Tax the Rich: Fix Jobs and Deficits

[Steelplate]

Yes I absolutely do think it is to much. I think anyone, no matter how much they make, paying more than 25% of their money to the Fed is not only insane, its Criminal.

Look at what happened in NYC. They passed a millionaire tax, which they thought would give them a 100 Million dollar jump in Revenue. The Problem. The Rich can afford to move, and they did. NYC saw a significant Drop in Revenue.

You tax the Rich at 70% for 2 Generations, and there will be no rich left to tax.

Besides, and I can't believe I have to say this again because it has been proven on here many times over, But you could take 100% of Millionaires money and it would amount to a tiny Drop in the bucket compared to the Deficit and Debt Numbers were talking about.

Taxing the Rich is not the Answer, It's simple math it can't be.

You guys need to stop grasping at straws to find a way to Sustain this level of Spending, and pay for SS and Medicares future, and come to grips with the COLD HARD FACTS. We can not sustain it, Taking all the riches money will not sustain it. We must make hard Decisions and cuts, and find ways to sustain our Social Programs that will not destroy us.

PERIOD!!!

**** left and right, **** Dem and Rep. Just face the facts, It's just MATH!!!

Good let the fuckers move out of the country then... and take their citizenship with them. Most of them are nothing more than traitors anyway... Creating Jobs for a Communist and a bunch of Socialist Countries and leaving our own citizens to suffer the Consequences. Then when the shit hits the fan, they expect us taxpayers to pay for their ineptitude(Banking Industry).

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes I absolutely do think it is to much. I think anyone, no matter how much they make, paying more than 25% of their money to the Fed is not only insane, its Criminal.

Look at what happened in NYC. They passed a millionaire tax, which they thought would give them a 100 Million dollar jump in Revenue. The Problem. The Rich can afford to move, and they did. NYC saw a significant Drop in Revenue.

You tax the Rich at 70% for 2 Generations, and there will be no rich left to tax.

Besides, and I can't believe I have to say this again because it has been proven on here many times over, But you could take 100% of Millionaires money and it would amount to a tiny Drop in the bucket compared to the Deficit and Debt Numbers were talking about.

Taxing the Rich is not the Answer, It's simple math it can't be.

You guys need to stop grasping at straws to find a way to Sustain this level of Spending, and pay for SS and Medicares future, and come to grips with the COLD HARD FACTS. We can not sustain it, Taking all the riches money will not sustain it. We must make hard Decisions and cuts, and find ways to sustain our Social Programs that will not destroy us.

PERIOD!!!

**** left and right, **** Dem and Rep. Just face the facts, It's just MATH!!!

Good let the fuckers move out of the country then... and take their citizenship with them. Most of them are nothing more than traitors anyway... Creating Jobs for a Communist and a bunch of Socialist Countries and leaving our own citizens to suffer the Consequences. Then when the shit hits the fan, they expect us taxpayers to pay for their ineptitude(Banking Industry).

And the liberals were so happy to oblige…

Interesting way that ideology seems to work.

 

[Douger]

Decades ago the rich got crammed extremely hard at tax time. The U.S. was an awesome place to live then.Yep the greatest nation on earth. Argentina ran a close second, at the time.
Over the decades the assholes saw to it their fatcat buddies paid less and less and less.
They got richer and richer so what went on outside of their compounds was irrelevant. That's what happened to Argentina, Venezuela and now Brazil is getting it too.Chile to a lesser degree( just as poor but far less violent)
Now the U.S. is a piece of shit unless you are one of them.Yep. Welcome to the fourth world.
The third world has a far better climate and is far more "free" and affordable.
If you try to tax them back to earlier levels, many will leave taking all assets and even entire companies with them. Believe that ! I think they'd be willing to pay a reasonable increase to help out but even Micro$hit's Ballmer said he'd pack his bags.He has a spread about 40 miles south of my CR ranch that'll knock your sox off and PLENTY of room to build whatever might be needed. Close to the airport, killer new hospital being built. He'd also have a far more intelligent, polite, better educated work force, less dopers, mental cases and drunks to rule out, and no affirmative action to deal with..........I mean, B deelin wit.
So many middle sized companies already took to Asia it's insane.Raze dem taxes and watch them run.

 

[editec]

Pretty much says it all about where the money is, doesn't it?


​

 

[Too Tall]

Here's the trap Barking Moonbats such as yourself consistently fall into:

The top tax rates that you advocate to put in place apply to middle class families. They are not the ones exploiting the Big Government Cronyism which really is an issue in this country. It's too bad you'd rather play Class Warfare Games against people who actually work for a living instead of addressing the collusion between career politicians, the permanent regulator bureaucracy, the Big Entities which capture the regulators, and the community organizing shakedown artists who work together to extract money from taxpayers.

The 70% rate from 1979 you cite above applied to income levels over $670K in 2011 dollars. Is someone at that income level well off? Yes, but they are not Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Immelt, or the head of a Wall St. Investment Bank.

Lumping in upper middle class people with billionaires pins the bogometer, and you fall for it every time.

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Let's ask Robert Reich and Cato Institute Fellow Alan Reynolds what they think:

"Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong.

"My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million...

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

"Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

"Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth.

"During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent."

Robert Reich

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

Is anyone else stupid enough to think that anyone actually paid 70% of their income in taxes?

 

[georgephillip]

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

Yes I absolutely do think it is to much. I think anyone, no matter how much they make, paying more than 25% of their money to the Fed is not only insane, its Criminal.

Look at what happened in NYC. They passed a millionaire tax, which they thought would give them a 100 Million dollar jump in Revenue. The Problem. The Rich can afford to move, and they did. NYC saw a significant Drop in Revenue.

You tax the Rich at 70% for 2 Generations, and there will be no rich left to tax.

Besides, and I can't believe I have to say this again because it has been proven on here many times over, But you could take 100% of Millionaires money and it would amount to a tiny Drop in the bucket compared to the Deficit and Debt Numbers were talking about.

Taxing the Rich is not the Answer, It's simple math it can't be.

You guys need to stop grasping at straws to find a way to Sustain this level of Spending, and pay for SS and Medicares future, and come to grips with the COLD HARD FACTS. We can not sustain it, Taking all the riches money will not sustain it. We must make hard Decisions and cuts, and find ways to sustain our Social Programs that will not destroy us.

PERIOD!!!

**** left and right, **** Dem and Rep. Just face the facts, It's just MATH!!!

It's just MATH.

"Retirees today are shortchanged on Social Security because they have been shortchanged on wages for their entire working lives. The labor economist Richard B. Freeman points out that the hourly earnings of workers dropped by 8 percent from 1973 to 2005 while productivity shot up 55 percent or more.

"The United States is one of the few developed countries where workers are routinely cheated of a share in higher productivity.

"And where has the money from the extra productivity gone?

"It’s gone right to the top, to the top few percent. If wages had been paid fairly based on productivity, there would have been enough money subject to the payroll tax to avoid even a modest shortfall."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/opinion/20geoghegan.html?hp

 

[kwc57]

Since DC Democrats and Republicans are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash, it falls on workers to demand a massive public works program which can be funded by taxing corporations and the richest Americans at pre-Reagan levels.

"And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top.

"The rich have plenty of money to spare."

Spare me the brain-dead conservative vomit about how hard the rich have "worked" for all their money.

The rich have the money because Republicans AND Democrats threw money at Wall Street banks and hedge funds instead of prosecuting the executives responsible for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The rich have the money because their chief enabler, The Federal Reserve, has fueled a major commodity bubble "that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession."

Throw in high unemployment which allows the rich to work remaining employees harder and thus increase profits and combine it with commodity speculation and you have the entire basis for a corporate recovery which both major parties tout as "proof" of economic "recovery."

It's another lie the rich tell.

When the Fed stops purchasing 60% of US Treasury bonds, a new creditor will have to step up. One that will probably demand significantly higher interest rates before loaning anymore money to the US Government.

Surprise, surprise - the rich win again!

They got all that free bail-out money which increased the deficit.
None of them went to prison for their crimes.
Their bottom lines are being enhanced by commodity speculation and high unemployment.
And now the rich want higher interest rates for investing in US Treasury Bonds.

"In (all) instances working people pay the bills."

The Rich Are Destroying the Economy | Common Dreams

Welllllll, aren't you awfully generous with other people's money. Tell you what, since you are so big hearted, I have a proposal for you to put up or shut up. When you leave work today, drive thru the part of town where the homeless hang out. Take one home with you. I'm sure you have that "junk" room that most people have. You know, the one that is never used excpet to accumulate all the extra crap we all own. Give that room to the homeless person. Set a place at your table for them. Ask what they like to eat and tell them you'll pick it up on the next run to the grocery store. Give him a key to the house and tell him to feel free to entertain his friends. You have more than you need, share it. Then you will be justified in expecting the rich who have more than they need to hand it over becuase you think it is only fair.

kwc57:

Sorry, I missed your post.
Thanks for the heads up.

I think you've confused me with a normal person.
Thanks again, hardly anyone I've ever met made that mistake.

I"m currently retired, and I haven't driven since 1995.
I've been in my 400 square foot apartment for 14 months now, and I've shared it with two homeless individuals, one for a period of five days.

Speaking as someone who has spent a fair amount of time living on the streets, I don't recommend giving the homeless a key to your house unless you have some first rate insurance. Many people who find themselves homeless have some very good reasons for being there.

Possibly, the richest 0.01% of Americans (approximately 10,000 earners) who "earn" an average of $50,000,000 per with assets of $350,000,000 per household might be interested in you challenge?

The next time you run into one, why don't you ask?

 

[DiamondDave]

The pofane daveboy asked, "Do you really think you can build high speed rail and fiber optic networks with unskilled labor?" He latter adds, "You sir, are a goddamned motherfucking idiot".

The answer is yes. Unskilled does not mean unable. And to suggest either project would be planned, managed and supervised by unskilled labor is beyond hyperbole, it is dishonest.

You sir, are also a goddamned motherfucking idiot

 

[daveman]

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

Well, they certainly have set the bar high.

 

[Jarhead]

Even if I was capable of earning that kind of money, wouldn't I be equally corrupt to do so?

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

I am curious...

Exactly how did I become corrupt by grabbing onto a dream of being my own boss....putting together a business plan....incorporating myself....struggling for the first year as I marketed my services without earning an income.....worked as many as 7 days a week for that year...acheived mild success in my second year....but still had to work 7 days a week....grew my company as the demand for my services required the continued hiring of employees AT SALARIES THEY WERE EAGER TO ACCEPT....still worked 7 days a week as I entered my 4th year...hired more employees....took my first week vacation after the end of my 5th year while offering all of my employees 2 weeks vacation during their first year....3 weeks at the end of 5 years....re-invested my profits into the growth of my company so that by the ned of my 6th year, I was able to cut back to 6 days a week working...and now I am working 5 days a week...my employees are earning a living at salaries THEY ARE EAGER TO EARN....and I am socking away money for my retirement...with the exception of last year where SOME OF MY EMPLOYEES MADE MORE MONEY THAN I DID as the profits were thin.

Exactly what did I do that was corrupt? Not make my employees work 7 days a week as I did?
Or maybe it was the fact that I should not make a profit after risking my future by starting on my own?

Exactly what made me corrupt?

 

[daveman]

So that's your excuse for being a lazy bastard?

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

I am curious...

Exactly how did I become corrupt by grabbing onto a dream of being my own boss....putting together a business plan....incorporating myself....struggling for the first year as I marketed my services without earning an income.....worked as many as 7 days a week for that year...acheived mild success in my second year....but still had to work 7 days a week....grew my company as the demand for my services required the continued hiring of employees AT SALARIES THEY WERE EAGER TO ACCEPT....still worked 7 days a week as I entered my 4th year...hired more employees....took my first week vacation after the end of my 5th year while offering all of my employees 2 weeks vacation during their first year....3 weeks at the end of 5 years....re-invested my profits into the growth of my company so that by the ned of my 6th year, I was able to cut back to 6 days a week working...and now I am working 5 days a week...my employees are earning a living at salaries THEY ARE EAGER TO EARN....and I am socking away money for my retirement...with the exception of last year where SOME OF MY EMPLOYEES MADE MORE MONEY THAN I DID as the profits were thin.

Exactly what did I do that was corrupt? Not make my employees work 7 days a week as I did?
Or maybe it was the fact that I should not make a profit after risking my future by starting on my own?

Exactly what made me corrupt?

You made money. And you didn't give it to people who didn't earn it, like georgephillip and the other envious drains on society.

No, really, that's it.

 

[kwc57]

Note the assumption that all rich people got their money by being corrupt. Liberals believe that because it's certainly true in the case of all Democrat politicians.

I am curious...

Exactly how did I become corrupt by grabbing onto a dream of being my own boss....putting together a business plan....incorporating myself....struggling for the first year as I marketed my services without earning an income.....worked as many as 7 days a week for that year...acheived mild success in my second year....but still had to work 7 days a week....grew my company as the demand for my services required the continued hiring of employees AT SALARIES THEY WERE EAGER TO ACCEPT....still worked 7 days a week as I entered my 4th year...hired more employees....took my first week vacation after the end of my 5th year while offering all of my employees 2 weeks vacation during their first year....3 weeks at the end of 5 years....re-invested my profits into the growth of my company so that by the ned of my 6th year, I was able to cut back to 6 days a week working...and now I am working 5 days a week...my employees are earning a living at salaries THEY ARE EAGER TO EARN....and I am socking away money for my retirement...with the exception of last year where SOME OF MY EMPLOYEES MADE MORE MONEY THAN I DID as the profits were thin.

Exactly what did I do that was corrupt? Not make my employees work 7 days a week as I did?
Or maybe it was the fact that I should not make a profit after risking my future by starting on my own?

Exactly what made me corrupt?

You made money. And you didn't give it to people who didn't earn it, like georgephillip and the other envious drains on society.

No, really, that's it.

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

 

[daveman]

I am curious...

Exactly how did I become corrupt by grabbing onto a dream of being my own boss....putting together a business plan....incorporating myself....struggling for the first year as I marketed my services without earning an income.....worked as many as 7 days a week for that year...acheived mild success in my second year....but still had to work 7 days a week....grew my company as the demand for my services required the continued hiring of employees AT SALARIES THEY WERE EAGER TO ACCEPT....still worked 7 days a week as I entered my 4th year...hired more employees....took my first week vacation after the end of my 5th year while offering all of my employees 2 weeks vacation during their first year....3 weeks at the end of 5 years....re-invested my profits into the growth of my company so that by the ned of my 6th year, I was able to cut back to 6 days a week working...and now I am working 5 days a week...my employees are earning a living at salaries THEY ARE EAGER TO EARN....and I am socking away money for my retirement...with the exception of last year where SOME OF MY EMPLOYEES MADE MORE MONEY THAN I DID as the profits were thin.

Exactly what did I do that was corrupt? Not make my employees work 7 days a week as I did?
Or maybe it was the fact that I should not make a profit after risking my future by starting on my own?

Exactly what made me corrupt?

You made money. And you didn't give it to people who didn't earn it, like georgephillip and the other envious drains on society.

No, really, that's it.

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

That's what I gather from reading this thread.

 

[Jarhead]

I am curious...

Exactly how did I become corrupt by grabbing onto a dream of being my own boss....putting together a business plan....incorporating myself....struggling for the first year as I marketed my services without earning an income.....worked as many as 7 days a week for that year...acheived mild success in my second year....but still had to work 7 days a week....grew my company as the demand for my services required the continued hiring of employees AT SALARIES THEY WERE EAGER TO ACCEPT....still worked 7 days a week as I entered my 4th year...hired more employees....took my first week vacation after the end of my 5th year while offering all of my employees 2 weeks vacation during their first year....3 weeks at the end of 5 years....re-invested my profits into the growth of my company so that by the ned of my 6th year, I was able to cut back to 6 days a week working...and now I am working 5 days a week...my employees are earning a living at salaries THEY ARE EAGER TO EARN....and I am socking away money for my retirement...with the exception of last year where SOME OF MY EMPLOYEES MADE MORE MONEY THAN I DID as the profits were thin.

Exactly what did I do that was corrupt? Not make my employees work 7 days a week as I did?
Or maybe it was the fact that I should not make a profit after risking my future by starting on my own?

Exactly what made me corrupt?

You made money. And you didn't give it to people who didn't earn it, like georgephillip and the other envious drains on society.

No, really, that's it.

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

 

[Nic_Driver]

You made money. And you didn't give it to people who didn't earn it, like georgephillip and the other envious drains on society.

No, really, that's it.

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

So your situation isn't applicable to the topic of the thread but thanks for sharing, glad to see you made it through the tough times.

Increase revenue and cut spending, it only makes sense to do both.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who said ANYTHING about a 70% rate on Upper Middle Class Families? $670K was a lot more money in 1979 than it is today. That's the trap you Conservatives fall into. Just because we want the top rate higher, doesn't necessarily mean that we want it to be so widespread. I'd say somewhere in the range of maybe more along the lines of $3M/year+ In personal Income?

Let's ask Robert Reich and Cato Institute Fellow Alan Reynolds what they think:

"Reynolds also distorts my proposal, implying that the bracket on which I call for a 70 percent tax is the same as in today’s tax code. Wrong.

"My proposed 70 percent rate would apply only to incomes over $15 million...

"Under my proposal, incomes between $5 million and $15 million would be subjected to a 60 percent rate, and incomes between $500,000 and $5 million to a 50 percent rate.

"Importantly, my proposal calls for a substantial rate reduction for families with incomes under $100,000. (Conveniently, Reynolds fails to mention this.)

"Reynolds entirely ignores my central argument, which is that rather than depress economic growth, higher taxes on the rich correlate with higher growth.

"During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when the top rate was between 70 percent and 91 percent, average annual growth in the American economy was 3.7 percent."

Robert Reich

Anyone think 70% is too much for the $15 million/year poor to pay for a few generations?

Is anyone else stupid enough to think that anyone actually paid 70% of their income in taxes?

Good point but that leads to the facts:
You could tax the wealthy 100% of their worth and it would not cover the 1.5 trillion deficits we face EACH YEAR.
Tax the wealthy whatever you want and guess what they do? Quit putting their $$ into anything and everything that they are taxed on and invest in tax free bonds or just hold onto their $$ and invest in NOTHING.
Increasing taxes on producers never solves government budgets. All that does is leave $$ where it is not taxed, not producing capital outlays and not producing jobs.
Ending the income tax and going to Fair Tax solves that problem.
Couple that with massive cuts in entitlements for those that are mooching off the system, slow the growth of government and eliminate the Dept. of Education smooths us out in 8-10 years. SPENDING is and has always been the problem.

 

[kwc57]

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

So your situation isn't applicable to the topic of the thread but thanks for sharing, glad to see you made it through the tough times.

Increase revenue and cut spending, it only makes sense to do both.

Of course it's applicable. He's one of those dirty bastard rich business owners wh ohas more than he needs and is out to screw the little guy. Get with the program. Power to the people!

 

[Jarhead]

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

So your situation isn't applicable to the topic of the thread but thanks for sharing, glad to see you made it through the tough times.

Increase revenue and cut spending, it only makes sense to do both.

I agree.
But to increase taxes on those that create the jobs will iincrease taxes at the cost of jobs.

But to NOT increase taxes on those that create the jobs gives them (and me) more money to create business growth (and thus jobs) and THAT will increase tax revenue as there will be more people paying taxes. It will ALSO cut spending as there will be fewer people on unemployment.

I know...I know....that makes no sense.

Yes it does. You just dont like the logic.

 

[Gadawg73]

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

So your situation isn't applicable to the topic of the thread but thanks for sharing, glad to see you made it through the tough times.

Increase revenue and cut spending, it only makes sense to do both.

Of course it's applicable. He's one of those dirty bastard rich business owners wh ohas more than he needs and is out to screw the little guy. Get with the program. Power to the people!

For a while I have been asking:
Isn't it about time those that receive government checks to take a slight hit in all of this?

 

[Jarhead]

Yep! Obviously the greedy bastard has FAR more than he needs and should live in a refrigerator box while turning over his excess income to people who deserve to have wealth handed to them for doing no more than existing and breathing. It's only fair.

Last year, when I had to dig into my savings to keep my company afloat, I dont recall any of my employees saying "I will take a pay cut to help you out seeing as I am making more than YOU are"

Come to think of it, I dont recall ANYONE saying "here, you could use this."

So your situation isn't applicable to the topic of the thread but thanks for sharing, glad to see you made it through the tough times.

Increase revenue and cut spending, it only makes sense to do both.

It is not applicable to the topic for only two reasons.

1) you can not find a way to call me corrupt
2) you can not find a way to say that I deserve to pay more taxes

And an FYI...I am a pretty good representation of the majority of the eveil rich business owners out there.