of government was, you know, we spent 7 trillion, took in 5 trillion and had a $2 trillion deficit in 2024. And yet in 2024, the richest 1% of Americans had $50 trillion of wealth, right? People need to be aware of that fact of how much wealth the wealthiest Americans have and how much greater it is than the government expenditures and the annual deficit. So that would be, it’s the idea of, and another, um, another fact that people put forth that is often mis, uh, misunderstood is the idea. You’ll hear people say the richest 1% are already paying all the taxes because the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes, right? But that is the top 1% of income earners, not the richest 1%. The richest 1% can pay zero in taxes. And so if you arm yourself with the facts, then when you go out and speak to people, you too can be a, um, can bring information to other people’s misinformation. And that’s really a tremendously important thing because any political change in this country depends upon people understanding the facts enough to talk about them. And I do think I understand that people are intimidated by taxes, but they don’t need to be. There is some very basic facts out there. And a lot of people have told me, and this has been the most gratifying thing about the book, how the book arms them with information, which they can use in conversation. So many people have said to me, I’ve had so many conversations with people and it has been so gratifying to have the facts, to be able to speak back to a lot of misinformation that people, you know, maybe don’t even understand as misinformation. Okay. We’re down to the last five words of the book. I think that was terrific. That’s why I don’t like interrupting authors when they’re on a roll like that. We’re down to the last five words. And so I’m going to say a word professor, and then you’re going to react to the word. And this is me and my producers pulling it out of your book. Okay. So if I, if I say the word of state to you, what does it mean? You’re giving me a couple of sentences. Rich people, uh, you know, uh, it, it’s definitely something that is, uh, is about the rich, I would say. Okay. If I say the word inequality, what comes to mind? Uh, well, that’s our system. Unfortunately, it is a system of inequality because we treat, we’ve divided the country into two different groups, uh, earners and owners and earners. We’re subjecting to all the taxes and owners. We’re giving a free pass. You know, John Kennedy often referenced it. I think George Bernard Shaw originally said it, life is unfair, right? When you think about inequality, there’s a lot of unfairness. That’s what I think. Uh, but I think the point of, yes, life is unfair, but the point of our tax system is not to exacerbate the unfair, which is what we’re currently doing where this is the reason why I wanted to bring you on the show. And I appreciate your contribution to this. Let’s go to the word wealth professor. I say the word wealth. You say what? Uh, I say lucky you, you get to, you get to be in that world. You get to, if you have sufficient wealth, then you can avoid taxes. It’s a longer conversation. There’s a paradox of the wealth. Okay. I find a lot of these people become very lonely and they become aloof. You know, they lose some of their, uh, you know, I, I just, that’s been my observation. Let me ask you this. Do they describe themselves as lonely and aloof as a result? People I know with wealth have been pretty happy with it. I’ve never heard anyone who wants to give up their wealth. I think money, I think money buys lots of freedom, lots of independence, lots of happiness, but there’s also a little bit of loneliness that comes with it from my observation. You know, I live, you’re probably more, you probably, I live in a, uh, I live in a nondescript suburban house and I have a fancy car, but I don’t like, I would not want to be on a remote estate somewhere because I feel that you’re socially disengaged that way. And I didn’t, I didn’t grow up like that. So it would be enormously uncomfortable for me. But, but again, you know, you’re, you’re right. I mean, I don’t know anybody who wants to give up their wealth, uh, myself included. I’m not suggesting that. I just think that there are paradoxes to it that people sometimes don’t think about. I agree. Okay. I’m going to say the word power. You say what? Yeah. Power. That’s the problem. I think the, the issue that has gone, uh, under the radar is how the capacity to control wealth is and, uh, confers tremendous power. And this is something that the tax code has done a very bad job of capturing. So lots of times in the tax rules that I teach, if somebody can control, they can be given the power to control massive amounts of wealth and they’re treated as if they own nothing. When in fact, it’s everything power. When you were talking about the values of wealth, I would say the thing that people most want from wealth is the power it confers. And, uh, and I think that we have to be mindful of it. And you brought it up in the beginning, of course, in terms of how, uh, citizens United has made that power even more powerful, but that is, I would say the key problem in our society is not recognizing the power of power. How about the word tax? That’s our last word. So I’m going to give you the last word. Love it. Uh, tax tax is what makes, uh, society makes our world the way it is. It affects what the country can do for the good of everybody. And it affects the individual burdens borne by each and every one of us. And a good tax system can work for the greatness of the country and of individuals. And a bad tax system can cause tremendous amounts of harm, which is why it’s essential. If anyone is going to be interested in any issue, taxes should be the issue that they’re interested in because it’s so key to the success of a society. You know, it’s interesting because we, we started the conversation with Professor Ault. When I left that class way back, uh, in the 1980s, I was left with two thoughts about tax, that there’s a social implication to it as it relates to social policy. And of course, taxes are a price for services. And so when the government is closely aligned with providing those services for those payments, I feel like the society is doing better when it gets disconnected. I think people feel that it’s unfair, that they’re not getting their money’s worth from their, from their taxes. So we have to also be mindful of that. Listen, this is a, been a great conversation for me and thank you for this wonderful contribution. Uh, um, Professor Ray Madoff, thank you again. The title of the book is the second estate and how the tax code made it an American aristocracy. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me. It’s been a real pleasure. T