Skip to comments.Not only farmers get Colorado agriculture tax breaks (Tom Cruise pays $400-248 acres)
Posted on 03/08/2011 5:28:00 AM PST by maggief
click here to read article
Effect on volume of production? Not really, as people who are inclined to farm don't take most subsidies. Of course, the subsidies do drive up land prices, so those farmers may in fact put more of their land into production. Farming production is a very flexible figure and market forces remain market forces.
If "x" production occurs to meet "y" prices, then paying some people to reduce production would logically increase price, but that would result in other people producing more until the price falls back to "y". At this point, nothing has been accomplished, but a waste of tax dollars.
Let's assume that Joe's Muffler Shop doesn't do brakes, and you pay 50% of the brake shops in his area to stop doing brakes in order to increase the rate that can be charged for brake jobs. If you are successful in raising those rates, then you are going to see guys like Joe jumping into the brake job business and that will drive the prices right back down. But now you will be paying heavy subsidies to maintain the new status quo.
We appear to be in general agreement.
But I see your reasoning now. What prompted me to ask was the statement that was too strong: "all the subsidy does..."
Thank you for your reply.
I followed your advice. I could not find a single reference to a law he supposedly broke or any article that he was compelled to pay $500,000 by anything other the desire to avoid further controversy.
Could you give me references?
Therefore, your question is based on a false premise.
I'd be happy to answer a question regarding something I actually DID say.
Also, how was the federal government funded at the time of our coutry's founding?
Wow that’s a silly argument. If they construct the tax laws in such a way that the populace as a whole can legally pay zero, then they’re either getting their money some other way, or they just plain don’t need it.
Don’t over feed the government, no good ever comes from it. Pay it not one cent more than you absolutely have to by law.
Loop holes not everyone gets to use them.
Only theoretically. Land production is not now, nor ever was, anywhere near maximum production. Especially when you consider that its a world market.
Yea, subsidies generally only work when you want more of something, not when you want less.
Sorry to see that your apparent unfamiliarity with the notion of public goods makes the question (it was not an argument) look silly to you. Perhaps you should open a textbook before passing such negative judgment?
Markets fail to provide public goods such as defense, and the coercive power of government is needed to finance them (not produce but merely raise funds). Paying less taxes results therefore in fewer public goods (such as defense) and paying no taxes will result in no such goods because markets will not step in to provide them.
I asked the poster to clarify what makes him view as patriotic weakening or disappearance of America's defense.
I find you post somewhat confusing:
If they construct the tax laws...
Who they? I thought it was we, the people, who construct laws via our representatives.
... in such a way that the populace as a whole can legally pay zero, then they're...
Again, who are "they?"
...either getting their money
Our government (it, not they) does not have its own money. The only money it has is our money that we give the government to ensure provision of public goods.
...some other way..,
What other way?
... or they just plain dont need it.
How can the country not need money for defense.
Sorry again that you found my post silly.
Dont over feed the government, no good ever comes from it. Pay it not one cent more than you absolutely have to by law.
I agree. That was not the issue, however: the question was what makes paying less taxes patriotic, as another poster claimed.
Yet are the so-called "loop holes" written for the rich, or are they written for the type of property? If they're written for the type of property, then all anyone has to do to use them is buy that type of property.
The article you linked confirsm what I said and flatly contradicts your claim:
And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.
Did you read the article yourself?
I would very much appreciate any source that would confirm your claim, which I believe to be at odds with the facts, that Kerry violated the law.
money = power
less money to fedgov = less power to fedgov
our duty to limit fedgov power = our duty to give fedgov as little money as possible.
Sorry I did not spell it out before. I wrongly assumed that it would have been obvious to anyone on FR.
It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible.
And: It does not follow that "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible." leads to "nobody pays any federal tax.", or the implication in that statement which is, "the federal government gets no revenue."
That is correct. But nobody suggested that implication; are now arguing, quite correctly, against a straw man.
We are not talking about an implication. The situation "nobody pays any tax" is a special case of "little tax" to which you referred in your original claim. This is., moreover, the most illustrative special case: since zero is the smallest nonnegative number, the "zero tax" is the ultimate illustration of "little tax."
But, since you appear to have been derailed by this issue of zero tax, let me rephrase my question staying entirely within your "little tax:"
Smaller taxes translate into a smaller provision of public goods and, in particular, a weakening of our national defense. Surely you will agree that there is nothing patriotic about weakening America's defense.
The point is, of course, we should be, as were our Founders, very distrustful of the government. We conservatives have all the reasons to believe that the government at present is too big and has to be made smaller. But that does not excuse us from the duty to think and use logic.
If you hate big government --- fine, but hate it for the right reason. The reason your gave was not.
No, not “derailed” at all, just responding to what you actually wrote.
Can’t get the same loop holes on a house,only on special property.
Yes, that was a wrong assumption: for some people here, distrust of the government is tempered by knowledge of basic economics and use of logic. One should not assume that all people here are ignorant.
money = power This is obviously false. What may be true when appropriately qualified is "money -> power." But let's move on:
less money to fedgov = less power to fedgov
This is correct, of course.
our duty to limit fedgov power = our duty to give fedgov as little money as possible.
This is incorrect: the last implication (""therefore") is actually a leap of faith, a non sequitur (funny, isn't it: first, you falsely imputed it to my previous post and now commit it yourself without noticing it -- just tells you how unhelpful to reply to honest questions with a snide two-word remarks).
The premise is false: we have no "duty to limit fedgov power." The duty we have is not to let it grow beyond the desired limit. The distinction is important.
Please reread my earlier post regarding public goods. The view of "lesser is better" is a silly mistake one hears from a lot of libertarians and anarchists. It is not true that less is better, as the example with defense illustrates. And it is for that same reason that we have no wholesale duty to limit government's power.
Thus, if the considerable strength of our enemies requires a defense budget of $300B, say, you don't want to make the governmnet smaller than that. You want the government to be at least as big as $300B. Demanding a reduction below that level would be irresponsible to the point of being treasonous. Should the enemies weaken, howver, and necessitate the defense budget of only $100B, it would indeed be our duty to reduce the government and bring the budget to $100B. Less need not be better, and we have no duty you have annunciated.
The issue of government finance is not as trivial as you assume it to be, and wholesale "principles" such as "our duty to reduce the government" have never been advocated by the Founders.
And now we're back to my earlier statement, that if taxes aren't uniformly applied based on property, then it doesn't matter who owns the property type that gets the favorable treatment.
If that is the only thing you've learned from my post and found it to be of sole importance, then so be it.
No replies from me will disturb you further on this thread.
Have a good day.
What makes it silly is that you make the completely illogical jump from paying the government as little as legally possible to the government getting no money at all and having to shut down the military. That’s not a matter of public goods, that’s a matter of you flying so far down the slippery slope as to no longer even being on the same mountain. What makes your argument even sillier is that he tax in question is a STATE tax and not one penny from it goes to the military.
Nobody is talking about markets, you are, once again, making a silly argument.
Nobody is talking about weakening or disappearing America’s defense. We’re simply talking about not over paying an already voracious federal government.
They the government that’s who. Duly appointed representatives of the people.
Our government has lots and lots of ways to get money besides direct taxation of the people. Tariffs, fees, tons of cash without having to directly hassle my wallet.
no you are wrong, that is EXACTLY the issue. It is the moral duty of EVERY single person to not give the government any excess money. That is the heart of fiscal conservatism, that is the heart of keeping the government in check. Paying less taxes, within the law, is patriotic because it maintains the correct balance America was founded on, that the government works for us, not the other way around.
What makes it silly is that you make the completely illogical jump from paying the government as little as legally possible to the government getting no money at all
Please read for details an earlier reply where this mistake is addressed. In sum: my contains a specialization, not an implication. Thus, there is no "jump," whether justifiable or not.
Thats not a matter of public goods,
If you make a claim, then you should demonstrate how it is unrelated to public goods. That would be contrary to my claim and prove me incorrect.
Since you clearly cannot, you substitute it with blah-blah-blah in the form of the famous but ambiguous slippery slope:
thats a matter of you flying so far down the slippery slope as to no longer even being on the same mountain.
Again, where is the demonstration of any relationship between the "slippery slope" and anything I said? Nowhere, of course, just blah, blah, blah....
" What makes your argument even sillier is that he tax in question is a STATE tax and not one penny from it goes to the military."
You just can't think clearly, can you? The poster made a statement of principle: inspired perhaps by the article, he went beyond the article. He claimed that, as a matter of principle, paying less tax is patriotic. Since this was not qualified, it applies to all cases of government, state as well as federal. I was not responding to the article --- hence it matters not whether the article speaks of a state of federal tax --- but to that poster's annunciation of a general principle he invented. If you are unable to stay on topic, that's fine; but you are faulting others for doing so.
Unable to saying a single sentence without planting your feet into your mouth, you should not be so hasty to characterize something you see as silly: judging from the forgoing, things appear silly to you because you are thoroughly confused.
You don't have to take my advise, of course. Since you are now thoroughly convinced that whatever I say is silly, I shall not try to argue any further.
Have a good day.
your post contains a silly statement that’s at the bottom of a silly slippery slope. Here is what you said in post 43:
Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax.
Nobody but you ever said anything about nobody paying taxes. That was 100% YOUR argument, you put it forth based entirely on whole cloth. You went straight from “pay as little as possible” (the post you replied to) to “nobody pays any” (your EXACT quote). And that’s a MASSIVE, and silly, jump.
Now as for the rest of your post, looks like a lot of “blah, blah, blah” and insults, thus proving you know the facts don’t support you.
You said something silly, it was a completely logicless slippery slope argument, and no amount of “blah, blah, blah” on your part is going to make it not silly. Man up and admit it or chicken out and run away, your choice, don’t care, look at all your insults to me and understand they apply to you.
Yours is a slippery slope fallacy. Conservatives aren’t inclined to eliminate all taxes. Government could receive much less in revenues and continue to maintain defense. We should lower taxes drastically, cut social programs drastically and maintain an adequate defense. That’s the conservative way. Local governments don’t need monstrous amounts of revenues for public education, the Violence Against Women Act, make-work projects and so on.
“Kerry said he had sailed the yacht a handful of times, including to the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. He and his wife, millionaire philanthropist Theresa Heinz, own a home in Nantucket.”
***** John Kerry’s yacht claimed a docking in Rhode Island (no tax) but it was actually used in Massachusetts. The two Kerrys do not own a house in Rhode Island. Massachusetts wants the sales tax money and they got if from him
If you live in Massachusetts and buy&berth your new boat in Rhode Island..... But you use it Massachusetts.... You will be taxed if you are reported. Because your real berthing and use is Massachusetts
That is untrue and coming from a fellow Democrat. The rest of the article was true and went against that foolish statement
This will clarify it even better. That John Kerry/Teresa Kerry were liable for Massachusetts excise tax on the new yacht>>>
You certainly cannot say that: this ling cannot be "better" simply because the previous one was not good at all. On the contrary, the previously linked article flatly stated that your claim was false.
DennisW: That John Kerry/Teresa Kerry were liable for Massachusetts excise tax on the new yacht.
It's time to ask you once again: are you joking? do you read the article before linking to it?
This article is even more relentless in showing that your claim is false:
John F. Kerry announced yesterday that he will voluntarily pay $500,000 to Massachusetts tax collectors
The state Department of Revenue had just started looking into Kerrys use
Officials could have subpoenaed the ships log
Kerry "made clear that, whether owed or not, we intend to pay the equivalent taxes as if the boats home port were currently in Massachusetts,"
he was docking his yacht, Isabel, in Newport, R.I., allowing him to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in Massachusetts taxes.
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal. Not a single article, as far as I know, has even attempted to use "evade" instead of "avoid."
Donovan said the burden would be on Kerry to prove he does not intend to use the boat in Massachusetts, and having property on Nantucket would not help his case.
If the senator had not volunteered to pay, Donovan said, collecting the taxes could have taken two years or longer,
What have I missed, Dennis: what in the article even remotely alleges that, as you claim, Kerry and Heinz were liable for Massachusetts excise tax?
To be sure, I am not a friend of Kerry at all. But I try, to the full extent of my abilities, to be friends with the truth. What about you, Dennis, where on earth have you found even remote support for your claim, and why do you insist on making it even when everything tells you that your claim is false?
The previous post offers eloquent arguments and explains why you, DennisW, believe Kerry and Heinz to be liable.
That is not what you said previously and to which I responded. What you said was that "actually he broke the laws of Massachusets." As you know, lawyers on both sides have diverrging opinions about the law, and it is the function of the courtse to decide what law is. I consequencly asked you to show where it was unequivocally shown that he broke the law. You first replied by pointing to an article which said the he did not brake the law and then to an article which offers nothing but various hypotheticals.
If you said, "I personally was persuaded Kerry had bracken the law" or "I believe he broke the law," there would be no discussion.
As it stands, your initial claim remains unsupported. As for the hair-splitting legal arguments on the matter, I cannot contribute to them: I am not an attorney and do not qualify thus.
In any case, thank you for explaining in detail what led you to your beliefs.
I’m kinda surprised you don’t know about this kind of taxation. Rhode Island has no new boat excise (sales) tax and Massachusetts does. You naively think Massachusetts is going to let people get away with screwing them out of taxes??? Thus if the boat is claimed to be docked in Rhode Island but you are continuously using it in Massachusetts where you own at least two houses, the Massachusetts tax collector will pursue you. You, Top Quark, can try doing this and if you are reported (squealed on) Massachusetts will send you an excise tax bill
Say what you want. The boat was frequently used in Massachusetts so he had to pony up the money. He voluntarily did it before the Massachusetts tax collectors demanded the money. Before Massachusetts tax collectors gathered more evidence such as the ships log. But the ruling and outcome would have been the same. He would have had to pay up $500,000.
Of course Kerry emphasized the voluntary nature of paying up once he was squealed on by people who saw the boast frequenting Massachusetts. That is like you “volunteering” to pay up on an IRS tax dispute before they do some more investigating
I never said they were. Please see #68.
We should lower taxes drastically, cut social programs drastically and maintain an adequate defense. Thats the conservative way.
I completely agree and advocate the same. I did not say anything to the contrary. Your argument is therefore directed at a straw man --- something I did not say.
More importantly, the discussion was about what something is (is paying less taxes patriotic). You are arguments are about what we shoud do. I am sure you can see that it is a different matter.
Sorry that is not my belief. It is fact that if you frequent Massachusetts waters in your brand new yacht and dock there a bit....Then Massachusetts will demand payment of use/excise tax. Despite your claim that it is actually berthed in “no taxation” Rhode Island
Especially when you own two residences in Massachusetts and none in Rhode Island, Massachusetts will say to you that the real home of your boat is in Massachusetts. A good number of people try the same scam as John Kerry and some get away with it until they are squealed on. Some get away with it forever I’m sure.
I cannot say whether I agree or disagree, however. This is simply because, having no qualification to form one, I have no opinion on the legal matters.
Kerry has sailed the boat in Massachusetts, according to a person with knowledge of the situation who declined to be named, although it is unclear how often. The senator has homes in Boston and on Nantucket.
State tax law specialists say that even if the senator sailed in Massachusetts a fairly low number of times, he could be liable for the taxes.
If it was in Massachusetts two or three times, it would not surprise me if Department of Revenue went after a boat on that basis, said Joe Donovan, former deputy counsel at the Department of Revenue.
Donovan said the burden would be on Kerry to prove he does not intend to use the boat in Massachusetts, and having property on Nantucket would not help his case.
When somebody has property down on the islands (Nantucket), its natural to assume Massachusetts waters wouldnt be avoided, Donovan said.
If the senator had not volunteered to pay, Donovan said, collecting the taxes could have taken two years or longer, with all the appeals and court remedies available. (this way Kerry avoided the steady drip of bad publicity)
The states senior US senator has been assailed by questions since the Boston Herald reported Friday that he was docking his yacht, Isabel, in Newport, R.I., allowing him to avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in Massachusetts taxes. Rhode Island rescinded its sales and use tax on boats in 1993, creating a tax haven for yacht owners.
Residents who buy boats out of state but plan to use them in Massachusetts must file a form and pay a use tax, equivalent to the Massachusetts sales tax of 6.25 percent, by the 20th day of the month after they take possession of the boats, according to the Department of Revenue. Kerry filed no such form and paid no such tax. If he docked the yacht in Massachusetts, he would also be subject to a $70,000 annual excise tax, payable to the city or town of that home port.
TopQuark, replied in comment #43:
"Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What's so patriotic about not having the military, then?"
FamilyOp: That's the slippery slope fallacy...
That's what you claimed in the preceding post as well. As in that post, you do not attempt to demonstrate that the argument is fallacious. If it is, then you've got to explain why.
I am afraid, the real reason for the irritation shows up next:
... and a typically anti-conservative argument.
As guilt by association, this is fallacious and not quite fair. If I fall into a trap and repeat, however inadvertently, anti-conservative arguments, this should definitely be pointed out to me -- I would be only grateful. But you don't say what those "anti-conservative" arguments are or why my statements are fallcious.
So, you leave us only with your beliefs that (i) I committed a fallacy, and (ii) such fallacy is typical for our opponents.
No less important is that you appear to misunderstand what the (indeed fallacious) slippery-slope argument is, thinking that an extreme example is the slippery-slope fallacy. It is not. That argument erroneously posits that the fist step leads invariably to a sequence of events ending is some undesirable outcome. In the present discussion, however, nobody mentioned any process or steps, connected or otherwise.
The question was about the relationship between not paying taxes and patriotism.
It was also dishonest,...
Oh my, how easily you through accusations. Dishonest? Not some error, mistake or careless thinking; not possibly limitations on the ability to think carefully ---- it was dishonest. Oh my.
..., as Jotmo did not advocate for shutting the military forces down.
I did not suggest he ever did: I gave that example.
Since you preferred not to look up the preceding post as I suggest, I an pasting it for you:
Jotmo: "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible."
And: "It does not follow that "It's every American's patriotic duty to pay as little tax as possible." leads to "nobody pays any federal tax.", or the implication in that statement which is, "the federal government gets no revenue."
That is correct. But nobody suggested that implication; are now arguing, quite correctly, against a straw man. We are not talking about an implication. The situation "nobody pays any tax" is a special case of "little tax" to which you referred in your original claim. This is, moreover, the most illustrative special case: since zero is the smallest nonnegative number, the "zero tax" is the ultimate illustration of "little tax."
But, since you appear to have been derailed by this issue of zero tax, let me rephrase my question staying entirely within your "little tax:" Smaller taxes translate into a smaller provision of public goods and, in particular, a weakening of our national defense. Surely you will agree that there is nothing patriotic about weakening America's defense.
I would be only grateful if you point out my errors. It would help, however, it you ensured first that you understand what was and was not said in this exchange.
It’s now clear that you’re a liar. You say nobody suggested that implication, but the “implication” is a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU. You are the one that said DIRECTLY that paying as little tax as possible lead to nobody paying any taxes. It’s not a straw man because it is EXACTLY what YOU said:
“Really? Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then? “
You are the one that jumped straight from “as little as possible” to “nobody pays any”. That’s you, not a straw man. Every time you call it a straw man, every time say nobody implied it, you are LYING. You said it. STOP LYING.
You (TopQuark) wrote, “Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax. What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” You first posted the implied assumption that people trying to pay “as little tax as possible” would slide toward paying no federal tax at all. That’s the slippery slope fallacy. The second sentence was a typically anti-conservative argument. You begged the question while using it as a false accusation. Asking, “What’s so patriotic about not having the military, then?” is much like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Jotmo made no proposition for paying no federal taxes or having no military.
Implying a dishonesty for the purpose of denying it later is a dishonest method of argument that we’ve seen from many anti-conservatives. Implying a dishonesty in accusation is a typically feminist tactic.
You quote me, correctly, as saying: "Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax."
This is a hypothetical. I did not predict that such outcome will occur. I do not claim anybody else made that prediction. Nor did I even speculate about a possibility that it may occur. That is what the word "suppose" conveys. People often say such things when constructing an argument: "Suppose for a moment that..." or "Suppose for the sake of the argument that.."
Completely misunderstanding this sentence, you claim that I said DIRECTLY that paying as little tax as possible lead[s] to nobody paying any taxes.
This is clearly false. You could've made this claim by mistake, of course, but no amount of clarification, including a complete restatement of the argument appears to help. Which suggests that you are not after the truth: you assumed, erroneously and unfairly, that I was advancing an "anti-conservative" argument, and the ensuing anger completely paralyzed both your brain and whatever organs that cause you to be fair at other times.
Having no basis in fact or logic, you even resorted to name-calling:
youre a liar.... man. Every time... you are LYING. You said it. STOP LYING.
Thank you for revealing fully how much you care about conservative principles.
I hope you don't expect me to reply any further.
Have a good night.
It’s not just a hypothetical, it’s a slippery slope, given that the post you were replying to said absolutely NOTHING about nobody paying taxes when you said “suppose you get your way” you were BSing. That wasn’t “his way”, his way was the least taxes possible under law, which isn’t nobody pays any taxes. Thus your slope, and a straw man to boot. Funny the guy accusing everybody else of tilting at straw men started it all off with a straw man.
You said it, it was silly, it was a slippery slope, and it was a straw man. And you’ve refused to acknowledge by with lies and insults. You lied, that makes you a liar, that’s not name calling, that’s pointed out the simple truth. You’re a liar. You’ve lied to avoid defending a position you know yourself was silly.
This is what your statement reads like: "Playing violin while trying to cook dinner is a preposterous tactic used by many tax-collectors. Doing so while also sleeping is a typically Roman strategy."
What does this nonsense even means, let alone what relevance does it have to anything said before?
I indeed wrote: Suppose you get your way, and nobody pays any federal tax.
Your conclusion: "You first posted the implied assumption that people trying to pay as little tax as possible would slide toward paying no federal tax at all."
There is no implied assumption. There is no "would" (as in would slide) of any kind. There is no speculation of what will or will not take place.
Here is what the statement does say:
1. "Small taxes" is a category of situations where the number expressing the tax paid is, well, small. Most people yould probably agree that it includes as special cases, $100 tax, $20 tax, $1 tax...
I used one such example:
2. Zero tax cleally belongs to the category "small taxes." In fact it is the smallest nonnegative tax possible. So I focus on that special case:
3. Suppose people don't pay taxes.
In sum, the reasoning is this: if (suppose) people don't take taxes; then there is a consequence of no defense, to which no patriot would subscribe --- a contradiction, which shows that the statement is false. This form of reasoning is standard and referred to as "reductio ad absurdum" or "proof by contradiction."
The only implication (something of the form "if...then") in my reasoning is: "no taxes" implies "no defense." There are no other. You misread it, unfortunately, as "Little taxes" implies "no taxes" (which would indeed make it look like a slippery slope). No such thing has been said. The connection here is not even an implication at all: it is a specialization.
If something is claimed (by Jotmo) to be true for an entire category (little taxes), it must be true for every special case in that category (for zero tax). This is not an implication, something of the form "A implies B;" this statement is specialization: you (Jotmo) claim something to be true "for all X; Ok, let's consider it for a specific X.
That you compelled me to write the foregoing after I clarified this earlier makes me wonder what you are after here. Your posture looks more like a hunt rather than a discussion: you seem unconcerned with the subject matter or what I think aboout, being bent instead "proving" that what I said is not only not conservative but even anti-conservative.
If my impression is incorrect, let's return to a discussion of the subject matter. Otherwise, stay with whatever conclusions you want and use whatever tortured logic you choose to "prove" your supposition about me, but I shall not dignify with a firther reply these ridiculously unfounded attacks. These drummed up "charges" were not worth even this post.
No, but last time down there me and a buddy certainly scared them pretty well. There was a herd on the land grazing at the time we wanted to shoot. A few rounds of .45 ACP fired into the ground made them decide that grazing was better elsewhere.
Good post, GA. Thanks for bringing moral and logical clarity (always a dangerous thing to do) into the discussion.
We actually tried to move them before the shooting using my buddy’s SUV(driving and honking), but they would not budge from the area.
Maybe they’re accustomed to vehicles. In South Park. If we get within about 50 yards on foot, they start moving (Angus, black whiteface, occasional longhorn,...). ...different environment for them down there, I guess. Some breeds tend to be more sluggish, too (e.g., Hereford).