The question is this: if we can't get the exact degree of analysis by officials on the degree to which the estimated revenues were calculated and in what scenarios, can we reverse the question, say, to what degree did that matter to the Government? To what degree was the collection of revenue a material factor in the increasing of the top personal tax rate? Might, if the advice from IRD had been that it was under a hundred million dollars a year, under $50 million a year, would the Government have turned around and said, "You know what? It's not worth it."? We may, as a consequence of increasing the top personal tax rate earn less revenue than we would otherwise because of the entity flipping that the Minister is so concerned about, particularly with trusts. So was revenue in itself a material factor in the decision to introduce this bill, or—and I believe that this is the case, in any event—is this a matter of principle that those who are earning over $180,000 should pay a top marginal tax rate of 39c regardless of whether the Crown benefited from it or not?