Tax reform

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Nice list.  Which of the items do you see being successfully voted into law, much less all of it. 
Do you see the Democrats touching Social Security in the way you describe if they had all 3 :  PotUS, majority Senate(60 votes), majority House?

You asked for my solution to the debt, not whether America produces statesmen anymore.

[zork 629]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

You asked for my solution to the debt, not whether America produces statesmen anymore.

fair enough.  

[zork 629]

Had to replace a 20 year old HVAC that died recently in a rental of mine.  Thought this was an interesting tidbit wrt tax implications of said purchase:(edit: won't get to do it see posts below but it is still good info)

 

Quote

...

Liberalized Section 179 Deduction Rules

For qualifying property placed in service in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, the TCJA increases the maximum Section 179 deduction to $1 million (up from $510,000 for tax years beginning in 2017). Sec. 179 allows you to deduct the entire cost of eligible property in the first year it is placed into service.

For real estate owners, eligible property includes improvements to an interior portion of a nonresidential building if the improvements are placed in service after the date the building was placed in service. The TCJA also expands the definition of eligible property to include the expenditures for nonresidential buildings:

• Roofs,
• HVAC equipment,
• Fire protection and alarm systems, and
• Security systems.

Finally, the new law expands the definition of eligible property to include depreciable tangible personal property used predominantly to furnish lodging. Examples of such property include:

• Beds and other furniture,
• Appliances, and
• Other equipment used in the living quarters of a lodging facility, such as an apartment house, dormitory, or other facility where sleeping accommodations are provided and rented out.

Important: Sec. 179 deductions can’t create or increase an overall tax loss from business activities. So, you need plenty of positive business taxable income to take full advantage of this break.

...

https://www.mlrpc.com/articles/new-tax-law-affects-rental-real-estate-owners/

edit:  btw there is more good info on the new law wrt rentals at the link just above.  

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by zork

[CO Horn 172]

HVAC expensing only applies to nonresidential buildings.

[zork 629]

29 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

HVAC expensing only applies to nonresidential buildings.

hmm.  care to elaborate?  you can clearly expense it for a residential rental.  how much you can expense in year 1 is the question that I thought the linked article addressed.(I use turbotax small business and a family accountant referral when needed) 

my current big expenditures on purchases/expenses over the minimum threshold(can't recall that number off the top of my head) have been using the old way(long depreciation) since I didn't want to change things mid stream.   

At any rate, the linked article describes the new law and seems quite informative.  The HVAC purchase will clearly be over that minimum threshold.(like a roof or new fence etc)

 

edit: looks like I was wrong and CO Horn was right:

https://www.taxact.com/support/1106/2016/section-179-not-allowed-on-rental-property

Quote

Section 179 Not Allowed on Rental Property

You cannot claim the section 179 deduction for property held to produce rental income. This would include any rental assets along with capital improvements.

Per IRS Publication 946 How to Depreciate Property, page 17:

Property Acquired for Business Use  

To qualify for the section 179 deduction, your property must have been acquired for use in your trade or business. Property you acquire only for the production of income, such as investment property, rental property (if renting property is not your trade or business), and property that produces royalties, does not qualify. 


For more information regarding depreciation, please refer to the following publications:

• IRS Publication 527 Residential Rental Property
• IRS Publication 946 How to Depreciate Property, Chapter 2

In my case it was not whether I was going to replace it.  It was a first look this morning on how it might be treated when I do taxes in 9ish months.

https://www.taxact.com/support/1106/2016/section-179-not-allowed-on-rental-property

Edited July 29, 2018 by zork

[CO Horn 172]

Look at a partial asset disposition you can allocate a portion of the original cost of the rental to the HVAC unintended that is being replaced. 

[zork 629]

37 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

Look at a partial asset disposition you can allocate a portion of the original cost of the rental to the HVAC unintended that is being replaced. 

yes, I am keeping a basis spreadsheet, depreciation, etc etc.

this is a cool calculator although I am not subscribed for the full details.

https://www.kbkg.com/partial-disposition-calculator

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

State governments openly becoming tax cheats to protect their 1%. Th hypocrisy is overwhelming 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/29/trump-tax-law-gimmicks-evade-state-local-tax-cap-editorials-debates/827495002/

then threaten to sue the IRS if they try to stop them. At least they are finally referring to their state taxes as “charity” now instead of taxes. 

I thought tax cuts for the Rich was bad??  Only when it doesn’t personally effect them. Par for the course. It should be the party slogan. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[M12BH 545]

29 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

State governments openly becoming tax cheats to protect their 1%. Th hypocrisy is overwhelming 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/29/trump-tax-law-gimmicks-evade-state-local-tax-cap-editorials-debates/827495002/

then threaten to sue the IRS if they try to stop them. At least they are finally referring to their state taxes as “charity” now instead of taxes. 

I thought tax cuts for the Rich was bad??  Only when it doesn’t personally effect them. Par for the course. It should be the party slogan. 

Except the constituents these states are protecting are not the 1%, they are the rank & file who are disproportionately affected having lost their state tax deductions due to the tax law shenanigans.  But other than that you're spot on.  

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

You are correct. 

Accoridng to Forbes 96%of these tax increases will be paid by the top 20% in income. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/12/21/what-the-tax-bills-curbs-on-the-salt-deduction-would-mean-for-itemizers/amp/

[Js1 86924]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649

It's all trickling down so hard, I think we might drown.

Quote

Some of the biggest winners from President Donald Trump’s new tax law are corporate executives who have reaped gains as their companies buy back a record amount of stock, a practice that rewards shareholders by boosting the value of existing shares.

A POLITICO review of data disclosed in SEC filings shows the executives, who often receive most of their compensation in stock, have been profiting handsomely by selling shares since Trump signed the law on Dec. 22 and slashed corporate tax rates to 21 percent. That trend is likely to increase as Wall Street analysts expect buyback activity to accelerate in the coming weeks.

Quote

Since the tax cuts were enacted, Oracle Corp. CEO Safra Catz sold $250 million worth of shares in her company — the largest executive payday this year. Product development head Thomas Kurian sold $85 million. The sales came after the company announced a $12 billion share repurchase.

Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga sold $44.4 million of stock in May, the largest single cash-out by an executive of the company in at least 10 years, months after the company announced a $4 billion buyback of its own stock.

Two days after Eastman Chemical announced it would purchase $2 billion of its own stock, CEO Mark Costa sold 55,000 shares for $5.4 million.

Quote

And while more than two dozen companies announced one-time bonuses to employees after the tax bill, wage growth is still sitting at a lackluster 2.7 percent.

 

[zork 629]

On 7/11/2018 at 7:57 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

This thing was a wealth transfer from the many tomorrow to the few today. It will never pay for itself.

Where’s the coffee man? I’d like to talk about Bugtussle, and what it will be like there after he passes out of this world.

 

He bailed over a month ago.

[Biff Tannen 46060]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649

It's all trickling down so hard, I think we might drown.

 

So is this just CEO's and other higher ups getting theirs while the getting is good before it all implodes?  That's what I'd be doing if I were in that position.  "Looks like this orangutan is going to take down the entire economy, I might as well cash out and move to an island while I can."

[zork 629]

Lots of equipment being sold to someone:

Quote

CATERPILLAR INC.

“Caterpillar delivered record second-quarter profit per share,” said Caterpillar CEO Jim Umpleby. “Our team is doing a great job executing our strategy for profitable growth, focusing on operational excellence, expanded offerings and services.”

https://www.caterpillar.com/en/investors/quarterly-results.html

Capital equipment, IIRC, is 100% deductible in the first year I believe?  

Edited July 30, 2018 by zork

[this 107]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649

It's all trickling down so hard, I think we might drown.

 

So you're upset about someone liquidating their own assets when they pay more taxes than you in pure number and percentage? 

 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649

It's all trickling down so hard, I think we might drown.

 

The Democratic outrage is so great that NY is suing on his behalf to help Larry save on property taxes of his multi million dollar penthouse. Can’t have him take his taxes elsewhere. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19439]

27 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The Democratic outrage is so great that NY is suing on his behalf to help Larry save on property taxes of his multi million dollar penthouse. Can’t have him take his taxes elsewhere. 

Actually, NY is suing to help its middle class homeowners. 

But you knew that already.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Actually, NY is suing to help its middle class homeowners. 

But you knew that already.

Link?

do you consider the Top 20% in earned income “middle class”?  

And if extremely high state taxes and lack of affordable housing cause you to exceed the SALT cap, the rest of middle class America should subsidize it?

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19439]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Link?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/07/17/states-sue-irs-treasury-to-strike-down-salt-cap-under-new-tax-law/#633b25d75303

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2018/07/17/states-sue-irs-treasury-to-strike-down-salt-cap-under-new-tax-law/#633b25d75303

So you have no problems with tax breaks for the rich as long as they play for your team. Gotcha. 

This doesn’t mention the middle at all, but you knew that  

class at all. Infact 80

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[David Dennison 19439]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So you have no problems with tax breaks for the rich as long as they play for your team. Gotcha. 

Oh, so now middle class homeowners are rich.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

14 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, so now middle class homeowners are rich.

90% of the SALT tax beneficiaries make over $100K/year.

You want a special exemption cut out for your team because they CHOSE to live in NY and their state has CHOSEN AND VOTED for some of the highest local taxes and property taxes.  Why should NY having incredibly high property taxes (like Westchester County, a suburb of New York City, 73% of homeowners pay at least $10,000 in property tax) be the burden of the rest of the country?  You are only a "socialist" when you want to be.  You are as fake as your 5 socks. 

You want to subsides your life style and decisions with Federal tax dollars.  They are free to lower their property taxes or State income tax. 

Your complete and total hypocrisy is on full display here.

[David Dennison 19439]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

90% of the SALT tax beneficiaries make over $100K/year.

You want a special exemption cut out for your team because they CHOSE to live in NY and their state has CHOSEN AND VOTED for some of the highest local taxes and property taxes.  Why should NY having incredibly high property taxes (like Westchester County, a suburb of New York City, 73% of homeowners pay at least $10,000 in property tax) be the burden of the rest of the country?  You are only a "socialist" when you want to be.  You are as fake as your 5 socks. 

You want to subsides your life style and decisions with Federal tax dollars.  They are free to lower their property taxes or State income tax. 

Your complete and total hypocrisy is on full display here.

Burden on the rest of the country? NY sends more in taxes to the federal government than it receives. It's the deep red states that are the burdens on taxpayers. They are the takers.

[Brisketexan 106610]

Burden on the rest of the country? NY sends more in taxes to the federal government than it receives. It's the deep red states that are the burdens on taxpayers. They are the takers.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Burden on the rest of the country? NY sends more in taxes to the federal government than it receives. It's the deep red states that are the burdens on taxpayers. They are the takers.

Ahhh, so if the top 1% and Corporations pay the vast majority of all taxes, we shouldn't raise taxes on them correct?  You must be all over this board defending the Trump tax cuts, because they already pay more.

LMAO, such a contradiction comrade.  As long as it's OPM

 

 

[David Dennison 19439]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Ahhh, so if the top 1% and Corporations pay the vast majority of all taxes, we shouldn't raise taxes on them correct?  You must be all over this board defending the Trump tax cuts, because they already pay more.

LMAO, such a contradiction comrade.  As long as it's OPM

No, we should raise taxes on the actual rich, but we shouldn't raise taxes on the middle class in the process, which is what the tax cuts did.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is why we need our Socialist democrats to "re-distribute" major corporations and the jobs/tax payers that go with them equally across the country.  This will help with affordable housing and lower property taxes.  Problem solved.  I'm sure those in silicon valley would gladly move base to Kentucky and Louisiana to better spread this tax map, their is no physical resource requiring them to stay and pay the high taxes.

The new Amazon HQ should def not go in a city with over 100K as property taxes will rise and housing will become less available.  Redistribute the people and the wealth that goes with them

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, we should raise taxes on the actual rich, but we shouldn't raise taxes on the middle class in the process, which is what the tax cuts did.

80% of the country is unaffected by this change.  Only the top 20% of income earners will be subject to the cap. 

The choice to live in one of the most expensive cities with the highest taxes doesn't make them "middle class".  An internet CEO working from Manhattan vs one working from KY should be taxed the exact same.  If one made the smarter choice to live where it is more affordable and his money goes further so be it.  Work to vote your own taxes down or move, don't ask your the rest of the country to finance your selfish decision.

[David Dennison 19439]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

80% of the country is unaffected by this change.  Only the top 20% of income earners will be subject to the cap. 

The choice to live in one of the most expensive cities with the highest taxes doesn't make them "middle class".  An internet CEO working from Manhattan vs one working from KY should be taxed the exact same.  If one made the smarter choice to live where it is more affordable and his money goes further so be it.  Work to vote your own taxes down or move, don't ask your the rest of the country to finance your selfish decision.

Link?

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

from CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/salt-deductions-new-tax-plan/index.html

Who claims the SALT?

 

Almost 90% of the SALT benefit goes to taxpayers with income higher than $100,000, according to the Tax Foundation.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/trumps-plan-to-eliminate-the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-explained

According to the Tax Foundation, people with incomes over $100,000 receive more than 88% of SALT deduction benefits.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/12/21/what-the-tax-bills-curbs-on-the-salt-deduction-would-mean-for-itemizers/#5c26143a4918

The TCJA will limit the SALT deduction to $10,000 and the limit is not indexed for inflation. Under current law, taxpayers may deduct from taxable income all their state and local property tax as well as either their income or sales taxes. High-income households will be the biggest losers from the SALT deduction cap. More than 96 percent of the tax increases would be paid by those in the top 20 percent of the income distribution (those making $150,000 or more in 2018), and more than half would hit those in the top one percent, who make more than $730,000.

However, only about 40 percent of those in the top 20 percent would pay higher taxes under the SALT limit. That’s because many—especially those making $200,000-$500,000—have already lost the benefit of the SALT deduction because they’ve been hit by the current law’s Alternative Minimum Tax.

[David Dennison 19439]

3 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

from CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/pf/salt-deductions-new-tax-plan/index.html

Who claims the SALT?

 

Almost 90% of the SALT benefit goes to taxpayers with income higher than $100,000, according to the Tax Foundation.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/trumps-plan-to-eliminate-the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-explained

According to the Tax Foundation, people with incomes over $100,000 receive more than 88% of SALT deduction benefits.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/12/21/what-the-tax-bills-curbs-on-the-salt-deduction-would-mean-for-itemizers/#5c26143a4918

The TCJA will limit the SALT deduction to $10,000 and the limit is not indexed for inflation. Under current law, taxpayers may deduct from taxable income all their state and local property tax as well as either their income or sales taxes. High-income households will be the biggest losers from the SALT deduction cap. More than 96 percent of the tax increases would be paid by those in the top 20 percent of the income distribution (those making $150,000 or more in 2018), and more than half would hit those in the top one percent, who make more than $730,000.

However, only about 40 percent of those in the top 20 percent would pay higher taxes under the SALT limit. That’s because many—especially those making $200,000-$500,000—have already lost the benefit of the SALT deduction because they’ve been hit by the current law’s Alternative Minimum Tax.

That's not what you said. You said "80% of the country is unaffected by this change.  Only the top 20% of income earners will be subject to the cap."

I'd like you to show your work. 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/05/09/salt-deduction-cap-appears-to-be-shifting-job-creation-to-low-tax-states/amp/

Forbes:

SALT Deduction Cap Appears To Be Shifting Job Creation To Low Tax States

[David Dennison 19439]

And those low tax states will continue to be a burden on American taxpayers.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not what you said. You said "80% of the country is unaffected by this change.  Only the top 20% of income earners will be subject to the cap."

I'd like you to show your work. 

The TPC estimated that the top 20 percent of income-earners get 84 percent of the benefit from the SALT deduction, but they get 67 percent of the benefit from the property tax deduction alone.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/facts-salt-deduction/

So, unsurprisingly, the share of people claiming the SALT deduction rises with income, with fewer than 20 percent of households making under $50,000, but more than 90 percent of households making $200,000 or more, claiming it.

In 2016, the Tax Policy Center’s Frank Sammartino and Kim S. Rueben analyzed the effects of curbing or eliminating the deduction. They found that only a small minority of households making under $100,000, and especially under $75,000, would be affected, and even those affected would face a fairly mild tax increase on average (only $562 for people with a tax hike making between $50,000 to $75,000).

However, nearly 88 percent of households earning $1 million or more would get a tax hike, with those affected paying $46,550 more per year on average.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/30/16557554/the-state-and-local-tax-deduction-explained

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And those low tax states will continue to be a burden on American taxpayers.

Not with Democratic socialism.  We will redistribute corporations and jobs not dependent on local physical resources.  (white collar).  This will allow them to contribute more while lowering the tax burden on those other states.  They will also see property values and taxes decrease as well as more affordable housing. 

Get on it HUGO!

[David Dennison 19439]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The TPC estimated that the top 20 percent of income-earners get 84 percent of the benefit from the SALT deduction, but they get 67 percent of the benefit from the property tax deduction alone.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/facts-salt-deduction/

But you said "80% of the country is unaffected." 

That's simply not true.

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But you said "80% of the country is unaffected." 

That's simply not true.

and you claimed this affects the middle class, which is simply not ture

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But you said "80% of the country is unaffected." 

That's simply not true.

Well, less than 30% of the population was using the SALT tax deduction BEFORE the standard deduction was DOUBLED.  The statement is true.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-tax-law-salt-deductions-some-states-take-action/

While the plan might not lead to the postcard-sized tax filings Republicans once touted, it will encourage more taxpayers to opt for the standard deduction. According to the Tax Policy Center’s latest analysis, the number of U.S. taxpayers likely to itemize would fall from 46.5 million — roughly one third of the total — to 19.3 million in 2018, the first year the bill would be in effect.

you can do the math

http://time.com/money/5072112/gop-tax-bill-standard-deduction/

Edited July 30, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[27-25 2082]

You can debate how much the SALT changes will affect which slices of the population for an eternity and probably never come to a consensus.  But the claim that the middle of the country is subsidizing the "elite" coasts is complete horse shit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

[zork 629]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If they call it a charitable deduction what is to stop people from deciding not to pay to that particular charity on any given year, like all years?  What is to stop the IRS from not allowing that as a charitable deduction when it could be easily proven that X person chose to deduct Y SALT taxes in years previous at the same locations?  Maybe the state could say that going forward any new purchases will have their SALT be considered charitable but then the rules for charity are typically not mandatory.

The avoidance game doesn't seem like it will work but what are the tax and legal opinions? @Brew @TwiceHorn etc

Edited July 30, 2018 by zork

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

No, we should raise taxes on the actual rich, but we shouldn't raise taxes on the middle class in the process, which is what the tax cuts did.

please show your work how the SALT tax cap raises taxes on the middle class of America

[David Dennison 19439]

5 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

please show your work how the SALT tax cap raises taxes on the middle class of America

Well, they can't deduct all of their state and local taxes anymore. If those are more than the standard deduction, your taxes are probably going up.

[Brew 3049]

5 hours ago, zork said:

If they call it a charitable deduction what is to stop people from deciding not to pay to that particular charity on any given year, like all years?  What is to stop the IRS from not allowing that as a charitable deduction when it could be easily proven that X person chose to deduct Y SALT taxes in years previous at the same locations?  Maybe the state could say that going forward any new purchases will have their SALT be considered charitable but then the rules for charity are typically not mandatory.

The avoidance game doesn't seem like it will work but what are the tax and legal opinions? @Brew @TwiceHorn etc

I don’t see it ever holding up. The states are posturing to try and get new tax legislation passed. There are a number of “clarification” bills out there and they want SALT changes added to the list. 

[ChickenSandwich 9918]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Well, they can't deduct all of their state and local taxes anymore. If those are more than the standard deduction, your taxes are probably going up.

So that is a “no”. I can’t show my work. 

The doubling of the standard deduction will cover 80% of the population. 

[Brew 3049]

People losing the SALT deduction aren’t necessarily seeing an increase in taxes. That is part of the reason for the drop in rates, to offset the drop in deductions.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Brew

[Anastasis 23699]

2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So that is a “no”. I can’t show my work. 

The doubling of the standard deduction will cover 80% of the population. 

Increasing the child tax credit, and raising the cap reduces tax burden on a good number of middle class folks as well. 

[zork 629]

Another blippity blip perhaps?

Quote

Cost of labor rose at a 2.8% yearly rate as firms boost benefits

Quote

The numbers: American workers are finally reaping the benefits of the lowest unemployment rate and best jobs market in decades: Wages and benefits are rising at the fastest pace in a decade.

The employment cost index rose 0.6% in the second quarter, a tick below the MarketWatch estimate of 0.7%.

More eye-popping, the cost of worker compensation in the form of pay and benefits edged up to 2.8% to mark the biggest yearly gain since mid-2008.

...

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/worker-pay-and-benefits-climbing-at-fastest-pace-in-10-years-eci-finds-2018-07-31

There was also discussion on indexing capital gains to inflation.(not done yet of course)

[Chrispy 132]

These are good times, if you enjoy making money of course. 

[David Dennison 19439]

10 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

These are good times, if you enjoy making money of course. 

Yep. Started in March of 2009. The Obama economy is chugging along.

[Chrispy 132]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yep. Started in March of 2009. The Obama economy is chugging along.

If that’s how you choose to rationalize it, I’m not one to interfere. I just hope everyone is taking advantage, it would be a shame to squander this great opportunity.