How much do you want?

[thegreekdog]

The government spending more money and providing everything is not the answer. It only makes things worse.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't agree with this. The government has gone WAAAAAAY too far with making it rain on the banking industry, but that doesn't mean that any potential government spending is unacceptable.

I think we can all agree that the federal government spends too much. We disagree on where cuts should be made, but that's something for which a compromise can be reached (amongst ourselves).

Unfortunately, even when Congress makes "cuts" they are extremely minor because, in real life (not Tea Party theoretical world) all politicians want to take care of their constituents, donors, and potential employers. No one in Congress and no one running for Congress is going to be prepared to make the across-the-board cuts necessary to keep spending low.

Yeah. In the end none of us are going to get what we want, and the status quo is going to remain the same. I guess I'm just arguing for the sport of it.

Oh, I'm arguing for the sport of it as well. I leave the convincing to people who are smarter than me.

[thegreekdog]

(1) On the 100% tax rate - There can be exemptions input into the law to avoid the situations you're raising. Your other "ultra rich" arguments tend to focus on what they do when they are living. I'm not suggesting punishing the ultra rich. I'm suggesting punishing their children (who had the benefit of living an ultra rich lifestyle up until the death of their parents). There could also be an exemption for charitable giving.

(2) It's not very easy to create a bogus paper business. Not only have economic substance and business purpose been around for legal purposes for many years, I believe they are now included in the Internal Revenue Code. Since I'm talking about a tax, those concepts would apply. So, you could create your "comic book collection" business and it would all be above board; when you die and try to pass that business on to your children, the IRS comes in, says this is not a real business, and your comics go to the government.

(3) Yes, it would drive a whole economy for exemptions. I think that's a good thing.

(4) Should that number be $10 million? Why $10 million (unless it's just arbitrary)?

(5) It probably does depend on the type of business. I'll have to think about that some more when my proposal goes before Congress.

The purpose of my 100% estate tax idea is that if we have this, we can do away with other taxes. The income generated from someone dying is something that I think is less honorable than the income generated by someone working or someone investing and receiving dividends. In other words, if we assume we need some type of government and that government needs to spend money and collect revenue in order to pay for those things, we need some sort of tax. I would rather the government tax estates than tax my income.

1) The arguments I am making are not based on the original "ultra rich" but on their children. First generation "ultra-rich" tend to be work-acholics. It's their children that are often able to do greta things with their free time.

2) I am sure you know the tax code better than I... but beating it is easy. How often is the IRS going to actually look at thee psuedo-businesses?

3) Possibly

4) Yes... arbitrary. Though the point is... I want the number to be high enough that a person (child/survivor) COULD live off that money for the rest of his/her life. Not in luxury... but not in squalor either. $500K is not enough to retire on... $10Million is.... but not enought to live like Paris Hilton.

5) Do that.

6) So kinda like... "don't tax me... but when I'm dead I don't care who the f**k you tax, even if it's my own kids"?

(1) I'm going to need to see more evidence of rich kids using their free time constructively.
(2) That's fine, but in the context of creating tax laws, the idea "how often is the IRS going to actually look at these [things]" is not something that gets considered.
(4) I don't disagree with that.
(5) Okay.
(6) Yes.

[patches70]

Answer this- In 2010 there was $8853.4 billion in the broad money supply. But there was only $915.7 billion in physical money (currency and coin). A touch over 10% of actual money compared to the amount of money circulating. So, where did that other nearly $8 trillion dollars come from?
It wasn't printed. It doesn't exist in so far as you can hold it in your hands. How did it come about to exist in the broad money supply if banks are only lending a percentage of the deposits of actual money they receive?

That is different than Fractional Reserve Banking... a different phenomina.

This is not related to the original point I refuted... which is Bedub's comment about a Bank holding 100% of deposits.

Fine, fine, then just answer the question, where did that other 8 trillion dollars come from that's was running around in the money supply in 2010?

Can you answer that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fra ... z23icQA7Te

That is NOT how the word is defined by Wiki or other sites... perhaps you should go edit the Wiki entry?

From the wiki link you posted-

As most bank deposits are treated as money in their own right, fractional reserve banking increases the money supply, and banks are said to create money.

From the other link you posted-
A banking system in which only a fraction of bank deposits are backed by actual cash-on-hand and are available for withdrawal. This is done to expand the economy by freeing up capital that can be loaned out to other parties. Most countries operate under this type of system.

Also known as "fractional deposit lending".


Didn't you assert that fractional reserve banking and fractional reserve lending were two different things?

Money is created out of thin air. How? We'll use your example.

Guy deposits $1million. Bank loans out $900,000.

Are we clear so far?

Ok, original guy comes next day and withdraws his $1million dollars. He gets his money. Guess what? The $900,000 the bank loaned out also exists. (bank must get a loan from another bank or the central bank by the end of the day to satisfy reserve requirements. That money the bank borrows is created out of thin air as well. It is simply credited to the banks accounts.)


Are you seeing now? The bank created that $900,000 right out of thin air. The people who borrowed it are out spending it. The guy with the original $1million is out spending his money. So where we started with $1million, we now have $1.9 million in circulation, don't we? Where did the other $900,000 come from since the money supposedly came from the original $1million is no longer even in the bank?

If a bank has $1million dollars of cash on hand in their vaults and in deposits, they'll have far far more than that loaned out. Up to $10million, since banks are required to keep a minimum of 10% reserve. The money they loan out is always created as credit to other banks. Created by the stroke of a key on a keyboard.

It's called the money multiplier. All banks multiply the money they take in from deposits. Fractional Reserve Banking. How much they are allowed to multiply is based on how much they have on deposit and laws regarding reserves.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

[patches70]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

Of course, because there isn't enough actual currency to pay out all that money, is there? But if it's all done electronically, it's just digitally created, credited to whatever account the withdrawer is moving it to. If everyone in the world wanted the actual cash that they supposedly had in banks, a whole lot of people would be SOL.

Because the banks create so much money that never existed.


The commercial banks create money out of thin air.
So do the Central banks, but they both do it differently.

The commercial banks just credit accounts. The Central banks exchange the money they create with bonds issued by the government. The government issues a $30 million dollar bond, the central bank has $30 million printed or credited. Of course, the terms of the bond say that the government has to repay that $30 million plus interest. The thing is, the central bank never printed or credited the money needed to pay the interest.

The government, to pay the interest, pays it by taxing it from the citizens of money created by yet another loan done the same way.

If the government ever paid off the national debt there would be no money left at all in circulation. And the interest would still be owed but there would be nothing that existed to pay it off.

Perpetual debt. It's also known as a debt based monetary system. The US has not always had a debt based monetary system. A downside of the debt based monetary system is that to pay off the debt is to destroy the currency. In this system, no matter what, governments and people must always stay in debt. And to pay off the interest means getting into further debt.

You call it accounting, but you have to remember, that money is out there moving, buying things. Real things, tangible things that people labored to produce. This is a much different aspect than simple accounting. It is the creation of money and it's the system we have and have always known.

What's funny is how few even have the most basic understanding of how it actually works. Hence "it's just accounting" comment. If everyone truly understood they'd be up in arms saying "No Fucking Way!"

The Greenback was a debt free currency. It was simply printed by the Treasury. No interest was owed to a central bank to pay it back. There haven't been any Greenbacks in circulation since the early 90's.

The Federal Reserve Note is a note of debt. It's hard for people to wrap their heads around that the cash they carry represents debt, but that's what it is and is contrary to the original purpose of money.
The creation of money is held by private institutions whose goal is to make profit. How can one serve two masters in such a way? Such a thing was never intended by the Founders.

We should have a sound money. At least have a currency backed by something, anything. To set an objective standard as to the worth of the currency instead of a private organization that determines it's worth at whatever it wishes on any given day.

[thegreekdog]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

Of course, because there isn't enough actual currency to pay out all that money, is there? But if it's all done electronically, it's just digitally created, credited to whatever account the withdrawer is moving it to. If everyone in the world wanted the actual cash that they supposedly had in banks, a whole lot of people would be SOL.

Yes, indeed - SOL is the acronym that immediately applies.

I wonder what would happen if something similar happened with the federal government. Like if tomorrow all the lenders called in their amounts due or something? Is that even possible?

[BigBallinStalin]

(1) On the 100% tax rate - There can be exemptions input into the law to avoid the situations you're raising. Your other "ultra rich" arguments tend to focus on what they do when they are living. I'm not suggesting punishing the ultra rich. I'm suggesting punishing their children (who had the benefit of living an ultra rich lifestyle up until the death of their parents). There could also be an exemption for charitable giving.

(2) It's not very easy to create a bogus paper business. Not only have economic substance and business purpose been around for legal purposes for many years, I believe they are now included in the Internal Revenue Code. Since I'm talking about a tax, those concepts would apply. So, you could create your "comic book collection" business and it would all be above board; when you die and try to pass that business on to your children, the IRS comes in, says this is not a real business, and your comics go to the government.

(3) Yes, it would drive a whole economy for exemptions. I think that's a good thing.

(4) Should that number be $10 million? Why $10 million (unless it's just arbitrary)?

(5) It probably does depend on the type of business. I'll have to think about that some more when my proposal goes before Congress.

The purpose of my 100% estate tax idea is that if we have this, we can do away with other taxes. The income generated from someone dying is something that I think is less honorable than the income generated by someone working or someone investing and receiving dividends. In other words, if we assume we need some type of government and that government needs to spend money and collect revenue in order to pay for those things, we need some sort of tax. I would rather the government tax estates than tax my income.

Before people die, couldn't they revoke their citizenship?

You'd have to set the tax rate for leaving the country, or revoking one's citizenship, equivalent to your tax policy on estates.

So, would what kind of problems would this create for people trying to leave the country?

[patches70]

Yes, indeed - SOL is the acronym that immediately applies.

I wonder what would happen if something similar happened with the federal government. Like if tomorrow all the lenders called in their amounts due or something? Is that even possible?

Oh yeah. In today's world, as governments borrow more money, too much money, the people buying those bonds demand greater amounts of interest. It gets more expensive for governments to borrow. Greece is a prime example, they are getting raped.


Throughout American history there have been plenty of times when the government and the banks didn't see eye to eye. During Jackson's administration a nice example. Jackson killed the central bank, there was no central bank in the US for over 80 years after Jackson.

The banks, in response, caused recessions, called money panics back in those days. To do that the banks just tightened the money supply. The refused to issue new loans and called in loans outstanding. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes not so much as it tends to piss people off really bad.

The business cycle is all bank doing. Jefferson warned, through inflation then deflation the banks would own the nation that our ancestors conquered if we weren't careful about letting private banks control the money supply and more importantly, the value of money.

America has been a constant struggle between who has that control, which has changed hands between private banks and the people at least 8 times through our history.
Lincoln had interesting exchanges with the money lenders, and in response it was Lincoln who came up with the Greenback and a debt free currency.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

[Woodruff]

The purpose of my 100% estate tax idea is that if we have this, we can do away with other taxes. The income generated from someone dying is something that I think is less honorable than the income generated by someone working or someone investing and receiving dividends. In other words, if we assume we need some type of government and that government needs to spend money and collect revenue in order to pay for those things, we need some sort of tax. I would rather the government tax estates than tax my income.

My only real complaint to this is..."the CIA just found a new gig".

[Woodruff]

1) The arguments I am making are not based on the original "ultra rich" but on their children. First generation "ultra-rich" tend to be work-acholics. It's their children that are often able to do great things with their free time.

For example, Paris Hilton.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, I think it's called accounting. I'm not historian, but if all the guys that had deposited their $1 million in the bank came and got it, wouldn't there be a problem?

Of course, because there isn't enough actual currency to pay out all that money, is there? But if it's all done electronically, it's just digitally created, credited to whatever account the withdrawer is moving it to. If everyone in the world wanted the actual cash that they supposedly had in banks, a whole lot of people would be SOL.

Yes, indeed - SOL is the acronym that immediately applies.

I wonder what would happen if something similar happened with the federal government. Like if tomorrow all the lenders called in their amounts due or something? Is that even possible?

Oh. Two things could happen:

the government borrows money by selling t-bills, takes that money received, then pays it to the previous lenders. This is the Art of Deficit Spending, in a nutshell. Basically, it lends credit into existence.

People agree to the time when the bond is paid, so it's unlikely that a huge amount would be owed at one time--unless of course the government goofed big time during the years of 2007-2010 by borrowing trillions of dollars, which will eventually have to be repaid (unless they default, which isn't good for citizens either), and is currently "paid" through inflation and depressed interest rates.

I'm sorry, kinda went on a tangent there, but hopefully I answered your questions.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

[Night Strike]

So the government should be the decider of what amount of money people "reasonably deserve".

Somebody has to. A culture of greed has taken hold in this country, and people no longer feel that a modest salary is acceptable. The upper crust are taking more and more of the pie while middle and lower class wages are barely keeping pace with inflation. The government's the closest thing we have to a referee in all this.

That's not how the free market works. Nor freedom itself for that matter. Plus, that's more of a problem with inflation then the rich. Stop having this mandatory inflation (plus all the extra inflation on top of it) and you wouldn't have the problem you're complaining about.

If we actually had universal health care I wouldn't be quite as disgusted with our government as I am.

You would rather have a system that is unaffordable and mediocre for all than a system that is great for most?

Probably because back then it was plausible that you could buy a family home off of the salary of one person. Not to mention that the metric shitload of good manufacturing jobs that have been sent overseas. Things aren't so easy any more. How many people have to work two or three jobs and still need food stamps to get by?

There are approximately 800,000 trucking jobs and 500,000 manufacturing jobs (may have gotten those numbers reversed; heard it a couple weeks ago) currently available in this country. It's just that people don't want those jobs because they aren't seen as glamorous, they never learned the proper skills, or they're taking too much pot to pass a drug test.

[BigBallinStalin]

There are approximately 800,000 trucking jobs and 500,000 manufacturing jobs (may have gotten those numbers reversed; heard it a couple weeks ago) currently available in this country. It's just that people don't want those jobs because they aren't seen as glamorous, they never learned the proper skills, or they're taking too much pot to pass a drug test.

Maybe the price (wage) offered is too low? Or fails to offset the perceived costs?

Maybe it's a result of the unintended consequences of regulation (licensing, unions, state-mandated terms & conditions)?

There's plenty of other explanations too.

[thegreekdog]

(1) On the 100% tax rate - There can be exemptions input into the law to avoid the situations you're raising. Your other "ultra rich" arguments tend to focus on what they do when they are living. I'm not suggesting punishing the ultra rich. I'm suggesting punishing their children (who had the benefit of living an ultra rich lifestyle up until the death of their parents). There could also be an exemption for charitable giving.

(2) It's not very easy to create a bogus paper business. Not only have economic substance and business purpose been around for legal purposes for many years, I believe they are now included in the Internal Revenue Code. Since I'm talking about a tax, those concepts would apply. So, you could create your "comic book collection" business and it would all be above board; when you die and try to pass that business on to your children, the IRS comes in, says this is not a real business, and your comics go to the government.

(3) Yes, it would drive a whole economy for exemptions. I think that's a good thing.

(4) Should that number be $10 million? Why $10 million (unless it's just arbitrary)?

(5) It probably does depend on the type of business. I'll have to think about that some more when my proposal goes before Congress.

The purpose of my 100% estate tax idea is that if we have this, we can do away with other taxes. The income generated from someone dying is something that I think is less honorable than the income generated by someone working or someone investing and receiving dividends. In other words, if we assume we need some type of government and that government needs to spend money and collect revenue in order to pay for those things, we need some sort of tax. I would rather the government tax estates than tax my income.

Before people die, couldn't they revoke their citizenship?

You'd have to set the tax rate for leaving the country, or revoking one's citizenship, equivalent to your tax policy on estates.

So, would what kind of problems would this create for people trying to leave the country?

Yes, they could revoke citizenship. They could do so now with the existing estate taxes. I'm not sure how that works exactly, but I suspect it's difficult to repatriate funds after death.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

That would work too (although I'd want the tax on 100%).

I like 100% inheritance taxes, as I indicated above, because there is no work going on by the person receiving the inheritance. Even the guy with a cup on the street has to do more work than a rich kid whose dad dies.

I was actually expecting BBS to say "When the income is received by the spoiled rich kid, he will squander it and it will go to someone else eventually." As far as I'm concerned that's the only thing I need to think about some more.

[thegreekdog]

unless of course the government goofed big time during the years of 2007-2010 by borrowing trillions of dollars, which will eventually have to be repaid (unless they default, which isn't good for citizens either), and is currently "paid" through inflation and depressed interest rates.

Ha. Whatever dude... like that could happen.

[Woodruff]

If we actually had universal health care I wouldn't be quite as disgusted with our government as I am.

You would rather have a system that is unaffordable and mediocre for all than a system that is great for most?

[BigBallinStalin]

If we actually had universal health care I wouldn't be quite as disgusted with our government as I am.

You would rather have a system that is unaffordable and mediocre for all than a system that is great for most?

Everybody, give Woodruff a round of applause for using his first gif expression.




"good show, chap. good show."

[Frigidus]

I'm not really sure just what would be appropriate, but again, there should most definitely be a wealth ceiling.

Why? Why should the government dictate the maximum amount a person can ever earn or have? We don't all work for the government (yet), so it has no right to dictate how much money we earn.

Would you see a problem with one person possessing all of the money that has been printed? Surely you can see that there is a certain amount that one person can have before the lack of others becomes a glaring issue? There has to be a theoretical limit of wealth at some point.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not really sure just what would be appropriate, but again, there should most definitely be a wealth ceiling.

Why? Why should the government dictate the maximum amount a person can ever earn or have? We don't all work for the government (yet), so it has no right to dictate how much money we earn.

Would you see a problem with one person possessing all of the money that has been printed? Surely you can see that there is a certain amount that one person can have before the lack of others becomes a glaring issue? There has to be a theoretical limit of wealth at some point.

Is that currency any good if only one person possesses it? Seems like everyone else would go to a bartering system which could be seen as a better situation given that it wouldn't be easily manipulated by the government.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

[patrickaa317]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

Correction.

Raising a flat tax wouldn't benefit the wealthy, it just wouldn't hurt them as much.

If you have a guy with a dollar and one with a 100 dollars; and plan on taking 10% but then decide to take 20%, the guy who had a $100 doesn't "benefit" off of this he is just able to handle the increase a little better.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

Correction.

Raising a flat tax wouldn't benefit the wealthy, it just wouldn't hurt them as much.

If you have a guy with a dollar and one with a 100 dollars; and plan on taking 10% but then decide to take 20%, the guy who had a $100 doesn't "benefit" off of this he is just able to handle the increase a little better.

It does benefit the wealthy because they are paying a larger share of taxes currently. With a flat tax you reduce the share paid by the wealthy and increase the share paid by the poor.

So instead of having the one rich guy pay 40$ of his 100$, and the poor guys paying say .05$ of their one dollar. You have the poor guys paying .20 of their dollar so the rich guy can pay 20$ less of his 100$.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Why the hate on for inheritances?

Why should they be taxed at a different income. Whoever built up that inheritance payed taxes their whole life.

Inheritance should be subject to no special tax. However treat it as income for the person receiving the inheritance. If they receive 100k and make 40k a year. Then that year for tax purposes they earned 140k. leave it at that.

Yeah, BVP.

Flat tax, baby! It works on every year on all income earned for that year.

Not so sure about a flat tax. On the surface it sounds fairer, however it places a greater share of the state's burden on the poor, of course you mentioned an exemption for people earning under X amount. In which case it still places a heavier burden on the poor, just not the ultra poor.

The reason I say it places a higher burden on the poor, is in order to make up the lost revenue the state would then have to raise the base rate of tax. This would hurt the poor the most, those who can least afford to pay more, and benefit the wealthier those who can most afford to pay more. Doesn't seem right to me.

It isn't right that people must pay different amounts. That fairness argument works either way, and in my humble opinion, let's save it for later and focus on something more important: burden.


It depends on what rate the flat tax is set. Note: this flat tax is a tax on all income--regardless of the means used.

If the rate is 50%, then obviously, that would burden the bottom- and mid- tax brackets.


If it's a flat tax of 10%, then no one is being burdened with much--relative to their previous tax rates. (Lowest income tax in the US is 15% or 16%).

If the flat tax is 20%, but your first $15,000 is exempt, then how are people who earn $15,000 being burdened with taxes that don't burden them?

Then, how are people who earn $20,000, being burdened by a tax which extracts 20% of $5000?

(Note: these questions are comparing the previous tax rates and their burdens imposed).