# How the Tax Code Fails Families of People With Disabilities

## Метаданные

- **Канал:** University of California Television (UCTV)
- **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shutNwu-EiQ
- **Источник:** https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/33984

## Транскрипт

### Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) []

I want to just first express before I really start diving in here how surreal this all is and I want to say something to any young folks in the room as somebody who not that long ago was a young volunteer at this conference, and then over the years, maybe a panelist or two. Keep working and know the power of your experiences and the value of your experiences. Doing this research has really been a passion project. It wasn't research that I needed to do. If anything, I spent a lot of nights working on this research when I really didn't need to be doing it. But I felt compelled to spend what time I had at Duke with access to professors and the time that I had on the East Coast doing this because the history of autism has been so often shaped by research, especially research that has ended up harming communities, whether it was Leo O'Connor or Bruno Bettelheim or Jonathan Wakefield. Research matters. One thing that I felt very passionate and determined to do and why this feels so special today is in this space, in this miracle coast center of research innovation. It means a lot to me to be talking about research that is inspired by the struggles and sacrifices in this room. Often when you see research at conferences, it's about cells, it is about autism, but autism ends up being so downstream. I wanted to produce research that really was about your day to day experience, the day to day experience that I've seen as a volunteer and as somebody who worked at Autism Tree at various points. The financial sacrifices that you've made. The day-to-day experience where you're trying to do the best you can and you run up against obstacle after obstacle. My goal with this research when I was putting it all together, was to try and capture at least some of that experience in a way that legal academia could understand. Because so often our research institutions or institutions of higher learning, can really only hear a message if it's done in a very specific way. This is, in a sense, my effort to put the experiences that I've saw over the years, getting to know you all, getting to help you in your struggles, in a way that my law professors could understand and read and comprehend. To anybody doing research moving forward, trust that your experience is valuable because it is so valuable and it is something that people not just should hear, but need to hear if we are going to get to a place where autistic people and their families can operate better in society. Now let me dive into this a little bit. What we're going to be talking about today is the tax code and specifically how the tax code treats what I call but for costs. The gist of but for costs, and I take this from a case that I'm going to talk about in a little bit is the idea that this is a cost that you wouldn't have if your child didn't have a disability, but for disability. I spend a lot of the first part of my paper talking about all these different costs. Really boil down broadly into two types of costs. We have upfront costs. What I mean by this are costs that you incur at or near the point of diagnosis. All those bills on therapy. The example I use as a basic one is music therapy. You get told you need to have all these therapies for your child and that's what you need to help them be able to be ready for kindergarten and be ready for school all these things. Those are upfront costs. Then we also have long-term costs. Unfortunately, the employment market already is very tight right now. The employment market has always been tight for autistic people. The number that I cite in my paper is roughly 85% unemployment rate for adults with autism. This study is a little bit old, but I don't think it's that old. The average wage that a person with autism has worked for before the age of 25 is $8. 08. Not exactly a living wage. We also see a lot of long term costs, because you also have to be thinking about when you have a child with autism, not just the near term therapy costs, but the cost of, I might need to be subsidizing this child, this individual for their lives.

### Segment 2 (05:00 - 10:00) [5:00]

You also need to prepare for those. The kind of emblematic long term costs I talk about are group homes and, you know, monitor care. Then I think another cost that I do just want to shout out are the costs that it takes on families. Because if you need to be consistently making money to pay for all these upfront costs and save for all these long-term costs, it restricts your ability to take opportunities and be where you want to be. Dr. Sabat was talking about how in California we see more because there's greater access to services. Moving to services is an example of a family cost. How do all these costs break down in the code right now? The answer is, it's a complicated question. Now, you would think most obviously the spot where you might be able to get some relief for all these costs you're having to take on is the medical expense deduction. Section 213. I put the big quote up there and the point that I really want to emphasize about this deduction is that the reason why the medical expense deduction exists is because Congress sometime back in the '40s believe that spending on medical expenses past a certain point creates a hardship that should be reflected when calculating your taxable income. Ever since roughly the 1960s, they decided that if it is past 7. 5% of your adjusted income, then that should be deductible. That is not something that you should be taxed on if you were spending money on a medical expense. But the problem really is what is a medical expense? You realize that this ends up being pretty limited. First, again, we have that adjusted gross income barrier. You only get to start deducting if you've spent, let's say if you have $100,000 income, $7501. You already are having to take the hit on 7. 5%. But where a lot of this paper really starts to dig in is what it means to be incurred primarily for alleviation of a specific or mental defect. You can't just deduct for general health under the medical expense deduction. Now, personally, and I'll get into this more. I have a substantial problem with this, but a couple examples on things that the courts have not found, you can't deduct vacations, even if the environment is healthy and you can't deduct schooling in a specific atmosphere believed to be conducive to treatment. This basic standard is roughly alleviated in the case where I pulled but for from, which is Jacobs v. Commissioner. They have this fun test that if you're a taxpayer and you want to deduct, you need to prove. One, the existence of the disability, and then two, that the payment is proximately related. In essence, what that means is that it wouldn't have happened but for medical reasons. How you really prove that is you introduce evidence. It's on you as the taxpayer if you get challenged to show all this evidence that the person administering the care has special training, that the provider holds themselves out as administering this type of care. For the parents in the room, I think you can see where the problems start to come fast and furious because you can't necessarily find qualified medical providers holding themselves out in a medical way for all the things that your child will benefit. A particular issue that I find is this old doctrine, it dates back to 1960 and it's called the special school doctrine. The only way to get a deduction for special education, and this is still true in 2025 is if the education is incidental to the medical care. Ultimately, this gets followed up in a 1981 case. It's a tax court case called Fay v. Commissioner. You'll see I put this giant paragraph up there. This paragraph, what it is, is it's all the things that the family did before putting their child in private school. They had access to a free parochial school and a lot of these steps, probably to people in the room look familiar. They went to doctors, they tried to talk to the teachers. They even tried to lobby the school to create a program. After all that, eventually, they said, you know what, we'll just put them in the program that everybody's recommending. Even after doing all that, did the court find it deductible? No. The reason why they didn't was just because the school's raison d'etre was Montessori Education. The purpose of the school was not remedying, in this case, it was about dyslexia, remedying the dyslexia. The purpose was education. Now, they did find that fees related to special education is deductible. It's not like they didn't give anything, but still there's this much bigger but for cost beyond the actual special program

### Segment 3 (10:00 - 15:00) [10:00]

which is the entire school. We get three big implications from this doctrine in Fay. One is that dual purpose expenditures are disfavored. You can't say, it's for a medical purpose, but it's also for a different purpose and the IRS will buy that, that but for isn't deductible, but your best shot at getting deductibility is essentially creating a separate fee. The reason why I see such a problem with this is because we talked about 1960 being the doctrine. We didn't really have special education as viewed as a public thing until well into the 1970s. I really truly a disturbing history that two out of the three states providing educational programs for disabled students in 1975 were sued in a class action litigation for infringing upon that right to education. Because one of those class actions was decently successful, that is what pushed Congress into passing what was the precursor to idea called the EAHCA was mainly because they knew they needed to do something because of this lawsuit, their solution was to pass the EAHCA which would become IDEA. Now the trick about IDEA and it's important to really keep this in mind is that bill was passed with what's called a ratable reduction. Congress not just they authorized trying to fully fund this need, but consistently Congress for the past over 50 years has chosen to not appropriate enough money to fully fund IDEA. When you think about the state of public special education, in my opinion, it ultimately comes back to this. It's not a question of, can we do it. It's a question of Congress has said that this is not enough of a priority to do it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't cost a lot of money. It very much would. But I think it is a useful thing to keep in mind that theoretically, Congress could just appropriate enough money to fully fund public special education but has chosen not to do so. What we do see more recently as another way to get tax relief is through basically what's a revision of a 529 plan. This is the result of disability rights advocacy. There was a bill passed in 2014 called the Abel Act, 529A. The underlying reason why this was passed is the guy that's pictured up there is named Stephen Beck, he had a daughter with Down syndrome, and he wanted to save money for his daughter's long term care. What he came to realize when he tried to do that was if he put more than $2,000 into an account in his daughter's name, that she would lose eligibility for her federal benefits. Then he went and lobbied Congress and that at least got somewhere because his argument was, if neurotypical parents can save for their child's college through 529, then parents with children with serious disabilities should be able to save through 529A. Basically 529A is the same as a 529 plan. The main difference is that what you can spend the money on is what are called qualified disability expenses. It's still a limited definition. It doesn't necessarily cover everything under the sun. But as you can see up there, it's much broader. It covers education, it covers housing, it covers wellness, it covers even financial management, which are categories that rarely are going to be covered in the context of 213 and the medical expense deduction. Also with 529A, there's some serious limitations. Because it's benchmarked to the gift tax you can't put in more than $19,000 a year except for some very limited exceptions, and most importantly, in the same way as other tax beneficial accounts, the contributions are still taxed. You're just paying the tax when you put the money in. The real benefit is that you hope that the money accrues interest over enough time, and then you can take the money out and not have to pay taxes on that accrued interest. Additionally, and we'll come back to this more, you have to certify the disability in order to actually be able to get one of these accounts. I'm going to bring this chart back up for a minute. I'm going to show you a little bit how this all maps right now. Now, one thing that is really important to keep in mind that I admittedly held from you is that between the upfront and long term costs, even though you're only spending on the upfront costs in maybe a 3-5 year period, and you're spending long-term costs over the course of a lifetime, here we go, 60% of the lifetime costs that you are going to be spending on are actually in the upfront category in that 3-5 year period. The moments when you feel really financially pressed in the first few years after diagnosis

### Segment 4 (15:00 - 20:00) [15:00]

that's actually because you're probably spending most of the money that you're going to spend on your autistic child over the course of their lifetime in those first few years. Now looking down, what I've shown is there's relief under 213 and 529A. Now, at least with 529A, you can use an ABLE account to save for long-term costs and avoid paying taxes on the disbursement. That should theoretically help when you're doing that long-term planning. At the moment, we still don't really have any way for a taxpayer to get meaningful relief under 213 or 529A for those upfront costs, you can get some done with medical expenses. If it's an unambiguous medical expense and you can show it's over 7. 5%, you can get those. But how many expenses can you really prove fall into that medical category. Even then, you still have to have it exceed 7. 5% of your income and you only get what's on top of that. I have a couple of tips to help out that are based on what we've been talking about to try and put it a little bit more practically. One thing that you can do if you have a child in private special education is and this assumes that there's no separate special education service fees, which might actually be a lot easier. But what you can do is you can identify the cost of the medical component and deduct. These schools might look familiar to folks here in San Diego. On the left, we have the New Bridge School, which is a school that serves students with dyslexia and helps substantially. It's the only dyslexia focused-school in San Diego. On the right, we have the Maria Montessori School. You see similar student teacher ratios. They're both in San Diego County. They serve students in the same years. New Bridge advertises as serving with dyslexia. Maria Montessori doesn't and New Bridge costs more. If you can make that comparison, again, you have to be able to show this on all these fronts, you can then claim that the difference between New Bridge and Maria Montessori in tuition, that's a medical expense. The IRS will actually buy that because the reason why is that we've priced the education component for private education in the area as Maria Montessori. Above that, that's the additional medical expense that's being costs. There's abilities to create that value for yourself, but you have to be smart with the comparison. Actually, I went through a bunch of schools and did this. I think I found that in the case of New Bridge, there are 89 private schools serving 3rd Grade students in San Diego. Only 17 of them would work to make this comparison workable. I picked the one that would give you the biggest difference. That is one thing to keep in mind. Again, ABLE will work well for long-term costs. If you're not planning to spend the money in an ABLE account for 20 years, it is smart to contribute in the same way that you'd contribute in a 401(k) or Roth IRA. That's the state of play currently. Now, what I did in the third part of this article is I talked about a couple of ideas that I think might help. Eventually, I'll talk about the limitations but I did it on three levels. One that's real specific and one that's a little bit broader and then in the criticisms, one that's the broadest. First, very specifically, obviously, I do not like the Fay case. I think the special school doctrine should be repealed. This up here is my in text way of repealing it. Honestly, they probably should really go back and revise this language anyway because if you look carefully at some of the language I crossed out, some of it isn't exactly appropriate for 2025, probably wasn't appropriate in 2005 either, but here we are. At least this would be a very minor regulatory change. If the director of the IRS or Secretary Bessent wanted this change to happen, it could be done in six months. It'd be in the code and we would at least have this. Again, this would still leave families stuck dealing with all the other obstacles in 213. But at least in terms of special education, this is a small thing that would make special education deductible, where under this doctrine that comes out of this language, it isn't. Now, looking a little bit broadly, I talked about ABLE and I think that there's a way all that would have to happen here is Congress would have to pass a bill. Admittedly, it's hard for Congress to pass a bill, we're seeing that right now. But what you would do and I go in great detail on how exactly to do this in my note. But what I would do is I would detach ABLE from the gift tax and basically

### Segment 5 (20:00 - 25:00) [20:00]

make it so that you could put contributions in tax free, and it would work as what's called a pass-through account. You put the money in the account and then when you spend the money, it's tax free and all that you're going to have to report as a deductible cost is the money you put into the account. Because you're basically say, as I use for the gift tax, it's a qualified transfer. Money that you should be spending for qualified disability expenses, in my opinion, should be deductible. The pros of this approach is, you're not dealing with the AGI barrier. You get deductibility for special education, especially with everything going on with IDEA funding right now, it at least mitigates it a little bit and makes it somewhat practical to not be relying on public federal education spending, which has been historically insufficient and can be affected by political impacts. What I like about this the most is that it places the point of recognized hardship at $0. 01. Disability is a protected class. We don't necessarily always see disability get treated as a protected class in the law. This is another example of where you see disability effectively get ignored. Because I think, especially the parents in the room, know that there is an informal autism tax when you're going and buying things that you aren't getting as much benefit out of the goods and services that a neurotypical child might receive for summer camp or daycare, or just even school. Maybe even public school. One thing that I had when I was younger and I'm fortunate that my parents were able to pay for this was having an aid in a public school classroom, privately funded aid, public school classroom. Yes, I was getting public education and services, but that wasn't enough. I needed more. I think that's true for a lot of kids. In fact, one statistic that I pulled when I was thinking about this is that right now 12% of all students receiving special education services under IDEA, have an autism diagnosis. Is the single largest diagnosis for a student in special education, only comparable with entire categories of disability. Autism looks a lot more like the norm. The challenges that you are facing are not solely held by you. They are held by an even increasing significant percentage of the community. I want to talk about the limitations here too because I think this really gets at the heart of what I wanted to ultimately point out in this paper is just how easily things get ignored. Of course, an ABLE account is great. Let's say Congress passes this, they do exactly what I write out in my paper. Even still probably wouldn't impact that many families, 88% of taxpayers took the standard deduction, where you don't have to do any work, you just put in the standard deduction, that's it, 88% of taxpayers do that. If you would want to take advantage of an ABLE account and actually get the deductibility from an ABLE account, you would have to pass on the standard deduction and then go into itemized deductions and do all that complicated work. Second big piece of it is that ABLE programs require families to open and link a new bank account. One thing that we still see is that there's a substantial amount of Americans that are unbanked, that don't have access to financial institutions. We see this even more so in communities of color. If we really wanted the solution that I'm proposing with ABLE to be good for everybody, it would take additional work to solve to address unbanking in communities of color. The third piece of it, and this one, I think I hinted at a little bit earlier is that ABLE programs require families to get a disability diagnosis certification signed by a licensed healthcare provider. Autism Tree since day 1, has known about the substantial delays and challenges with getting a diagnosis and getting medical professionals to recognizes that a child has autism. In effect, even if Congress did exactly what I wanted with ABLE, you'd still have to go back to the medical professional, get them to sign this document, go through that whole process to arrive at that endpoint. That's everything that I have prepared. I wanted to say one final thing. I'm a big fan of Otto Lana. Otto was great earlier and I was reading his poem, fine another four letter word, and there was a part that really stuck out to me and I'm going to read it and then I'll tell you what I think. I am interchangeable. In the next few minutes, there will be another nameless, faceless autistic child in their office in this chair, desperately trying to explain that nothing is fine. Nothing in their lives is fine at this moment.

### Segment 6 (25:00 - 30:00) [25:00]

It really resonated with me. The reason why it did is because when I saw the word interchangeable, the thought that crossed my mind is that interchangeability is an institutional default. Our institutions, and this is something that I've seen at Autism Tree, it is something that undergirds the philosophy of this paper, is that our institutions are not responsive. They're not responsive to specific families. Ultimately, even if you get the regulatory change, statutory change, it takes people fighting to break institutional inertia. What I want to be clear is even in those moments that you might feel interchangeable, it does not mean that you aren't competent. talented. It does not mean that you do not bring substantial value to society. It just means that our institutions are not able to address the challenges that we are facing on a daily basis and the challenges that we are seeing on a daily basis. For all the people in this room, parents, kids, individuals, adults, the experiences that you are facing are valuable. With that, I'm going to take some questions. I'm going to go over to the chair right over here. I want to thank you for all your patience. I'll put my little thank you slide up. What will it take to get these changes done? What can we do as parents and advocates to move that needle? I think that's a fascinating question, and it's a complicated one. I think I'll start broadly and then work my way from there. I think on a broad perspective, it is being unafraid to talk about your experience. The most powerful thing that you have when you go into an official space is your story and your experiences. Because in my experience, it's not that people don't want to get it. It's just that they don't get it. I think back a few years ago I did a panel here at this neuroscience conference about an initiative that we got passed at the county relating to helping encourage employment of neurodiverse individuals. That initiative ended up passing 50 with support from both Republicans and Democrats. I think one of the biggest reasons why it passed 50 is because we had 800 different people post comments encouraging the passage of that initiative on the text, on the website in it. Ultimately, I think one thing that a lot of people don't realize is that while, in some ways, our elected officials are very unresponsive, in other ways they're actually quite responsive. A lot of what we're seeing is elected officials doing what they think we want them to do. Sometimes it's just a matter of actually standing up and saying, This is my experience, this is what you're doing. That is what you're doing here, what you think might be good might not be as good as you think it is, and here's why. Because I do still believe that people want to do good in this world, and people want to help. It's just a lot of times people don't surround themselves with expertise in the way that they should when they go about trying to help. I think that's one thing is being open. I think that's especially true if you're in a position of influence. One thing I meant to allude to earlier was when I was at Duke Law, I assumed that I was going to be the only autistic person there because you don't hear about autistic lawyers, really. Certainly not when I started law school in 2021. I think maybe extraordinary attorney we would just come out, but that was in Korea. You still haven't really seen, like an American version of that. I just thought I'd be the only autistic person there. When I got to Duke, I realized, wait a second. There are actually autistic people here. In fact, there was another autistic person in my section, and they were excellent. They did better than I did. But at the same time, did that person ever talk about their autism or publicly affiliate put themselves out there as a behavioral other? No. I think also a good piece of our problem, and it's one that I certainly am going to try to do my part to remedy is

### Segment 7 (30:00 - 35:00) [30:00]

that you don't actually see people talking about autistic people who have done everything that you hope that have gone to law school. I work at a big law firm now. You don't see them talking about it, in part because a lot of these institutions make it difficult for you to be open about your background and experiences. At the same time, your background and experiences are what actually bring you power. They are your expertise. When you sit back and let other people continue being uninformed, it just lets everybody down in a way. Because there have been times where I've done that, and I end up feeling a little bit unsatisfied, but you walk away and you do the best you can. But it doesn't make what's going on better. I found in the times where I do put it aside and I speak up and I talk about that it's definitely scary. Every so often, there is a little bit of a cost. But ultimately, people respect you for it. Ultimately, the end product of whatever you're talking about, I think does end up being a little bit better. I think what I would say, just as a starting point, getting to the idea of political autism, I think is way down the line. But where I think it starts is people just being open about their experiences and talking about it and not being afraid when the time comes to talk about healthcare issues to put autism in their back pocket and sit on it. I think that's one big piece. I think the other is using the media attention. I know there's been a lot more media attention on autism lately, and this is something that I tried to do. I wrote no Bed and Newsweek. I don't know how much it did. But not being afraid to say when it does come into the spotlight, when you do have that opportunity to shape narratives to come back and use your experience and try to do what you can to say, Hey, this is what you should do to help. Eventually, if you do that enough times and you make it something that's useful enough for enough people you can move the needle a little bit. Again, as I said above, I think it's a bigger cultural problem. It's not necessarily something that policy can solve. But I do think policy can help, but you can't really have that policy until the culture is in place first. Can you give more details as to an organized way where we can share our stories? Like you shared a site or when there's a specific law that's being passed that we can share our comments to, but are there lobby days that families can join where we can speak directly with legislators? There are a few I think one thing that I try to think about just broadly in political engagement you don't do things that you believe in, do organizations that you trust, and work with people that you trust. I think that is one of the biggest ones. If there's anything that I would have done maybe slightly differently in some of the things that I've done as I've done my time in Washington and done some of these things, it's focusing more on who I really trust and work with. I think one thing that I will say is because there's a lot of different political autism organizations that are trying to get political. I think you have to figure out what tone you're comfortable with. Now, believe me, I'd love to see everybody come together and have that Kumbaya moment and realize that our collective interests are bigger than maybe the specific interests, that there are unifying principles behind, I think the struggles that both families with children with autism and adults with autism are facing. They're different, but there are some underlying similarities, and that's where I would love to see the focus. That isn't really the reality that we have, though. I think what I would encourage you to do is really think about in terms of organizations is do your research and really think about what message you want to send. I know that you're asking for more specific actionables, and I apologize that I'm not really giving them to you. But the reason why I'm doing that, is just because I think our community is so big and so diverse that I don't want to give you an organization, and then it turns out that that's a total mismatch. I will say one organization that I have appreciated a lot is the National Head Start Association. If you do believe in federally funded preschool for low income students, they're currently being affected by the government shutdown. I know all my old colleagues at NHSA are pushing hard.

### Segment 8 (35:00 - 39:00) [35:00]

If that is something that works well for you, that might be a decent starting point. Obviously autism speaks as a big player, and autism self advocacy networks a big player. But I think it's more a question if you have to start with what change do you want to see specifically and then work your way out? Because I know that change looks different for different people, and I don't want to accidentally send somebody down the wrong path just because I've worked with an organization and they've been great. I noticed on your bio you've worked at a couple of different law firms, and when you self disclosed your diagnosis, how was that received? It's really fascinating and I give a lot of credit to my current firm because I don't think it was taken. I think most firms got scared by it, honestly. When I worked at my first firm, which is on there, and I'm not going to say their name, but folks know who they are, the immediate response was, you need to report that to HR. I did. But I think part of when I was talking about cultural change, exactly what I had in mind, is that when most firms, companies, period, hear autism, they get scared. They assume the worst, they assume you're Sheldon Cooper. They don't stop assuming you're Sheldon Cooper. Agreed. He's brilliant, but I don't mean the brilliance of Sheldon Cooper. I mean the parts of Sheldon Cooper that drive people crazy. Sorry, that was not the most polite way to put that. But ultimately I think a lot of firms hear autism and they get very scared. Admittedly and I think I've said this when I was lobbying for the County initiative, is ultimately especially in this day and age, with all the remote applying and interviewing, you don't really get the chance to help people see the bigger picture. Ultimately, a lot of times it ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy of a firm hears autism and they think that person is going to be disruptive and not a net value add. They don't hire them, and then the next time somebody an autistic candidate comes along, they just do the same thing. That's why I give a lot of credit to my current firm, because even though, yes, I went to Duke Law School, I had decent grades I extern for a federal district court judge, ended up writing this note later on. I think a lot of firms got spooked. The firm that I'm at really didn't get spooked. They saw it as the plus that I see it as, that it's given me greater perspective, that I've had to learn how to advocate for myself, that I've learned how to lead in this community, that I get what it means to see families sacrificing. I think those things are pluses. Unfortunately, that's not something that a lot of people do see sometimes. I am not saying that there is not a real cost to putting yourself out there as an autistic professional. There absolutely is. But I think the real upside is that if you survive that and you say, I am on the autism spectrum, but it's made me have to pay more attention to my communication, and it's made me have to learn how to advocate for myself and be more of a leader, and the company sees that. It ends up being a really great fit. I really enjoy working at the firm that I'm at Rutan and Tucker. They even posted that I was going to be presenting at this conference, which I didn't expect them to do that. I didn't really ask When you get the chance to be yourself, I think it works out great. But we've talked about employment at these conferences a lot. I've been on the panels. I've done these types of things. It's a slippery fish. Especially in a tight labor market, it's an even slipperier fish. Believe me, I am very sympathetic about the challenges of being open about your autism diagnosis when you're trying to get a job. To all the autistic folks listening, do what you got to do. But if you have the luxury of being able to put yourself out there, please do. It's the only way that we're going to change the cycle. Thank you. What wonderful words, there.