|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States43817 Posts
On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there.
SALT deduction isn’t a tax break and it’s certainly not a subsidy, it just means you’re not paying taxes on your taxes. You should know better than that.
|
|
|
On February 26 2019 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2019 23:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Watch the well oiled machine and top deal maker at work. President and The United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seem to have completely different views on what they have agreed on. Ending with 'ok ok we'll never use the term memorandum of understanding again'
Meanwhile the Chinese vice premier Liu He sitting there can't hide a chuckle of laughter at this absurd situation.
Never thought I'd actually say this, but Trump is right and the other guy is wrong about an MOU. "In business, an MOU is typically a legally non-binding agreement between two (or more) parties, that outlines terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement, noting each party's requirements and responsibilities -- but without establishing a formal, legally enforceable contract (though an MOU is often a first step towards the development of a formal contract).[1][2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding From the very same page: In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection. In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. With this in mind the conversation becomes much clearer, and, to the surprise of nobody except perhaps xDaunt, Lighthizer is the one who is correct and Trump is the one who is ignorant.
Let me interpret that for you: a document titled a "memorandum of understanding" is not binding under international law unless it reads like a treaty, at which point it is the same thing as a treaty. Let me just state as an aside that this is a beyond idiotic use of terminology. Going back to the video, Trump tells Lighthizer that he wants a binding agreement -- ie a treaty -- and objects to Lighthizer's use of MoU as a term until Lighthizer tells Trump that he is going to get a treaty out of it. So again, the problems are Lighthizer's use of terminology, not Trump's intent, and Lighthizer feeling compelled to open his mouth in the first place for no good reason.
|
On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there.
Man, I can't wait until democrats cut some farm subsidies that mostly go to megafarms in conservative states on the principle that there is primordial satisfaction in letting them suffer the economic reality of what they vote for. We can have more failed states like Louisiana and Kansas. /s
|
On February 26 2019 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there. SALT deduction isn’t a tax break and it’s certainly not a subsidy, it just means you’re not paying taxes on your taxes. You should know better than that.
How can you not call it a tax break? That's exactly what it is. SALT taxes are wholly separate from federal taxes. All that the deduction does is let people reduce their federal tax burden by some amount to partially compensate for whatever they're paying in SALT taxes. For this reason, the SALT deduction encourages higher SALT taxes by indirectly subsidizing SALT taxes. You can bet that state and local governments are going to be pressured to reduce the tax burdens on their citizens now that the citizenry is bearing the full brunt of those taxes. Cuomo is already sounding the alarm in New York.
|
On February 26 2019 11:36 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there. Man, I can't wait until democrats cut some farm subsidies that mostly go to megafarms in conservative states on the principle that there is primordial satisfaction in letting them suffer the economic reality of what they vote for. We can have more failed states like Louisiana and Kansas. /s
Wegandi's answer is that we should eliminate all subsidies and deductions to avoid playing favorites.
|
Let the free market decide which states and rot and die.
|
United States43817 Posts
On February 26 2019 11:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 10:45 KwarK wrote:On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there. SALT deduction isn’t a tax break and it’s certainly not a subsidy, it just means you’re not paying taxes on your taxes. You should know better than that. How can you not call it a tax break? That's exactly what it is. SALT taxes are wholly separate from federal taxes. All that the deduction does is let people reduce their federal tax burden by some amount to partially compensate for whatever they're paying in SALT taxes. For this reason, the SALT deduction encourages higher SALT taxes, thereby indirectly subsidizing SALT taxes. You can bet that state and local governments are going to be pressured to reduce the tax burdens on their citizens now that the citizenry is bearing the full brunt of those taxes. Cuomo is already sounding the alarm in New York.
I don't call it a tax break because the people in high tax states pay higher taxes than the people in low tax states after the SALT deduction has been taken into account. What kind of tax break results in higher taxes?
If I make $100k and the state takes $20k off the top of that then I shouldn't be taxed on the $20k I never got, I should be taxed on my $80k that take home income. It's perfectly consistent with not taxing you on stuff like health insurance contributions that come out of your paycheck before you see a penny of it.
If I make $100k in a state like Texas then the Feds take 20% then I pay $20k in tax. If I make $100k in a state with a 20% tax rate then I pay $20k to the state and $16k to the Feds (20% of the remaining $80k). That's not a tax break, that's considerably more tax paid than before. It'd be silly to simply apply both in parallel for a combined 40% share of the $100k.
|
|
|
United States43817 Posts
On February 26 2019 11:46 JimmiC wrote:
I'm down with that, zero deductions mean zero loop holes. It would be a far simpler and be a much less expensive system to administer. The people who currently can pay top tax accountants to pay basically 0 taxes would lose that ability. Might be one of the best ways to have the rich pay more taxes. And have the brackets get higher and higher % wise as the people get richer, with no deductions.
The bad news is that tax accounting is a HUGE employer. Not just the accountants but all the Government workers as well.
lol
Are businesses still allowed to deduct their operating costs? The cost of their inventory? Because if not then it's unworkable. And if so you're straight back onto the "well no, obviously some deductions make logical sense" that got us here.
Tax law got the way it did for a reason.
This is a classic example of someone isn't intimately familiar with the situation deciding that it could all very easily be simplified if we just stopped making it so unnecessarily complicated. You might as well set pi to 3 while you're at it.
|
The key part is to just let the free market do its dark work and slowly destroy all of rural America. Then blame the conservatives for the problem they created, win those elections the subsidizes, entitlements and services. Its a good plan if you don't give a shit about Americans or the stability of our country.
|
On February 26 2019 11:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On February 26 2019 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2019 23:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Watch the well oiled machine and top deal maker at work. President and The United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seem to have completely different views on what they have agreed on. Ending with 'ok ok we'll never use the term memorandum of understanding again' Meanwhile the Chinese vice premier Liu He sitting there can't hide a chuckle of laughter at this absurd situation. https://twitter.com/economics/status/1099357290791022593 Never thought I'd actually say this, but Trump is right and the other guy is wrong about an MOU. "In business, an MOU is typically a legally non-binding agreement between two (or more) parties, that outlines terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement, noting each party's requirements and responsibilities -- but without establishing a formal, legally enforceable contract (though an MOU is often a first step towards the development of a formal contract).[1][2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding From the very same page: In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection. In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. With this in mind the conversation becomes much clearer, and, to the surprise of nobody except perhaps xDaunt, Lighthizer is the one who is correct and Trump is the one who is ignorant. Let me interpret that for you: a document titled a "memorandum of understanding" is not binding under international law unless it reads like a treaty, at which point it is the same thing as a treaty. Let me just state as an aside that this is a beyond idiotic use of terminology. Going back to the video, Trump tells Lighthizer that he wants a binding agreement -- ie a treaty -- and objects to Lighthizer's use of MoU as a term until Lighthizer tells Trump that he is going to get a treaty out of it. So again, the problems are Lighthizer's use of terminology, not Trump's intent, and Lighthizer feeling compelled to open his mouth in the first place for no good reason.
But it's not Lighthizer's use of terminology. It's the standard terminology, as evidenced by Wikipedia. You may find it stupid but it's a case of Trump and you not knowing something, not a case of Lighthizer being cryptic.
Now if you listen to the exchange again, you can hear that the issue is that Trump demands a binding contract when he already has one. Lighthizer very clearly says that the MoU in this case is a binding contract. He's being charitable and saying it to the journalists in the room, but obviously he's addressing Trump in his answer. Trump proceeds to ignore all of that and demand once again this binding contract that has already been created, as Lighthizer just explained to him. Lighthizer then resorts to the tactic of changing the name of the agreement, presumably because he thinks if Trump didn't get it from the very clear explanation he gave earlier, he's not going to get it at all. So he just gives it a different name, and suddenly Trump is fine with it.
There is no part of this exchange that makes Trump look good. Neither the ignorance about something important that he should be receiving enough briefings on to know at least the name of the agreement they are trying to reach, nor the fact that Lighthizer has such low confidence in his intelligence that he thinks Trump won't be capable of understanding what he's saying and he has to do the switch to move forward. Nor the fact that he is probably right about that last part.
|
|
|
United States43817 Posts
On February 26 2019 11:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 11:48 KwarK wrote:On February 26 2019 11:46 JimmiC wrote:
I'm down with that, zero deductions mean zero loop holes. It would be a far simpler and be a much less expensive system to administer. The people who currently can pay top tax accountants to pay basically 0 taxes would lose that ability. Might be one of the best ways to have the rich pay more taxes. And have the brackets get higher and higher % wise as the people get richer, with no deductions.
The bad news is that tax accounting is a HUGE employer. Not just the accountants but all the Government workers as well. lol Are businesses still allowed to deduct their operating costs? The cost of their inventory? Because if not then it's unworkable. And if so you're straight back onto the "well no, obviously some deductions make logical sense" that got us here. Tax law got the way it did for a reason. This is a classic example of someone isn't intimately familiar with the situation deciding that it could all very easily be simplified if we just stopped making it so unnecessarily complicated. Yeah business would be able to deduct their costs. So there would still be accountants just not on the personal side. There would still be the IRS as well just much smaller. I also get that this idea though simplistic would have tons of issues in practice.
It would. Are there any specific individual deductions you can point to and say "this one obviously doesn't make sense" or is it more of a feeling that there are too many deductions being abused?
|
On February 26 2019 11:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On February 26 2019 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2019 23:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Watch the well oiled machine and top deal maker at work. President and The United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seem to have completely different views on what they have agreed on. Ending with 'ok ok we'll never use the term memorandum of understanding again' Meanwhile the Chinese vice premier Liu He sitting there can't hide a chuckle of laughter at this absurd situation. https://twitter.com/economics/status/1099357290791022593 Never thought I'd actually say this, but Trump is right and the other guy is wrong about an MOU. "In business, an MOU is typically a legally non-binding agreement between two (or more) parties, that outlines terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement, noting each party's requirements and responsibilities -- but without establishing a formal, legally enforceable contract (though an MOU is often a first step towards the development of a formal contract).[1][2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding From the very same page: In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection. In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. With this in mind the conversation becomes much clearer, and, to the surprise of nobody except perhaps xDaunt, Lighthizer is the one who is correct and Trump is the one who is ignorant. Let me interpret that for you: a document titled a "memorandum of understanding" is not binding under international law unless it reads like a treaty, at which point it is the same thing as a treaty. Let me just state as an aside that this is a beyond idiotic use of terminology. Going back to the video, Trump tells Lighthizer that he wants a binding agreement -- ie a treaty -- and objects to Lighthizer's use of MoU as a term until Lighthizer tells Trump that he is going to get a treaty out of it. So again, the problems are Lighthizer's use of terminology, not Trump's intent, and Lighthizer feeling compelled to open his mouth in the first place for no good reason.
This is a very Trump friendly interpretation but the other possibility is that China is only willing to commit to a MOU, Lighthizer wanted to spin a MOU as a binding agreement, and Trump then cut in and destroyed the spin narrative. And presumably the reason Trump would cut in in that way is that Trump was unaware that China is only willing to commit to an MOU (which wouldn't be surprising that Trump is unaware). Trump has been caught being unaware of what his people are negotiating over in the past. He stated in a televised meeting that he would support a "clean DACA bill" before being corrected by his Republican colleagues.
|
On February 26 2019 11:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 11:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 26 2019 10:45 KwarK wrote:On February 26 2019 10:25 Wegandi wrote:On February 26 2019 10:17 NewSunshine wrote:
My return was smaller this year than last, and I don't make much. I dunno if the tax cut passes the smell test.
You know, assuming you woke up today and didn't notice what was written into the alleged "tax cut" in the first place. You do know your "tax return" has zero to do with your tax rate, right? Also, while I certainly don't like taxes, there is some primordial satisfaction with the people in progressive states that have high tax rates which have been subsidized with SALT deductions no longer able to. You get to see the economic reality of what you vote for in your state. Can't say I'm crying a river there. SALT deduction isn’t a tax break and it’s certainly not a subsidy, it just means you’re not paying taxes on your taxes. You should know better than that. How can you not call it a tax break? That's exactly what it is. SALT taxes are wholly separate from federal taxes. All that the deduction does is let people reduce their federal tax burden by some amount to partially compensate for whatever they're paying in SALT taxes. For this reason, the SALT deduction encourages higher SALT taxes, thereby indirectly subsidizing SALT taxes. You can bet that state and local governments are going to be pressured to reduce the tax burdens on their citizens now that the citizenry is bearing the full brunt of those taxes. Cuomo is already sounding the alarm in New York. I don't call it a tax break because the people in high tax states pay higher taxes than the people in low tax states after the SALT deduction has been taken into account. What kind of tax break results in higher taxes? If I make $100k and the state takes $20k off the top of that then I shouldn't be taxed on the $20k I never got, I should be taxed on my $80k that take home income. It's perfectly consistent with not taxing you on stuff like health insurance contributions that come out of your paycheck before you see a penny of it.
If I make $100k in a state like Texas then the Feds take 20% then I pay $20k in tax. If I make $100k in a state with a 20% tax rate then I pay $20k to the state and $16k to the Feds (20% of the remaining $80k). That's not a tax break, that's considerably more tax paid than before. It'd be silly to simply apply both in parallel for a combined 40% share of the $100k.
You do realize that this is an artificial construct that is not an accurate reflection of the financial/statutory reality, right? First, SALT taxes (including deductible ones) aren't limited to income taxes. Second, the marginal income tax schemes applied at the local, state, and federal levels are wholly independent from each other. Each constitutes a separate tax burden by design. Third, (and correct me if I'm wrong on this) the federal income tax burden isn't a singular entity, either. There are multiple components to the tax burden beyond the marginal rate.
The cleanest way to deal with the cumulative taxation is to simply eliminate the SALT deduction, commensurately reduce federal taxes, and then let the states and localities figure out how much more that they want to rob from the citizens. It doesn't make sense to have the feds control those purse strings.
|
On February 26 2019 11:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 11:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 26 2019 11:48 KwarK wrote:On February 26 2019 11:46 JimmiC wrote:
I'm down with that, zero deductions mean zero loop holes. It would be a far simpler and be a much less expensive system to administer. The people who currently can pay top tax accountants to pay basically 0 taxes would lose that ability. Might be one of the best ways to have the rich pay more taxes. And have the brackets get higher and higher % wise as the people get richer, with no deductions.
The bad news is that tax accounting is a HUGE employer. Not just the accountants but all the Government workers as well. lol Are businesses still allowed to deduct their operating costs? The cost of their inventory? Because if not then it's unworkable. And if so you're straight back onto the "well no, obviously some deductions make logical sense" that got us here. Tax law got the way it did for a reason. This is a classic example of someone isn't intimately familiar with the situation deciding that it could all very easily be simplified if we just stopped making it so unnecessarily complicated. Yeah business would be able to deduct their costs. So there would still be accountants just not on the personal side. There would still be the IRS as well just much smaller. I also get that this idea though simplistic would have tons of issues in practice. It would. Are there any specific individual deductions you can point to and say "this one obviously doesn't make sense" or is it more of a feeling that there are too many deductions being abused?
I'll bite, why does it make sense for federal taxes to be deductible, but not the reverse (maybe state taxes ought to be deductible from the feds). There is a strange issue here with owing tax to distinct and separate sovereigns. In this light, the most sensible course does seem to be to simply tax the income as it is.
edit: i guess we could just roll this into xDaunt's post.
|
On February 26 2019 11:56 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2019 11:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 26 2019 09:15 Nebuchad wrote:On February 26 2019 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 25 2019 23:37 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Watch the well oiled machine and top deal maker at work. President and The United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seem to have completely different views on what they have agreed on. Ending with 'ok ok we'll never use the term memorandum of understanding again' Meanwhile the Chinese vice premier Liu He sitting there can't hide a chuckle of laughter at this absurd situation. https://twitter.com/economics/status/1099357290791022593 Never thought I'd actually say this, but Trump is right and the other guy is wrong about an MOU. "In business, an MOU is typically a legally non-binding agreement between two (or more) parties, that outlines terms and details of a mutual understanding or agreement, noting each party's requirements and responsibilities -- but without establishing a formal, legally enforceable contract (though an MOU is often a first step towards the development of a formal contract).[1][2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding From the very same page: In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection. In practice and in spite of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs' insistence that registration be done to avoid 'secret diplomacy', MoUs are sometimes kept confidential. As a matter of law, the title of MoU does not necessarily mean the document is binding or not binding under international law. To determine whether a particular MoU is meant to be a legally binding document (i.e., a treaty), one needs to examine the parties’ intent as well as the signatories' position (e.g., Minister of Foreign Affairs vs. Minister of Environment). A careful analysis of the wording will also clarify the exact nature of the document. With this in mind the conversation becomes much clearer, and, to the surprise of nobody except perhaps xDaunt, Lighthizer is the one who is correct and Trump is the one who is ignorant. Let me interpret that for you: a document titled a "memorandum of understanding" is not binding under international law unless it reads like a treaty, at which point it is the same thing as a treaty. Let me just state as an aside that this is a beyond idiotic use of terminology. Going back to the video, Trump tells Lighthizer that he wants a binding agreement -- ie a treaty -- and objects to Lighthizer's use of MoU as a term until Lighthizer tells Trump that he is going to get a treaty out of it. So again, the problems are Lighthizer's use of terminology, not Trump's intent, and Lighthizer feeling compelled to open his mouth in the first place for no good reason. This is a very Trump friendly interpretation but the other possibility is that China is only willing to commit to a MOU, Lighthizer wanted to spin a MOU as a binding agreement, and Trump then cut in and destroyed the spin narrative. And presumably the reason Trump would cut in in that way is that Trump was unaware that China is only willing to commit to an MOU (which wouldn't be surprising that Trump is unaware). Trump has been caught being unaware of what his people are negotiating over in the past. He stated in a televised meeting that he would support a "clean DACA bill" before being corrected by his Republican colleagues.
You could be right that China does not intend to enter into a binding agreement. We'll just have to wait and see. Regardless, Trump has made his intentions clear. He just needs to follow through with sanctions/tariffs if China doesn't play ball.
|
Raising taxes on American while the Democrats gear up to challenge him seems like a real winner. Hope he does raise tariffs. It can only do damage at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
