1
00:00:00,200 --> 00:00:02,400
Speaker 1: It is never a good look when you wear a long,

2
00:00:02,520 --> 00:00:04,960
Speaker 1: bulky dress shirt un tucked. And you may think it

3
00:00:05,000 --> 00:00:07,280
Speaker 1: makes you look casual, but more than likely you just

4
00:00:07,360 --> 00:00:11,000
Speaker 1: look sloppy. Now there's a brand of shirts made specifically

5
00:00:11,119 --> 00:00:13,760
Speaker 1: for this look, to make you look sharp, to look smart.

6
00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:18,079
Speaker 1: It's Untucket all one word. This is a casual shirt

7
00:00:18,160 --> 00:00:21,120
Speaker 1: that falls at the perfect length every time, not too long,

8
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 1: not too short. Shirts so well made that g Q

9
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,040
Speaker 1: calls them perfection, with styles and patterns that can carry

10
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: you from casual settings to semi formal events. Untucket shirts

11
00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:35,479
Speaker 1: will help you look great period. Untucket now make shirts

12
00:00:35,479 --> 00:00:39,800
Speaker 1: for women too, shirts that are effortlessly casual and versatile.

13
00:00:40,040 --> 00:00:42,760
Speaker 1: Just go online to untucket dot com and check out

14
00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 1: the new fall arrivals. Use promo code rush twenty for

15
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:49,879
Speaker 1: twenty off your entire purchase, or visit one of the

16
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:54,360
Speaker 1: twenty plus Untucket retail stories across the country. That's untucket

17
00:00:54,640 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 1: dot com your solution to perfecting casual Untucket dot com.

18
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:03,320
Speaker 1: Last Friday, the Washington Post ran an ominous headline of

19
00:01:03,400 --> 00:01:06,800
Speaker 1: Republicans are gonna be raising taxes on some Americans and

20
00:01:06,840 --> 00:01:09,040
Speaker 1: that there will be a backlash. Now, first of all,

21
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,560
Speaker 1: the Post tax bill isn't the final version, a lot's

22
00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:15,600
Speaker 1: gonna inevitably change. But what really bugs the Washington Post

23
00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:19,360
Speaker 1: is the proposal to eliminate deductions for state income taxes.

24
00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:22,240
Speaker 1: If you live in an expensive blue city like New York,

25
00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:26,760
Speaker 1: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and your state has super high

26
00:01:26,760 --> 00:01:29,760
Speaker 1: income taxes like New York and California, do well, this

27
00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:33,119
Speaker 1: could impact you. The Washington Post gives some examples. Take

28
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,360
Speaker 1: a California resident who makes a hundred thousand dollars a year,

29
00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:40,000
Speaker 1: Their state tax alone would come in at sixth grand

30
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:43,119
Speaker 1: and it would no longer be deductible. Somebody who makes

31
00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:45,800
Speaker 1: a hundred fifty thousand lives in San Francisco or Los

32
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:49,560
Speaker 1: Angeles can expect to pay over ten thousand dollars a

33
00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 1: year in state taxes no longer deductible. Yes, so some

34
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:56,120
Speaker 1: people be upset, But the Washington Post never raises some

35
00:01:56,160 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 1: important questions. One, why are your state taxes so high?

36
00:02:00,880 --> 00:02:04,640
Speaker 1: And too, why do you keep voting for people who

37
00:02:04,760 --> 00:02:08,320
Speaker 1: keep raising your taxes? Finally, why should people in low

38
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,840
Speaker 1: tax states or with no state tax deductions subsidize people

39
00:02:12,880 --> 00:02:16,880
Speaker 1: in high tech states? As for backlash, California, New York

40
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:21,480
Speaker 1: don't vote Republican anyway, so the supposed anti Republican backlash

41
00:02:21,639 --> 00:02:25,079
Speaker 1: might not be as ominous as the Washington Post hopes.

42
00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:29,880
Speaker 1: In fact, it probably be some applause for it. Yes,