This Is How People Really Feel About Paying Taxes

people are listening to this. This whole episode could just be like this weird time capsule from some normal time or I guess not really normal these days, but from

some totally different time. So hello from the past. So on that note, you know, everyone in DC is getting ready for the election, and at the same time, you can just imagine there are rooms filled with people, um, you know, with policy waks who are trying to figure out what policy might look like under both you know, another four years of Trump and also potentially four years

of Biden. Yeah. So I think, like, you know, the first order of business most people assume, if there's say a Biden administration, would be some sort of major spending stimulus, sort of heavy running up the deficit in order to get the economy back to trend or accelerate the return to full employment. Then you know, that's the kind of

thing that people imagine could get past in February. But if you know, we're talking about a Biden administration or any Democratic administration in the future, then there would also be further policy questions beyond that, and one of those, of course would be, uh, the future of the tax system, which was reformed in the first Trump administration. Yeah, I mean, taxes have been a big talking point, you know, ever since Trump came in in six and did a lot

of stuff, including reducing the corporate tax rate. But the Biden tax program is also getting a lot of attention at the moment because he's talking about doing a tax hike for very wealthy individuals and also I think talking a little bit about maybe um upping or imposing tax on capital gains. So clearly this is all in focus. Uh, death and taxes are inevitable. Um the fact that all lots would do an episode on taxes, I suppose, is

also inevitable. But I think one really interesting thing when it comes to tax policy is, you know, there is this idea among economists and among policy makers that they're trying to balance a number of things here, you know, they're trying to balance I guess you would say the efficiency cost of taxes um with their benefits, so, you know, making society more equal, bringing revenue for the government obviously, and there's a tendency to look at that in a

really rational way. But as hopefully a lot of people know already, the average person on the street might have different ideas about the drawbacks or the benefits of taxes um depending on their personal position. Right, They're not necessarily thinking about it rationally. No, people don't necessarily think about taxes rationally other than most people don't like paying them, and most people, all else equal, would like to pay less. But I do think, you know, it's interesting, and we'll

get into this in the conversation. I have a I feel like the salience of taxes as a political issue has gone down, that there are a lot of people for whom cutting taxes. You know, it's this huge mantra for years. Is probably one of the defining elements of the GOP in the US is that they're the party

of tax cuts. And of course Trump did cut taxes, but it feels like, you know, everything else going on these days we have so many cultural fights and COVID and other question the salience of the tax number, which has already been a lot, feels like it has a less political residence. But we'll discuss that with our guests. Maybe that's just my bias. I don't know, who knows if that's actually true. No, I think you're right. It just feels like there are like, you know, like tax

cut Republicans. It used to just be such a thing, and it feels like that people have sort of moved on. But who knows the good old days when the only thing people were really getting worried about was higher taxes. Yeah, easier times, a simpler time. All right. Well, uh, that brings us um quite nicely to our guest for this episode, I suppose. So we have Stephanie Sancheva. She's a professor

of economics over at Harvard. She's done a lot of really interesting research on all types of policy, but specifically, she did a very good paper about taxes. Recently. She also, I think, just won the Elaine Bennett Research Prize, very prestigious award in economics, and I think she's also been tipped as a future Nobel Prize winner. Hopefully we're not chinxing it by saying that. But Stephanie, thank you so how much for coming on. Thank you. It's my pleasure

to be here. So I guess just to begin with. You know, you published this paper, I think it was back in August, and it was called Understanding Tax Policy How do People Reason? And the really interesting thing about this was you went out and you did a really massive and detailed survey about how people individually feel about taxes.

Why did you decide to take that approach? Yeah, So when I decided to do this project, it came from having experience with other such types of research where I've been trying to understand how we as citizens think about our public policies, the economy and society. You know, how we reason, what we perceive as fair, what shapes our views.

I think this is very important both our researchers and then for policymakers to understand in order to design policies that are better in line with our views of society. And I found it for this the Social Economics Lab at Harvard, where we do these large scale social economic surveys um sometimes on several countries to try and see how people reason, um, how people understand things, and you know, the key idea is, basically, we need to listen more

to people. Um. And so this project on tax policy came from the idea that you hear a lot of things in the policy debate. Some of them economists would say are accurate, others you may say are quite misleading. And so I was very curious, what are sort of the mental maps, the mental models people use when they decide what tax policy to support, what tax policy to vote for. So do people ever like higher tex So there's a lot of complex considerations that go into thinking

about taxes for people. UM. What I find is actually that the key factor in people's minds is how fair is the tax system? Um. People care first and foremost about fairness. And what's interesting is that, of course fairness is in the eye of the beholder. So do people like high taxes? Yes, for some people who believe that it's actually unfair to have a lot of income inequality or a lot of wealth inequality. For those people, higher

taxes would actually be considered fair. And so perhaps the you know, the complexity here is that fairness truly is in the eye of the beholder and means very different things. To different people. So one of the interesting things about your paper is that you also, um, do this research and you sort of talk to people along partisan lines. So I'm curious, does the idea of fairness change substantially

depending on whether you're Republican or Democrat. So our ideas about taxes actually look very divided along political lines, and not just in the final policy views. If you want whether we want higher lower taxes, um, that we we already knew and we can easily see. But actually, at every step of the reasoning about taxes, uh, they're big political divides. So what are the considerations if you want that people that people have in mind? And how are

they divided along partisan lines? Well, the first thing people care about is what will be the economic effects of raising taxes or lowering taxes. The second thing they care about is who will benefit, who will gain, who will lose? And then the fanness concerns I would summarize us, how do we wait the gains and losses? Um, how much weight do we put on the losers? How much weight

do we put on the winners? Here, people also care about their views of the government, Um, how the government will spend that revenue is the government efficient, does the government have a lot of waste um? And then finally, people also care out what they already know on the current tax system. And so at each of these steps there's actually big political divides. So to make this simple, if you're more on the left, on the Democrats side, then you actually think taxes have lower economic costs, so

higher taxes don't hurt the economy as much. You also think that in general, tax cuts you know at the at the top will really mainly benefit higher income people, as opposed to if you're on the right, where you believe in trickle down, namely that tax cuts on high incomes will benefit everyone else as well, it would be

the tide that lifts all boats. Um. If you're on the left, you also tend to think that it's much more unfair to have so much income inequality or wealth inequality, and you believe fundamentally people are not entitled to infinitely high incomes and that it's fair to tax away at least part of it. What's perhaps most striking is that there is artisan divide even on the perception of reality.

That's what I call polarization of reality, which is even about the current tax system how high is the top tax rate, where does the top tax bracket start, how high is these stay tax et cetera. Even there there's actually uh divergence along political lines. So in a nutshell, people who are on the left tend to think taxes are lower, less progressive, there's more incoming equality than people on the right do. And what is striking is that these are things that one can actually look up. Um,

this is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of current factual realities. So I'm I want to talk a little bit more. You know, I'm curious obviously about what you found, but I want to talk a little bit more about your methodology and your approach and why you think the survey going out and asking people is a good idea, Because I'm curious if, like, you know, someone came to me and said, like, oh, what are your use on the tax system or why do you

support higher lower taxes? You know, I might come up with some thoughtful thing about fairness because I'm talking to someone and I want to sound reasonable and I want to say, oh, well, it's very important for me to know that it's being spent well, and I want to say smart sounding sophisticated things. But then then then they leave, and then I'm thinking and just want lower taxes because

I want to keep more money. So I'm curious about what you see is the advantages, the costs, and benefit of the survey method for getting people's opinions on what you just described are very political questions. This is a great question, And let me give a bit of background to this methodology, so you know, the key idea is really that it's important to get into people's minds, into our minds of citizens, and there are things which we cannot see in other data and that we cannot extract

with other methods. And these are these invisible things like perceptions, these attitudes, reasoning, and so we as economists have many tools based on large scale data sets, but these invisible things will still not be seen in these other data sets. So in some sense, directly asking people is perhaps the best way to go here. What's important is, of course, that these surveys are not just you know, opinion polls on the street, but actually carefully designed, rigorous research tools.

So they're done online in a way that's very interactive, intuitive, walking people through a controlled order series of questions. Uh and they're done in a completely anonymous way, so there's absolutely no social pressure. Um. You can take it on your phone, you can take it alone in front of your browser. There is no surveyor in front of you, so there's actually very little mispers, very little incentive to misreport.

Let me just resay that sentence. There's actually very little incentive to misreport um your opinions, as there is absolutely no social pressure around it. Now, the design is very critical, so I go through several blocks here too get a sense of really what's going on in people's minds. And I actually start with what you suggested, which is a plane open ended question to get actually people's gut reaction,

which is, what are your main considerations about taxes? And then I can analyze these answers, you know, in a freely open ended way, and it's very clear what sort of considerations come out. Everybody mentions fairness, people mentioned the middle class a lot, People worry about loopholes. But then I can drill down by walking people through more detailed questions, so on the mechanisms of taxes. For instance, if taxes increased on higher incomes, what would you think the effects

would be? Do you think higher incomes with less entrepreneurial save less move states, um, workless great less jobs, et cetera. And so you can want people through all these detail reasonings and elicit much more detailed you know, beyond the gut reaction responses, and so taken together, this relatively long and well designed survey actually really shed some good light

into what's going on in people's heads. One of the things that you did, UM in the survey was you also, I think you showed people short videos that kind of explain how tax policy actually works. Could you maybe talk a little bit about that aspect of UM of the research. Yes.

So my idea here was to see whether if we actually showed people simple explanatory videos, which are fully neutral, non part is and pedagogical, the way you may see in a plain introductory economics course, whether that could actually help improve understanding of taxes. And I designed these videos to be UM, short and fun hopefully easy to understand, and I simply vary the frame UM with which with

which I show them. So, for instance, one video will focus mainly on the distributional consequences of taxes, essentially who gains who loses, you know, to the best of our economics knowledge today. The other will focus only on the economic costs of benefits, So what would be the effects on the economy, um, will output be lower? Will there

be economic costs? And then the third one actually brings these two together, and very much like economists would think, points out that there's always a trade off between the costs and benefit of taxes. The benefits in terms of raising revenues possibly re distributing income, you know, as much as is in line with your fairness and distributional inclinations.

And there's the economic costs because taxes always change people's behaviors to some extent or company's behaviors, and so entails some economic costs, and that the right tax system is

the one that actually balances these costs and benefits. And what I see is that these videos are actually quite effective, although they're pretty short, they're actually quite effective in making people, uh, you know, more aware of the tax system and also more supportive of progressive income taxes and more supportive also of the state tax. And I I noticed that the arguments that actually people care most about, very much in line with what I said earlier, are really the distributional

impacts and the fairness impact. So when people see the distributional impacts of taxes, how it could actually help you know, lower income people or the middle class, uh, and actually smooth the income distribution a little bit. Even if they become more aware of the economic costs as well, on balance, they tend to then side more with being in support of progressive taxes. So you mentioned estate taxes just then.

I'm curious, did you find out the way people feel about estate taxes is different to the way they feel about income taxes or I don't know. I don't think your paper went into corporate taxes, but I'm just curious what your take is on on variations and how people think about different types of taxes. So how do people

think about different types of taxes? In the paper, I look at two major tools on the personal tax side, which are um income taxes and the estate tax, which is a tax that is paid when someone passes away on the estate they pass on UM to their heirs and UM. I think that for other types of taxes, the the major considerations, which is, you know, what are your finn as views will also be probably the most

important ones. UM in the case of income in the state taxes, the biggest difference is that people are actually much more unaware of how these state tax works. Uh. The state tax is a very unpopular tax in the US. It's sometimes called the death tax, which is obviously not a not a great name, and it's very disliked. UM. What I find is that it's very disliked because people believe it's ultimately a double tax, which is a taxes income that has already been taxed at some point. Uh.

And it's also very unpopular because it's very misunderstood. So for instance, UM, in general, respondents think that around a third of all estates will end up paying these state tax and that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, less than one in thousand estates will be subject to these state tax So it's actually a tax that gives in very high in the wealth distribution that you may

pass on, and people are unaware of that. UM. So they believe, for instance, the chances that they are people they know or people like them will end up paying it is much higher than it actually is. But even there, the major considerations relate to fairness, and the state tax is actually a great example to illustrate how complex fans views can be and you are, you know, the listeners can can think about themselves. How do you feel about the fairness of taxing away wealth that's passed on from

parents to their children. Well, it's actually a very thorny ethical issue because if you take the perspective of children, then many people across the political spectrum agree that it's unfair for children, you know, just by virtue of being born in wealthier families to start with better amenities and life, start with more advantages in life, and then receive higher inheritances. So many people taking the perspective of children would feel that this is unfair and that we like equality of

a poor unity. Um, we like they give everybody equal chances. And so if you just think about the children's perspective, most people actually agree that it's fair to try to level the playing field a little bit by having an estate tax. But then flip it around and take the perspective of parents. So parents, you know, who have perhaps worked hard and saved in order to transmit wealth to their children. Once we take that perspective there, people feel

quite differently. They feel, oh, it's actually perhaps not that fair to tax away the wealth of parents who have worked so hard to give money to their children. And by the way, even if parents have themselves inherited and we're you know, already wealthy when they were young, even there people think it's not great from the perspective of the parents attacks this away. And so this is in conflict with each other because these two perspectives are fundamentally

opposing each other. And so in the end, people have to face this ethical dynama. And what I see is that on balance, in the end, people who are more on the left, on the Democrats side, tend to on balance say, okay, I'd rather have less inequality among children. I'd rather have more equality of opportunity among children, even if that means I need to penalize some parents and

tax away part of their states. And on the right, people tend to side perhaps more with the parents and thinking, well, it's too bad there will be unequal opportunities and inequality for children. But I still prefer to leave parents, you know, the right to pass on their wealth to their children tax free. So how much the upshot of your research is essentially applicable to the political language that has to be used in any campaign or policy debate. So people

have their views. I want to raise taxes, who want to cut taxes? How much does your research essentially sort of inform for either side the sort of framing that can be used to gather public support. So I want to be very clear about my motivations here. UM. My goal is to actually try and help people understand the

workings of taxes better. And for that the first step is actually you know the diagnostics state, which is where does the disagreement lie, Where is the misunderstanding hidden, what is incoherent perhaps in the reasoning or in the chain of reasoning. And so this is why I'm doing this project, to actually identify how people think about tax policy. The goal also by showing, for instance, these instructional videos, is to really see whether explanations improving understanding can help people.

And I have, you know, no wish to um encourage people in one direction or the other, especially when it comes to fanness considerations, which have very much you know, your own individual or our own social you know, prerogative

to have. But it's actually really about improving understanding. And I think that's very important because many people sometimes actually from disadvantage groups by not understanding what policies do are not able to assess what benefits or costs they will have to them, And I think giving people the tools to understand that means them being able to stand up

more for themselves and make better decisions for themselves. And you know, perhaps which we're thinking, but I'm also hoping that for many of these things, we can approach it from a more objective, nonpartisan angle and actually, you know, improve understanding rather than foster political differences. So I think your survey just on that point, Your survey is a sort of snapshot in time. But do you get the sense that people's views on taxes have solidified more along

partisan lines in recent years? Like do you think had you've done this survey twenty or thirty years ago, do you think it would have shown as stark split between attitudes. It's a really hard question to say whether polarization has increased or not in the US. It depends on the issues, and there isn't you know, so much detailed like the way we would do today survey data going back in

time to be able to say this. However, what is clear is that because there's partisan gaps at every single step, including on the views of reality, uh, they are clearly quite deeply anchored, and so I think it's um. It's unsurprising in the end, going through these chains of reasonings that we have very different views about tax policy on both sides of the political spectrum. Now, this is not

true for all policies. This is only part of the of the big research agenda, and I've looked at other policies like health insurance or trade policy, and partisan gaps are actually um not that large or look very different on other policies. So on health policy, for instance, people on the left and the right actually reason very similarly about the economic effects of health insurance, of the benefits in terms of distribution, or helping the sick, or helping

lower income families. The reasoning is actually extremely similar on both sides of the political spectrum. However, once we go to the final policy views, and for instance, ask would you support, you know, a single payer health insurance, would you support a version of Medicare for all, they're actually regardless of the previous reasoning, people revert very much back to party lines um, and so a gap appears in

the final policy views. Although it's very hard to detect any difference in how people actually reason about these policies. That's super interesting to me. I mean, one of the questions, and you know it comes up in all sorts of political discussions, is do people really ever change their minds when presented with new evidence? So maybe some people have some have some idea, they're like, oh, I think the tax rate is here, turns out the tax rate is

much lower. Did they actually change their minds on policy? Or do they come up with some some new reason? Does the mind automatically backfill some new sort of empirical explanation to support what is uh, They're they're sort of a political leaning. So obviously our brains are very complex, uh instruments, and we tend to have a lot of biases. And I say we because it really affects all of us. But I think it depends very much on the issue

whether information can improve or change people's minds. So in the case of tax policy, as I explained, actually people are open. It seems to explanatory videos or clear but a logical explanation of how tax policy works. That's not

true for all issues. So I've looked at issues like immigration, um mobility, social mobility in the US, inequality, views of the government, and it really varies, for instance, when it comes to immigration, and that's not just true for the US, that's true for um all the countries in the survey,

which includes many European countries. On immigration, people seem to be very sensitive mostly to narratives, to stories about immigrants, but facts about the actual number of immigrants, how well educated they are, where they come from, how much they contribute to the economy. That barely shifts anyone's minds. And so it really varies, and it depends on the issue under consideration. But I have to say one thing, which is that as economists, I think we have a very

big duty to actually remain incredibly neutral and scientific. You know,

economics is a science. It's a difficult one because we deal with complex systems like the economy and people, and so it's it's a difficult science, but it is a science using models, using data, and I think it's our really our duty to remain very nonpartisan, very neutral, and to do our best to actually inform people about what we find, what we discover on the workings of the economy, and hopefully that will also grant people some trust and

confidence that you know, we're we're simply trying to convey the knowledge that we have, not to influence them in one direction or the other. I have a slightly weird question, but you know, a lot of the concepts we're talking about, well, we're talking about how people perceive fairness, but a lot of it also seems to touch on collectivism versus individualism. So what's best for all of society or the economy

versus what's best for me? Specifically, how much of your research could be applied, UM, for instance, to the policy response to coronavirus in the US and how people are reacting to that. So the response to the coronavirus is

obviously a very topical and pressing issue right now. UM. We did a very large scale survey in fifteen countries, So we have more than respondents across fifteen countries, among which the US, and it's been running since since March UM and so we've been able to follow people's views on the restrictions put in place and how much they're willing to tolerate, how they trade off health risk, whether it's their own health risk or the public health risk

against their civil liberties UM, and civil liberties means you know, the right to move around the right for free expression, freedom of the press, democracy being respected, et cetera. And what we can see is that this trade off fundamentally differs in in in across countries. Uh So, actually, a country like the US relative to some European countries like Spain or Italy, is much less willing to trade off

their civil liberties uh for health benefits. Actually the country that's most willing to trade off those liberties is China. And then at the other end of the spectrum, we have US and Japan, which are the least willing to give up their rights. France and Germany trail very closely behind the US, so they're also reluctant to give up

civil liberties for health. And then countries that were hit perhaps very dress stically early on and had a real traumatic experience, like Italy, are much more willing to give up servi liberties. But this varies within country across people. So people who are themselves at a higher health risk um and you can predict health risk based on the medical models, so their inputs are you know, age, pre

existing conditions. So people who are at higher health risk themselves are much more willing to have restrictions imposed and give up their own liberties and accept restrictions for all of society, you know, for the public health benefit. So that's true within country. And the other thing that's uh that's true is that these things are changing over time. So as we're able to track people, the willingness to

give up rights mirrors the worries about health. And so as the worries about health have declined um over the summer and actually are now only ticking up again, we see exactly the same pattern or your willingness to accept restrictions or to give up rights. The willingness to give up rights declined, you know, or the whole summer, and then now it's ticking up slightly again in different places

as we see second or even third waves appearing. And so I think what this implies is that, you know, first of all, it's very important to have safeguards in place, because clearly, if people are willing to give up their rights, it's only temporary. And so it's important in democracies that this is you know, ensured to be temporary. And this can actually then encourage people to accept restrictions in the

short run because they know they will be temporary. Another thing, again related to the understanding part is in that project too, we actually explain to people, you want the benefits of various restrictive measures. Uh, you know, what's the benefit of having partial or full lockdowns, of imposing some restrictions, what's the gain in terms of flattening the curve or we're using cases. And once people actually see these nations, they

become much more willing to comply with those restrictions. And so I think the second big lesson is that it's important for policymakers to explain to people why something is being done, to explain the reasoning behind it, and to give people, you know, the tools to understand why something is happening or not. So especially as our medical understanding is progressing about how this virus looks like and what is beneficial, what is not. Obviously we didn't know everything

at all back in March. We're still figuring so many things out. It's very important to inform the public and be very you know, neutral and rigorous about how that's done. Do you feel as though the salience of tax is diminished as a political hot button issue When I hear a politician say I'm going to come out and cut taxes there's something kind of retro about it, to be like, it makes me think of like political fights in the

eighties and nineties or when I was growing up. And I'm just curious if in your research that's the case, Um that maybe it's like in terms of people's main things they think about the case that it's diminished, and b does that create openings for more flexibility for tax policy changes if it isn't the number one thing on

people's mind, So our taxes diminishing an importance in people's minds. Well, the first thing to say is that taxes are actually all the time they're and they're an incredibly powerful tool because they affect basically all stages of the economy, and if we get taxes wrong, it can have very damaging effects.

On the other hand, you know, a well designed tax system can both raise revenues redistributed income trying client to do so, and at the same time not hurt productivity, competitivity, etcetera. So taxes will always be, you know, a gigantic public policy issue. How much people focus on them depends obviously

on what else is going is going on. But the current COVID nineteen crisis actually really highlighted some fault lines in the economy between people you know, who are able to weather such a crisis as well and people who

are really left behind from it. In addition, it cost you know, governments throughout the world gigantic terms of money, and so very quickly the issue of how to make up for that fiscal deficit, how to make up for the shortfall in revenues, will come to the table and we will have to take a very hard look at how to change the tax system, how to design it better, and what to do ultimately to get this revenue. So I think, perhaps sadly, it will become a very pressing issue,

um in the not too distant future. Stephanie, thanks for coming on a really interesting approach to a lot of these topics. And uh yeah, I just recommend that people who are listening to this actually go and check out some of your research, including the paper on tax understanding tax policy, having people reason. Thank you some much. Thank you,

Thanks Tracy and Joe, bye bye. So Joe. I enjoyed that conversation, even though, UM, I guess not many people like talking about taxes, but I do think Stephanie's approach to examining the topic is really interesting, and I kind of wonder what other policy insights you could get from

these big surveys. Yeah. You know, something that she said that really struggle with me was her point about how a lot of people with different viewpoints actually share some common assumptions and even common reasoning, and then the flip

actually happens with a partisan association. So it's like, yeah, I think it's wrong that some some children get a huge leg up from inheritance or whatever it is, And there may be a lot of agreement on that, but ultimately in the end, it's like the sort of like political affiliation of the estate tax ends up trumping um, one sort of prior intuitions that you would uh that people that you would theoretically use to arrive at a conclusion. Right.

It sort of reminds me of like math homework, where everyone is working out the problem in a similar way but coming to very different answers. They would actually be like, you know, it's an interesting question though, like whether that's changed over time, um, whether you know, it's like someone who identifies as a Democrat, regardless of their reasoning, ends

up ends up supporting the Democrat policy. Someone who identifies the Republican regardless of their personal atuitions, end up ends up supporting the policy that's the official plank of Republicans. I mean, it seems like because people are just the level of partisanship is extremely high these days. Yeah, but I think that's going to be like now that we have some of these surveys going on, I think it's going to be really interesting to see this data evolve

over the next ten or twenty years. Right, we have it now, um, and you can sort of trace how attitudes are shifting in whether or not polarization is actually increasing. Yeah, and you know, look, I think, Um, obviously, I'm kind of skeptical. I mean, again, by the time people are listening to this, we'll probably know who the next president it is. But man, it's tough to rate. It seems politically tough to raise taxes period in any in any in any environment, doesn't it. Yeah, I think you'd have

to calibrate. Well, I don't know, the world may change, but you may have an answer to that question very very soon. I think less than we'll find out less than a week now. Yeah, Okay, well we'll see. I'm really worried when this episode comes out that that everything we've just spoken about will be irrelevant and all our work will be for not But um, well we'll just

apply to the election. Okay, how much to rerun everything? Okay? Um. To those of you who are listening, thank you very much and this has been another episode of the All Thoughts Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy Alloway, and I'm Joe wisn't thought you could follow me on Twitter at the Stalwart. And you should follow our guest on Twitter, Stephanie Stancheva, She's at s Stancheva. Follow our producer Laura Carlton, She's at Laura M. Carlton.

Follow the Bloomberg head of podcast, Brancesca Levi at Princesca Today, and check out all of our podcasts under the handle at podcasts. And if you enjoyed this episode or any others, we'd appreciate it if you went to Apple Podcasts and gave us a five star review so that more people discovered Odd Lots. Thanks for listening.