Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
The Reaganomics Fraud:
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
*pot induced fog
mrplunkey
New member
I believe the writer quoted in the OP is the one in a pot-induced fog.
Let's tax ourselves into prosperity! There's no way that won't work. Maybe we can start by adding a flat 20% to every bracket.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all taxes of the and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. Oh, and 47% of Americans pay zero taxes.
And how is that a subsidization of the ultra-wealthy? How much of a burden should the top 1% carry? 50%? 60%? 90%?
And I've asked this of you before: How many years did you spend in that top tax bracket? As someone whose career may be winding down, have you been part of that 1% locomotive that's pulling the load? Did you make it into the top 10% maybe?
b0und
New member
If the top 1% of earning entities are earning 40% of all the earned income, then how is that tax burden not commensurate?
As for the personal question, how is it germane?
As for the 47% number, which I doubt, even if it's true, I think it's indicative not that too many people are getting a free ride, but a damn shame that so many people are doing so poorly that they QUALIFY for the free ride.
mrplunkey
New member
Because the top 1% are in a bracket that is at a 250% higher rate than the bottom payers, and 47% pay nothing. If paying taxes are such a good idea, everyone should play the same flat rate.
It's completely germane and I will continue to ask it. At this point I'm convinced you've never participated in the top bracket. But that sure doesn't stop you from wanting those people to give you more. Let's set aside the economic theories. Let's set aside the political rhetoric. What we're looking at here is a guy who wants more free shit. You're on the brink of cashing in a soon-to-be-insolvent social security system and a medicare system that pays $3 out for every $1 paid in. So even though today's workers are stuck supporting a ponzi scheme that benefits you, you're here telling the 1% who pay 40% of the bill that you need more money from them.
That's what happens when you declare war on the companies and individuals that create jobs. And until we have president who understands that, more and more people will "qualify".
I suspect that figure must include retirees who already paid their pound of flesh for 40 years. Probably also includes people collecting SSDI payments, which is money they paid into the system.
Or rich folks that collect all their income at the capital gains / tax free level.
I think that everyone generally agrees that there is a fair price to pay in order to live in a functioning society. The debate is on the amount of the fair price. Those that have to pay a high amount generally feel that they are being shafted because of their success. The others who don't pay anything generally feel that they have nothing left to give and need a help up. There are bad examples on both sides (ie people who might manage the system to allow them to get free money - see tax cheats on the high and low end), so I think that the extreme examples are not really helpful. I think that we also agree that we need it / not everyone should be privatized because without that supervisory body, we would have other problems (ie see infrastructure degradation, see tainted meats / water, etc).
Thus, the question is what is the fair amount? Is a progressive system fair or is a flat tax fair?
Thus, the question is what is the fair amount? Is a progressive system fair or is a flat tax fair?
Of course I fucking haven't, I don't make $373,651 or more.
You do?
Is that a prerequisite for having a valid opinion on the progressive tax rates in our country?
Maybe we should also limit the vote to white men who own land?
Right, lets give them a free ride, with no regulation, so we can go back to the Nineteenth Century where the GOP wishes we still were. We can have sweat shops and child labor and pollution and hazardous work conditions with unprotected power tools, it'll be like Capitalist Heaven. A nation of happy industrious proles.
But who's gonna buy the stuff once the middle class has been eliminated?
kx250rider
New member
I don't know what "super rich" means, and I'm certainly not that, but I will be standing in line today at the post office to mail an earth-shattering check to the IRS. All I know is, if I didn't have to write that check, it could go to a couple more employees hired 
.
Bottom line is: Higher taxes = less money to hire people and to spend, and MOST importantly, it means why should I bother to make more, if I'm just going to wind up keeping the same amount while giving more to the government? Why not reward those who make good decisions, by LOWERING their taxes (as President Reagan demonstrated)? Don't just use Hallburton and GE as examples of where that theory doesn't work as well as other examples....
Under the "current administration's" tax laws, which are barely but slightly tilted to the Left since Bush left, I left an apartment vacant ALL of 2010 and won't rent it 'til June this year, because if that entity (an S-corp) had accepted any more income, I'd have LOST more money to taxes than I'd have made by renting it for $1295/month. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Obama! People who manage to figure out how to make an honest living and keep a few dollars in the bank, WILL figure out how to keep doing it. Life is not magic, and as long as the lazy are protected and the go-getters are oppressed by tax liability, things aren't going to get better for the middle class.
Charles
. Bottom line is: Higher taxes = less money to hire people and to spend, and MOST importantly, it means why should I bother to make more, if I'm just going to wind up keeping the same amount while giving more to the government? Why not reward those who make good decisions, by LOWERING their taxes (as President Reagan demonstrated)? Don't just use Hallburton and GE as examples of where that theory doesn't work as well as other examples....
Under the "current administration's" tax laws, which are barely but slightly tilted to the Left since Bush left, I left an apartment vacant ALL of 2010 and won't rent it 'til June this year, because if that entity (an S-corp) had accepted any more income, I'd have LOST more money to taxes than I'd have made by renting it for $1295/month. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Obama! People who manage to figure out how to make an honest living and keep a few dollars in the bank, WILL figure out how to keep doing it. Life is not magic, and as long as the lazy are protected and the go-getters are oppressed by tax liability, things aren't going to get better for the middle class.
Charles
mrplunkey
New member
And I knew you didn't. It's always fun and easy to tell other people they need to pay more. Gotta snag that free shit.
All I see from a significant group of people is class envy. They've been brainwashed to think other people need to be paying their bills. That's why we've got a small minority of people picking-up the majority of the tab.
So as a soon-to-be beneficiary of our entitlement ponzi schems, how about spending less time trying to mask what you want in economic theory and public policy and just tell us what you really want -- more free shit. If today's generation is going to work harder than ever to make good on a bunch of fraudulent politicians' (who are all probably dead by now) promises, the least you can do is be pleasant along the way instead of telling the bill-payers simply to pay more.
/rant
PICK3
New member
Plunk, you've officially joined the ranks of those who suggest the only reason people didnt vote for Obama was because he is black.
Stands to reason, we've got a small minority of people taking in the vast bulk of personal income too.
PICK3
New member
PICK3
New member
Obama said in a speech last week that top earners -- himself included -- should pay higher taxes.
First Read - First Family paid $453,770 in federal taxes for 2010 on $1.7 million income
First Read - First Family paid $453,770 in federal taxes for 2010 on $1.7 million income
Whoah, it's like you're clairvoyant! You just knew it. No fucking shit sherlock...
Quid pro quo, Starling, you didn't answer my question either.
Most normal people vote their own self-interest, that should come as no surprise. Well, except for anyone making less than $100,000 who votes GOP, then they've voting for some Fortune 500 CEO's self-interest.
And guess what - no one likes paying taxes. And yes that's money that could have gone for other goods and services, or more employees' wages, or home or business improvements. Big fucking deal. Life is hard. I don't like paying my rent or my car loan either, but if I stop, I'll be living in a box and walking to work. So sure let's all stop paying taxes, everyone's got some excuse surely. And you can pave your own roads, and defend your own property when the Yellow Horde from China attacks, and pump water from your own well, and shit in a hole in your back yard.
PICK3
New member
So that is a 26% tax rate? Seems a little low to me for someone making $1.7M a year. Surely hes in a higher tax bracket than that.
PICK3
New member
The president and his wife also reported donations to 36 different charities totaling $245,075, with the largest single donation going to the Fisher House Foundation, a program that supports the families of members of the military receiving special medical care.
uamaverick
New member
I made $7,225 last year. I paid $12 in state taxes and $0 in federal. My refund was $1,680. ZOMG.
live with parents rob?
uamaverick
New member
Nope.
PICK3
New member
I'm tired of carrying yo ass
uamaverick
New member
I got about $6,000 in college grants last year. That helps.
You know that if you're in the 35% tax bracket, you don't pay 35% of your total income, right?
mrplunkey
New member
I've been in the top tax bracket since either 1994 or 1995.
And it's funny how you bring up the Yellow Horde. They don't scare me at all. It's the entitled horde that represents the real threat -- the ones who are already getting subsidized who can't help asking for more.
So when someone buys you dinner, do you complain to them that they didn't get you something to-go for lunch the next day as well?
Have you seen plunkey? Have you seen his wife? Of COURSE he's in the top tax bracket...
(kidding, plunks
)Most political and religious debates seem that way to me. I'll have a discussion with anyone about anything if they aren't a "this is black, this is white" type of thinker...but the second I feel someone trying to stir a debate, I'm out. Just not how I work....I'm fairly set in my ways about a few things, but most of life feels like gray area to me and often my mind and heart are in conflict - even when it comes to things like paying taxes lolol.
All I can offer is that it is different when you're on the other side of it.
Perhaps how you came to be amongst the wealthy is relevant. I'm not sure. If you're in an old rich family who've played "keep away" with the family's megamillions for the generations, maybe there is some implied moral obligation to pay a higher share of taxes. Also, a major distinction should be recognized between someone earning 600k a year and someone sitting on 600m. Both are in that top 1%, but enjoy fundamentally different lifestyles.
It's been my experience that the vast majority of independently wealthy Americans earned their own money during the course of their own lifetime. They worked hard enough and smart enough (and in most cases for a very long time) to become rich. Taxing them more heavily just feels improper. Those people feel, justifiably so, that they are being punished for having been successful.
Redrocker13
New member
Well said!
And in response to the opening volley, the one thing which has NEVER been addressed successfully in supply side theory is the ridiculous spending by our federal government. The last few weeks of smoke and mirrors is indicative.
This isn't merely a matter of income tax. Take a moment to consider ALL we pay in taxes. I did a rough estimate years ago and the amount I pay annually in taxes with the money I do get to keep is roughly an additional 15 to 20%. Add that to the 20% or so in income tax and you can see we are now at 40% and/or above. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself.
Like most I don't mind paying taxes to support the things I know the government needs to do. But when I am confronted with the money the government spends (wastes) on things it shouldn't be involved in, yeah, it's pretty maddening. Supply side does work but until we the people DEMAND accountability and fiscal responsibility from politicians we will continue to get these same results. And left unchecked it will hit the wall.
I for one am not expecting social security to aid in my retirement years so therefore I am planning accordingly. And I fear greatly the state of our union for my children and grandchildren. Truly. Please wake up! Trillion dollar annual deficits are unsustainable. Trying to take more in taxes will only result in driving business and investment away even faster. It's just common sense folks.
mrplunkey
New member
Have you seen plunkey? Have you seen his wife? Of COURSE he's in the top tax bracket...
(kidding, plunks
I can't argue with that. It stings because it's troooooooo!
haha, well you're an attractive guy, and smart so you've got other things going for you too
But that helps!
I wouldn't know, I'm not on the receiving end. And I would have no problem at all with slashing the Welfare program. It should never be more than a temporary leg-up, the next step when you've run out of unemployment insurance, not a way of life. The only positive thing I have to say about Welfare is that it's still cheaper than if the same people were in jail.
PICK3
New member
My reaction to this is "waah waah waah". How do you think people feel when their entire paycheck goes for rent, utilities, and groceries? People who have essentially no disposable income at all. The whole point of a graduated marginal tax rate scale is that higher income people can afford it.
Even a flat-tax system would end up looking about the same as today's scale, because they'd end up having some kind of means-tested sliding scale for the personal deduction.
mrplunkey
New member
Welfare isn't just specific checks that have "welfare" stamped on them.
It's this incredible mess we've constructed where people no longer feel they have to pay their own way.
You're about to enter a government-administered insurance program (Medicare) that pays-out $3 for every $1 paid-in. Does that give you problems? A bunch of scumbag politicians who are dead now committed today's income producers to provide you with medical treatments and technologies that didn't even exist at the time. Does that give you any problem?
The problem is deciding what the graduated rates should be. If 35% is good why not 45%, since they can afford it. Youre were arguing higher taxes necessary for proper infrastructure and government to arguing everyone should have disposable income? Not going to happen because "life isnt fair" and never was. They should have made better life choices
You've been making cute little references to my impending retirement for the past few pages. I think I've got a few years left, I'm "only" 54...
So they should have frozen the level of Medicare technology at a 1965 level?
There was a time in my life when my parents were both in seminary (which in the episcopal church is basically like getting a masters degree in divinity....it's a three year program, and VERY expensive). Previous to that, my mom was the head of the nursing department at her hospital, my dad was an opera singer. We went from doing pretty well, to being poor enough to get food stamps if we wanted them (we never got them...meal plans were part of tuition). My parents are two of the hardest working people I know, and we were damn poor for a little while...I wouldn't say they made a bad life choice.
My sister qualifies for food stamps and uses them. She's a social worker raising three kids on her own (two of which are special needs) and makes maybe 35,000 a year. She works all day with mentally disabled people, still finds time to go to all her two sons various sports games, volunteers with her church, etc. She's barely making ends meet and I know for a fact she tightly budgets herself (every time she asks me for money I ask to see her bank statements so I make sure I'm not enabling any kid of bad behavior). She made a bad choice in basically marrying a deadbeat who couldn't contribute a thing financially, but I don't think there's anyone alive who doesn't have at least one mistake relationship. She would not be able to manage if not for the help she gets.
Just saying...not everyone who barely scrapes by or who uses govt. assistance is there because they did anything wrong. Granted, that's the minority, not the majority.
I don't think you fully appreciate the opportunity for wealth those same people have because they live in this country. How do I think they feel? They should feel lucky.
They are fortunate enough to live in nation that provides greater opportunity for upward financial mobility than probably any other place in the entire world. No money left over each month? Here they have the chance to use diligence and intelligence to make more. Punish people for really succeeding in that is an asshole maneuver.
chris302001
Banned
Agreed.
That's not what I said at all.
mrplunkey
New member
No, they shouldn't have entered the insurance business in the first place. It's common sense that politicians will choose today's votes over tomorrow's fiscal disaster.
We've known about the ponzi scheme for a long time. So does today's generation owe you or should this be treated like any other ponzi scheme?
Ah then we can just tax the poor out of existence.
Your suggestion is absolutely absurd. There may be opportunities for upward financial mobility for some, but it's impossible for everyone to do it. Besides, a society cannot exist without socioeconomic strata. Just like an Army couldn't exist with only Officers. And like it or not, there is a talent gap between the haves and the have-nots. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the needs of the have-nots.
It's not my fault that your generation didn't reproduce enough.
Maybe if we have another big World War, we can have another post-war baby boom.
So we should just end the program? Pull the rug out, just like that?
Actually, I agree that Medicare and Medicaid should both end, the sooner the better.
Because they should be made redundant by a single-payer health system that covers everyone, just like every other Western nation.
mrplunkey
New member
We should phase it out. And we should start by making the benefits kick in later, increase individual copayments and put caps on the level of services beneficiaries receive without incurring extra out-of-pocket costs. There's no reason to keep propping-up this ponzi scheme any more than we should be reimbursing Bernie Madoff victims.
That makes sense. Replace one big lie with an even bigger one. Then, when it accelerates our bankruptcy, you can make more Internet posts asking for an even greater hand-out.
1. people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
2. How much should we tax those low-income earners just to make up for these ten companies that aren't paying squat either?
Pay Your Taxes? These 10 Companies Didn’t. | MoveOn.Org
3. Are you related to the Tusculum coach?
Too much paperwork rob. Gotta focus on fucking over either just the rich or just the poor.
mrplunkey
New member
1) We're taxed too much at entirely too many levels: income (state and federal), sales and use, capital gains, inheritance, etc. etc.
2) Companies need to pay their taxes. The problem with the current situation is that we're so uncompetitive globally that companies are far better off recognizing their profits in other countries and paying their taxes there. We should make ourselves globally competitive (in every way, not just taxes) then nail companies that don't pay.
3) No.
PICK3
New member
wealthy guy paying disproportionate level of incum tax = knot good
wealthy guy owning a company and funneling his assets through the company and escaping tax = knot good
there has to be an across the board proportional tax assigned to everyone that doesn't hide under the labels of "federal", "state", or "local" tax, nor "corporate" or "personal".
just sayin'
javaguru
Banned
Reagan tried a two tiered tax system with one deduction, housing interest because everyone had it for so long it wasn't politically viable to eliminate it. That has evolved from the previous convoluted system into our current convoluted system due to political patronage. Microsoft learned the hard way that paying indirect money to the government through lobbyists was more beneficial than investing in research and development. What is a corporation to do?
javaguru
Banned
There are consequences to choices and they can be serious consequences. I've made a number of bad choices in my life and had serious consequences but family should be the first resort for difficult times followed by the local community charities as the last resort. Government programs create dependence because those receiving the benefits are never directly accountable to the people providing them. We may not like it but we are our brothers/sisters keepers on a local level but not on a national welfare state level.
They don't "forget", they hope that we forget so that they can spin it their way. Totally disingenuous.
javaguru
Banned
The class warfare card is easier to play than the race card because it transcends all ethnicity. Lets repeal the sixteenth amendment which allows wealthy people to pay for lobbyists to modify the tax code for their benefit and have a flat tax that excludes basic necessities. Nobody will be taxed on what they need to live which frees up capital for investment.
mrplunkey
New member
Oh, we certainly don't forget. We're reminded that we pay the most income taxes, inheritance taxes, property taxes, sales and use taxes, usage fees, payroll taxes and every other tax out there.
When all taxes are considered, you (ie the top 1%) pay less today than you have at any time over the past 50 years, and only a teeny weeny bit more than the folks in the top 20%.
The only reason the wealthy are paying a greater share than they used to is because they are the only group who's income has actually risen substantially over that time.
mrplunkey
New member
The top 1% account for 20% of all gross adjusted incomes yet pay 38% of income taxes.
And even that is deceptive, since a huge portion of that 1% are owner-operated businesses structured as LLC's. So that 38% is money that is being diverted from new equipment, new products and new jobs.
And it is even further skewed since the top 1% is also paying capital gains. While taxed at a lower rate, these are gains from money that was already made and taxed, then risked again. That rate should be zero (or near-zero) and is instead at 20% (15% thanks to Bush).
The total effective tax rate (income, payroll, capital gains, etc) for the top earners is about 31.5%. That's down from 41% in 1995.
Meanwhile, for upper middle class folks (eg incomes of $125k-200k) the same tax liability has fallen about 1% during the same time frame. Since 1979 the rate has only fallen 2%.
Rich folks = 10% drop in 10 years. Middle class folks = 1% drop in 10 years, and 2% in 30 years. Jebus.
I loves me some Reagan, but he royally fucked over the middle class and it continues to this day.
mrplunkey
New member
That reduction in the top rate isn't a gift -- it's the top earners pushing-back against repressive tax rates. And every time Barry opens his mouth with his class warfare rhetoric, the top earners plan to reduce their tax burden further.
And based on your numbers (I'd still like to see your source), what's the total effective tax rate for the middle class? Maybe it did only drop 1% -- but what's the base number?
mrplunkey
New member
That's not true at all. Property taxes go up with property value. If a top earner doesn't want a high-end piece of real estate, there's no reason they should pay higher taxes.
And the same can be said for sales taxes.
Plus, state taxes are graduated and in loony states like CA, include additional penalties for $1M+ earners.
lol
The top earners dont need an excuse to try and reduce their tax burden. It's only natural - I dont blame them for it. IF I made $1 million per year I'd make sure my accountant had me pay as little as possible too.
Its worth noting, however, that depending on which polling company you look at (Rasmussen, Gallup, etc) between 63-68% of the top 1% support a tax increase on the wealthy. The folks who despise the idea, for some reason, are the top .01%. Unfortunately, they are the folks with the lobbyists and the ability to constantly feed misinformation on the benefit (or lack thereof) of tax breaks for the wealthy.
My source is the only place you can get these numbers - the CBO. What was your source?
The aforementioned middle class effective tax rates fell from 27.7% to 25.7%.
Youre kidding, right?
Even if we didnt have numbers to back it up (which we do via a study done by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy in 2007) it's not hard to believe that those with lower incomes pay a greater % of their income via taxes levied through local and state channels.
ETA from the study:
That's not always the case. I told you my property taxes (that includes school taxes, garbage and sewer rental) are $6,000-odd. My home's value has NOT increased in 20 years. In fact, properties in my neighborhood, when they DO sell, are going for about what they went for 20 years ago. The taxes have crept up every year, though and have never been reduced. And ain't no way my property is in any way considered "high end."
And I don't even have it the worst, proportionately the highest property taxes in the country are paid by any given homeowner in New York or New Jersey, even a putz like me knows that.
mrplunkey
New member
Link to the Rasmussen or Gallup poll please.
I'll find em when I get home. While were at it, link to source of aforementioned claim that the top pay 38% compared to near 30% according to the CBO. And to the claim that state taxes are more progressive as opposed to regressive.
ETA here's some polls covering most Americans - I'll find the wealthy specific ones when I can:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...icans-support-ending-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...cans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php
Notice that in both, taken months apart, a majority of Republicans favor higher taxes for the rich as well.
Must be those republicans that are actually serious about cutting the deficit.
ETA here's some polls covering most Americans - I'll find the wealthy specific ones when I can:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...icans-support-ending-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...cans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php
Notice that in both, taken months apart, a majority of Republicans favor higher taxes for the rich as well.
Must be those republicans that are actually serious about cutting the deficit.
mrplunkey
New member
The lengths the top earners are willing to go depend on the overall tax climate. Once you get past the simple ways to defer taxes, the remaining ways are less convenient. We're already working on ways to mitigate the upcoming 2.3% medical device tax in 2013 and the only way we can do it is to place EtO sterilization in countries like Guatamala and DR so the product never makes entry into the US. It's not cheap and an improperly managed gas sterilizer becomes a bomb -- but in the face of a 2.3% top-line tax, it's worth it.
At GE, we spent (I'm guessing a least a few hundred million) on lobbyists, tax consultants and tax vehicles because the return on investment was worth it.
Barry's class warfare rhetoric just fires-up the anti-tax crowd and will result in less US jobs and lower US tax revenues.
mrplunkey
New member
I'll find em when I get home. While were at it, link to source of aforementioned claim that the top pay 38% compared to near 30% according to the CBO. And to the claim that state taxes are more progressive as opposed to regressive.
ETA here's some polls covering most Americans - I'll find the wealthy specific ones when I can:
Gallup poll finds majority favor ending tax cuts for the rich - The Hill's On The Money
Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes On The Wealthy | TPMDC
Notice that in both, taken months apart, a majority of Republicans favor higher taxes for the rich as well.
Must be those republicans that are actually serious about cutting the deficit.
Neither of those links say anything about 63%-68% of the top 1% supporting a tax increase on the wealthy.
I'm dying to see this poll. I'll sit tight.
me said:
I'm dying to see the source(s) of your previous claims as well. I'll sit tight for that.
Any capital that is "freed up" will be from shifting the burden to the lower and middle classes, right?
How is that not also class warfare?
mrplunkey
New member
My numbers come from at Tax Foundation report published on October 10, 2011.
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
They based their report on published data from the Internal Revenue Service from 2008, which I believe is the latest summarized taxpayer data from that agency.
Now impress me with a Gallup or Rasmussen poll where they managed to even selectively contact the top 1% of voters, let alone publish results from them.
This should be interesting.
Werent we talking about the effective tax rate, taking into account payroll, capital gains, etc? You don't think that's a much better barometer given the context of this conversation?
Also, what about the apparently progressive nature of state tax liability as you claimed earlier?
Also, what about the apparently progressive nature of state tax liability as you claimed earlier?
And it looks like I was wrong about the poll...found the page I was looking for (coincidentally a Fox News article from one of O'Reilly's recent shows) that spoke about the "Patriotic Millionaire" group and included a recent poll of 64% of independents wanting higher taxes on the wealthy. So lets take that out of the discussion.
It's better to stick to the raw numbers and economics of this anyway.
It's better to stick to the raw numbers and economics of this anyway.
mrplunkey
New member
And it looks like I was wrong about the poll...found the page I was looking for (coincidentally a Fox News article from one of O'Reilly's recent shows) that spoke about the "Patriotic Millionaire" group and included a recent poll of 64% of independents wanting higher taxes on the wealthy. So lets take that out of the discussion.
It's better to stick to the raw numbers and economics of this anyway.
Wow -- I didn't see that coming.
I was looking forward to seeing those figures all afternoon.
mrplunkey
New member
mrplunkey
New member
mrplunkey
New member
Similar threads
