If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chattanooga Times Free Press)   GOP governors for the last few years: lets slash taxes on businesses and the wealthy to show how "business friendly" we are" GOP governors now: We're broke and businesses are complaining our roads are crap-so let's double the gas tax   (timesfreepress.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, GOP, gasoline taxes, Republican governors, Michigan, third rail, Rick Snyder, vehicle registrations, sales taxes  
•       •       •

2846 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2013 at 12:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-21 06:12:41 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: no, see, in this conversation, "general spending" means spending which is not "investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity"

No he meant spending from the general fund over spending like a gas tax which is specifically ear marked.

You are using circular logic. Saying his statement must be correct and then using his statement to prove that it is correct.


wow... he doesn't even mention specifically earmarked funds.

His organization does mention this though:

"The Michigan Chamber supports Governor Snyder's proposal to build a New International Trade Crossing and supports as well a comprehensive, statewide transportation investment plan.  "

separately it says:

"The Michigan Chamber supports the development of a cost-effective, statewide plan to invest wisely in Michigan's transportation infrastructure. To accomplish this goal, the Chamber urges the Legislature and Administration to: retain a user fee-based system of financing where the cost of service relates to the benefit received; more vigorously pursue innovative public-private partnerships including toll roads; and the promotion of more open and competitive bidding for state contracts through repeal of the state's costly Prevailing Wage Act. "

The first example does not mention "earmarking". The second does. Weird for a guy who is talking about the "general budget" when he says "general spending" eh, Corvus?
 
2013-03-21 06:13:51 PM
 SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.
 
2013-03-21 06:14:23 PM

lennavan: Yet somehow I highly doubt it. Don't you?


yeah I doubt it too. I just didn't feel like arguing about the dubious economic benefits of beautifying city hall

lennavan: Yes, I understand what you're saying. And I think that is exactly how he wants you to hear his quote. I just don't buy it. You have to consider the organization he's in charge of. We have no idea what he actually considers "general spending" but I have no doubt under that big umbrella are all sorts of things that have positive economic impacts. I just cannot imagine the guy in charge of the MI Chamber of Commerce agreeing with higher taxes and increasing funding for schools, yet there is also a direct impact on the economy with education.


http://www.michamber.com/board-policies
 
2013-03-21 06:15:19 PM

Corvus: SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.


and now with the name calling. Have some self-respect and go away dude
 
2013-03-21 06:20:44 PM

skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies


While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.
 
2013-03-21 06:21:19 PM

Corvus: SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.


Corvus go sit in the corner and think about what you did today so it doesn't happen again.
 
2013-03-21 06:21:52 PM
Note: For some federations like Brazil and Mexico, only the federal budget is shown. For most other countries the total budget is shown. Although Germany is a federation the statistics for Germany represent total general government spending.[3]

...

Look at the Texas Legislature, which is on track to divert nearly $5 billion raised for specific programs to accounts where it balances spending in the two-year general budget. Legislators tell voters they are collecting taxes and fees to pay for pleasant-sounding programs like criminal justice planning, fugitive apprehension, clean air, artificial reefs, 911 emergency services and trauma care, to name a few.

Then they leave some or all of the money collected for those programs in account balances that, for accounting purposes, can be counted against general spending to balance the budget.


...


Va. budget plan would shrink general spending to 2006 levels
With Virginia facing what lawmakers say is the grimmest financial picture in memory, the House of Delegates and Senate adopted budgets last week that would shrink general spending to about $15 billion, or no more than was spent four years ago.


All of these are using the term "general spending" exactly how I am using it.
 
2013-03-21 06:23:07 PM

Corvus: All of these are using the term "general spending" exactly how I am using it.


GO BACK TO YOUR CORNER
 
2013-03-21 06:24:46 PM
Kentuky government using the term "General spending" just like I have been:


The Budget Reserve Trust Fund usually receives its deposits from surplus funds at the end of a fiscal year.  This represents either greater General Fund tax revenues than anticipated or unspent General Fund expenditures.  The Legislature may also direct funds to the Budget Reserve Trust Fund through the appropriation bills it passes.

The most common use of the Budget Reserve Trust Fund has been to help keep the state's budget balanced when tax revenues are less than anticipated.  There also have been times when the Legislature chooses to use the Budget Reserve Trust Fund to finance general spending through the budget bills it passes.
 
2013-03-21 06:27:57 PM
"General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"
 
2013-03-21 06:29:51 PM

lennavan: skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies

While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.


I never said the guy was smart.
 
2013-03-21 06:35:44 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Fun part is the news that came out showing ALL of Wisconsin's counties have budget issues now and their unemployment went UP. How's life for all of you Koch suckers?


As reprehensible as Walker has been... how would Barrett have been any better? The light rail connection from Chicago to the Cities? Might be handy in the long-run but in-state traffic (namely Madison to Milwaukee) won't sustain it day-to-day. Neither one can attract businesses because all keep pandering to the outdated notion that manufacturers want to come here.  So we were screwed either way really.
 
2013-03-21 06:35:50 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies

While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.

I never said the guy was smart.


No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy.  Clearly he's not.  He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy.  That was my point.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:40 PM

lennavan: No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy. Clearly he's not. He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy. That was my point.


no, I said that he said that there's a difference. Which is what he said.
Never did I say that he said we should ONLY spend money on the "non-general spending" as he termed it. Opposition to MJ legalization provides support for that.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:46 PM

Corvus: "General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"


You should tell that to Google.  A google search for "general spending" pops up almost entirely articles about a four star general spending money inappropriately.

c.o0bc.com
 
2013-03-21 06:38:54 PM

lennavan: Corvus: "General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"

You should tell that to Google.  A google search for "general spending" pops up almost entirely articles about a four star general spending money inappropriately.

[c.o0bc.com image 539x410]


General Spending returning from the front, sir.
 
2013-03-21 06:49:06 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy. Clearly he's not. He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy. That was my point.

no, I said that he said that there's a difference. Which is what he said.
Never did I say that he said we should ONLY spend money on the "non-general spending" as he termed it. Opposition to MJ legalization provides support for that.


That's not what I'm saying.  At face value, the basis of his argument is "this is worthy of spending on because it improves the economy."  All I'm saying is there's more to it than that.  I could also grow MI's economy by legalizing pot and spending tax dollars on growing weed on farms.  Why would he be for tax dollars for roads but against tax dollars for pot when both would grow the economy?  His personal values, that's why.

And you gotta believe the pot thing would grow their economy way more than the roads thing.  People would flock there on horseback and shiat if they legalized it (lets ignore the federal law complication for the sake of the joke).
 
2013-03-21 09:48:31 PM
Snyder is just another tax and spend libtard.
 
2013-03-21 09:55:04 PM

Magorn: Weaver95: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

They could always raise taxes.  that'd fix the problem!  oh, wait - no, they can't.  Republicans can't raise taxes, they can only CUT taxes.  And they can only cut taxes on corporations and the rich.  that's why it kinda sucks to be them.

They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


I hate that shuttle from Dulles to the metro.  I'll pay extra to go to National.
 
2013-03-21 09:55:18 PM
Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again
 
2013-03-21 10:27:46 PM

Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again


streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:20 PM

DamnYankees: But job creators!


Done in two.
 
2013-03-21 10:51:15 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


I know. Everyone knows the job creators built everything themselves.
 
2013-03-21 11:17:03 PM

PsyLord: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.

You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.


I think the real fun would come when (accidentally) drives on someone's private property and ends up getting shot.

/Lives in the Calif high desert region
//Drives a Jeep
 
2013-03-21 11:57:49 PM

skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.


Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?
 
2013-03-22 12:15:53 AM
How about letting these businesses... you know, the ones who got their taxes cut and who are now b*tching about the roads... pay for the upkeep of those roads? Higher gas taxes hit the people who can least afford them, and cause them to drive less or carpool, which further reduces gasoline use, which reduces revenue, which makes these idiot legislators want to raise gas taxes... and on and on.

No... it's your 18 wheel trucks tearing sh*t up all over the country 24/7/365, you pay what you owe.
Stop with the f*cking giveaways to corporations.
 
2013-03-22 12:37:46 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?


I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.
 
2013-03-22 12:49:36 AM

skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.


Are you saying you disagree?
 
2013-03-22 01:02:41 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?


I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.
 
2013-03-22 01:25:25 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

Who abuses the roads more? A shipping company with hundreds of multi-ton semi's that run almost 24/7/365 OR a poor guy who commutes to work a few miles half the week? Remember, the companies are the ones asking for it but it's the citizens who are paying for it.


Generally speaking, "multi-ton semis" don't use surface streets, since they're neither wide enough nor rated for such usage. Big semis are pretty much restricted to freeways and main thoroughfares. Shipping companies have to transfer goods to smaller trucks for side-street deliveries. That's why you see signs like "No Trucks Over 10 T on Grove St." all over the place.

Also, as any trucking company could tell you, they do pay a shipping tax and a use tax per mile; that's what the "shipping and handling" charge is for when you order something, and part of a tariff when anything is shipped across state lines--so that interstate freight doesn't chew up other states' roadways. People in New York have to subsidize California's highways whenever goods travel across country, you know.

I'm not entirely sure why you think the companies should be footing 100% of the bill for using the roads that benefit the poor guy who commutes half a week to work, as if the roads were only there for the companies' benefit. By having an interstate network, companies can ship goods more cheaply and let your impoverished commuter buy consumer goods more cheaply than he'd otherwise have access to. Since his taxes pay part of the roadway bills, the shipping company doesn't have to pay crippling tariffs to bring goods from Missouri to  Wyoming, and your worker can get his electronics at Walmart without paying twice the price. That helps anyone who doesn't live on a river or a coast.

It's not like we live in a country where every state produces everything, and don't need other states products.
 
2013-03-22 02:56:28 AM

skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.


Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.
 
2013-03-22 03:24:02 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.

Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.


That is coming from the guy who says spending from the general budget fund is not "general spending". He is either not very honest or not very bright.
 
2013-03-22 08:21:58 AM

Gyrfalcon: Generally speaking, "multi-ton semis" don't use surface streets, si


Wait, what?  What do you think there is, some sort of secret truck only tunnel network throughout the US?  Because that would be awesome.
 
2013-03-22 08:28:46 AM
skullkrusher:
it's really not a white-knight to exercise assumptions which are pretty common to human interactions. I don't think it is terribly likely that he thinks that spending on roads is the only spending that should be done.

(My emphasis on "should")
See, the issue here is that the Gov. is just finally admitting that it's spending that hasto be done, if Snyder had his way there wouldn't be a single thing that tax money should be spent on (other than his, and his emergency managers' paychecks).
 
2013-03-22 10:10:16 AM

Corvus: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.

Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.

That is coming from the guy who says spending from the general budget fund is not "general spending". He is either not very honest or not very bright.


hehe good Lord Corvus
 
2013-03-22 10:13:51 AM

Frederick: Roads are one example of infrastructure. Law enforcement and fire departments are another example. When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category. Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes. All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases. And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits. Trickle down; my ass.


what sort of infrastructure are we referring to in this thread? Now, imagine you were someone else reading your posts. What sort of "infrastructure" would you think your post referred to?
So you're arguing in favor of progressive taxation to fund police and firedepartments? OK, that's an entirely new topic. One that no one has opposed here as far as I've seen.
 
2013-03-22 12:36:38 PM
Magorn:
They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


As someone who lives in DC, please let me play you a tune on my teeny-tiny violin.  You don't pay Jack in property taxes, sales taxes and especially income taxes compared to DC residents, yet you and your big ass buses chew up our roads.  As for the Dulles toll road, we're building you a metro with parking garages AND there ARE alternate routes.  They suck, but they are there.

VA residents save a ton in taxes compared to DC, MD residents because you have the rest of the state helping you out.  So wah!
 
Displayed 37 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report