Negative Income Tax Is Back
See Gingrich in the WSJ. In a strange turn around, Barack Obama is supporting Milton Friedman's socialist negative income tax, and two supposed supporters of Milton Friedman are attacking Obama for that. Things don't get too more convoluted than that!
Comments (38)
When I originally read "Free To Choose" all those mumblety-odd years ago, I was rather young and economically naive, and the negative income tax sounded like a good idea to me. After all, who wouldn't like to avoid working for one's basic necessities?
It seems to me that the trick to making the negative income tax work is deciding an appropriate base level and scale amount of money to work. You want to cover only the most basic of human needs without too greatly discouraging incentives for people to work and be productive. Given the economic variables involved, however, it may well be impossible to do, even if we assume that the government was trying its best to find the optimum rates, a highly dubious assumption. There's no market feedback to tell them when they offered too much or too little, so they would always be guessing and second-guessing.
Published: November 21, 2008 10:11 AM
In addition to the truth and facts, intellectual consistency is another major casualty of politics.
Published: November 21, 2008 10:13 AM
To call negative income tax socialist is to be totally ignorant of what socialism truely is. Negative income tax is not liberal or libertarian, but it is certainly not socialist either. It is such a thing which ignorant socialists call "liberal" and ignorant libertarians call "socialist".
Published: November 21, 2008 10:15 AM
I just can't get excited when a politician promises a "middle class tax cut". Most of the time there is no tax cut at all; on the rare occasions when there is one, it is always a "targeted" tax cut, and I'm never the target.
Published: November 21, 2008 10:19 AM
Rob, "To each according to their needs."
What isn't socialist about that?
Published: November 21, 2008 10:39 AM
"It is such a thing which ignorant socialists call "liberal" and ignorant libertarians call "socialist"."
Or, we can look beyond the nonsense and realize it is socialist, with the government socializing the provision of welfare. Of course, what sin it is for someone to actually call a spade, a spade...
Published: November 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Rob, I noticed that you failed to tell us exactly what to call the negative income tax. I don't think it can be called conservative, and it certainly can't be called laissez-faire or free market. So what is it???
Published: November 21, 2008 11:36 AM
Taxation is theft.
It doesn't matter what the money is used for, who is collecting the taxes, or who is paying the taxes.
The problem with our society is too many people take the Robin Hood myth seriously and think it is just to steal from one person to give to another.
If government depended upon voluntary donations like charities, we would have exactly the right amount of government.
If government had to buy land on the open market without emminent domain, it would have exactly the right amount of facilities.
If government could only do what people agreed to by contract, government would be circumscribed by the exact limits it should be.
If we all were free, we could choose bondage at our leisure. But being in bondage, we do not get to choose freedom without some dire consequences.
Published: November 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Larry, it is a policy that fits into a social democracy or social liberalism. Can you people only distinct "socialism"/"communism" and "libertarianism" ? Maybe you should stop thinking in just white and black. I am definitely not a proponent of the negative income tax, but I think it is preposterous and wholly ignorant of the term socialism to call it a socialist policy.
This reminds me of people (mostly from America) who think that certain countries in Europe are "socialist" (for example the Netherlands, where I live). Try to tell that to the Socialist Party here!
Socialist policies go much further than a negative income tax. But some people just see libertarianism and call everything that is not libertarian "socialist". These people should open their eyes !
Published: November 21, 2008 12:09 PM
Rob:
I will concede that there are varying levels of socialism instituted in different countries, but it's still socialism.
There are no shades of grey in what is and is not socialism.
To be dramatic, if somebody shoots me in the face and steals the wallet from my dead body, it's pretty black and white what happened.
Just like it's black and white that a negative income tax is socialist. If it's negative, even calling it a "tax" is stupid. It's government welfare, which is socialism.
Published: November 21, 2008 12:51 PM
On the scale from capitalism to socialism, it is definitely more socialist.
Published: November 21, 2008 12:51 PM
To be fair for Milton Friedman, negative Income tax in its original from as proposed by him was meant to be a phase out transition out of wellfare altogether. Of course, Milton Friedman always said that we are lucky Government is so inefficient, otherwise, we'd all be slaves by now. It may be that it is this aspect of the negative income tax that is attractive to obama.
Published: November 21, 2008 12:53 PM
"This reminds me of people (mostly from America) who think that certain countries in Europe are "socialist" (for example the Netherlands, where I live). Try to tell that to the Socialist Party here!"
Rob,
While it may be technically incorrect to refer to European countries as socialist countries, I believe those who do so mean only to highlight the number of socialist policies which exist in those countries.
Because only certain policies may be of a socialist nature, those European countries as well as the United States might more accurately be identified as "mixed economies". Acknowledging that, though, it doesn't seem inappropriate to correctly identify those individual policies of a socialist nature as being socialist policies -- so long as the term is not overextended to cover the country as a whole, regardless of whether they slowly slip further and further in that direction.
Published: November 21, 2008 12:53 PM
Wow. So that's what Obama meant by "tax credit". I wish someone in the media would have asked what the difference was between a "tax cut" and a "tax credit"--I thought he was talking about the same thing. But essentially, instead of giving me back my money so I can spend it how I want, he'll give me back my money to spend it how he wants.
Even if I'm going to buy something like healthcare anyway, why not just give me the money so I can make my own decision? This "tax credit" idea reveals his inclination that people don't know what's good for them. In other words, this is a foodstamp program. I get "credits" at the government liquor store, and they stock the shelves with whatever they decide I need.
Now, if only I could figure out a civil way to email a Bronx cheer to the President-elect...
Published: November 21, 2008 1:03 PM
Inquisitor,
Fully agreed!
Michael,
Well, let's put it this way. If we were in communist Russia and the government would decide that people can own more land, I would whole heartedly oppose calling that a libertarian policy. So yes, some policies may be described as moving towards socialism, but most of them are definitely not socialist.
DD,
Yes, I believe that is true. As far as I know, it was an idea of Friedman that he thought would be plausible at that time, and not his ultimate ideal.
Published: November 21, 2008 1:09 PM
Oh, the Netherlands? I don't think I know anyone from there! Nice to meet you, Rob. Isn't that the country that has a 50% effective tax rate? And doesn't the government pay for everyone's higher education, and anyone can remain a student as long as they please?
Pardon my ignorance, it's just something I recall from watching CBS. Is all that correct, or was I mistaken by getting information from CBS? (I'm fairly certain I saw four young Danes telling the interviewer that Americans should lower their expectations in life and they'd be happier.)
Published: November 21, 2008 1:15 PM
Sorry for the second post. I wish there were a way to edit the post after submitting. Even after using Preview, I still find errors! I'm really not a good proofreader.
Anyway, I meant to add ", so maybe it wasn't the Netherlands" to the end of the last parenthetical sentence.
Published: November 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Joshua,
The government doesn't pay for everyone's higher education as in that it is free, but yes, it is highly subsidized. And you can not stay a student forever anymore(it used to be possible, but that is some time ago) unless you pay the full amount. About the effective tax rate: I'm not sure, but it's high (the marginal income tax rates go from 33% to 52% depending on how much you earn). So you can imagine that I get annoyed a lot when I watch politicians speak here ;) (although it is not very different when watching American politicians speak nowadays)
Published: November 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Well, the negative income tax is probably the most efficient welfare system possible. However, Obama will simply create new and/or expand old tax credits for the poor and middle class, while keeping our progressive tax system. This will seriously hinder incentives and investment, two things we need right now. A normal flat tax with a guaranteed income would not be as great a hindrance to incentives and investment.
In either case, no taxes at all are preferable to a negative income tax, or any other kind of "social safety net."
Published: November 21, 2008 2:06 PM
Isn't Socialism just government intervention? Wouldn't any government action that affects private markets be socialism. Why do we allow them to doublespeak us?
Published: November 21, 2008 3:21 PM
Netherlands is one of the most economically free country in Europe.
13th in the world.
Published: November 21, 2008 3:40 PM
scineram,
You know this ranking by heritage is kind of flawed although I suppose it is a good objective comparison between the nations.
They don't count a whole bunch of stuff. According to their criterions, you could be %100 free (top score) and still have a central bank. They don't get the monetary issue at all. I don't see how you can have a top score while retaining a fiat money system and a central bank dictator. So if you abolish the FED, turn over money to the free market, and deregulate banks and let them operate in a true austrian style free market, you don't get any points! That's a joke, considering the monetary issue is the governments main enslavement tool.
Published: November 21, 2008 4:38 PM
I am not sure how many people here have actually read Milton Friedman's books, publications or watched his Free to Choose video series. But it must be stated that he favored the negative income tax as an efficient alternative to all of the inefficient welfare programs. The negative income tax was proposed several times while he was alive and he always opposed it because he would only support it if all other welfare programs and the progressive tax system were terminated.
Friedman understood that the US could not just go from a 50% socialist country to 0% socialist overnight so he recommended policies to slowly get us on the right track. A negative income tax was his ideal condition, not his ultimate goal.
I find it frustrating that Hayek/von Mises Libertarians and Friedman libertarians (capital/lowercase on purpose) spend their time arguing with one another. Though they all had their disagreements (von Mises called both Hayek and Friedman socialists at one meeting!) they all shared the common goal of freedom (in the proper classical sense of the word) and that capitalism is the only way to reach it.
Instead of Libertarian/libertarian/Conservative bickering we should be focusing our efforts on fighting against the true socialists in the US; Democrats and Neo-Conservatives. Can we not all agree that we would live in a much freer, more prosperous society if the Left was dominated by the Libertarians and the Right by the Conservatives with the libertarians in the middle?
Published: November 21, 2008 4:45 PM
Because only certain policies may be of a socialist nature, those European countries as well as the United States might more accurately be identified as "mixed economies".
But a "mixed economy" is impossible in the long run; it's only a step on the way to full socialism.
Isn't Socialism just government intervention? Wouldn't any government action that affects private markets be socialism.
Strictly speaking, socialism is "public" ownership of the means of production.
Published: November 21, 2008 7:12 PM
Michael A. Clem wrote "It seems to me that the trick to making the negative income tax work is deciding an appropriate base level and scale amount of money to work. You want to cover only the most basic of human needs without too greatly discouraging incentives for people to work and be productive. Given the economic variables involved, however, it may well be impossible to do, even if we assume that the government was trying its best to find the optimum rates, a highly dubious assumption."
Actually, it's quite straightforward, if you think of it as a transition from unemployment benefits and only do it in a country that has those. You initially set the minimum amount received equal to unemployment benefits. Then you choose a taper rate so that it doesn't ever give marginal tax rates above 30%, which is what experience has shown is where disincentives to earn more start to matter significantly. Ideally, you end up with less aggregate income tax and make up the difference by cutting government spending. As a transition away from taxes and unemployment benefits, it's not socialist; it only gets that way when (as Obama would probably like) it is set at levels that serve to increase and entrench dependency on the government, increase taxes and "services", etc.
"There's no market feedback to tell them when they offered too much or too little, so they would always be guessing and second-guessing".
Actually, there is, but the politicians are not likely to apply it. Just let the real value of the minimum received fall gradually from the initial settings over time (inflation will do that anyway, unless it is indexed or otherwise routinely increased). The optimal level will be one at which the amount is not enough to live on (so people have an incentive to work for a top up income) but is enough that they can price themselves into work and still survive. The feedback comes from when unemployment or undesirable employment like crimes of necessity start to rise, i.e. from the labour market itself. Short of Malthusian constraints, there will always be levels that do all this.
For what it's worth, the Kim Swales approach is far better than Negative Income Tax for being fast acting, for being a good starting point for phasing taxes and "services" out, for not requiring inflationary deficits until employment rises and for not having disincentives to increasing one's income. It gets this from using a different point of impact. The downside is that it's only a clean way out for countries like Britain, Australia or Canada that already have broad based taxes with their point of impact on producers; the USA would have to make things worse first, by bringing those in.
Published: November 21, 2008 8:25 PM
I receive more money back that I payed into the income tax ever since I had two children. I also try to get all my tax dollars back by applying for any benefit the government is willing to give.
Published: November 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Milton Friedman was a great man. Behind Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, he was the greatest intellectual freedom fighter in the 20th century. But it is very important that, like Murray Rothbard, we criticize Friedman's proposals where they are the anti-thesis of liberty. The negative income tax is one such proposal.
Published: November 22, 2008 7:09 AM
Andy,
"any government intervention in the free market" is socialism like "any less government intervention in the free market" is libertarianism... So no, it is not socialism, just like any policy that moves a little bit away from socialism is not libertarian.
Published: November 22, 2008 7:54 AM
Peter:
Defining "socialism" as public ownership of the means of production unnecessarily limits the understanding of the term from an economic viewpoint (with which we at the Mises site are primarily concerned). The primary difference is that public "ownership" need not be realized "de jure" in order to attain the effects sought by most socialists; the "de facto" control under
a regime of virtually unlimited intervention will suffice to to bring about a similar degree of control.
Mises distinguished broadly between the two strains. The first was characteristic of the Russian "brand" while the latter of the German variety. Though the full ownership variety was the goal of many of those advocating partial measures (the Fabians, for instance), the intention of the leadership is not significant in appraising economic impact: their long-term effect is so similar as to consider them merely different political avenues.
One of Mises most significant contributions to the study of economics was his recognition and explanation of the causal role of interventionist measures in bringing about an inevitable progression to more rigid control by authority (from which inference the title of Hayek's famous book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM).
The sad (to lovers of freedom) fact is that even the freest political subdivisions are heavily socialistic. And, while I would not characterize all my fellow Americans as socialists, it is quite clear that roughly half fall more or less squarely in that set while, of the remainder, 80% (40% of total) are inclined in that direction to one extent or another. Of the barely 10% I'd categorize as committed to freedom, the even sadder fact is that most of these base their inclination more on emotion than on consistent intellectual appreciation of the relation between human economic freedom and its corollaries of material productivity and personal happiness.
Published: November 22, 2008 8:18 AM
Peter:
I don't want to leave you with the impression that I think the case for freedom is hopeless; it isn't.
The entire raison de etre for such as the Mises site is the belief that a very great majority of all people in most places (and especially in those places we characterize as "western" nations), given a proper understanding of economic science, would relegate the collective-mongers to the looney fringes of society and politics. It'[s a long row--but someone's got to hoe it.
Published: November 22, 2008 8:30 AM
The problem with the negative income tax, and even charity, is that it takes money away from businesses to invest in new technology and expansion. I think even Keynesians are smart enough to recognize that the only way to employ more people with higher wages is through capital accumulation and new technology. Those require savings invested in businesses.
If instead savings go to the state, or to charity, wage-earners suffer lower wages. Generally, those at the bottom suffer the most. That doesn't mean that charity is harmful, but it does mean the state shouldn't be involved. Only the person with the savings has the right and the wisdom to choose between giving to charity and investing.
And most people can make that choice far more wisely than can the state. Many years ago I was in Morocco for six months and I spent a lot of time in coffee shops, as do most Moroccan men. Every few minutes a beggar would shuffle through and I noticed that everyone gave to some and no one gave to others. So I asked a Moroccan friend about it. He said that people will give to handicapped people, old men and women, and young women with children. But no one will give to a man of working age and health. The funny thing to me was that when I got several Moroccans talking about the beggar system, the conversation always turned to the people who abused it and made too much money.
Published: November 22, 2008 8:57 AM
Fundamentalist wrote "The problem with the negative income tax, and even charity, is that it takes money away from businesses to invest in new technology and expansion".
Actually, that very much depends on two things: timescale and levels.
In the short term, that is true as money goes out before employment rises. It stays true in the long term if levels are too high, as too much money goes out even if employment rises, and it might not even rise if levels are high enough to subsidise unemployment. But there is a sweet spot at which Negative Income Tax works as a Pigovian subsidy for employment and overall GDP, savings, etc. rise; whether it's worth it then depends on the inefficiencies of churning funds through the government (which, along with the time lag, is why other approaches like the Kim Swales one I mentioned are even better).
Published: November 22, 2008 4:04 PM
Rob Said: "I am definitely not a proponent of the negative income tax, but I think it is preposterous and wholly ignorant of the term socialism to call it a socialist policy."
Why are you against the negative income tax? Please explain your reasoning. I'd love to hear why you are against it.
Socialism can be defined in many ways, as can capitalism, and they are often referred to as a set of economic theories/policies. If we agree on the same definition than we can agree on what to call such policies. The definitions can vary GREATLY! That is most likely the cause of your opposition to others' use of the term. Let me explain what I mean, (and I'll do a damn poor job at it too!).
Capitalism is getting a bad rap. Here we may loosely call something a socialist policy, but in the mainstream media, it is capitalism that gets the entire blame for the economic problems, even when it is not a capitalistic policy that caused the problems. Capitalism is being thrown around pretty loosely as well... not just socialism. It is a cultural thing to throw them around.
We all know there is a scale - and we use the terms loosely (the entire society does!) - based on what side a particular policy is CLOSER to! It doesn't mean a particular policy fits the definition to a "T" or that the entire system will turn into an absolute capitalist or socialist system if one policy that leans one way or another is implemented. If we had a better label or term to use for such policies, we would. If we have one, please let us know. I'm all in favour of using a more accurate definition! I'd prefer to, so I don't run into criticisms for using a definition too loosely.
You did say something that answers my above question, "Larry, it is a policy that fits into a social democracy or social liberalism."
I find that a bit answer a bit odd since socialism, to most North Americans, is on a sliding scale that contains social liberalism next to it, much closer than capitalism. As the wikipedia says, "Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), high liberalism[3] radical liberalism,[4] modern liberalism,[5], left-liberalism[citation needed], or what North Americans often call "liberalism", are terms that some use to identify their political positions. [NOTE: North Americans often call it "liberalism" and don't necessarily always label it 'social liberalism' - Cultural difference?]
Social liberals support heavier taxation and regulation of the economy, and more state enterprises, than other forms of liberalism (particularly classical liberalism)."
Socialism + Liberalism = Social Liberalism, doesn't it? In which case you just said the policy is rooted in socialistic ideologies!
What do we call such a policy if we can't refer to it as capitalistic or socialistic? What side is a policy closer to, when just looking at the one policy? We're not talking about an entire system, but of a single policy (or set of policies)!!!!
We grew up being told this was capitalism! Which system gets the blame in the eyes of the masses for any short-comings? Capitalism. The masses still believe the US is practising capitalism - when clearly it is not. The US is not practising capitalism anymore than Europe is practising socialism. But America is (or was) more capitalistic and Europe was (or is) more socialistic. It is a scale and both are mixed systems that have elements of both capitalism and socialism. You should be equally mad about the loose use of capitalism as you are about the loose use of socialism! Are you?
What we label a policy is trivial in the end!!!!!!!! I would love to hear why you are against the actual policy itself, which matters more.
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I do agree with you. I'm just trying to explain why people use the terms so loosely. They use socialism to classify such policies because social liberalism is still a hybrid form of socialism (government regulations, higher taxes, etc, etc). It's not really that hard to understand - UNLESS you are using a different definition.
We could clear this entire thing up if you provided a definition of social liberalism, socialism, capitalism and libertarianism, and all the other partial definitions: conservative liberalism, classic liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism... etc, etc. I'd be willing to bet some of our definitions differ and if we were working on the same definition, you wouldn't be mad :-). Is it ignorance? Perhaps. Could it be a different definitions of the "grey areas"? Perhaps.
The Wikipedia definition of liberalism is, "… a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal." Yet social liberalism supports, "heavier taxation and regulation of the economy, and more state enterprises,". There is an inherent problem when you start looking at liberalism, libertarianism, capitalism, social liberalism, and all the other varying degrees and interwoven definitions... EVERYTHING gets intermingled in a mixed system to the point where not even people within one definition can agree upon everything. Social liberalism could be considered an oxymoron to some - who believe the individual rights for liberalism are supreme and that the taxes encouraged by socialism to "spread the wealth" actually infringe upon those rights, despite the fact that socialism is trying to create an egalitarian society to protect rights (though not everyone is required to do equal work, so how is it equal?).
I would consider myself a conservative and a libertarian and a capitalist (Austrian School) and a laissez-faire kind of guy (which is considered liberal? What is laissez-faire liberalism?). I don't even know if that makes sense, as some of those seemingly conflict? Do liberals consider themselves apart of liberalism? I'm not a liberal, at least not a social liberal, as I see higher taxes as encroaching on an individuals rights! Or Am I a laissez-faire liberal, not a social liberal? Why is it called "social" liberal? Is it not socialism + liberalism? What is a conservative to you, might not be a conservative to me (I look at it from a classical sense, to conserve). Everything get's real messy. I fail at life. Sometimes it's just easier to call it a socialistic policy - It infringes upon my right to my property (my earnings and the fruit of my labour) in a confiscatory manner to give it to others and spread it around however the government decides (note: not the people, the government, as we don't have a vote to assign where each dollar goes.). Is the government a true democracy? A republic? Do "we the people" have a say, more so than just voting for party A or party B every four years? The definitions all intermingle. There is no black and white - but there are millions of shades. It's just easier to call something blackish, or white-ish, when the shade most closely matches one or the other. That doesn't mean the entire system is purely black or white.
In the end, I think it might be a cultural difference as well, as we do have slightly different definitions of words and terms than other nations do. Liberal, in my country, doesn't necessarily equal classic liberalism, like you would think, but is closer to social liberalism, which is an oxymoron of sorts (IMHO) and has nothing to do with laissez-faire liberalism (it is the opposite in some economic respects). That is why I can’t call myself a liberal. In my country, liberals believe in social liberalism to varying shades. What one country considers a liberal, another country may consider a conservative. How can a neo-conservative be considered a conservative at all? The "new"-conservative isn't even conservative, especially in the classical sense, as it is almost OPPOSITE! I would argue some parts of society are using socialism as a loose term for neo-socialism, or social liberalism. We aren't using classical definitions of some terms and we are using classical definitions of other terms... Our differing definitions are screwing it all up and confusing things so people end up ranting about improper use of definitions!
In the end, who cares what we call it? It is what it is. This policy is negative. Period.
Published: November 22, 2008 8:51 PM
Okay, I made my last post was terrible. Sorry. In the end I could have made it so much simpler and shorter. We use different definitions, not always the classical ones. To top it off, we are looking at the economics of a system more-so than it's other political merits.
I do agree with EVERYTHING Gene Berman said.
I especially like, "[d]efining "socialism" as public ownership of the means of production unnecessarily limits the understanding of the term from an economic viewpoint (with which we at the Mises site are primarily concerned). The primary difference is that public "ownership" need not be realized "de jure" in order to attain the effects sought by most socialists; the "de facto" control under
a regime of virtually unlimited intervention will suffice to to bring about a similar degree of control." - Gene Burman.
Published: November 22, 2008 9:18 PM
>> On the scale from capitalism to socialism, it is
>> definitely more socialist.
More socialist than what? Than what we have now, or some ideal which exists only in our imaginations?
Published: November 23, 2008 6:10 PM
It is more socialist than capitalist... based on what a true socialist or true capitalist system would look like. Both are just ideologies that exist in our imaginations... a policy can be closer to one ideology than another...
Published: November 24, 2008 2:36 AM
The problem as I see it is that generally, if a policy or behaviour benefits business, then it is considered "capitalist" and if it benefits the public, then it is concidered socialist. The problem is that neither is nessesarily true.
One must start ones analysis with a solid base in philosophy. All other sciences are subordinate.
The Philosophical battle is between Individualism versus Altruism. But it is not the action that needs to be compared, but the intent and the means, the goal and the device.
For instance, charity and welfare. The actions are basically the same, some form of wealth is handed over to someone(s) who need it.
If it is by an individual or group of individuals, such as those Morroccan gentelmen mentioned in a previous post, then the intent and means is voluntary and personally willful. This is the act and action of free individuals and is therefore charity.
If a group forces the individuals in any way, to benefit others, against their free will, either through tax, lien, or gunpoint, then it is welfare.
In short, the difference is determined by how the benefit was obtained. It is the difference between voluntary benefactor, or involuntary benefactor.
Scocialism in any flavor lies not in the goal, benefit all, but in the means, by decree.
Capitalism has as it's goal the benefit of the individual, and by extension, all, by means of free-will voluntary choice.
Scocialism is the intent to benefit all as a group, by placing the needs of the group above the individual.
Any policy that makes use of involuntary benefactors is Scocialist. Charity is voluntary, welfare is not.
Published: November 24, 2008 10:33 AM
Milton Friedman was a socialist.
He wanted the state to exist and he wanted people to pay taxes for "security services".
Hayek and Mises were socialists too. They were NOT libertarians.
Don't deny that.
Published: December 14, 2008 5:27 PM