The Debt ceiling

[devilsfan26]

Until we get that type of campaign reform, I'll stick with the people who have put forth plans to alleviate the debt that is suffocating the U.S.

Neither the Democrats or Republicans (including the Tea Party) are going to give us that campaign reform. We will never get it until people stop voting in the same people that are holding us back and got us into this mess to begin with.

[Jerrydevil]

I'd rather see it be somebody else. Setting goals and following through are very important, but the Tea Party lacks pragmatism. There's more than one way to get this done.

Nobody else is stepping up. We hear a lot of demagoguing of "millionaires and billionaires who can afford to pay more" from Obama and see a lot of finger-pointing and class-warfare rhetoric from Democratic lawmakers, but no plans on what should be cut or how much should be cut.

Under the recent "compromise" legislation, we are cutting nothing from current spending. That is why many Tea Party lawmakers wouldn't vote for it. You could argue that they were the ONLY ONES being pragmatic. In fact, I would make that argument. You can't put a dent in massive debt unless you spend less. The bashing of "rich people" serves no purpose. It's impossible to get ourselves out of this via taxation. We have to cut something. The Democrats can't even come up with a plan to cut the White House bureaucracy (EPA, DOT, etc.) never mind the entitlements. It's scandalous and irresponsible.

[devilsfan26]

If they would just stop letting massive corporations exploit loopholes to pay $0 in taxes, it would probably put a nice big dent in it, but obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans would dare mention that. Also trimming the outrageous military budget would be another good place to start.

[Jerrydevil]

If they would just stop letting massive corporations exploit loopholes to pay $0 in taxes, it would probably put a nice big dent in it, but obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans would dare mention that. Also trimming the outrageous military budget would be another good place to start.

If you want tax loopholes shut (and who doesn't besides the industry that has been created to find them?) you're going to need a very simple tax code, not the monstrosity foisted upon us by the IRS.

Military spending has to be on the table. No sacred cows.

[devilsadvoc8]

If they would just stop letting massive corporations exploit loopholes to pay $0 in taxes, it would probably put a nice big dent in it, but obviously neither the Democrats or Republicans would dare mention that. Also trimming the outrageous military budget would be another good place to start.

Not sure if this is any part of the solution. To me the concept of "corporate taxation" is a non-issue. Taxing a corporation simply results in double/triple/etc taxation of the creation of value in our economy. Company mines ore makes profit (tax), sells to steel mill who creates steel (tax) which sells to auto maker. Auto maker creates car and sells (tax) to consumer who is paying for car with income (which was taxed). See my point?

We should base the taxes on the entity which benefits (I use that term extremely loosely) from the government's services, namely the individual. Perhaps if the ~50% of the US that doesn't pay any income taxes was reduced that would help but that would certainly be unpopular at the polls and thus an impossibility with the crooks in Washington.

What do you propose cutting from the military? Do you want to tell SKorea goodbye and good luck against their increasingly desperate and sabre rattling neighbor? How about NATO? I thought our President promised to withdraw from the middle east on the campaign trail. That was supposed to solve both costs and our image problem with the Muslims. Why hasn't he done so? As the technology for a WMD is increasingly available to any religious nutjob who thinks their brand of fairy tale instructs them to kill others that don't believe in Allah, God, Shiva or the IPU, I would say more military is necessary to protect me from their irrational zealotry.

[devilsfan26]

Not sure if this is any part of the solution. To me the concept of "corporate taxation" is a non-issue. Taxing a corporation simply results in double/triple/etc taxation of the creation of value in our economy. Company mines ore makes profit (tax), sells to steel mill who creates steel (tax) which sells to auto maker. Auto maker creates car and sells (tax) to consumer who is paying for car with income (which was taxed). See my point?

We should base the taxes on the entity which benefits (I use that term extremely loosely) from the government's services, namely the individual. Perhaps if the ~50% of the US that doesn't pay any income taxes was reduced that would help but that would certainly be unpopular at the polls and thus an impossibility with the crooks in Washington.

What do you propose cutting from the military? Do you want to tell SKorea goodbye and good luck against their increasingly desperate and sabre rattling neighbor? How about NATO? I thought our President promised to withdraw from the middle east on the campaign trail. That was supposed to solve both costs and our image problem with the Muslims. Why hasn't he done so? As the technology for a WMD is increasingly available to any religious nutjob who thinks their brand of fairy tale instructs them to kill others that don't believe in Allah, God, Shiva or the IPU, I would say more military is necessary to protect me from their irrational zealotry.

I see your point about corporate taxes, but what about small businesses then? With that line of thinking why should they have to pay taxes?

As for the military, I don't think we need to be or can afford to be the world police. Of course the military is necessary, but that doesn't mean streamlining its budget will make us more vulnerable. People I went to high school with are in the military and have been stationed in countries like Germany, the Philippines, Australia, etc. Why is that necessary and how does it make us safer?

Edited August 10, 2011 by devilsfan26

[squishyx]

double post ><

Edited August 10, 2011 by squishyx

[squishyx]

Not sure if this is any part of the solution. To me the concept of "corporate taxation" is a non-issue. Taxing a corporation simply results in double/triple/etc taxation of the creation of value in our economy. Company mines ore makes profit (tax), sells to steel mill who creates steel (tax) which sells to auto maker. Auto maker creates car and sells (tax) to consumer who is paying for car with income (which was taxed). See my point?

There's truth to this statement however on the other hand how about we end subsidies for business as well? Why give tax breaks at all? if prices rise so be it, if the argument is we shouldn't tax companies then we shouldn't be giving handouts either.

We should base the taxes on the entity which benefits (I use that term extremely loosely) from the government's services, namely the individual. Perhaps if the ~50% of the US that doesn't pay any income taxes was reduced that would help but that would certainly be unpopular at the polls and thus an impossibility with the crooks in Washington.

A) this wouldn't help, fair or unfair you're talking about trying to squeeze trillions out of the kiddie pool while the lake is right next door.

B) the reason this number keeps going up every year is because wages are stagnant and no longer meet the criteria for paying federal income tax. If the distribution of wealth we're addressed everyone would be paying taxes.

C) You seem overly concerned about people who don't pay federal income tax, but don't seem to mind that billionare's like Warren Buffet admitted to only paying 18%, about half of what his secretary pays. The truth is, any percent increase you got from the top 1% would dwarf the same percent increase on the bottom 50%.

What do you propose cutting from the military? Do you want to tell SKorea goodbye and good luck against their increasingly desperate and sabre rattling neighbor? How about NATO? I thought our President promised to withdraw from the middle east on the campaign trail. That was supposed to solve both costs and our image problem with the Muslims. Why hasn't he done so? As the technology for a WMD is increasingly available to any religious nutjob who thinks their brand of fairy tale instructs them to kill others that don't believe in Allah, God, Shiva or the IPU, I would say more military is necessary to protect me from their irrational zealotry.

There's a lot to cut from the military, for starters bring the boys home. The idea that we can build up a large military to prevent a few wacko's from hijacking a plane every dozen years is absurd. We brought the American's to them, they don't even have to try to hit us at home anymore.

[Devils731]

Wasn't one of the debt commissions recommendations to close almost all tax loopholes and breaks but see a commensurate tax rate reduction to attempt to net no gain or loss for the gov't the first year? Once that was done then it would be easier to truly tell what people are getting taxed and if adjustments needed to be made. If not, it was just something I read that seems like a good idea.

[squishyx]

I don't think there's anything I could say to persuade you that the Tea Party members of the House and Senate are the leaders in the U.S. on debt reduction. They have substantially more political courage than anyone else in D.C. That's my opinion. From Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etc., I see bankruptcy in many ways ... a bankruptcy of courage, honesty, good ideas, and, of course, fiscal policy.

What does letting the US default on payments have to go with courage, good ideas and sane fiscal policy? Because that's what a good chunk of tea party representatives in congress we're for and a lot their supporters.

Almost every country runs a national debt, we aren't even close to the top of the list. That's not an excuse to continue our exponential climb, but it should give people pause before they start demanding we drastically cut spending to balance the budget. We don't need to balance the budget, we need to soften the curve. All the spending is propping up the economy, if we pull it out GDP will flop and we will run deficits anyway only this time with no safety nets what so ever. This isn't simcity, you can't just slash spending 40-50%. It needs to be gradual, and it's certainly not something you should be focusing on when unemployment is so high. Imagine if the tea party actually got their way, unemployment would tripple overnight, all those government dollars trickle down into jobs somewhere. Maybe not a job you think is worth while, but after they get cut they will go from one government teet to the next (unemployment).

Edited August 10, 2011 by squishyx

[Devils731]

Reagan started this malarkey.

I dislike charts like this. They pretend that tax cuts create debt and they don't, only spending creates debt. If I tell a friend I'm not going to borrow 20 dollars from them and spend it on pizza for all of us I am not suddenly 20 dollars more in debt if I don't buy the pizza. If I do buy the pizza and go 20 dollars in debt then the pizza caused the debt, not the lack of revenue raising.

[squishyx]

I dislike charts like this. They pretend that tax cuts create debt and they don't, only spending creates debt. If I tell a friend I'm not going to borrow 20 dollars from them and spend it on pizza for all of us I am not suddenly 20 dollars more in debt if I don't buy the pizza. If I do buy the pizza and go 20 dollars in debt then the pizza caused the debt, not the lack of revenue raising.

Disagree entirely.

Imagine you have 8 people who all want a pizza and you place an order. In this universe everyone pays 1 dollar. Then you say "hey im going to collect 75 cents instead of a dollar" you will end up with a deficit when it comes time to pay the pizza guy. You can't simply not pay for something you already ordered.

Your analogy only works for future spending but it ignores the fact that we have previous debts to pay for.

[Devils731]

Disagree entirely.

Imagine you have 8 people who all want a pizza and you place an order. In this universe everyone pays 1 dollar. Then you say "hey im going to collect 75 cents instead of a dollar" you will end up with a deficit when it comes time to pay the pizza guy. You can't simply not pay for something you already ordered.

Your analogy only works for future spending but it ignores the fact that we have previous debts to pay for.

Part of the difference here is you're acting like we're all in a group ordering pizza and we're not. Somebody is taking another persons money to order pizza, and in many cases the borrowee doesn't even get a slice.

Not taking that persons money and then still ordering pizza doesn't make the other person keeping their money the problem. The pizza is the problem. The pizza order is never reduced. The gov't has a decade to reduce pizza spending when it comes to scoring spending and it doesn't. The pizzas keep arriving and we keep blaming the guy whose money we didn't take.

[squishyx]

Part of the difference here is you're acting like we're all in a group ordering pizza and we're not. Somebody is taking another persons money to order pizza, and in many cases the borrowee doesn't even get a slice.

Not taking that persons money and then still ordering pizza doesn't make the other person keeping their money the problem. The pizza is the problem. The pizza order is never reduced. The gov't has a decade to reduce pizza spending when it comes to scoring spending and it doesn't. The pizzas keep arriving and we keep blaming the guy whose money we didn't take.

This is a different argument then "tax cuts don't produce debt" which is what I was countering. For better or worse we have ordered a lot of pizza over time and we need to pay for it. Not collecting as much as we previously did leads to more debt.

What you are saying here seems like the more standard "we need to reduce our spending and not tax people who aren't getting the benefits of said spending" thing.

[Devils731]

This is a different argument then "tax cuts don't produce debt" which is what I was countering. For better or worse we have ordered a lot of pizza over time and we need to pay for it. Not collecting as much as we previously did leads to more debt.

What you are saying here seems like the more standard "we need to reduce our spending and not tax people who aren't getting the benefits of said spending" thing.

I think where we disagree is I don't think the future debt is being incurred from past spending. Carrying the debt only costs the US something like 7-8% of it's budget, those have to be paid, those are past debts we've incurred and have promised to repay. There may be plenty of other things we want to continue to pay for, military, healthcare, regulations, gov't bureaucracy, retirement, etc... but those are future spending, not something we've incurred and can't change.

[squishyx]

I think where we disagree is I don't think the future debt is being incurred from past spending. Carrying the debt only costs the US something like 7-8% of it's budget, those have to be paid, those are past debts we've incurred and have promised to repay. There may be plenty of other things we want to continue to pay for, military, healthcare, regulations, gov't bureaucracy, retirement, etc... but those are future spending, not something we've incurred and can't change.

Some of that future spending I would argue is something we do have to pay. SS as a prime example, people at this point are retiring after spending a lifetime contributing to the fund, they are owed that money back just as much as investors who buy gov't bonds.

But yes, there are other things in the future we can (and should) scale back, but I still contest that you can't get from point A to B on cuts alone. You need "new revenues", taxes, milking the rich, whatever you want to call it if you were serious about a balanced budget. Still though, a tax cut at this point leads to more debt for this country as long as we are running deficits.

[point]

I am a CPA and prepare about 250 individual returns each year. I have a client with taxable income ( this is after all deductions and exemptions) of $95,789 whose tax liability was $9,512. Another client had taxable income of $98,157 and had a tax liability of $17,283. Why did the second owe $,771 more on only $2,368 greater income? Because the first taxpayer's income consisted almost entirely of dividends which were taxed at 15%. The client has a portfolio of about $7MM, probably less today, but she's not selling her stocks any time soon anyway.

When people talk about soaking the rich, lets make tax laws so people pay the same tax on the same level of income.

Another couple had taxable income of about $1.2MM. Their tax bill was $386K. So on 12.5 times the income of the first client, these folks paid 40 times more in taxes. This is seriously close to getting hosed. They are Chinese immigrants, too; been here about 25 years. Their business employees about 25 people.

[Jerrydevil]

What does letting the US default on payments have to go with courage, good ideas and sane fiscal policy? Because that's what a good chunk of tea party representatives in congress we're for and a lot their supporters.

Default wouldn't have happened. But a stalemate would have forced Democrats to prioritize expenses that are most important to them. As it stands now, they want everything the way it is, plus more taxes to pay for it. Thank goodness they didn't get more taxes.

As for government people losing their jobs ... how long would you like to put that off? I never said there wasn't going to be pain, but there needs to be across-the-board cuts in most of the government agencies. If these cuts aren't made, in the future we might not have the option of making prudent cuts when the Chinese stop lending the U.S. money. We may have to chop entire bureaus as a matter of financial survival. And that's when the government could start seizing private assets like 401Ks and pensions to make ends meet.

Nah, that couldn't happen ... could it? Oh, yes it could.

[devilsadvoc8]

There's truth to this statement however on the other hand how about we end subsidies for business as well? Why give tax breaks at all? if prices rise so be it, if the argument is we shouldn't tax companies then we shouldn't be giving handouts either.

You are looking at this too simplistically. "If prices rise so be it"? My example works for food and gas as well as a car. Additionally, handouts incent certain industries such as alternative fuels to keep them afloat when without this help they are not viable.

A) this wouldn't help, fair or unfair you're talking about trying to squeeze trillions out of the kiddie pool while the lake is right next door.

B) the reason this number keeps going up every year is because wages are stagnant and no longer meet the criteria for paying federal income tax. If the distribution of wealth we're addressed everyone would be paying taxes.

C) You seem overly concerned about people who don't pay federal income tax, but don't seem to mind that billionare's like Warren Buffet admitted to only paying 18%, about half of what his secretary pays. The truth is, any percent increase you got from the top 1% would dwarf the same percent increase on the bottom 50%.

We'll just agree to disagree. The democratic mantra of continuing to demonize the rich and increase their tax burden shouldn't continue. I have no idea where your 18% Buffet story came from but I am 100% confident the total value of taxes he paid dwarfs his secretary's. You can play with your 18% or 36%, the fact is WB paid millions. What did he pay vs his secretary? 8x, 10x? What is that ratio? You already have the top 10% of the income earners paying the majority of taxes. That top 10% also uses a disproportionately less amount of the government services such as medicare and social security than the other 90%. Half the goddamn country doesn't pay taxes and uses the majority of the services and you want to increase the burden to those that don't use the services? It simply doesn't pass any fairness test. Like previous arguments over what we as Americans should expect our government to provide us (e.g. healthcare), we are becoming a nanny state of underachievers.

There's a lot to cut from the military, for starters bring the boys home. The idea that we can build up a large military to prevent a few wacko's from hijacking a plane every dozen years is absurd. We brought the American's to them, they don't even have to try to hit us at home anymore.

If you expand your mind to beyond hijacking a plan and think to what the other real threats to this country are you'd realize that again you are too simplistic. An individual was just arrested in europe for attempting to split atoms in his kitchen. It's not a plane anymore, it is water supply, dirty bombs, homemade WMD. If you only fear an airplane suicide attack you are naive.

[squishyx]

Default wouldn't have happened. But a stalemate would have forced Democrats to prioritize expenses that are most important to them. As it stands now, they want everything the way it is, plus more taxes to pay for it. Thank goodness they didn't get more taxes.

Default absolutely would have happened, just not likely on our debt. If we fail to pay the military salaries or issue SS checks which would have happened if the ceiling was not raised, it's default. I agree it would never have gotten that far (I think Obama would have invoked 14th amendment despite saying he wouldn't) but we are talking a hypothetical situation where the tea party gets the final say.

As for government people losing their jobs ... how long would you like to put that off? I never said there wasn't going to be pain, but there needs to be across-the-board cuts in most of the government agencies. If these cuts aren't made, in the future we might not have the option of making prudent cuts when the Chinese stop lending the U.S. money. We may have to chop entire bureaus as a matter of financial survival. And that's when the government could start seizing private assets like 401Ks and pensions to make ends meet.

Nah, that couldn't happen ... could it? Oh, yes it could.

You missed my point I think. It's not that we should avoid cutting spending because we are too afraid to pull the band aid off, it's that once you do and cut millions of jobs, these people will just go on unemployment, qualify for medicaid and food stamps and they will be collecting money from the government in another form, only now not being productive. SO again, it's not that we can't or shouldn't it's that it needs to be gradual.

The Chinese own 1/15th of our national debt, slightly more then Japan. And while I haven't dug deep, my guess is a majority of that is private individuals and companies not the Chinese government itself. This is a political scare tactic being perpetuated to try and make it seem like the Chinese own us. Most of our national debt is held by Americans.

Default wouldn't have happened. But a stalemate would have forced Democrats to prioritize expenses that are most important to them. As it stands now, they want everything the way it is, plus more taxes to pay for it. Thank goodness they didn't get more taxes.

Default absolutely would have happened, just not likely on our debt. If we fail to pay the military salaries or issue SS checks which would have happened if the ceiling was not raised, it's default. I agree it would never have gotten that far (I think Obama would have invoked 14th amendment despite saying he wouldn't) but we are talking a hypothetical situation where the tea party gets the final say.

As for government people losing their jobs ... how long would you like to put that off? I never said there wasn't going to be pain, but there needs to be across-the-board cuts in most of the government agencies. If these cuts aren't made, in the future we might not have the option of making prudent cuts when the Chinese stop lending the U.S. money. We may have to chop entire bureaus as a matter of financial survival. And that's when the government could start seizing private assets like 401Ks and pensions to make ends meet.

Nah, that couldn't happen ... could it? Oh, yes it could.

You missed my point I think. It's not that we should avoid cutting spending because we are too afraid to pull the band aid off, it's that once you do and cut millions of jobs, these people will just go on unemployment, qualify for medicaid and food stamps and they will be collecting money from the government in another form, only now not being productive. SO again, it's not that we can't or shouldn't it's that it needs to be gradual.

The Chinese own 1/15th of our national debt, slightly more then Japan. And while I haven't dug deep, my guess is a majority of that is private individuals and companies not the Chinese government itself. This is a political scare tactic being perpetuated to try and make it seem like the Chinese own us. Most of our national debt is held by Americans.

[squishyx]

I am a CPA and prepare about 250 individual returns each year. I have a client with taxable income ( this is after all deductions and exemptions) of $95,789 whose tax liability was $9,512. Another client had taxable income of $98,157 and had a tax liability of $17,283. Why did the second owe $,771 more on only $2,368 greater income? Because the first taxpayer's income consisted almost entirely of dividends which were taxed at 15%. The client has a portfolio of about $7MM, probably less today, but she's not selling her stocks any time soon anyway.

When people talk about soaking the rich, lets make tax laws so people pay the same tax on the same level of income.

Another couple had taxable income of about $1.2MM. Their tax bill was $386K. So on 12.5 times the income of the first client, these folks paid 40 times more in taxes. This is seriously close to getting hosed. They are Chinese immigrants, too; been here about 25 years. Their business employees about 25 people.

This is an excellent point, I wish we had a major tax overhaul much like D731 said (although I suspect he would disagree with raising LT cap gains tax) that would treat all income equally and taxed accordingly.

Edited August 11, 2011 by squishyx

[squishyx]

You are looking at this too simplistically. "If prices rise so be it"? My example works for food and gas as well as a car. Additionally, handouts incent certain industries such as alternative fuels to keep them afloat when without this help they are not viable.

Can't have it both ways, if you are saying the government shouldn't be taxing corporations because the costs get baked into the end product, we shouldn't be subsidizing them either. I agree that is a pretty simple view, but it's consistent.

We'll just agree to disagree. The democratic mantra of continuing to demonize the rich and increase their tax burden shouldn't continue. I have no idea where your 18% Buffet story came from but I am 100% confident the total value of taxes he paid dwarfs his secretary's. You can play with your 18% or 36%, the fact is WB paid millions. What did he pay vs his secretary? 8x, 10x? What is that ratio? You already have the top 10% of the income earners paying the majority of taxes. That top 10% also uses a disproportionately less amount of the government services such as medicare and social security than the other 90%. Half the goddamn country doesn't pay taxes and uses the majority of the services and you want to increase the burden to those that don't use the services? It simply doesn't pass any fairness test. Like previous arguments over what we as Americans should expect our government to provide us (e.g. healthcare), we are becoming a nanny state of underachievers.

I'm not trying to demonize the rich, we have had this debate before. I encourage you to look at the tax returns from the IRS that they publish online. I also would like to point out that the bottom 50% of the county doesn't pay federal income tax, but they do pay lots of other taxes. It's an important distinction. They pay social security, unemployment, disability, state, local and most importantly sales tax which funds a lot of those benefits you think they don't pay for.

The 18% Buffet tax thing came out a few years ago, I thought it was widely known. Anyway the reason he is able to lower his tax burdern so much is because he makes most of his money in the market being taxed at 15% (as Point noted).

The rich don't get as much out as they put in, but it's not nearly as lopsided as you present. Everyone gets social security and medicare, no matter how rich they are. The rich get a proportional share of the defense budget, Then theirs medicaid, the bulk of that money goes to children and nursing homes, so yes we do channel a lot of money from the rich to poor kids and old people "unfairly". After that there is debt, which is basically just the cost of those other components listed before over the years that we had to borrow to pay. The rest of the budget is a drop of water in the bucket. You could slice out discretionary spending all together and it wouldn't really change anything.

If you expand your mind to beyond hijacking a plan and think to what the other real threats to this country are you'd realize that again you are too simplistic. An individual was just arrested in europe for attempting to split atoms in his kitchen. It's not a plane anymore, it is water supply, dirty bombs, homemade WMD. If you only fear an airplane suicide attack you are naive.

And yet that guy was only arrested because he made the mistake of telling the police himself. So really, what is all our defense spending really doing? It's not just about 9/11, Whats to stop some loon from getting a gun and shooting a congresswoman, or running around Norway shooting up a small camp, or shooting up fellow military members at a staging center? I would argue if you truly think we are safer from random isolate attacks by having such a large defense blue print, invading 2 or 3 countries, or the TSA having us remove our shoes before getting on the plane, you are the naive one.

Edited August 11, 2011 by squishyx

[Jerrydevil]

Squishy, while China may own 1/15th of U.S debt, that is still about a trillion dollars. A lot of money. And you can bet that most of the securities were bought by state-owned banks.

I've read that China right now has little interest in moving to other investments, that the Chinese government is still happy to invest in U.S. treasury securities. But if we do not cut spending, like I fear we won't, then eventually countries (especially those that are not our friends) could say, "fvck this Ponzi scheme. I'm getting out before it collapses."

[point]

You know what's really scary? Most of these other countries finance all their deficits at the national level, since the national government runs all the services. In the USA we've got state, county and local governments all issuing debt that is not counted in the "national debt" amounts. And that's just the issued debt. We are not counting the unfunded pension and post retirement benefit liabilities. What happens if Illinois defaults? or California? The taxpayers of NJ will probably have to pick up part of that tab, since NJ historically pays far more in federal taxes that it gets back in federal programs.

I pity the twenty-somethings who are going to pay for all this folly.

[Jerrydevil]

... or the TSA having us remove our shoes before getting on the plane, you are the naive one.

The TSA, another money hole. Gobs of dollars being spent on full-body scanners that may be a cancer risk and IS an invasion of privacy. I wouldn't walk through one.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg for this government agency that specializes in security theater. It shouldn't even be in existence.