 Well, it matters for a range of reasons. One that's particularly close to my own work at the IMF is that we're often asked by countries to advise them on tax and spending reforms they have in mind. Clearly, there are a number of things that we then look at, which could be the effect on incentives to work and invest, but also the impact on inequality, fairness more generally is a major concern for them, and so for us it's something that we try to advise them on, not in terms of prescribing what we think the policy should be on the extent of redistribution or the extent of inequality reduction, but in terms of making sure that the policies are effective in terms of the ends that they themselves have. So we try to make sure that, for example, that they're not foregoing some efficiency gains that would be consistent with the amount of redistribution that they try and achieve. So we're trying to make sure that they get on that difficult frontier in terms of achieving the best possible trade-off between equity and efficiency concerns. Well, of course, they have, I think, very tempting policies to pursue because we might say, for example, well, the poor consume a large amount of food. They spend a lot of their proportion of their income on food, so let's subsidize food or petroleum or whatever it is. But the trouble is, of course, that while the poor may spend a larger proportion of their income on food, fuel, whatever, than the rich, typically the rich will spend a larger absolute amount. What that means is that when you think about who gets the actual benefit from the subsidy or the reduced rate of tax, actually, most of that goes to the rich, not to the poor. So some of the examples we come across that I mentioned today in the talk were instances where, for example, of $100 that the government foregoes through a subsidy or a reduced rate of VAT on food, perhaps the poorest 10% might only get about $4. So you're looking at a policy that costs $100 to get only $4 to the very poorest. But in a way, that's only the first step of the argument. The second step of the argument is to say, well, are there actually better ways of achieving it because if that's the only way you can help the poorest, maybe that's a price worth paying. So a large part of what I was talking about was really talking about how we can identify better targeted ways of reaching the poor, which is relatively straightforward to do in the more advanced economies where we have more sophisticated income support and other sort of social support systems are easier to do there than in developing and emerging economies. But really when you look at the numbers, even the very blunt tools that may be available in these lower-income economies are typically going to be better, more effective than reduced tax rates subsidies. Well, to a very large extent, I think that's a little bit the puzzle we have is that we can find these policies that look better in terms of both efficiency and equity, but for some reason, they don't get adopted. And you mentioned the UK, and I think that's a very good example in terms of the zero rating of food, which is something that is generally recognized, I think, by people working in the area, is a really very ineffective, very costly way of reaching the poor. So I think we're talking about really not analytical issues or mathematical issues, but issues of political economy and quite what it is that makes it very hard for politicians to take on these very challenging possibilities that they face in terms of bringing about gains in both equity and efficiency. And that's true in the UK, but it's true in other countries too, in lower-income and emerging market economies. We also think there are better targeted ways of achieving their ends, but somehow they don't seem to get adopted. So we end up talking about political economy. We end up talking about the fact that well, just as the poor don't get the main benefit of these generalized subsidies, it means that the better off do. So the better off are going to be a natural constituency for the continuation of these subsidies. Sometimes I think there can be a mistrust that government may say, well, we'll remove this subsidy, but don't worry, we'll compensate you through some other means, through some spending measure. People may have a little bit of distrust of that. They may think that perhaps the spending system is corrupt or perhaps in a couple of years' time, the government will conveniently forget that they've promised to compensate them for these price increases. So I think it comes down not so much to a matter of having the appropriate instruments available to compensate the poorest, but these political economy factors that I think we're really still struggling with at the fund in terms of how best to facilitate what I think we see as potentially quite significant improvements. Well, I think we're certainly, I think, very cautious about that. I think we are very mindful of government's own equity objectives. So governments may have a sense that they would like to do more to alleviate poverty, to have perhaps a more equal distribution of income. And clearly, tax and spending measures have some role to play in that. And I think one of the points I was keen to emphasize is that when we think about these redistribution issues, we have to think about both the taxing side and the spending side. And I think all too often in many of these debates, people focus on just one instrument or one side of the government's budget account without seeing the bigger picture, which I think is really the challenge for many governments is to put together the packages of both taxes and spending measures that achieve their objectives. So for example, people often say that the VAT is a regressive tax. That may be true if you simply look at the VAT in itself. But the question is really, well, what does that revenue go to finance? And it will make a big difference in terms of how you think that impacts equity. Whether the money is being spent on some pro-poor item or on something where the benefits primarily go to the better off. I think so, we certainly see things very much in terms of package. Many of these I think are ideas that we put out there for wider discussion rather than necessarily being things we want to press on in particular countries, but for example, you mentioned property tax. And I think that's a good example of a tax where there are potential gains, not only in fairness, if that's what governments are pursuing, but also in straightforward efficiency terms. Because in many ways property, even if we leave aside the distribution effect, real estate in particular, can be quite an efficient tax base. Because essentially it doesn't move around. So if you have a nice house and a nice location which has a high value, essentially that tends to meet the economist's ideal of something you can tax without it going somewhere else or the base vanishing, right? And I think we have a sense that simply if you look at the numbers, the reliance on property tax varies a huge amount even across advanced economies. So our sense is that that implies that there may be potential for more efficient taxation through that route in many advanced economies. Which in many advanced economies, it may be that in fact, you want to use that revenue to reduce other taxes. It might not necessarily go towards spending. It might be that you can reduce more distorting taxes by relying a little bit more heavily on the property tax. But I think that's an example of a tax where one might be able to see both some efficiency benefits and also some element of fairness that may be appealing in particular countries. No, that's a very good question. I think it's there's certainly been advances in understanding a lot of the data on these issues. There've been some very marked trends in shares of income, particularly the very rich. And it's clearly I think something that relates to people's daily lives in a very direct sense when they worry about what properties their children are going to afford and these kind of things. It's clearly something that touches people very directly. I think I would say both, I must say I was particularly struck at this particular conference by the wealth aspect. Because I think we had several presentations that were really very fascinating in terms of the data they were presenting on trends in wealth. And trends in wealth I think have been much less understood. And have really attracted much less interest from policy makers. And I think that's certainly something that recent debates have put squarely on the table. Well I think it's been a terrific experience I think at this conference. I think UNIWDA has the capacity to bring together leading experts in the field and also to bring I think together a very wide and diverse audience from all over the world to address these issues of common interest.