logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> FICA’s our most regressive federal tax., Reducing FICA and replacing revenue with a sales tax.
Supposn
post Sep 11 2014, 06:44 AM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



FICA’s our most regressive federal tax.

Should FICA be reduced and the revenue replaced by a more general tax?

I’m an advocate that FICA's entire portion of revenue earmarked for Medicare and half of the social security retirement’s portions of FICA revenue all be replaced with revenues from a general federal sales tax.

This proposal’s not feasible if the transactions subject to the federal sales tax exceed twice the USA payrolls (that are subject to FICA taxes). For any single rate of taxation, revenues between the employers FICA taxes and a sales tax differ only to their proportional relationship.

If payrolls subject to the FICA tax are 1/3 of transactions subject to a general federal sales tax, then replacing 4.55% of FICA taxes levied upon both employees and employers with a 4.55% sales tax will increase tax revenues by 3/2 = 150%.

If payrolls subject to the FICA tax are 1/2 of transactions subject to a general federal sales tax, then replacing 4.55% of FICA taxes levied upon both employees and employers with a 4.55% sales tax will not increase tax revenues; 2/2 = 100%.

Reduction of FICA still retains the remaining FICA payroll taxes’ financial relationships between laborers and their retirement benefits while reducing the most regressive of federal taxes levied upon laborers. It reduces the financial advantages for employers hiring laborers “off the books”. The FICA payroll tax specifically punishes enterprises that employ labor without regard to the enterprises’ profits, losses or volumes of sales.

Dependent upon the ratio of USA payrolls and transactions subject to a sales tax this proposal’s of very little, perhaps no financial benefit to employees and their families, it does not reduce their wages net purchasing powers. The proposal would reduce taxes upon all honest enterprises and some of the advantages to employers that evade taxes by hiring labor “off the books”.
All of this would be of some net benefit to USA's economic and social welfare.

Respectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
AuthorMusician
post Sep 15 2014, 03:18 PM
Post #21


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,350
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 13 2014, 04:45 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician)
Sure would have been nice if the economy didn't go through boom-bust cycles, but that is just how the economy works. Nobody has been able to figure out how to keep the economy in a steady-state, and so the theory that workers do better saving for their own retirements falls flat.


I don't see how you get from the one to the other.

It's really quite simple: Income goes to zero, stays at zero too long, and the retirement funds are drawn down to pay the bills. You can't do that with SS funds because the system is set up differently. You don't own the securities directly, but at certain ages, you can draw money from the system.

It's more like insurance than savings. When you make a claim on insurance, you aren't getting money that you put into the system. Money continually enters the system, and so you get paid from what's available at the time of your claim. Too many other claims and too little money coming into the system, and you might not get paid.

But rather than dealing with a single insurance entity, SS is based on national debt in the form of Treasury securities. These bills/bonds are the most reliable in the entire world, which is why they are so popular among foreign investors. It's a great place to park wealth without taking much risk of losing it all.

I can see a certain amount of blindness about recent history if the dot-com bust or the Meltdown of 2008 did not affect you directly. If you were negatively impacted, then it's simple denial of reality, similar to how bad car accidents always happen to someone else.

Dingo, I kind of get where you're going, but without honest models, I can't go with you. I'm also wary of word definitions that are too far out of date. Socialism no longer equates to communism and has not for decades. It's also a tangent from the original point I made that social engineering does not equate to social responsibility. The first is wanting society to take a different form (think Affirmative Action); the second is wanting to meet the working population's needs, which doesn't necessarily require changing the society. It probably requires changing the economic system to some extent. I don't equate social studies to economics, but there are common areas. For example, a rich society behaves differently than a poor society in many ways. Not in all ways mind you, just some. Both societies will have the same fundamental drives that all people have (food, water, clothing, shelter, sewage treatment, transportation, entertainment, sex, children, schools, employment, health care . . . basic stuff).

In Northern Minnesota, the Taconite Amendment went through while I was in grade school, some date during the 1960s. That made iron mining companies pay a tax on extracting the low-grade ore called taconite (high grade mostly gone), and that tax went into education so that miners' kids would have a chance at getting the hell out. Today it is a moot point because the world economy washed over N. MN in the 1980s, causing a very deep recession there. Foreign steel outstripped US steel in the global marketplace. The mines went away, mostly.

A similar thing can happen in Alaska if oil were to become very cheap due to low demand. Any system based on natural, nonrenewable resources has the same weaknesses. Eventually the resources run out or demand slumps too far.

I'm pretty sure there's a better way to work economics that's not based on the old boom-bust systems that developed during earlier centuries. I just don't know what that is, and from what I gather, you don't either. That's okay. It's a challenge for younger generations, a major problem to be solved. However, I can state the problem as follows:

How does an economic system that increasingly devalues human beings meet social responsibilities while maintaining innovation and competition?

Alternatively:

What economic system would best meet the needs of society?

And:

If such an economic system does not exist or ever existed, can one be invented that does meet the needs of society? If so, how would it work?

Remember that our economic systems of today were invented hundreds of years ago. Those inventions have gone through many changes as the world changed. While there may be room for further improvements (or mistakes), an entirely different approach might be necessary. I think it is. I just don't know what it would be, nor am I interested in pursuing such a course. Well, not during this shortening lifetime.

So this brings me back to computer models. Assuming the world doesn't collapse or blow up, thereby making economics entirely moot, future generations will have the benefits of what I worked at most of my life and others, mostly younger, continue. These younger generations will have more powerful machines and better software to model what-if scenarios. So rather than depending upon what seems to make sense in our limited brains, the models will show exactly what to expect from any economic system. With the subjective pressures diminished, success will more likely happen.

Or we might let The Big Ones fly. Game over. Proof that high intelligence is not a good strategy for the survival of a species? Meh, I prefer to ignore that negative thinking. Not only does it do no good, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why even try if it's all going to go boom anyway?

Maybe I wrote too soon. Maybe I will somehow become involved in The Next Big Economic System. Stranger things than that have happened during this shortening lifetime, and it ain't over yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 15 2014, 07:58 PM
Post #22


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 15 2014, 05:32 AM) *
Owners of land protect their property.

Really, how? If you have property and I want it what is your agency of protection?

QUOTE
You could not be more truthful by calling support of the state protection money. Except protection money is not taxes. It is political contributions. The state has become heavy handed and biased. If you want to have a equal shot at the largess you best provide some political contribution. Only the cartels who do so expect fair treatment. That is why some cartels contribute to two candidates in the same race. Big money controls the state and will as long as individual freedom is not valued.

That's the beauty of the flat assets tax, it doesn't play favorites unlike the scenario you have presented or the mafia.

QUOTE
How can you say citizens are the ultimate owners of the country when you would deny any of them having free and clear ownership? You wish for the country to be completely controlled by the largest cartels.

This is the bind you continue to run into GS. You put individual rights over the government. Who protects and for that matter defines those individual rights? - the government. Who elects those government representatives at least in theory? - the citizens. That makes the citizens the ultimate landlords of the country, even if they do accede to the wishes of various interests, some of which, let's face it, they support. It's finally their choice in the voting booth.

QUOTE
I wish our money was protected. It is manipulated and controlled for the benefit of government and financiers. If we want our money protected the federal reserve must end. We must demand no more money creation and no more deficit spending.

Well somebody has to create the money. Right now it is the Treasury Department. Have you got a better creator in mind? And they protect it against counterfeiters. So far, Federal Reserve or not, the dollar has held up pretty well, certainly during my lifetime. As far as deficits, that's a political decision. Folks prefer government largess over taxes, that gets into human nature it seems. I guess we could go back to barter but that's pretty cumbersome in our modern fast paced society.


------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 15 2014, 08:18 AM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Sep 13 2014, 04:45 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician)
Sure would have been nice if the economy didn't go through boom-bust cycles, but that is just how the economy works. Nobody has been able to figure out how to keep the economy in a steady-state, and so the theory that workers do better saving for their own retirements falls flat.


I don't see how you get from the one to the other.

It's really quite simple: Income goes to zero, stays at zero too long, and the retirement funds are drawn down to pay the bills. You can't do that with SS funds because the system is set up differently. You don't own the securities directly, but at certain ages, you can draw money from the system.

That's fine as far as it goes, but as somebody else stated it finally is a Ponzi game with less and less workers supporting more and more retirees. The beauty of the flat assets tax is although property values fluctuate they always retain value so you always have a foundation to draw on for entitlements or whatever.

QUOTE
Dingo, I kind of get where you're going, but without honest models, I can't go with you. I'm also wary of word definitions that are too far out of date. Socialism no longer equates to communism and has not for decades.

Communism is religionized socialism with a lot of notions about the dialectic of class struggle throughout modern history and where it will finally take us(Think prophecy) thrown in. Unless I didn't get the memo socialism has always referred to greater public ownership or control of the economy. What debate have you heard between a socialist vs. nonsocialist where that is not the case?

As far as models none of us have completely successful ones to point to so I guess we have to pick through what's there, apply some logic and commonsense and try to come up with the best we can.

QUOTE
In Northern Minnesota, the Taconite Amendment went through while I was in grade school, some date during the 1960s. That made iron mining companies pay a tax on extracting the low-grade ore called taconite (high grade mostly gone), and that tax went into education so that miners' kids would have a chance at getting the hell out. Today it is a moot point because the world economy washed over N. MN in the 1980s, causing a very deep recession there. Foreign steel outstripped US steel in the global marketplace. The mines went away, mostly.

A similar thing can happen in Alaska if oil were to become very cheap due to low demand. Any system based on natural, nonrenewable resources has the same weaknesses. Eventually the resources run out or demand slumps too far.

Two thoughts here:
1. I think for a country self-sufficiency has a value, it keeps us from being hostage to another countries politics and some of the vagaries of boom-bust economics. That would go for iron ore as much as anything else. Of course that would get us into tariffs and/or simply import restrictions.

2. Certain resources run out but not all. A flat asset tax, plus a RCP(Real Cost Price) based fee with public kickbacks thrown in promotes both sustainability and fair distribution of the wealth, directly and indirectly, among its citizens.

QUOTE
I'm pretty sure there's a better way to work economics that's not based on the old boom-bust systems that developed during earlier centuries. I just don't know what that is, and from what I gather, you don't either.

As I've indicated I think a flat assets tax is in fact a mitigater of the boom-bust cycle because it bases public money flow on assets rather than income. Asset values hit bottom to a lesser degree than income.

QUOTE
How does an economic system that increasingly devalues human beings meet social responsibilities while maintaining innovation and competition?

Like mice in a cage, the more you stuff in, the less regard they have for each other finally. You can run but you can't hide from the overpopulation problem. Nearly 200,000 new folks added to this planet each day means a lot of devaluing of individuals.

QUOTE
What economic system would best meet the needs of society?

And:

If such an economic system does not exist or ever existed, can one be invented that does meet the needs of society? If so, how would it work?

I can't come up with a finished model but we kind of know what worked for 100s of thousands of years. Societies that were community based and lived off the environment around them. So I think a starting point would be how do we develop intentional communities in a modern society? In this regard one change that would come about would be to contemplate the appropriateness of each technology before incorporating it rather than just being jocked around by the latest and the greatest.

QUOTE
So this brings me back to computer models. Assuming the world doesn't collapse or blow up, thereby making economics entirely moot, future generations will have the benefits of what I worked at most of my life and others, mostly younger, continue. These younger generations will have more powerful machines and better software to model what-if scenarios. So rather than depending upon what seems to make sense in our limited brains, the models will show exactly what to expect from any economic system. With the subjective pressures diminished, success will more likely happen.

Any chance their modeling might lead them to the conclusion that they should junk computers? If one is going to follow an objective course one should be open to all sorts of possibilities. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
Or we might let The Big Ones fly. Game over. Proof that high intelligence is not a good strategy for the survival of a species? Meh, I prefer to ignore that negative thinking. Not only does it do no good, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why even try if it's all going to go boom anyway?

Or one could reintroduce the idea of "original sin", but applied to a bad evolutionary turn. Then maybe we could build in some societal compensations. We could start with the scapegoating reflex.

QUOTE
it ain't over yet.

Yep, where there is life there is hope. innocent.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Sep 16 2014, 12:06 AM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 15 2014, 10:18 AM) *
But rather than dealing with a single insurance entity, SS is based on national debt in the form of Treasury securities. These bills/bonds are the most reliable in the entire world, which is why they are so popular among foreign investors. It's a great place to park wealth without taking much risk of losing it all.


And what happens to returns as the risk goes to zero? They go to zero too. Which is why investing in the government is a bad place to save for retirement...you get no gains on your investment.

QUOTE
I can see a certain amount of blindness about recent history if the dot-com bust or the Meltdown of 2008 did not affect you directly. If you were negatively impacted, then it's simple denial of reality, similar to how bad car accidents always happen to someone else.


You don't make policy decisions affecting people for decades based on recent history. You base them on historic returns. As one gets closer to retirement, they are supposed to put money in bonds and such anyway, precisely because they would have no time to recover from a decline. So, the only real difference is the lack of gains before then. (FWIW, the dot com bust did affect my Dad, and not in a good way. He had just invested all of his retirement money).

As for it being more like insurance than investment---that part is true. But it is also why the system is going to run out of money. What happens to insurers who consistently pay out more than the insured put in? They go out of business. I'll probably get my SS (I'm 50), but I doubt my daughter will.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Sep 16 2014, 03:59 PM
Post #24


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Dingo, protection is the same whether it is government or private. You use whatever means to repel the force used against you.

Humanity will be better off placing the principles of the right to life and property as the basic foundation of society. You advocate group power and force as the basic principles.

An asset tax is a direct assault upon the principle of being able to own property. Government owns it with your tax idea. Government needs to know what you have, where you have it, and government will tell you what it is worth to them. Then you will be required to have money for government or government will take your things from you. There is no right to property with an asset tax.

In the United States the Treasury Department does not create money. This is a significant fact. We have given money creation power to a private bank who does create money secretly for its own secret purposes. So much for preventing counterfeiting.

The dollar has held up pretty well in your lifetime? Go to this site: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ plug in your birth date and today and let me know how well the dollar is doing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 16 2014, 05:26 PM
Post #25


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 16 2014, 08:59 AM) *
Dingo, protection is the same whether it is government or private. You use whatever means to repel the force used against you.

Humanity will be better off placing the principles of the right to life and property as the basic foundation of society. You advocate group power and force as the basic principles.

An asset tax is a direct assault upon the principle of being able to own property. Government owns it with your tax idea. Government needs to know what you have, where you have it, and government will tell you what it is worth to them. Then you will be required to have money for government or government will take your things from you. There is no right to property with an asset tax.

In the United States the Treasury Department does not create money. This is a significant fact. We have given money creation power to a private bank who does create money secretly for its own secret purposes. So much for preventing counterfeiting.

The dollar has held up pretty well in your lifetime? Go to this site: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ plug in your birth date and today and let me know how well the dollar is doing.

GS, you can apply the magic wand of whatever mantra you like, libertarian, free market, take your pick, but in the final analysis the power rests in the government, which for the most part we elect either directly or indirectly. What you call anti-government is just wanting the government to do what you want it to do. I know you are stuck in your tail chasing meme of making everything about the individual but your in vacuo individual is nothing without a system of enforcement around it. Here is a nice example of your tail chasing.

QUOTE
Humanity will be better off placing the principles of the right to life and property as the basic foundation of society. You advocate group power and force as the basic principles.

What you have just said here is I don't believe in the coercive power of government but I believe in the coercive power of government to protect life and private property. Tail chasing indeed. That's what I find so often on these boards, semantic fist fights that have no meaning in the real world.

To complete my point, you have no property without a government to defend it. So you pay a protection fee. Pretty simple.

As far as creating money, unless somebody has come up with a new system as far as I know printing dollars is in the hands of the government Treasury Dept and they make small alterations in their printing from time to time to head off counterfeiters. Well they don't track them down, that's up to the Secret Service, but it's all government. Sure the Federal Reserve and the banks generate the need to print money but so do you and I in our purchasing practices. They're just closer to the source and maybe we should change things but let's be clear, the source is the government.

A slow inflation of the money is not some kind of problem as long as purchasing power holds up. Why pretend that it is?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Sep 16 2014, 11:32 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Dingo, I do not know when you were born. If there was a person born in 1979 price inflation has increased the price of a $100 dollars item to $300. No big deal to you? Someone has captured a bunch of value by creating money. You do not think this affects you? It is even worse than the three fold price inflation. Normally the price of items drops with time with greater productivity. During you life over two thirds of your production has been diverted via money creation. No, the Treasury did not create the money. The Treasury is a printing office. The supply of money is controlled by banks.

We the people can not continue to be uninformed obedient little followers and not caring when the system is rigged against us. Whether it is a ponzi scheme SSI or the federal reserve or believing the state owns you or thinking opposition to the state is fanciful these are instilled belief systems and not reasonable nor good ideas belonging in a thinking society. Throwing your hands in the air and not considering a potentially better means of societal interaction yet expecting it to better soon does not make sense to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 17 2014, 01:31 AM
Post #27


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 16 2014, 04:32 PM) *
Dingo, I do not know when you were born. If there was a person born in 1979 price inflation has increased the price of a $100 dollars item to $300. No big deal to you? Someone has captured a bunch of value by creating money. You do not think this affects you? It is even worse than the three fold price inflation. Normally the price of items drops with time with greater productivity. During you life over two thirds of your production has been diverted via money creation. No, the Treasury did not create the money. The Treasury is a printing office. The supply of money is controlled by banks.

Well in my world the folks who print the money and protect it from counterfeiters create the money and maintain its integrity but suit yourself. If you are talking about expanding the money supply by purchasing government paper and setting the discount rate well the head of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the president. I realize the Reserve has a special relationship with some private banks and maybe that should be changed but saying the government does not create the money is just ideology.

As for inflation, your indifference to the corresponding rise in purchasing power is interesting. It is a characteristic of ideology that one takes a piece of the pie and tries to describe the entire pie by extrapolating from the piece. It is a chronic problem with agenda based analysis but allows you to live in your virtual world essentially unchallenged. However it has little to do with the broader reality.

QUOTE
We the people can not continue to be uninformed obedient little followers and not caring when the system is rigged against us. Whether it is a ponzi scheme SSI or the federal reserve or believing the state owns you or thinking opposition to the state is fanciful these are instilled belief systems and not reasonable nor good ideas belonging in a thinking society. Throwing your hands in the air and not considering a potentially better means of societal interaction yet expecting it to better soon does not make sense to me.

You're considering a potentially better means of societal interaction by inventing a world that doesn't exist. That has the advantage of opening up a whole new world of possibilities so I can see its appeal. If I were a government official looking at what you are writing it wouldn't cause me a moment of concern. Just a modern Merlin waving his virtual wand around declaiming about big government while living off that government 24/7 and advocating things that would require government 24/7.

Yes the system is unbalanced but that has nothing to do with more or less government but the kind of government and how it meets its responsibilities. That's a quality control matter and I'd like to provide my own virtual solution to that problem - Raise the political IQ of the voting public by about 20 points.

In a funny way it's all reflected in that oft stated battle cry of mainly conservative republicans - I DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT MESSING WITH MY MEDICARE!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Supposn
post May 31 2017, 05:02 AM
Post #28


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 149
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 11 2014, 10:41 AM) *
Sales tax and property tax are also regressive taxes. You are proposing replacing one regressive tax with another. If the stated goal is to get away from regressive taxes some other option must be made.


GraySeal, the goal is to at least retain, if not increase the purchasing powers of tax revenues for funding Social Security retirement and Medicare with the least detrimental impact upon wage earners; particularly minimizing the impact upon the working poor and their dependents.

General sales are a greater tax base than a payroll based tax. Sales taxes are also paid by those (and their dependents) that do not derive their incomes from wages.

Respectfully, Supposn



[quote name='Dingo' date='Sep 14 2014, 01:08 PM' post='100028117']
Supposn I'm not saying you are saying this, but just to be clear, real estate taxes are not simply applied to schools but in fact to the police and just about the every other municipal service. The question of application of tax revenue fairly is a matter to be addressed under any tax system. I don't recall poor school districts enjoying any benefits when Proposition 13 was passed, quite the contrary. And certainly a general assets tax would be potentially fairer than a locally controlled property tax approach since it is not parochial in nature.

It is interesting that the flat asset tax, called here a wealth tax, is garnering far more interest than when I first checked google on the matter. No less than the NY Times weighs in. They do offer a modestly progressive wealth tax along with a straight flat assets tax across the board. You can take your pick. The perspective here is heading off the growing wealth inequality by employing a wealth tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/opinion/...ncome.html?_r=0

Dingo, a major expenditure of most local governments is their school systems. It’s often funded by a separate “school tax” upon real-estate. It is not unusual for the value of property to be greater because it’s in a desirable school district, or for a house buyer to not consider buying within jurisdictions due to their high real-estate and high school taxes. Unlike a tax upon all wealth, a relationship exists between the value of real-estate owned, and the expenditures of the local taxes based upon real-estate values. This is not quite the same relationship that exists between possession or lack of wealth and all other taxes revenues spent for the protection and promotion of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
I.E. justification of taxes based upon assessment of real-estate values are somewhat different than taxes based upon general assessments of wealth.

I’m concerned for wealth’s ability to buy elections and/or favorable government enactments and policies; Significant differences between average and median incomes are a symptom that'€™s a matter of concern; I’m not concerned about wealth inequality.

Respectfully, Supposn

This post has been edited by Supposn: May 31 2017, 05:13 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 15th, 2018 - 09:11 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.