Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[DiamondDave]

False. Not the same.

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

False. Feeling has nothing to do with it. We've been through this before and you lose everytime.

Hardly.. everything of yours is based on the feeling of how tough it is on someone... PERIOD.... While individual situation, impact, and circumstance due to their own earning is their own personal plight... not the plight of government, and not the plight of society

The flat tax without exemption, without exception, without deduction, and without floor or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen no matter the source is BY DEFINITION EQUALITY IN TREATMENT... A.K.A. THE SAME

You have been ***** slapped on this so many times it is laughable

 

[Foxfyre]

The questions all freedom loving people should ask themselves:

1. What is more conducive to reducing poverty? An economy that encourages upward mobility for the poor? Or a system that pays people for being poor?

2. What is more conducive to encouraging economic growth? Reducing risk and allowing more prosperity to those who produce economic growth? Or punishing the most successful, i.e. those who are the most productive, by assessing higher taxes than are assessed to the less successful?

3. What is the best way to encourage government to encourage prosperity for all? A uniform tax basis that cannot be manipulated? Or a tax code that keeps 50% of the population voting for politicians who will keep them exempt from the federal income tax?

 

[RDD_1210]

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

False. Feeling has nothing to do with it. We've been through this before and you lose everytime.

Hardly.. everything of yours is based on the feeling of how tough it is on someone... PERIOD.... While individual situation, impact, and circumstance due to their own earning is their own personal plight... not the plight of government, and not the plight of society

The flat tax without exemption, without exception, without deduction, and without floor or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen no matter the source is BY DEFINITION EQUALITY IN TREATMENT... A.K.A. THE SAME

You have been ***** slapped on this so many times it is laughable

If your idea is so amazing why can't you name a single politician who supports it? Not one.

Remind me who has ***** slapped who when you can't give me an answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jack Kemp was a powerful advocate for a flat tax for decades right up to his death in 2009. Steve Forbes has promoted a flat tax for decades now. Rick Perry campaigned on the flat tax this year until he dropped out of the presidential race. Even John McCain has flirted with the idea when he wasn't promoting a progressive tax. Herman Cain wanted a flat tax coupled with a moderated federal sales tax.

Whether there should be ANY exemptions is negotiable, however. There is much to commend a mortgage interest deduction to promote home ownership which strengthens the overall economy. There is much to commend a charitable contribution deduction to promote more benefits to the poor, evenmoreso if we start paring back charity dispensed (almost always poorly and counter productively) by the federal government.

But again, all that is negotiable. First we needf to establish a good rationale and defense for why the flat tax is the most honest and most beneficial system of federal taxation, and the one with the fewest negatives.

 

[AmyNation]

You want the tax rate of Sweden?? It is wealth redistribution, something a free society should never stand for

Your upward mobility is not the government's responsibility nor anyone else's

I don't say they should be forbidden from having families.. I do say that they have to support them themselves, regardless if it takes working 2 or 3 or whatever # of jobs... you deciding to have kids is not on anyone else's responsibility list

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

It is NOT part of government's job to not hinder success for person A because they earn 25K and hinder it for person B because they earn 125K.... Upward mobility of the INDIVIDUAL is not a responsibility of government.. PERIOD...

And if you support a progressive system and a system with entitlements for some (most of which pay nothing into the federal income tax system) then you indeed support redistribution thru government and taxation... do not fool yourself that you do not

The only reason people say a flat tax does not work in real life is because of how they FEEL about the impact on this person who they sympathize with, and how they don't FEEL about person B who they FEEL has enough already

Taxes will never be eliminated... but they should be assessed and collected in a matter that is based on equality in treatment

So I'm going to ignore the bulk of your post, as it's mostly things you assume I support, and I'm done addressing positions I haven't taken.

I don't believe in addressing one tax and pretending that single tax exists in a vacuum. I've posted studies in this thread, that show states taxes are predominately shouldered by the poor and middle class, and the federal taxes are prodominatly shouldered by the wealthy. Overall our tax system is too big, overburdened, and open to abuse, which is why I think making all taxes the burden of the state, and allowing the people of each state to decide what works best for them, is better for the county as a whole.

 

[DiamondDave]

False. Feeling has nothing to do with it. We've been through this before and you lose everytime.

Hardly.. everything of yours is based on the feeling of how tough it is on someone... PERIOD.... While individual situation, impact, and circumstance due to their own earning is their own personal plight... not the plight of government, and not the plight of society

The flat tax without exemption, without exception, without deduction, and without floor or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen no matter the source is BY DEFINITION EQUALITY IN TREATMENT... A.K.A. THE SAME

You have been ***** slapped on this so many times it is laughable

If your idea is so amazing why can't you name a single politician who supports it? Not one.

Remind me who has ***** slapped who when you can't give me an answer.

Oh.. POLITICIANS make things equal??

No.. politicians pander for power... it is the rare person who wants equality...

You have a higher growing # of the populace that has no stake in the federal income tax game, and you think they want a politician to support making them suddenly start paying??

Your claim is that it is not equal in treatment... that is the bullshit.. and then you try and back it up by popular politician support to prove your claim right?? Sorry Charlie.. don't work that way... A group of 10 year olds may vote and support the notion that Power Rangers is the best TV show in the history of mankind, because it panders to them.. And the TV exec that puts it on will continue to do so to keep his power and his job... Pandering to keep that power does not justify the claim

But you do have politicians that promote the flat tax.. yet you have them making exceptions for pandering as well, to try and gain power... Well, unlike you I believe this country's government was created around the mantra of equal treatment and freedom... And our laws and constitution should reflect that more

And you have other countries looking at growth who are adopting flat (or at least much more flat tax systems) taxes for income tax

You can use your popularity and feeling arguments all you want.. the math is what it is, and equality in treatment is what it is

 

[Lakhota]

 

[DiamondDave]

Look, I'm not really sure who you think you're arguing with, but I'd appriciated it you'd stop assigning me positions I haven't taken. I don't want to redistribute wealth, and I don't want Swedens tax rate.

Creating an environment that doesn't hinder success is part of governments responsibly. Hence why taxes, regulation, and education are part of government. Currently we are 10th in upward mobility. It's great to say hard work is the key to success, but that hard work is more likely to lead to success if you live in Germany.

I started off in favor of a flat tax, however after having don't some research, it doesn't seem to work well in real life.

I'd say eliminate federal taxes altogether, and have the fed assess a yearly fee to each state, then allow the state to tax how they see fit. That way we can eliminate the power that comes with giving the rich loopholes, and the poor credits, and each state can decide what type of tax structure they want.

It is NOT part of government's job to not hinder success for person A because they earn 25K and hinder it for person B because they earn 125K.... Upward mobility of the INDIVIDUAL is not a responsibility of government.. PERIOD...

And if you support a progressive system and a system with entitlements for some (most of which pay nothing into the federal income tax system) then you indeed support redistribution thru government and taxation... do not fool yourself that you do not

The only reason people say a flat tax does not work in real life is because of how they FEEL about the impact on this person who they sympathize with, and how they don't FEEL about person B who they FEEL has enough already

Taxes will never be eliminated... but they should be assessed and collected in a matter that is based on equality in treatment

So I'm going to ignore the bulk of your post, as it's mostly things you assume I support, and I'm done addressing positions I haven't taken.

I don't believe in addressing one tax and pretending that single tax exists in a vacuum. I've posted studies in this thread, that show states taxes are predominately shouldered by the poor and middle class, and the federal taxes are prodominatly shouldered by the wealthy. Overall our tax system is too big, overburdened, and open to abuse, which is why I think making all taxes the burden of the state, and allowing the people of each state to decide what works best for them, is better for the county as a whole.

You are basing it on impact and studies are normally judgmental and based on impact.. and we are not talking state... we are talking federal

Our federal system is indeed too big, and unequal in treatment.. and those things are both wrong



And still... upward mobility ease or difficulty or anything else is on the individual.. and it is not the responsibility of government to equalize it, nor is it the responsibility to act upon treatment to bring about that ease for some at the expense of others

 

[Wry Catcher]

i voted flat tax

everyone has skin in the game...and everyone bleeds the same.

False. Not the same.

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

Yep, simple huh? Not so simple is 10% of your dollar leaves you $45,000; 10% of my dollar leaves me with $90,000 and 10% of David Koch leaves him with (my best guess) $90,000,000

 

[DiamondDave]

Then I assume you support taxing other charities

Oh.. and the claim on the resulting level of taxation is nothing but pure pull-it-out-of-your-ass bullshit

 

[DiamondDave]

False. Not the same.

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

Yep, simple huh? Not so simple is 10% of your dollar leaves you $45,000; 10% of my dollar leaves me with $90,000 and 10% of David Koch leaves him with (my best guess) $90,000,000

No.. Every dollar you are taxed on brings you back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar I am taxed on brings me back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar Joe Everyguy is taxed on brings them back $0.90 on it after taxation... how many dollars you earn is on you

Idiot

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not FEELING the same does not mean it is not the same...

10% of your dollar is the same as 10% of my dollar and 10% of Joe Crackhead's dollar

Yep, simple huh? Not so simple is 10% of your dollar leaves you $45,000; 10% of my dollar leaves me with $90,000 and 10% of David Koch leaves him with (my best guess) $90,000,000

No.. Every dollar you are taxed on brings you back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar I am taxed on brings me back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar Joe Everyguy is taxed on brings them back $0.90 on it after taxation... how many dollars you earn is on you

Idiot

Name calling already? The problem is you're not very bright or too lazy to consider the full consequences of what my post suggests. Mr. Koch will have enough disposable income to influence and to impact legislation and elections, all by himself. Citizens United has given him the ability to fund SuperPAC's not accountable to any controls, and influence voters using lies, half-truths and character assassination by innuendo and rumor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep, simple huh? Not so simple is 10% of your dollar leaves you $45,000; 10% of my dollar leaves me with $90,000 and 10% of David Koch leaves him with (my best guess) $90,000,000

No.. Every dollar you are taxed on brings you back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar I am taxed on brings me back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar Joe Everyguy is taxed on brings them back $0.90 on it after taxation... how many dollars you earn is on you

Idiot

Name calling already? The problem is you're not very bright or too lazy to consider the full consequences of what my post suggests. Mr. Koch will have enough disposable income to influence and to impact legislation and elections, all by himself. Citizens United has given him the ability to fund SuperPAC's not accountable to any controls, and influence voters using lies, half-truths and character assassination by innuendo and rumor.

So are you suggesting that the Koch brothers should have their wealth confiscated so that they cannot influence elections? How about George Soros? Do you feel the same way about him? How about Jeffrey Inmelt,Obama's 'jobs czar'? Estimated annual income $22 million. Net worth not available but substantial. How about Michael Moore with a net worth of an estimated $50 million who swears up and down that he is not part of the 1% that Obama is going after?

How much wealth do you believe a person should be allowed to acquire?

 

[RDD_1210]

Jack Kemp was a powerful advocate for a flat tax for decades right up to his death in 2009. Steve Forbes has promoted a flat tax for decades now. Rick Perry campaigned on the flat tax this year until he dropped out of the presidential race. Even John McCain has flirted with the idea when he wasn't promoting a progressive tax. Herman Cain wanted a flat tax coupled with a moderated federal sales tax.

Whether there should be ANY exemptions is negotiable, however. There is much to commend a mortgage interest deduction to promote home ownership which strengthens the overall economy. There is much to commend a charitable contribution deduction to promote more benefits to the poor, evenmoreso if we start paring back charity dispensed (almost always poorly and counter productively) by the federal government.

But again, all that is negotiable. First we needf to establish a good rationale and defense for why the flat tax is the most honest and most beneficial system of federal taxation, and the one with the fewest negatives.

Nope, according to Diamond Dave exemptions are non-negotiable. I am fine with discussing a flat tax that involves some sort of floor to account for basic life necessities. Dave does not, this is where he continues to fail.

 

[RDD_1210]

Hardly.. everything of yours is based on the feeling of how tough it is on someone... PERIOD.... While individual situation, impact, and circumstance due to their own earning is their own personal plight... not the plight of government, and not the plight of society

The flat tax without exemption, without exception, without deduction, and without floor or ceiling on every dollar earned by every citizen no matter the source is BY DEFINITION EQUALITY IN TREATMENT... A.K.A. THE SAME

You have been ***** slapped on this so many times it is laughable

If your idea is so amazing why can't you name a single politician who supports it? Not one.

Remind me who has ***** slapped who when you can't give me an answer.

Oh.. POLITICIANS make things equal??

No.. politicians pander for power... it is the rare person who wants equality...

You have a higher growing # of the populace that has no stake in the federal income tax game, and you think they want a politician to support making them suddenly start paying??

Your claim is that it is not equal in treatment... that is the bullshit.. and then you try and back it up by popular politician support to prove your claim right?? Sorry Charlie.. don't work that way... A group of 10 year olds may vote and support the notion that Power Rangers is the best TV show in the history of mankind, because it panders to them.. And the TV exec that puts it on will continue to do so to keep his power and his job... Pandering to keep that power does not justify the claim

But you do have politicians that promote the flat tax.. yet you have them making exceptions for pandering as well, to try and gain power... Well, unlike you I believe this country's government was created around the mantra of equal treatment and freedom... And our laws and constitution should reflect that more

And you have other countries looking at growth who are adopting flat (or at least much more flat tax systems) taxes for income tax

You can use your popularity and feeling arguments all you want.. the math is what it is, and equality in treatment is what it is

Thanks for proving my point. Your idea is ridiculous and not supported by anyone with an opinion that actual means anything.

 

[AmyNation]

Jack Kemp was a powerful advocate for a flat tax for decades right up to his death in 2009. Steve Forbes has promoted a flat tax for decades now. Rick Perry campaigned on the flat tax this year until he dropped out of the presidential race. Even John McCain has flirted with the idea when he wasn't promoting a progressive tax. Herman Cain wanted a flat tax coupled with a moderated federal sales tax.

Whether there should be ANY exemptions is negotiable, however. There is much to commend a mortgage interest deduction to promote home ownership which strengthens the overall economy. There is much to commend a charitable contribution deduction to promote more benefits to the poor, evenmoreso if we start paring back charity dispensed (almost always poorly and counter productively) by the federal government.

But again, all that is negotiable. First we needf to establish a good rationale and defense for why the flat tax is the most honest and most beneficial system of federal taxation, and the one with the fewest negatives.

Nope, according to Diamond Dave exemptions are non-negotiable. I am fine with discussing a flat tax that involves some sort of floor to account for basic life necessities. Dave does not, this is where he continues to fail.

I think that's the only shot a flat tax has, not that it has much of one considering the powers that be don't really want to give up that bargaining chip.

However, using the poverty index, and giving everyone that amount income tax free, then assessing a flat rate for all income over that, I could see that getting support.

 

[RDD_1210]

Jack Kemp was a powerful advocate for a flat tax for decades right up to his death in 2009. Steve Forbes has promoted a flat tax for decades now. Rick Perry campaigned on the flat tax this year until he dropped out of the presidential race. Even John McCain has flirted with the idea when he wasn't promoting a progressive tax. Herman Cain wanted a flat tax coupled with a moderated federal sales tax.

Whether there should be ANY exemptions is negotiable, however. There is much to commend a mortgage interest deduction to promote home ownership which strengthens the overall economy. There is much to commend a charitable contribution deduction to promote more benefits to the poor, evenmoreso if we start paring back charity dispensed (almost always poorly and counter productively) by the federal government.

But again, all that is negotiable. First we needf to establish a good rationale and defense for why the flat tax is the most honest and most beneficial system of federal taxation, and the one with the fewest negatives.

Nope, according to Diamond Dave exemptions are non-negotiable. I am fine with discussing a flat tax that involves some sort of floor to account for basic life necessities. Dave does not, this is where he continues to fail.

I think that's the only shot a flat tax has, not that it has much of one considering the powers that be don't really want to give up that bargaining chip.

However, using the poverty index, and giving everyone that amount income tax free, then assessing a flat rate for all income over that, I could see that getting support.

Yeah that would be logical and sensible. Dave doesn't want any part of that.

 

[amrchaos]

Let make sure I understand this right


Top 1%
AGI earnings: $343,927 and over
% of all income taxes paid: 36.73

Top 5%
AGI earnings: $154,643
% of all income taxes paid: 58.66

Top 10%
AGI earnings: $112,124
% of income taxes paid: 70.47

Top 25%
AGI earnings: $66,193
% of income taxes paid: 87.30

Top 50%
AGI earnings: $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 97.75

Bottom 50%
AGI earnings: below $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 2.25

In other words.

top 0-1% pays 36.73% of taxes

top 1.001 to 5% pays 58.66-36.73%= 21.93% of taxes

top 5.001 to 10% pays 70.47-58.66%=11.71% of taxes

top 10.001 to 25% pays 87.30-70.47%=16.93% of taxes

25.001 to 50% pays 97.75-87.30%= 10.45% of taxes.

and the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes

and since the top 1% pays the most taxes(almost twice any other bracket considered), we should raise taxes on every until everyone is paying the proper amount of taxes despite the amount they actually make. Is that what you are implying??

What I am saying is that the federal government needs a hell of lot less money that it collects to do its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and every citizen should feel and have responsibility to help fund those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

A flat tax is the most equitable and fair way to accomplish that without putting excessive pressure on the poor and without encouraging the rich to take and invest their money elsewhere.

In a true flat tax system, the person earning one million dollars would pay one thousand times more in federal income taxes than the one who makes one thousand dollars. But both would pay something and both would experience a proportional increase or decrease in the tax rate. That puts both on equal footing as citizens with comparable motives to demand good government rather than promote government that increases its own power and fortune via income redistribution. It takes class warfare out of the equation and provides excellent motives for all to do what they can to improve their circumstances.

So you are suggesting a flat income tax or a national flat sales tax?

If you are suggesting the former, the amount each person pays in taxes, in the manner you have used, will still looked the same!!

In other words, the top 50% will pay approx 98% of the taxes! Reason--the top 50% makes about 98% in the amount of total wages!

On the other hand, if you are talking about a national flat sales tax, then it will seem equitable until one realizes that, using an average cost of living, those on the bottom rungs will pay more in taxes than those at the top. The reason why is that people with lower incomes will use more of their income to survive and therefore will pay more of their income in taxes. Noteeople in the top brackets need not spend all or even most of their income to survive. What happens if a fellow in the upper brackets only spend 1% of their income and invest the rest? Are we going to tax the purchase of his investments as a sale? In the end, that would encourage investment outside the US.

Bottomline--there is no universally "fair tax" system. Your concept of "equitable" is probably due to the idea that if everyone pays equal percentage then there is no complaint. There will be complaints, as you have noted in your op!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Let make sure I understand this right


Top 1%
AGI earnings: $343,927 and over
% of all income taxes paid: 36.73

Top 5%
AGI earnings: $154,643
% of all income taxes paid: 58.66

Top 10%
AGI earnings: $112,124
% of income taxes paid: 70.47

Top 25%
AGI earnings: $66,193
% of income taxes paid: 87.30

Top 50%
AGI earnings: $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 97.75

Bottom 50%
AGI earnings: below $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 2.25

In other words.

top 0-1% pays 36.73% of taxes

top 1.001 to 5% pays 58.66-36.73%= 21.93% of taxes

top 5.001 to 10% pays 70.47-58.66%=11.71% of taxes

top 10.001 to 25% pays 87.30-70.47%=16.93% of taxes

25.001 to 50% pays 97.75-87.30%= 10.45% of taxes.

and the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes

and since the top 1% pays the most taxes(almost twice any other bracket considered), we should raise taxes on every until everyone is paying the proper amount of taxes despite the amount they actually make. Is that what you are implying??

What I am saying is that the federal government needs a hell of lot less money that it collects to do its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and every citizen should feel and have responsibility to help fund those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

A flat tax is the most equitable and fair way to accomplish that without putting excessive pressure on the poor and without encouraging the rich to take and invest their money elsewhere.

In a true flat tax system, the person earning one million dollars would pay one thousand times more in federal income taxes than the one who makes one thousand dollars. But both would pay something and both would experience a proportional increase or decrease in the tax rate. That puts both on equal footing as citizens with comparable motives to demand good government rather than promote government that increases its own power and fortune via income redistribution. It takes class warfare out of the equation and provides excellent motives for all to do what they can to improve their circumstances.

So you are suggesting a flat income tax or a national flat sales tax?

If you are suggesting the former, the amount each person pays in taxes, in the manner you have used, will still looked the same!!

In other words, the top 50% will pay approx 98% of the taxes! Reason--the top 50% makes about 98% in the amount of total wages!

On the other hand, if you are talking about a national flat sales tax, then it will seem equitable until one realizes that, using an average cost of living, those on the bottom rungs will pay more in taxes than those at the top. The reason why is that people with lower incomes will use more of their income to survive and therefore will pay more of their income in taxes. Noteeople in the top brackets need not spend all or even most of their income to survive. What happens if a fellow in the upper brackets only spend 1% of their income and invest the rest? Are we going to tax the purchase of his investments as a sale? In the end, that would encourage investment outside the US.

Bottomline--there is no universally "fair tax" system. Your concept of "equitable" is probably due to the idea that if everyone pays equal percentage then there is no complaint. There will be complaints, as you have noted in your op!!

I am opposed to a national sales tax because it would be regressive on the lower wage earners and would be so subject to dickering and manipulation it could lead to a tax code more nightmarish than what already exists.

And I don't CARE what percentage of the taxes any group of income earners pays, so long as the amount each individual income earner pays is uniformly equitable. You are quite correct that the top wage earners would still be paying the lion's share of the taxes, but they won't mind and it takes the class warfare aspect out of it while giving everybody an equal share of skin in the game. The Founders didn't look at Americans as groups, classes, or demographics or voting blocs. They looked at Americans as individuals. And so should we.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No.. Every dollar you are taxed on brings you back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar I am taxed on brings me back $0.90 on it after taxation... every dollar Joe Everyguy is taxed on brings them back $0.90 on it after taxation... how many dollars you earn is on you

Idiot

Name calling already? The problem is you're not very bright or too lazy to consider the full consequences of what my post suggests. Mr. Koch will have enough disposable income to influence and to impact legislation and elections, all by himself. Citizens United has given him the ability to fund SuperPAC's not accountable to any controls, and influence voters using lies, half-truths and character assassination by innuendo and rumor.

So are you suggesting that the Koch brothers should have their wealth confiscated so that they cannot influence elections? How about George Soros? Do you feel the same way about him? How about Jeffrey Inmelt,Obama's 'jobs czar'? Estimated annual income $22 million. Net worth not available but substantial. How about Michael Moore with a net worth of an estimated $50 million who swears up and down that he is not part of the 1% that Obama is going after?

How much wealth do you believe a person should be allowed to acquire?

No I don't advocate the Koch brothers should have their wealth confiscated; I do advocate that limits to campaign be imposed to level the playing field. BTW, another nice try to 'put words in my mouth' and build a straw man to burn.