B
Brad
Guest
Maybe not 42% but well over 30% when you consider income, sales and property and extra taxes and fees on gas and utilities.
- Status
K
katherine2
Guest
So the first assertion was a lie?
B
Brad
Guest
I have no idea. I didn’t assert it.
T
theMutant
Guest
To Catholic2003,
The main problem is that the bishops, in this case, are merely presenting their own political position which is being masqueraded as part of the Church’s teaching on social justice. In fact, it contradicts that teaching because it is unjust in its treatment and the method of accomplishing the stated goal (helping the poor) is one which is not compatible with the Catholic Faith as has been handed down to us. The very fact that what they proclaim now is the exact opposite of what has been proclaimed by bishops and popes in the past - and cannot be supported by example from the Scriptures - demonstrates this very clearly.
There is no place in Scripture or authentic Church teaching that says that we can forcefully take from the rich to provide for the needs of the poor if they fail to do so willingly. This was discussed at great length in the following thread.
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18858
The main problem is that the bishops, in this case, are merely presenting their own political position which is being masqueraded as part of the Church’s teaching on social justice. In fact, it contradicts that teaching because it is unjust in its treatment and the method of accomplishing the stated goal (helping the poor) is one which is not compatible with the Catholic Faith as has been handed down to us. The very fact that what they proclaim now is the exact opposite of what has been proclaimed by bishops and popes in the past - and cannot be supported by example from the Scriptures - demonstrates this very clearly.
There is no place in Scripture or authentic Church teaching that says that we can forcefully take from the rich to provide for the needs of the poor if they fail to do so willingly. This was discussed at great length in the following thread.
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=18858
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
Katherine, I can’t follow your statement with the double negatives, and I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I will tell you that when I lived in Louisiana, which has a state income tax, as a married person, I paid about 45% in taxes on the first dollar I made and it potentially went up after that. I didn’t make the 42% assertion originally, but it is true.
So I repeat my question: do you say a 42% tax rate is just?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I recommend reading “The Man Who Walked Through Time” by Colin Fletcher. It’s about hiking in the Grand Canyon.
Like all such books, it has the obligatory stories of people who died in the canyon. One group were some boys accompanied by a priest. They got lost. They got thirsty, and thirsty people tend to become irrational. At one point the priest insisted they take off their shoes, throw them down the canyon, and then climb down to them.
The moral of the story is, priests and bishops may be good at what they do, but they aren’t qualified to help you get out of the Grand Canyon.
K
katherine2
Guest
All of the bishops? Consistently for 60 years? Wouldn’t you think one or two right thinking bishops would have slipped through in six decades?
K
katherine2
Guest
it was previously asserted that a low income person pay 42% in taxes. Let take these issues in order. Can we agree that this is a lie and then move on to your question?
M
Matt25
Guest
osjspm.org/cst/q_mm.htm
Code:
**Notable quotations from the papal encyclical
Mater et Magistra (Mother and Teacher)
Pope John XXIII, 1961**
The economic prosperity of any people is to be assessed not so much from the sum total of goods and wealth possessed as from the distribution of goods according to norms of justice. (#74)
It is necessary that public authorities have a correct understanding of the common good. This embraces the sum total of those conditions of social living, whereby people are enabled more fully and more readily to achieve their own perfection. (#65)
As for the State, its whole raison d'etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, "the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue."
It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children. It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of the workingman. (#20)
The solidarity which binds all people together as members of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights. The nations of the world are becoming more and more dependent on one another and it will not be possible to preserve a lasting peace so long as glaring economic and social imbalances persist. (#157)
Our predecessors have always taught that in the right of private property there is rooted a social responsibility. (#119)
Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. (#238)
M
Matt25
Guest
osjspm.org/cst/q_oa.htm
**Octogesima Adveniens
A Call to Action
**In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. (#23)
It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country, to shed on it the light of the Gospel’s unalterable words and to draw principles of reflection, norms of judgment and directives for action from the social teaching of the Church. (#4)
Political power, which is the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body, must have as its aim the achievement of the common good. While respecting the legitimate liberties of individuals, families and subsidiary groups, it acts in such a way as to create, effectively and for the well-being of all, the conditions required for attaining humanity’s true and complete good, including spiritual ends. …
The Church directs her attention to these new poor - the handicapped and the maladjusted, the old, different groups of those on the fringe of society, in order to recognize them, help them, defend their place and dignity in a society hardened by competition and the attraction of success. (#15)
Certainly, personal initiative must be maintained and developed. But do not Christians who take this path tend to idealize liberalism in their turn, making it a proclamation in favor of freedom? They would like a new model, more adapted to present-day conditions, while easily forgetting that at the very root of philosophical liberalism is an erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his activity, his motivation and the exercise of his liberty. Hence, the liberal ideology likewise calls for careful discernment on their part. (#35)
While very large areas of the population are unable to satisfy their primary needs, superfluous needs are ingeniously created. It can thus rightly be asked if, in spite of all their conquests, people are not turning back against themselves the results of their activity. Having rationally endeavored to control nature, are they not now becoming the slave of the objects which they make? (#9)
Animated by the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Savior of humanity, and upheld by hope, the Christians involves themselves in the building up of the human city, one that is to be peaceful, just and fraternal and acceptable as an offering to God. In fact, “the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age”. (#37)
**Octogesima Adveniens
A Call to Action
Code:
Pope Paul VI, 1971It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is proper to their own country, to shed on it the light of the Gospel’s unalterable words and to draw principles of reflection, norms of judgment and directives for action from the social teaching of the Church. (#4)
Political power, which is the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body, must have as its aim the achievement of the common good. While respecting the legitimate liberties of individuals, families and subsidiary groups, it acts in such a way as to create, effectively and for the well-being of all, the conditions required for attaining humanity’s true and complete good, including spiritual ends. …
Code:
... To take politics seriously at its different levels -- local, regional, national and worldwide -- is to affirm the duty of all people to recognize the concrete reality and the value of the freedom of choice that is offered to them to seek to bring about both the good of the city and of the nation and of all humanity.
Politics are a demanding manner -- but not the only one -- of living the Christian commitment to the service of others. (#46)Certainly, personal initiative must be maintained and developed. But do not Christians who take this path tend to idealize liberalism in their turn, making it a proclamation in favor of freedom? They would like a new model, more adapted to present-day conditions, while easily forgetting that at the very root of philosophical liberalism is an erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his activity, his motivation and the exercise of his liberty. Hence, the liberal ideology likewise calls for careful discernment on their part. (#35)
While very large areas of the population are unable to satisfy their primary needs, superfluous needs are ingeniously created. It can thus rightly be asked if, in spite of all their conquests, people are not turning back against themselves the results of their activity. Having rationally endeavored to control nature, are they not now becoming the slave of the objects which they make? (#9)
Animated by the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Savior of humanity, and upheld by hope, the Christians involves themselves in the building up of the human city, one that is to be peaceful, just and fraternal and acceptable as an offering to God. In fact, “the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age”. (#37)
T
theMutant
Guest
I did not say all of the bishops. If you look at your own quote of my post, I clearly say “the bishops, in this case.”theMutant:
All of the bishops? Consistently for 60 years? Wouldn’t you think one or two right thinking bishops would have slipped through in six decades?
The bishops are not unanimous in this call to raise taxes just as they are rarely unanimous in many of the declarations that are credited to “the US bishops.”
K
katherine2
Guest
Can you name even a few bishops at any time over the last 60 years who opposed a social welfare initiative based on an excessive governmental role?
T
theMutant
Guest
Also from Mater et Magistra (ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/I23MATER.HTM)
19. Secondly, private ownership of property, including that of productive goods, is a natural right which the State cannot suppress. But it naturally entails a social obligation as well. It is a right which must be exercised not only for one’s own personal benefit but also for the benefit of others.
- As We pass all this in review, We are aware of Our responsibility to take up this torch which Our great predecessors lighted, and hand it on with undiminished flame. It is a torch to lighten the pathways of all who would seek appropriate solutions to the many social problems of our times. Our purpose, therefore, is not merely to commemorate in a fitting manner the Leonine encyclical, but also to confirm and make more specific the teaching of Our predecessors, and to determine clearly the mind of the Church on the new and important problems of the day.
- It should be stated at the outset that in the economic order first place must be given to the personal initiative of private citizens working either as individuals or in association with each other in various ways for the furtherance of common interests.
- But–for reasons explained by Our predecessors–the civil power must also have a hand in the economy. It has to promote production in a way best calculated to achieve social progress and the well-being of all citizens.
- And in this work of directing, stimulating, co-ordinating, supplying and integrating, its guiding principle must be the “principle of subsidiary function” formulated by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, “This is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable. . . Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a community what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher association to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower societies. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them.”
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
HagiaSophia said:
Yes – anyone who is serious about ending poverty in this coutry must commit to providing every child with a first-class, world-quality education.
Where are our Catholic schools, and why are they not expanding in the poorest parts of the country?
P
Philip_P
Guest
Hi all, my first post on these forums, I look forward to joining in the discussions here.
Reading through these posts, it struck me yet again that the primary political divide among Catholics is not so much disagreement on what is right and wrong as much as it is a question of the role of the state. There is a consensus that there is a moral obligation to the poor. Those on the political right would argue that the role of the state here should be minimal, or not at all. Those on the political left would argue that the state has a legitimate and active role to play.
Personally I lean to the left - I think that there is a necesary and active role to be played by the state. Programs and initiatives should be closely monitored and evaluated, with effective programs continued or expanded and those that don’t work cut, but I certainly have no ideological problem with the state’s involvement. In fact, I expect it, and since you can’t get something for nothing, I expect to be taxed for it. There is of course the issue of misuse of public funds, but this seems more a question of government transparency than tax rate. Misuse of funds should not be tolerated regardless of the amount. What I don’t understand, though, is the opposition to taxes (and by extension the state) as a matter of principle. If a tax cut is justified, by all means, but the apparent conviction that the state should has no role to play baffles me. I suppose another way of putting this is that I’d be interested in a direct articulation of a theology of church and state for a pluralistic, democratic society such as ours (there are other issues besides taxation implied here, but this seems a good place to start…)
Reading through these posts, it struck me yet again that the primary political divide among Catholics is not so much disagreement on what is right and wrong as much as it is a question of the role of the state. There is a consensus that there is a moral obligation to the poor. Those on the political right would argue that the role of the state here should be minimal, or not at all. Those on the political left would argue that the state has a legitimate and active role to play.
Personally I lean to the left - I think that there is a necesary and active role to be played by the state. Programs and initiatives should be closely monitored and evaluated, with effective programs continued or expanded and those that don’t work cut, but I certainly have no ideological problem with the state’s involvement. In fact, I expect it, and since you can’t get something for nothing, I expect to be taxed for it. There is of course the issue of misuse of public funds, but this seems more a question of government transparency than tax rate. Misuse of funds should not be tolerated regardless of the amount. What I don’t understand, though, is the opposition to taxes (and by extension the state) as a matter of principle. If a tax cut is justified, by all means, but the apparent conviction that the state should has no role to play baffles me. I suppose another way of putting this is that I’d be interested in a direct articulation of a theology of church and state for a pluralistic, democratic society such as ours (there are other issues besides taxation implied here, but this seems a good place to start…)
M
Matt25
Guest
Welcome Phillp, enjoy.
The Church has a history with regard to taxation, consider thishttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573037_4/Taxation.html
During the Middle Ages, from about the 5th century ad to the 15th century, taxation varied from region to region. Europeans were subject to many forms of taxation, including land taxes, poll taxes, inheritance taxes, tolls (payments for the use of bridges, roads, or seaports), and miscellaneous fees and fines. Many people paid taxes in the form of money or crops directly to the local lord whose land they farmed.
Under the system of feudalism that dominated in Western Europe beginning in about the 11th century, kings, nobles, and church rulers all collected taxes. Kings derived income from their lands, from import and export duties, and from the various feudal dues and services owed by their vassals. For the most part, church officials and nobles were granted exemption from royal taxes, so the burden of taxation fell heavily on the peasantry. When King John of England tried to increase his income by a series of heavy scutages (payments that knights made in lieu of military service), the feudal nobility refused to pay. In 1215 they forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, a document in which he agreed to collect scutage only with the “common consent” of his barons—thus limiting the king’s power to tax.
The Roman Catholic church was a major tax collector during the Middle Ages. One of the most important sources of church revenue was the tithe, a compulsory payment of one-tenth of a person’s harvest and livestock. The church also collected various fees, fines, and tolls, and required clergy members, such as bishops and archbishops, to make payments to the papacy in Rome.
The Church has a history with regard to taxation, consider thishttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761573037_4/Taxation.html
During the Middle Ages, from about the 5th century ad to the 15th century, taxation varied from region to region. Europeans were subject to many forms of taxation, including land taxes, poll taxes, inheritance taxes, tolls (payments for the use of bridges, roads, or seaports), and miscellaneous fees and fines. Many people paid taxes in the form of money or crops directly to the local lord whose land they farmed.
Under the system of feudalism that dominated in Western Europe beginning in about the 11th century, kings, nobles, and church rulers all collected taxes. Kings derived income from their lands, from import and export duties, and from the various feudal dues and services owed by their vassals. For the most part, church officials and nobles were granted exemption from royal taxes, so the burden of taxation fell heavily on the peasantry. When King John of England tried to increase his income by a series of heavy scutages (payments that knights made in lieu of military service), the feudal nobility refused to pay. In 1215 they forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, a document in which he agreed to collect scutage only with the “common consent” of his barons—thus limiting the king’s power to tax.
The Roman Catholic church was a major tax collector during the Middle Ages. One of the most important sources of church revenue was the tithe, a compulsory payment of one-tenth of a person’s harvest and livestock. The church also collected various fees, fines, and tolls, and required clergy members, such as bishops and archbishops, to make payments to the papacy in Rome.
M
Matt25
Guest
The Bishops of England and Wales recently published “Taxation and the Common Good”
catholic-ew.org.uk/resource/tax/tfcg_summary.htm
The document attempts to dispel the myth that public services paid for out of taxation are simply ”parasitic on the wealth-creating sector” - the idea that the private sector really earns the money to pay tax.
The bishops’ call this a “false dichotomy” made clear “as soon as we reflect on the many things which go to make the ‘wealth’ of society, not least health, education, social order, social well-being, good housing”.
The bishops emphasise that the Government “has an obligation to watch over the interests of the poor and most disadvantaged because power is not distributed evenly in society”.
However, they also questions the morality of certain developments in taxation, including progressive taxation, which, they argue “has become less progressive in the last 25 years with the increase in indirect taxes and the tendency of government to use them to generate revenue rather than raise income tax”.
The document emphasises that justice must underlie any fair system of taxation. It says: “Redistributive justice means that tax is levied according to ability to pay and goods are distributed according to needs and necessities. It does not mean, therefore, that everyone should pay or receive the same, because some have greater wealth and some have greater need.”
The bishops link the obligations of Government to consult on and levy taxes fairly, to ensure that such decisions do not inadvertently distort economic behaviour or undermine other socially desirable policies like pollution reduction with solidarity and justice, which, they say, are “theological and moral virtues”.
“There is a modern-day fiction which makes many people uncomfortable with some of the claims of solidarity. This is that what we own and what we earn are obtained by our own unaided efforts and that, therefore, we have an absolute right as to how we use it and dispose of it,” it says.
In truth, the document says, “in order to make a product and sell it for a profit, the company needs more than just raw materials. It also needs an educated workforce who has access to healthcare in a peaceful, ordered society. It needs roads and other infrastructure. There are also such intangible things as trust and honesty which reduce the costs of legally enforcing contracts. All of these are provided for by society.” This, they say, is contributed to via tax.
catholic-ew.org.uk/resource/tax/tfcg_summary.htm
Code:
Debates about the levels and incidence of taxation are part of the staple diet of political discourse in our society. They are issues on which our political parties will often hold sharply differing views. What is it, then, that a Church might have to add to the debate?
The answer is a moral context. What is often missing from debates about taxation is a realisation of what taxation represents in terms of a shared commitment as citizens to building up a society that serves the common good. The Catholic Church has developed a body of social teaching which explains and develops this idea of the common good. The present publication argues, from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, that taxation is a contribution to the common good; and it goes on to provide a detailed description of the variety of services funded by taxation and the different forms which taxation takes. Taken together these illustrate in a simple way the scale and breadth of what our society does, and is only able to do, as a result of our common willingness to pay taxes. This publication does not seek to draw conclusions about what the desirable levels of taxation should be. **Rather, it aims to call attention to something that is recognised by all but rarely articulated - that taxation is a sign of social health, and a moral good. Our willingness to pay it is a sign of our solidarity with one another, and of our humanity.**
In this context, the document explores the profoundly important issues around the individual responsibilities this implies. For example, should we be allowed to withhold taxes for policies which are against our conscience such as NHS abortion services or the production of nuclear weapons? Are some forms of taxation immoral?The bishops’ call this a “false dichotomy” made clear “as soon as we reflect on the many things which go to make the ‘wealth’ of society, not least health, education, social order, social well-being, good housing”.
The bishops emphasise that the Government “has an obligation to watch over the interests of the poor and most disadvantaged because power is not distributed evenly in society”.
However, they also questions the morality of certain developments in taxation, including progressive taxation, which, they argue “has become less progressive in the last 25 years with the increase in indirect taxes and the tendency of government to use them to generate revenue rather than raise income tax”.
The document emphasises that justice must underlie any fair system of taxation. It says: “Redistributive justice means that tax is levied according to ability to pay and goods are distributed according to needs and necessities. It does not mean, therefore, that everyone should pay or receive the same, because some have greater wealth and some have greater need.”
The bishops link the obligations of Government to consult on and levy taxes fairly, to ensure that such decisions do not inadvertently distort economic behaviour or undermine other socially desirable policies like pollution reduction with solidarity and justice, which, they say, are “theological and moral virtues”.
“There is a modern-day fiction which makes many people uncomfortable with some of the claims of solidarity. This is that what we own and what we earn are obtained by our own unaided efforts and that, therefore, we have an absolute right as to how we use it and dispose of it,” it says.
In truth, the document says, “in order to make a product and sell it for a profit, the company needs more than just raw materials. It also needs an educated workforce who has access to healthcare in a peaceful, ordered society. It needs roads and other infrastructure. There are also such intangible things as trust and honesty which reduce the costs of legally enforcing contracts. All of these are provided for by society.” This, they say, is contributed to via tax.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Thank you, Matt, and thanks for directing me to the British Catholic thoughts on the matter. Their statements make a lot of sense to me, and are close to my own feelings regarding taxation.
Perhaps one of the strict anti-tax members on these forums would like to explain the opposing view? Britain (and Europe in general) seems far more comfortable with taxation and government involvement than the US. In the American context, what is the moral argument for a tax policy that is increasingly regressive, guts social programs, and hampers government’s ability to maintain a healthy budget? The Republicans seem to have a sort of mania for tax cuts (especially for cuts aimed at the upper tiers of income), and every cut or attempt at cutting is greeted quite enthusiastically by many. I understand the economic and self-interest arguments for and against, but would someone like to articulate a moral argument for it (beyond the “cutting taxes spurs growth argument.” Yes, sometimed tax cuts can encourage growth, but what I’m trying to understand is the ideologoical embrace of all tax cuts all the time, which has more to do with politics than economics).
Perhaps one of the strict anti-tax members on these forums would like to explain the opposing view? Britain (and Europe in general) seems far more comfortable with taxation and government involvement than the US. In the American context, what is the moral argument for a tax policy that is increasingly regressive, guts social programs, and hampers government’s ability to maintain a healthy budget? The Republicans seem to have a sort of mania for tax cuts (especially for cuts aimed at the upper tiers of income), and every cut or attempt at cutting is greeted quite enthusiastically by many. I understand the economic and self-interest arguments for and against, but would someone like to articulate a moral argument for it (beyond the “cutting taxes spurs growth argument.” Yes, sometimed tax cuts can encourage growth, but what I’m trying to understand is the ideologoical embrace of all tax cuts all the time, which has more to do with politics than economics).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Philip P:
Here in Arkansas, we have 22% adult illiteracy. In Phillips County (in my district), we have 43%. In Lee County (also in my district) we have 45%. This state and district have been under Democrat control since Reconstruction (1877.)
The liberal position has been to create “programs.” One federal official said, “We’ve poured a billion dollars into those two counties, and . . .” (He made a gesture to indicate a toilet being flushed.)
My position is NOT to create even more programs, but to hold the education system responsible for doing what we pay it to do. Until we can provide a first-class, world-quality education to every child in the nation, we will not succeed either in eliminating proverty, or in being a true democracy.
In looking at other areas, such as Social Security, we see that last year Social Security ran a $179 BILLION surplus – and that money was, to put it bluntly, ripped off and squandered. If the workers had been allowed to keep and invest that money, they would be far better off at retirement than they are under the present system.
Let me respectly disagree with you. As Republican candidate for Congress, 1st District of Arkansas, I think I would be one of those you consider on the right. I know of no serious conservative who would say you have fairly presented the conservative side.
Here in Arkansas, we have 22% adult illiteracy. In Phillips County (in my district), we have 43%. In Lee County (also in my district) we have 45%. This state and district have been under Democrat control since Reconstruction (1877.)
The liberal position has been to create “programs.” One federal official said, “We’ve poured a billion dollars into those two counties, and . . .” (He made a gesture to indicate a toilet being flushed.)
My position is NOT to create even more programs, but to hold the education system responsible for doing what we pay it to do. Until we can provide a first-class, world-quality education to every child in the nation, we will not succeed either in eliminating proverty, or in being a true democracy.
In looking at other areas, such as Social Security, we see that last year Social Security ran a $179 BILLION surplus – and that money was, to put it bluntly, ripped off and squandered. If the workers had been allowed to keep and invest that money, they would be far better off at retirement than they are under the present system.
S
StJeanneDArc
Guest
Philip P:
Welcome, Philip! I’m a conservative, and I don’t oppose *taxes *as a matter of principle. I oppose *redistribution *as a matter of principle. Redistribution is what we have in the social security system, welfare system, earned income tax credits, and other programs. I understand perfectly well that the government has a role in our society. We need to fund the organs of government, defend our society, build and maintain our infrastructure, etc. These are all necessary for the common good. On the other hand, over the last 60 years the government has subsidized all sorts of bad behavior that is detrimental to our society, and it has done it with taxpayer money. There have been program after program that have not only been bad for the common good, but arguably bad for the individuals they’ve purported to help. Government is just really, really bad at philanthropic endeavors and shouldn’t be in the business of doing it.
- Status