Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[Jimmy Snyder]

So then would you call programs like welfare, social security, education scholarships, etc?

This is not worded well enough to respond to directly. However, I think you mean would I call these programs theft. Welfare yes of course. What else can you call it? The fact that it encourages poverty is just an added extra. Social security no, as long as the promise to pay me is as well protected as the promise to take from me. It's more like insurance than theft, but it is coerced. Education scholarships yes of course. What else can you call it? And I suspect it is the cause of higher costs for eduction. In the long run it may keep more people out of school than it allows in.

You are wrong when you say that what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society. In their own words what they want is equality. They call for fairness, not goodness, surely not happiness. No matter the cost to society. Why don't they break the fingers of pianists to level the playing field? Is it because they know they can't really achieve equality, and the cost to society is the only hope that remains in their hearts? The worse things are the better they are?

 

[nismaratwork]

This is not worded well enough to respond to directly. However, I think you mean would I call these programs theft. Welfare yes of course. What else can you call it? The fact that it encourages poverty is just an added extra. Social security no, as long as the promise to pay me is as well protected as the promise to take from me. It's more like insurance than theft, but it is coerced. Education scholarships yes of course. What else can you call it? And I suspect it is the cause of higher costs for eduction. In the long run it may keep more people out of school than it allows in.

You are wrong when you say that what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society. In their own words what they want is equality. They call for fairness, not goodness, surely not happiness. No matter the cost to society. Why don't they break the fingers of pianists to level the playing field? Is it because they know they can't really achieve equality, and the cost to society is the only hope that remains in their hearts? The worse things are the better they are?

What you say in the second paragraph is true about socialism... socialists may have different beliefs. Much as any ideology believes in positive effects as a result of implementation, I think "happiness" is the hoped-effect of universal fairness. I think that's unlikely to be the case, in addition to the concept of fair being so incredibly arbitrary... it's much easier to say what is grossly unfair, than what is fair.

Still, don't confuse what socialists believe will come about as a result of socialism, with somehow being a tenant of socialism. If so, then capitalism and every other 'ism' pretty much promises the same thing; it's hard to sell "misery" after all.

 

[Proton Soup]

If he moves it off shore that's where the tariffs and import taxes come into keep your jobs at home competative. But the issue that you're not addressing is that if people aren't spending money then the government isn't making money. And if the government isn't making money then it can't provide the services that it has agreed to provide.

Now this isn't a big worry during economic prosperity, but when there's an issue (such as a recession) and people start tightening their belts the government takes a double hit. First it's not going to be making as much because it's people aren't making as much. Secondly it's going to take another hit because the people who are still making money simply aren't spending as much of their money as they were before.

So while we the people might not like it as much, I feel that taxing at the start rather than the end is better overall in terms of keeping the government running. Plus it helps prevents the government from trying to hide things by them trying to play games with how much certain goods are taxed. The simpler the tax code the better it is for both the people and the government.

you seem to think that the government can guarantee a steady revenue by taxing personal income. but what we are seeing is that this is not the case. when the economy goes down, so goes income. how much of wisconsin's government revenue comes from income tax? apparently a lot, and they've got issues meeting their obligations at the moment because the economy took a nose dive.

http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/primer_taxrevenue.html

people can also defer cashing in on assets to generate income or reinvest in their businesses if the current climate seems overly punitive on income.

i see your idea, but do you really have any evidence that income is more reliable than spending ?

 

[Perspicacity]

There are ways, which have been discussed already in this thread, in which to fund a government without the use of force. Such as sales taxes and tariffs on the products one buys.

The only reason I pay a penny of sales tax is because I would eventually be jailed if I don't. I've never knowingly paid a tariff, but if I had the power to avoid paying those I most certainly wouldn't.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ugh! I guess there's no hope for keeping this on topic.

how much of wisconsin's government revenue comes from income tax? apparently a lot, and they've got issues meeting their obligations at the moment because the economy took a nose dive.

http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/primer_taxrevenue.html

This is only somewhat true. Wisconsin finished the last Congressional term (earlier this year), with nearly a budget surplus. Some of that surplus was eaten away by tax cuts that Walker put into help revive the economy. Not that the WI economy was in particularly bad shape - it's unemployment rate, for instance, is about 2% better than the national average. However, what is true, is that the then Dem controlled Congress had already chalked down a couple years worth of spending bills that would have put WI about $3.5B in the hole by 2013. They were in a similar situation two years ago, with a roughly $4-5B deficit in the works, but were able to plug that hole through a series of pay cuts, furloughs, and layoffs. I'm not sure that is the best way to rein is spending though, and much prefer cutting pensions instead. The Dems tried to do that too, but couldn't (or perhaps wouldn't) pull it off.[1]

Now, in general, it's true that when the economy goes down, incomes drop and revenues dry up. Furthermore, government also likes to cut taxes and spend money to boost activity. So, it's to be expected that revenues fall and deficits grow in the aftermath of a downturn. But the opposite is true during periods of strong, steady growth.[2] So, in the long term, I don't see this as a strong argument against sustainability.

1. See references in the Protests in Madison thread
2. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+gdp+growth,+us+federal+deficit+

 

[nismaratwork]

Thank goodess Walker failed to touch those pensions, and instead failed to kill collective bargaining instead. I wonder if he'll be recalled,

 

[Perspicacity]

Thank goodess Walker failed to touch those pensions, and instead failed to kill collective bargaining instead. I wonder if he'll be recalled,

My brother fights in local MMA(mixed martial arts) matches. The first time I went and saw him fight, I was amused by the display the fighters made as they approached the ring--loud music and macho displays that seemed to proclaim their inevitable victory. I've always wondered how the loser dealt with the humiliation of being defeated after such a ridiculous display.

In case anyone is wondering what the point of my little story is, it's just that nismaratwork reminds me of those fighters—already proclaiming his superiority before the battle is won.

 

[nismaratwork]

The only reason I pay a penny of sales tax is because I would eventually be jailed if I don't. I've never knowingly paid a tariff, but if I had the power to avoid paying those I most certainly wouldn't.

Would you pay child support if you could avoid it?

 

[Perspicacity]

I don't think you need to worry about the subtlety of your ad hominem work, it goes over like a gold brick.

What can I say, I enjoy seeing injunctions in the lower courts, it bodes ill for Walker. Still, don't let yourself be encumbered by facts, just keep working the clumsy metaphors.

Hey I've got no idea how it'll all turn out—which is why you don't see me declaring victories. I know how I want it to turn out, of course.

Now I think you know that it isn't CERTAIN (even though it seems you feel it is likely) that Governor Walker won't prevail in the end. Would you satisfy my curiosity, please? How will it feel if you turn out wrong after all of the posturing?

 

[Perspicacity]

Would you pay child support if you could avoid it?

I do pay child support, which isn't court ordered in my case. While this doesn't exactly answer your question, since you would probably assume (and correctly) that my daughter's mother would seek legal means to obtain it if she wasn't satisfied with what I give her.

For what it is worth, I would say yes—I would pay child support if I could avoid it. I feel like my daughter deserves a substantial portion of my labor. I would avoid alimony by any means I could however.

 

[nismaratwork]

I do pay child support, which isn't court ordered in my case. While this doesn't exactly answer your question, since you would probably assume (and correctly) that my daughter's mother would seek legal means to obtain it if she wasn't satisfied with what I give her.

For what it is worth, I would say yes—I would pay child support if I could avoid it. I feel like my daughter deserves a substantial portion of my labor. I would avoid alimony by any means I could however.

So... for you, the laws are restrictions to be avoided except in cases of personal involvement with offspring or other close friends/family?

 

[Perspicacity]

So... for you, the laws are restrictions to be avoided except in cases of personal involvement with offspring or other close friends/family?

Honestly, yes. I do have my own sense of morals—but I see laws as nothing more than restrictions placed on me by people who are more powerful. I do have my own sense of morality—so I wouldn't, for instance, rape someone even if I could get away with it, because I would empathize with the other person. I'm also a veteran, because I feel that it is every able-bodied persons duty to pull his shift of the dangerous but necessary work.

I think that the current tax scheme is an absolute travesty, so any method I can find to avoid paying taxes that doesn't involve me going to jail I wholeheartedly approve of/

 

[nismaratwork]

Honestly, yes. I do have my own sense of morals—but I see laws as nothing more than restrictions placed on me by people who are more powerful. I do have my own sense of morality—so I wouldn't, for instance, rape someone even if I could get away with it, because I would empathize with the other person. I'm also a veteran, because I feel that it is every able-bodied persons duty to pull his shift of the dangerous but necessary work.

I think that the current tax scheme is an absolute travesty, so any method I can find to avoid paying taxes that doesn't involve me going to jail I wholeheartedly approve of/

Does your morality often contradict social norms, or is this more the modern disaffection with powerful entities? The latter I understand, the former is generally pathological, although I applaud your reluctance to rape due to empathy. Maybe you should extend your empathy to those you're not directly harming in a scheme where you don't pay taxes.

 

[Perspicacity]

Does your morality often contradict social norms, or is this more the modern disaffection with powerful entities? The latter I understand, the former is generally pathological, although I applaud your reluctance to rape due to empathy.

I don't know. I'll have to think about it for a little while.

Maybe you should extend your empathy to those you're not directly harming in a scheme where you don't pay taxes.

I'm personally very generous with my own money—I give to a couple of charities that I've carefully selected, if stopped and asked politely by a beggar on the streets I'll usually give a twenty dollar bill, and I generally give gifts of cash to friends who are having troubled times (though I won't lend money to personal acquaintances under any circumstance). I object to the notion of a group of people voting money out of my pocket into theirs however, no matter how desperately they need it. As soon as taxes moved from roads and national defense to wealth redistribution, they become immoral in my view.

 

[Al68]

In an "ideal" world (read, utopia) it would be voluntary sharing and everyone would give their best effort to work towards the common good. But that isn't how the world is. You have some people who are greedy, and others who just plain don't agree with the concept, among other issues. And due to this the only way to enforce the "ideal" is with force. Of course using force perverts the ideal. And that is ultimately the biggest issue with both socialism and communism. The "ideals" are great, but given human nature they don't work in real life. Which means that you have to stifle liberty and freedom in order to try and enforce the ideal, at which point the ideal is lost. Now some countries are able to enforce this, but there generally comes a point where the people simply won't tolerate it anymore and the country collapses.

I would recommend you don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was.

I'm not the least bit confused. I was just pointing out that the word "socialism" refers to a system using the perversion you describe, not the "ideal" of voluntary sharing.

I was simply trying to make the point that socialism isn't "stealing" if you actually agree to that style of government.

The same could be said for any kind of theft. No theft would be "stealing" if the property were instead voluntarily given.

 

[ginru]

I'm just throwing this idea out here but what about simply having a time-based, community service tax system and currency.

The regular tax would be used by the government only on property and luxury purchases while the alternative currency tax (let's call it the social dollar) would apply to every able-bodied person. As a time-based currency (1 hour = 1 social $) then each person's age and ability to work would determine how much of this tax they'd owe the government (pre-school, handicapped, and elderly would be exempt).

It could be designed to replace many volunteer-typical activities with an employment system for serving the community. So people would earn social $ by doing jobs like tutoring, cleaning up the park, daycare, teaching, etc., or if they're rich then they can simply hire someone to work their tax hours for real money. If they're poor they can use their surplus social $ income towards buying basic necessities from the nonprofit sector (namely food, shelter, clothing, preventative health care, and public education). I'd imagine nonprofit businesses could really blossom in this type of social $ sub-economy.

The targeted benefits could be in having a fairer and clearer tax system that reduces bureaucracy while generating revenue/labor force to actively support the government's services. The drawback is that may generate far less real revenue for the government as it replaces income tax with a time-work tax that requires human resources to be managed effectively enough to make up for the loss.

 

[Al68]

I do pay child support, which isn't court ordered in my case.

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

 

[Aknazer]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

The flaw outlined by several posts above and the difficult in talking with socialists comes from the insistence of separating the idea from the implementations. You get into this:

Person A: Socialism doesn't work.
Person B: How would we know? It's never been tried.
Person A: Sure it has - here's 3 examples.
Person B: They don't exactly match Marx's vision.
Person A: It came as close as is possible/they tried.
Person B: But it still wasn't.
Person A: Ok, so does that mean Marx's vision can't work?
Person B: No, it could work.
Person A: How? Where?
Person B: Um...I don't know, but I'm sure it can.

In the real world, if an idea can't actually be implemented, then it doesn't have a lot of value.

My original point was that socialism=/=stealing. Also you could potentially implement something like socialism, communism, etc in the real world. I've talked with several military members who view the military as the only truly working communistic state in the world. If you go to one of the various cult communes you could find a "working" version of socialism because they are all doing it voluntarily.

So again, while you could argue that the idea of socialism doesn't have a lot of value, that doesn't mean that socialism is stealing.

Also there are plenty of scientific theories that can't be 100% proven in the real world. That's why they're still labelled a "theory" and not a law, even though we base plenty of research and other things off of the theory. Socialism is simply a "political theory" and if the entire public were to be onboard with it it could work (which is why it can work in places like cult communes).

This is not worded well enough to respond to directly. However, I think you mean would I call these programs theft. Welfare yes of course. What else can you call it? The fact that it encourages poverty is just an added extra. Social security no, as long as the promise to pay me is as well protected as the promise to take from me. It's more like insurance than theft, but it is coerced. Education scholarships yes of course. What else can you call it? And I suspect it is the cause of higher costs for eduction. In the long run it may keep more people out of school than it allows in.

Yes I meant would you call them theft/stealing. I agree with you on most of the points. The programs mean well but are generally set up poorly and should be run by donations and non-profit organizations. Not the government. The main one I disagree with you on is social security. I view this as a ponzi scheme by the government. It uses the money that peter is paying now to pay for paul. And any profits that are made are then taken away to pay for other programs.

You are wrong when you say that what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society. In their own words what they want is equality. They call for fairness, not goodness, surely not happiness. No matter the cost to society. Why don't they break the fingers of pianists to level the playing field? Is it because they know they can't really achieve equality, and the cost to society is the only hope that remains in their hearts? The worse things are the better they are?

I'll concede the first bit. The last bit just seems rhetorical, and even if everyone "could" be awesome at everything you would still need people to pick up trash and clean toilets. Also by looking at the definition of "socialism" one could say that socialists who want 100% equality aren't fully following socialism as there's no way scrubbing toilets would ever be "equal" to being a singer or something like that. But rather socialism is more about the society and doing things to directly meet the needs of the society. Thus many "socialists" really only take from certain parts of the socialism political theory and don't follow it fully (as is the way with pretty much any political theory).

 

[Perspicacity]

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

Perhaps she was applying for some sort of government assistance that would require her to first seek court-ordered support from you? My daughter's mother was considering such a possibility at one time, but fortunately she was able to find work before it became necessary.

 

[Physics-Learner]

the first and foremost step to take is to eliminate most of govt, which i will refer to as GOVT EXCESS.

once this is done, there will be much less need to tax people.

and then most services should be paid by those that use them, when at all possible. i realize that sometimes the cost of administering this could outweigh its advantages. for example, it hardly makes sense to try and tax each person who goes to the beach - LOL.

 

[mugaliens]

Wasn't this question answered in the Constutution?

 

[IMP]

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

 

[nismaratwork]

Years ago, I paid both alimony and child support (more than legally required) voluntarily until my former wife decided to consult a lawyer. The result was that she filed an affidavit with the court claiming essentially that she needed less money than the amount I was giving her, and obtained a court order requiring me to give her less than I was giving her voluntarily.

Now that's a lawyer for you. I never asked her what the lawyer charged her for that brilliant plan.

That is one of the most bizarre actions I've heard of (her's and the lawyer's, not yours) and I have to wonder what the hell was the thought process.

@Perspicacity: Fair enough, and I need some time to consider the second portion of your post. I'm not sure if you're angered in principle by what you perceive as group theft, or if it's a more thoughtful analysis. My gut reaction is that you dislike another's control, but when it comes to spontaneous action you're clearly not greedy or selfish. So much for pathological... ah well, that would have been fun.

One question left: what is it about alimony that you would have avoided given the chance, whereas child support is clearly not an issue for you? Would you say it's something that if asked for, you'd have given freely? Would you say that it's something you object to for other reasons?

 

[nismaratwork]

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

That's funny, I feel the same way about adherence to laws regarding murder, but I think we're all better off with the status quo.

 

[Aknazer]

the first and foremost step to take is to eliminate most of govt, which i will refer to as GOVT EXCESS.

once this is done, there will be much less need to tax people.

and then most services should be paid by those that use them, when at all possible. i realize that sometimes the cost of administering this could outweigh its advantages. for example, it hardly makes sense to try and tax each person who goes to the beach - LOL.

Except what happens when someone doesn't use a service and so doesn't pay taxes for it, then decides they want to use it, followed by "not wanting to use it" until the next time? People could potentially abuse this type of system unless the taxes are directly tied to it (like how the taxes on gas are supposed to be used for road maitenence/repair).

Wasn't this question answered in the Constutution?

This is supposed to be a discussion on what the people of the forum think is the best way to generate revenue for a government and why. The Constitution doesn't answer that question.

People should not be forced (with the threat of prison) to give up their labor. Taxation should be voluntary only.

And when you choose to not pay your taxes then you can't use ANYTHING that has been paid for with government funds. So when you're being robbed the police can't come help you, when you're house is burning down the fire dept won't stop it (though they would stop it from spreading; and this has actually happened to a family that didn't pay the fire fighter fee in their area), you can't drive on public roads, etc.

Voluntary taxation would be a collosal failure. You wouldn't be able to enforce people not using government funded items, the government would get next to no income, and ultimately the country would collapse in on itself and revert to a third world nation.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Except what happens when someone doesn't use a service and so doesn't pay taxes for it, then decides they want to use it, followed by "not wanting to use it" until the next time? People could potentially abuse this type of system unless the taxes are directly tied to it (like how the taxes on gas are supposed to be used for road maitenence/repair).

the ideal system is to have, as you say, an easy way to charge for something "when used".

 

[IMP]

Maybe IMP meant that only the threat of death or loss of a limb should be used?

I'm kidding... truly I am.

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, maybe I worded that awkwardly.
I just don't feel like you should be able to take someone's labor from them directly, by force. Maybe an income tax on businesses/companys/corporations, which would tax us indirectly.

Oh IMP, I was kidding around, I got your point! Sorry, this internet really needs fonts for joking...

 

[Perspicacity]

@Perspicacity: Fair enough, and I need some time to consider the second portion of your post. I'm not sure if you're angered in principle by what you perceive as group theft, or if it's a more thoughtful analysis. My gut reaction is that you dislike another's control, but when it comes to spontaneous action you're clearly not greedy or selfish. So much for pathological... ah well, that would have been fun.

One question left: what is it about alimony that you would have avoided given the chance, whereas child support is clearly not an issue for you? Would you say it's something that if asked for, you'd have given freely? Would you say that it's something you object to for other reasons?

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

 

[nismaratwork]

The very thought that the government would presume to order me to financially support another adult human being directly comes very close to sending me into a rage. As I am also completely opposed to marriage I've never been placed in the position, but I think I would actually destroy everything I own and go to prison before I paid so much as a penny in alimony.

I will also not interact socially with another person who receives court-ordered alimony—I consider him or her to be the most repugnant form of thief imaginable.

Also, if I were to find myself member of a jury in a case where a man or woman took drastic violent action to avoid alimony—well, let's just say jury nullification.

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

 

[Perspicacity]

Well, I applaud your honesty, but I can't claim to agree with you. Still, thanks for answering my questions.

To answer yours, no, I'm not posturing, but rather I'm glolating. I was not exactly shocked by the injunction (as a reading of this thread should indicate), and while Walker certainly may evade recall, he's destroyed his political capital for nothing.

Am I amused? Oh hell yes, but am I posturing? No. I have no stake in this beyond pure dislike of the tactics used, and illegal passage of legislation.

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

 

[nismaratwork]

Don't you think it may be possible that you're gloating prematurely? The bill may survive its court challenges, and if it does, and the economy improves at all in Wisconsin, it is likely that Gov. Walker will get the majority of the credit—whether it is deserved or not. I'll admit he made a very large gamble, but the dice haven't stopped rolling yet and you're acting like he's already lost the game.

It's possible that I am, but I'm willing to take it in the chops if I'm wrong.

 

[Al68]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

Yes, to a degree.

Basically Marx was a revolutionary socialist. He advocated the outright theft of the means of production, to be owned by government, and a permanent ban on private ownership of any means of production. A permanent ban on private employment and commerce. Government was to use force to maintain a complete monopoly of every industry.

Basically the same thing as if Walmart were to use force to put every other business in the country out of business, overthrow government, use force to maintain a complete monopoly over all industry and commerce, and use force to assert lawmaking power over every person in the country.

For their own good, of course.

 

[Al68]

And when you choose to not pay your taxes then you can't use ANYTHING that has been paid for with government funds. So when you're being robbed the police can't come help you, when you're house is burning down the fire dept won't stop it (though they would stop it from spreading; and this has actually happened to a family that didn't pay the fire fighter fee in their area), you can't drive on public roads, etc.

Those things are not generally paid for by the income tax historically in the U.S., cost a very tiny fraction of current tax revenues, and basically have nothing to do with why we have an income tax.

Local property taxes and state sales taxes are more than adequate to pay for fire and police plus many other things, and the fuel tax (and tolls) covers the cost of roads.

Of course, you're right that those taxes are not voluntary, but their collection can at least be justified on the basis that the money is owed for services rendered. And yes, police and fire protection are services rendered to a person whether or not his house catches fire.

And for those that don't know, the fuel tax is not required for fuel not used on public roads, and if you do pay the tax for fuel not used on public roads, you can even get a refund. You can't get any more "tax only for services rendered" than that.