Tax Features November 1994 Volume 38 Number 10

TAX FOUNDATIO N TAX FEATURES November 1994 Volume 38, Number 10

Top One Percent of Income Earners Now Paying Over a Quarter of All Income Taxe s

Newly released income tax data shows finding is available in tax return statistics fo r that the top one percent of income earners 1992 from the Internal Revenue Service, whic h now pay more than one quarter of all federal are analyzed in Chris Edward's Special Report individual income taxes, according to a new No. 42, "Who Pays Federal Taxes?" study by the Tax Foundation . This striking The IRS data shows that incomes grew after the recession bottomed out in Marc h 1991 . Total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) on income tax returns rose 4.7 percent in 1992 . Chart 1 : Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid by Yet the data also shows that the rate of growth Income Group, 1982 and 199 2 for total individual income taxes paid rose faster (6.2 percent) than the rate of growth for incomes . The top 10 percent of income earners pai d Top 1 % 9.0% well over half (57 .5 percent) of total incom e 27 .4 % taxes and the top 50 percent paid 94 .9 percent `36 .1% . 3 Top 5 % of the tax load. On the flip side, the 56 45.9 % million filers representing the lower half o f income earners paid only 5 .1 percent of all -11 48.6 % Top 10 % federal individual income taxes . "It may cos t 1 57 .5% more than it is worth to collect income taxe s 72 .5% Top 25% from this large group," observes Mr . Edwards , 78.4 % "since they pay such a small portion of th e .7 % overall tax load . " Top 50 % 92 1 94 .9 % Chart 1 shows that the proportion of income taxes paid by higher income earner s Bottom 50% 7.3 % increased dramatically over the past decade . 5 .1% For example, the top one percent of earner s paid 19 .0 percent of federal individual income 0 .0 30.0 40 .0 50 .0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90 .0 100 .0 10 .0 20 .0 taxes in 1982, but paid 27.4 percent in 1992 . Percent of All Federal Income Taxe s In fact, the proportion of total income taxes paid by high income earners (whether the to p Source: Tax Foundation . Federal Taxes continued on page 6 FRONT & CENTER A Flat Tax Will Make the Tax Code Family-Friendly Again 4-5 2

Real Income Rises Slightly, But Typical Family Still Pays Over 40 Percent of Income in Taxe s

Federal, state, and local taxe s will claim 40 .1 percent of the in- Chart 1 : Real, After-Tax Median Family Income, 1980-199 come earned by a median incom e 4 two-earner family in 1994, according to the Tax Foundation's annual analysis of the typical American family's income . The study—Spe- cial Report No. 43, titled "Typical American Family Pays Over 40 Per- cent of Income in Taxes," by Foun- dation Economist Chris Edwards — documents the changing incom e and tax levels of the median two - earner family since 1980 . Two-earner married couples are used in the report because, according to Bureau of the Census data, they are the most common family type, accounting for 46 percent of all American families . (More tradi- tional one-earner families, with one spouse at home, account for 32 percent of all families .) The media n two-earner family will earn an esti- Source: '['ax Foundation. mated $53,354 in 1994, but after paying income taxes, social insurance taxes, property taxes, sales Chart 2 : Median Family Expenses, 199 4 taxes, and other taxes, this family will have just $34,728 to spend on all other goods and services after the government takes its share . Chart 1 documents changes in income and tax levels of the median family since 1980. Income for thi s typical family, observes Mr . Edwards, grew strongly during the economic expansion on the 1980s, but has stagnated throughout the early 1990s . In fact, recently re - leased data from the Bureau of Cen- sus shows that real median income s for most family types fell in 1993 , despite overall growth in th e economy . However, the real median income for two-earner families has crept slightly higher over the past two years . The largest tax bite for the typical family comes from the federal social insurance payroll tax that is de- Housing & Househol d ducted from paychecks of bot h 15.6 % earners in the family . Working

Source: Tax Foundation . Family continued on page 7

Foundation Honors Roth, Young at ual De This Year's Conference Explores Tax Neutrality

Senator William V . Roth, Jr . (R-Del.) and John A. Young, retired Presiden t and Chief Executive Officer of Hewlett- Packard Company, will receive the Ta x Foundation's Public Sector and Private Sector Distinguished Service Awards o n November 17 at the 57th Annual Din- ner in New York City, the Foundation has announced . In addition, Thomas F. Field, Pub- lisher of Tax Notes, will receive th e second annual Tax Policy Servic e Award during the national conference . William Rot John A. Young Thomas F. Field earlier in the day . Sen h Sen. Roth and Mr . Young join a n (R-Del.) impressive list of previous award recipi- ents that stretches back to 1941, and in - Manager of the Microwave Division . starts with a 12 noon luncheon—will be cludes such notable statesmen as then - In 1968, Mr . Young was promoted Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), who wil l General Dwight Eisenhower, Senators to Vice President of the company, as- discuss his newly introduced proposal Robert A . Taft and Everett M . Dirksen , suming responsibility for the former to overhaul the current income tax sys- and Federal Reserve Board Chairme n Electronic Products Group. He wa s tem. The primary component of hi s William McC . Martin, Paul Volcker, and then appointed Executive Vice Presi- plan is a flat 17 percent tax rate . Alan Greenspan . dent and was elected to the com-pany' s The first session examines the latest Sen. Roth, who was first elected to board of directors in 1974 . research using "generational account- office in 1970, serves on the Senate Fi- He was named President and Chie f ing" to explore how government poli- nance Committee, as well as the Bank- Operating Officer in 1977, and a yea r cies can and will affect how American s ing, Housing and Urban Affairs Commit - later was named President and Chie f save. Larry R. Langdon of Hewlett- tee and the Governmental Affairs Com- Executive Officer . In 1983 he becam e Packard will chair the panel, which fea- mittee. He is best known for the Roth - Chairman of the Executive Committe e tures Dr. Laurence J . Kotlikoff of Boston Kemp initiative, introduced in the late of Hewlett-Packard's board of direc- University and Dr. Peter M . Taylor of 1970s and enacted in 1981 . The mea- tors. the Senate Budget Committee (minority) . sure led to federal income tax cuts in He retired on October 31, 1992 . Session two asks if the method w e 1983, 1984, and 1985, which many Mr. Field will be honored during use to tax U .S. businesses on their inter- economists say spurred economi c lunch earlier in the day . He has pub- national operations is appropriate to the growth and helped eliminate "bracket lished Tax Notes, a weekly trade jour- modern, integrated, and highly competi- creep"—the tendency of taxpayers to nal published by Tax Analysts, sinc e tive global economy . E. Noel Harwerth shift to higher tax brackets solely be- 1970. Prior to that, Mr. Field was an of Citicorp/Citibank, U .S.A., will chair cause of inflation . Attorney-Advisor for the Office of Tax the session, and panelists will includ e Sen. Roth is also known for cham- Legislative Counsel at the Treasury De - Dr. Norman B. Ture of the Institute fo r pioning an extension of Individual Re- partment, and a trial attorney for th e Research on the Economics of Taxation , tirement Accounts, which were cut Tax Division of the Justice Depart- Robert N . Mattson of the International back in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 . ment. He also served in the U .S. Army , Business Machines Corporation, and He helped introduce a bill in 199 2 retiring as a Colonel . William Brack of the office of Senato r which would restore full deductibility Hank Brown (R-Colo .). National Conference of IRAs and expand their availability— a The final panel explores tax provision included in the 1992 tax bill This year's half-day conference fo- neutrality and the treatment of corpo- but vetoed by President Bush . cuses on "Steering Tax Policy by Tax rate investment . John P .Z. Kent of GT E Mr. Young joined Hewlett- Neutrality." By exploring tax neutral- Corporation chairs the session, which Packard's marketing-planning staff i n ity, a term that means a lot of things to will feature Dr. Margo Thorning of the 1958, and subsequently served as a Re- a lot of analysts, the program will spu r American Council for Capital Forma- gional Sales Manager, a member of the efforts toward a common definitio n tion, Dr . Jane G. Gravelle of the Con- corporate finance staff, and Marketing and put long-term economic growth a t gressional Research Service, and Will- Manager of the former Microwave Divi- the fore of the tax policy debate . iam Modahl of Digital Equipment sion. In 1963 he was named General Keynoting the conference—which Corporation. •

A Flat Tax Make the T Code Family-Friendly Again

Rep. Dick Armey Many families today say they a flat tax. After seven decades of abuse (R-Texas) need two incomes to make ends by corporate lobbyists and self-righ- meet, and they're right—but not for teous income redistributors, our tax the reason most people think . They code is a mess . Rates are high, loop - need two incomes because of the holes abound, and families are bur- high cost of government : one to dened as never before . support themselves, and a secon d My bill would scrap the entire code to pay their taxes and support th e and start over with a simple, low, fla t politicians. tax. Modeled after a plan that Robert In recent decades, the govern- Hall and Alvin Rabushka proposed i n ment has grown so large so fas t 1981, it would work like this : You that over 40 percent of an average would add up your earned income , family's earnings is soaked up by subtract a large personal allowance taxes. A typical family now pays ($13,100 for a single person, $26,000 more in taxes than it spends on for a married couple filing jointly), take food, clothing, and shelter away $5,300 for each child (which i s combined . double the current amount), and then pay a flat 17 percent rate on the re- mainder. That's it. There would be no special interest deductions or loop - After seven decades of abuse by holes of any kind . You could figure your taxes on a form as small as a post - corporate lobbyists and self righteou s card. In fact, while it takes the averag e income redistributors, our tax code taxpayer 11 hours to do his taxes to - day, you could do this figuring in 1 1 is a mess. Rates are high, loopholes minutes—with no fear that you made a mistake that'll bring out the IRS audi- abound, and families are burdened tors or missed some clever loopholes as never before. My bill would scrap that everyone knows about but you . Why a 17 percent rate? That's low the entire code and start over with enough to give virtually all Americans a a simple, low, flat tax. major tax cut, but high enough to meet the government's revenue need s (which will, of course, be reduced under this plan) . With a doubled chil d deduction, families with children will In addition, Americans today do especially well . spend 5 .4 billion man-hours a year Now, the soak-the-rich crowd re- calculating how much they owe flexively claims that a flat tax is by defi- Uncle Sam in taxes . nition unfair. That's flat wrong . Fair- The overall size of governmen t ness is in fact the flat tax's great virtue . itself is undermining families' abili- It's based on the idea of fairness w e ties to live the American dream. learned in grade school : Everyone That's why I introduced a bill thi s should be treated the same . Rathe r summer, the Freedom and Fairness than have fallible politicians decide Restoration Act, designed to cut the which groups should surrender mor e size and influence of Washington . It or less of their earnings to the govern- will revolutionize everything th e ment, the flat tax sets a single objectiv e government does—taxing, spending , standard. and regulating—and allow us to Indeed, this system will be as pro- FRONT & keep more of our money and live th e gressive as the income tax system w e way we believe is right . had when John Kennedy was presi- CENTER The bill starts by replacing ou r dent. How so? The plan's high per- entire current income tax code wit h sonal allowances mean that middle 5

removing the tax code's current punish- capital gains tax, no tax on dividend s ment for saving, the plan will swell th e or interest, nor would there be a tax capital pool, causing interest rates t o on whatever inheritance we try to drop and demand for housing to rise . leave for our children (why work a As housing values hold or increase un- lifetime so the government can tak e der the plan—and economic growth half of what you leave behind?) . This soars—only Washington tax lobbyists would unleash American talent, wor k will be nostalgic for the old way. and creativity as never before . Eco- With the flat tax, there will be a nomic growth would soar. single, readily grasped objective stan- We would still have a tax on busi- dard. The only thing that matters is ness income, of course, but it would whether you have children . Otherwise , be the same flat 17 percent rate tha t income folks will pay a far lower por- you are treated the same as everyon e we'd pay on personal income, and a tion of their total income to the gov- else. far simpler system for small businesses ernment than the wealthy, even if their All Americans will benefit mightily to manage than today's ridiculously tax rate is the same . from the higher wages and new job s complicated code . They would not A typical family of four, for in- that such a rational tax system would need to wrestle with depreciation stance, will pay no income taxes at al l be sure to create . Our twisted tax sys- schedules or other arcania . They on their first $36,800 of income—the tem today treates investing in new jobs would simply subtract all their ex- 17 percent rate will only apply to in - the same way it treats cigarette smok- penses from their revenues and pay 1 7 come above that . As many as 10 mil - ing—by discouraging it with especially percent . lion poor people will be removed fro m high taxes . Make no mistake, though, the flat the tax rolls entirely. If you want pro- If you want to put some of you r tax is more than just a good govern- gressive, this gets the job done without earnings in a stock or mutual fund, that ment reform to make our tax system a complicate tax code as long as th e money is hit with double-taxation : it' s simple, fair and pro-growth . It's a way Encyclopedia Britannica . taxed when you earn it and again whe n of telling politicians that we're tired o f Of course, there will be the pre- you invest it . No wonder wages hav e being toyed with . dictable objections . Vested interests been flat and job growth low. Congress didn't design our tax will fear the loss of such breaks as th e The flat tax would end this crazi- system to raise revenue for the gov- home mortgate deduction. But by ness. There would, in effect, be no ernment efficiently . It doesn't do that . They use it the same way they us e spending programs—to direct our money at whatever causes or interest groups they think are important. Government does not have the Fa " `fax Relief competence or the right to make y those decisions . We should have a ta x system that is neutral and let 250 mil- How the Freedom and Fairness Restoratio n lion free Americans decide where Act would benefit a family of 4 earning a n their money should go . annual income of $50,000 . Oh, and one last thing . This 17 percent flat tax rate with thes e personal deductions means a big tax $ 50,00 0 Annual Income cut for everyone—especially families - 26,200 Married Couple who would see their child deductio n - 10,600 (2) Children double. The best way to keep politi- 14,000 Taxable Income cians from spending more and more x 17% Flat Tax Rat e of other people's money is to reduc e . Let them cut spending $2,380 Federal Income Tax their supply instead . •

The views expressed in Front & Cente r are not necessarily those of the Tax Foundation.

Federal Taxes taxes paid by high earners increase d Chart 3 shows that the average Continued from page 1 substantially . The primary explanatio n (or effective) federal income rate rises of this result, says Mr. Edwards, is that steadily with income from 4 .4 percent 1,10, or 25 percent) has been shifting high income earners are earning (and for those bottom 50 percent of the upwards since tax year 1970, befor e reporting) greater shares of AGI . For income spectrum to almost 25 percent which these measures had been falling . example, the top one percent earne d for those in the top 1 percent . At the same time, the top indi- 8.9 percent of income in 1982 but Chart 4 shows federal incom e vidual income tax rate on high income earned 14.2 percent of income in return data for 1992, focusing on the earners has been falling . Thus, tax 1992 and earnings of the top 1 0 income earned and taxes paid b y rates on high earners were lower i n percent rose from 32 .3 percent to income groups at the higher end o f 1992 than 1982, while the share of 39.2 percent of the total . the income distribution . •

Chart 2: Income Shares versus Chart 3: Average Federal Income Tax Rat e Tax Shares, 1992 by Income Group, 1992

14 .2% Top 1% All Taxpayers 12 .9% 27 .4 % q Income Share

28.0 % Tax Shar e Top 5% 45 .9 % Top 1 24.8 % 39 .2 % Top 10 % 57 .5 % Top 5% 21 .2 %

62 .5% Top 10% 18 .9 % Top 25 % 78 .4 % Top 25% 16.2% 85.1% Top 50% t 94 .9% Top 50 % 14 .4 % .9 % Bottom 50% 14 Bottom 50% 4.4% 5.1 % I I I I I I I I I I - I I I 0 .0 10.0 20 .0 30 .0 40 .0 50 .0 60 .0 70 .0 80 .0 90 .0 100 . 0 0 .0 5 .0 10.0 15 .0 20 .0 25 . 0 Percent Average Federal Tax Rate, Percent Source : Internal Revenue Service . Source : hlternal Revenue Service .

Chart 4: Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 1992

Number of Adjusted Income Tax Group's Group' s Returns Gross Income Paid Share of Share of Averag e (thousands) ($millions) ($millions) Total AGI Total Taxes Tax Rat e All Taxpayers 112,815 $3,678,241 $475,910 100 .0% 100.0% 13.1 % under $10,000 29,879 150,012 3,013 4.1 0.6 2.0 $10,000-$20,000 24,807 365,927 18,770 9.9 3.9 5.1 $20,000-$30,000 17,175 423,124 35,415 11 .5 7.4 8.4 $30,000-$50,000 21,377 833,362 87,491 22.7 18.4 10.5 $50,000-$100,000 15,814 1,054,487 140,413 28.7 29.5 13.3 $100,000-$200,000 2,810 367,863 67,503 10.0 14.2 18.4 $200,000-$500,000 746 218,419 52,290 5.9 11 .0 23.9 $500,000-$1,000,000 141 95,313 24,904 2.6 5.2 26.1 over $1,000,000 67 169,735 46,113 4.6 9.7 27.2

Note: Table does not include 937,000 returns with negative AGI's . Source : Internal Revenue Service, preliminary, data.

Family FOUNDATIO N Continued from page 2 MESSAGE The Devil the Details

Americans may not realize how muc h social insurance tax they are paying On October 31, the U .S. Treasury Department released its analysis o f because only half of the tax (7 .65 per- the revenue consequences of Rep . Armey's flat tax proposal described in cent) is visibly deducted from thei r this issue of Tax Features. According to the Treasury's analysis, the ta x paychecks . Employers are responsibl e side of the plan would cost that department $244 billion in 1995 . Accord- for paying an additional 7 .65 percent ing to the congressman's estimates, the tax side would cost about $40 bil- of each employee's pay to the govern- lion a year . So who's right? Or at least more right? ment. Most economists believe that It is important to remember that the Armey plan addresses both taxes , the effect of the employer's share o f spending, and regulation, and comes with spending restraints that would , the tax is to simply reduce the gros s if enacted, prevent the budget deficit from increasing . In a way, perhap s pay of workers by the amount o f the Treasury estimates are the more hopeful, since the combination o f the tax. lower tax revenues, a prohibition on increased budget deficits, and strict Mr. Edwards asserts that the over- spending control would imply even greater reductions in federal spending . all tax rate of 40 percent is a good The fact is, often economic estimates are as much a matter of art as sci - measure of the burden of governmen t ence. The judgement of the economist is crucial, because there are s o on other middle-class Americans be - many assumptions that must be made and sides the median two-earner family . simplifications that must be molded to fit the However, different family structure s available data and research . Unless the mod- and other differences between taxpay- els are published along with the assumptions , ers of the same income level, may in- no one can really judge the accuracy or reli- crease or decrease the tax burden . ability of the figures . For example, suppose the median Obviously, it is reasonable to question Mr . couple was unmarried with one part- Armey's figures, since he would not use the m ner supporting two dependents and if they did not support his arguments for th e earning $30,000 (income tax filing as flat tax. His estimates are also open to ques- a "head of household"), while the tion because the model used to produce the m other partner earned $23,354 an d is unavailable for scrutiny . filed as a single . The couple would But Treasury's figures are no less suspect. J.D. Foster pay only $5,123 in federal incom e Executive Director and Considering the Joint Tax Committee de - taxes on the same combined earning s Chief Economist clined to estimate the revenue loss from th e of $53,354 — about $400 less than if Armey plan because it needed more informa - married. This discrepancy is calle d tion; considering Treasury's economists, as the "marriage tax. " The Washington Post described, "filled in the blanks themselves, makin g Without children, the couple 22 assumptions about information they lacked" ; and considering these fig- would face a higher income tax load . ures were released into a game of high-stakes electioneering, it appears, a t Their taxable income would increas e least, that Treasury's estimates may be tainted with political judgements . by $4,900 in 1994 and they woul d One factor that likely differentiates the Treasury and Armey estimates have an additional $1,268 in federa l is that the latter takes a wide range of dynamic or feedback effects into ac- income taxes . count, while Treasury's efforts to model these effects are minimal . This is Taxes represent by far the larges t where the devil finds his true home. For years, pro-growth tax policie s component of the typical family's bud- have been afflicted by revenue estimates that ignore their growth effects . get. Chart 2 shows that the federal , In advancing his proposal, Mr. Armey surely felt no need to handicap him - state, and local tax bite is greater tha n self this way, while Treasury likely saw no reason to break with tradition . the typical family's expenditures on Even though tax and budget policy has been driven for years by th e housing, food, and clothing com- numbers, and that this flaw in the process has been long-recognized, th e bined . Treasury and the Joint Tax Committee have continued to produce revenu e Personal consumption expendi- estimates that ignore most feedback effects . And because the topic is rela- ture data from the Department of tively technical and esoteric, few in Congress or the Treasury have been in- Commerce is used to construct Chart terested enough to exorcise the devil from the process . 2 . The typical family's expenditure s The devil will continue to do his worst unless and until estimators' ta x have changed during the last decade. models account for the fullest possible range of feedback effects and th e Expenditures on state and local taxes , models have been published and critically reviewed . The Tax Foundatio n medical care, recreation, and "other" was established to provide credible information on tax and budget polic y take a larger bite out of income today , so that the debate would center more on policies and less on the data . while federal taxes, housing and Widely available credible data remains essential to the formulation of goo d household, food, transportation, an d tax policy, however defined . clothing take a smaller bite . • 8 Visiting Professor Paper Examines pact of Integrated T System

TAX FEATURES

Tax Features (ISSiV 0883 - Adoption of an integrated tax syste m In Canada, the effects of integratio n /335) is published monthly reduces corporate financial leverage, according were intermingled with reactions to the in- by the Tax Foundation, a n to a new Tax Foundation study authored b y troduction of capital gains taxes . Since the independent 501(c)(3) organization chartered in Keith F . Sellers, D .B .A ., Deborah W. Thomas, average firm should react to both changes , the District of Columbia. J.D., and Craig T. Schulman, Ph .D., of the Uni- the study concentrated on firms believed to Annual subscriptions to th e versity of Arkansas . The authors produced the be affected by only one or the other of th e newsletter are $15 . report — titled "Effects of Tax Policy on Corpo- changes . In response to the new capital Co-Chairman an d rate Financing Decisions : Integration of th e gains tax, it was expected that high growt h Distinguished Fellow The Honorable Bill Frenzel Corporate and Personal Income Tax" — as part firms (those most likely to retain earnings to Co-Chairma n of the Tax Foundation's Ernst & Young Visitin g finance additional investment) would in - Dominic A . Tarantin o Professor program . crease their debt. The results indicate that Executive Director and The study was undertaken to explor e high-growth Canadian firms had debt-to-eq- Chief Economist whether the adoption of an integrated ta x uity ratios which were 21 percent highe r J .D . Foste r system in New Zealand, Canada, and Australi a than expected in the absence of integratio n Counsellor altered corporate financing decisions. In eac h and capital gains . James C . Miller, II I case, the country had previously used a classical These results contrast sharply with Administrator and Director, Foundation Developmen t tax system similar to that employed in the U.S., Canada's high-dividend firms . These firms re - Gaye Bennet t and in each case the country integrated its cor- ported debt-to-equity ratios 25 percent lowe r Adjunct Fello w porate and personal income taxes to eliminat e than predicted in the absence of integratio n Charles E. McLure, Jr . the double taxation of corporate earnings . and capital gains . These results support the Tax Counsel The authors examine a group of firms in each findings with respect to New Zealand and Lynda K . Walke r country before and after the country integrate d extend the research by confirming that th e Special Tax Counsel J . Dwight Evans its tax system . By looking at the same firm s "benefits" of tax integration may be offset b y Director, Corporate over the period of the change, it is possible t o changes in capital gains taxes . These result s Development distinguish the effect of the change in tax law also indicate that firms should not be consid- Reneé Nowland on corporate financing decisions . ered homogeneous in their reactions to tax Editor and Evidence from both New Zealand and policy changes . Communications Director Stephen Gold Canada indicate that tax integration contribute d The authors state that, despite certai n Tax Foundatio n to decreased levels of financial leverage . In limitations, the findings in their paper pro- (202) 783-2760 Te l Australia, no link could be established between vide empirical support for the argument tha t (202) 942-7675 Fax the adoption of integration and the debt-to-eq- integrating the corporate and personal in- uity ratios of domestic firms. come taxes can reduce corporate financia l In New Zealand, where no significant leverage . The findings also indicate that this change was made in the taxation of capital favorable effect is diminished by increase d gains, the average debt-to-equity ratio of th e taxes on gains realized through stock appre- firms studied fell from 2 .69 prior to integration ciation . These are important conclusions for to 1 .40 after integration, so that corporate lever- the United States, which is considering bot h age was 56 percent lower after integration tha n integration and the reintroduction of prefer- it would have otherwise been . ential tax treatment of capital gains . •

Tax Foundatio n Non-Profit Org . 1250 H Street, NW US Postag e Suite 750 PAI D Washington, DC 20005-3908 Washington, D C Permit No . 5229

Please Note: We use multiple mailing lists t o distribute our publications and it's no t always possible to avoid duplications. If you receive an extra, please forward it to an interested colleague .