Speaker 1: Welcome to stuff you should know, a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,
Speaker 1: and there's Charles W. Chuckers Bryant over there, looking magnificent
Speaker 1: and marvelous as always, at least in my head your vision, Chuck. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're going to see each other next week. I know,
Speaker 1: how excited are you? I am pretty on fire. I'm
Speaker 1: excited to it's it's been well over a year. I
Speaker 1: don't remember the last time we recorded together, but it
Speaker 1: was definitely I would say February probably of the last
Speaker 1: nuts we we isolated pre pandemic. We saw it coming, yeah,
Speaker 1: we did. We probably should have warned everybody, but well
Speaker 1: we didn't want to, cause, you know, a stir right,
Speaker 1: We don't like to make waves, so we knew some
Speaker 1: people would just not believe us. Um. So we're talking today,
Speaker 1: Chuck about corporate income tax, and I'm sure some people
Speaker 1: just said, well, goodbye and must stop. But I feel
Speaker 1: bad for those people, because it turns out that corporate
Speaker 1: income tax is less eye bleedingly boring than it seems
Speaker 1: on its surface. I think, yeah, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: so too. I think a lot of I mean economics,
Speaker 1: as you know, is tough for me. Uh, And there
Speaker 1: is a part everyone it's been many years since I've
Speaker 1: had to do this, but there's a part where Josh
Speaker 1: is gonna have to teach me because I read that
Speaker 1: section four times and I told Josh it sounded like
Speaker 1: physics to me. I'm I'm with you though, like, And
Speaker 1: there's a reason that I figured out all these years
Speaker 1: of us doing economics um episodes, I figured out why
Speaker 1: it's so hard to understand because a lot of it
Speaker 1: is just straight up who we like, economists are wrong
Speaker 1: about a lot of stuff, and um, they know it too,
Speaker 1: So I'm not exactly sure what they're doing to reinvent
Speaker 1: their field, but there's a I mean, it's taken a
Speaker 1: beating in the last few decades for sure. So I
Speaker 1: think one of the reasons why it's so hard to
Speaker 1: understand because it doesn't make a lot of sense in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways to Yeah, and there's economics is
Speaker 1: one of those things where you can have two very knowledgeable,
Speaker 1: well respected economists saying completely opposite things and saying that
Speaker 1: they are they are each correct, You're wrong, I'm right,
Speaker 1: And it's not like this philosophical sort of political stuff
Speaker 1: that can easily be disagreed on. It's just like no,
Speaker 1: they're they're like, no, I'm right about this economically speaking,
Speaker 1: and the other person's like, no, you're dead wrong. It's
Speaker 1: really this and then guys like us are like, I
Speaker 1: don't even know who to believe, right, And then agreeing
Speaker 1: to disagree solves nothing. It basically just punts it down
Speaker 1: the road. Yeah, don't you think that indicates that there's
Speaker 1: a fatal flaw in that science if there you know,
Speaker 1: if no one knows who's right. Well, that's like a
Speaker 1: really good point because that really comes to the surface
Speaker 1: with corporate income tax because there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: out there, typically liberal economists, who tend to think that
Speaker 1: corporate income taxes are a very very good thing and
Speaker 1: we need them, and that average American typically agrees with
Speaker 1: those liberal economists, even people who are not liberal in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form, because the average everyday American
Speaker 1: tends to think that corporations should pay taxes as well. Um.
Speaker 1: And then there's conservative economists who say, no, this stuff
Speaker 1: is stifling business. It has all sorts of other pernicious
Speaker 1: effects that will get into um, we should do away
Speaker 1: with them alltogether, And the fact of the matter is,
Speaker 1: no one is sure who's right. Do we need corporate Texas,
Speaker 1: do they actually harm things? They don't even agree on
Speaker 1: who actually ends up paying corporate taxes. It is so
Speaker 1: um there's a lot to like kind of dig into here,
Speaker 1: which is one reason why I like it so much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess we'll go ahead and get some
Speaker 1: stats on the board out of the gate. I think
Speaker 1: at ten of the countries in the world, only ten
Speaker 1: don't have some kind of corporate income tax, and here
Speaker 1: in the United States. And we'll get to how it's
Speaker 1: been over the years, but I think in twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: we've brought in about two thirty billion in corporate tax
Speaker 1: compared to one point seven to trillion from you know,
Speaker 1: people like you and I and uh now, it's about
Speaker 1: six percent of the total take, whereas in the nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties it was forty of like all taxes were paid
Speaker 1: by corporations. Yeah, and like, I mean, corporations were paying
Speaker 1: for a lot of the functioning of America at that time.
Speaker 1: What's weird is corporate profits were also higher during that
Speaker 1: time too. And I couldn't see anything any smoking gun
Speaker 1: where some economists was saying like this is the reason why,
Speaker 1: um that you know, a decline in corporate tax rates
Speaker 1: has actually led somehow to decline in profits. But I
Speaker 1: don't think there's anything in economics, especially when we're talking
Speaker 1: about huge, sweeping macroeconomics that make up one of the
Speaker 1: world's largest economies, if not the largest economy, America's. Um,
Speaker 1: it's never just one thing. There's never you don't just
Speaker 1: push one button and then it just has its one effect.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a whole bunch of buttons that are
Speaker 1: creating this one larger effect, and they're really hard to disentangle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and Congress has been taking uh, corporate income tax since
Speaker 1: nineteen o nine when they said, quote, Congress shall have
Speaker 1: power to lay in collect taxes on incomes from whatever
Speaker 1: source derived without uh what is that apportionment? Okay, how
Speaker 1: I read the the oh, and the I switched in
Speaker 1: my mind apportionment among several states and without regard to
Speaker 1: any census or enumeration, right, which is a kind of
Speaker 1: a different thing like it used to be where if
Speaker 1: you taxed one group you had to text everybody equally,
Speaker 1: regardless of say, like if West Virginia the same population
Speaker 1: as California, but California had a lot more income. Well,
Speaker 1: West Virginia had to pay the same amount, not not percentage,
Speaker 1: amount of income tax that all the wealthy people in
Speaker 1: California had to pay, and so that kept income taxes
Speaker 1: away for a while. Which, by the way, we've done
Speaker 1: an episode on income taxes, and we also did that
Speaker 1: chapter in the book on it too. We apparently can't
Speaker 1: get enough of income taxes. Yeah, and we did a
Speaker 1: an episode on corporate personhood many years ago too, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: which really kind of plays into this. It's the reason
Speaker 1: why a lot of people say corporations should pay their
Speaker 1: fair share. They're treated as people under the law, and
Speaker 1: people under the law have to pay taxes in the
Speaker 1: United States. That's kind of a big, a big reason
Speaker 1: why people want to see it. But yeah, it wasn't
Speaker 1: until nine nine, and I think, um, it was like
Speaker 1: you said, the sixties where that was like the heyday
Speaker 1: of corporate taxation, where the tax rates for for corporate
Speaker 1: income tax reached almost fifty three percent in the United States.
Speaker 1: It is apparently, um, the UK had a similar peak,
Speaker 1: but there's came later in two and then Australia's peak
Speaker 1: came in nine six at fort So that and that
Speaker 1: actually kind of points out something that I came across, Chuck,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of like, um, one country will
Speaker 1: change its tax code to kind of attract foreign money
Speaker 1: to kind of get dumped into it. And which makes
Speaker 1: a lot of sense because when you dump billions or
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars from all these businesses who
Speaker 1: find your tax codes attractive, that money is now in
Speaker 1: your economy, like your financial institutions can go out and
Speaker 1: invest it, and you can do all sorts of amazing
Speaker 1: stuff with it. That's why countries have different tax codes
Speaker 1: at different times to a tracked foreign investment basically, right,
Speaker 1: which we'll get into that. I mean that's foreign investment
Speaker 1: is one name for it. Um hiding money another way
Speaker 1: to say it. Jackie channing, Uh, I don't get that.
Speaker 1: What did you do? Remember the Panama papers they revealed this,
Speaker 1: this Panama's attack haveing. The only person who was basically
Speaker 1: publicly pilloried for it was poor Jackie chan. Somehow Jackie
Speaker 1: chan ended up the face of that thing. That's terrible. Um,
Speaker 1: So you mentioned conservative and liberals. It's a little counterintuitive,
Speaker 1: but under Ronald Reagan actually um the He actually went
Speaker 1: after corporate taxes to try and increase the corporate tax
Speaker 1: amount so he could decrease US paying taxes a little bit.
Speaker 1: And in eighties, I think that was with a Tax
Speaker 1: Reform Act, they cut the rate from forty to thirty four,
Speaker 1: closed a lot of loopholes, and I think the end
Speaker 1: the end result of that was the percentage went from
Speaker 1: five percent to ten percent starting in the eighties until
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton came along. Yeah, and then Bill Clinton topped
Speaker 1: it off at thirty five percent, and there it stayed.
Speaker 1: He's just added a percentage point and there it stayed
Speaker 1: for quite a while, actually until I think two thousand
Speaker 1: and seventeen when it got slashed to one UM. And
Speaker 1: for from about to two thousand seventeen, the US had
Speaker 1: one of the higher tax rates in the world. Because
Speaker 1: it seems like there's there's always an outlier, like the
Speaker 1: the United Arab Emirates I think has Camorros in Africa
Speaker 1: has fifty, and then usually it drops down into the thirties.
Speaker 1: And there's a handful of countries in the in the
Speaker 1: mid to low thirties UM, which is where the United
Speaker 1: States was for a while until two thousand seventeen. So
Speaker 1: it looks like, if I'm reading this right, the since
Speaker 1: of the nineteen eighties, the person image of federal revenue
Speaker 1: from corporate taxes has been under ten percent. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: which is historically low. I think it got down to
Speaker 1: one percent of g d P, which is another way
Speaker 1: to measure it. Um uh, for the first time since
Speaker 1: the very early eighties when Reagan first came in. Because
Speaker 1: Reagan slash taxes across the board in and I think
Speaker 1: he overstepped it so far that Congress is like, we're
Speaker 1: reforming corporate taxes in six there, Like you want to paycheck,
Speaker 1: right exactly, fellow congress person. Right, Uh, maybe we should
Speaker 1: take a break after that set up, you think, I
Speaker 1: think so. Yeah, it's a little early, but now we
Speaker 1: can really get into the really fun stuff. Prepare for
Speaker 1: the eye bleeding, all right, We'll be right back, okay. So, um,
Speaker 1: when it comes to corporate income tax, it's a little
Speaker 1: different than individual income tax in the US. Right. With
Speaker 1: individual income text, there are a few things that are
Speaker 1: kind of removed from your taxable income, right, like you're um,
Speaker 1: health spending account contributions, just a little stuff like that.
Speaker 1: But for the most part, you're paying like on your
Speaker 1: gross income, which makes sense because you don't have like
Speaker 1: profit and loss necessarily, although I guess if you think
Speaker 1: about it, you could just tax people on just what
Speaker 1: they have left over. They're they're, um, what's it called
Speaker 1: your something income? You know, you're you're well, yeah, you're
Speaker 1: net but income expendable income, right, Yeah, they could totally
Speaker 1: just text everybody after like housing, after healthcare, after groceries,
Speaker 1: all that stuff, just like a business. They hadn't occurred
Speaker 1: to me, but that's totally how you could do it,
Speaker 1: And they don't do it that way. I'd be great,
Speaker 1: But they do it for for corporations. Uh they do
Speaker 1: because corporations get do get text on their net and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, this is actual corporations, where if you're a
Speaker 1: sole proprietorship or if you're a partnership like an scorp
Speaker 1: or yeah, like you know that's that's not the same thing.
Speaker 1: This is only for corporations. Uh. It says here that
Speaker 1: you know, if you're like my wife's business, for example,
Speaker 1: is not a corporation. It's a small business and she
Speaker 1: pays personal income tax, so that's like sort of the
Speaker 1: pass through situation. Yeah, her companies have passed through entity. Right,
Speaker 1: so like all of the profits and all that stuff
Speaker 1: just comes right to her your individual income tax. But
Speaker 1: with the corporation, it's a its own entity. Again, it's
Speaker 1: like in the United States. I'm sure not everybody out
Speaker 1: there understands this, but the Supreme Court, starting in the
Speaker 1: nineteenth century and a few times over the course of
Speaker 1: the last hundred or two hundred fifty years, has affirmed
Speaker 1: that corporations are artificial people. They have the same rights
Speaker 1: and everything is as everyday Americans. It's nuts, it's totally wrong,
Speaker 1: and it's created all sorts of horrible problems. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that that amounts to is that you
Speaker 1: can tax a corporation. They're treated, uh, in that sense
Speaker 1: under the law as a person, but a person with
Speaker 1: special privileges. Right, And he talked about moving money around.
Speaker 1: The reason that happens is because here in the United States,
Speaker 1: they are taxed on money that they make in the
Speaker 1: United States. So if you're I don't know, like Apple
Speaker 1: or Microsoft, let's say, or any you know, not any
Speaker 1: or every big corporation, but many big corporations of them,
Speaker 1: you might want to say, hey, let's, uh, let's find,
Speaker 1: like you mentioned earlier, a country with a really friendly
Speaker 1: tax code. It's called tax in version, and let's just
Speaker 1: confuse everybody by uh using what's called transfer pricing, which
Speaker 1: is basically creating they're not fake transactions, but their transactions
Speaker 1: between subsidiaries all over the world just to move profits around. Basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: using more biblical terms, it's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Basically,
Speaker 1: it's all like moving goods from one division to another
Speaker 1: within the same company. There's no reason that the company
Speaker 1: has to charge that division or the other division or
Speaker 1: providing a service. Like let's say you bring your marketing
Speaker 1: team into launch a new podcast. You could have the
Speaker 1: podcast division charge or the marketing division charge the podcast
Speaker 1: division front and it's all as far as the company's concerned.
Speaker 1: It's all internal money. It's all kept in the family.
Speaker 1: But all of that is just kind of right exactly.
Speaker 1: And then you're like this, I really needed that money, um,
Speaker 1: But the as far as like um, multinational corporations are concerned.
Speaker 1: When you do that and it crosses international borders, that's
Speaker 1: a really good way to move money from say the
Speaker 1: United States to say the Cayman Islands, where there's no
Speaker 1: income tax. It's one of those ten countries, And so
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, that money that you just moved
Speaker 1: from the U S to the Caymans doesn't count as
Speaker 1: profit that America can tax any longer. That's that's transfer pricing,
Speaker 1: which is a form of tax and version. There's other
Speaker 1: stuff you can do too. You can move your headquarters
Speaker 1: to another country with um a lower tax, which really,
Speaker 1: from what I can tell, basically amounts to changing the
Speaker 1: address on your letter head um and maybe some legal documents,
Speaker 1: like I think Burger King did that when they bought
Speaker 1: Tim Horton's. They basically used Tim Horton's headquarters as the
Speaker 1: new corporate headquarters for Burger King. So Burger Prince could
Speaker 1: go to school in the right district exactly right, except
Speaker 1: in this case rather than going to school districts is
Speaker 1: saving billion and billions of dollars in taxes, even though
Speaker 1: it's kind of a joke because Tim Horton's is just
Speaker 1: dwarfed by the size of Burger King. So the idea
Speaker 1: of this giant company, Burger King, transferring its headquarters to
Speaker 1: you know, relatively smaller Tim Horton's headquarters. It seems a
Speaker 1: little disingenuous, because that's the thing. Everybody knows that corporations
Speaker 1: try to get out of paying their taxes. They're just
Speaker 1: famous for it, especially in the United States. But when
Speaker 1: you come down to it, that is deeply un American
Speaker 1: and really immoral. And businesses are not supposed to be
Speaker 1: doing that. They're supposed to be paying their taxes and
Speaker 1: being upstanding corporate citizens, but they don't do that, and
Speaker 1: so every once a while they get called out on it.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons why we still have corporate taxes,
Speaker 1: as we'll see, is because the average American, like you know, me, thinks, heck, yah,
Speaker 1: corporations should be paying their taxes just like us. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And these tax havens they cost governments a lot of
Speaker 1: money all over the world, between five hundred and six
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars, which you know that that puts a
Speaker 1: dent on us here in the United States, but if
Speaker 1: you're a developing nation or a low income economy, it
Speaker 1: makes a real big dentu If you're losing, you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred billion dollars, it's going to be
Speaker 1: a real hit to your g d P. And you
Speaker 1: know when Apple moves thirty billion dollars to Ireland over
Speaker 1: the course of four years and employees and nobody over there,
Speaker 1: and their TAXI rate of two percent, that does hit
Speaker 1: the United States, but not like it would in some
Speaker 1: other countries. Right, But again you can understand why why
Speaker 1: Ireland would be like, I think they actually made a
Speaker 1: sweetheart deal with Apple for that. Because Ireland's corporate tax
Speaker 1: is normally twelve point five percent, they knocked ten percent
Speaker 1: off for Apple. So um, but I looked at Ireland's
Speaker 1: GDP that thirty billion dollars was twelve percent of the
Speaker 1: value of Ireland's GDP in two thousand So I Land,
Speaker 1: that was an enormous influx of cash and worth whatever
Speaker 1: effort they were going to make to get it into
Speaker 1: their borders. Plus they got to make some money off
Speaker 1: of it in taxes in addition to having it invested
Speaker 1: into their economy. Um. An, Apple, like they got pilloried
Speaker 1: and kind of called out in two thousand thirteen for
Speaker 1: that that kind of transfer pricing or tax in version technique,
Speaker 1: right because they didn't have any any employees in Ireland
Speaker 1: at the time, and they got called out for it.
Speaker 1: But if you compare Apple to a lot of the
Speaker 1: other fortune five hundred companies, they are they might as
Speaker 1: well be we blows for goodness sake. As far as
Speaker 1: like paying taxes is concerned, they are ned flanders, um,
Speaker 1: just to the tea. As far as paying taxes goes
Speaker 1: compared to like companies like Amazon, it's just astounding. They
Speaker 1: should not be ever be picked on at all in
Speaker 1: that respect, just by comparison. Yeah, I mean, let's talk
Speaker 1: about Amazon. You know, they've been criticized a lot and
Speaker 1: called out a lot, especially over the past couple of years. Uh.
Speaker 1: In two thousand, seventeen and eighteen, they paid zero dollars
Speaker 1: in taxes. Uh, and they made big profits three billion
Speaker 1: dollars in profits. This isn't the gross. This is that
Speaker 1: that net profit that we were talking about that they're
Speaker 1: supposed to get taxed on. Uh. In seventeen, I think
Speaker 1: it was I'm sorry, in eighteen it was eleven point
Speaker 1: two billion dollars in profits from three billion. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: paid zero dollars in tax of both years. And not
Speaker 1: only that, check they got refunds those two years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty nine million dollars and a hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty seven million dollars respectively over those two years, and
Speaker 1: then finally a couple of years ago in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: they were like, we'll pay some taxes. So they paid
Speaker 1: a hundred and sixty two million on the profit of
Speaker 1: thirteen point nine billion for a whopping percentage rate of one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so in Amazon deserves to get it, you know, UM
Speaker 1: publicly berated for it. And I also have the impression
Speaker 1: that they paid those taxes in two thousand nineteen just
Speaker 1: because politically it was getting bad, like the press for
Speaker 1: it was getting kind of ridiculous. So they're like, all right,
Speaker 1: we'll pay a hundred and sixty two million. It's not
Speaker 1: even the combined refunds that we got the last two years,
Speaker 1: but at least we're paying something. Um. There are there
Speaker 1: plenty of other corporate tax sodgers. Chevron, Haliburt and IBM
Speaker 1: also paid zero dollars and taxes, and I think two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen UM and there was a two thousand two
Speaker 1: eighteen study UM that found that of three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy nine of the Fortune five hundred companies that turned
Speaker 1: a profit in two thousand and eighteen, ninety one of
Speaker 1: them paid zero dollars in taxes um. And I think
Speaker 1: altogether those three d seventy nine paid something like eighty
Speaker 1: six billion, when really, had they paid just the one
Speaker 1: percent that lower twenty one percent effective rate, it would
Speaker 1: have been a hundred and sixty one billion. So you
Speaker 1: can make a really good case that the corporations in
Speaker 1: America are really really good at getting out of paying
Speaker 1: taxes for the most part, even though not all of
Speaker 1: them do. And going back to Apple, Apple paid sixteen
Speaker 1: billion in taxes in two thousand nineteen compared to Amazon's
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty two million in in that same year, right,
Speaker 1: And you could also make the case that the UH
Speaker 1: tax reduction for corporations and leaving open of the loopholes
Speaker 1: did not in fact boost federal corporate tax revenue like
Speaker 1: they said it would, which never made sense to begin
Speaker 1: with anyway, exactly now it was all just a big scam, UH.
Speaker 1: You mentioned earlier though, like we still can't agree on
Speaker 1: who actually pays this. So you hear Amazon or whoever
Speaker 1: pays a hundred and twenty six what they pay a
Speaker 1: hundred six million dollars, I don't know, hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: two million, Like who actually you know, Jeff Bezos, right,
Speaker 1: a check to the federal governed want for that? How
Speaker 1: does that work? And economists don't even really agree on
Speaker 1: who ends up like taking this financial burden on. I
Speaker 1: think even in the seventeen I'm sorry, sixteen hundreds, there
Speaker 1: was an economist named William Petty, Sir William Petty, and
Speaker 1: he said, you know, kind of like what a lot
Speaker 1: of people probably think, which is it's just gonna be
Speaker 1: passed onto the consumer as higher prices. They're gonna just
Speaker 1: raise the price of their goods. Other people say, well,
Speaker 1: that can't be true, because if you're already charging prices
Speaker 1: where you've maximized your profits, you can't there's there's a cap.
Speaker 1: You can't just keep raising your prices over and over
Speaker 1: and over to cover yourself because eventually people are gonna
Speaker 1: be like, I'm not gonna buy that, right. Yeah, When
Speaker 1: you raise prices, it makes people think like, oh, can
Speaker 1: I actually afford that? And you start you start actually
Speaker 1: shooting yourself in the foot. And that's generally the understanding
Speaker 1: among economists today. You know, hundreds of years after Sir
Speaker 1: William Petty um that he was wrong and there that
Speaker 1: idea is actually born out. Among the different states in
Speaker 1: the US, some of them have zero taxes on corporate income,
Speaker 1: others have, you know, relatively high taxes on it. And
Speaker 1: yet if you go from one state to another state,
Speaker 1: when you buy a pack of Hubble Bubba bubble gum,
Speaker 1: it's probably gonna be exactly the same price before before
Speaker 1: you pay sales tax on it um, which goes to
Speaker 1: show like, you know, they're not going to charge a
Speaker 1: different price because they're having to pay corporate taxes. That
Speaker 1: just isn't the way it is. And Plus, also, corporations
Speaker 1: aren't the only ones who sell Hubba bubba, right. You know,
Speaker 1: if Emily wanted to, she could become a distributor of
Speaker 1: Hubba Bubba bubblegum. And I wouldn't blame her if she was,
Speaker 1: because it's about as good as bubble gum has ever
Speaker 1: been produced. I was a hubble Bubba kid. I was
Speaker 1: not bubblicious. I I didn't like bubblicious either, but ultimately
Speaker 1: I was bubble Yumm. And I think there are a
Speaker 1: couple of things that represent the pinnacle of human endeavor.
Speaker 1: One of them is um lemon lime bubble yum. Remember
Speaker 1: it was the green outside in the yellow center. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, Um.
Speaker 1: I think I've mentioned it before. Rambo bubble gum. It
Speaker 1: was BlackBerry flavored big League chew with Rambo holding a
Speaker 1: missile launcher on the I've definitely never heard that. That's amazing.
Speaker 1: And then lastly et peanut butter flavored cereal. Uh well,
Speaker 1: I'm a Captain crunch guy, as you know, but uh
Speaker 1: on the gum. Hubble Bubba to me always produced, It
Speaker 1: always yielded the best bubbles. Yeah, and if you were
Speaker 1: a champion bubble blower and sometimes bubble within bubble blower
Speaker 1: like myself, then you reach for the hubble Bubba. You
Speaker 1: need to. You need to make a video of yourself
Speaker 1: doing that. Man. Bubble gum was good too, though, but
Speaker 1: just bubble you Almo was good too, But you're absolutely
Speaker 1: right there was hubble bubble was as good as it
Speaker 1: gets with the bubbles, for sure, don't. I don't chew
Speaker 1: gum anymore, but if I was going to, I would
Speaker 1: get a pack of bubblegum like that. I think hubble
Speaker 1: Bubba is basically unchanged bubble yams a little weird. Now,
Speaker 1: it's a little different the current state bubba. I've tried
Speaker 1: it once in a while. Yeah, I mean if you
Speaker 1: want to go get transported back to your youth, like
Speaker 1: get some get some real bubble gum, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to do that. Where were we? Okay, where we are?
Speaker 1: So states? Uh yeah, states don't charge different prices. Like
Speaker 1: it's not like let me go to Florida and stuck
Speaker 1: up on that gum because it's you know, six cents cheaper. Um.
Speaker 1: So then, ohh I know where we were. Really we
Speaker 1: were talking about Emily becoming um Hubba Bubba distribution. She
Speaker 1: doesn't have to pay corporate text, so she could sell
Speaker 1: Hubba Bubba way cheaper than say, General Electric could sell
Speaker 1: Hubba Bubba. If they ever wanted to, she could undercut them.
Speaker 1: General Electric wouldn't be selling Hubba Bubba any longer because
Speaker 1: it would be hamstrung by those corporate taxes. Emily is
Speaker 1: not hamstrung by the right. So we're still left without
Speaker 1: an answer on who's paying um. Usually these days modern
Speaker 1: economists say, well, here's what's going on is the burden
Speaker 1: is going to fall on the owners. But what that
Speaker 1: really means is it's divided among shareholders of that corporation.
Speaker 1: And what it really is happening is employees are being
Speaker 1: paid less, and so they're all kind of taking in
Speaker 1: on the chin. Yeah, because as far as the economists
Speaker 1: are concerned, if if the government is coming in and
Speaker 1: taxing somebody, then there's three entities that could possibly be
Speaker 1: paying for it. Capital, the business owners, the people who
Speaker 1: like own the machinery, own the money that's invested into businesses, capital, employers, labor,
Speaker 1: you know, the workers employees, and then customers. And if
Speaker 1: we've already decided that it's not being passed on to customers,
Speaker 1: you've got capital and labor left. And so yeah, it
Speaker 1: makes sense that it would be capital who's paying the
Speaker 1: tax in the form of lower dividends than they would
Speaker 1: otherwise be getting if the pot that the dividends were
Speaker 1: coming out of was greater because the tax hadn't been taken.
Speaker 1: But economists still say that's not the end of it.
Speaker 1: We think it's probably ultimately divided somewhat, probably not evenly,
Speaker 1: but somewhat between capital and labor, and that labor helps
Speaker 1: bear the cost of these corporate taxes by getting paid
Speaker 1: lower wages. There's just less capital stock involved, and so
Speaker 1: when you have less money, um, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: get like a goose plucking machine. That that that means
Speaker 1: you're gonna pluck this goose. You know you you can
Speaker 1: do ten gooses an hour rather than two. That just
Speaker 1: little Samuel, the ten year old boy with the full
Speaker 1: chin beard, can pluck by himself with just his hands.
Speaker 1: Even though Samuel saying, you get this goose plucking machine,
Speaker 1: I'm going to oversee it and we're really going to
Speaker 1: make some money. You don't have the money to buy
Speaker 1: the goose plucking machine, so all you can do is
Speaker 1: just keep employing Samuel. Maybe his cousin Ezekiel every once
Speaker 1: in a while comes in on weekends, but you don't
Speaker 1: have that money. They're less productive, so you're making less
Speaker 1: money in the market, which means you have less money
Speaker 1: to pay Samuel and Ezekiel, even though they're doing harder
Speaker 1: labor than the otherwise would be. If you weren't such
Speaker 1: a tight wad and would buy the goose plucking machine,
Speaker 1: right and do you get his fire Samuel, to be honest,
Speaker 1: you probably would. Well, yeah, he has been talking back
Speaker 1: quite a bit lately. I mean someone could turn on
Speaker 1: that machine and push push goo. Ezekiel could at a
Speaker 1: lower rate than Samuel. Oh yeah, he has zero loyalty
Speaker 1: to anybody, including his cousin. Let's take a break here
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk about arguments against in than four
Speaker 1: after that. How's that? Okay? So arguments against taxing corporations
Speaker 1: some people, and this is sort of the thing you
Speaker 1: hear all the time is is the economy referred to
Speaker 1: as an engine and this motor that's got a home
Speaker 1: along and people that say you should not text corporations
Speaker 1: are people that are saying, listen, this is what is
Speaker 1: keeping that engine humming. Is they're employing people, they're generating money. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're selling things there. I mean, this is the economy basically,
Speaker 1: And if you just get rid of corporate taxes, then
Speaker 1: they're gonna they're gonna reinvest that stuff. They're gonna pay
Speaker 1: their employees more, Your prices are gonna drop, they're gonna
Speaker 1: it's gonna trickle down to you, and that engine is
Speaker 1: just gonna hum right. I mean, that's that's ultimately what
Speaker 1: all of the arguments against corporate taxation amount to. Because
Speaker 1: and you are already taxing those individuals and those shareholders
Speaker 1: on their personal income taxes. So like your double taxicum
Speaker 1: to cut it out right. So, yes, the corporation itself
Speaker 1: has to pay income taxes theoretically where they actually, like
Speaker 1: you said, Jeff Bezos, cuts a Skexias from the dark
Speaker 1: crystals check to the federal government for a hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty two million dollars or whatever um. And then on
Speaker 1: top of that, after they pay their taxes, this post
Speaker 1: tax amount, the the corporation sends out dividends quarterly annually. However,
Speaker 1: to the shareholders. The shareholders are in some way shape
Speaker 1: or form and oftentimes very literally owners of the company.
Speaker 1: But if you own shares in a company, you are
Speaker 1: part owner of that company, and so you're getting dividends,
Speaker 1: you're getting a part of the profits. Right. So when
Speaker 1: you get those dividends given to you, um, at the
Speaker 1: end of the year, you have to declare those on
Speaker 1: your income taxes and then you have to pay personal
Speaker 1: text and that. So it's like you said, it's double taxation.
Speaker 1: And so the government saying we'll take a little bit
Speaker 1: of this capital out of the economy for ourselves. Oh
Speaker 1: and by the way, we'll take out of your your
Speaker 1: little wealth pot too, um. And not all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: there's just that much less money to be reinvested into business.
Speaker 1: That's a huge argument against corporate income taxes that's been
Speaker 1: around for a very long time. But there's also like
Speaker 1: a lot more nuanced ones too. Um. One of the
Speaker 1: big ones is that, like it's a tax on entrepreneurship
Speaker 1: where if you are a company and you need some
Speaker 1: money to keep it, say expand your business right, um,
Speaker 1: and you're you've got your profits and everything like that,
Speaker 1: but you really want to take it up to the
Speaker 1: next level and you need a lot more money than
Speaker 1: you have in the bank, you can issue shares more
Speaker 1: shares of your your company. UM. That's called equity financing,
Speaker 1: where you're releasing equity shares, which your current investors don't
Speaker 1: really like because all of a sudden there are way
Speaker 1: more shares on the market, um, and their shares are
Speaker 1: suddenly worth a little bit less. Even though they didn't
Speaker 1: do anything and your business is doing fine, they don't
Speaker 1: like you very much. Then there's another way to do
Speaker 1: It's called debt financing, and that is instead of issuing
Speaker 1: shares of ownership to your company, you're saying, hey, I
Speaker 1: need I need to borrow money from you. I'm going
Speaker 1: to issue you the certificate, I'll pay this back in
Speaker 1: X number of years with with interest. Right, they're called
Speaker 1: corporate bonds. You have to be a massive company to
Speaker 1: issue debt securities to raise money like that. You just
Speaker 1: have to have that kind of established business and trust
Speaker 1: with the public to issue debt securities. But the reason
Speaker 1: that businesses do that is because you you can deduct
Speaker 1: the interest that you pay those investors for lending you
Speaker 1: that money. You can't deduct dividends. So if you're a
Speaker 1: little startup, all you can do is um issue shares.
Speaker 1: Nobody trusts to enough to buy debt securities. I mean,
Speaker 1: you're an unproven business, but they will buy shares in
Speaker 1: your company because they think you probably are going to
Speaker 1: be able to make it. They're just not sure. So
Speaker 1: you can issue shares and then put out dividends, but
Speaker 1: you can't deduct the dividends. Your competitors, the bigger guys,
Speaker 1: can do that, or they can issue death securities and
Speaker 1: then they can deduct the interest. So there's actually a
Speaker 1: tax is corporate tax. Um is actually at tax on
Speaker 1: entrepreneurship in that sense, which again it's really nuance and
Speaker 1: it's really wonky. But once you start to like enter
Speaker 1: the world of like high finance and new innovative technology.
Speaker 1: This is a big deal to you, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. Yeah, And you know there are people that
Speaker 1: say that the disparity between the taxation between those interest
Speaker 1: in dividend payments is why we're getting all these stock
Speaker 1: buy backs happening, which you know, if you're if you
Speaker 1: paid attention at all to the news in the United States,
Speaker 1: when tax laws change for corporations, you heard a lot
Speaker 1: about stock buy backs, which is the idea that a
Speaker 1: company is going to use their profits to buy its
Speaker 1: own stock off the market instead of doing the thing
Speaker 1: that they said it would do, which is, hey, they're
Speaker 1: going to reinvest these these profits that they're they're making
Speaker 1: back into the company. They're gonna get new equipment, they're
Speaker 1: gonna hire more people, everyone's gonna get a raise or
Speaker 1: R and D is gonna pick up. And what really
Speaker 1: happens a lot of times is they just buy stock
Speaker 1: by box. They just say, hey, we got this extra money, now,
Speaker 1: why don't we buy back a bunch of our own
Speaker 1: stock and consolidate even more control and more power and
Speaker 1: more money. Uh. And it's you know, insert doctor evil laughing, right,
Speaker 1: at this point. Basically yeah, because allegedly you're theoretically, the
Speaker 1: stock buy backs only come when this company is so
Speaker 1: flush with cash it can't spend all of it, so
Speaker 1: it just does these buybacks. But they happen even when
Speaker 1: a company doesn't have a bunch of cash, because it
Speaker 1: raises the share price a lot more. Too. It also
Speaker 1: lowers their their non deductible dividend payments as well. So
Speaker 1: the the the idea that you that deductibles are not
Speaker 1: or dividends are not deductible. Um, but interest is it's
Speaker 1: it's a it's it's also laying the foundation for those
Speaker 1: stist buy backs, like you were saying, right, and then
Speaker 1: you add in just the complex plate of spaghetti that
Speaker 1: is the U. S. Tax code, and it's just it's
Speaker 1: really complex. And some people say, if companies weren't having
Speaker 1: to kind of sift through this tax code and it
Speaker 1: was a lot simpler, or maybe if they didn't have
Speaker 1: to pay them at all, then maybe they would uh
Speaker 1: reinvest some and not have stock buybacks. Yeah. Not to
Speaker 1: mention the critics of of corporate taxation say, like, we
Speaker 1: don't even know who's paying this at this point. It's
Speaker 1: possible that wages could go up if we didn't have this.
Speaker 1: So when you take all of these reasons together, there's
Speaker 1: some pretty good arguments um against corporate taxation, and um
Speaker 1: you can take them all together, put them into a
Speaker 1: pile and say, hey, every day, Joe American, what do
Speaker 1: you think of this? And watch them urinate on all
Speaker 1: of your reasons that you just neatly piled together. O
Speaker 1: there reasons for uh corporate taxation? The people say, no,
Speaker 1: we definitely should. One of the big reasons is just
Speaker 1: kind of what we've been talking about is just public
Speaker 1: perception of your average American is, yeah, why do I
Speaker 1: gotta pay taxes? And Amazon doesn't? Uh, So that's one
Speaker 1: big reason. Another is is people that say, hey, look,
Speaker 1: the government is basically providing the infrastructure for which these
Speaker 1: companies are getting rich. The bridges and the waterways and
Speaker 1: everything that we're maintaining and subsidizing as tax paying citizens,
Speaker 1: the roads. Even these corporations are are utilizing that stuff.
Speaker 1: So they need to pay their fair share just to
Speaker 1: support that that infrastructure. And the government is really the
Speaker 1: engine because they take care of all this stuff. In theory,
Speaker 1: it's dude, it is just such a smoke screen too,
Speaker 1: that the government is portrayed as just this, this spend
Speaker 1: thrift pickpocket that just steps on innovation and and takes
Speaker 1: the rev out of the engine of the economy by
Speaker 1: taxing business like there's an entirely different way of looking
Speaker 1: at it, and that by maintaining those bridges in these
Speaker 1: waterways and and um, the infrastructure that businesses used to
Speaker 1: hum along. The government itself is a wealth creating engine two.
Speaker 1: And the government is mandated to use that money as
Speaker 1: soon as it gets it right. A business is not
Speaker 1: necessarily mandated there, There is no mandate. The board of
Speaker 1: directors and the shareholders might want the business to spend
Speaker 1: its money rather than sitting on it, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: have to. And plenty of businesses might just be sitting
Speaker 1: on a big pot of money. Well. Another argument in
Speaker 1: favor of corporate taxation is that the government says, you
Speaker 1: can't do that, at least not with this percentage. Is
Speaker 1: twenty one percent of that money that you made this year,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna take it and we're gonna put it
Speaker 1: back in those roads and everything. And yes, agreed, the
Speaker 1: government is not like a uh an efficient machine by
Speaker 1: any stretch of the imagination, and plenty of that money
Speaker 1: also ends up going into other things that I consider
Speaker 1: very important, like social programs that keep people from starving
Speaker 1: to death, that kind of stuff that don't necessarily have
Speaker 1: anything to do with business unless you zoom out enough
Speaker 1: and then realize that if you want a worker to
Speaker 1: show up to work um alive, they need to eat food.
Speaker 1: And so if you're not paying them enough, the government's
Speaker 1: actually taking that money from you and making sure that
Speaker 1: that worker is fed so they can show up at
Speaker 1: work the next day. If you zoom out far enough,
Speaker 1: it all has to do with business, and it all
Speaker 1: connects like that. It's just some people argue that that
Speaker 1: it's it should just be just on its face about business,
Speaker 1: that anything that isn't obviously overtly on its face about
Speaker 1: business should just go away and and be and not
Speaker 1: have anything to do with business and let business deal
Speaker 1: with business. Yeah, how's that working? Yeah, real well, real well,
Speaker 1: thanks for asking. Another reason you might want to argue
Speaker 1: for corporate taxation is is merely took to put these
Speaker 1: companies in check and these corporations in check, and to
Speaker 1: make them tap the brakes every once in a while,
Speaker 1: because with that kind of money yields great power, especially
Speaker 1: in the wake of the Citizens United Decision, when now
Speaker 1: corporations and companies can spend whatever they want to get
Speaker 1: involved in politics and to woo politicians through lobbying efforts.
Speaker 1: And you know, some might say that if you at least,
Speaker 1: you know, smash their head with attacks a little bit,
Speaker 1: maybe that shouldn't be so violent. If you levy attacks
Speaker 1: on their corporation, if you tickle their ear with a
Speaker 1: feather a metaphor for taxation, then that at least keeps
Speaker 1: their power and influence a little bit more in check.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how much that's that's working, but that's
Speaker 1: the thought. I think it's working a lot. Actually, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think and it's weird to think of and
Speaker 1: I didn't think of it before, but researching this, it
Speaker 1: seems to be. Um, you know, it's two sides of
Speaker 1: this same coin. Some people say, well, a good way
Speaker 1: to keep government power and check is to reduce its
Speaker 1: ability to tax things because it depends on that money.
Speaker 1: It's like a vampire that just sucks money right out
Speaker 1: of everybody. Um, So it's two sides of the same coin.
Speaker 1: I think that that is the give and take that
Speaker 1: we see when it comes to the tax code is
Speaker 1: you know, whatever group thinks that the government is a
Speaker 1: blood sucker um if they're in charge, then taxes go down.
Speaker 1: If somebody thinks that that businesses need to be kept
Speaker 1: in check, taxes tend to go up. And that's that
Speaker 1: kind of seesaw effect that we see. But I think
Speaker 1: ultimately it does have at least some impact. It's not perfect,
Speaker 1: but I think it's enough that it's it's worth doing
Speaker 1: just for that that point as well. Right, You also
Speaker 1: might say that it provides a backstop basically two personal
Speaker 1: income tax for the wealthy. Here in the United States,
Speaker 1: nine tenths of corporate stock are owned by the top
Speaker 1: tenth of the income distribution, So it's you know, the
Speaker 1: wealthy are uh, they're the ones that are running these
Speaker 1: corporations obviously, and if we didn't text the corporations, they're
Speaker 1: also getting away with tax loopholes and tax shelters, and
Speaker 1: these individuals might not be paying any tax at all
Speaker 1: as people and as corporations. Yeah, they might actually form
Speaker 1: shell corporations themselves and say, oh no, all of this
Speaker 1: is corporate income. It's not taxable. If there's no corporate tax,
Speaker 1: and I read that that's one reason why most countries
Speaker 1: have a corporate income taxes too, because it's ultimately a
Speaker 1: tax on the wealthy, because the wealthy are the largest
Speaker 1: shareholders in the corporations around the world. And I hadn't
Speaker 1: really thought about it before. But once you see corporate
Speaker 1: taxes a tax on the wealthy, like, the picture becomes
Speaker 1: much clearer of what, you know, what the battle lines
Speaker 1: are in that that argument and debate over the existence
Speaker 1: of corporate taxes. Right, so it's here to stay. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna go away. They're not going to completely do
Speaker 1: away with it. The tax code is a big jumble
Speaker 1: play a spaghetti. Like I said, it's a big mess.
Speaker 1: And there are some people that say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: if we want to kind of fix this corporate problem
Speaker 1: that we have, maybe and I think these were a
Speaker 1: couple of Rutgers professors, and there are there are some
Speaker 1: different ideas will govern, But they had an idea I
Speaker 1: thought was interesting, which is, let's not rewrite the tax
Speaker 1: code again. It just gets more confusing and offers more
Speaker 1: opportunities for loopholes. Let's just lock that in, but then
Speaker 1: offer a wealth tax on top of everything for these corporations.
Speaker 1: They said, how about five percent of the actual growth
Speaker 1: of the company for that year. So maybe the federal government,
Speaker 1: here's what you should do. Subtract the end of the
Speaker 1: year's share price from that share price that uh where
Speaker 1: it was at the beginning of the year, multiplied by
Speaker 1: the number of outstanding shares on each date, and then
Speaker 1: tax him on that amount over and above the regular
Speaker 1: corporate tax rate. Yeah, and then that captures everything that
Speaker 1: captures the actual growth in the company's well that year,
Speaker 1: not just necessarily their profits from revenue. And it also says, hey,
Speaker 1: keep it up, keep going. You can find all these
Speaker 1: loopholes and all these tax hodges that you figured out.
Speaker 1: This is again like a like like, uh, corporate taxes
Speaker 1: a backstop to wealth and income tax for the wealthy.
Speaker 1: This is like a backstop for corporate corporations getting out
Speaker 1: of paying corporate income tax. It's it's just kind of
Speaker 1: clomped on in addition to it. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's going to go anywhere, but it's a it seems
Speaker 1: like a pretty good idea. Uh. Some people say, another
Speaker 1: way we can fix it is to basically treat these
Speaker 1: corporations like they are partnerships and you know, just let
Speaker 1: the money flow through and then tax the shareholders individually. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The problem with that that I saw is that you
Speaker 1: then would be taxed on your individual income on all
Speaker 1: the profit that the corporation made that year, even though
Speaker 1: you didn't see that amount in dividends necessarily. Let's say
Speaker 1: you saw twenty or dividend that year for your one share,
Speaker 1: but really your your share of that profit was two
Speaker 1: hundred dollars, but you might be text on the two
Speaker 1: hundred dollars rather than the twenty dividend, and that, I mean,
Speaker 1: that would just chase people away from investing in companies.
Speaker 1: So that's probably a generally bad idea, agreed. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's like you said, it's not it's not going
Speaker 1: anywhere at all. It's it's here to stay, just at
Speaker 1: the very least, because the everyday American is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: corporations should pay taxes. Yeah. Um, the none or the
Speaker 1: everyday Americans that are saying let's just get rid of
Speaker 1: it are not every Dame Marian's right there, like Mr
Speaker 1: Burns and disguise sort of wearing a bowling shirt or something.
Speaker 1: You got anything else, I've got nothing else. I'm taking
Speaker 1: off my ice skates. Finally, you did great. Man. You
Speaker 1: didn't seem like you were hanging by your fingernails at
Speaker 1: any point in time either. I don't think fooled you again. Uh. Well,
Speaker 1: since Chuck said he fooled us again, I think then
Speaker 1: everybody is time for a listener mate. Yeah, boy, this
Speaker 1: is a good one. Uh, I need to said this
Speaker 1: one up. Remember we did. I don't want to bring
Speaker 1: this up. I know it's a matter of a past
Speaker 1: trauma for both of us. But remember when we did
Speaker 1: our Feral Children Live show at south By south Befests.
Speaker 1: Just so you folks know, you might not have heard
Speaker 1: the story. We did our Feral Children Live show at
Speaker 1: a bar in south By Southwest where there was a
Speaker 1: big sort of DJ event before and after I think,
Speaker 1: and then we were squeering in the enter. We were
Speaker 1: squeezed in between and this was a bar with they
Speaker 1: were probably I don't know, let's just ballpark it and
Speaker 1: say four dred people in there and about fifteen of them.
Speaker 1: We're stuff. You should know listeners that wanted to hear
Speaker 1: what we were having to say. Let's not exaggerate, Chuck
Speaker 1: it is probably like eighteen or nineteen. I just remember
Speaker 1: you and I locking eyes at a certain point very
Speaker 1: early on and and literally mind reading each other of
Speaker 1: we're agreeing right now to skip this material, right, And
Speaker 1: we did, Yeah, we did, And it was it was
Speaker 1: like we just kind of knew what parts we were
Speaker 1: going to skip and all that too. It was pretty
Speaker 1: amazing that. The saddest thing about all this is that
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff, you should know, listeners were left
Speaker 1: out in the hot sun on the sidewalk and couldn't
Speaker 1: get in, which we had nothing to do within our
Speaker 1: still apologizing for it. So that's the setup. Uh, this morning,
Speaker 1: I was listening, Hey guys, I was listening to our
Speaker 1: Feral Children real and you started the episode by lamenting
Speaker 1: how terrible your first attempt was when you did it
Speaker 1: live in Austin In Like, we didn't even release that
Speaker 1: it was unreleasable. Uh no, it wasn't even close. Like
Speaker 1: we re recorded it, if I'm correct, right, Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: we recorded it as like a regular studio exactly after
Speaker 1: we got over the trauma. I just want to let
Speaker 1: you know that at least one great thing came from
Speaker 1: that show. See, I was in the audience that day
Speaker 1: with an old friend that I hadn't talked to and ages.
Speaker 1: We were both fans of the show and we're excited
Speaker 1: for the chance to see you live. We ended up
Speaker 1: having a great time decided to hang out again a
Speaker 1: few weeks later. Long story short, we're now married with
Speaker 1: an eighteen month old. That's awesome. How awesome is that
Speaker 1: you guys would continue to play a huge partner lives
Speaker 1: and have kept his company during countless road trips and commutes,
Speaker 1: including to cross country moves. Our daughter now starts dancing
Speaker 1: when she hears the theme song and we jokingly refer
Speaker 1: to you guys as Uncle Josh and Uncle Chuck. I
Speaker 1: think that's only right. Yes, thanks for all you do,
Speaker 1: and please come back to Austin. Uh. And that is
Speaker 1: Jenny And I told Jenny. I was like, this is amazing.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna read this. And I'm a little mad at
Speaker 1: you for not sending a picture of this baby that
Speaker 1: we're partially responsible for. I want to see this kid.
Speaker 1: I bet Jennielsen the picture. I'll bet you will too. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: thanks to Jenny, thanks to the kid, thanks to the husband,
Speaker 1: and thanks to all of the terrible bar patrons at
Speaker 1: that episode that we record at that time but never released.
Speaker 1: But thanks especially to all this Stuff you Should Know
Speaker 1: listeners who were turning around and telling the people at
Speaker 1: the bar to sh Do you remember that it didn't work? No,
Speaker 1: it didn't work, But I was like, hats off to
Speaker 1: all of you guys trying to shush the people at
Speaker 1: the bar who've never heard of stuff you should Oh boy,
Speaker 1: that was terrible. Yeah, but that's great news, Jenny, And
Speaker 1: thanks again. And if you want to get in touch
Speaker 1: with this, like Jenny and take one of our terrible
Speaker 1: memories and dust it off and make it shine and
Speaker 1: show it in a different light. We love that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. You can send us an email to stuff
Speaker 1: Podcast at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff you Should Know
Speaker 1: is a production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: my heart Radio, visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.