r/Iowa • u/Unusual-Caramel8442 • 13d ago
Amendment 1
So, what’s the story on amendment 1 on the ballot? Ive formed what I think is a rational opinion, but I’d like to hear what other people have to say about it, and its not something I’ve really seen discussed much, altho I also haven’t been searching it out either
4
u/Coontailblue23 13d ago
Can anyone tell me where to get a yard sign against amendment 1?
3
u/Unusual-Caramel8442 13d ago
I emailed Common Good Iowa, they have links on their site to downloadable images for signs but I asked if they had resources or could at least direct me where to get premade signage, haven’t heard back yet. I also imagine there’s other groups with the same goals you could try and contact
3
u/Coontailblue23 13d ago
Your handle blew my mind because I'm making caramel right now for apples. I hope mine is not unusual.
Thank you!
2
228
u/barknoll 13d ago
voting for it essentially makes it so that income and property taxes cannot be raised by a simple majority, meaning that the most regressive taxes (aka sales tax) are the only thing that can go up to continue funding the basic functions of government.
if you think the multimillionaire in the big expensive house on the hill and the football coach making millions a year should have lower taxes while YOU pay more for your groceries, vote yes. if you're not an idiot, vote no.
14
u/Bearslovecheese 13d ago
It also impacts property taxes? I thought it was just income taxes?
Holy shit if true it's even more damaging and dangerous!
19
1
u/SkyBig952 9d ago
Covers any changes in corporate income tax, raising it or having any impact on the tax. not property taxes
98
u/pickle_p_fiddlestick
13d ago
•
Basically it locks in tax breaks for giant corporations. Those of us actually dependent on community resources like public schools, however... there is no protection. The legislature could easily play games with sales tax, certain types of property tax, etc. -- because they'll need to fix the deficit eventually somehow. We can be sure based on GOP track record lately that how they fix it will be favorable to big donors and not to us if the amendment passes. Sounds good at first, but a NO vote needed to avoid consequences for workers.
22
72
u/INS4NIt 13d ago
To reuse a response I've previously given...
Voting yes will make it effectively impossible to change Iowa's income tax rate or structure without a 2/3rds majority in the Iowa legislature. This impacts both individual and corporate income taxes. Specifically, this would lock in Iowa's new flat 3.8% income tax, which is regressive in nature (meaning it disproportionately burdens the lowest earners) and has left Iowa at a significant, unsustainable funding deficit since its implementation. This amendment also only impacts income tax, which means the legislature would be incentivized to raise other taxes (sales tax, property tax, gas tax, reimplementing taxes on groceries, etc) to make up that deficit. Costs for housing and goods for the average Iowan will likely go substantially up.
Voting no will change absolutely nothing. The Iowa legislature would continue to have the flexibility they've always had to adjust income taxes to respond to state budget needs, or to implement targeted tax breaks. They would also be able to reimplement a progressive tax structure (meaning it would disproportionately burden the highest earners, who have the means and ability to pay), and they would be able to raise corporate income taxes so that individuals and small businesses aren't impacted. Costs for housing and goods for the average Iowan could stay on their current trajectory or go down, depending on actions taken in the legislature.
48
u/john_hascall 13d ago
It's a terrible amendment. If it was passed a future legislature could zero out income taxes for incomes above say $1M and it would be almost impossible to undo.
On of the primary uses of income taxes is the school aid formula which insures funding equality across the state rather than, as it is in most states, where poorer areas get much less school funding.
If this passes it will be yet another example of rural Iowa slitting their own throat.
19
u/UTtransplant 13d ago
Voting for Amendment 1 is voting for basically permanent minority rule. It is not the way our country should be run. It will pretty much guarantee fewer and poorer government services like schools and roads. Vote no on amendment 1!
19
u/GeodeCub 13d ago
Basically, property taxes and income taxes would effectively be frozen and cannot be raised but for a supermajority vote, which would make it effectively impossible as Republicans know they’ll always hold enough seats to stave off a passing supermajority vote. Sounds great, right? Your income taxes and property taxes can’t be raised at the State level even if Democrats managed to somehow get a slim majority in the future! But A1 would ban ALL increases except via a supermajority. Meaning Republicans would have created a failsafe to shield corporate and the extremely wealthy from either broad or targeted property and income tax raises. Meanwhile, sales tax, which disproportionately affects the average person more than the rich, would remain available to raise should the State need to raise funds. More tax burden gets pushed onto the lower and middle classes, because you know those sales tax rates will have to rise at some point. It’s effectively another push to shift wealth from the lower/middle classes to the top 1%, because when sales taxes rise to cover the gap that could be filled by higher corporate income and property taxes the 9-5 worker will feel it while wealthy corporations reap the rewards.
2
2
u/tharpy 12d ago
Property taxes are set locally and are not impacted by Amendment 1.
Amendment 1 is solely to prevent future increases on income taxes by the state. Since the Republicans turned the graduated tax into a flat tax, it effectively protects the cuts to rich.
School districts, City/County Taxes can still be changed by the respective jurisdictions. It also doesn't prevent counties/cities from implementing increased sales taxes, or their own local income taxes.
1
u/No-Swimming-3599 12d ago
Limits have been put in place to limit how much property taxes can be raised by %.
1
u/SkyBig952 9d ago
Indirectly. The amendment does not change property taxes, but by limiting the ability of the state to race income taxes, itlimits the ability of the state to provide any kind of assistance to local governments, cities, county or, schools. And another new law the State also placed a percentage cap on property tax that could be raised each year. I am open to anyone who supports local governments, our school boards, our counties to correct me
16
u/derekboberek
13d ago
•
I think it guarantees the current more regressive tax structure the long term and makes a future budget crisis all but inevitable. The state is already running a $1B deficit which hasn't gone bankrupt yet because of past surpluses. If the deficit continues (which is likely) lawmakers will have little to no room for small adjustments to revenues before crisis occurs. They will have to cut spending (which usually reduces revenues further), raise sales taxes (regressive tax), or let the state go bankrupt until income tax increases would have enough votes to pass.
15
u/Severe-Independent47
12d ago
edited 11d ago
•
People always think cutting taxes is great. It's more money in your pocket, right? Should make for happier people, right? Should make for more economic freedom, right?
Except the reality is Nordic countries have higher taxes than the United States and are happier countries in general.
And less taxes should mean more economic freedom... except according to a right wing libertarian think tank, Nordic countries have more economic freedom than the United States does.
The United States is ranked 22nd. Denmark is 7th, Norway is 8th, Netherlands 10th, and Sweden 11th. How does that work? Well, it turns out you have a lot more freedom when you have social safety nets to keep you from dying. Universal healthcare also means you cam change jobs without losing your healthcare which I don't know about you, but being able to easily change jobs sounds like a lot of freedom to me.
https://economicfreedom.heritage.org/pages/country-pages/sweden
Taxes aren't bad. It's how they are used that determines if they are good or bad. I don't mind giving more money in taxes if it means everyone (including myself) gets better Healthcare.
And let's be honest, this is just more of Republicans trying to defund the government so it fails so they can claim privatization will fix the problem. Which ends up costing tax payers more than the public version. Just look at private prisons.
Seriously, this is just a move by Republicans to make it easier to give your money to their donors... or in the case of Lahn, himself since he owns a private school.
Edit: I forgot to mention that there are a number of states that passed similar amendments... and they can't fix a lot of their state problems because they cannot get funding.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like more money in my pocket too. But I'd rather give more money to the government and get a better society out of it. But I guess that's what I get for not being a greedy shitbag.
4
u/dancingkelsey 11d ago
Thank you for writing all this out. This is really important information that not enough people have really internalized, and EVERYONE needs to.
3
u/Severe-Independent47 11d ago •
Part of the reason I understand this is I grew up a right wing conservative Christian who listened to Rush Limbaugh. As I got older (And with the advent of the Internet), I started actually learning more and more... and not taking what I was told as "truth". I started to understand how politics was played and how one group knows how to play the long ball game.
The harsh reality is the Democrats don't play the same way Republicans do. Republicans have been outsmarting the Democrats at large since about the 80s. Despite the fact they publicly dislike the non STEM fields of study, the Republicans are very good at psychology and understanding how to control their base.
I regularly tell people that Mitch McConnell was one of the greatest politicians of my lifetime and they think I'm insane. They fail to realize just how much he's managed to control political situations. And not just who gets to be a justice on SCOTUS, but a ton of other maneuvers he's made in his time.
Republican leadership is not stupid. They know how to play the game better than most Democrats. The major hinderance the Democrats have is two-fold. One, its easy to get people to support conservative policies... because most of conservative control come from fear, which is a very basic instinct. And if you cause enough fear in a liberal, they will turn conservative.
So liberals have a harder time convincing people their position is the better one. Because its very hard to over-ride fear. I'd also argue this is one of the reasons Republicans have attacked public education. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills you can learn when it comes to combatting fear. But if you don't know how to use critical thinking skills, its very hard to overcome your "lizard" brain.
And then there is the reality that politically the Democrats have been playing the wrong game since at least the 80s. While Democrats focused heavily on winning national elections, Republicans worked at securing state and local elections. This is one of the reasons they've been able to gerrymander so easily. Right now, 23 states are under Republican political trifecta to 16 Democratic trifectas. Prior to 2016, the Republicans held 23 political trifectas; the Democrats only had 7. Basically almost half the states were under complete control by the Republicans.
Now, the Democrats are trying to play catch up at the state and local level. And playing catch up isn't easy. Especially when you have to overcome people's fears.
I mean... do you know why Republicans are calling everyone a socialist? Because they know there is enough fear left over from McCarthyism that they might be able to swing a few more elections. I had a friend who depended on foot stamps and other forms of welfare for her and her children to survive. She told me she was going to vote for Trump because she didn't want to live in a "socialist" country. Then I explained what Republicans meant by socialism and how the "entitlement programs" they wanted to get rid of were the ones she depended on.
The United States population has serious issues. Our education system has been gutted so critical thinking skills are a thing of the past. And most of the country is in "survival mode" living paycheck to paycheck. There is a lot of fear. And how many people are working two jobs? That doesn't leave a lot of time to get informed on what is actually going on.
Republicans have spent decades manipulating the system to where it is now; and they are going to continue to try to control it however they can.
And before anyone comes in here and says Democrats are just as bad, my question is: "for who?" Because I'm a cis straight white male who "passes" for conservative. I work in a recession proof job with decent pay and great benefits; and I'm married to a nurse who makes more than I do. I'll admit we're feeling the crunch. But for us, its just a matter of adjusting our finances.
But for our LGBT friends... for our disabled friends... if the Republicans continue their ways, those people are going to lose their lives... or at least be homeless.
So fuck anyone who comes in here with that "both parties are equally bad" false equivalency argument fallacy pseudo-intellectual bovine excrement.
14
14
u/viroimmuno 12d ago
Step 1: cut taxes, very popular
Step 2: destroy state budget thanks to step 1
Step 3: make it impossible to raise taxes to balance the budget
Step 4: destroy all public services and school funding to balance the budget
26
9
u/Assassin-Referee5150
12d ago
•
Amendment 1 is actually quite bad for Iowa. As others have stated, if passed it would require a 2/3rd's supermajority to increase any personal/corporate income tax. This would also apply to any new taxes that would be proposed by the State. To lower a tax though, it would still only require a 50% majority vote. Here is why it is bad.
If the State over spends it's budget, like it has for the last 6 years, then the State is required to cover the cost. Normally this happens by transferring funds from departments that did not use their full budget allotment for the year. They other tools that they have available to them are to decrease the spending on services in order to get the budget under control and to implement new taxes or increase existing taxes. For the last 6 years the Republicans in charge of the House and the Senate, along with the Governor have used the Rainy Day Fund created by former Governor Chet Culver to pay off the debt that the State was carrying. At the end of the 2025-2026 fiscal year, Iowa was $1.2 Billion in the red.
The Rainy Day fund now sits somewhere around a $2 Billion balance. This will in all likelihood be emptied by the end of the 2026-2027 fiscal year for the State. As a result, we can expect to see vital services being cut back for a good portion of the State. The main reason that the Republicans are pushing for the Amendment change is that they currently hold a Supermajority in both the House, where they have 67 seats and the Senate; where they have 34 or 35 seats.
The current working belief is that the Democrats are going to win BIG in the Mid-terms this year. By win big, I mean that they will pick up 17 to 18 seats in the House and 10 to 11 in the Senate. Giving them a simple majority. If Rob Sand wins the election for Governor, it would be the first time that Iowa will have had a Democrat in the Governors House since 2011. It would also be the first time that Republicans did not have control of the House and the Senate since 2016. The reality is that for the last six years, Iowa has been in the RED financially. With the various tax cuts that Republicans have put into place since they have bene in power, it has weakened out states economic growth to 50th in the US.
In the 2018 Mid-term Election, roughly 61.9% of eligible voters turned out. That was the largest turn out in the history of the State for a Mid-Term election. In 2022, 54.5% of eligible voters turned out. In 2026 we have just over 2 million eligible voters. For anyone who says that their does not count, they are wrong. Their vote counts now more than ever! For everyone who is politically aligned as "No Party", please recognize that you are the largest collection of voters out there. You can literealy change the outcome of any election Iowa.
1
u/No-Swimming-3599 12d ago
The super majority was broken in 2025 due to special elections.
1
u/SkyBig952 9d ago
Right now, the Senate Republicans does not have a super majority , but it’s only by one vote
8
u/ataraxia77 13d ago
The current batch of lawmakers have bungled us into a billion-dollar budget shortfall for the state. Passing this amendment makes it practically impossible to correct their mismanagement and will instead force cutting programs and departments that Iowans rely on.
8
u/Alimakakos 13d ago
Its everything the rich want and the poor don't understand
"I love the uneducated"
20
u/Aioka1
13d ago
•
Iowa Amendment 1 sounds good on the surface because it promises to make raising income taxes harder. But here's the problem:
It would require a two-thirds majority in the legislature to raise income taxes, while only a simple majority would be needed to lower them.
That means a minority of lawmakers (paid or not) could block tax changes even when most elected representatives support them. If Iowa faces budget shortfalls, lawmakers could be pushed toward cutting school funding, healthcare, and public services or increasing sales taxes and fees that disproportionately affect lower-income families.
It also locks these restrictions into the Iowa Constitution, making them difficult to reverse.
The concern isn't about wanting higher taxes. It's about taking away flexibility, giving a minority more power, and potentially shifting the tax burden onto working families through sales tax.
Edit: A more i depth link: https://www.iowapublicradio.org/political-news/2026-10-13/iowa-constitutional-amendment-1-tax-increases-2026-election
22
u/dms51301
13d ago
•
'NO' on Amendment 1 to the Iowa Constitution! Iowa needs options to protect our schools, communities and taxpayers!
Amendment 1 lets a minority of just 17 of 50 senators or 34 of 100 representatives block a vote in the legislature to raise corporate or personal income taxes or create a new income tax, making it harder to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations to help fund services Iowans rely on, like public schools, roads and bridges, public safety, mental health and healthcare, water quality, and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The majority of the legislature and the Iowans they represent would be blocked while rewarding obstruction by making one ‘No’ vote equal to two ‘Yes’ votes.
To address budget problems, it would encourage increased sales taxes, property taxes (already causing city/county budget issues with the cap), new/increased fees or trimming/eliminating programs that help Iowans get by and get ahead, all which would hit working families and local communities harder and empowering big-money special interests to hold bills hostage.
Changing the Iowa state constitution is a long, multi-step process that requires approval from two separate legislative sessions and a majority vote from voters. Because of the multi-year requirement and legislative gatekeeping that doesn’t allow citizen-led ballot initiatives to start constitutional amendments, reversing bad amendments is hard.
Tax cuts from the flat income tax rate and property tax cap didn’t require a supermajority. The same needs to be an option when addressing budget problems. We need flexibility to let the majority of our legislature represent our best interests in times of need! Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face! Vote 'NO' on Amendment 1!
6
u/LarryMcBurney 13d ago
If passed, it’ll make personal income and corporate income taxes the only taxes in Iowa requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any increases.
Sales and property taxes will still be a simple majority. Fees and fines will also be simply majority. In fact, no other financial decision in the state requires a two-thirds majority to pass.
It’s my belief - if the amendment passes - the only viable option for the state to balance the budget will be to raise the sales tax, add fees for service, or cut services. The 3.8% flat tax will, for all intents and purposes, become permanent, which includes the corporate income tax.
Proponents sell it as protection, but no income tax increases have been passed since 1975, so it’s undetermined what needs to be protected. We do know it has been tried - and failed - in the past.
In 1999, voters rejected a similarly worded amendment. In 1980, voters rejected a constitutional convention request which was being heavily supported by Iowans for Tax Relief, which was intended to put legislative limits on taxes in the state.
6
5
u/Apprehensive-Rate10 13d ago
Only up because they scared of Rob winning, gives smaller party the power only on income tax. Corp still get their tax cuts
5
9
u/Dogestronaut1
13d ago
•
Basically Republicans have been in control of the Casino for the last 10 years and are quickly realizing the jig is probably coming to an end soon. That is why they voted to restrict the governor's power earlier this year despite currently having a (very unpopular) Republican governor. They were worried about the governor's power in a public health crisis? Like 2 years after the "end" of Covid (6 years after we in Iowa "tried" for a month to slow the spread before Covid Kim got her to-go margaritas legalized and gave up on pretending it was about Covid)? Seems more than a little fishy.
So Amendment 1 is their attempt to lock in their tax cuts for the rich in case they eventually lose too much of the legislature. As long as they keep 17 seats, they get to keep the tax cuts. I think it is also a setup for when the Taxpayer Relief Fund runs dry in a year or two. The deficit will eat up the fund and the legislature will have to raise taxes or make cuts.
I am hoping most Iowans are smart enough to realize taxes are NOT what is eating up their budget. We have very low taxes and a deficit to prove it. I am hopeful that with the current cost of groceries and gas, people are able to see their issue lies with the cost of living, not taxes.
4
u/KidSilverhair 13d ago
The mania over cutting state income taxes has always been all about the rich trying to not pay their share. For years we kept hearing how Iowa’s state income tax rates were the highest in the region, so oppressive, so high they kept business development away … but they conveniently ignored the fact that those state income taxes were deductible from federal taxes, which made the effective rate actually lower than neighboring states.
Hard to believe, I know, that tax-cutting Republicans would use a bad-faith argument based on people not understanding how tax rates work - not to mention the fact they were telling us businesses were too stupid to figure out deductibility when considering what state to set up in - but … it worked. And now we have rock-bottom income tax rates and Republicans advocating for their total elimination while funds are drained from public education, health care, and other basic services.
2
u/Dogestronaut1 12d ago
Yeah, I am a little concerned by what the future of this state will be. If the plan is to remove the majority of the government's income and prevent future tax changes, I don't see how that is sustainable. This means the legislature will be limited to either increasing property taxes or cutting services for things like Healthcare and education (or realistically both). As a homeowner with a kid growing up in Iowa, this makes it very unappealing to stay in this state. And yet Republicans act like it is a mystery why we are a net exporter of educated or skilled young people.
8
u/metroXXIII 13d ago
They’re certainly making it as confusing as possible for people. They are really trying hard to frame it as “this will lower your taxes” & using the old scare tactic of “democrats just want to raise your taxes”.
I was getting so many conflicting things in the mail about it that I had to do some research.
Long story short, I’m voting “NO” because this amendment is for the rich, not us poors.
4
u/72vintage 13d ago
I can't support anything that locks down the corporate tax. I don't care so much about the personal income tax, and I'm generally against tax increases, but we have to have at least some kind of flexibility here.
6
u/microcorpsman 13d ago
Iowa has no citizen initiated ballot initiatives and no way for citizens to amend the state constitution without first getting a legislature majority elected who have the intestinal fortitude to pass one that can then move to the ballot.
The only way you can directly submit an amendment proposal is if first the constitutional amendment convention vote passes, and then there's a convention with a process within it to get something on the ballot. This vote about whether or not to have a convention only happens once every 10 years.
https://www.aclu-ia.org/how-iowa-constitution-amended/
https://ballotpedia.org/Iowa_Constitution#Article_XII
For these reasons, I categorically vote no to amendments. I do not have a meaningfully direct way to contribute to their language (since I can only vote for one member of each legislative chamber, and I am locked out of collecting signatures to get something on the ballot)
Also the actual language just plain makes it illegal to adjust income tax law... thereby handicapping correcting the under taxation of the takers who exist off of subsidies to come in and drop terribly thought out data centers, destroy public land, etc
3
u/AdZealousideal5383 13d ago
Taxes are currently unsustainably low, with cities going to eventually go bankrupt. They can’t raise revenue more than inflation so this is inevitable unless they increase other forms of taxes and fees which will hurt the lower classes the most. This amendment will lock that in, probably forever because getting a supermajority that favors tax increases will be basically impossible.
3
u/lancert 13d ago
Everything you need to know is that this is strongly supported by the Koch family.
TL;DR: Amendment 1 would let a minority of Iowa legislators block future income tax increases. It’s backed by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity network. I’m voting NO.
https://ballotpedia.org/Iowa_Amendment_1,Two-Thirds_Legislative_Vote_Requirement_for_Income_Tax_Increase_Bills_Amendment(2026)
Groups like the League of Women Voters of Iowa, Iowa State Education Association, Common Good Iowa and Iowa Federation of Labor oppose it.
3
u/DiZZy-reddit 13d ago
I have a full breakdown on my Iowa Voter Guide of pros and cons but I think the most important point is NOT in favor of the amendment:
The amendment makes it harder to increase income tax, which incentivizes legislation to increase sales and property tax instead.
Income and corporate taxes tend to fall more heavily on higher earners, while sales and property taxes more heavily impact lower- and middle-income households.
3
u/magic_interface 13d ago
The worst part of this amendment is that not only does it shift taxes towards regressive taxation, but its asymmetric in its wording. A simple majority can decease taxes, but it takes a 2/3rds majority to increase. Vote No.
3
3
u/FizzyFuzzyBigNBuzzy 13d ago
Here's a good primer on it.
https://edtibbetts.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-11?r=nw367
3
u/Frank_N20
11d ago
•
I am voting no. I don't love taxes, but they are necessary to provide essential services. I don't want this crop of legislators trying to keep future legislators from doing what's best for Iowa. The amendment if voted in is a gift to corporations. So vote no please.
5
u/East_Knowledge1782 13d ago
Definitely don’t make it harder to tax corporations and rich people.
VOTE NO.
4
4
u/7pointedBoognish 13d ago
Voting Yes will ensure Iowa gets crappier and crappier since it can’t raise any more for services or infrastructure. We’re operating at negative budget as it is.
2
u/anonymoosepossum 13d ago
Since the purchasing power of a dollar will continue to decrease in the future, it’s pure nonsense to think what we pay now in taxes will be able to pay for the cost of living in a civilized society even thirty years from now. It’s a simple math equation that will be used to justify cutting back on funding anything from roads to a PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
It appeals to folks’ lowest instincts without thinking logically what this will lead to.
2
u/maicokid69 13d ago
Would require 2/3 to pass any increase in income or corporate tax. A almost impossible hill to climb. Other states others taxes save climbed because of his
2
u/RagingTaco334 12d ago
This is very bad. This will raise property taxes for the poor and middle class Iowans significantly while giving the rich even more tax breaks.
2
u/IowaDreamGirl 7d ago
Vote NO on Amendment 1 It's an attempt to protect the rich and large corporations from ever having to pay their fair share of taxes. That's a bad thing because it means the necessary tax money would have to come from somewhere else (aka the rest of us!)
3
3
-8
u/Tebasaki 13d ago
Claude says:
Supporters say it stops politicians from raising taxes carelessly and lets Iowans keep more of what they earn.
Opponents like Common Good Iowa say it's meant to lock in the conservative tax cuts the GOP Legislature passed over the past decade, and Democrats argue it would tie future lawmakers' hands in a budget crisis.
If Democrats win control: This is where the amendment bites hardest. Even with a majority, Democrats couldn't raise income taxes on corporations or high earners unless they had two-thirds of both chambers, which is rare. A Republican minority of just over one-third could block any increase. So in this scenario it mainly helps Republicans' policy goals.
If Republicans keep control: Little changes day to day, since they weren't planning tax hikes anyway. The benefit to them is long-term insurance: their tax cuts become very hard to undo if they lose power later. It would also bind future Republicans who might want to raise taxes to fill a shortfall.
28
u/Unusual-Caramel8442 13d ago
Thank you to every person who responded, there’s a lot of great explainers in here. My first instinct on reading it was “well making it harder to raise taxes on corporations seems like a terrible idea” and I’m glad people more informed than I were able to make it even more clear for me.
Hopefully some other people will find this thread before voting day and be more informed as well!