If I ran the world...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

My off-the-cuff tax proposals in another thread got me to thinking.

In the ancient Roman world when the going got tough they would appoint a dictator (so called because his word was the law). Once things were straightened out or the crisis had passed the dictator was expected to step down and resume normal citizenship. Strange as it seems now, in this era of permanant dictators, this scheme actually worked pretty well for Rome for about 600 years (until the time of Pompey the Great and the first triumvirate).

Taxes touch all of us so we all have a certain rough expertise on the subject - at least on how the recieving end feels. This forum has featured a lot of discussion about the tax laws - mostly in the form of Kofe posting his tax protest stuff or just general griping or sniping.

For a change, instead of us telling one another why everyone else is wrong or misguided, I invite you to put on your dictator cap and go out on a limb. Tell us how you would change the tax laws. The 'catch' is you have to act civic-minded and change the law to achieve the greatest amount of public good, not just line your own pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Points are awarded for:

1) providing as many concrete details and specifics as possible.

2) explaining your overall policy goals. Taxes affect society, so be prepared to explain what effects you are seeking.

3) admitting what the trade offs are: what kind of bad side effects you are willing to tolerate in order to get other desired effects.

4) avoiding comment on the proposals of others until after you put a proposal of your own on the table.

I expect the usual trolling on this thread, but maybe, just maybe, some substance will emerge. Possibly it will be too intellectually challenging and folks will skip it in favor of lighter fare.

We'll see.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 04, 2001

Answers

Simply put -

A 10% tax across the board (that means everyone and every business, churches too!).

No cuts, no exceptions. Everybody pays 10% of income. Small price to pay for freedom I think.

Would be very simple except for them 5000 IRS folks I just put out on the street.....;-)

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 04, 2001.


1. Create a "flat" income tax with a cap of 12%.

2. Create a national sales tax of 5%.

3. Require all federal funds to state or local jurisdictions be in the form of "no strings" block grants.

4. Eliminate all federal programs where state or local programs exist.

5. Eliminate all government intervention into private markets including agricultural subsidies except for enforcement of anti-trust laws.

6. Treat all corporate profits and capital gains as income for tax purposes.

7. Eliminate tax exempt status for all private, nonprofit corporations.

8. Establish means-testing for social security and increase the full- benefit age to 75. Convert social security to a subsistence program for the elderly poor. Eliminate SSI.

9. Prohibit any tariffs or restrictions to free trade.

10. Legalize drugs for adults and grant amnesty to all prisoners held on minor drug offenses.

11. Completely restructure the military, limit officer corps to 7% of field strength and use civilians in all non-fighting support roles.

12. Require every funded program to have a sunset provision.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 04, 2001.


I am not against taxes. I am not an anarchist. Government has its legitemate functions and these must be funded.

But the tax code has become a very bad joke. It provides "work" for an enormous IRS bureaucracy and much business for parasitic CPAs, tax preparers, tax lawyers and estate planners. Not to mention the person-hours required by citizens bold enough to do their own taxes.

It provides endless opportunities for demagogic politicians to devise tax breaks intended to reward one block of voters or another. It provides endless opportunities for idealogues to devise taxes intended to influence public behavior. I say do everything possible to simplify taxation consistent with fairness and revenue needs.

Aye, there's the rub. What is "fair"? Everyone has a different answer, even those who are trying to answer honestly. Off the top of my head, my answer would be a flat tax above a certain minimum income, a national sales tax, no cap gains tax, no estate tax. Property taxes? User taxes? I dunno.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 04, 2001.


6. Treat all corporate profits and capital gains as income for tax purposes.

Yes, yes, YES!!

7. Eliminate tax exempt status for all private, nonprofit corporations.

I'd allow churches to keep their tax exampt status if they opened their premises for child care, battered women or the homeless.

-- just (a@thought.com), June 04, 2001.


On the whole, your ideas are consistant, likely to raise sufficient revenue and have a certain attractive simplicity. I have some comments you may wish to address.

1. Create a "flat" income tax with a cap of 12%.

I notice you declined to exempt any income from this flat tax. The not-so-attractive trade off of this choice is obvious - the government would be taking its cut out of the necessities of life for many working poor people. A full 12% of the food, the heat, the shelter they need to live would belong to the government, while they went 12% hungrier, colder and wetter.

But the allusion to a "cap" makes me think you intended to allow some measure of progressivity to this tax that you failed to elucidate.

2. Create a national sales tax of 5%.

I could live with a sales tax. But again the repercussions of this include the government taking its nick out of the food or medicine money of the poor, unless some exemptions are allowed. I don't see buying groceries or medicine as a wholly voluntary purchase.

3. Require all federal funds to state or local jurisdictions be in the form of "no strings" block grants.

I understand the impulse. However, would it not be wiser and simpler to have local juridictions tax themselves and simply stop sending the money to DC just so DC can send it back?

4. Eliminate all federal programs where state or local programs exist.

I am not sure this would work as you intend it to. The consequence of this money-saving ploy may well be that state and local governments would pre-empt the feds by shutting down their own programs first. The result would be to strengthen the central government at the expense of the states and counties. As a practical matter, the actual implimentation of many federal programs is delegated to the state or county level, just because that level of government is closer to the recipients.

5. Eliminate all government intervention into private markets including agricultural subsidies except for enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Among other things, you would be surprised at how things would change if California farmers had to pay the correct price for their water. But... I might be willing to give this one a try. I hope you do not consider labor's right to bargain collectively to be 'government intervention into a private market'.

6. Treat all corporate profits and capital gains as income for tax purposes.

Bringing them under the "flat" tax capped at 12%, I supose. If the idea of a flat tax is worthwhile, this would be a reasonable extension.

7. Eliminate tax exempt status for all private, nonprofit corporations.

The trade off here is, obviously, the reduction of activites by these groups, because they will lose 12% of their financing. The benefit would be greater simplicity and probably greater innovation in the non-profit sector. I could see trying this.

8. Establish means-testing for social security and increase the full- benefit age to 75. Convert social security to a subsistence program for the elderly poor. Eliminate SSI.

I could be persuaded here fairly easily on the changes to SS, mainly if these changes were coupled with repeal of the SS tax, with SS financed out of general revenues.

SSI is a program for the disabled. Eliminating it would halt funding for people who are unable to care for themselves, including crippled children and adults. If SSI didn't provide these funds, they would have to come from somewhere else. What's the expected benefit of dumping SSI?

9. Prohibit any tariffs or restrictions to free trade.

In a world filled with tariffs and restrictions on free trade, this would amount to unilateral disarmament. It would lay us open to predatory trade practises, such as the dumping of Japanese DRAM in the US during the 1980s to build market share and drive out US competition.

10. Legalize drugs for adults and grant amnesty to all prisoners held on minor drug offenses.

I agree. This would, of course, allow us to tax the incomes made from drugs, too.

11. Completely restructure the military, limit officer corps to 7% of field strength and use civilians in all non-fighting support roles.

I do like this idea in general, but if you use civilians for support there could be unexpected repercussions. There are hundreds of things you can order a soldier to do that you can't force on civilians - like relocating nearer to the front lines.

12. Require every funded program to have a sunset provision.

I see nothing bad about this.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 04, 2001.



Bloody hell! Forgot to close a tag.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 04, 2001.

I agree emphatically with every one of Ken's suggestions. But with respect for Nipper's request, I'd like to add some of the tradeoffs we recognize we'd be making if we adopted all these.

1) Some few of the rich would become much richer and some few of the poor would drop below subsistence level and die. The single largest price for expanding the pie is that this can't be done without permitting a much broader range of incomes. We need to remember that our goal is quality of life for the greatest number, not equality of life for everyone. Remember that we might CALL it a "safety net", but it's really a disincentive system.

2) A very large number of bureaucrats would need to find gainful employment (joke, OK?).

3) We would need to add a new rule prohibiting the relaxation of our rules for certain groups of people on the grounds of "fairness" or "compassion." These are simply euphemisms to justify the purchasing of votes with other peoples' money. Our goal here is to produce *results*, and NOT "equality" of results.

4) We need to recognize that the US cannot compete with most of the rest of the world on unskilled labor. Our strength lies in knowledge, services, invention, engineering, science, software, research. Therefore, we also need to recognize that those who do not train their minds, or who drop out of school and can't compete, must not be supported. It doesn't matter whose fault some lawyer might claim it is. Root hog or die!

Also, some administrative details here. There should be a minimum income at which the flat tax kicks in, and no tax at all below that minimum. There should be no special payroll taxes or imaginary "social security fund". All federal retirement benefits (small and limited) should be paid for directly from general revenues. All other entitlement programs should be phased out over a 2-year period. Completely. We might permit tax deductions on income above that minimum for charitable contributions (since charities are now paying taxes themselves).

When drugs are legalized for adults, anyone convicted of selling, importing, or distributing those drugs should be released with their record cleaned of that conviction. Such activities retroactively become perfectly legal.

For the next 100 years, no new federal program can be started unless and until at least *double* the funding for that program is eliminted from existing programs. To make this trackable, the federal government must change its accounting practices to be more like a business.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2001.


My veiws on the tax issue have been seen as protesting because my adversaries choose to attack me instead of the real issue.

The tax code is fine, just the way it is; it's just being misinterpreted, and misapplied.

It's written in favor of the U.S. Citizen, who SHOULD be enjoying rights and priviledges spelled out in the Constitution.

But, as pointed out above, these rights are obscured by ignorant lawyers(ahem), CPAs, and the like.

"We must note here, as a matter of judicial knowledge, that most lawyers have only a scant knowledge of tax laws." Bursten v. U.S.

"It is also a known fact that the IRS code is a very easily misunderstood area of law, even misunderstood by trained professionals, judges and lawyers admittedly -(well some, anyway) do not know the tax laws." Shirley Peterson, former Commissioner of the IRS

My advice would be to understand what you have before throwing it away, and starting over. An "air of expectancy" and threat of incarceration can make new bullshit seem just as lawful as the old bullshit.

Now, just for kicks; go to the U.S. Tax Code, and put any variation of " U.S. Citizen income tax liabiity" in a search engine, and see what comes up. Answer: 0

But don't stop there; cross reference it several ways, and keep looking; and come back when you find it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), June 05, 2001.


The "poor" in America are hardly "poor" by world standards. Our welfare mothers living in poverty manage to secure automobiles, televisions, telephones, stereos, etc. The 12% cut may mean the suffering and degradation of basic cable with no premium channels. No matter what the tax structure, there will always be churches and other humanitarian organizations who raise funds and support the needy. Let the private sector handle charity. It does a better job than government anyway.

Since I imagine the federal government will still cause mischief, let's abolish unfunded mandates. The great advantage of state and local initiatives is that I can move if I don't like the local government, and remain a U.S. citizen. I imagine places like Vermont or California would be great socialist experiments.

A basic principle of economics is the price signal. The closer we get to a "real" price, the more efficiently the market works. Subsidies distort markets and create no end of problems. I have no objection against workers organizing, though I have a low opinion of most unions.

SSI is a program full of malingerers. Allow states or local governments to determine how to care for the truly disabled. Allow the private sector in. You forget, Nipper, that private charity existed long before the modern human services programs. The benefit of de-federalizing human services is increased efficiency and greater responsiveness to local concerns.

Your position on free trade is just bad economics. "Dumping" is just a fire sale for consumers (and a bad business strategy). Once a firm starts to increase prices, the incentive to enter the marketplace increases. And remember, the Japanese have to compete against the other Tigers, the Europeans, etc. The whole dumping argument is propaganda by weak American companies looking for free money.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


We're trying to have a decent discussion here, Kofe, not go tripping through fantasy land. If you had anything close to a spine, you'd take your little tax protestor act into a courtroom instead of blowing wind here. Win a case, and people might treat you as something other than a crackpot. Until then, I'm filing you in the same drawer as alien abductees.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


"The "poor" in America are hardly "poor" by world standards."

Yes. Of course. You are right.

By "world standards" the poor die in great numbers as children, mainly from preventable causes such as lack of access to clean water or basic medical care. Malnutrition is also a common element in poverty "by world standards". So is a life expectancy of less than 50 years. Compared to that, the USA poor have it quite easy.

However, I do not find these "world standards" to be attractive standards for the USA. For us to meet those standards would be a catastrophe and a profound disgrace.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


Premium cable must have extraordinary healing powers.

I remember your rhetoric from the days of welfare reform. Cut benefits, the liberals said, and we'll have people starving to death. By all measures, welfare reform has been a success. Amazingly enough, most people will work, particularly if they lose the safety hammock of welfare, public housing, etc.

Cutting entitlements will not set back medical science or make pure water dirty. It simply forces the motivationally challenged to work. You'll have to do better, Nipper, than threaten a decline into the third world. Because we are a wealthy nation does not mean we should tolerate deadbeats.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


"You'll have to do better, Nipper, than threaten a decline into the third world."

Ahem! You were the one who introduced the comparison of poverty in the USA with poverty elsewhere in the world.

You seemed to imply that this was somehow a bad thing. I just pointed out that it is a good thing that our poor are comparatively well off and that if the USA ever did fall to world standards of poverty it would be a bad thing.

Also, please read what I said once again. I did and I fail to discern anything remotely like a "threat." Please reset your rhetoric to a cooler temperature.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


You were the one expressing concern about the welfare of the poor. My response is pretty simple. American poor do pretty damn well. They did well before welfare reform and they're pretty well now. A study in Anne Arundel County, Maryland considered all of the subsidies given to a single mother. Between public housing, food stamps, welfare, medical coupons, the woman would need an income of about $25,000 to live equally as well. I have been in the homes of welfare recipients. I've seen the expensive manicures, the stereos, the TVs, the video games, the junk food, etc. I've seen the scams where women work for cash under the table while collecting a welfare check, where the able-bodied invented every possible excuse to avoid meaningful labor. I've seen businesses burned by hiring welfare mothers who blew off work every time their child had a runny nose or their boyfriend hit town. Spend a few years working directly with welfare recipients, Nipper, and then drop me a note.

Oh, if the rhetoric is too hot, stay out of the kitchen.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.


"Oh, if the rhetoric is too hot, stay out of the kitchen."

There was never a question that you would use whatever rhetoric you want. I was hoping you'd notice that the rhetoric you were using was needlessly abrasive and rude. If that is how you want me to view you, knock yourself out. You must be a heck of a lot of fun at parties.

But, if you persist in being rude, I will probably take your advice and leave the kitchen. Then you can be King of the Kitchen. You would probably like that a lot.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.



Ah, a person takes half my money and then complains I lack the appropriate gratitude. Where are my manners? Sorry, Nipper, but I have little patience for parlor pinks or library liberals. I almost always find your high-minded ideals coming from people who have never actually worked with the poor. It is much easier to exude compassion when you've never seen poverty up close and personal. If this conversation is too rough and tumble for you, Nipper, I apologize. Perhaps you ought to find a gentler venue for your political theories. Oh, and no points for you. You commented on my proposals without providing your own.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 05, 2001.

Geez Old forum Decker....Talk about fantasyland...just who do you think is paying attention to this daydream you're having?

BTW, did you find that statute yet? You know, the one that tells you to keep personal financial records and file a report each year?

Come on Decker, if it exist, it'll jump out at you when you look for it. Share it with the rest of us.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), June 05, 2001.


Interesting. Lots of good points and suggestions, and the best Nipper can do with it all is behave like an insulted little girl.

Nipper, you are being at least as rude as anyone else on this thread, and perhaps just a little moreso. One might be tempted to conclude that this is your way of conceding defeat on the merits, and trying to reduce the thread to name-calling. You make some good points as a grown-up.

Now, back to the circumstances in which the "poor" find themselves in this country. There probably isn't any single explanation for our national success. The free market has been critical, but so has our legal heritage, not to mention our abundant natural resources and sheer physical size. Toss in our inclination to define and protect certain freedoms, and our efforts to extend education and physical infrastructure as pervasively as possible.

How does our tax structure fit into all this? Most of the groundwork was laid during a period when taxes of all descriptions were less than 10% of GDP in total. Eventually, IMO, we reached the point where as a nation we realized we were "rich" and could afford a "war on poverty", whereby we have attempted (as I wrote earlier) to give every man a fish every day. Simply because we had amassed the resources to do so.

In a nutshell, "equality" is a false god, except in terms of legal protections. But the philosophical underpinnings are probably too deep to be susceptible to argument. As an illustration and mental exercise, consider a classroom of (say) 30 random children. Some will be very bright, some will be quite slow, and the majority will be somewhere in the big hump of that bell curve.

Now, what educational approach will make everyone "best off"? Should we teach for the median student, boring the bright ones and mystifying the slow ones? Should the entire curriculum be dumbed down to the slowest common denominator? Or should we concentrate on making the brightest all they can be, allowing everyone else to kind of drift into whatever they can handle?

A flat tax structure is like the first approach, while a progressive structure is like the second. A national sales tax would be somewhat regressive, like the third approach. And as far as I'm concerned, the "progressive" approach is the absolute worst approach that could be devised, an ill wind that truly blows nobody good. Progressive taxation is like handing a wino another bottle because that's what he wants most. This is "compassion" at its most short sighted.

And as Ken notices, it makes the marginal utility of breaking free of nominal poverty beyond the reach of those being "helped". ANY handouts reduce the marginal utility of working -- when $5/hour is the most you are qualified to earn, and that with hard work, why do so if you are effectively being paid $15/hour to do *nothing*? Hey, it's not worth working even if you're being paid $4/hour to do nothing, since you'd effectively be working for $1 an hour. Nodoby is that dumb. Our intentions are golden, but we have been making the entry costs of entering the economy prohibitive. This is now changing, and cannot help but improve the conditions of the poor.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 2001.


Flint, your classroom analogy is not very convincing to me, as I cannot see how any of the three approaches to the students is like a progressive tax or a sales tax. All three approaches treat all the students alike, as dumb, middle or bright. In that way they all resemble a flat tax.

A good teacher will tell you that the better approach would be to tailor your teaching to the individual students to farthest extent possible. Since you can't exert maximum attention to 30 students as individuals, you have to generalize your tactics. You might break up the class into six reading groups of five students each and group the slowest and brightest into two of the six groups. You might teach the lesson, assign the work, and then circulate among the students to give individual attention and answer questions.

If anything, this approach would be more like a progressive tax. Not everyone is treated as putatively the same under a progressive tax, but instead taxpayers are grouped by ability to pay.

As for the remark about progressive tax being like handing a wino a bottle of wine, that reminds me of the joke:

A: How is an elephant not like a cantelope?

B: I don't know. How is an elephant not like a cantelope?

A: I'm never gonna send you to the store for a cantelope.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


Nipper:

Yeah, you're right. Lousy analogy. I was kinda thinking of Robert Townshend's progressive reward structure for his salesmen (Townshend was CEO of Avis at the time he wrote the book Up The Organization).

He suggested (and implemented!) a system where his salesmen got increasing commission rates with increasing sales. But he cautioned against what he'd seen of companies putting caps on commissions because the very best salesmen were making millions. His comment was "That's what you *want*, dummy! Don't put limits on it."

From where I sit, we are doing the same thing in our classrooms that we are doing with our tax structures -- placing the maximum burden on our most promising individuals, while we expend the most resources on our least promising. This strikes me as exactly opposite to what we want, dummy! (in Townshend's words).

Another lousy analogy: In the words of John Muir, "Nature is heedless of the few and heedful of the many." That is, nature wastes individuals that the species might adapt, evolve and thrive. Our systems are exactly the opposite -- we are heedful of the few and heedless of the many. We pour our expensive compassion on our losers, taxing our winners to do so. And we focus on human interest stories, how Jane Doe's children are no longer malnourished, and feel our policies are a success. But the social and economic opportunity costs we pay for these isolated successes are staggering.

So I like the proposals I've seen presented on this thread. These tend to be supportive of the whole society as an organism, though they can be heedless of the few. It might violate your religion, but other than that it works just fine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 2001.


Flint, with your quote about being heedless of the individual so the species may adapt and survive it sounds like you are reviving Social Darwinism.

The effective answer to Social Darwinism is that humans are a social animal. Our success is not individual, but rather it is always embedded in a social context. Within that context, compassion is a valuable asset to the group. It is a kind of social insurance.

We all start out as weak infants. Most of us grow old and frail. Any day any one of us may become a "loser", a weakling who has trouble making his own way, through no fault of our own. You could fall into that loser category very quickly. So could I. A mental illness. An auto accident. A head injury. We all walk along that unseen line every day.

It is no accident that the Depression started us on the road to a welfare state, because it proved beyond all doubt that no one was immune from calamity. Whole families and communities could fail, in spite of all the moral fiber they could bring to bear.

It all well and good to set up a system that rewards thrift, vigor, moral uplift and hard work. I agree with that general goal. But I don't agree with the attitude that all goods should flow to the strong as the reward for their strength, while the weak - well it's a shame if they can't fend for themselves and they fall to wolves by the side of the road. Nature's way. Strengthens the herd, you know.

If we follow your thinking to its logical conclusion, we get to involuntary euthanasia in a blink.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 05, 2001.


Nipper:

While your point is well taken, you should also follow your philosophy to its logical conclusion -- that rather than strengthen the herd, we should starve it all *equally*, showing no favoritism. I think either pure strategy is made mostly of straw.

This is why I suggested a minimum income before any flat taxation cuts in at all, and also suggested making charitable contributions tax deductable. I think you can see that my goal isn't simply to kill off the unfortunate. Rather, I'm trying to avoid an incentive system that inspires creative people to fabricate remunerated misfortunes. Welfare is necessary for the few who need it, so it's not an easy task to avoid a system that makes the reward worth the misfortune.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 2001.


You have defined our difference in a nutshell. Flint and I see the world in terms of individual responsibility. You see success or failure in collective terms.

We all start out as children. The collectivist mindset would have us remain children with the State as our parent. My philosophy demands adult responsibilities from those who are given adult rights. Unless I cripple or maim another person, I am not responsible for their fraility. I think those who harm others should be held accountible.

Many injuries, however, are self inflicted. If a person chooses to smoke and ends up in an oxygen tent, is it my responsibility to pay for their medical care? If a person is driving drunk and suffers a head injury, is it my fault?

There will always be people who truly need assistance. This is the proper role of family or private charity. One can purchase insurance against short and long term disabilities. The responsible person can prepare themselves for most eventualities.

You have good intentions, Nipper, that create terrible outcomes. The "safety net" is often a hammock for the unmotivated. Social security is a disincentive for people to take responsibility for their own retirement and/or potential disabilities. It is like the old economics joke. If you want people to drive more safely, install a spear on the steering wheel, point toward the driver. Safety belts only encourage more dangerous driving. (I will provide a citation, if you wish.)

I do not question your motivations, Nipper. You obviously care about the less fortunate. So do I. Where we differ is in who bears responsibility for the actions of individuals.

-- Remember (the@ld.forum.com), June 06, 2001.


"It is no accident that the Depression started us on the road to a welfare state, because it proved beyond all doubt that no one was immune from calamity. Whole families and communities could fail, in spite of all the moral fiber they could bring to bear...

...But I don't agree with the attitude that all goods should flow to the strong as the reward for their strength, while the weak - well it's a shame if they can't fend for themselves and they fall to wolves by the side of the road. Nature's way. Strengthens the herd, you know."

You've made two conflicting points here, I think. During the depression, few "fell to the wolves", despite the extremity of the calamity. Churches and other private organizations did amazing work to see that as many people as possible were fed and sheltered. Admittedly, government intervention helped set the economy back on its feet, but the fundamental "safety net" that got individuals and families through the worst times was not government-supplied.

I think there are vanishingly few folks in this country who would stand by while the weak fell to the wolves - if they were aware it was happening.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), June 06, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ