The Myth of Class Warfare, Tax Policy

[fjord]

Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips

Since 1983 Net worth of the middle quintile of Americans has declined by 10 %
For the same period the wealthiest top 1% of americans net worth has risen 75%

And lets not forget the offshore corporate boys...a la Enron and Harken...to the tune of 110 billion per year --and that's just the most common loopholes.

The Cheating of America by Charles Lewis and Bill Allison

Haliburton's phoney "subsidiaries" that illegally do business with Iran are based in the Cayman islands in order to illegaly avoid taxation.

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the things that all this so-called analysis fails to mention is that the astronomically wealthy only comprise 1%of 1% of all taxpayers. That's one in ten thousand. What do their tax rates look like? surprise, surprise- those at the very top pay lower taxes than the rest of the top 1%- 22.5% vs 27.5%

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in400h.pdf

It would seem unlikely that it would be possible to hide in the top 1%, but they do...

And there's the cumulative effect on net worth achieved by having a lot of excess income to invest-

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DFA72-130F-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

Notice the chart, the red line is in billions, the others in mere millions... Any group whose net worth surges the way that the Forbes 400 has done over the last 20 years obviously isn't overtaxed. If anything, they can easily afford higher taxes, and the rest of us should demand it, simply as a form of economic self defense.

 

[Cipherous]

ouch,

so much for Train's comeback

 

[Zephyr106]

We all know that the poor (often minorities) did something WRONG to be poor. In some way they fell out of favor with God. The rich should not be unduly taxed, obviously giveth to Caesar what is Caesar's, but let's remember that it is by the rich's good graces that this nation is so great, and they also pay the salaries of the poor scum.

Zephyr

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Zebo
As far as cap gains...besides being not at all fair for some not to have taxes on passive income while a working stiff has to pay though the nose for his active income.

Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]

The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horsesh!t. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.

If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm

That's a huge crock. Where do you think the boom of the 90's came from? Ask any economist. CAPITAL INVESTORS!!!!! They had SO much money that they started throwing it around to anyone who asked for it. What was the result? HUGE economic expansion. When investors start throwing money around like that, business' have more money and thus hire more people and give big pay increases. This then increases demand. THIS is what happened in the 90's. Now the liberals claim it doesn't work again. :roll:

 

[Cipherous]

That's a huge crock. Where do you think the boom of the 90's came from? Ask any economist. CAPITAL INVESTORS!!!!! They had SO much money that they started throwing it around to anyone who asked for it. What was the result? HUGE economic expansion. When investors start throwing money around like that, business' have more money and thus hire more people and give big pay increases. This then increases demand. THIS is what happened in the 90's. Now the liberals claim it doesn't work again.

it makes sense, why would investors invest when there is no demand? Since there is no demand, there is no market to sell to. Thus, which leads to a loss of your investment.

People don't get rich by just throwing money around, especially when they have the money to do so. Economic expansions happens when the lower to middle class has enough money to create a consumer market to create a demand for products.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Cipherous

That's a huge crock. Where do you think the boom of the 90's came from? Ask any economist. CAPITAL INVESTORS!!!!! They had SO much money that they started throwing it around to anyone who asked for it. What was the result? HUGE economic expansion. When investors start throwing money around like that, business' have more money and thus hire more people and give big pay increases. This then increases demand. THIS is what happened in the 90's. Now the liberals claim it doesn't work again.

it makes sense, why would investors invest when there is no demand? Since there is no demand, there is no market to sell to. Thus, which leads to a loss of your investment.

People don't get rich by just throwing money around, especially when they have the money to do so. Economic expansions happens when the lower to middle class has enough money to create a consumer market to create a demand for products.

And they get that money from new jobs created by... guess what? Investors.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Zebo
As far as cap gains...besides being not at all fair for some not to have taxes on passive income while a working stiff has to pay though the nose for his active income.

Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]

The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horsesh!t. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.

If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm

hmmm, one problem, are theere any stats linked on that site? cuz I couldnt find any, your true colors are shining through, IRS data?, NO!, cant believe that!, some guy yapping on a liberal site? now thats some stuff to believe in!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Zebo
As far as cap gains...besides being not at all fair for some not to have taxes on passive income while a working stiff has to pay though the nose for his active income.

Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]

The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horsesh!t. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.

If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm

New demands are created by new products every day. Someone has to be willing to risk making that initial investment to create that new product, which creates demand, and creates jobs.

Without capital investment there would be NO jobs. Period.

This is a chicken and the egg argument, except this one has an answer: The employer came first. He made an initial risk investment, created demand, and hired employees.

Punishing success is about the stupidest thing a country can do for it's economy.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Umm, little criticism here:

Chart 4 and Chart 6 did not take into account inflation. If your income grows slower than inflation does, you lose. Many of those years in the 80s were high- inflation years.

Chart 9 did not say how the income of poor people was counted, nor did it say how it defined the poverty line. You don't even know if the definition of poverty was universal throughout the years counted. And you don't know if health care, education food stamps or other payments-in-kind are counted towards their income.

Also, the article noted the slow growth in the late 70s and early 80s, and it implied that high taxes were the cause. Umm, ever hear of OPEC?

Umm, chart 4 is percent change, how exactly do you figure inflation in to percentages?

The footnote of chart 6 (if you read the article) states "all amounts are in 1989 dollars"

 

[Tom]

discussing tax policy before discussing spending policy is backwards thinking IMHO. The problem with Bush's tax cuts is we can't afford them, not whether it's the rich or poor who benefited more.

The fact is we need to take in taxes that pay for what we spend. And no use crying that spending is too high, that's a cop out position. As long as spending is what it is we should have higher taxes.

And the truly rich are the group that can afford to pay more, which is why going back to the rates before the Bush tax cuts make the most sense to me.

And the truly rich were doing fine before these tax cuts, so arguments about "fairness" are silly.

 

[Shyatic]

Individuals are not the problem in tax policy -- it's corporations. The majority of money that comes from corporations is subject to so many loopholes that corporations wind up paying very little money (as compared to rich INDIVIDUALS) and essentially screw the government out of tax money they need for programs. That's what the Republican Party USED to be about -- fixing taxes and saving money. Right now they have a guy that spends like a drunken sailor AND cuts taxes. What kind of idiocy is that? You can't do both when an economy is on a rebound. Either you cut taxes to push money to cycle thru the economy, or you increase program spending in order to have the economy push thru different products, services or skillsets in people to cycle through. Greenspan said the Bush tax cuts helped (any one would have really, imo), but were unfortunately deterred by the obscene amount of spending.

It takes a good leader to say, in time of war, that you people need to suck it up and pay higher taxes so that we can fight this war, keep our country safe, and keep our economy stable. Bush doesn't have that -- he wants to stay in office instead of making a difference. Same thing Clinton did. Useless people as President irritate me. It's the guys who tough it out, like Bush Sr and make the HARD choices... that I admire. Even if they make my life harder.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Zebo
As far as cap gains...besides being not at all fair for some not to have taxes on passive income while a working stiff has to pay though the nose for his active income.

Bogus Conservative Idea #4. "Trickle down" economics. This is the underlying philosophy behind those "voodoo" tax cuts. Its simple really. Put more money in the pockets of the rich, and they will invest in business, creating jobs. So why didn't it work in the wake of Dubya's tax cuts? And why didn't Clinton's tax increases shut down economic growth? [Those are facts, conservatives. Sorry, if you can't handle them.]

The reason it didn't work is simple. It's horsesh!t. Investors don't invest in new businesses, expanding businesses, new equipment, research and development or anything else if there's no demand. Demand drives the economy, not supply. Why would you invest in greater production capacity if no one is out there with money to spend? Besides, there are plenty of other investments that send no money into increasing production facilities or new businesses. You can invest in commodities, foreign exchange, and government bonds. Even the stock market is mostly an aftermarket, with people buying stock owned by other people. No money goes into business expansion there. And of course, you can "short sell", that is, bet on the market to decline.

If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm

Saying that focusing entirely on supply-side is asinine. So is focusing entirely on demand. I'll give you a counterexample.

Assume you have $1MM to invest. You have $3MM worth of investment opportunities. You obviously invest in the $1MM in projects that give you the highest return.

The criticism you bolded, doesn't take this into account. THere will be demand for the other $2MM in projects, but investment capital is a limited resource, just like disposable income.

"Supply side" economic policies are just as important as "demand side." What we need is a balance between the two. Soaking the rich hurts the economy as much as catering to them. Take two (though they're excessive) situations:

1) All income over $50M/yr is taxed at 99%. This is absurd as nobody as the utility of spending that 50,001st dollar will be less then the lost utility earning it.

2) All income over $50M/yr is taxed at 1%. This is equally absurd, as the wealthy gain their success on the backs of anyone making less.

Taking those two scenarios into account, you can see the appropriate rate falls somewhere in between. The big question is, where? The difficult comes from the appropriate target moving around based on current economic conditions. Some years, 28% might be the best number for the economy. Other years, it could be 34%.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Scribe
Individuals are not the problem in tax policy -- it's corporations. The majority of money that comes from corporations is subject to so many loopholes that corporations wind up paying very little money (as compared to rich INDIVIDUALS) and essentially screw the government out of tax money they need for programs. That's what the Republican Party USED to be about -- fixing taxes and saving money. Right now they have a guy that spends like a drunken sailor AND cuts taxes. What kind of idiocy is that? You can't do both when an economy is on a rebound. Either you cut taxes to push money to cycle thru the economy, or you increase program spending in order to have the economy push thru different products, services or skillsets in people to cycle through. Greenspan said the Bush tax cuts helped (any one would have really, imo), but were unfortunately deterred by the obscene amount of spending.

It takes a good leader to say, in time of war, that you people need to suck it up and pay higher taxes so that we can fight this war, keep our country safe, and keep our economy stable. Bush doesn't have that -- he wants to stay in office instead of making a difference. Same thing Clinton did. Useless people as President irritate me. It's the guys who tough it out, like Bush Sr and make the HARD choices... that I admire. Even if they make my life harder.

What you do not seem to realize is that corporate taxes are merely paid for by the consumer in the form of increased prices on goods and services. If this were all that corporate taxes were, we could simply call them a hidden sales and service tax. But that's not the whole story. Corporate taxes also make US companies less competitive on the world market.

Only short sighted people think taxing corporations higher will take the burden off the "common man." All it does is spread the burden out equally among the rich, middle classes, and especially the poor as the corporations simply pass that cost on to the consumer. Who does higher prices effect the most? The poor. And by making companies less competitive on the world market, you end up losing jobs that the middle and lower classes could benefit from.

 

[Zebo]

The criticism you bolded, doesn't take this into account. THere will be demand for the other $2MM in projects, but investment capital is a limited resource, just like disposable income.

Sure it does. Read the bold part again. The part about short selling, commodities and other opportunities. As far as capital being limited that's not true either or else the untited states would have the exact same amount of money in circulation as the day this country was founded. We don't of course. We have about 4000X as much. Capital is nothing more than a legal consrtuct of laws and policy deciding whom gets access to governemnt printed bills to invest and spend in our economy. These bills are created out of thin air, backed by the governemnt and lent to commercial banks to lend again to investors, homeowners, and businesses persons.

Then the more people are paid and the less they are taxed it opens up even more investment opportunites.



"Supply side" economic policies are just as important as "demand side." What we need is a balance between the two. Soaking the rich hurts the economy as much as catering to them. Take two (though they're excessive) situations:

Of course, this is the message I've been trying to make for years to those on the right. Mixed economies of western europe, japan, and the united states are the most succesful in the world because they balance Supply and Demand side policy. We are not a communist sh1thole and not a "minimalist government" "no tax" paradise like Chad either. However any and all business growth begins with demand not supply...Supply takes care of itself.


Amused:

What you do not seem to realize is that corporate taxes are merely paid for by the consumer in the form of increased prices on goods and services. If this were all that corporate taxes were, we could simply call them a hidden sales and service tax. But that's not the whole story. Corporate taxes also make US companies less competitive on the world market.

The only reason there are corporate taxes at all is so the little guy can compete. Liberal haven Sweden has far lower coporate tax rate than we do..and incidently suggestes social democracies are quite consistent with "free enterprise" dispite what's said about them.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: ZeboOf course, this is the message I've been trying to make for years to those on the right. Mixed economies of western europe, japan, and the united states are the most succesful in the world because they balance Supply and Demand side policy. We are not a communist sh1thole and not a "minimalist government" "no tax" paradise like Chad either. However any and all business growth begins with demand not supply...Supply takes care of itself.

You're right that all business growth needs supply. You are incorrect in that supply takes care of itself. There may be a demand, but regulatory and economic environements may make the ability to supply the demand impossible. Supply of goods and services must also be nurtered to find that appropriate balance.

 

[jkenn19]

From USA Today:
"Mrs. Cheney also brought in $327,643 in royalties from her books, "America: A Patriotic Primer," "A is for Abigail" and soon-to-be-out "Fifty States." The Cheneys donated almost all of the book proceeds to charity. The couple also earned $627,005 in interest that was exempt from taxes in 2003."

While it is commendable that someone would donate $327,000 to charity, one of the things that bothers me is the $627,000 in tax exempt interest income. That is one of the real differences between the rich and the not so rich. There are too many loopholes in the tax codes. Yes, I understand there are bigger economic benefits to some of these loopholes, but in the end, it just means if you have lots of money, you can make a lot more money.

At a $50,000 a year salary gross, think how long it would take someone to match the tax free income made by the Cheneys in one year.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Train
Article

Myth: The rich don't pay their fair share.

Reality: According to IRS data (Chart), the top 1 percent of income earners pay nearly 29 percent of the income tax burden (based on 1997 data, post-Bush tax cuts, the top 1% pays 34% of taxes) , the top 10 percent pay more than 59 percent, and the top 20 percent pay more than 74 percent. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on the other hand, pay less than 5 percent of the income tax revenue.

Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich will pay less.

Reality: This outcome depends on how much tax rates are reduced. History indicates that the revenue-maximizing rate is less than 30 percent. In other words, when marginal rates are higher than 30 percent, the rich probably will pay more if rates are lowered. The reason? Because incentives to hide, shelter, and underreport income are reduced.

Consider what happened the three times this country enjoyed significant tax rate reductions:

1920s: The top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, yet the rich (in those days, those earning $50,000 and up) went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to paying more than 78 percent in 1928.
1960s: President John F. Kennedy slashed the top tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. In the ensuing three years, those making more than $50,000 annually saw their tax payments rise by 57 percent, and their share of the tax burden climbed from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.
1980s: The Reagan years saw the top rate fall from 70 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1988. What happened to the rich? The top 1 percent went from shouldering 17.6 percent of the income tax burden in 1981 to paying 27.5 percent of the total in 1988. The top 10 percent saw their share of the burden climb from 48 percent in 1981 to over 57 percent in 1988

Rich pay greater share of Income Tax after Reagan Tax Cuts

Myth: Only millionaires should care about the tax-the-rich issue.

Reality: Like fairness, "rich" is a subjective term. Some in Washington, D.C., think you are wealthy if your income rises much beyond $56,200. According to a Tax Foundation analysis of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data, the cutoff point for the top 20 percent of tax returns is $56,262. This top quintile of income earners is also the group that those who oppose pro-growth tax policies commonly refer to as the "rich." It also includes the vast majority of small businesses that use the personal income tax instead of the corporate income tax. (See Chart 3)

Myth: Lower tax rates mean the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Reality: President Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats. Census Bureau data show that earnings for all income classes tend to rise and fall in unison. In other words, economic policy either generates positive results, in which case all income classes benefit, or it causes stagnation and decline, in which case all groups suffer. As Chart 4 illustrates, the high tax policies of the late 1970s and early 1990s are associated with weak economic performance, while the low tax rates of the 1980s are correlated with rising incomes for all quintiles.

Myth: Lower tax rates will lead to a repeat of the failed policies of the 1980s.

Reality: In the 1980s, tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent, and the economy enjoyed its longest peacetime expansion in history. This is the very antithesis of failure. (See Chart 6)

Myth: Lower tax rates deprive government of revenues needed to fund programs that help the poor.

Reality: During the past 30 years, the federal government has spent more than $5 trillion on means-tested programs. At best, this massive expenditure--in real terms, twice the U.S. cost of fighting World War II--had no effect on the poverty rate. Chart 9 shows that the dramatic increases in inflation-adjusted welfare spending have not led to reductions in the poverty rate. Instead, a growing body of social science data indicates that these programs have hindered reductions in poverty by undermining work incentives and subsidizing self-destructive behavior like having children out of wedlock.

Myth: Lower taxes on capital--savings and investment--represent "trickle down" economics.

Reality: Because every economic theory, including Marxism, agrees that capital formation is the key to faster growth and higher standards of living, attaching odious labels to policies designed to reduce or eliminate the tax code's bias against savings and investment is particularly counterproductive. Chart 11 illustrates that increases in real wages over time are closely correlated with the amount of capital per worker. In other words, if workers are paid on the basis of what they produce, it makes sense to adopt tax policies that encourage investment in the tools, equipment, machinery, and technology that help workers produce more.

I quoted the ones I liked most, there are a few more in that paper that are also good. There is a list of references at the end, in case you want to double check any of the stats.

Edit: fixed some links

I don't have a problem with the top 1% paying 29% of taxes because they probably earn 29% of total income paid in the country.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Chart 9 did not say how the income of poor people was counted, nor did it say how it defined the poverty line. You don't even know if the definition of poverty was universal throughout the years counted.

Yeah, I remember when Mike Harris did away with poverty... all it took was a little work with the ol' calculator!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Todd33
I paid like 28% this year on my federal taxes, Cheney paid, what 18%?

Source?

Sorry, it was 20%, pretty good for a millionaire.

He and his wife, Lynne, owed $253,067 in 2003 federal taxes ? about 20% of their $1.3 million in adjusted gross income

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2004-04-13-bush-cheney-tax_x.htm

I'd be willing to bet you are not comparing apples to apples here. Cheney's tax burden is represented as a percentage of his adjusted gross income, and I'd bet you are quoting your tax rate based upon your net (taxable) earnings (after deductions), not as a percentage of your AGI.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Cheney paid a lesser % than I paid last year as well. That doesn't really bother me though as you'll notice he did pay what I paid 100 times over.

 

[Zebo]

I did'nt pay any taxes last year and love the repulicans for making it that way.

First I don't have to pay SS because I'm part of a 403b retirement plan which is exempt. Then almost my whole paycheck about 80% goes twards two home mortgages which are intrest only loans..the only way to fly with the 3/5 rule. Then I have dependants and business expenses such as fishing boats, gas, etc etc etc.. It's tough only having around $8000 to live on I'm below the poverty line... anyone want to help???

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I did'nt pay any taxes last year and love the repulicans for making it that way.

First I don't have to pay SS because I'm part of a 403b retirement plan which is exempt. Then almost my whole paycheck about 80% goes twards two home mortgages which are intrest only loans..the only way to fly with the 3/5 rule. Then I have dependants and business expenses such as fishing boats, gas, etc etc etc.. It's tough only having $8000 in AGI I'm below the poverty line... anyone want to help???

Move to Oklahoma.

 

[Zebo]

Why? OK has state tax, where I work does'nt. And where I live has the lowest property taxes in the nation. Then, can you get internet access in OK???, because I order EVERYTHING sales taxable though the internet cross state lines. OK has 7.5% sales tax...I bet in groceries too which my state does'nt have.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Why? OK has state tax, where I work does'nt. And where I live has the lowest property taxes in the nation. Then, can you get internet access in OK???, because I order EVERYTHING sales taxable though the internet cross state lines. OK has 7.5% sales tax...I bet in groceries too which my state does'nt have.

Sigh. It was a joke. Read the OK thread or something.