The following is a collection of the materials used in creating the eighteenth episode of the
.
Welcome to the Citizen Reagan Podcast. I, or maybe I should say we, have something quite different today. Mine will not be the only voice you hear this time around. I decided to ask my best friend to join me. I thought it would be interesting to have an actual conversation about the one or two Reagan broadcasts rather than just have me flap my gums for 10 to 20 minutes. We've known each other since our freshman year of high school, what 25 years ago. We started a business together which I pulled out of a few years ago and as I did that to focus on my book restoration work. We get together for lunch once in a while and it's led to some very interesting conversations over the years.
I'm going to ask him to introduce himself, in a moment, but I just realized I've never actually introduced myself, so I'm— my name is Roy. Why don't you introduce yourself.
Hi I'm Mike. Um, I am a small business owner, uh, like Roy said, I've, uh, known him for quite a while and, uh, certainly appreciate the work he's doing with the Reagan podcasts. I think it, uh, helps bring light to, uh, some of Reagan's ideas and it's— it's kind of interesting to look back at some of those ideas now because we have a bit of hindsight to be able to— to see where those might have taken us if they took hold, the good and the bad, um and uh, kind of review those. So, um, I am excited to be here and participate in this.Cool okay. Just to make sure you don't think I'm breaking the mold completely, I do have history to share with you on the broadcast we're going to discuss and it is scripted. I did work out a lot of this ahead of time, however the plan for this is it to be the conversation to be largely off the cuff.
First, today we're going to talk about two broadcasts where Reagan talks about the National Dividend Program and these broadcasts are from 1975. I have not heard this concept or I had not heard of this concept until purchasing the Reagan broadcasts a couple years ago and it's almost providential to me because there's been a great deal of discussion in the last few years about UBI, the universal basic income. now this isn't quite the same concept for a couple of reasons, but I still wonder why politicians who support it the UBI like Andrew Yang aren't talking about something like this. I have a theory, mike and I can talk about it, but first we're gonna play the broadcasts for you:
Socialism makes promises only capitalism can keep.
I'll be right back.
Yesterday, I told you of a plan used by some industrial corporations to make their employees stockholders part owners of the firm.
Today I want to tell you about another idea for giving every registered voter ownership in the business and industrial structure of America. Now this is not a half-baked utopian dream, it's a well-thought-out fully documented program called the national dividend plan which has the endorsement of well-known economists and political scientists.
Lionel D. Edie and Company, a research subsidiary of one of the great financial institutions, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith did a feasibility study and endorsed it. Other endorsers include the American Enterprise Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Junior Chamber, the Jaycees, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the United States Savings and Loan League, and the National Association of Manufacturers.
By the way, this plan is not offered as a substitute or alternative for the plan I discussed yesterday where my employees could acquire ownership in the companies they work for. We could actually have both, and let me repeat what I said yesterday, we won't be taking anything away from anybody in the process nor will those who benefit have to dig into their savings.
Right now the income tax on corporation profits is 48 percent. The national dividend plan calls for setting a ceiling of 50 percent. Investors would be assured that the corporation tax would never go above fifty percent. This should encourage more investment, since the plan would also end the present, unfair, double tax under which the corporation profits are taxed and then those distributed as dividends are taxed again as individual shareholders income. This would end. You'll see why in a minute.
The corporation tax would continue to be collected by government, however, instead of government spending it in our behalf we'd get to spend it ourselves.
Every citizen registered to vote in the previous federal election would receive a pro rata share of the total corporation tax collected by government. This means the registered voters of America would be sharing in roughly half the profits of American industry.
Checks would be sent on a quarterly basis and it's estimated that when the program is fully implemented the payments to each individual should be five hundred dollars or more each year, tax-free. An elderly couple on a pension or social security would be getting an additional thousand dollars a year as their share of an industrial prosperity. Registered eighteen-year-olds would have five hundred dollars a year to help them with their education and each of us would have a personal stake in helping our economy to expand and produce more. One little known statistic shows how we could all help to increase our annual dividend. A one tenth of one percent increase in output per man hour adds a billion dollars to the gross national product. A two or three percent increase would make us the world's greatest producer.
This basically is the plan tomorrow. I'll give you more details, including what we can do to make the national dividend plan a reality.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
We can all own a piece of the action. It only takes an act of Congress.
I'll be right back.
This is the third day I've been talking about capitalism and a couple of ideas that could make all of us capitalists.
When my old friend Congressman H.R. Charlie Gross of Iowa retired last year, he gave his colleagues a farewell address that challenged every one of them to start thinking about the next generation instead of the next election. For a quarter of a century he's been the conscience of the Congress, pleading constantly for statesmanship and responsibility. Very seldom did they support him in overwhelming numbers but in their hearts every one of them knew he was dead right and they were dead wrong.
In that final address he presented a simple idea that could resolve most of our problems and make this nation once again the golden hope of all mankind. The idea he presented was not his. It was the work of many distinguished scholars and men successful in industrial America. It's known as N.D.P., the National Dividend Plan.
As I told you yesterday, it's a plan whereby government, which is collecting in taxes about half the profits of all U.S. corporations, would give that money back directly to the people, with each registered voters sharing the benefits of free enterprise. I'm sure yesterday's broadcast must have left you with a few questions. Well let me see if I can give you some additional facts and answer some of those questions.
First of all, N.D.P. will not cause great disruption or damage to the necessary functions of the federal government. It would be phased into operation over a five-year period, twenty percent a year.
The present corporation tax accounts for about fifteen percent of total federal revenue. So each year for five years, the reduction would be one-fifth of that or about three percent. Now normally federal revenues grow by about nine percent a year, just from the growth of the economy. So even though the government would be giving to all the people the corporation tax, government would still have an increase in revenue each year.
In addition to this normal growth rate in revenue, there would be an additional stimulant because of the money freed for investment and spending. This not only stimulates more economic activity in the private sector, it also generates even more tax revenues for government. At the same time, many government programs could be reduced and some completely eliminated. Every family would be receiving tax-free funds based on the number of registered voters in the family. This would eliminate the need for many supplemental aid programs and the bureaucracies that supervise them.
The wealth of a nation is measured by the industry it creates and the goods it produces, for the most part government spending does neither. On the other hand increased activity in the private sector does. It has a multiplier effect. The National Dividend Plan would involve distribution of earned dollars. Dollars the government is taking in taxes from private industry and theoretically already spending on our behalf. The new plan calls instead for letting each American spend his share of those dollars the way he chooses.
Our Congressmen know of the plan, Thanks to former Congressman Gross. Now it's up to us to see that Congress knows that we know it. Our job is not so much to make Congress see the light, as to make them feel the heat.
This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
First just uh some of the stuff I took note of. Reagan estimates 500 per year per person tax-free in 1975 as the result of the national dividend program. What would it look like now, though, if it if it was being implemented. I found a website called statistica.com (
correction: statista.com) that includes both the
corporate tax incomes and
voter registration numbers and I'll include the links in my wiki. If this is the first time you've listened, it's www.poorrichardsprintshop.com/wiki and I figured I'd go back through about six years of available data and see how it pans out.
| Year | Corp. Tax
(Billions) | Reg. Voters
(Millions) | N.D.P. |
| 2019 | $230 | 153 | $1503 |
| 2018 | $204.7 | 153 | $1337 |
| 2017 | $297 | 157.6 | $1884 |
| 2016 | $299.6 | 157.6 | $1901 |
| 2015 | $343.8 | 142.2 | $2417 |
| 2014 | $320.7 | 142.2 | $2255 |
A couple things to keep in mind. First, there are a lot of factors that could have impacted these numbers between 1975 and now. Second, we only hold federal elections every two years so the voter total doesn't change every single year. In 2019, corporate tax receipts was 230 billion dollars and if you divide that by 150 million voters that voted in 2018 the total amount is about fifteen hundred and three dollars. In 2018 those corporate tax receipts were 204.7 billion and divided by the same number of voters it comes out to about thirteen hundred and thirty seven dollars. 2017, the same math works out to about eighteen hundred and eighty four dollars. 2016, the math works out to about 1900 dollars. 2015. it comes to 2400 and 2014 is 2255 dollars. and for contrast, just with inflation that five hundred dollars a year is equivalent to twenty four hundred dollar and five dollars per year. Now and during those years these amounts accounted for anywhere between 9 and four—, or I'm sorry the— the
tax receipts, amount to about 9% to 14% of the total federal budget.
Um, so, Mike I don't want to go— what do you think— what— what do you think of that math? What is— how does that sound taking into account the fact that we have a— right now we're at a lower tax rate we had we're only at 21 now whereas then it was 48 and—
Um, I was actually a little surprised by the the the voter the number of registered voters.Sure yeah.
I think there's two parts to that—
I think the first is the inclusion of, uh, only registered voters as opposed to anyone, or up uh, which I think contrasts the UBI idea. um so I think that's an interesting take, um, that, that we might want to delve into and I also, you, know it's interesting that those numbers you just provided 2014, uh, average of about 2,200 each and now, uh, last year, or the year before would be 2019, would be, you know, 1500 dollars. that decline in that I know part of that is the, uh, the tax cuts that you mentioned, um, but also, uh, you know how much of a decline is there in profitability of the the corporations, uh, as of late and, sort of, how they put that on their books as opposed to you know, yes 1970s where, you know, you didn't have too much of this money moving across the— the— the— world and you didn't have, uh, as many different kinds of, uh— uh, options, uh, stock buybacks and things like that, where they put their money into instead of paying out dividends. So I think that's interesting, um, but it— but overall, I think it's interesting that the number is sort of close. I mean in the ballpark of where Reagan was, um, when you adjust for inflation. So I thought that was surprising, uh and uh and, quite interesting.Okay, um and you, you meant, you touched on one of those factors that I was thinking about when I— the impact of the numbers looking at then versus now is um how things have changed, not just the tax rate, but like the money goes being stored in— outside the country. I mean how many times do we hear about massive corporations, G.E. had paid zero taxes last year not last year but I mean they would say, "G.E. paid— had paid zero taxes last year! How can they get away with that?" and I mean they have their ways. I can't even tell you what they are. I don't know exactly what they are, but they have their ways. Would— You have to wonder— what do we have— what would we have to fix? What we have to change, maybe, fix isn't the right word, what would we want to change that would increase these corporate tax receipts, that would then go to the people. What could be— what loopholes could be closed? what kind of things could be changed? what are ways that we can get money to come back into— for companies to bring the money back into the country? There's so many different little factors to this. It's almost it's almost like the numbers I just read are a little irrelevant. I mean today, yes. that's good, but comparing them to back then it's a little— there's so many variables—
Sure. —to worry about.
Yeah. I— you know and you wonder— I wonder the the groups that were behind us and endorsed this back then like the the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the um, Federation of Women's Clubs, the Savings and Loan League, It's hard to believe, that the Chamber of Commerce would be for something like this— this today, um it you know it's— it's— it's— a very interesting plan because you wouldn't think that today's Republicans would be behind something like— like that won't be behind this at all.I don't, um, there's very few Republicans you'd hear talking about a UBI or or something along those lines. It's usually, I mean, Democrats maybe even, well Andrew Yang's, an interesting case because, he's got that business background, but he's— he's a Democrat but there's a lot of, I mean, more socialist-type politicians that are in support of it too.
Yeah, you know it's like thinking that this was a— a Reagan, you know, endorsed plan and— and then the list of Republican, uh, Conservatives, back then who were on board with it. And, you know, I— I— you wonder, uh, you know, kind of what that would be like today, what kind of group would be behind something like this, and um so that's— it's very interesting to think about, and um you know, and how much of that was this 50% cap that they wanted to do and and this was really a push to have a corporate, uh, income tax or corporate dividend you know um a cap on that, yeah, because it was at 48% at the time which is you know mind-blowing today right, you know? And, uh, I— I— wonder what those numbers would be if we had a 50 percent.Yes, how much would it go up, but also how much might that number be down because as— as we said today, we have— there's so many other mechanisms for a company to not share yeah and not report or however you want to put it.
CrosstalkYeah I mean sure I have a feeling that something like this today and if you pitch this to somebody like Mitch McConnell or something, you know like a mainstream Republican would say, "Well that's just going to send jobs overseas because the corporations are going to move over, you know, overseas instead of, uh, increasing, you know if they were to increase the corporate tax but then give back they're going to just move jobs because that's the kind of the rally call these days. you know if you're going to increase taxes you're going to the uh those those companies are going to move. um which is part of why these numbers might be lower as well because that has obviously happened over the last 30 years 40 years.Right. Right.
Um, so, you know it's— it's very interesting but I— I did want to touch on the the idea of just, uh, because I think it's worth investigating or discussing, every voter, registered voter who voted in the last federal election getting, um this money, instead of every citizen. um and uh I mean. What are your thoughts on that?Well, admittedly we— we did discuss a little bit of this before we before we started recording and one of the things I mentioned was in the years after the revolution and going— going forward, I don't know how long the vote— who had the right to vote— in a lot of cases first of all was desi— decided by the states but it was also very often tied to property ownership. It meant you had some skin in the game as to what, you know, what what you were voting on. whether your money was, you know, whether you wanted to vote for a guy who would raise taxes or lower taxes or whatever. And in this case I think the idea is getting back to that. It's— it's— but having it only given to people who are registered voters you encourage people to— to— research, to make sure that their— their money is being handled properly by good people in Washington. Um, I had something and now I've lost it. I don't know if I'm going to cut this out or not that's a good that I didn't think about that. But I think it— it also may encourage people to register and start paying attention to it— to the government more of and I— I would see that as a good I thing. More people should pay attention— I see— you know working in the library for all as many years as I did, the number of people that I saw come in and all they checked out was People, InStyle, USWeekly, Life & Style, you know those— that step-above-the-tabloid and all they were interested in, was celebrity news. That really irked me. All the things in this world that you really should be paying attention to, and Kanye and Kim or Taylor Swift is where you're putting your focus? That, again, it's just me, but that, that did get on my nerves a little bit. I did— I never said anything. If I'd if I'd known I was going to lose my job when I did, maybe I would have said something to— to somebody it's like, hey I won't be here in a few weeks so who cares. I would have had some fun with that, but um it— it— I think people should have more interest, more more involvement in— in their government.
Sure, yeah you know and we have it, yeah, we definitely agree on that point. I think, um the difference between then and now is certainly we all have skin in the game because of the income tax now, um which didn't exist then and not even well.You mean back in the revolution?
yeah that's what you were obviously in the 70s I guess you're referring to, you know, right the revolution and and only property owners and such would have you know skin in the game because they had to be a property tax and but now everyone, uh, has that, uh ,or you know we all have a piece of that sometimes and then, um, you know so I think that's part of it, um, and but— but it certainly— I mean, you know, in the COVID era that we're in, you know when we're recording, this certainly, it one— you have to reflect on that idea. As much as I want to involve everyone and I wish everyone would and— and— I'm all for a national election day or whatever it has to do to to get that in but to say, hey you're only going to get your benefits if you show up on this one single day, well in 20 you know 2021 is it's definitely a hard sell I would say.I— I understand but he does say register voters he doesn't say whether they actually participated in the vote.
Yeah— but— he didn't but the plan did so.Okay, okay that's ext— external research. Sure absolutely just— just make it I just want to make sure.
It was that it was the last national uh election so you couldn't you know if you went and voted in May for, uh, you know, school levy or something that wouldn't get right um and you know. again you know it's, uh, certainly there's so many different reasons people can't go, um and true and you know I would hope that everyone can can show up but to say for the next two years you don't get you know your share of the the money is certainly something. You know he mentions a few things, though, you know the idea that this would help with, um, uh, incentivize workers to be more productive and, uh, you know that's that's always a number that's, uh, uh, talked about a lot you know how to increase productivity, um, if that incentive is there, but you know there are parts of this that are a little bit of a socialism thing, and— and— and you know I think that's definitely part of that and those don't normally— those incentives don't normally work in the socialist countries, so it would be hard to see that aspect of the broadcast and what he's trying to say actually coming to— coming to fruition just because they're going to get some money because me, as a the worker at, you know, Ford, uh, you know working harder that day isn't going to make one iota of my $500 change, you know what I mean, uh, so I you know unless they see that— that's part of uh you know uh free market economics and such that— that— you know you— you— you get that direct, um uh, reaction when you're talking about the whole country, it's harder to see that as uh being an incentive. Certainly I understand the idea.You know you mentioned some something else to think about when you you were mentioning the registered voters and I'm hoping this doesn't get anything flagged or anything because I'm bringing it up but with certain questions about registrations. I'm not— I won't bring up the machines— I won't bring up the machines— but certain questions about people who are registered, people who may or may not exist, and this is not just limited to this year, Reagan had a broadcast where he talked about the about voter fraud which does exist.
You need to do that one too yeah.That was one of the first ones I put up on Youtube but that does bring the registered voters does make you wonder how many how many empty lots are going to have 500 checks sent to them or— it almost— it almost seems like a way you could clean up the voter rolls. I mean if— if I send a check in the mail— if the federal government sends a check in the mail and it bounces back because, oh, this happens to be a park or a graveyard, playing into, the you know, that that particular stereotype, or I don't know any kind of an empty lot where you know somebody does not live, but they're registered to vote, could it help clean up their voter rolls? On the other hand, and flip side of that, those houses where there's somehow 40 different people registered to vote, are they are we going to end up seeing 40 different checks going to one house. I don't know, you know.
And that— that's the point, um I think, uh that, uh if this were to be a, uh and actually obviously this isn't gonna happen you know but if it were to, um, I think that there will be some big questions and I don't know if conservatives will like it, big questions on standardizing the registration process because I can say I live in Ohio and you live in California and how I register is different than how they register and so it's harder for me to get my piece of this— this dividend, right, so I think there are definitely questions like that.How does it— how does it get managed, when the voter rolls and everything are handled at a county or a state level as opposed to a federal level? That is one thing Reagan doesn't address at all, yeah, even I mean back then, that was a there's— it was counties and states that handled this how— how— how does the federal government get those voter rolls to know who to send the checks to?
Yeah, I mean can you imagine conservatives saying, 'hey we want all the national voters and give us a list.' I mean that's hard enough to do while you're disputing elections.I think— I think you have that problem whichever party tries to make them—
No I agree, yeah you're right, it isn't but, um, yeah— yeah that's— that's very interesting it's hard to see it being an option but if you— even if you take that away I think that, um so it would be very interesting to see who would get behind a plan like this, because I think you might have a very wide variety of people that would be interested— now the— the— the Democrats or the the liberal side, the left side of things, you know certainly isn't going to like cutting 15 of the— the— the— you know national uh no you know income for the— for the government and I think that one thing I— you know. a little bit of a criticism on— on Reagan's podcast is. uh. I think he glosses over how hard it would be to cut that much over five years. uh, I think that a lot of times people say, oh it's three percent, it's not a big deal, but uh try taking three percent out of your personal budget, uh, and uh, you know, that's— that's hard and then after every year you have to cut down three percent extra? I think that's— that's pretty difficult for an individual, let alone you know the government who has certain obligations that they have to commit to.Yes and those obligations have gotten a lot larger since the 1970s, between Social Security, Medicare, you know,
And that's not even coming out of these things so no I— I understand so I think it would be very difficult to do that, um, but you know, it does would have the same result as a tax cut, you know, um as far as getting, uh money into people's pockets, or like the stimulus checks that have happened in 2020 and presumably 2021, is that the same kind of, uh, stimulus is this basically a type of stimulus here, um and you're also just the, other part of this, is that you are taking out national debt to make this happen, whether it's, you know, however it is, we have a national debt now and a deficit and this is not going to cover that, right, so this is going to be we're going to be borrowing to make this happen, so and regular one of two so you know.I think, uh that's yeah yeah. Um a little bit more history on the broadcast you mentioned not, I don't remember now if it was before we've hit the record button or after, but you mentioned not knowing, Charlie Gross. I think it was before because we were listening to the broadcast —
Yeah I was I had no idea who that was but he certainly talked quite highly of himself.Yes, yes I did a lit— I did a little bit of research on on who he was so I'll cover that now.
Harold Royce Gross was a 13th term congressman from Iowa and when Reagan calls him an old friend he's not speaking hyperbolically. Gross worked at Iowa's WHO radio station at the same time as Reagan in the 1930s, so they knew each other beforehand. Congressman Gross was what we would today call a budget hawk, which, again with all we've said makes it very interesting that he would support this. He opposed wasteful spending at every single turn, regardless of the source or reason for the spending, whether it was foreign aid, space program, post offices, bridges, he never went on a con— on a congressional junket. He questioned when— when JFK was assassinated— he questioned whether the federal government should be paying for the— get the natural gas that goes into the Eternal Flame at his gravesite. He thought, the Kennedys are kind of rich, don't you think they could fit the bill, flip the bill, you know, pay the bill on this? According to his obit, uh oh no, I just covered that part, uh and uh, breaking with traditional practice of numbering bills sequentially when they're being introduced, Gross got a special perk being in Congress. I'm covering up my— my notes can you guess what it was?
I wouldn't have a guess okay.No? No, okay, the first bill that Gross would put forth in every session was designated H.R. 144.
I don't get it.You don't— you don't know— What's a gross? A gross is 144 of something, 12 a dozen dozen.
I'm glad you're good yeah yeah I know I got that all right wow that's uh something.
I just thought that was interesting so he was a I mean he was really like from what Reagan said I mean he really was driving this when he retired and this is kind of, like, he was thinking really big on it you know this kind of his legacy to try to have them continue this onHe— he probably figured that, you know, being a budget hawk, he probably looked at all the money he was— that the government was spending on, um, welfare programs, well I mean he pro— something I didn't put in my notes he opposed the Vietnam War because of all the money we would have— because of the cost involved, not because we were going to war in a foreign country, um, but he probably looked at, you know, all the wel— the spending on welfare programs and support knew that it hadn't really made a big difference since 1960-whatever when LBJ's Great Society put it into place and wanted a way to, uh— uh you know, end at least some of it, because another famous Reagan line, uh, "There's nothing so eternal as a government program." all right I'm paraphrasing, that I don't think that's exactly— these exact words.
But know so you know I think uh yeah I probably should mention you know the that this would have replaced some of those social policies—We don't know what, no way of knowing what—
Yeah I mean you know they've had obviously there's just a basic plan here and not an actual bill or anything. so that those specifics didn't but that was one of the intentions and it was also to make dividends tax-free so that so those dividends that the half that would be going to the, uh, citizens or I should say the voters would be tax-free but also the half that would be going to the shareholders was going to be tax-free as well, which may have been some of the motivation to get him on board or those types of people. um but yeah it's interesting that this kind of just sort of died, um, nothing nothing really came of it I mean I had never heard about it until you know your— your uh until the Reagan podcast that you sent me. so it was uh it's very interesting, um—And Reagan didn't even and not to to my knowledge Reagan never even tried to do anything like this when he during the eight years he was president—
Yeah, I didn't— I couldn't find that either so I don't think so so just kind of bring it back around to like modern day, so, how does this differ, in your mind, from like universal basic income?Well, we touched on it before the— the the registered voters. Um, UBI I think the usually when mentioning UBI they they put a figure of like, a thousand dollars or twelve hundred dollars per month on it, which I mean, heck for me now being unemployed that that would cover my mortgage that would cover that would cover me pretty good for a lot of things. Um and, I mentioned in— in the lead up that, uh, that I thought there were a couple of reasons why they wouldn't support, or wouldn't get into this stuff. The other thing in, you know, the state of politics as they are, I think it's, I think there's an element of demagoguery in it, the their way they can go after the rich, the one percent, they can say, "we're going to raise the taxes on the people who aren't paying their fair share," and turn that around and say we're going to take that money we're going to give it to everybody at a thousand dollars a month, not— ignoring the fact that there's almost no way you could tax the ri— the top one percent at that— at any rate, and be able to give that amount of money, the number, those numbers, just doesn't seem to me, would— would work out. I mean if you took every dollar that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates had right now, I don't think you could pay everybody for a year a thousand dollars.
Yeah, but but you know this is a different way of going about that same result, though. right true. I mean, uh, you know you're taking money out of the federal income, uh that tax base but you're also taking the money out of the corporations which is where most of the wealthy people are getting their money anyway. so you know it's— it's sort of the end— it's sort of the same end result, just a different slightly different way of doing it.But— but they don't have they don't have the talking byte, the the sound byte behind. I mean sure we're going to go after the— we're going to go after every corporation in America, that, I guess— it doesn't— it might not have the same ring— maybe.
It's a pretty good ring for uh, I don't know you know but, um, but from the conservative standpoint what is the what is the difference there? though I mean. the difference between conservatives are mostly against UBI and so this is I mean this this is sort of not a thousand dollars a month this isn't going to get there no but it is something towards that you know they've been uh lately talking about earned income tax credit for children and families every month and things like that so this is sort of along those same lines. which again from a 2021 standpoint is is interesting that these conservatives were behind that kind of plan so.So I on the conservative side, I'm not— I'm— honest— I'm not sure— I mean I gotta be honest— he's honest about that
I— I would love to know what the the Democrats thought of this plan back then. It never came up because it was never you know, yeah, in— in Congress but—You might have to— you might actually have to dig into the Congressional Record and see— you'd have to find Gro— you know, H.R. Gross's actual final speech and see if there was any kind of a response given at any point.
But they never voted so we don't know—No they wouldn't well, vote, no but if somebody gave a speech afterwards saying, 'Hey this is a great idea" or "No, we can't do that and this is why" or— and there may be newspaper accounts but newspapers, I mean, it's easy to find digitized newspapers online it's a whole other thing to have to pay to get access to one little newspaper article—
It's just it's just interesting how yeah how things have changed. oh you know like I mean look at and this is a prime example of that because when I heard that you know the the podcast earlier I was I was stunned, you know, that Reagan and Conservatives that were back in this plan I'd never heard of, I was— I was shocked um and uh it's it's quite an interesting idea and uh it'd be interesting to see if anyone would uh ever you know put it forth again obviously there's a lot of you know things that today would be a difficult thing about, uh like, the— the voter, you know giving voters in at uh the last federal election. I think is a bit big pitfall these days. Um, even though it has some positive, uh, right result, um but uh yeah, it's it's quite interesting, and I you got to imagine like an Andrew Yang and, uh, you know maybe some conservatives, uh uh, Mitt Romney or something might actually get together to, uh uh, to actually be behind something like this, yeah especially if on the conservative side you say it's taking away from Facebook, you know.Facebook might be one of the companies that, well as we said, you'd have to probably find a way to eliminate some of those some loopholes somewhere.
Well let's agree to this we need to do that anyway. Well I think we can all agree that some—I don't know, sometimes I worry that you've closed one— who— loophole they're just going to find another way to actually— actually tax loopholes is something Reagan was against. That's in some of the other broadcasts but he he's really concerned that when they start talking tax leap loopholes in Congress you're going to end up paying more money yes they're they're clearing things up making the tax code maybe you a little easier but one of the things they like to talk about is your— your the interest on your mortgage as a— an item to remove the tax loophole and that would that would hurt a lot of people especially working— at the working class level.
Yeah we'll have to get into that one another time we've had that discussion maybe years yeah yeah all right.Well, as I said before, my name is Roy, I've never introduced myself formally so now I have, and I invited my friend Mike to— to talk and this was— this was an interesting discussion because there's a lot of stuff that I probably wouldn't have touched on— uh— uh— in— in— doing this broadcast. And we broke 30 minutes.
There you go. I don't think— we didn't think we'd go that long now.Goodbye and look for us next week.
Thanks for listening.Other Sources
US Federal Tax Revenue by Year