Billionaire Warren Buffett urged U.S. lawmakers Monday to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.
"My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It's time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice," The 80-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" wrote in an opinion article in The New York Times.
Buffett, one of the world's richest men and chairman of conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway Inc , said his federal tax bill last year was $6,938,744.
"That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
Lawmakers engaged in a partisan battle over spending and taxes for more than three months before agreeing on August 2 to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling, avoiding a U.S. default.
"Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country's fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness," Buffett said.
Buffett said higher taxes for the rich will not discourage investment.
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said
"People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off."
1. If he doesn't think he pays enough, why doesn't he just make himself an example and PAY MORE?
2. He paid $6,938,744, certainly more than any of his office staff made and probably more than the 20 people he talked about COMBINED, and he doesn't think that's fair?
IP: Logged
09:47 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
2. He paid $6,938,744, certainly more than any of his office staff made and probably more than the 20 people he talked about COMBINED, and he doesn't think that's fair?
quote
Originally posted by Boondawg: "That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
IP: Logged
09:50 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
I doubt Mr. Buffet speaks for all of those above $250,000 but, his words do make sense. More reason to support a flat tax. No loop holes, no deductions, just a flat percentage of one's gross income. I know this will lead to folks hiding income but, that already happens. I'm not against raising taxes, I just want everyone to pay their share. When I read that 49% of Americans don't pay taxes and yet draw benefits, it does tend to piss me off.
When the developer of our little neighborhood felt the pains of a slowing economy, he decided to mix section 8 housing in with homes exceeding $300K. Yes, they barely meet the code standard (square footage) for this area but, are not nearly as nice homes. I have two neighbors that both drive nicer/newer vehicles than I do, have toys like jet skis and boats and yet, live in section 8 housing and brag about drawing benefits from the system and not paying income tax. Yeah, it pisses me off a bunch. The system is broke, there may be other ways to fix it but, I lack the imagination to come up with solutions. I'm think'n the Duke was right, "Some folks need kill'n". Let's start with kill'n the political careers of those in leadership positions that want to give away or steal what others have earned and give it to others that won't pull their own weight. Robbin Hood is a great fairy tale, but fairy tales don't pay the bills unless you're a thief.
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
09:59 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
I dont hear Microsofts Gates saying "we need to pay more..."
I think he does agree with Buffett.
quote
Originally posted by htexans1:
As for the governments mess it can be solved easily without hiking taxes....
1) eliminate the Federal Reserve/IRS and the bloated bearuracy that goes with it...
2) A 10 to 15 percent flat tax on income, regardless of income.
3) balanced budget, spend no more then what is taken in.
I'm in for 2 of the 3. I think one of the choices is unrealistic in terms of the new global business scene. In todays world, I think debt as become a nessisary evil in the new "Global Democracy".*
*Disclaimer: I am no great brain, and the above opinion comes directly from that source.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:08 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
the more you have - the more you need the g'ment to protect what you have. there is actually no such thing as "a dollar". it is a figment of the governments imagination, and you are 100% at the mercy of that very government to enforce & protect that dollars value. without it - that dollar is nothing but a number. and, of course, the government enforcing contracts, so people are able to accumulate dollars. and police & miltary protection of resources & properties. most of us have lived within a system where all this is so "background" it is easy to forget how much the g'ment is needed in the wealth aquisition process. pay to play. the more you got - the more you have used the government - and the more you need the government. dont think so? try Somalia. see how much fun that is.
IP: Logged
11:19 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
the more you have - the more you need the g'ment to protect what you have. there is actually no such thing as "a dollar". it is a figment of the governments imagination, and you are 100% at the mercy of that very government to enforce & protect that dollars value. without it - that dollar is nothing but a number. and, of course, the government enforcing contracts, so people are able to accumulate dollars. and police & miltary protection of resources & properties. most of us have lived within a system where all this is so "background" it is easy to forget how much the g'ment is needed in the wealth aquisition process. pay to play. the more you got - the more you have used the government - and the more you need the government. dont think so? try Somalia. see how much fun that is.
A commenter from where the story was originally posted:
quote
We currently employ one of the most criminal progressive tax systems possible. Over 71,000 pages of tax code and over 1,200 different forms to submit with your taxes.
Now, just WHO do you think can employ the army of accountants, MBA's, tax-lawyers, consultants and advisors to abuse manipulate this massive bureaucracy? Yes, those that can AFFORD it. The bigger question is, why does our government demonize the very people who have found ways to use, abuse, avoid and evade taxes because of the enormity the government has created? Did the rich people create the tax code? Did the corporations create the legislation that defines our current tax system. In essence, yes they did. But Congress had to allow it.
They did this with lobbyists, PAC's, trade associations, public interest groups and others. The "Iron Triangle" of Congress, executive associations and interest groups is openly and blatantly exhibited. The corruption of government via these external factors has created this monstrosity and now they blame their own creation being abused. Ironic or ignorant?
Today's debate and class warfare is based on this very premise. Laws are created to avoid taxation and as usual the governments incompetence is never acknowledged, it is diverted to those that are using it. So, where is the real blame?
The idea that our corrupted government will eliminate tax loopholes, subsidies and other manipulations is nonsense. These are created for the sole purpose of guaranteeing the politicians reelection and longevity. Both the tax avoiders and those that allow it benefit. The sheer magnitude of our tax code should prove this. Even if they do eliminate a few tax loopholes here and there how long do you think it will take Wall Street or GE to hire the next economics or math geek from MIT, Hahhhhvad or Wharton's to find or create the next loophole? This is the problem. Wall Street hires the geeks, our government hires Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner. Guess who's winning?
The only solution is to eliminate our criminal progressive tax system. Yes, I do believe in a clean tax reform. But it must be absolute. No more manipulations of tax brackets or alleged codes, eliminate it all. The buzzword today is to pay your "fair" share. I agree. A Fair Tax, without caveats, on both individuals and corporations. Even if you reduce our current tax code to its 1930's level of 400 pages, I assure you within 10 years it will balloon back to its current size. The ability of Congress to manipulate taxation under the influence of external factors must be eliminated. A Fair Tax allows equal and equitable taxation of all classes. If you're rich you WILL pay for your Macy's wardrobe. If you're middle class you WILL pay for your Abercrombie wardrobe. if you're lower class you will pay for your WalMart wardrobe. THIS is Fair. Everyone will pay for their level of consumption. If you want a Rolex, you'll pay equal tax on it as someone buying a Timex. No deductions, no exemptions and no manipulations. A Fair Tax also allows the "black market", that is estimated at over $1 TRILLION dollars, to be taxed also.
No one argues the need for taxes. The argument is how to truly make it fair. Our current system is unacceptable. It is antiquated and corrupt. If you truly want "tax reform" it must be total and complete. Nitpicking targeted industries will never work. The question is do we have the courage to accept this dramatic change? This time of economic upheaval is a perfect time to change into something better, simpler and more "fair".
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:34 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Call me crazy I don't classify folks earing 250K as SUPER rich. Yes I consider them rich or well off but SUPER rich, heck no! I think the limits just need to be redefined.
Maybe we need a new tax braket at 2 million a year. (I'm not sure that is the right number but basically a much higher limit that 250K.
IP: Logged
11:53 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by Boondawg: But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income - and that's actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent," he said.
I know Buffett must be good at manipulating numbers, but something is fishy here. The top marginal tax rate is 35% and the AMT rate is about 28%, so how are his employees paying those amounts? It must include amounts other than just Federal tax, but then I have to ask if his 17.4% is figured the same way.
It's interesting that an 80 year old man with literally more money than he could spend (short of buying countries, etc.) advocates higher income taxes for the super rich like him. I wonder why he didn't advocate that 40 years ago when he was still very wealthy and had over half of his life left to make more money? (he became a millionaire in his early 30's, back in the early 60's when that was a real amount of money)
How do you define "super rich?" I certainly wouldn't put Joe the Plumber and Warren Buffett in the same tax bracket. Wasn't that what the AMT is for?
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-15-2011).]
Anyone thinking even $1 million makes one rich is pretty much ignorant of finances. Most people will make (gross earnings) over $1 mill in 1/2 a working lifetime (or less).
The problem with those who do, and think that it is a HUGE amt of $$, is that they also spend MUCH more than that in 1/2 lifetime. (iow, they don't live within their income)
And no, you won't see Buffet volunteering to pay a much higher rate of taxation--talk's cheap.
A balanced budget would help everyone in the long run, but I can understand why those who are depending on govt help in the tax realm and their retirement being horrified at the prospect of the govt having to spend only what they take in and not a penny more.
IP: Logged
01:43 PM
Hank is Here Member
Posts: 4448 From: Hershey, Pa Registered: Sep 2000
Anyone thinking even $1 million makes one rich is pretty much ignorant of finances. Most people will make (gross earnings) over $1 mill in 1/2 a working lifetime (or less).
I guess it isn't a quesiton of abou the amount of money but, it is more a quesiton of how often does someone make a million dollars If you make a million in a year...you are rich; if you make a million in a lifetime you aren't necessarily rich.
IP: Logged
03:21 PM
TommyRocker Member
Posts: 2808 From: Woodstock, IL Registered: Dec 2009
More than 30 US billionaires pledged today to give away at least 50 per cent of their wealth to charity as part of a campaign by investor Warren Buffett and Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
Buffett pledged in 2006 to give away 99 percent of his wealth to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and family charities.
Also I notice the old standard and tired response of "Nothing's stopping him from writing a big cheque to the IRS" has been added many times to this thread. I think he is making a point that the tax system is unfairly treating the rich and it seems to be backed up by statistics AND real world examples. Not sure why he would feel that he should contribute more to a system he considers flawed, especially when giving so much of his wealth to charities he believes in.
IP: Logged
03:45 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Call me crazy I don't classify folks earing 250K as SUPER rich. Yes I consider them rich or well off but SUPER rich, heck no! I think the limits just need to be redefined.
Maybe we need a new tax braket at 2 million a year. (I'm not sure that is the right number but basically a much higher limit that 250K.
I agree that $250,000 a year doesn't qualify as Super Rich but, those are the folks our fearless leader was saying he wanted to raise taxes on. I'm all for budget cuts and I don't mind paying my taxes but, I hate knowing 49% of Americans not only don't pay taxes but, are (for the most part) are deriving benefits. We need a real change in Washington, one that we can not only believe in but one that makes those who don't contribute start pulling their own weight.
Many years ago, I complained to my Dad about having to do my chores. He told me that I could stop anytime I felt like it but, not to show up at the dinner table until I say truthfully all the livestock had been fed. Kind of like paying taxes, those that don't do their part shouldn't be lining up for chow.
I agree that $250,000 a year doesn't qualify as Super Rich but, those are the folks our fearless leader was saying he wanted to raise taxes on. I'm all for budget cuts and I don't mind paying my taxes but, I hate knowing 49% of Americans not only don't pay taxes but, are (for the most part) are deriving benefits. \
I think some studies have shown that those making $250,000 and more aren't spending their "extra" money so it's considered by some to be less of a benefit to the economy.
Also I beleive it's been shown many times that the 50% of people not paying taxes is a misnomer when you consider all the taxes and fees everyone HAS to pay.
IP: Logged
04:04 PM
PFF
System Bot
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
I think some studies have shown that those making $250,000 and more aren't spending their "extra" money so it's considered by some to be less of a benefit to the economy.
Also I beleive it's been shown many times that the 50% of people not paying taxes is a misnomer when you consider all the taxes and fees everyone HAS to pay.
Everyone has all those other fees and taxes to pay, assuming they are following the rules so, IMHO, those don't count. As an example, I just went to the county court house and paid the registration and property taxes for all of my vehicles. Owning those vehicles is my choice so, I pay the fees and taxes. Those that have less, pay less. Income taxes are what our leader is wanting to raise, simple as that. IMO, it also doesn't matter what those folks earning over $250,000 are doing with their money just as it doesn't matter what those of us under that amount are doing. Our tax system isn't the best in the world by a long shot. And, our leader wants to make it even more unfair.
------------------ Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:10 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States U.S. Department of the Treasury Credit Accounting Branch 3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D Hyattsville, MD 20782
Mr, Buffet, and any other guilty conscious liberal, please just write a check for the amount you feel you should be paying in taxes and sent it to the address at the site linked.
I might be a conspiracy theorist here... but Warren Buffet has more money than he knows what to do with. Because of that, he can afford MASSIVE taxes, and certainly can afford to circumvent a lot of that stuff anyway.
What I REALLY think this is about, is Warren Buffet not wanting a lot of competition in the various industries he's involved in. He's pulled a lot of his money out of the stock market, so he's sitting on a **** -load of cash. If you raise taxes, a lot of businesses will start hurting and will be up for sale. The stock market will probably also go down a little bit more in the short term.
Don't think that Warren Buffet is just trying to help out "the little guy"... he just wants to create an extra depressed economy so he can swoop in and buy everything which will make him even more wealthy.
I might be a conspiracy theorist here... but Warren Buffet has more money than he knows what to do with. Because of that, he can afford MASSIVE taxes, and certainly can afford to circumvent a lot of that stuff anyway.
What I REALLY think this is about, is Warren Buffet not wanting a lot of competition in the various industries he's involved in. He's pulled a lot of his money out of the stock market, so he's sitting on a **** -load of cash. If you raise taxes, a lot of businesses will start hurting and will be up for sale. The stock market will probably also go down a little bit more in the short term.
Don't think that Warren Buffet is just trying to help out "the little guy"... he just wants to create an extra depressed economy so he can swoop in and buy everything which will make him even more wealthy.
Yup, that's a conspiracy theory alright!
IP: Logged
08:26 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22968 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hey, don't put it past him... he's a REALLY smart investor.
Like people who invest in investments outside the US are destroying their own country just so they can line their own pockets? When it comes to money, all's fair in love & war? And patriotism?
Just a thought on where the line is drawn for the "smart investor".
IP: Logged
08:44 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22968 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Like people who invest in investments outside the US are destroying their own country just so they can line their own pockets? When it comes to money, all's fair in love & war? And patriotism?
Just a thought on where the line is drawn for the "smart investor".
You're right Boonie... I would be TOTALLY cool if they passed a 75% Savings Tax on Warren Buffet's savings account!!! We'll see how patriotic he is then... hahah..
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hey, don't put it past him... he's a REALLY smart investor.
So smart and so money hungry that he is pointing out a unfairness (in his opinion) in the tax code, is a mojor philanthropist and has pledged to give away 99% of his fortune. But hey, making up theories that he is a "smart investor" and wants to collapse the stock market for personal gain does make him sound evil.
IP: Logged
08:49 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22968 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
So smart and so money hungry that he is pointing out a unfairness (in his opinion) in the tax code, is a mojor philanthropist and has pledged to give away 99% of his fortune. But hey, making up theories that he is a "smart investor" and wants to collapse the stock market for personal gain does make him sound evil.
Well, no, you misunderstand me. I think he's a nice guy... but I also think he has some pre-conceived ideas of how the world should be, and I think he's ruthless in how he intends to accomplish it. Look, it's just my opinion, but I think he sees himself as a Rockefellar of the new mellenium.
I just know that in the past, he's done other things that have been extremely questionable... like lobby (like crazy) for "No Fault" legislation to be passed in every state he could, which benefits his insurance indemnity company (Geico) at the expense of everyone else.
Hey, the point of a business is to make money... but I dislike it when a company lobbies to pass legislation that traps the public into spending money.
(like child seat protection over the age of 3-5... which has been proven through multiple independant tests that a normal safety belt is actually just as safe, if not safer than a child seat after the age of 5).
Anyway... he's not as bad as George Soros... I think of Warren Buffet like Al Sharpton (who I like on occasion) and think of George Soros like Jesse Jackson.
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
He may have pledged to give away his fortune. I wonder how much he has actually given away.
He's given a good amount. Close to 23-24 billion in total. Although, not all of it is what you or I would consider to be great charities. A lot of activist stuff... but a lot of third world stuff too... he has done a lot of great work.
IP: Logged
09:04 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
I think some studies have shown that those making $250,000 and more aren't spending their "extra" money so it's considered by some to be less of a benefit to the economy.
Define "extra" money?
The suburb near me, Cary NC, has a median family income of $110,707. The median home price is $252,500. An income of $250,000 a year would certainly be comfortable, but not rich, and nowhere near "super rich."
Terms like "extra" or "enough" money are generally used by people describing someone who makes more than they do. It's "extra" because you pay your bills on less, so they must have extra. More people are saving now than before. Is that savings "extra" money that should be spent? Everyone should have personal savings in case of lean times, so is that just good budgeting? A figure like $250,000 or $1 Million is objective, but "extra" or "rich" are too subjective to be meaningful. When I was making minimum wage, I though $20,000 a year was a lot of money. To someone making less than half that, it was, but to someone making $30,000 a year, it's not.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Also I beleive it's been shown many times that the 50% of people not paying taxes is a misnomer when you consider all the taxes and fees everyone HAS to pay.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Originally posted by Formula88: Define "extra" money?
The suburb near me, Cary NC, has a median family income of $110,707. The median home price is $252,500. An income of $250,000 a year would certainly be comfortable, but not rich, and nowhere near "super rich."
Terms like "extra" or "enough" money are generally used by people describing someone who makes more than they do. It's "extra" because you pay your bills on less, so they must have extra. More people are saving now than before. Is that savings "extra" money that should be spent? Everyone should have personal savings in case of lean times, so is that just good budgeting? A figure like $250,000 or $1 Million is objective, but "extra" or "rich" are too subjective to be meaningful. When I was making minimum wage, I though $20,000 a year was a lot of money. To someone making less than half that, it was, but to someone making $30,000 a year, it's not.
That's why I put the word in quotes, first of all it's not my opinion it's something I have heard, secondly IMO "extra" money is subjective as you pointed out. I never equated $250 000 with rich or super rich and I don't think Buffett did either, it's a number that is thrown out there because of the proposed tax increase that never went through(I think that's why anyways).
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
It's only a misnomer if you incorrectly quote the statistic or pull a quote out of thin air. It's about 47% of taxpayers pay no Federal Income Tax.
True but that's not what I commented on. I believe what I commented on was the statement that "I hate knowing 49% of Americans not only don't pay taxes". I think some think that means ALL taxes not just income tax.
IP: Logged
09:17 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: That's why I put the word in quotes, first of all it's not my opinion it's something I have heard, secondly IMO "extra" money is subjective as you pointed out. I never equated $250 000 with rich or super rich and I don't think Buffett did either, it's a number that is thrown out there because of the proposed tax increase that never went through(I think that's why anyways).
Which brings us right back to the beginning - how do you define "rich" or "super rich?" We've heard the term $250,000 used by the Obama administration, and later lowered to $200,000. That point is most commonly called "the wealthiest Americans" by Obama. Of course any segment that is from "point x and up" will contain "the wealthiest" since it has no upper limit.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-15-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:24 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
He may have pledged to give away his fortune. I wonder how much he has actually given away.
As I recall, Buffett has pledged to give away at least 50% of his wealth to charity upon his death and is trying to convince others to do the same. The rest would be to whatever heirs/causes/beneficiaries as he sees fit.
He will give away 99% of his fortune, specifically his cash. He hates cash--always has, and has never been coy about that--has said he hates it many times because it earns him and his Berkshire Hathaway invesors no earnings, which is why he invests so much in M&A ventures. He gets taxed on cash, but in Mergers and Acquisitions, there are substantial tax loopholes and writeoffs, which he takes full advantage of..
IP: Logged
09:29 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31843 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
True but that's not what I commented on. I believe what I commented on was the statement that "I hate knowing 49% of Americans not only don't pay taxes". I think some think that means ALL taxes not just income tax.
I thought I covered that point for you newf. Should I quote myself to point it out or did you just miss it?
------------------ Ron
IP: Logged
09:32 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
America has (at present) 403 billionaires. Net worth = about $1.3 Trillion.
So, let's suppose we taxed them at 100%! That's right let's take ALL the money they earn each year. And let's estimate that their annual earnings are about 10% of their net worth (pretty optimistic), that is $130 Billion per year.
OK, Warren, Bill, and all those eeeeeeeeevil billionaires get ALL of their income taken. Congrats, we have just reduced the deficit by a whopping 5%. And the national debt by a staggering .00774%!!!
Break out the champaign! The problem is solved, we'll just go after the rich like Obama says!!
What?
What do you mean "Am I crazy?"
The President said the Billionaires need to pay their fair share, we take everything they earn and ...oh, wait, it doesn't do **** to solve the problem...I see your point.
What was I thinking?
Sorry. I'll never suggest going after "rich" people makes sense every again. I promise!
