Discussion with MN Stix

[MN Stix]

Taxing my labor is an infringement on the most sacred right.

Your labor isn't being taxed. Your income is.

If I mow the lawn for my neighbor (perform labor) and she pays me $42, I'm taxed on $42.

If I mow my own lawn (same labor is performed), I don't pay any income taxes.

Labor isn't taxed. Income is.

“I don't pay any income taxes” Don’t say that too loud, I may turn you in to the IRS for a reward (I'm sure that reward money has been exepted from taxation too)

Demosthenes, according to the quasi government agencies arguments, you would owe a tax on mowing your own lawn as well. Simply put, your lawn mowing can be proven to have a converted value of $42. The evidence of that is by your alleged gain from mowing others property. If they can prove you mowed your lawn 20 times in a given year, their conversion would leave gross income of $840 (plus the $42 you better have shown on your return)

Honestly, in this case, you can’t even show that it was a matter of life or death. You mowed your own lawn which would be considered a luxury…something not needed to be done in order to live. According to many here, you have no right to the fruits of your own labor.

I know the above is a crude representation, it is true. One does not need to look any farther than drug laws as proof. If someone is caught with X amount of cocaine lets say, it is converted to a street value price immediately. This is done whether it was intended for the persons own personal use OR for sale. An amount of money need not be present.

You see, just because the IRS has not attempted to charge tax on mowing your own lawn
(yet), according to your shared theory of government position, they certainly have it within their power.

I know you will attempt to brush this off as silly, seriously think about it. You cannot prove by statute, or rely on your natural rights as defense to prove you did not have a convertible gain. You may come back and say I did not pay myself! Remember, the labor is not being taxed, the “conversion” is. It doesn’t matter who shows the conversion.

Keep in mind that nothing in the declaration, constitution or Bill of Privileges, specifically says that you are exempted from IRS taxing you on mowing your own lawn.

[Famspear]

Demosthenes, according to the quasi government agencies arguments, you would owe a tax on mowing your own lawn as well. Simply put, your lawn mowing can be proven to have a converted value of $42. The evidence of that is by your alleged gain from mowing others property. If they can prove you mowed your lawn 20 times in a given year, their conversion would leave gross income of $840 (plus the $42 you better have shown on your return)

Interesting comments, but that's not the law (i.e., mowing your own lawn does not create income under the federal income tax law). This concept is brought up very early in a basic federal income tax course in law school (at least, it was in my class). The late professor William Andrews, who taught tax law at Harvard Law School, talked about it. It's a subset of what is called "imputed income," and it's not taxable under the current federal income tax system. See, e.g., William D. Andrews, Basic Federal Income Taxation, p.80 et seq.; Little, Brown and Company (3d ed. 1985).

[Imalawman]

Demosthenes, according to the quasi government agencies arguments, you would owe a tax on mowing your own lawn as well. Simply put, your lawn mowing can be proven to have a converted value of $42. The evidence of that is by your alleged gain from mowing others property. If they can prove you mowed your lawn 20 times in a given year, their conversion would leave gross income of $840 (plus the $42 you better have shown on your return)

Interesting comments, but that's not the law (i.e., mowing your own lawn does not create income under the federal income tax law). This concept is brought up very early in a basic federal income tax course in law school (at least, it was in my class). The late professor William Andrews, who taught tax law at Harvard Law School, talked about it. It's a subset of what is called "imputed income," and it's not taxable under the current federal income tax system. See, e.g., William D. Andrews, Basic Federal Income Taxation, p.80 et seq.; Little, Brown and Company (3d ed. 1985).

That is interesting I was just discussing this here at my LLM program in a Tax Theory class. (actually sounds boring, but it was fascinating) But again, Stix, in that situation the inputed income is what is being taxed - not that act of mowing the lawn. An example of the tax you're thinking of could be something like a poll tax - i.e. a tax upon the activity itself. What the income tax is trying to reach is the amount realized from an activity or transaction.

Do you see the difference? The income tax is placed upon income. There are a few examples of imputed or "phantom" income that is taxed in the IRC. (Subpart F, distributions, etc.) But for purposes of the average taxpayer sec 61 guides the discussion and its quite clear that the IRC taxes the income from compensation for services less allowed deductions.

Again, find a case that has ever said that private sector income isn't subject to the income tax. It should give you great pause that no court has ever ruled in your favor or that there is a section in the IRC that supports your contention.

[LPC]

Look for a federal court case where (1) someone fought with the government in court over whether that person owed federal income tax, (2) that person actually argued in that court case that taxing his labor, or the income from his labor, or using any other such similar words you want to use, was an "infringement" on that person's most sacred right, and (3) the person actually argued that the tax in question was therefore legally invalid or otherwise unconstitutional, and (4) the court ruled that this person's argument was correct.

Let me state the problem more broadly.

Hendrickson and MN Stix keep wanting to quote from court cases which talk about an excise being a tax on a privilege. But the government WON all those cases, because in each and every case the court found that there was some "privilege" to tax.

What MN Stix needs to find is a case in which the court struck down the tax as unconstitutional or invalid because there was no "privilege" to tax.

Arguing from the cases the government WON to claim that there MUST be cases that the government will LOSE is false logic. When a court says that "an excise on a privilege is valid" you can NOT infer that "an excise without any privilege is not valid," because there might be another reason that the excise would be valid even without any "privilege."

The statement that "a poodle is a dog" does not in any way imply that things that are not poodles are not dogs. Similar the statement "an excise on a privilege is valid" does not in any way imply that excises on things other than privileges are not valid.

[LPC]

That said my friends, is where “privileged activity” enters the “income tax”. Taxing everyone on their labor would otherwise result in a direct tax.

A conclusion for which you have presented no authority whatsoever. There is no Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States declaring that a tax on labor is a "direct tax."

And forgive me for repeating myself, but you've still got the problem of that pesky 16th Amendment, which states that tax on incomes do NOT need to be apportioned.

Another issue is that “privilege” has just been pulled out of thin air, or an ill conclusion drawn from a SCOTUS case. That is not the case, as you should be well aware of. It is well represented in the following cases:

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.”

In what way is the "consumption of commodities" such as wheat and other foodstuffs a "privilege"?

And you have previously dismissed as irrelevant the decisions in Pollock and Brushaber, both of which discussed the taxation of incomes from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" and incomes from "occupations and labor." The decision in Flint v. Stone Tracy concerned a tax on incomes derived from corporate franchises. How is that more relevant?

As you can plainly see, the fruit of my labor is clearly an unalienable right. The Bill of Rights do not spell out unalienable rights. The Bill of Rights should be view as privileges granted by congress, not the creator. Don’t hate on the messenger, take it up with the founders or SCOTUS. We find this spelled out below, in plain English language.

Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)

“It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property’.”

And…

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)

”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”

Now find a case in which the court held that a "right" could not be taxed.

The idea that there may be rights or privileges that are exempt from taxation has been rejected from the very beginnings of the United States. In rejecting such a claim in 1830, Chief Justice Marshall wrote:

“The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514, 563 (1830).

In upholding the power of New York to tax a bequest to the United States, the Supreme Court observed in 1896 that:

“[T]he laws of all civilized states recognize in every citizen the absolute right to his own earnings, and to the enjoyment of his own property, and the increase thereof, during his life, except so far as the state may require him to contribute his share for public expenses....”

United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 627 (1896).

So even rights that the Supreme Court refers to as “absolute“ may be subject to tax.

The idea that the “right to work” is somehow exempt from tax was expressly refuted by the Supreme Court in 1937, upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security tax paid by employers on wages:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.”

Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

On the same day that the Steward Machine case was decided, the same justices confirmed the same principle in upholding the constitutionality of an Alabama unemployment tax:

“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case, such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation....”

Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508 (1937).

Attempting to establish that “rights” cannot be taxed, tax protesters will sometimes cite:

“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”

Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, 113 (1943).

But the Supreme Court in the very next sentence declared that “Thus, it [the state] may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (citation omitted), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.” Which means that, regardless of whether a state can tax the “right to work,” the state can still tax the income from the exercise of that right. Accord, Allison McCoy v. United States, 88 AFTR2d ¶2001-5607, 2001 TNT 236-16, No. 3:00-CV-2786-M (U.S.D.C. N.D.Tex. 11/16/2001).

And the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that nondiscriminatory taxes can apply to newspapers and other publications protected by the First Amendment. (“It is beyond dispute that the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations [including taxes] without creating constitutional problems.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983). See also, Arkansas Writers’ Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 228 (1987) (“a genuinely nondiscriminatory tax on the receipts of newspapers would be constitutionally permissible”); Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936) (“It is not intended by anything we have said to suggest that the owners of newspapers are immune from any of the ordinary forms of taxation for support of the government.”). Similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld an obligation to withhold Social Security taxes from the wages of employees even when the withholding violates the religious beliefs of the employer. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982).

So the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the imposition of taxes on incomes even when the incomes are derived from the exercise of constitutional rights.

[Imalawman]

Game, set, and match.

Nice job Dan, of course I would have written the same thing but you beat me to it.

[MN Stix]

"But again, Stix, in that situation the inputed income is what is being taxed - not that act of mowing the lawn. An example of the tax you're thinking of could be something like a poll tax - i.e. a tax upon the activity itself. What the income tax is trying to reach is the amount realized from an activity or transaction."

I have drawn a conclusion after much thought on everything presented here thus far. I have written out those conclustions and will present it soon. From now until then, I want to expand for a moment on the above.

I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that it is not the act but the conversion. The example I gave would not be something like a poll tax, it would be a poll tax as the law now stands. The example was intended to show the conversion that is possible by changing the law.

The income tax is trying to reach income derived from specific activities and specific transactions. Unfortunately, the IRS has their own expansion on the intended activity and intended transaction. That is reaching where the constitution prohibits and congress could never have intended.

A simple fact is, if congress intended to tax the piss out of a worker that has no say in the sale of the result, which is the intent of taxation. If the worker were the intended victim, there would be deductions to be taken on gross receipts PERIOD. The IRS has plundered America plain and simple. How anyone can attempt to justify an illegal IRS conversion of labor to profit is just disheartening.

I will provide my conclusion when it is fully complete. It will go on to better describe what amounts as nothing more than an illegal IRS conversion of labor to profit. The IRS has exacted a poll tax or capitation tax (lets not debate and leave it broad) directly on labor. As I said, my conclusion will detail this point. I have not decided if I want to include everything I wrote just yet. As you seem as though you are actually lending your ear, as well as appear to have good faith efforts in helping.

[wserra]

Unfortunately, the IRS has their own expansion on the intended activity and intended transaction. That is reaching where the constitution prohibits and congress could never have intended.

I am reasonably sure that I will not agree with your analysis, either as to constitutionality or as to Congressional intent. Still, I await your posting of it to comment other than as to one thing.

All employees have been taxed on wages for some time. If this is not what Congress intended, then Congress has had decades to correct the IRS in its interpretation of the law. The fact that it has not done so is strong (if not conclusive) evidence that the IRS is in fact effecting the legislative purpose. The courts have had the same decades to declare the IRS' activities unconstitutional, but have repeatedly found the application of the federal tax laws in compliance with the Constitution.

[Nikki]

This is going to be interesting to see how MN navigates and weasel words himself from here

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

to here

I have drawn a conclusion after much thought on everything presented here thus far. I have written out those conclustions and will present it soon. From now until then, I want to expand for a moment on the above.

I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that it is not the act but the conversion. The example I gave would not be something like a poll tax, it would be a poll tax as the law now stands. The example was intended to show the conversion that is possible by changing the law.

The income tax is trying to reach income derived from specific activities and specific transactions. Unfortunately, the IRS has their own expansion on the intended activity and intended transaction. That is reaching where the constitution prohibits and congress could never have intended.

A simple fact is, if congress intended to tax the piss out of a worker that has no say in the sale of the result, which is the intent of taxation. If the worker were the intended victim, there would be deductions to be taken on gross receipts PERIOD. The IRS has plundered America plain and simple. How anyone can attempt to justify an illegal IRS conversion of labor to profit is just disheartening.

I will provide my conclusion when it is fully complete. It will go on to better describe what amounts as nothing more than an illegal IRS conversion of labor to profit. The IRS has exacted a poll tax or capitation tax (lets not debate and leave it broad) directly on labor. As I said, my conclusion will detail this point. I have not decided if I want to include everything I wrote just yet. As you seem as though you are actually lending your ear, as well as appear to have good faith efforts in helping.

We've already seen Pete and his cronies do their best to misinterpret includes / including. Now we get to see how MN misinterprets whatever to make it mean specific

Remember MN, an Amendment is a CHANGE -- even though it doesn't modify or replace any of the original language, it still CHANGES the overall meaning of the document.

[Demosthenes]

All employees have been taxed on wages for some time.

Yep. Worker's wages have been taxed off and on since 1862 - that's almost 150 years...

If this is not what Congress intended, then Congress has had decades to correct the IRS in its interpretation of the law.

Of course it's what Congress intended.

-- Every year since 1862, Congress has budgeted an enormous amount of money ($10.6 billion in 2008) to fund the IRS so that they can collect such taxes

-- Periodically, Congress calls the IRS Commissioner in to chew his/her butt out about not collecting more income taxes (aka "close the tax gap")

-- Congress held hearings in recent years in which the IRS was ordered to start squishing tax protesters like bugs

-- Congress is so annoyed at tax protesters claiming stupid stuff like "wages aren't income" that they raised the frivolous filing penalty from $500 to $5,000

-- Each year, Congress spends god-awful amounts of money on stupid stuff based on projections of the money that the IRS collects, primarily from taxes on wages

For example, here are the figures Congress relied on for 2007:

Corporate Taxes $395,535,825,000 (14.7%)
Personal Income Taxes $1,366,241,437,000 (50.8%)
Employment Taxes $849,732,729,000 (31.6%)
Estate Taxes $24,557,815,000 (0.9%)
Gift Taxes $2,420,138,000 (0.09%)
Excise Taxes $53,049,612,000 (1.9%)
Total taxes collected by the IRS $2,691,537,557,000

Hmmmm. The IRS thinks that taxes on wages are Constititional. The Congress thinks that taxes on wages are Constitutional. The Judges think that taxes on wages are Constitutional. That's all three branches of the government...

[LPC]

The income tax is trying to reach income derived from specific activities and specific transactions.

Not according to the Internal Revenue Code and the Supreme Court.

Section 61(a) states that "gross income" (which is the starting point for the determination of "taxable income") means "all income from whatever source derived," specifically including "compensation for services."

Speaking of the forerunner of section 61, the Supreme Court has stated that,

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." [Citations omitted] Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-431 (1955).

So the burden is on you to demonstrate that compensation for labor is not within the taxing power of Congress, or that Congress has specifically exempted compensation for labor from taxation.

That is reaching where the constitution prohibits and congress could never have intended.

You have yet to point to anything in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from taxing compensation for labor. The Constitution says that Congress cannot tax exports, and the Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot impose taxes on state governments. There is no Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States that even suggests that Congress cannot tax compensation for labor.

And the suggestion that Congress did not intend to tax the average worker is ridiculous. Political rhetoric on both sides of the aisle is full of references to "average working Americans" and "hard-working Americans" and similar phrases. Nothing about the "hard-working recipient of a federal privilege."

A simple fact is, if congress intended to tax the piss out of a worker that has no say in the sale of the result, which is the intent of taxation.

You're missing a verb or something, because that's not a complete sentence.

And it's not coherent. What "sale of the result"?

The intent of taxation is to raise money for government to spend. The art of taxation lies in so plucking the geese to obtain the maximum number of feathers with the minimum amount of hissing.

If the worker were the intended victim, there would be deductions to be taken on gross receipts PERIOD.

Why? That's a real question, because I have no idea why you think that.

[MN Stix]

This is going to be interesting to see how MN navigates and weasel words himself from here

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

to here

I have drawn a conclusion after much thought on everything presented here thus far. I have written out those conclustions and will present it soon. From now until then, I want to expand for a moment on the above.

Nikki, I do not need to weasle my way out of anything The examples that have been put forth thus far, one can draw any conclusion as it pertains to "wages". No detail of wages are present in either two example given, "wages" do not exist. Therefore, I can only base conclusion on irrelevant information, see?

According to you, the 16th amendment has no limitation of power. A conclusion to be drawn from that was already provided by me. As "income from any source derived", would not be limited to money needing to be present, simply a "source" having a converted value of money. The law does not allow for it atm, so no debate is needed. That does not change the fact that a simple change in the law would allow for it. If the law changed, what would your argument be? That you didn't actually recieve money? Money is not the item taxed, its income, gross income minus deductions. Or as it is presented here, taxable money is all gross money recieved minus deductions. LOL!

Why do you feel I would need to "weasle" my way out of anything? Perhaps it is due to the fact that irrelevant information has been provided for me to attempt a conclusion? Keeping in mind both examples provided, income is obviously present. No, I believe there is no need to weasle my way out of answering a question that does not exist. If you wish to pose a question pertaining to the 16th amendment, do so. In the case of "income tax", there are obvious limitations to the source. I know you understand that, if not, seek help immediately.

[Imalawman]

According to you, the 16th amendment has no limitation of power. A conclusion to be drawn from that was already provided by me. As "income from any source derived", would not be limited to money needing to be present, simply a "source" having a converted value of money. The law does not allow for it atm, so no debate is needed. That does not change the fact that a simple change in the law would allow for it. If the law changed, what would your argument be? That you didn't actually recieve money? Money is not the item taxed, its income, gross income minus deductions. Or as it is presented here, taxable money is all gross money recieved minus deductions. LOL!

Why do you feel I would need to "weasle" my way out of anything? Perhaps it is due to the fact that irrelevant information has been provided for me to attempt a conclusion? Keeping in mind both examples provided, income is obviously present. No, I believe there is no need to weasle my way out of answering a question that does not exist. If you wish to pose a question pertaining to the 16th amendment, do so. In the case of "income tax", there are obvious limitations to the source. I know you understand that, if not, seek help immediately.

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from here. Money is not the deciding factor in whether you owe taxes or not. Typically, income taxes are levied when services are converted into money. But there are numerous examples of situations within the IRC that tax accessions to wealth as its commonly referred to. Such examples include: Subpart F income, certain distributions from an entity, types of dividends, Services for property, etc etc.

The IRS could tax in many situations, but don't in order to limit the amount of tax levied on "phantom income". That is, taxing people and corporations on items of property that cannot be used to pay the tax. For instance, stock dividends can increase the value that a person has above their tax basis. Early on, the questions was, "is such a dividend the appropriate time tax"? The concern is taxing something which requires liquidation of an asset in order to pay the tax - but the question was not, "can this be taxed". So, the 16th amendment really does not have any real limitation within, the reason we limit taxation to the items we do is through legislative grace - or the hissing goose! Eventually, the 16th will be limited by due process concerns, but nothing within the amendment itself really limits congress in what it can tax and when.

[Nikki]

MN:

You said

The income tax is trying to reach income derived from specific activities and specific transactions. Unfortunately, the IRS has their own expansion on the intended activity and intended transaction. That is reaching where the constitution prohibits and congress could never have intended.

How do you come to the conclusion that the tax is confined to "specific activities and specific transactions" when the 16th Amendment clearly states "... incomes, from whatever source derived ..."?

[Agent Observer]

Demo said:

Lighten up MN Stix.

Tax and legal professionals come to Quatloos for the amusement factor. No one here gets paid a penny to answer your questions.

Interesting thread, but a few of us are here for amusement and perhaps a few other reasons.

[Demosthenes]

Interesting thread, but a few of us are here for amusement and perhaps a few other reasons.

Shhhhh.

Be vewy vewy qwiet.

[Nikki]

Actually, quite a few of the posters here are primarily concerned with (1) helping people avoid getting caught up in scams and (2) helping take the scam operators off the streets -- for a long time.

[LPC]

According to you, the 16th amendment has no limitation of power.

According to you, the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

But if the 16th Amendment means what it says, then it should be limited to what it says.

A conclusion to be drawn from that was already provided by me.

What is "that"? Limitation of power? What Nikki thinks? The 16th Amendment?

And what conclusion? Where?

Could you please be a little more vague?

As "income from any source derived", would not be limited to money needing to be present, simply a "source" having a converted value of money.

Sounds right.

The law does not allow for it atm, so no debate is needed.

The law does not allow for automated teller machines?

No debate is needed because the Internal Revenue Code specifically provides for recognition of income upon the receipt of services or property other than money. For example, see section 83.

Why do you feel I would need to "weasle" my way out of anything?

Sure, why bother to "weasel" when you can be vague, incoherent, and obliviously wrong.

[webhick]

The law does not allow for it atm, so no debate is needed.

The law does not allow for automated teller machines?

ATM = At the Moment.

[ASITStands]

Actually, quite a few of the posters here are primarily concerned with (1) helping people avoid getting caught up in scams and (2) helping take the scam operators off the streets -- for a long time.

Hear! Hear! That's my motives.

And, yes, 'Demo,' some of us are just simply reading, watching, paying attention and hoping it's a good outcome for 'MN Stix' and others. Right now, 'Imalawman' and 'LPC' are doing fine.

Not to leave the others out! Your comments have been good too. Cheers.