Billionaires Blast off

[Swammerdami]

Buffett was pointing out that his (and those in his class) percentage of tax is lower than that of the average worker, who earns a tiny fraction of Buffett's income. Do you thinkI this is fair and equatable?

An "average worker" pays very little if any federal income tax due to all the refundable tax credits. I think I remember him talking about this, and I think his point of comparison was his executive assistant or some such. I believe that is a vey well-paid position, and hardly an "average worker".

But yes, her (?) income is mostly salary while Buffett's is almost all capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.

No. Buffett's secretary didn't have a high salary. Buffett reached his conclusion by including payroll taxes (including the employer portion) in total tax.

Whether such an inclusion is "appropriate" or not is debatable, but that was the basis for Buffett's claim ... as he clearly stated when he made the claim.

 

[DBT]

Are you claiming that workers get refunded all of the taxes they paid for the year?

For almost half, yes. They actually can get more in a tax refund than they paid through withholdings - an effective negative tax rate, due to all the so-called refundable tax credits such as EITC and Child Tax Credit (recently greatly increased by the Biden administration).

You can play with a tax calculator like this one.

For example, I put a married couple making $50k with 3 dependents and got federal income tax of -$2.7k (for a tax rate of -5.5%). Of course, a single guy making half that pays $1.3k in federal income tax, for a tax rate of 5.3%. Positive mind you. The tax system is rigged against the child free and the Biden administration is making the childfree discrimination worse!

You seem to suggest that nobody is actually paying much in the way of tax, the rich have their loopholes and havens, workers get rebates, wow, nobody actually pays taxes.....yet it remains that the super rich get richer while the rest of the population struggle on a decending order of scale.

You see nothing wrong?

 

[Elixir]

Billionaires and paupers is fine. It’s what Donald and God intended.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, close some loopholes relative to cost basis at death and the like.
That would increase tax fairness while being a lot easier to implement than redefining what counts as "income" or adding a new tax on wealth.

Please do not mess with the cost basis step-up at death!

Yeah, this seems like a very simple thing, but as someone who has had to deal with an estate I say it's a very important protection for the heirs who might not have all the data.

I had zero basis data. As far as I know none of the data existed at all and if it had I would not have been able to read it--any of my mother's records would have been in her own modifications to grade 3 braille--not meant as a secret code but it effectively was. To her it was shorthand (writing braille is far more laborious and uses far more space than writing with a pen), to anyone else it was unreadable.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also, close some loopholes relative to cost basis at death and the like.
That would increase tax fairness while being a lot easier to implement than redefining what counts as "income" or adding a new tax on wealth.

Please do not mess with the cost basis step-up at death!

Yeah, this seems like a very simple thing, but as someone who has had to deal with an estate I say it's a very important protection for the heirs who might not have all the data.

I had zero basis data. As far as I know none of the data existed at all and if it had I would not have been able to read it--any of my mother's records would have been in her own modifications to grade 3 braille--not meant as a secret code but it effectively was. To her it was shorthand (writing braille is far more laborious and uses far more space than writing with a pen), to anyone else it was unreadable.

Or, absolutely do that. To every dollar of estate beyond threshold.

Here you are bemoaning the idea that you might not have inherited as much from your parents when most people inherit much less than you and many inherit nothing, not because they choose not to save but because nobody can save what they did not ever get an opportunity to hold.

There is some certain threshold of "additional chances" and "low consequences" that everyone deserves in their life, and MOST people get that through familial connection to wealth, and most family wealth passes forward.

Fuck "heirs" especially the heirs of big estates. I fancy that I'm a perspective heir to two such estates, one smaller one of my parents for whom a house may be involved, and one much larger estate involving my grandparents.

The passing of an estate is the very heart of "unearned wealth redistribution". Might as well make it fair.

I would absolutely trade 100% of all estates for UBI paid directly from said estates, and I say this as someone for whom their husband's grandfather said, within earshot of me, "oh we only lost about fifty million with [The Recession], but it still hurts, you know?" My position isn't exactly without sacrifice. But I don't believe in "screw you I've got mine".

 

[Bomb#20]

But that's not what "because" means. It's just a claim of correlation across possible worlds, not a claim of causation. There might be some third factor causing both GDP growth to slow and rich-poor gaps to increase.(etc)

There is almost certainly a range of third factors causing both (hence I use the term "associated with", not "because").

You used the term "attributes it to". That means "because"; it doesn't mean "associated with".

"...GDP growth, both globally and within-country, has slowed to such an extent and in such local proportions that even the IMF now attributes it to increasing rich-poor income gaps , both global in within-country."

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ires-Blast-off&p=923472&viewfull=1#post923472​

If what you meant to say was that the IMF says the one is "associated with" the other, that sounds like a good reason to investigate the range of third factors causing both, and find out what interventions will increase GDP growth.

Hopefully this will save you the effort of constructing a 10,000 word strawman.

Hey man, I respond to what you say; if it isn't what you meant, that's on you.

So how the bejesus does my pointing out all this imply to you that the actual worldwide drop in inequality is an unrelated coincidence/factoid I just tossed in for reasons best known to myself? Your reasoning is mysterious.

Because if U.S. inequality and its consequences for average Americans isn't a necessary corollary of outsourcing, then it makes no sense to keep bringing up Chinese workers' gains in defence of it.

But that's not what you accused me of arguing! You wrote:

"The idea that convergence further down the global income distritbution (which wouldn't even be a thing without China) is a necessary corollary of the average American's loss of income share is zero-sum thinking 101."​

Convergence further down the distribution is a necessary corollary of outsourcing*, not a necessary corollary of "loss of income share".

(* More or less. We can imagine scenarios where outsourcing doesn't increase convergence but they seem pretty unrealistic.)

If it is a necessary corollary, then it's a zero-sum argument favouring Chinese workers over the loser "outgroup" of American workers because the latter are (or were) relatively richer.

Nothing zero-sum about it -- the benefit to Chinese workers exceeds the loss to American workers. And losing sales to a competitor doesn't make you "outgroup". The main reason China won so many customers away from America is because China upped its game. It's neither a criticism of American workers nor a devaluation of their humanity for us to recognize that China upped its game. Good for China! So let's up America's game too.

 

[Bomb#20]

But yes, her (?) income is mostly salary while Buffett's is almost all capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate.

No. Buffett's secretary didn't have a high salary.

But she does have benefits and a stock plan -- a Berkshire-Hathaway stock plan.

Anyway, if she doesn't have a high salary, why the heck not? Buffett can afford a very good secretary; consequently she probably has competing job offers coming out her ears. One way or another Buffett must be making it worth her while to stay with B-H.

Buffett reached his conclusion by including payroll taxes (including the employer portion) in total tax.

Whether such an inclusion is "appropriate" or not is debatable, but that was the basis for Buffett's claim ... as he clearly stated when he made the claim.

Which means his claim was probably technically correct, but misleading -- his secretary is going to get most of her payroll taxes back with interest when she retires.

 

[Bomb#20]

"His production value" isn't a thing. Concepts like "production value", "exchange value", "use value" and "surplus value" are relics from classical economics, i.e., economics as it was misunderstood before the "marginal revolution" in the 1870s and 1880s. ...

I call bull...

https://www.google.com/search?q=worker+production+value&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=worker+production+value&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30.9029j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Do you have an argument, or are you just pointing out that googling "worker production value" turns up more hits than "French military victories"? At most it's a measure of what people believe in, not a measure of what's true.

Did you have any of the resulting links in particular in mind?

The first hit says "The BLS used GDP per hour worked as a general measure of labor productivity." I.e., the Department of Labor takes for granted that contributions to production other than labor are of no consequence. Is that a reason to think it's true? If the Defense Department took for granted that the military is the only contributor to national security, would that settle the matter for you?

Or were you perhaps referring me to this hit -- "the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of 'socially necessary labor' required to produce it."? The Labor Theory of Value is the archetypical example of a pre-scientific classical economic theory.

"Value" is a verb: what can be measured is how strongly a person values something. To use "value" as a noun in an economic sense is to use it metaphorically to refer to the quantity of another commodity some person values just as strongly as he values whichever thing you're talking about "the value of", or else to use it for equivocation. For any given item, some people value that item more strongly than others do. So any theory that assumes an object has an objective value that's the same for everybody, as opposed to a subjective value of this much to this person and that much to that person, is nonsense.

 

[Canard DuJour]

You used the term "attributes it to". That means "because"; it doesn't mean "associated with".

"...GDP growth, both globally and within-country, has slowed to such an extent and in such local proportions that even the IMF now attributes it to increasing rich-poor income gaps , both global in within-country."

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ires-Blast-off&p=923472&viewfull=1#post923472​

If what you meant to say was that the IMF says the one is "associated with" the other, that sounds like a good reason to investigate the range of third factors causing both, and find out what interventions will increase GDP growth.

OK, but still missing the point that whatever the precise causation, the result has been negative sum (as I also wrote and you have edited out).

So how the bejesus does my pointing out all this imply to you that the actual worldwide drop in inequality is an unrelated coincidence/factoid I just tossed in for reasons best known to myself? Your reasoning is mysterious.

Because if U.S. inequality and its consequences for average Americans isn't a necessary corollary of outsourcing, then it makes no sense to keep bringing up Chinese workers' gains in defence of it.

But that's not what you accused me of arguing! You wrote:

"The idea that convergence further down the global income distritbution (which wouldn't even be a thing without China) is a necessary corollary of the average American's loss of income share is zero-sum thinking 101."​

Convergence further down the distribution is a necessary corollary of outsourcing*, not a necessary corollary of "loss of income share".

Then it makes no sense to keep bringing up the former in defence of the latter.

If it is a necessary corollary, then it's a zero-sum argument favouring Chinese workers over the loser "outgroup" of American workers because the latter are (or were) relatively richer.

Nothing zero-sum about it -- the benefit to Chinese workers exceeds the loss to American workers.

As measured by what? Slower growth means less to go round than there would have been under the previous distribution. If Chinese workers benefit more from a share of the pie than richer American workers, then American workers benefit more from a share of the pie than the richest 1% of Americans. If the second case is "outgroup" discrimination, so is the first.

And losing sales to a competitor doesn't make you "outgroup". [..etc]

Yep, nothing to do with it.

 

[Derec]

SpaceX launches 4 civilians into orbit on its 1st private flight

Even though Elon Musk is himself not on the trip, it still qualifies for this thread because  Jared Isaacman is a 38 year old billionaire.

 

[Derec]

No. Buffett's secretary didn't have a high salary.

How do you know?

Buffett reached his conclusion by including payroll taxes (including the employer portion) in total tax.

Which is quite disingenuous. For one, the so-called "payroll taxes" are really mandatory retirement, disability and medical insurance contributions, and also why include the employer contribution? If he were consistent, he'd have to count her benefits and other cost as her "salary" then, which would destroy the argument.

Whether such an inclusion is "appropriate" or not is debatable, but that was the basis for Buffett's claim ... as he clearly stated when he made the claim.

If he played fast and lose with numbers just to make a point, then his claim is meaningless. But do you have the link to the original claim?

 

[laughing dog]

How do you know?

Which is quite disingenuous. For one, the so-called "payroll taxes" are really mandatory retirement, disability and medical insurance contributions, and also why include the employer contribution?

A tax is a tax. It reduces one's discretionary income. It is dishonest to ignore the employee's payroll tax when calculating a tax burden.

It is unusual to include the employer's share of the FICA tax in calculating the tax burden of a worker. The theoretical basis for doing so is that the employee would have received the employer's share as wages in the absence of the employer's share of the tax if the employer is rationale and only looks at total compensation not how it is distributed between wages, taxes and perks.

If he were consistent, he'd have to count her benefits and other cost as her "salary" then, which would destroy the argument.

I agree that consistency would require him to include the value of any other benefits. But whether it would destroy his argument is an empirical question: it would depend on the value of those other benefits.

 

[DBT]

The bottom line is that wealth and power is being highly concentrated into the hands of a small percentage of the population, the so called elite.

And that this is not beneficial for society as a whole. Not economically, ethically or morally.

It's obscene in any way you look at it. Those in positions of power, wealth and prestige have, of course, an interest in defending their position, spinning tales of perceived benefits and trickle down economics, yada, yada.....

 

[lpetrich]

The Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, the Met for short, recently had a gala where several people appeared in fancy costumes. Among them was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Aurora James made a dress for her to wear to it, and AOC decided to put her visit to work for her.

Aurora James on Instagram: “Fashion at its best …”

Fashion at its best is a tool to express ourselves, share our cultural identities and challenge ideas and norms. As a Black woman, who also happens to be a fashion designer, activist (@15percentpledge) and small business owner - working with @aoc to create this dress and this message at this particular moment in time was incredibly important. With access comes great opportunity. We can never get too comfortable in our seats at the table once they’ve been given. We must always continue to push ourselves, push our colleagues, push the culture and push this Country forward. Even when it’s uncomfortable. Fashion is changing, America is changing. •••
@brothervellies photo by Jun Lu

Aurora James on Instagram: “Make no mistake, we the people hold the power. And as our culture pushes forward, politics too will have to follow. @aoc 🗳 ••• #taxtherich @brothervellies @15percentpledge”

Lauren Ashcraft on Twitter: "Also, as a comedian and marketing person who has run for Congress, lemme just say that a controversial dress that has captured everyone’s attention and has made millions of people utter the phrase “Tax The Rich” has done its job. Whoever thought of it is excellent at marketing." / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "If Democrats actually do pass $2.9 trillion in new taxes on the rich then yes, that dress was good. This feels simple." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

AOC's Met Gala designer Aurora James 'immigrated ' from Canada
then
New York Post on Twitter: "AOC's 'immigrant' Tax the Rich Met Gala designer was born in Toronto (link)" / Twitter
then
Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Reminds me of when Trump learned there were a bunch of undocumented Irish immigrants" / Twitter

Congress is passing up a chance to close a tax loophole — and the racial wealth gap - The Washington Post


Krystal Ball on Twitter: "Reserving judgment on #thedress until I see how hard AOC fights in the end for a good reconciliation bill including taxing the rich." / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "lmao what garbage people are these" / Twitter
noting
Waleed Shahid on Twitter: " (pix link)" / Twitter
Rep. Carolyn Maloney was also there, and she had a dress with "EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN" on it, and a big "ERA YES" button -- the Equal Rights Amendment.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Instagram: “The medium is the message. …”

The medium is the message.
.
Proud to work with @aurorajames as a sustainably focused, Black woman immigrant designer who went from starting her dream @brothervellies at a flea market in Brooklyn to winning the @cfda against all odds - and then work together to kick open the doors at the Met.
.
The time is now for childcare, healthcare, and climate action for all. Tax the Rich.
.
And yes, BEFORE anybody starts wilding out - NYC elected officials are regularly invited to and attend the Met due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city’s cultural institutions that serve the public. I was one of several in attendance. Dress is borrowed via @brothervellies
.
All-BIPOC/women/LGBT+ team:
: @cygmakeup, * : @ewilliams_hair : @aurorajames : @hellojunlu

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The medium is the message. (pic link)" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "And before haters get wild flying off the handle, New York elected officials are routinely invited to and attend the Met due to our responsibilities in overseeing and supporting the city’s cultural institutions for the public. I was one of several in attendance in this evening." / Twitter
Like her Oversight-Committee boss Rep. Carolyn Maloney, also from NYC.


Cara Delevingne's Met Gala Peg the Patriarchy Taken From Queer Artist She wore a vest that stated "PEG THE PATRIARCHY"

Presumably meaning sodomize it with a strap-on dildo.

 

[lpetrich]

citizen uprising on Twitter: "@AOC I get the message loud and clear. Let them eat cake. (vid link)" / Twitter

sameera khan on Twitter: "@AOC Was your boyfriend invited too or did you have to pay out of pocket for his ticket? (pix link)" / Twitter

More on that "Tax the Rich" dress:
AOC Sent a Message With Her First Met Gala 2021 Appearance | Vogue
then
AOC, the Met Gala and the dress: Femininity has the power to make the whole world talk. | America Magazine
"While Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s attendance attracted predictable outrage from her regular critics, she made the exact splash it seems she intended to make."
then
Molly Cahill on Twitter: "Whether you believe the answer is to tax the rich isn't the question when so many of the critiques do not engage with that idea at all, but with the character and qualifications of the woman wearing that message on her body.
Getting spicy in @americamag" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "“Femininity has the power to make the world talk. And if that is true, maybe it also has the power to make the world organize, vote, think critically and consider the well-being of their neighbors.”
- @MollyKCahill bringing this important convo into Catholic outlet @americamag" / Twitter


From 2019: Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You - The New York Times

President Biden on Twitter: "It’s time the super-wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Couldn’t agree more. Taxing the rich will help us expand Medicare, extend childcare, take action on climate, and so much more.

We have a precious opportunity right now in reconciliation with the Build Back Better Act, and we should use it." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

After that excursion into using a superfancy event to advertise a populist message, I get back to the original subject.

Elon Musk has vicariously joined Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos in space, by sending 4 people into space.

The Inspiration4 mission is 4 astronauts going into space for 3 days in a Crew Dragon capsule named Resilience, launched atop a Falcon 9 rocket. The Crew Dragon's docking port was replaced by a cupola, a domed window.

SpaceX shows off Inspiration4's amazing view of Earth and new dome window | Space "As its name suggests, Inspiration4 is carrying a crew of four: Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who booked and paid for the mission; physician assistant Hayley Arceneaux; Sian Proctor, a geoscientist and science communicator; and data engineer Chris Sembroski."

Inspiration4 Photos | Flickr


Four private citizens ride SpaceX rocket into orbit on historic mission – Spaceflight Now

The Inspiration4 mission includes a wealthy entrepreneur with a penchant for aerobatic flying, a science educator with a lifelong ambition to fly in space, a physician assistant who survived childhood cancer, and an Air Force veteran turned data engineer.

A Falcon 9 rocket lit up Florida’s Space Coast with a roaring liftoff from pad 39A at Kennedy at 8:02:56 p.m. EDT Wednesday (0002:56 GMT Thursday). The launch kicked off SpaceX’s fourth-ever crew mission to low Earth orbit, but the first without any NASA astronauts on-board.

Within about a minute, the 215-foot-tall (65-meter) Falcon 9 was traveling faster than the speed of sound, trailing a flickering orange flame as nine kerosene-fueled Merlin engines powered the launcher through a clear evening sky.

Two-and-a-half minutes after liftoff, the rocket’s reusable first stage booster shut down and dropped away to descend to landing on a SpaceX recovery ship positioned downrange in the Atlantic Ocean. Moments later, the second stage’s single engine ignited to send the Crew Dragon capsule into orbit.

Spaceflight Now on Twitter: "Liftoff of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket on the Inspiration4 mission, opening a new era in human spaceflight with the launch off the first all-private crew to orbit. (links)" / Twitter

Branson and Bezos flew on their own spaceships, but they barely scraped the boundary of space.

Virgin Galactic’s rocket plane reached an altitude of about 53 miles (86 kilometers), above the U.S. government’s definition of where space begins, giving Branson and his five crewmates a few minutes of weightlessness before returning to a runway landing in New Mexico.

Bezos launched to a higher altitude — 66 miles (107 kilometers) — above the internationally-recognized edge of space. Like Branson, Bezos and three other passengers floated in their New Shepard spacecraft for several minutes before Earth’s gravity pulled them back to the ground.

...
A pair of post-launch “phasing” burns using the spacecraft’s Draco thrusters Wednesday night adjusted the ship’s orbit from an elongated shape to a more circular path around Earth. SpaceX said the orbit’s altitude is at 363 miles (585 kilometers), a record for a Dragon spacecraft.

Inspiration4 is orbiting above the altitude of the International Space Station, and higher than any humans have flown in some two decades, since a space shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.

Spaceflight Now on Twitter: "SpaceX has fitted the Crew Dragon Resilience spacecraft with a plexiglass “cupola” viewing window for the Inspiration4 mission. The clear dome takes the place of the Dragon docking port used for missions to the International Space Station. (links)" / Twitter

 

[TV and credit cards]

The bottom line is that wealth and power is being highly concentrated into the hands of a small percentage of the population, the so called elite.

And that this is not beneficial for society as a whole. Not economically, ethically or morally.

It's obscene in any way you look at it. Those in positions of power, wealth and prestige have, of course, an interest in defending their position, spinning tales of perceived benefits and trickle down economics, yada, yada.....

Mostly true but there are those who do work to benefit others. Look at the companies Musk has started and tell me he his just “spinning tales of perceived benefits”.

Look at Jared Isaacman and his company Shift4 Payments, how he became wealthy and what he does with his wealth. Read about the relationship between Inspiration4 and St Jude’s.

As we go through life hating those who have achieved what we have not and lying to ourselves of how altruistic we would be if only we were in such a position, hit the brakes and read a bit before admonishing.

Should billionaires be made to share the wealth? Most definitely. Do I think government is the best steward for disbursement of this wealth? I’m not so sure anymore.

 

[thebeave]

The bottom line is that wealth and power is being highly concentrated into the hands of a small percentage of the population, the so called elite.

And that this is not beneficial for society as a whole. Not economically, ethically or morally.

It's obscene in any way you look at it. Those in positions of power, wealth and prestige have, of course, an interest in defending their position, spinning tales of perceived benefits and trickle down economics, yada, yada.....

Mostly true but there are those who do work to benefit others. Look at the companies Musk has started and tell me he his just “spinning tales of perceived benefits”.

Look at Jared Isaacman and his company Shift4 Payments, how he became wealthy and what he does with his wealth. Read about the relationship between Inspiration4 and St Jude’s.

As we go through life hating those who have achieved what we have not and lying to ourselves of how altruistic we would be if only we were in such a position, hit the brakes and read a bit before admonishing.

Should billionaires be made to share the wealth? Most definitely. Do I think government is the best steward for disbursement of this wealth? I’m not so sure anymore.

Its always been a bit of a conundrum to me whereby everyone laughs/grumbles about government waste, fraud, inefficiency, $600 hammers for the military, etc, yet simulataneously insist that the very rich keep giving even more to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes. Wouldn't their excess wealth be better served by giving directly to reputable charities, or medical/technological research to make our lives safer and healthier? Fortunately, many of the wealthy do this on their own already but perhaps more incentives to do so are in order.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The bottom line is that wealth and power is being highly concentrated into the hands of a small percentage of the population, the so called elite.

And that this is not beneficial for society as a whole. Not economically, ethically or morally.

It's obscene in any way you look at it. Those in positions of power, wealth and prestige have, of course, an interest in defending their position, spinning tales of perceived benefits and trickle down economics, yada, yada.....

Mostly true but there are those who do work to benefit others. Look at the companies Musk has started and tell me he his just “spinning tales of perceived benefits”.

Look at Jared Isaacman and his company Shift4 Payments, how he became wealthy and what he does with his wealth. Read about the relationship between Inspiration4 and St Jude’s.

As we go through life hating those who have achieved what we have not and lying to ourselves of how altruistic we would be if only we were in such a position, hit the brakes and read a bit before admonishing.

Should billionaires be made to share the wealth? Most definitely. Do I think government is the best steward for disbursement of this wealth? I’m not so sure anymore.

Its always been a bit of a conundrum to me whereby everyone laughs/grumbles about government waste, fraud, inefficiency, $600 hammers for the military, etc, yet simulataneously insist that the very rich keep giving even more to Uncle Sam in the form of taxes. Wouldn't their excess wealth be better served by giving directly to reputable charities, or medical/technological research to make our lives safer and healthier? Fortunately, many of the wealthy do this on their own already but perhaps more incentives to do so are in order.

Yea, but they tend to fund activities that clean the oceans, fight global warming, curing diseases, and etc. Problems that are so yesterday...