Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

​As Kansas gears up for a special legislative session in two weeks, the state stands at a pivotal point. Governor Laura Kelly’s call to reconvene the legislature after vetoing three key tax relief bills this year, let alone what she vetoed previously, indicates the struggle to pass pro-growth policies. For Kansas to thrive, it must pursue significant income tax reductions complemented by responsible budgeting.

Despite an appealing low unemployment rate of 2.8%, a deeper look at Kansas’ labor statistics reveals significant challenges. The labor force participation rate, the share of residents either working or actively looking for work, has dropped to a historic low of 66.1% since 1977, and the workforce has been flat since 2008. This stagnation points to a need for reform policies that do more than temporarily boost employment numbers—they must encourage sustainable work and investment.

Current tax relief discussions, including proposals to eliminate the state’s 2% sales tax on groceries, reduce the current 20 mill state property tax levy for K12 education, and end the state income tax on Social Security benefits, though politically attractive, do not provide the necessary economic improvements as cutting personal income taxes:

• Eliminating the sales tax on groceries would slightly increase household disposable income but wouldn’t promote the investment or labor participation that drives durable economic growth like cutting income taxes. It also just shifts, rather than reduces, the overall tax burden to fund government spending and raises the tax burden on lower-income earners with a higher sales tax rate on everything else.
• Reducing property taxes helps relieve property owners of this costly burden from a tax on unrealized capital gains that keeps people from owning their homes as they always rent from the government by being forced to pay property taxes. This can also help renters but the benefits of reducing property taxes don’t have the same benefits to renters or property owners as cutting personal income taxes for everyone.
• Removing the income tax on Social Security helps retirees but it doesn’t address the core economic activities that fuel job creation and investment needed for a younger and future-ready Kansas, like cutting personal income tax rates.

In contrast, flattening and cutting income taxes would dramatically improve Kansas’s economic environment. As noted in a recent report by The Buckeye Institute for KPI, this sort of pro-growth tax policy in Kansas would make the state more attractive to entrepreneurs and skilled workers, fostering an ecosystem ripe for innovation and investment that increases economic growth and job creation across sectors, contributing to a wider tax base and more tax collections. 

Kansas must also embrace responsible budgeting for these tax cuts to be sustainable. The state should learn from the lesson of excessive spending during the last decade’s troubles, which led to deficits and foolish tax hikes. This can be achieved by spending on only limited roles outlined in the state’s constitution, providing opportunities for strategic budget cuts and growth of no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This balanced approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services.

The upcoming special session is a golden opportunity to initiate significant economic reforms. By adopting bold income tax cuts and responsible budgeting, Kansas can set a prosperity cycle that benefits all residents. This approach goes beyond temporary fixes to establish a solid foundation for future economic stability and growth, which can’t be achieved with the other proposals.

Now is the time to implement visionary reforms that position Kansas as a smart, growth-oriented fiscal policy leader. This special session is ideal for Kansas to boldly step into a future marked by robust economic health and lasting prosperity. By seizing this moment to enact significant tax cuts and set the table for disciplined spending, Kansas can ensure its competitiveness and prosperity for generations. Let this session be remembered when Kansas took bold steps to secure its economic future, setting a precedent for fiscal responsibility and proactive economic strategies that lead to a flourishing state.

Originally published at The Center Square. 

​Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and the Republican-led Legislature have emphasized conservative budgeting as a central priority. Such prudence in budgeting is the cornerstone of fiscal conservatism, and the recent passage of the FY 2025 budget in Iowa highlights a commitment to fiscal restraint, albeit less stringent than in previous sessions. The newly approved $8.9 billion FY 2025 General Fund budget marks a 4.7 percent increase from the previous fiscal year's $8.5 billion, demonstrating moderate fiscal growth.

Historically, spending has been recommended to align with the combined rates of population growth and inflation. Based on this formula, the FY 2024 budget of $8.5 billion should ideally have capped the FY 2025 spending at $8.8 billion. Adhering to such metrics ensures that the budget reflects the average taxpayer's ability to fund it, a fundamental principle that should guide all budgetary decisions. This year, however, the legislature has ventured slightly beyond this benchmark, underscoring the careful balance between fiscal responsibility and the needs of a growing state.


To provide substantial relief to individual taxpayers, the legislature has implemented a significant income tax cut, which accelerates the implementation of a 3.8 percent flat tax in 2025. This measure is projected to save taxpayers over $1 billion. The tax relief directly benefits Iowans, putting more money back into their pockets and supporting more economic growth.

Despite concerns from critics who argue that such fiscal strategies could undermine public services, the FY 2025 budget demonstrates that the government is not retrenching but rather growing at a deliberate pace.

Education remains a top priority, accounting for 56 percent of the budget. When combined with the allocations to the Department of Human Health Services (DHHS), these two areas consume a significant 81 percent of the General Fund. While this concentration of funds reflects the importance placed on these sectors, it also highlights the challenges of allocating resources to other critical areas, such as public safety and the judicial system, which have only seen modest increases.

The practice of conservative budgeting is further evidenced by the state's adherence to its legal spending cap, which allows up to 99 percent of projected revenue to be used. In contrast, the FY 2025 budget only commits 92 percent of these projections, reinforcing Iowa's fiscal discipline. This cautious approach is proving effective, as evidenced by the substantial budget surpluses recorded in recent years, including a $1.8 billion surplus in FY 2023, with similar surpluses anticipated for FY 2024 and FY 2025.


Looking ahead, legislators must remain vigilant to ensure that conservative budgeting principles continue to guide fiscal policy. State Sen. Jason Schultz rightly points out the interdependence of tax policy and spending, “Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that tax policy is affected by spending. And when you start seeing spending creeping up for annual, year after year, new good ideas, you can’t have good tax policy.”

Strengthening Iowa's 99 percent spending limitation would provide a robust mechanism to curb future expenditure desires. This could be done by changing the law and enshrining it in the Constitution to bind spending increases to no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation.

Iowa’s fiscal approach starkly contrasts the situations unfolding in neighboring states like Minnesota and Illinois or others such as New York and California. Higher spending and taxes in these progressive states contribute to economic challenges and drive more people away.

The message is clear: unsustainable increases in spending can lead to severe consequences. Iowa's success in maintaining fiscal discipline through conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is a testament to the effectiveness of this approach.

Iowa’s unwavering commitment to conservative budgeting and responsible tax policies is the cornerstone of its fiscal strategy, ensuring the state remains a model of stability and prosperity. By striking a balance between providing essential services and fostering economic growth, Iowa sets a commendable example of how sustainable fiscal policies can safeguard a state’s financial health and support the well-being of its citizens.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. ​

As states across America sharpen their competitive edges with tax cuts and simpler tax codes, Kansas has a unique opportunity to foster prosperity and economic resilience. The tax reform bill with about $635 million in personal income tax relief in the first year awaits Governor Laura Kelly’s signature. While this bill is not as good as the one with a flat 5.25% tax rate passed earlier this year but vetoed by Governor Kelly, the latest bill would help better align the state with successful tax reforms nationwide that have spurred growth and investment. Governor Kelly would be wise to sign it or risk losing the opportunity for people to flourish across the state. But her recent equivocations do not suggest she’s likely to side with Kansas families.

The Urgency of Tax Reform

Earlier this month, HB 2036 overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate. The bill seeks to overhaul the state’s current tax structure by simplifying the brackets and reducing financial burdens on Kansans. The essence of the reform is to streamline the number of tax brackets from three to two, simplifying the tax filing process and reducing administrative costs. This reform is not just a fiscal adjustment; it’s a strategic move toward making Kansas more competitive and prosperous.

The proposed changes in tax brackets will make the tax system easier to navigate and less burdensome. But the legislation doesn’t stop at restructuring brackets; it also includes several key features designed to benefit Kansas residents directly:

• Increased Personal Exemptions: The bill raises the personal exemption significantly—from $2,250 to $9,160 for single filers and $4,500 to $18,320 for married filers–thereby taxing the first dollars earned up these amounts at 0%.
• Social Security Income Tax Elimination: It removes the state tax on Social Security benefits, offering relief to retirees.
• Property and Sales Tax Reductions: The reform slightly lowers the school property tax rate–while keeping K12 spending at the same levels–and speeds up the removal of the sales tax on food.

This restructuring will leave more money in Kansans’ pockets, fostering increased consumer spending and investment that will help support sustained increases in economic growth and new hires.

National Trends in Tax Reform

Kansas is not alone in its move toward income tax simplification and reduction. In 2024, fourteen other states thus far,  had income tax cuts, enhancing their economic landscapes and making them more attractive for business investments and skilled workers. Here’s a map highlighting the states that have implemented income tax cuts this year:

This national movement underscores the importance of Kansas keeping pace with these trends. Failing to do so could deter potential investment and encourage businesses and talent to move to more tax-friendly states. This is especially true given how neighboring states are cutting taxes. 

The Vision of Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Freedom

In an unpredictable economy, Kansas can improve the fiscal landscape through tax reform and sustainable budgeting. Adhering to a “Responsible Kansas Budget,” which changes the budget every year by no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation, and using resulting surpluses to reduce income tax rates annually would help flatten and eventually eliminate these taxes. This strategic approach promises a robust economic future, minimizing the need for burdensome taxation.

Economic Context: Kansas vs. Other States

The contrast in economic performance is stark when comparing Kansas with nearby states and those with and without income taxes. Here’s a snapshot of economic performance among these states.

This data proves that those states without income taxes perform better economically regarding job growth and wage growth, two key ingredients for reducing poverty and encouraging prosperity. Moreover, those states without personal income taxes have substantially less government spending, which helps reduce the burden of government on residents. Kansas will substantially improve its current trajectory by following the path of those states that are flattening, lowering, and eliminating personal income taxes. 

Not Perfect, But Good Step Forward

It’s time for sustainable tax reform after the issues during the last decade of overspending, which resulted in higher taxes later. The Legislature’s passed tax reform is crucial for Kansas to provide the following:

• Economic Competitiveness: Lower and simpler tax rates attract businesses and skilled labor. These benefits will support more economic activity, drive faster economic growth, and give more reasons for people and businesses to move to the state.
• Prosperity for Residents: More disposable income for Kansans means higher consumer spending and savings and more opportunities for businesses to invest and hire more workers. This will contribute to more economic growth over time.
• Fiscal Health: Simplified taxes with much-needed sustainable budgeting promise long-term fiscal stability without jeopardizing limited government provisions. This will help avoid the fiscal issues during the last decade and set the state up for success.

The proposed tax relief of more than $600 million is needed in Kansas today. A recent economic analysis by the Economic Research Center at the Buckeye Institute of a $500 million income tax relief package. Their findings show that Kansas could have a $430 million (2012 dollars) increase in GDP, $240 million more in business investment, $200 million more in consumption, and 1,000 more jobs in the first year and more growth after that.

Gov. Kelly and the legislature should learn the key lesson from the Brownback years – you cannot cut taxes and increase spending. The plan on Gov. Kelly’s desk is eminently affordable if all parties involved learn from this lesson and have the discipline to act on it.
​
Governor Kelly’s signature would mark a significant step forward, positioning Kansas among the leading states with proactive fiscal policies that spur growth and enhance quality of life. This tax reform and responsible spending will help ensure that Kansas does not fall behind its peers but moves forward as a leader in economic health and resident well-being. It would also set the stage for a flat income tax and eventually eliminate it by returning surplus dollars to taxpayers where it is most productive.

Originally published at AIER. ​

April heralds two markers in Americans’ financial calendar. Neither brings joy. Their anguish reminds us of the dire need for fiscal reform before it’s too late. 

The first day is Tax Day on April 15, when you must file taxes to the IRS. The other day is Tax Freedom Day on April 16. The latter is the 104th day of the year, which represents when Americans, on average, can stop working to pay taxes and start working to improve their own lives and further their economic goals. We work 30 percent of our days to pay government alone.

This stark division of the year into earning to pay for the government versus for oneself casts a revealing light on taxation’s burden. These dismal dates indicate an urgent need to overhaul the fiscal regime of excessive government spending that drives taxes higher.

The pain and uncertainty from an ever-changing federal progressive marginal individual income tax system with forced withholding and payment or refund later are destructive. These costs distort our ability to prosper.

Central to minimizing these burdens and distortions is for the federal government to spend less, thereby reducing the amount needed from taxes. And the tax system should be simplified by moving to a broad-based, flat-income tax. Eventually, we could eliminate income taxes and fund our significantly reduced spending with a broad-based, flat final sales tax, but politics too often takes precedence over prudence.  

States without personal income taxes, such as Texas and Florida, often showcase stronger economic performance, underscoring the potential benefits of a consumption-based tax model. The Tax Foundation’s analysis shows that these states enjoy higher growth rates and attract businesses and residents alike, advocating for the efficiency of a less burdensome tax system.

Unlike taxes on income, a consumption tax better aligns with economic volatility and taxpayers’ decisions. It introduces a transparent, simpler tax system, starkly contrasting the current convoluted income tax code, thereby supporting more freedom to choose, increased savings, and faster economic growth.

But the looming uncertainty inevitably generated by temporary tax measures and seemingly endless, excessive government spending demands attention.

For instance, the individual income tax rate reductions, full-expensing, and other provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 expire over the next year, creating a cloud of uncertainty. Moreover, the multi-trillion-dollar deficits from overspending result in further economic destruction because of higher interest rates and less investment.

The economic impact was notable, with the Congressional Budget Office reporting a surge in GDP growth following the TCJA’s implementation. But the uncertainty surrounding its future dampens long-term economic prospects and investments. Permanent tax reform, aimed at fostering stability and growth, requires a commitment to fiscal discipline and a reevaluation of government spending priorities.

The erratic nature of such spending and tax policies erodes the stability crucial for economic prosperity. Uncertainty, particularly around taxes, inhibits investment and innovation. Predictability is key to strategic planning and growth. For entrepreneurs, uncertainty is a strong disincentive. The fluctuating tax landscape presents a significant barrier to economic expansion.

Addressing this uncertainty requires permanent growth-oriented tax policies and controlling government spending.

The direction of tax reform must be twofold: advocating for broad-based, flat taxes and championing sustainable government budgets. This dual approach promises to enhance economic liberty and lay a foundation for robust growth, which should also reduce the number of days to Tax Freedom Day so more money is in our pockets.

Reflecting on Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day sparks a broader discussion on tax reform. We can envision a society that values freedom, peace, and prosperity by championing pro-growth policies of a simplified, flat tax system and sustainable spending. 

Dispelling tax uncertainties and controlling government spending pave the way for economic policies that foster rather than hinder human flourishing.

The journey toward a more rational tax system is not merely fiscal; it’s a moral imperative. It demands bold, persuasive advocacy for policies that champion economic soundness while embracing the principles of liberty and opportunity. 

We can inspire a movement toward genuine economic reform on this Tax Day by addressing the challenges posed by the current tax code and advocating for a shift toward a better fiscal regime with more days working for ourselves instead of Uncle Sam.

Originally published at Texas Scorecard.

Texas can pass bold school choice legislation when the next legislative session starts in January 2025. This could finally happen because of the recent election wins in the House primaries, efforts led by Gov. Greg Abbott. 

The election wins include pro-school choice candidates beating anti-school choice incumbents or filling seats of retiring anti-school choice members. More incumbents, including House Speaker Dade Phelan, were forced to a runoff in May. Moreover, 80 percent of Republicans voted for Proposition 11 on the primary ballot to support school choice, which matters in a dominantly red state.

In the evolving educational reform landscape, universal education savings accounts (ESAs) provide the best path to empower parents to decide their children’s education. They are also a practical, fiscally responsible strategy for reimagining the future of education. At least 10 states have passed universal school choice, and more are likely to do so soon. 

But these states haven’t reached the pinnacle of what a competitive education system should look like. The optimal school choice approach should liberate education from the constraints of the monopoly government school system, draw upon successful market-driven solutions, and offer a simplified education finance system.

The Texas Legislature essentially controls the current school finance system with funding from taxpayers through taxes collected by the state, school district, and federal governments. The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the status quo are stark, including questionable but relevant declining test scores. This highlights a critical need for an approach that better serves students’ and families’ unique needs and aspirations.

The state’s school finance system is based on many factors to the school system, but the Texas Education Agency recently reported that the average funding per student was $14,928 in the 2021-22 school year. Total funding was $80.6 billion for 5.5 million students. Of course, this is how much is spent, but the actual cost of the monopoly government school system is hidden and driven higher by politics rather than market outcomes.

ESAs provide flexibility in covering many educational services, including various schooling options, tutoring, testing, and other related expenses. This empowers parents to customize their children’s education to suit individual learning styles and interests. This adaptability is vital for fostering environments where children excel academically, socially, and emotionally.

Implementing a universal ESA program demands a framework that balances simplicity with accountability, ensuring the focus remains on expanding educational opportunities and improving student outcomes. 

While many current ESA programs run alongside the government school system, this doesn’t provide the most competitive framework. Running them in tandem, whereby the funding remains the same or even increases for government schools while creating a new system to fund ESAs, is costly and lacks the incentives for optimal outcomes. 
Instead, we should pursue a simplified education finance approach that maximizes competition, reduces costs, and lowers taxes by funding students, instead of a system.

A bold proposal would provide parents with an ESA of $10,000 per child for the school year but paid monthly or the preferred frequency to choose any approved schooling, including government, private, charter, home, co-op, tutoring, or other types of schooling. With about 6.3 million school-age children in Texas, the annual total expenditure would be $63 billion, or $17.6 billion less than what’s being spent today on government schools.

Parents could receive an ESA of as much as $12,800 per student to keep the same expenditures as today. However, given the bloated bureaucracy and misguided direction of government schools, the $10,000 amount would help force efficiencies while reducing taxpayers’ costs and incentivizing new education providers.  

The lower cost of $17.6 billion would provide an opportunity for substantial school property tax relief. Combining ESAs and property tax relief would further accentuate the proposal’s appeal, addressing the lack of school choice and burdensome property taxes. 

The bold approach eliminates most, if not all, of the current antiquated government school finance system with one that gives parents a way to meet their children’s unique learning needs best. It would help alleviate the hardship for many families that can choose alternatives for financial reasons, pay lower property taxes, or have money remaining to invest in their children’s quality of life and educational pursuits.

As states across the nation begin to recognize the transformative potential of this bold universal school choice approach, the momentum is undeniable. This trend underscores a growing consensus on the need for educational systems that prioritize choice, flexibility, and parental empowerment. 

By breaking free from the monopoly government school finance system and embracing a bold ESA finance approach that empowers parents, we can pave the way for a future where every child can achieve their full potential.

Originally published at AIER.

T​axing unrealized capital gains on property, stocks, and other assets is not just a bad idea, it’s an economic fallacy that undermines economic growth and personal liberty. Unfortunately, President Biden’s $7.3 trillion budget proposes such a federal tax. Vermont and ten other states have made similar moves.

This tax should be rejected, as it is fundamentally unjust, likely unconstitutional, and would hinder prosperity and individual freedom.

A tax on unrealized capital gains means that individuals are penalized for owning appreciating assets, regardless of whether they have realized any actual income from selling them. 

If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability? 

The devil is in the details of the approach to this tax, but the devil is also in the tax itself.

Adam Michel of Cato Institute explained two types of unrealized taxes in President Biden’s latest budget:

• Under current law, capital gains are taxed when the gain is realized — when the investment is sold and there is an actual profit to tax… The budget proposes eliminating step‐​up in basis, making death a taxable event. The change applies to unrealized capital gains over $5 million for single filers ($10 million married).

And secondly,

• The budget proposes a new minimum tax of 25 percent on income and unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with more than $100 million in total wealth. This new minimum tax would be a third, parallel income tax system, adding to the existing alternative minimum tax. The new minimum tax applies to two entirely new tax bases — wealth and unrealized capital gains. Defining and taxing wealth and unrealized capital gains pose numerous practical challenges and high economic costs.

Taxing unrealized capital gains contradicts the basic principles of fairness and property rights essential for a free and prosperous society. Taxation, if we’re going to have it on income, should be based on actual income earned, not on paper gains that may never materialize.

Moreover, taxing unrealized gains hurts economic activity by discouraging investment and capital formation, the lifeblood of a dynamic economy. When individuals know their unrealized gains will be taxed, they have less incentive to invest in productive assets such as stocks, real estate, or businesses. This leads to a misallocation of resources and slower economic growth.

Additionally, this tax reduces the capital available for entrepreneurship and innovation. Start-ups and small businesses often rely on investment from individuals willing to take risks in the hope of eventually earning a return on their investment. By taxing unrealized capital gains, we discourage risk-taking and stifle innovation, essential elements for improving productivity and raising living standards.

The tax undermines personal liberty by infringing on individuals’ property rights and financial privacy. It gives the government unprecedented control over people’s assets and creates a powerful disincentive for individuals to save and invest. This is particularly troublesome in an era of increasing government surveillance and intrusion into private affairs.

Proponents of taxing unrealized capital gains argue that it is a way to address income inequality and raise revenue for social programs. This argument can’t withstand scrutiny. This tax does little to address the root causes of income inequality, such as government failures in fiscal and monetary policies. Instead, this new tax would merely redistribute wealth from productive individuals to the government, thereby further misallocating hard-earned money.

Furthermore, the tax revenue raised from this tax will be far less than proponents anticipate, as individuals will work less, invest less, and find ways to avoid such taxes through legal paths. This would result in less economic prosperity and a resulting decline in tax collections.

From an economic and moral perspective, taxing unrealized capital gains from property, stocks, and other assets is a bad idea. It undermines economic growth, stifles innovation, and infringes on personal liberty. Instead of resorting to the misguided policies of the Biden administration and some states, we should remove barriers created by the government. These include reducing spending, taxes, and regulations. We should also impose fiscal and monetary rules.

Achieving these goals and ending the bad idea of a new tax on unrealized capital gains will encourage investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity for all. Only then can we truly unleash the potential of a free and prosperous society.

​Could Colorado become one of the seven states with no income tax? Vance Ginn, former White House Office of Management and Budget, believes the state is on the #Path2Zero.

Originally published at James Madison Institute.

​Florida is an economic leader because it has produced pro-growth policies of lower government spending, taxes, and regulations for years. This strong institutional framework must continue. 

A new report, “Reducing the Burden of Sales Taxes in Florida,” authored by The James Madison Institute (JMI) Senior Vice President Sal Nuzzo and JMI Senior Fellow Vance Ginn, Ph.D., outlines recommendations for ways in which Florida lawmakers can reduce the government burden on citizens and businesses. 

“Florida continues to be the best place to start and grow a business. That requires us to continually examine ways to make it more attractive as states become more and more competitive. One way our policymakers and governor can do this is by addressing the sales tax allowance, which currently places us at a competitive disadvantage when looking at other states, especially within our region. By making this allowance more reflective of how much compliance truly costs, we can ensure that the principles of limited government and economic liberty advance.” — Sal Nuzzo, Senior Vice President, The James Madison Institute 

“Florida has been a key model for the country with a sound approach to conservative fiscal policy. This includes the commitment to a conservative state budget, no personal income tax, minimal corporate welfare, and sensible regulation. To retain the title of “Free State of Florida” and provide more opportunities that let people prosper, policymakers should continue championing policies that spend, tax, and regulate less so families and entrepreneurs can reach their full potential. Reducing the burden of collecting sales taxes on entrepreneurs by at least doubling the sales tax allowance and streamlining the collection process to reduce compliance costs will help achieve this goal while providing lower prices to families.” — Vance Ginn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The James Madison Institute

​Thank you for tuning into the FINAL Let People Prosper podcast episode 76 of 2023! Today, I have a brief but informative podcast for you, recapping the highlights of the economy and my business, Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC.

As a Christmas gift, I am giving away a complimentary subscription to the paid version of my newsletter and a copy of Lexi Hudson’s fantastic book, “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.” To enter this giveaway, simply fill out the information at the link and rate my podcast on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Is there anyone whom you would like for me to interview in 2024? Leave them in the comments. 

​Today, I cover:

1. Economic highs and lows of 2023 and outlook for 2024;
   
2. Greatest hits of my podcast and business; and
   
3. My mission and vision for Let People Prosper.