Launching Tax Foundation Europe

 As the world of tax policy becomes more interconnected, the Tax Foundation is stepping up, recognizing the pressing need for informed and principled tax policy education in an ever-evolving landscape. 

 In response, we are broadening our scope by establishing a presence at the epicenter of European tax policy discussions: Brussels. 

 Sean Bray, Director of European Policy at the Tax Foundation, and Edwin Visser, Deputy Global Tax Policy Leader at PwC Netherlands, join Kyle Hulehan to discuss the launch of Tax Foundation Europe. 

Links: 

 https://taxfoundation.org/blog/tax-foundation-europe-launches/ 

 https://taxfoundation.org/eu/ 

 https://taxfoundation.org/eu/research/european-tax-policy-scorecard/ 

 https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/eu-green-transition-tax-policy/ 

 https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/capital-gains-taxation-eu/ 

Transcript

Kyle Hulehan: 0:01

As the world of tax policy becomes more interconnected. The tax foundation is stepping up, recognizing the pressing need for informed and principled tax policy education in an ever evolving landscape. In response, we're expanding our reach. Setting down roots in the heart of European tax policy debate. Uh, Brussels. Hello, and welcome to The Deduction, a tax foundation podcast. I'm your host, Kyle Houlihan. And today, we are joined by 2 very special guests, Sean Bray, our director of European policy here at TF, and Edwin Visser, a member of our board of directors for Tax Foundation Europe. Edwin is also the deputy global tax policy leader at PwC Netherlands. Now as we're getting going on this podcast here, I can see I can see Sean is in a different background. And nor normally, Sean is our basically a member of our Wisconsin board of of tourism and and seeing him in a different location is is unusual. Sean, where in the world are you today?

Sean Bray: 0:58

Thanks for having me. Yeah. I am currently in Brussels, because this upcoming Thursday, we will be having our Tax Foundation Europe launch event. so we are here in Brussels on the ground getting everything ready, for the events and introducing ourselves to, all the all the people here in the tax bubble, of Brussels.

Kyle Hulehan: 1:17

And and, Edwin, where are you joining us from?

Edwin Visser: 1:20

I'm, now joining you from my home office, in the eastern part of the Netherlands, but my office is based in Amsterdam and The Hague. And as you said, I have a global role at PwC. And I'll be joining Sean in Brussels on Thursday for the launching event.

Kyle Hulehan: 1:33

Yes, the launch event, a really great event that we're all looking forward to. And and, I mean, today we are we're a global podcast today. We're doing it's a little international here, which is very exciting but we're gonna dive into the questions here. could you guys just, you know, give us an overview of Tax Foundation Europe and explain the main motivation behind establishing our presence there in Brussels, Sean?

Sean Bray: 1:57

Sure. So I think a lot of our listeners probably know at this point that Tax Foundation has been around as an institution since 19 37, in the US. But in 20 18, when Daniel Bunn was hired, for the global team before becoming, of course, the the CEO and president of Tax Foundation. Daniel was in charge of starting our global team. And he was, able to make a lot of good connections around the world, mostly focused on US cross border issues. but it was also right during the Digital services act debates and digital levy in the EU, uh, and I think that caught some of Daniel's attention, and brought him to Brussels. And I think, our audience would be remiss to to not be aware of the fact that, our Brussels office is the first office outside of the US. Um, it's the first time that tax foundation is expanding outside the US borders. but it's it's the home of Europe in terms of being the European Union capital. it's also, trains right away from Paris where the OECD is. so there's a lot of, connecting trains through Brussels that go to these other important centers for tax policy. so we plan to bring the same message and the same principles, Tax Foundation Europe in Brussels as we do in in the US. but I think that's where, the idea of having an office in Brussels started to become clear is how can our global team be more effective on the ground, not just being based in DC or in my case, Wisconsin, but actually having people here on the ground who understand the local context and have local connections and are able to bring our message to the European audience, uh, in a different way than we could just being based in DC.

Kyle Hulehan: 3:34

And, Sean, I just wanna kinda hit this point home a little bit so our you know, mostly our US audience can kind of understand this. The reason why we're going to Brussels and and the context of it, Brussels is sort of the epicenter of where where tax is happening in Europe. It it just if I understand that correctly.

Sean Bray: 3:51

Yeah. So the way the EU is structured is that tax policy is a member state competence. So it's up to the member states to design tax policy at the national level. But Brussels serves a role in tax policy, kind of overarching the member state level. And the other reason that's important is because Brussels really is kind of the home for European debate. So, you have the Council of the EU, which is similar to the US Senate, in its functioning, in the European structure. And, that's really where member states get to come together and discuss tax policy, at the European level. So a lot of the a lot of the conversation happens at Brussels even if a lot of the policy is actually happening in the member states.

Edwin Visser: 4:35

Indeed Sean The influence of the EU, I think, is increasing. Even studies in the Netherlands say that, you the ability to set your own policies for corporate income taxes is limited, uh, for the member states because many of the anti avoidance measures other measures are sort of determined and agreed upon in in Brussels via the mechanism of European Union. It also goes for indirect taxes of course, the VAT. And for some taxes like green taxes, it doesn't make sense for member state to develop a policy on your own. It's better to have a coordinated policy because all those policies will have cross border impact.

Kyle Hulehan: 5:11

You're talking about how the EU works and some of the interconnection there. How does the implementation of the global minimum tax influence the need for tax foundation Europe and what role the organization will play in shaping the discussion around it?

Edwin Visser: 5:26

first, Sean, maybe? Um, well, it's interesting what happened, I think, after the OCD published the model rules in December 21, the EU worked very hard to get the model rules implemented via a European directive. It showed itself of good citizens of the world and and pushed very hard to implement the model rules as 1 of the first blocks around the world. But you forgot to look a bit at what the rest of the world was doing and how effectively the union could deal with that. When I look at situation right now, the US, India, China, almost the entire African continent, and several countries in South America and Asia have taken no steps yet to implement pillar 2. And I wonder how this will impact the competitiveness of the EU and how this will impact investment decisions of business. And I think TEX Foundation could play a role in

Sean Bray: 6:18

Yeah. That's a good point, Edwin. I think 1 thing that Daniel was very successful at when he first came to Tax Foundation, uh, and set up our global team was understanding the importance of the BEPS 1, BEPS 2, model rule discussions going on at the OECD. And Daniel was able to put tax foundation, even from the US, in a really good position to help shape the debate and understand the policies and understand the effects that these more global policies would have on the United States and on other countries around the world. And so I think now that the EU has become a first mover in implementing, pillar 2, as as Edwin mentioned, being a European directive, but it's actually implemented at the member state level. This this, I think, is, uh, is an interesting time for tax foundation to be able to bring our expertise in tax policy generally and our expertise, in the US side of the debate to Brussels, contribute also to the European side of the debate. So, think we're set up very well to not only monitor how member states are implementing pillar 2 in the EU, but also what's going on in the OECD as they release further guidance, as these rules become more fleshed out at the OECD level, how that impacts countries in the EU who have already implemented the European directive, and also how it might impact other countries around the world who have not implemented, pillar 2 at all. So I think we're in a good position between our tax foundation office in DC and our new tax foundation Europe office in Brussels to be able to contribute to all these different debates, as it relates to the pillar project.

Edwin Visser: 7:51

Yeah. And even if you zoom out from pillar 2, I think, Sean, when I look at the policies tax policies of the European Union, um, in designing those new tax much attention to the impact of these policies on economic growth and competitiveness of the European Union. There's often a lack of economic cost benefit analysis as a revenue estimate in the impact assessment, but not this economic cost benefit analysis. And. I think the EU and the member states need to move away from the most distorted taxes and project that don't have a good cost benefit analysis. This is where I think the Tax Foundation can with a data driven approach modeling the costs and the benefits of of certain tax policies.

Kyle Hulehan: 8:34

So I have I have 2 quick follow ups real quick for Sean, and this is sort of aimed at our US audience real quick just to help them understand what we're talking about. Could you so briefly explain I know pillar 2 is a huge concept. Could you just give us the briefest overview of that? And you keep you've both said OECD. I just want them to understand maybe both of those things because they could be confusing. And if you could just run us through that real quick, Sean.

Sean Bray: 8:58

Sure. So the OECD, uh, is based in Paris, and it is a collection of 38 countries at this point, mostly developed countries, where, the OECD is an international body that can help, uh, set the framework for global standards, for compromises on various, economic policies, tax being 1 of them. And so the pillar projects, pillars 1 and pillar 2 is as we usually refer to them, has come out of an OECD, process that span from what they call BEPS 1 into BEPS 2 and, this kind of elongated process of trying to develop, global standards for a in pillar pillar two's case, a global minimum tax. and so the global minimum tax is supposed to be designed to eliminate what some people would call the race to the bottom of corporate tax competition, um, by setting a minimum rate of 15 percent. And the EU, the European Union took the OECD's, recommendations and actually implemented that within the EU. So there's a bit of these multilevels here. Uh, the OECD is comprised of various member states, some of which are in the EU and some are not. then the European Union as an economic block, took the suggestions of the ABCD and implemented them as the model rules implemented them into European Union law. so actually at the end of the day, the OECD model rules were put into European law as a European directive, which then gets transposed into national law, of all the EU member states. So there's a lot of flow between, where these rules are designed and where they actually, get implemented on the ground. but the OECD has been a a key player in this, pillars project as we as we call it, for the last decade or so.

Kyle Hulehan: 10:48

That that makes sense. It might be a little bit confusing. It's multilayered, but but I think I understand where you're going from. And I and I appreciate you explaining that. I know we're a little off course, but I just wanted the audience to kinda get a flavor for what's going on and the different levels that are happening within the EU.

Edwin Visser: 11:03

May maybe also for the audience, Carl, I think the EU can actually in and as opposed to the OCD draft legislation and issue legislation. And that's what's happening with the EU directive on the mintax. And the special thing about taxation directive is that they need to be agreed upon with unanimity. So that makes the process sometimes very difficult. But once it's there, everyone agrees. And as Sean said, it's always a 2 step approach. Once there's an agreement on that directive, it has to be transposed into national domestic legislation. And the European Commission has instruments, uh, to to uphold, you know, the legal commitments of the member states via infringement procedures.

Kyle Hulehan: 11:49

There's an enforcement behind the laws that that are being created. No. Okay. That makes sense. So with the the digital and and green transition underway, how does the Tax Foundation Europe plan to contribute and develop to these tax policies?

Sean Bray: 12:05

Yeah. I think what might be helpful actually, Edwin, is if you could lay out, how the EU describes the twin transitions or the digital and green transitions, what that is, especially for an American audience who may not may not, know what that means.

Edwin Visser: 12:19

Maybe it's interesting to zoom in a bit on the green transition. And when you look at that, um, the EU, prior to Green Deal, has mainly been focusing on on hard hard rules via the EU taxonomy, um, a rule book, you know, to to force, um, businesses and governments into, um, certain type of behavior, forbidding things, prohibiting behavior. And it also division of the, um, emission trading system and the carbon border adjustment mechanism have been the main mechanisms together with the taxonomy to shape the the green transition. And while I think these are understandable measures, there was little attention for pro growth policies. Also referred to an article that you co authored Sean on the carbon taxes trade and competitiveness of November 20 22. And the US Inflation Reduction Act was an eye opener for EU politicians, I think. The realization that for a pro growth transition, not only stick is needed, but also carried led to the Green Deal industrial plan. I think that Tax Foundation could play a role by providing this pro growth perspective by researching the impact on the green transition by more incentive based approaches as opposed to only to change behavior and to limit certain emissions, for example.

Sean Bray: 13:42

Yeah. And I think that's a good point. Um, and for our US audience, I think it's also important to understand that, the EU actually has put into its laws, climate change, targets. And so the debate is a little bit different in Europe, where Europe has legally committed to certain targets and certain, emission reductions. Whereas in the US, the debate is more ideologically driven, I feel, where we're deciding, what what is it that we're discussing? What needs to be done? How should we do it? Whereas in Europe, they've already legally committed to doing certain things, and now it's just a matter of figuring out how to do it. and when it comes to Tax Foundation Europe's work in in this topic on the green transition, Edwin's completely right. the the pro growth aspect of these policies was not the main focus. and I think that's a pity because there were a lot of opportunities to be be more pro growth in their approach. 1 example that we can give is we, uh, have tried to look up estimates for how much the green transition will actually cost between now and 20 50, which is when the EU was supposed to be fully implementing the green deals targets and and objectives. And it's going to be very expensive is the main conclusion. There's going to need to be a lot of green investments, a lot of, remaking of industries, a lot of remaking of consumer behavior, uh, to actually accomplish the goals of the green transition. And many of these commitments were put into law without an accompanying, uh, way to pay for a lot of these things. So 1 of the reports that I wrote last year was talking about the green transition, how much it will cost, and specifically what governments can do to include the private sector to invest, heavily in these industries. Unfortunately, the EU has, I think, put itself in a box by creating a taxonomy, where they define what is green investment and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not, rather than taking a more neutral approach, which would have been full expensing, for for all business investment. but I think 1 more pro growth tax policy would have been to say, we are in favor of accelerated depreciation or full expensing, uh, for these large investments that we need the private sector to engage in rather than saying, the government will spend a lot of money through subsidies to compete with the Inflation Reduction Act, and the government will essentially decide what industries will succeed, which ones won't, and how we're going to kind of formulate the future of this this work. So I think that was a real missed opportunity to have the the the private sector involved in kind of the investment of these things and driving the investment of these transitions. and full expensing would have been 1 example of a way to to accomplish this, uh, in a more neutral principled way.

Edwin Visser: 16:27

No, it makes fully sense what Sean says. And I think it's not an either or approach. It's not either an incentive based approach or a hard rule based approach like the U. S. It's finding the right combination of measures I think combining carbon pricing with incentives, combining hard rules on what's a green investment and what's not smart measures indeed to incentivize business to transform because that's I think the trick you need to support business in order to transform into a net 0 business and that's very expensive. And for financing this, yeah, you need the private sector. There was a report with the IMF, the fiscal monitor in October last year that estimated that if the green transition would be fully financed with government debt, that would lead to a raise of government debt with 50 percent point of GDP. So that's not sustainable. So you need different measures, incentives, tax measures, carbon pricing,

Kyle Hulehan: 17:22

this was something I was hoping to come back to that you mentioned earlier, Edwin, and and this could be either for you and Sean, whoever wants to take it. You were talking about the revenue cost benefit and economic cost benefit. I feel like that slides into what you guys are talking about right now and sort of what Tax Foundation can offer. I I feel like that's kind of a natural position for the tax foundation to really leap off here and and maybe a gap that that could be filled here. Is that right?

Sean Bray: 17:49

Yeah. I think so I think 1 of the main problems with the way that the green deal has been talked about in Brussels, given that it is being driven kind of at the Brussels, level rather than specifically in member states. As Edwin mentioned before, it doesn't make sense to have 27 separate national, green transition plans, when it really is a a broader problem that can be solved potentially more efficiently at EU level. and I think what was missing is that a lot of the debate happens in Brussels, but because a lot of the policy happens in the member states, many of the tax experts and many of the people who would analyze these types of issues have a very domestic focus. so they are based in the member states where most of the legislation usually gets passed. whereas in Brussels, when we were talking about the Green Deal, there was a lack of data analysis by the public sector, by NGOs who could inform policymakers on the best ways of approaching these problems from an economics perspective. Um, there were many NGOs talking about the environmental impacts, which are important, and decarbonization, that's important. But I think they're in the debate in Brussels, there was a lack of data driven analysis on the actual economic impacts of these policies. And that's maybe to also Edwin's point when he was describing, pro growth was forgotten about in this kind of broader conversation. I think that's where Tax Foundation Europe could have played a role if we had been established earlier here. but we hope to continue playing a role as the green deal becomes more implemented as new proposals come up. and I think that's where we can see an opportunity for us to provide a data driven analysis on the economics of these policies in a in a space where that's not necessarily the the norm.

Edwin Visser: 19:35

Yeah. Agreed, Sean. And while I don't have any principled objections against combating tax planning that leads to untaxed income, for example, or through a level playing field when it comes to corporate income tax, which is, in fact, a minimum tax deal, I still think in deciding on policies policymakers could do a better job if they would understand what the economic impact would be of a certain tax policy, what is the impact on the cost of capital of a business because that directly affects the ability to invest, for example. Uh, so that leads to hampering economic growth. And, of course, there's always a trade off in in these things. And also to understand, and that's quite a difficult part of the equation, of course, what is the impact on competitiveness if you are pursuing 1 anti avoidance measure after another? And and, you know, rush your hat with pillar 2, while the rest of the world, at least a number of large economic blocks, are lagging behind in implementing pillar 2. That's, I think, the only thing I'm saying. That's important to understand, and that's where the tax foundation can play a role,

Kyle Hulehan: 20:39

And I think right here is the perfect place to ask this question is, how does the tax foundation plan to engage with the European tax policy community? And how are we positioned to shape those policy debates?

Sean Bray: 20:51

Yeah. Federal policies in DC, and we have the US state team that is going into actual state capitals working at the state level. And, of course, as I mentioned, we have the third pillar, which is the global team, has worked internationally. We plan to replicate that structure in Europe, but with a few adjustments based on the the situation in Europe. So 1 level we plan to engage in is the European level, Brussels with European policy makers. Uh, that includes, the European Commission, specifically Tax Ood, which is their, uh, ministry, I guess, that focuses on taxes. the European Parliament, which, in tax matters has a peculiar position because on a lot of tax files, they don't actually have much legislative power, but they certainly have the ability to affect how how policies are talked about, public perceptions of different policies, and are able to influence the negotiations on tax policy. So talking with, with MEPs about these issues is also very important. And, of course, the council of the EU, which as I mentioned previously, is similar to the senate in the United States, and it's comprised of the member states. so talking with, finance ministries and their fiscal attaches here in Brussels about national perspectives on European issues. that's where we plan to spend our time kinda at EU level. The second level would be the national level. So, those who don't know, not every European country is actually a part of the EU. So for example, the UK, famously after Brexit or or infamously, depending how you feel about it, is no longer part of the EU, but, of course, is still an important country in Europe for tax policy. Switzerland and Turkey are other examples of countries where we we monitor what's going on in their tax systems, but not in the EU. So working at the national level, we will engage in national tax debates, in the EU member states and also European countries who are not in the EU, but are, of course, very important, to Europe. Third level is somewhat of an international and comparative, level. So this is where our international tax competitiveness index is really important. is something we've been doing now for a decade, our global team in the US, but our our European team also will continue to use that to help national governments understand how they compare in terms of competitiveness, their tax competitiveness with other countries in the OECD. and of course, the OECD, the United Nations, the WTO World Trade Organization, these are all international, bodies that have some type of influence on international tax policy. So we'll continue to work there, as I mentioned on the pillar project, and various other international aspects. And then the final dimension, which is a bit different from our US side, but hopefully will become more important on our US side is the transatlantic aspect. So specifically how Europe and the US work together or not on various, trade and tax issues. So 1 example that comes to mind right away is the Inflation Reduction Act and its corresponding effects it had in Europe. And now the European response to the Inflation Reduction Act. so trying to serve as a translated translator to say, we have a lot of European expertise. We have a lot of US expertise. We can help facilitate some of these dialogues and understanding between European and American policy makers on these very complex issues. another aspect would be the pillar pillar 2. now it's implemented in Europe. It's not implemented in the US. The OECD is still working on guidance. So really connecting those dots for everybody involved. I think Tax Foundation and Tax Foundation Europe is in a great place with our tax expertise to be able to, really facilitate that understanding. So those are the general levels, we intend to work on and how we intend to engage. And I think 1 thing at kind of the EU level that, hopefully, policymakers in Brussels can appreciate is our European tax policy scorecard, it's a scorecard where we've developed to analyze European Commission proposals that propose to harmonize tax policy at the EU level, and we compare the harmonization to all the current member state policies. So 1 example is, the BFIT proposal that the European Commission put out late last year. It essentially attempts to harmonize the European corporate tax base. And we compared the ways in which BFIT affects capital cost recovery, at a harmonized level. We compared that to how individual member states already do that. And so the essential point for for European policy makers was to understand that, yes, for for the private sector, there may be savings on compliance, because it's more efficient to only have to file 1 return instead of 27. But the other side of that coin is, if you're harmonizing to a bad policy or the least common denominator and not the best policies in the member states, you're actually making certain countries worse off. Um, So it might be really efficient to file your returns, but you're not gonna get any benefits because maybe we've taken some of them away that you used to have under your member state regime. so this is another product that we're hoping in the EU level and also at the member state level can be helpful for governments and policy makers to understand, real trade offs when analyzing these harmonization

Edwin Visser: 26:15

Yes. It's a very important project, Sean. And you mentioned the transatlantic relationship, the US EU. I think there's 1 aspect I would like to mention and that is, the upcoming DSTs, I think, digital services taxes even when pillar 1 will fail. Depends, you know, if you're optimistic or realistic on pillar 1. When I see politicians or hear politicians speak in European Union, they say, well, if there's no pillar 1 agreement and implementation, then we will fall back on EU digital levy. And they are showing that train of thought, you know, that they hardly look at alternatives. What is a good alternative for a very bad policy option, which the DST is in my point of view. It's a very cascading turnover tax that leads to distorting the economic value chains of businesses. So there's also maybe a role to play for the Tax Foundation to take another perspective on on those, policy questions and find solutions. For example, could there be a solution or an alternative for DST in a well functioning destination tax like the VAT? I would say that tax foundation could also play a role this preventing, you know, countries starting to implement very bad policy options with the risk, I think, of, starting a very nasty discussion between the U. S. With potentially retaliation measures by the U. S. When European countries start introducing DSTs. So that's a observation made from my side where TEGS Foundation could also play a roll.

Sean Bray: 27:45

No. It's a great point. And, yeah, I think it definitely falls in the bucket of transatlantic issues where we can make a difference with our research. The digital levy was 1 of the first things I think Daniel worked on in the EU, and has been monitoring it ever since. The aluminum and steel tariff negotiation is also something important. CBAM, which is which has been the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was passed in the EU and will be coming into full effect in 20 26, if I'm not mistaken. That's another issue where, if the US doesn't come up with an equivalent, companies in the United States may start facing, payments to the EU for for the border adjustment. I think there's many transatlantic issues actually where, whether our GILTI will be considered an equivalence measure under pillar 2, and if the EU will accept GILTI or some some revised form of GILTI, under the pillar 2 framework in the EU. So there's actually, I think, quite a lot of, transatlantic issues that regardless of the outcomes of either the European election in June or the American election in in November, these transatlantic issues will remain. And, there's really an education gap, on both sides, a lot of these different issues you don't only have to understand the transatlantic dynamic in these issues, but you also have to understand the hard economics and tax policy of these of these issues. So I think having, experts in in Europe and in the United States and being able to bridge that education gap on both sides, not only from sensitivity perspective of certain issues in different locations, but also from a tax policy perspective. Uh, we're in a really good place to be able to hopefully provide alternatives to very difficult questions, through our research papers.

Edwin Visser: 29:23

But you first have to do the analysis, Sean, and the modeling before you can, you know, add regional flavors or sensitivities or ideologies to it. I think that's what I keep saying to politicians in Brussels. Do that objective analysis first, you know, on the taxation mix, on the various aspects of intended policies, and then add your ideology and flavor to it or what else you want to do. But that's that's in the end up to the politicians. But without an objective and a data driven analysis, I think your decisions are potentially not well informed enough. And that that's, I think, where tax foundation can add a lot of value, I think, to the policy debate in in Brussels.

Kyle Hulehan: 30:01

I couldn't agree more with what you guys are saying. I I think what you guys are really pointing out very clearly is that, the Tax Foundation has this opportunity to offer a different point of view, a different alternative policies, and maybe just a new perspective or a new thought instead you know, quick to, you know, let's just look ahead. And what are the the long term goals for tax foundation Europe and how do you see the organization evolving to meet the changing tax policy landscape?

Sean Bray: 30:39

That's a great question. So I think 1 thing that we envision is being able to contribute to the European tax debate, which as I mentioned before is somewhat fragmented due to the way that the EU is structured on tax. but really to be able to be a main contributor to the debates here in Brussels and also in the member states in their national governments or national debates. I think that would be a success for us as it comes to tax foundation Europe. The second thing would be to see policy change. And policy change meaning principled, well informed, educated decisions on really important tax matters. as Edwin was just referring to, that is not always the case. And, of course, Europe is not alone in that. we have that issue around the world. But the more that we can help inform policymakers and those who make these really important decisions with concrete data, objective analysis and seeing the change that would come from that, I think it would be a great success for us as well. And finally, um, being able to be seen as somewhat of the tax debate conveners in Brussels, I think would be great for the organization in the long term. we really pride ourselves on bringing people together, having these conversations, hearing the full spectrum of ideas. research is is really about being open minded. It's about having the best ideas, well informed ideas, and those can really come from anywhere. So, being the ones in Brussels who can bring that debate to bear, to include the public, to include other actors in the NGO space, in the private sector, in government, I think would be a great, success for us. uh, looking at our launch event registration list, which now is up to 270, I can say. it It it includes all kinds of people, journalists and other NGO people and private sector. So, hopefully, this is just the beginning of us convening, uh, the broader tax debate in Europe. That would be a an aspirational goal for us.

Kyle Hulehan: 32:36

Uh, Sean, thank you so much for being on the show today. Edwin, thank thank you for being on the show today. I really appreciate you guys' time. I know you guys have already worked full days over there and had lots of meetings and things to do, and I appreciate your time on the show today. Just real quick, I just want to check-in and see if you guys have anything that you wanted to plug.

Edwin Visser: 32:53

Thanks, Kyle. Not for the moment. I think we've conveyed a lot of information to the listeners, and hopefully, it's interesting for them.

Sean Bray: 33:00

Yeah. I would just say on my end, have a new website that we've launched to go along with Tax Foundation Europe. And so, everyone should be able to check out the new website, which will post all of our European reports and data and analysis. It's also translatable in Spanish, French, and German. So that hopefully will help expand, the availability to to more people around around the world and specifically in Europe. to keep looking for more Tax Foundation Europe content. Now that we actually have an office here, we will be engaging much more, here in Europe, and, we will hopefully be be producing that objective data driven analysis that everyone else can rely on. So we look forward to publishing that on our new website and, bringing that a home near you if you live in Europe, sometime soon.

Kyle Hulehan: 33:46

Thank you both for joining us

Sean Bray: 33:47

Thank you.

Kyle Hulehan: 33:48

This has been another episode of the deduction to learn more about the tax foundation and the deduction. Visit us at taxfoundation. org slash podcast. You can follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn at tax foundation. If you've been enjoying our show and want to help us grow, please leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. It helps others find the show. And if you didn't enjoy the deduction, well, keep it to yourself. Another way you can support our work is by donating to the Tax Foundation on our website. Thank you all for listening, and we'll see you next time.