So you're working a job and you get taxed but you also get taxed if you buy or pay for anything with your already taxed money. It should be one or the other but not both.
RAWR.
I Just Realised We're Being Taxed Twice
Zachary on 11/03/2022 - 21:46
Comments
@deme: Makes a lot of sense to tax wealth. Generational disparity in wealth continues to widen because only income and to a lessee degree consumption gets taxed. Meanwhile there are a multitude of ways for the rich to leverage things in their favour to avoid paying tax while still getting richer and richer
Tax every dollar that leaves the country.
eg. a 1% exchange rate tax could be used to reduce PAYG and business tax by possibly 2 or 3%. End result is that you catch businesses that engage in transfer pricing (IKEA etc) and at the same time you help local businesses to operate on a more level playing field.
Problem is that 1% wouldn't be nearly enough, and that any tax on such exchange rate can potentially tank our economy since we're very reliant on exchange.
wouldn't be nearly enough
I'd say that 1% would bring in a surprisingly large amount of revenue. Whatever amount that is, it should be used to reduce local taxes because as mentioned it provides a boost to our economy. Or were you saying that it should be more than 1%?
potentially tank our economy
I don't see that happening at all. Exports are still tax free. Imports are somewhat more expensive but consumers and businesses have more disposable cash because of the lower tax paid. The way I see it local Australians would be financially better off even if trading partners put in place a reciprocal program.
The primary objective with a Foreign Exchange Tax is that you capture a wider range of transactions, much of which is currently avoiding or minimising Australian taxation. Transfer pricing etc is, IMHO, cheating. Foreign businesses should be paying a fair contribution to the country where they make their profits.
Different people will have different opinions about how much tax should be applied to foreign exchange transactions but my personal preference would be to charge 10%. Then lower PAYG so that the vast majority of people pay the same 10% and also lower business tax to the same rate.
End result is more local jobs, stronger Australian businesses, and multinationals paying something that is closer to their fair share.
buy more nuclear subs.
It is important to have a consumption tax so that rich people can't wriggle their way out of it like they can with income tax.
They'll probably have some dodgy business to claim the GST.
Sounds good in theory but if the business makes any money it has to collect GST as well if it wants to claim GST (so cancel each other out). If a business is making no money then it would probably get the attention of auditors
That’s easy. They just fly out of the country & claim TRS on their Gucci/Versace/Rolex etc
According to the tax office the biggest defrauders of the tax system is small business
Yes, but they say little about tens of billions of revenue that pay zero tax.
But I agree small business write offs are a big lever for inequality of tax outcomes for the same income.
Small business does not have resources to hide it.
Why would a Supreme Court of The United Status decision affect Australian law?
Australia, the uk and America work on a legal system of basis of fact and precedence. If you can cite the reasoning behind laws and legislation in those countries you can usually import them to the others with legal standing.
No.
Just no.
Not at all.You cannot "import" case law.
Ahhaaahahaaa. /wipes tear
I presume you're also a sovereign citizen?
There is no basis in Australia to say income tax is not legitimate. If there was a defect in the legislation, the government could pass a new law tomorrow fixing it retrospectively.
These sort of arguments are a waste of time.Tell me you read conspiracy theory websites without telling me you read conspiracy theory websites.
Tell me you aren't a lawyer without telling you aren't a lawyer.
The ato isn't a legal entity so we don't have to pay tax. Bumper sticker or random unsolicited letter drop pamphlet worthy.
The ATO acts as a part of the Commonwealth Government Department of Treasury. It's labelled as an 'office' (that's that the O stands for) because it's a part of an existing department…it's not its own department and falls under the department of treasury (which is where all the tax rules fall under and where all tax revenue is managed)….
The ato is just the paper managers/pen pushers. They administer the laws which the Dept. of treasury enact.This is high school level civics or legal studies stuff.
As you can see I've quoted judges and high court cases
Quoting them, doesn't mean you understand what the meaning behind the quote was (or what the resulting finding of the few cases that have tried to show that personal tax is illegal).
Feel free to find a completed ruling of a case, where the person claiming they did not have to ever pay personal income tax won, and is currently living tax free?But sure, ato is illegal, personal tax in Australia is illegal, we should be picketing outside parliament house.
dystopian attitude
You are the one claiming that personal tax is illegal, and I'm the one with the dystopian attitude?
sip
I love a warm Kool aid in the morningSeems pretty easy to understand
Sure. Then feel free to find anything in the last 22 years since which supports your point? A single successfully argued case using that as precedent, with a claimant successfully arguing they never needed to and never will again pay personal tax?
Should be heaps, considering that quote/case is over 2 decades old??No income tax would mean people can actually KEEP the money they've worked for instead of having it taken without any explanation to where it goes or what its spent on ( the usual term is stealing)
Income tax makes up approx 39% of treasury revenue , but sure…scraping it would simply mean status quo and every worker just keeps more of their funds..
https://treasury.gov.au/review/tax-white-paper/at-a-glanceTax revenues use is also broken down in your yearly tax return details (in percentages)
You=dystopian me=not
Sure, if we apply your made up reality, I'll give you that, in your made up reality, I'm dystopian.
Unfortunately, that only exists in your head.I'm all for significant tax reform, putting less burden on individuals and more burden on resources and corporations (and improvements in efficiency of expenditure, but not even in your wildest distopian dreams do I think that's a likely reality), but claiming 'the ato is illegal' puts you well down the list of logical and intelligent arguments for tax reform.
@timesarehardd: True..May. I just looked at the year.
Ok, any case in the last 20 years.
Heck, even 21 years, but let's just stick to the last 2 decadesYou seem to understand what a legal personality means.
But , circles we are heading in, and this discussion is already down the drain.
ghost me
I'm not sure 'running out of enthusiasm to argue with someone, clearly either trolling or unable to grasp simple concepts ' is what I would call 'ghosting' ..
But sure.
I 100 percent accept that quote is accurate, you can even go and find it in the case notes. Not sure how anyone could say the quotes are not correct.Your (or should I say the website you are quoting from, as you aren't taking that info from the direct case notes) is interpreting it incorrectly, and drawing conclusions from it that don't exist.
Even the ato itself has tried to answer it for simple people that don't understand (using the exact same words as you, because critical thinkers keep copy pasting from the same quality sources…or it's just a critical thinking coincidence)
https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000001EK0EAM/p…
None of the big words in their reply will mean anything though, and I look forward to your upcoming case against the ato.
Off course the ATO is going to defend itself, and its a good point you mentioned "big words" as it would confuse most people who already have a poor understanding of common law. But I wouldn't trust the words of an official of the illegal entity in question who is clearly trying to save face, over the interpretations and rulings of a high court judge
Yikes. Let me guess, the words were in fact too big for you.
Now, I have a lot of free time and so I do spend some time reading (with amusement) long threads where someone/persons paint themselves as mentally shallow. Granted, these other people may be trolls with free time on their hands, too. And so, well done, you got us.
In case you're not, you're effectively saying: 'I may have been stealing, Officer, but since neither you wrote the law or aren't the literal Police Commissioner, you can't arrest me'.
15 million tax payers and not a single one has managed to use this ruling/opinion to avoid paying tax. Those 15 million people must be idiots. Not me. Nope.
Thanks for the encouragement and positivity
🤦♀️
but it's pretty clear cut and easy to understand the judges opinion
"Thank you for proving you are in fact not the Police Commissioner, Officer, therefore you can't arrest me"
Officer (and everyone else in this thread): 🤨
Ah yes unless you're a millionaire or a big corporation who's best mates are politicians! But don't worry me and you have to
Well clearly if the ATO isn't a legal entity and can therefore not make us pay tax then you don't have to be rich or powerful to take advantage.
and to see the ATO's spokespersons attempt to have credibility
Ah yes, 'of course they would say that' argument.
While you're in court for whatever you did or didn't do, I'd love to see you or your lawyer laying out the perfect defence, and then the judge and opposing lawyer just going 'of course they would say that', and completely ignore your evidence and testimony.
🤨 what the
Says the week old account that's clearly a sockpuppet.
Says the week old account that's clearly a sockpuppet.
And gone and as expected…ghost account of a long ago penalty bined user.
Ah yes hello I'm still waiting for your reply on the other thread Ughhh. I mean SBOB
Lol? You're too confused. I like it.
@timesarehardd: So? Its a public discussion, anyone can join in. Why so upset over something little like this? Geez
I'm pointing out the odd fact that SBOB replied to me in another thread but quoted YOUR comment like he actually wrote it, I can link you do it if that would help you understand?
Are you talking about this…where I responded to you, quoting your post? Yes, it was in response to your post to someone else, but I was responding to your post, quoting your line.
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/11862923/redir
Honestly, drop the continual crap about ghost accounts or raise a direct query/complaint with the forum mods. Somehow two long standing accounts are now conveniently the same person/ghost accounts, according to the brand new anti vax posters?
I miss the days where new anti vax posters at least had some entertaining, barely intelligent or 'new' content to add these discussions
why not just reply to that one? Instead of replying to a comment I made to someone else, but using your SBOB account
didnt see it, didnt read it or didnt care when I did.
take your pickyou know there arent notifications for when someone responds to you right?
Huh? Yes there are I just got one then when you replied.. you're a ozbargain veteran but didnt know that
its a beta feature, and i dont have beta features turned on.
@SBOB: Lol this is hilarious. Insinuating others having dupe/ghost accounts. About time he was banned. What a fruitloop.
Scotus
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
Also to your comment it's the same in USA.
Remember when John McAfee said come get me: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/john-mcafee-indicted-tax-evas…
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/10/john-mcafee-arre…
Let the bears pay the bear tax! I pay the Homer tax!
The reasoning behind the GST at the time of inception was it would replace all other taxes not including income tax, but of course that did not happen.
No it wasn't.
It was a tax on the poor, marketed as a way to reduce tax evasion while doing very little.
It did simplify the existing, confusing sales tax groupings
I reckon OP should head a govt think tank with his brilliance .
You are assuming everyone pays tax on the money they earn!
Twice?
You might get a bigger shock when you realise it's many many more times than twice :)Fuel, rates, insurance.
Don't even try and think that the widget you bought for $100, which had gst on it, also had part of its price made up of tax paid by the widget maker for payroll tax, and the employee that helped make the widget then paid tax on his earnings also. (Plus all the other parts of getting that widget made, delivered, on a shelf etc that involved some tax components)It's best not to think about it ;)
OP stirs pot and goes AWOL.
Deserves to be disableduser1234
He "just" realised; next week he will realise we were/are in a pandemic…
Be happy that you only pay 10% GST and not 21% as in some countries in Europe.
You can be happy about that if you want, but I won't be.
Yeah, if only our quality of life was as good as theirs…
newsflash….. the quality of life in Australia is much better than in most of Europe.
We probably win at bitching about it and having no idea what we talk about….
Totally agree.
GST should be raised to 15% at least ,trusts taxed and neg gearing abolished.
Taxation is widespread.
Can you name a legal financial transaction that isn't subject to tax?
Sale of gold from prospecting isn't subject to tax.
you know you pay a tax on petrol then you pay gst on top of that tax….
Luxury car tax is my all time favourite. Must protect that booming Australian car industry …
LCT was imposed because, at the time of GST introduction they eliminated all car wholesale sales duties. And someone realised the effect was that expensive cars would then reduce in price by $20,000 or even more. It was politically unpalatable to increase food prices and reduce the price of a Porsche. So they added a tax at the last minute
It was sold as being to protect the Australian car industry but it never was, the car industry was protected many other ways (lots of subsidies for example).
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-politics-of-axing-l…
Anyway, no one needs a $70k car. It’s weird how people get so upset at ‘the rich’ being able to reduce tax but also upset at the horror of rich people having to pay more for their expensive cars. Regard it as a ‘sin’ tax like alcohol or gambling.
And before anyone gets upset, you can absolutely buy a car that suits the needs of 99.5% of people for under $70k. The only exception is those who do actually need a big 4WD, and most of them ‘need’ it for chosen recreational purposes, not actual need. So it’s a voluntary choice. Businesses and farmers can tax deduct
And yet we've had the same party who purport to be anti-taxes in for nearly a decade, with the occasional peanuts in tax breaks dished out to the masses while the rest of our tax revenue is funnelled into their private contractor buddies and no real tax reform…and people just keep on cheering (and voting) for them.
GST was the only way to get the rich to pay any taxes at all. By making them pay it when they spent their money. Of course the price of that was to make the working class pay twice, once when they earned it, and again when they spent it. If they hadn't done that governments would have been forced to choose either to have income tax rates so high that people would revolt, or not be able to spend on things like the NDIS and fleets of submarines.
Of course it's NOT the only way to have the rich pay taxes at all …
Death duties
Remove negative gearing
Stop fully franked dividends tax rebates
Tax on all financial transfers
Annual tax on assets
Proper mining taxes
Stop Trusts or tax income redistributions at full tax rate
Stop FBT exemption for doctors etc https://www.ato.gov.au/non-profit/your-workers/your-obligati…The concept that the rich don't pay tax is basically completely false. The top 10% pay 50% of the tax (https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-ta…). The top 30% pay 84% of the tax.
What needs to be done is stop the mega rich avoiding tax, that is the top 0.1%.
As mentioned by others mining royalties, overseas companies, religion and cash businesses are the people that are not paying tax.
Removing negative gearing and stopping franking would achieve exactly nothing - removing them would just be double taxation so everyone would just move those assets out of their personal name where they are double taxed to companies etc that are not double taxed.
The main tax is 'seigniorage'* and it is never accounted for. It exponentially increases wealth for asset holders who pay no tax unless the asset is sold. Meanwhile the asset holder can borrow at rates currently below inflation and the interest is tax deductible. The political/banking system fails if deflation occurs - MUST PRINT MONEY leading to increasing asset prices and inflationary pressures.
I am doing fine but shocked at how much wealth has increased on a daily basis - it's criminally unfair
The poor have no hedge against this theft/tax - they are bought off with gv largess and waste - we sold our kids future.
*Seigniorage is the difference between the value of currency/money and the cost of producing it. It is essentially the profit earned by the government by printing currency.
Unfortunately taxes are required for a functioning society unless your country can afford to fund itself without taxation (we can’t).
Just try to minimise your tax as much as possible which is all you can really do.
It is unfair, and that's why Islamic taxation system makes much more sense.
2.5% tax on wealth at the time of paying (does not include personal items such as house you live, car, cloths)
And there is no tax on income nor items sold as that is seen as unjust practice. For most working individuals especially those who barly go by are much better off. Those with 100k savings would be looking at 6k taxes payed for the entire year
Which countries exclusively use this system?
How about fuel excise and then gst on top of that
Haha you wish it was only twice.
I realised this some time ago, say an item was $1…
- Company sells the item for $1 and pays 9c GST
- Customer buys it for $1 but has paid a marginal tax rate of 30% so on their spent $1 they have already paid 30c
- Customer that spent the $1 also had 4.85% payroll tax paid on his $1 as well (https://www.payrolltax.gov.au/harmonisation/payroll-tax-rate…)
- Company pays an employee to sell the item and has 4.85% payroll tax on their salary of say $50k (assuming its a decent sized company)
Obviously I have no idea what proportion of the 4.85% (2,425 annually) goes to this specific $1 item but lets say 0.5% of what is paid per day so 4.5c for the sake of it
This $1 had 9+30+4.85+4.5 = 48.35c tax paid on it
No lets say the company bought it for 25c and that have proportional company overheads of 5c per $1 item this means
$1 - $0.48.35 - $0.30 = $0.2165 profit
So then they pay company tax of 25% which would be $0.054c
So in total now this $1 item has had $0.4835 + $0.054 = $0.5375 (53.75 cents or basically 54% tax on it)
So company makes 16.25% profit selling a 25c item for $1 and the government gets 53.75c…
Is my math wrong?
Edited: My math was wrong forgot extra payroll tax on the customer
You maths is a little bit wrong. A person who buys something for $1 hasnt had 30c in tax taken out, they have had
(a) their average tax rate taken out (which is lower than 30c - for example if you are at the very top of the 32.5% tax rate ie on $120,000, your average tax rate is 24.5%, not 32.5%) and
(b) its 30% taken out ending up with a $1 (so they earn around $1.42, less 30% tax = $1)
Adding the individual and the company together is a bit misleading. They are two separate legal entities, so they are earning separate income. If you continue with it, then you add the tax on the income of the supplier to the company (who earned income when the company bought the item), and then the tax on the income of the farmer to the supplier (income on providing the raw goods), then the tax on the income of the seed distributor to the farmer etc etc. You can easily claim tax was way over 100% on a single item if you go far enough down the supply chain. However, that isnt how our tax system works (except when it comes to fully franked dividends….)
Also the payroll tax amounts are way way too high. A company paying payroll tax will never be paying 4.5c on a $1 item. They will need to be selling 1000s of $1 items to have the size that results in being liable payroll tax.
on the other hand, you havent included (for example) the net after deductible consequences of other taxes, like fuel excise for the transport company; and should things like a driver having to pay registration costs for the truck be regarded as a tax?
A rough and ready way to assess tax burden is tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. GDP is a (not perfect but not terrible) assessment of the economic value of activity in the economy. So if tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is (say) 35%, then you know approximately 35% of every dollar of value created in the economy is paid as tax. As said, a bit rough and ready because there are exceptions, but easier than your solution!
That makes sense, marginal tax rates were a little off.
If you're looking at the transaction in isolation though I feel like 35% might be a little low so might be somewhere in the middle.
Be good if some of that tax was left in there to pass on to staff (obviously trusting business to do this)
and guess what the person selling u also pays tax as it is their income. On top of that the dollar loses its value due to inflation caused by RBA…
our financial system is the biggest PONZI ever..
Assume tax rate is 20%, GST is 10%. That means every $1 spent has 30c in tax paid to the government. The 10c is obvious, and your personal income tax forms part of the 20c. If you zoom out enough, you will realise that throughout the whole supply chain which labour is also a part of, the profit and the GST part are shared across multiple entities. The sum of those equals the tax paid off the final retail price. The personal income tax is equivalent to the corporate income tax that is taxed on our profit when a person is viewed as a 'business' in the supply chain.
However, we do have multiple tax rates and some are GST-free, so it's not straight forward %.
The GST is very unfair to the poor because it's a blanket tax.
You get taxed more times than that. They leech everywhere.
Your money in the bank loses value via inflation and your interest from savings is taxed as income again.
Property is purposely driven up by the government. Government takes a big chunk % in taxes when you buy.
If you rent your rent is higher because your land lord is paying a tax on any profits your rent generates.Everytime you buy fuel for your vehicle you are taxed both in gst and in fuel excise.
Your real take home is probably closer to 50%.
This is quite normal.
The ones that are well off and earn good money have a responsibility to the less fortunate of society.
Unlike the US where the poor can’t afford health insurance and decent food.
To be selfish like that is un-Australian
To clarify when you say the well off, you mean the middle class.
The rich get paid by the tax system.
Who here actually budgets based on pre-tax income? I've always done it on the final deposit.
So no, whilst I get the jist of the topic can't say I feel like that $50 note has already been taxed.
The only time I've had to care about my 'official" income is at tax time to verify the auto-fill was correct :P
Do you want mind duck?
The main fuel tax in Australia is an excise tax.
Both taxes are levied by the federal government.
The GST (10%) is applied on top of the fuel excise tax.
We're paying a tax on a tax…
You will also get taxed again if you think about it… i.e. investment from already taxed money, then pay gst on that (if applicable), capital gain from investments is again taxed as part of income tax 🤪.
Gotta pay for the 80b+ in pensions each year somehow
What's the problem. Where do you think funding for roads, hospitals, highways, school, police, social security system etc etc comes from?
It gets the money from the ever increasing national debt that it will never pay back.
Just like those tradies who charge for materials AND labour.
Pick one, Jerks!
Complex tax conversation… but I'll bite. In simple terms taxes is about the redistribution wealth (the government collects, then spends, in some cases fon universal services and infrastructure, others to provide for those who need it). The idea is to collect from people who can afford it or from people who consume services. That's why it's never even and its fairness is always relative. All things considered, what you get back for your income tax is often indirect, whereas GST is always direct (you pay it when you are getting something in return). For that simple reason, I would trade higher GST for lower income tax any day and every day.
I would trade higher GST for lower income tax any day and every day
So what happens to those people who have a minimal income with that system? The poor are paying significantly more tax proportionally than the wealthy (whatever wealthy means).
I'm not a charity… and simply offered an opinion on my preferences. Right now I pay about 100K per year in income taxes alone, I think I do plenty for the poor (whatever that means). A system that promotes hard work, enterprise and good attitude is what every country needs - the very notion that the more you work means the more you get taxed in a killer to productivity.
You obviously don't realise that taxation is about a transfer of wealth. It is not supposed to be from the poor to the wealthy as it has become and you seem to think is the right way.
Can you explain why you believe it is acceptable for the less well-off to pay a higher part of their income in taxes than the well-off?
Unfortunately, having more money is not necessarily a result of hard work, enterprise or a good attitude. Taking advantage of others can result in a higher income but that is not how I believe anyone with morals would see is worthy of support.
@Grunntt: Wow the personal attacks come thick and fast don't they? Perhaps scroll up and read before you pass judgment on others, and while you are at it, pay my taxes for me cause I'm sick and tired of paying for others while the usual righteous condemnation flies in without even reading the comments.
@FlyingMiffy: You may like to try what you advise - actually read what is there. I don't see the thick and fast personal attacks.
I find it interesting when people interpret someone pointing out a fault in their logic/reasoning as personal attacks.Twice I have asked you (without any response to the point) -
So what happens to those people who have a minimal income with that system? The poor are paying significantly more tax proportionally than the wealthy (whatever wealthy means).
Can you explain why you believe it is acceptable for the less well-off to pay a higher part of their income in taxes than the well-off?
So feel free to express your entitlement to pay less tax while those who can't afford it don't have the same right and actually pay more.
The fair way for higher GST to be redistributed is via a tax credit or negative tax rate (e.g. a new tax bracket at $0-5000 where you get paid tax instead).
GST revenue was estimated to be 72.6 billion in 20-21.
Let's say you double GST to 20% rate, and GST revenue only increases 80% (58.1 billion extra revenue). The Australian population is about 25.7 million. If you redistribute the extra revenue to every citizen/resident, that's 2260 AUD each - equivalent to 22600 AUD in spending.
Would poorer people pay >22600 AUD more a year on goods and services (and hence 2260 AUD more on the extra GST itself) with a GST of 20%? Unlikely - so this seems like a reasonably good method to make indirect taxes more progessive.
Reading through this thread sure was taxing…
The electriciity you just consumed reading through this thread is taxed
Only two things are certain in life, death and taxes.
Sounds like 3 things to me
To be honest your pay gets taxed. Then what you buy you pay gst. The money the shop makes gets paid tax on it. Your employer that paid you pays with money that has been taxed. And when you make any money on your savings it is taxed. The savings you use to buy something has gst on it.
You're welcome OP
Google what year taxes came in. So all are regressive and there is no inheritance ot death tax.
Some countries actually have a GST on food, healthcare and education.
Others have no tax and totally free healthcare.
Streetview walk thru Brunei and tell us if you would wanna live there.No comment on the Tarriff on imported cars to protect our local car industry? 5% of your new car price is a tarriff to make your commodore or falcon more attractive.
Anyone see any issues?Unless your car comes from Japan, Thailand, United States, China, the UK or Malaysia
No tariff on those.
Basically its European cars (and South African, but not many of those)
It's called tax mix.
From a government point of view, or an individual point of view, you don't want all tax revenue to come from just one source.
Can you imagine how high income tax would have to be if you nixed consumption taxes like the GST? Or how vulnerable that tax base would be if there was a sudden rise in unemployment? Or on the other hand how high would GST have to be if you got rid of income tax? And how unfair would a rise in GST be on people with low incomes who would be proportionally be paying more tax than high income individuals.
Being tax from multiple sources is much fairer than a high tax on a single source.
At the end. The tax we paid spend on tank and sub which totally wasted.
Howard "sold" the GST to the public as a mechanism for eliminating "cash-in-hand" payments to tradies etc. It didn't, and never could, achieve this. Fresh food is exempt from the GST, but Howard didn't want it to be. If you look at basic necessities for living, poor people pay a FAR greater percentage of their income for these items than rich people do, which was also the (hidden) aim of the GST. It now brings in $70 billion/year or 13% of the total tax haul. It was always obvious that if you introduce a tax on necessities so other taxes on luxury items could be reduced, you were going to harm the poor and benefit the rich.
@deme: But who decides what the value of wealth is? With value fluctuating over time (even second by second) how do you decide the time that dictates the value of the wealth?