Taxes: Crash Course Economics #31 

same here

+DaemonLion good chance that's true for me as well. I know more specifics of my own countries taxes because of doing the paperwork but less about the overal structure now. at least I don't believe the notion some have that I pay taxes to appease my government. I know why I pay so like any customer I want a decent service back for it.

+lucidity If you were a customer, you'd be able to take your money elsewhere for that service. You're a victim.

Dorian Scott only if my government starts abusing it to kill random brown people in the middle east. you hope they do decent shit whit it like universal healthcare and education.

These are basic concepts in every tax code.

findmestudios not death. longevity escape velocity

True

@@Pro-kesh no such thing

did you learn that taxation is theft?

bboymonk3y you had an economy class in high school? I had to go to community college for that!

Tell me about it. I don't know about you, but for me it was a half-semester class literally immediately before graduation - classic 'Oh yeah, before you go, you might need this...' approach.

bboymonk3y php?

Somalia

+SangoProductions213 decades of propaganda from the far right, you Yanks really don't like taxes for some reason, it's almost as if you don't want your government to function

+Field Marshal Fry we have a bad history with taxes

+Field Marshal Fry I think that you mean "SOME of you Yanks". I'm a big fan of public goods and services. I was born in a public hospital. As a kid, I lived in public housing. I was educated in public schools. My first real job was in the Army. After the Army, I went to a public university. After university, I was married by a judge in a courthouse. When I was in an automobile accident, public firemen came to my rescue. My surgery was conducted by a team of publicly-educated doctors at a public medical university. How do I currently support myself? A position at a public university.

+Field Marshal Fry We don't! :) We "Yanks" want government as small as possible while still offering bare necessities such as protection, and the small as possible tax to go along with that. Because government is not capable of much efficiently. It lacks the market signals to adjust "quantity produced," and politicians love to bathe in free tax money. It is like paying more for less compared to private firms offering the same service.

Power Max Centralisation is actually extremely efficient when the demand is effectively infinite, such as education, healthcare, trash pickup, water, food (at least on the production end, rather than refinement. potatoes compared to mashed potatoes), and so on. If every person had to individually hire someone someone to come pick up their trash, rather than one service serving everyone...well, there'd be a lot of wasted time, money and gasoline. ..In fact the same can be said for literally every product / service. However, a centralised system does...well...limit competition. So, you really only want this in a system that doesn't benefit as much from competition. Which was why monopolies were heavily regulated. They are just far too powerful. Thus, in an unregulated economy, they shove out any competition, reaping the benefits of both a "free market" and cutting costs by not having to do anything but squash competition. And in an environment where your goal is to fill your pockets, rather than serve the people...well, just look up Laissez Faire Capitalism. Yes, while politicians certainly tend to be of the less...ethical / altruistic nature, the system itself is built for the people. While a company is explicitly made with the intention of getting as much money as possible.

You are very right sir. I'll be sure to check that out, thanks.

Alan tovar ikr 😭

HAHAHAHA idk where you're from buddy not in America they're not LOLOL

+Bob Sagit the gas tax in the US is a direct funding tax for infrastructure, the federal one anyway. atleast 60% of it goes to infrastructure

Hammer Smith ... I never said USED to support infrastructure, I said MEANT to support infrastructure. Nowadays, they have bitten into infrastructure and pretty much everything else to support tax cuts for the rich.

dangerouslytalented gax taxes is meant to force you stop driving and take the bus. Not fund road building. Thats not how its suppose to work.

Taxes are theft.

+markovcd If I provided you a house for you to live in, a convenient and well educated workforce and consumers, it would not be theft for me to take a portion of your income. This is taxation, though in reality it's even more than that...it's society regulating the relative value of it's citizens and attempting to enforce general values on specific outliers to that society that might want to make use of the benefits of the society without contributing to it. To sum up, the real theft would be making use of society's advantages without contributing or at least repaying what you've been given.

+David Schallert wrong. You can't provide things against someone's wishes and extract money from them. That's still theft because it violates his consent. You don't owe for that which you have not consented to contract for. Also the state didn't just come up with these things. It steals first and then gives some back. You're not addressing the original theft.

I hope only people that pay taxes drive on public roads, walk on public sidewalks, use public facilities, use public parks, etc.... /s

+lavixl do you also hope that only people who pay protection money live on mafia turf? Because you seem to be under the delusion that violence is an acceptable way to generate claims of ownership. Said things don't belong to the state any more than turfs belong to the mafia.

Because they had to. The Romans never payed their collectors.

What irks me about this video is their flawed logic "because man has been forced to pay taxes for hundreds of years must mean it's the right thing to do." It awfully sounds like "...because slavery has been around for thousands of years, it must mean slavery is find and dandy." Crash Course? Nah...ASS COURSE!

+Chip Fernandez I don't think they were arguing that it's right simply because it has been around for so long, just giving some historical context. Also, do you really think taxes are analogous to slavery, or are you being hyperbolic?

+Chip Fernandez If we want to discuss why taxes are important, the historical justification is indeed flawed. Taxes are important because we, as a citizenry, are basically paying the government for services that we have all decided we need, and that no private, for profit organization could be relied upon to provide to the extent or with the reliability as a governmental organization, like schools, highways, and an electrical grid.

​@@Enchie Zacchaeous promised to pay back people who he had "wronged". Perhaps they took more then was meet.

*government-created monopoly

+Kyle H The Federal Reserve is a federal as Federal Express.

+Progressing in Fitness It is a privately owned corporation with their own interests in mind.

+LiNcKz What?

+Kyle H federal in federal express is only part of the name they aren't a government entity

and taxes

You think you're late for the comment section? XD

+Q-Hack! ...Corporate bureaucracy.

+ilr People keep using that phrase... I don't think it means what you think it means. Corporate bureaucracy is internal to the individual corporation. However, the Department of Homeland Security is a government bureaucracy that has little to show for our tax dollars spent. If you still think we really need the DHS, then how about the Office of Policy Analysis and Development, or Division of Policy, or the Division of Policy, Planing and Evaluation... or the myriad of other bureaucracies based on studying policies. There are literally thousands of government bureaucracies that, if they went away overnight, would have very little impact on America's quality of life and yet save trillions in taxes.

??? You think Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the Military don't fall under the category of bureaucracies? Heck, Just looking at the Military, we could cut the foreign aid budget and save billions. Our society is really good at throwing money at perceived problems... we are not good at getting a valued return on investment.

ArtPlays Ah yes, the Barbra Boxer's claim of

true that..

Thank youu for thiss

@@buzzfeedteen Your welcome.

+The Pain of Harold thanks based harold.

+The Pain of Harold thanks based harold.

+The Pain of Harold exactly, and even then that was because the Crown was bankrupt and needed money fast, and the 13 Colonies had started the war which cased said bankruptcy

+The Pain of Harold also there were strong anti-slavery movements in Great Britain at the time, with emancipation being pushed by the courts in 1772, and all the Founding Fathers owned salves...

+Field Marshal Fry *most founding fathers* Thomas Paine (federalist Papers) and John Adams didn't own slaves. Also we can put a little blame on the British for setting up the triangle trade... At least Thomas Jefferson thought we could :D

+unknownpawner1994 That's a question of politics and law more than it is economics.

+SphincterOfDoom corruption has a large effect on the economy

+SphincterOfDoom It is a significant part of Development Economics.

+unknownpawner1994 Better yet, a video about the "Federal" Reserve debt-slavery system.

+SphincterOfDoom You don't think at the very least behavioral economics doesn't influence politics, power, influence, and ultimately the entire economic system?

Good one.

Also inevitable.

+TheFireflyGrave yes it was

Taxation is theft

Thank you An Cap. I love you

Yes .

That's absolutely true

Sad but true: Congressmen LOVE picking winners & losers...& receiving campaign support

It has nothing to do with government picking winners and losers, it is all about Congress wanting to encourage some behaviors (like owning a home, or saving for retirement). So these deductions apply everyone, it just happens to be that the rich are able to hire people whose job it to just look through all the deductions and apply all of them. The poor might get the deductions, but they need know about them in order to claim them, and they don't have time to sit through all of them and figure out what applies to them. So when I said "we would have them by the next day", I meant "Congress would start giving deductions again to encourage some behaviors". And deductions are also politically good, who doesn't love it when their congressman votes for giving them a tax break?

+Frank Cooke Commie.

Taxation is theft, not sharing. Sharing precludes threats of violence because it is done voluntarily.

@Adam George No, no no! Land and housing are one of the most successful ways for a person of modest means to rise economically. If property taxes destroy this avenue of wealth creation, you've blocked some from rising above their origins. Also, if property taxes are so high that the first owner can't make it work, what makes you think that an even poorer person will be able to afford it in the future? Property taxes and the price of property are factored together when determining the overall cost of property. Therefore, the price may fall in relation to the elevated property taxes......yet, the entire cost of owning the property goes UP, making it even more unaffordable by the impoverished.

@Adam George Where in the world do you get this idea that land is non-productive? That is blatantly false. The only possible scenario where this might be true is if the land's owner neglected to use his property for ANY purpose. For all practical purposes, this never happens. Otherwise, why would he own the land in the first place? Paying any involuntary tax is theft. Stealing from some to provide to others is wrong. If you believe that taxes are a great idea then, by all means, pay as much as you're able. Forcibly coercing others to fund your values is nothing more than barbaric thuggery. As far as "natural rights" are concerned, this is nothing more than anarcho-socialist propaganda. If an individual works hard to buy the land and invests his capital into improving it, this belongs to him alone. If we were to institute a paradigm developed on your ideas, it would NOT follow that home ownership would increase. What would prevent me from occupying and utilizing a home that you built? I would simply cite my "natural rights," correct? In a completely free totally unregulated market (which the USA does not possess, by the way), one only becomes rich by being of service to others. Others freely pay for goods and services that meet their wants and needs. If the buyers' needs are not satisfied, the transaction doesn't take place. Therefore, earning money through land ownership only works by satisfying the needs of people.

@Adam George First of all, most people in the world FREELY CHOOSE to live in urban areas. Land is at a premium in these areas. Most people don't want to live on their own 6 acre parcel of property separated by miles from their friends and loved ones. Too, most people would want to live in areas that suit their particular tastes, such as near the oceans or mountains or warmer areas or in an area where jobs are plentiful. Many will not want their 6 acre plot in the middle of Wyoming. How would you go about deciding who lives where if there were competition for the same 6 acre parcel in a prime location? The builder/owner of a large apartment building is providing a valuable service in the most desirable urban locations: SHELTER! This is a basic human need. Do you believe that such an enterprising individual would go through all of the effort of purchasing the land, constructing the structure, furnishing it with appliances, and providing it with various amenities if he knew beforehand that he would receive NOTHING for his effort via punitive taxation???? Thus, the more heavily you tax the land, the more the productivity decreases. Second, I don't want government providing ANYTHING for me, especially if it comes at the point of a bayonet. If a service is valuable enough to necessitate a land owner securing its services, the free market could provide this quite easily. Competition among the providers will lower costs and increase efficiency. Do you REALLY believe that the "trillion dollars of military and police hardware and personnel" are truly necessary? Take a gander sometime at the total law enforcement/military spending for the top 10 countries in the world. Where is the threat? You do realize that many defense contracts have more to do with securing votes (and political funding) domestically, right? Furthermore, do you feel that an apartment complex in Kansas City is kept safe by funding a military base in Germany? I do not wish to parasitically subsist off anyone, especially my fellow taxpayers. However, this is what government does: it steals from some to provide to others. If you're looking for parasites, for example, go down to your local post office. The USPS looses billions per year and is subsidized by the taxpayer. Yet, private companies motivated by that nasty "profit" (FedEx, UPS, et al) manage to make profits every year. Customer satisfaction is higher, delivery times are speedier, company employees are much friendlier (according to surveys). But, because of political pressure, the Post Office is kept open. This governmental inefficiency and theft hurts all of us. Your statement that "nobody does it better than government" could more aptly be said that "everyone does it better than government." It is a shame that you compare the hard work of anyone providing a service like shelter to bank robbers. Bank robbers steal. Landlords provide a valuable service. If landlords didn't provide a valuable service, tenants would NOT freely choose to rent the apartments that landlords built.

@Adam George I disagree with nearly everything you wrote. Therefore, it would be nothing more than an exercise in futility to refute each and every one of your points. Hard Left Marxist ideas are based upon envy and resentment. If your family didn't like being tenant farmers then why did they FREELY CHOOSE to engage in such an arrangement? If the kid working at McDonalds is being cheated, he is FREE to quit and move on to greener pastures. While you might wish to be permanently infantilized by an all-powerful ever-expanding government insisting on more and more taxes, I desire both economic liberty and personal freedom. Unfortunately, those on the Hard Left and Hard Right demand that I too must submit. If YOU think taxes give great value for the theft of labor they represent, then YOU pay them. Don't insist on bullying me to pay for YOUR VALUES!

@Adam George After writing my reply to your latest post, I thought I could have been perhaps too dismissive of your arguments. So, rather than debating each other on the merits of your position, there might be a more practical way to for you to demonstrate the superiority of your position. Why not work extraordinarily hard in YOUR STATE to implement your ideas to the fullest extent possible? Increase land taxes to whatever rate you wish. Use government to edge out those unproductive land owners. Then, we'll wait a few years. If indeed your state is successful, I'll admit that I was incorrect. Does this seem fair?

up yours

+Robert Eklund It's also tax season...

AbdelRahman Fawzy I knew. But is that not why it's no coincindence?

+Robert Eklund What of it?

Leopoldo Aranha The "owned by John Green" bit.

+Kai Widman You realize being a Tax specialist takes multi-year training, right?

As awesome as that would be,our tax code is many thousands of pages long.

They would need a new series.

+Kai Widman That's not economics -- that's personal finance. Totally different fields. Economics (noun): The science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.

well i just did it in 12 mins and 28 seconds

T

+ost355 Than don't receive health care and other services that are funded with tax, simple

***** I would be willing to give it up if I was able to become a selfdetermined selfreliant individual without the burden of taxes and conscription. I could then finally live in a kapitalist society without a fear of state violence and captivity.

+ost355 until the local police stop getting money and you can rob a store with no consequences.

Peardude89 And get shot by the storeowner for behaving out of line.

+Mr. Divery Chris Rock is my favourite economist

lol what? You pay taxes as the bill for education k-12, for police, for firefighters, for roads, for military protection, for libraries, for many health services, for being part of a community. "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.'' if you want to live in the wild west and have a lawless "society" but not a community, you can move somewhere else.

Government debt pays for the things you mention. See Modern Money Mechanic, Grace Commission & Debt Clock.

Kewho Min We would all be much better off fiscally if high school graduation was predicated on passing a financial literacy course.

Agreed!

Don't live in their country then.

Don't use any--and I mean--any tax-funded services, then. Good luck driving somewhere.

+JabbaDuhHut "but muh roads." You do know that income taxes wasn't a thing until around 1913 with the founding of the Federal Reserve and before then, we had a strong military, plenty of roads, a fire department, a police force, and people kept all of the money they earned. Must I go on?

Just abolish the IRS!

Who the hell cares if he can write down a quote? Now your going to call me a dumbshit for not knowing the guy that made the quote is a billion are in France?

nope.

ok no longer, "economically liberal" so more libertarian.

+justin bouche Have you even really watched those videos?

+Juan Hernandez ah yes. Good old ad hominem arguments. Care to substantiate your claim or are you just regurgitating what liberal media has told you to think?

+justin bouche sure I will when I no longer want 1. roads 2. police 3. fire departments 4. defense 5. no sort of social safety net 6. public education 7. sewers

+justin bouche well i'm still liberal so your hypothesis is disproved.

Absolutely agree. And it goes much further than taxation. I believe it's more about the ethics. An abuse of power. Which is perhaps what we're seeing today. We forget that the government is not in control. WE THE PEOPLE have ordained and established the powers which the United States of America obtain so that we wouldn't be subject to attacks on our individual sovereignty They don't teach civics anymore. I wonder why...? Liberty and ignorance cannot coincide.

+Jesse Sawyer cus they want your juicy tax dollars and obedience

Also, a person shouldn't have to pay more for an ID just because they make more - that's fucked up. We should all only be charged what it takes to cover the cost of running the system.

UrTwiN I don't mind sin taxes. Now a full-on BAN is what I would find to be outrageous.

+MonkeyPantsFace Wait, a host died? Who?

Just tell your friend that nobody's been able to do communism.

No he is saying that I am the communist.

Then your friend is uneducated idiot. Don't argue with people like that. Lost cause.

Actually your friend is an extreme libertarian. Small government and freedom of the citizens. A much more popular opinion than most think. The real solution is like everything in life, moderation.

Peardude - That's the complete opposite of communism.. lol.. That's anarcho-capitalism. But no income tax is definitely possible, but we would have to get rid of the Fed and go back to the gold standard. The progressive income tax (actual name) was actually ruled unconstitutional in the late 1800's.

More information than education. Education requires teaching.

ya

Sexism had nothing to do with the lack of female hosts! And what does gender matter anyway or proof of anything? Because half the population is female, that means every institution must be 50/50 men & women at all times???

The Alaskan system is very flawed in that revenue fluctuates with the price of oil. And... why give people free money if they don't need it, will that really benefit them in the long term?

Jesus said it to get out of the paradox that the rabbis put him in. If he said pay the taxes then people will think he's not a good guy. If he said don't pay the taxes, then he'll encourage crime. ⛪️⛪️⛪️🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

wow I was expecting insults from atheists. Im surprised there are others that know anything about the bible on here.

how?

@@yuvalsela4482 all the people that want all the spending can contribute the money, so they will be content. All the people that don't want the spending won't, so they will be content.

@@billboyd2009 i think you're missing the point of taxes. no one will donate (that's the name of what you're proposing BTW, its not new) to things they have an interest in not happening.

No you are wrong. We run the rest of our lives on voluntary payments, why not this one? Do you have insurance? Most people do, why? Just in case, same reason we have governent. Trouble is government has got the public servant relationship backwards, they are the masters not us. Tax is the best place to correct this. At the moment they do what they want and we pay for it. Under my scheme only the schemes people are willing to fund the revenue. If people do not contribute then they are demonstrating that they do not want the services thpse taxes are providing. The will of the people made manifest.

+Dino Smith sure, but who the hell will build your roads? make your schools? build hopsitals, firehouses, etc? anarchy doesn't work, which is why we have a democratic capitalism.

+Justin Koenig the market would build the roads, the schools, the hospitals, firehouses, etc. IT DOES THIS NOW. You don't need a state for any of those things. Anarchy has worked. Stateless societies have functioned just fine. You're historically wrong.

+Dino Smith Taxes aren't theft -- they're taxes. Owing tax is just like any other debt, where failing to pay comes with consequences.

+Justin Koenig But who will murder hundreds of millions of people and bomb brown people in the middle east?

+Catfactory Government is a predator, offers you its services at gun point and makes you pay for them.

+Mystogan Edolas ok, I'll buy less or just find a substitute good. rekt.

+Mystogan Edolas How does increasing your personal income tax impact your business? Have you been skimming off the top?

Antenox Missing the point, taxing the rich only leads to the rich passing of their higher taxes on the poor and middle class.

Mystogan Edolas No, it doesn't. Taxing businesses might, but even that is debatable. But taxing individuals doesn't. That's just a myth Republicans like to propagate, but it doesn't actually work that way. There's no direct line from the rich to the poor and middle classes, so the rich can't pass anything off directly to them. There are too many insulating layers between the spending of the rich and the earning of the poor and middle classes for increased taxation on the rich to significantly impact the poor and middle classes.

Mystogan Edolas On the flip side, there is a much more direct line from the spending of the poor and middle classes to the income of the rich. So helping alleviate the financial burdens of the poor and middle classes will actually have a much higher impact on the income of the rich, because they end up spending more, and the companies they buy from end up paying their employees (especially their executives) more. The result? A rising tide that lifts all ships, unlike the nonsensical and non-functional "trickle down theory" that you just tried to peddle.

Please tell us more how the rest of us are 'sheeple' and whatever other nonsense you can think of.

How to prove taxes are good. 1. Turn off your heat, water, and electricity 2. Dig up the road to the point where you can't drive on it anymore 3. Go burn down all the schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, etc in a 50 mile radius 4. Stop paying taxes 5. Ask yourself if your life is better now. In all seriousness, you do realize that taxes in general pay for pretty much everything that you don't own and most things that you do own right?

+Titan icsunk (Titanic) You're assuming that all of the services you listed can only be provided by the government. A government that is unavoidably controlled by the powerful. Keep living your American "Dream"....since it appears you'll never wake up from the Hopium it provides.

+nenafan1 LOL. Looks like you labeled yourself 'sheeple' without me pointing that out. THANKS!

***** Bull. There has not been someone that had 'money taken at gunpoint' for taxes since Al freaking Capone. It's empty, emotional rhetoric, devoid of an actual point.

Ale Fab that’s not how it works. This would only lead to the company making less money and therefore decreasing the quality of the product

2edgy

+Jarrod Woodard I love getting stolen from. Too bad I can't complain as my ''stolen'' money is used usefully.

+Spectro (Spectro) then give me all you money so I can give it all to charity. is that what you want?

*SARCASM*

+meatrace ofc, there must be a ignorant among all these comments,. hey you statist, if you like taxes and so much government you can go to fukin north korea.. -.-' fukin ignorant

Andre Barros I'm the ignorant one? I'm not the one arguing for an extreme. You want ZERO taxes. Well, go somewhere that levies zero taxes. I'm more or less happy with the level of services I get for my tax dollars however.

***** If you are refusing to pay for a service (i.e. defense, education, roads, and so on) then YOU are the one who is stealing, not the government. Your argument is tantamount to "how dare you make me leave your place of business because I refuse to pay for what I have received!"

meatrace What if i told you you could keep more money, have better services and be more free?... don't you want that?...

Andre Barros Sure, but you're talking about an imaginary hypothetical system. Randian libertarianism has never been attempted let alone successful on earth. Also, being free isn't a value to me, as long as government is unintrusive enough for me to be happy. Ultimately joy is what I seek, not freedom, or I would live in the frontier somewhere and die immediately to being raped by a bear because I have the skills necessary to be a high school teacher or economist not a fontiersman. The economic theories on which the radical (anarchist) right bases its ideology are intellectually bankrupt (i.e. Mises) and have no bases OR reflection in reality.

+Silent He left a few episodes ago...

Yes. It is fair. That the rich has extra money is no excuse to steal it from them, no matter how good the intention is to help the poor, which is usually a short term victory with long term negative results. You don't want to subsidize the poor.

+Josh Derak excellent point!

+Josh Derak Bank fees are not taxes. Those fees are one of their revenue streams.

*****​​ Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me. Maybe try reading my comment closer. I said the bank taxes me in the form of fees. I'm not stupid.

It doesn't matter what they call it, that's the point. Licenses, registration, duty, tariff, levy, tolls, dues, fines, court fees, forced insurance, hell even a car seat you have to buy for your kids THEY ARE ALL TAXES!!! Of course they call them something different but they're not, it's language manipulation. If you HAVE TO pay for/buy something it's a tax. Also banks are to take what you keep there, invest it in the market and responsibly lend it out at interest to make money. When you keep your money in a bank it's suppose to be an agreement where you both make money, but where's your interest??? If the Federal reserve can set interest rates at zero [for you] and the banks that fail can get bailed out.. then it's just another government agency and all theses "fees" that they've recently created are (drum roll please) TAXES!!!

.

Like how you've made an assertion about their assertion? 'Proving' them wrong does not make your point correct.

nenafan1 You need to check out Crash Course Philosophy. You apparently need some lessons on how logic works. I don't have to disprove a positive claim. It is up to the person who made the positive claim to demonstrate it to be true. You can't just state whatever claim you want and expect people to disprove it when you have done nothing to show it to be true.

formsMostBeautiful Simple transference and basic reasoning. If you simple said that the video doesn't prove their assertions, that's one thing. And then your point would be entirely solid, based on a 'logic' level. Unfortunately, you said "Crash Course has not shown that there are some services the market won't provide." A simple reading of your intent shows that you think the market would provide all of the sources government does now. That, in fact, is an assertion all on its own.

nenafan1 Thank you for quoting me because it proves you're full of shit. You can't hand wave about "intent" and pretend I made a positive claim when I clearly didn't. Asking for evidence of a positive claim is not an "assertion all on its own." Go watch Crash Course Philosophy. Those videos are really good and possibly their most important work since it teaches basic logic.

formsMostBeautiful You did not say "can you provide evidence?" What you DID say, as quoted above, IMPLIES an assertion. I never said it was explicit, because it isn't. But it is in fact implied. Sorry your phrasing is bad.