Mr. Woods, you said that when the government tries to split a new tax between the worker and the business owner 50-50%, the burden actually falls 100% on the worker because the owner just sees it all as the aggregate expense of having the worker. But, is it really so in the long run? I mean, that tax is still the burden on the whole business enterprise, which then has to suffer in some way. For example, the now less payed worker will not care to work as much as before, or may even threaten to quit so a new (worse) worker must be hired. So, in some way, maybe not 50-50% but in some way, the owner is hurt too… maybe the split is eventually 70-30% or so.. right? The way I see it – here is this contract between the owner and the worker. A new expense (tax) enters the picture. It’s highly unlikely that one party will agree to bear the full burden while everything else remaining exactly the same. Right? Thank you.