Rand paul wins

hanimmal · May 23, 2010

Hanimal. That still does not address the fact that the higher bracket person uses the same services and yet pays a greater amount of money for those same services with a flat tax. . Whether the 10% effects their bottom line less adversely is really besides the point and is nothing less than a transfer of wealth from those who have become successful to those who have not. Brokjen down to it's bare essentials why should those who have made more money pay a greater % than those who have not for the same services.

But wouldn't it be as fair to say that the higher income level you are the more you benefit from what those taxes pay for?

For example:

Let's say you are making 300k a year being a owner of a small business.

1. Roads, your employees are benefiting off of the roads they take to work, but so are you when you go to work, but then you are also making money off of the people you hire, so you are also gaining from them having access to the roads, and anytime you use fed ex, trucks for product shipment, ect you are benefiting (in the form of more money in your pocket) off those roads greater than the people using those services to be apart of the middle class.

2. Education system. Works the same way, you are benefiting off of the education your employees have received so you are making far more money off of each dollar spent in the school system than the people receiving the education.

3. Laws. As an employer you are able to benefit from not having your stuff stolen all the time, or by not having enough information about the people you need to buy materials from to do your work. So here is a case that the benefit is almost 100% in line with peoples income level, as you move up you benefit more and more from it because you have more at stake.

4. Internet/utilities access. You get the point.

We all greatly benefit off of these, and you can say that depending on what the benefits are some people will have a far higher percent of their income from those societies perks that us americans are able to use because of taxes. Like a trucker owes very little of his income to the costs of a high school education, but almost 100% to the roads that taxes (and all the foreign investment through the last couple hundred years) paid for. While the owner of that company may only benefit 50% from those roads, that 50% is a far higher sum of money than what 100% of the truckers salary represents.

kendothegreenwizard · May 23, 2010

These assumptions can be just a easily reversed. Say you are a middle income and have 7 children or the reversal that you are double taxing a small business person for the use of raods by the employees who use them and pay taxes for their use of said roads. Education , the same can be said. The employees paid for their own education.
Again why do you consider that an employer should have to pay more for the protection of their assets than a citizen. If you further consider that the employer allows the employee to make money and pay for the services doewsn't it apply that they should get a tax break?? A flat tax takes no account for the benefits provided by business owners.

What do you think about a consumption tax.

Allan Watts · May 23, 2010

Rand kinda crashed and burned when he admitted that what he is really pining for is the good old days of "Colored' restrooms and drinking fountains. Maddow really caught him in a bind on that one. He refused to go on MTP saying he's talked more than he wanted to already. MTP is extremely right wing friendly. Cheney and McCain have been on there about 500 times each. Progressives.... Not so much. The Tea Baggers have some 'splain'in to do!!!

hanimmal · May 23, 2010

These assumptions can be just a easily reversed. Say you are a middle income and have 7 children or the reversal that you are double taxing a small business person for the use of raods by the employees who use them and pay taxes for their use of said roads. Education , the same can be said. The employees paid for their own education.
Again why do you consider that an employer should have to pay more for the protection of their assets than a citizen. If you further consider that the employer allows the employee to make money and pay for the services doewsn't it apply that they should get a tax break?? A flat tax takes no account for the benefits provided by business owners.

What do you think about a consumption tax.

If you are that small business person. You have benefited once for your education, but then you are able to reap the benefits of your employees use of the system. They are profiting off of the education system at least twice, their own and their employees. So they should be paying more into that system. When you figure out that they are benefiting more off of every tax based service than the people that provide the work that makes them able to earn a higher income in the first place, they benefit more off of those systems, and should be putting in more money towards them.

You do get too that businesses that involve any movement of supplies are using the roads far more than the employee that is going to work to earn income right? So those small business are again not only benefiting the % of income they get by being able to get to work, but also from every customer having the ability to get to their store, or truck that brings the product to sell, or the ships the regulations that make it safe for their trucks to travel, ect. All these things are what make the system work, and the system works better for the person as they increase their income. And they should pay accordingly, because they benefit far more than lower income people.

These are not assumptions either, this is reality. Look at education, if you have a college degree, you earned it, but you also have benefited off of all those people that have gone through the public school system in order to teach you what you needed to learn to earn the higher paychecks. And because of that you need to pay for it right? So just like a college loan bill (the $500 in the first example) you don't have to pay for because you didn't get that much use out of the educational system, you should not have to pay as much for the rest of the benefits we receive for collective taxation if you are not making as much from them as someone else is right? Even medical care, if you have healthy employees you are benefiting off of them not being sick. I can point you to a lot of studies about the costs associated with sick days to employers.

Thinking about who benefits more should pay for the full costs with their taxes would be an interesting way to go about it. Like as an employee the use of roads for my income is nothing to what the employer makes for me to have access to them, so this tax could be figured out as higher income you go your % increases to this end. And depending on the costs associated with them is distributed directly to how much money is made benefiting from them.

There is almost nothing that our taxes go to that benefits more as you move down the income level though and it ends up with the higher your income the more you would have to pay. Which is similar to how it is today.

Fair tax is something that unfairly dumps the huge majority of the burden onto the Americans that are currently in the bottom 4 tax brackets. The libertarians (that are not rich) have this one wrong.

kendothegreenwizard · May 23, 2010

You make many assumptions that small business uses the roads. Many small businesses do not use as many of the services as you ellude.
Some are service oriented or infrastructure implementers.
There are a great many variables that shoot down the logic of your proposition.
When you role reverse the tax burden as you propose you stifle business development and place a hurdle to business in general. If in fact a business is required to pay more of a percentage of the tax burden simply because they have become successful then that stymies successful businesses and makes it less beneficial or attractive for them to do business in America. The burden of high cost of business is partially responsible for the flight of industry to other nations.

hanimmal · May 23, 2010

What do you think about a consumption tax.

Sorry just saw this part.

The consumption tax is actually worse for the people as they earn less income. If all taxes are obtained through purchases, what ends up happening is that as you move down the income levels you are paying far higher levels of your income to the taxes.

Think of it this way, if everything purchased was taxed, if you are the person that made $50k I talked about before, you would have that extra 5k back from taxes, but then you would have to pay taxes on all but the final $15k. But the person that makes $330k a year now has $153k left over.

If you figure all those taxes are added to purchases the person who makes $50k has to pay taxes on 70% of there income, while the person making $330k get away with only paying taxes on 46% of their income.

So basically the wealthier you are, the more money you retain and are able to re-invest and if it is purchases only that is taxes, all that money that is invested can now grow with out you spending anything, so you benefit even more so with the ability to grow all that extra income (off of others hard work) at no cost. While the poorer you are, the less money you are able to retain, and less money you are able to invest and grow so that you have little chance outside of the age of 25 (school years) to grow your money in any significant way.

Purchase taxes really are the opposite of progressive tax rate that we have now, where the burden is mostly placed on the people that make less. If anything I think a supplier tax would be the best way (off the top of my head). It would place the burden of taxes on the people that make their wealth from others purchasing your goods or services (which is how all businesses operate), and would be the simplest to monitor. The business would lower wages initially, but it would be pretty much a wash since we would not have to pay those taxes. We would know exactly what we would be making when hired and purchase goods. Really thinking about this that seems like the cleanest tax system to do......

hanimmal · May 23, 2010

You make many assumptions that small business uses the roads. Many small businesses do not use as many of the services as you ellude.
Some are service oriented or infrastructure implementers.
There are a great many variables that shoot down the logic of your proposition.

Name something then. You will find that roads are integral to almost all small businesses since they are providing a service to someone in the area they are located. The one example that I can think of is computer jobs, but those may not need roads to operate (because the employees can work from home) but are heavily dependent on the internet and phone lines which taxes initially paid for, and costs are now mitigated throughout the country by making almost everyone pay a similar amount for the services.

Feel free to name some of these variables though, because if there is something I am missing I would like to learn it.

When you role reverse the tax burden as you propose you stifle business development and place a hurdle to business in general. If in fact a business is required to pay more of a percentage of the tax burden simply because they have become successful then that stymies successful businesses and makes it less beneficial or attractive for them to do business in America. The burden of high cost of business is partially responsible for the flight of industry to other nations.

Not true at all. You look at the main reason businesses move out of America it is to expand and provide a cheaper product due to labor costs, pollution regulations, and emerging markets. Taxes are not as large of a factor as we have been led to believe by the media, businesses, and labor unions. Because you have to figure the costs it takes to get those products to america is large, shipping costs, tariffs, and everything else the taxes are not that big of a deal as they would lead us to believe.

NoDrama · May 23, 2010

Allan Watts said:
Rand kinda crashed and burned when he admitted that what he is really pining for is the good old days of "Colored' restrooms and drinking fountains. Maddow really caught him in a bind on that one. He refused to go on MTP saying he's talked more than he wanted to already. MTP is extremely right wing friendly. Cheney and McCain have been on there about 500 times each. Progressives.... Not so much. The Tea Baggers have some 'splain'in to do!!!

I don't know what show you watched, but on the Rachael Maddow show that I watched she purposely is trying to color him as a racist when he is clearly not. He admitted NOTHING of the sort that he pines for the days of separated lunch counters, he even says so at least 4 times that he is totally against that. He is agaisnt government forcing its morals on you and your property.

You people are seriously dumb sometimes.

NoDrama · May 23, 2010

hanimmal said:
But wouldn't it be as fair to say that the higher income level you are the more you benefit from what those taxes pay for?

For example:

Let's say you are making 300k a year being a owner of a small business.

1. Roads..........The Government did not invent the roads, they only paved the most popular ones that already existed.

2. Education system. There were people being educated by the finest schools in the world before any government run institution ever came to be.

3. Laws. Yep this might be the only thing we need to have gubbermint for. Or we could as neighborhoods just hire someone to do it for us, they used to call them Sheriffs.

4. Internet/utilities access. You get the point. Umm no I don't get the point, where I live neither the utility company nor Internet access is run by the fed gubbermint, not even a little bit.

We all greatly benefit off of these, and you can say that depending on what the benefits are some people will have a far higher percent of their income from those societies perks that us americans are able to use because of taxes. Like a trucker owes very little of his income to the costs of a high school education, but almost 100% to the roads that taxes (and all the foreign investment through the last couple hundred years) paid for. While the owner of that company may only benefit 50% from those roads, that 50% is a far higher sum of money than what 100% of the truckers salary represents.

How much of the road and public education do you think someone trading on wallstreet uses? Yet they make billions of dollars every year and have to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to taxation. Not that I am defending wall street, but you get the point.

FWIW Public Education is a proven failure, our performance has rapidly deteriorated since gubbermint took over. Probably 50% of the population couldn't even point to China on a map.

Mindmelted · May 23, 2010

NoDrama said:
How much of the road and public education do you think someone trading on wallstreet uses? Yet they make billions of dollars every year and have to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to taxation. Not that I am defending wall street, but you get the point.

FWIW Public Education is a proven failure, our performance has rapidly deteriorated since gubbermint took over. Probably 50% of the population couldn't even point to China on a map.

I can Point.

Sustainable420 · May 23, 2010

NoDrama said:
How much of the road and public education do you think someone trading on wallstreet uses? Yet they make billions of dollars every year and have to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to taxation. Not that I am defending wall street, but you get the point.

FWIW Public Education is a proven failure, our performance has rapidly deteriorated since gubbermint took over. Probably 50% of the population couldn't even point to China on a map.

LIAR!

My mom has a whole shelf of China I can point to.

Parker · May 25, 2010

hanimmal said:
Sorry just saw this part.

The consumption tax is actually worse for the people as they earn less income. If all taxes are obtained through purchases, what ends up happening is that as you move down the income levels you are paying far higher levels of your income to the taxes.

No tax on food and medicine is one way to keep costs down for the poor.

hanimmal said:
Think of it this way, if everything purchased was taxed, if you are the person that made $50k I talked about before, you would have that extra 5k back from taxes, but then you would have to pay taxes on all but the final $15k. But the person that makes $330k a year now has $153k left over.

If you figure all those taxes are added to purchases the person who makes $50k has to pay taxes on 70% of there income, while the person making $330k get away with only paying taxes on 46% of their income.

So basically the wealthier you are, the more money you retain and are able to re-invest and if it is purchases only that is taxes, all that money that is invested can now grow with out you spending anything, so you benefit even more so with the ability to grow all that extra income (off of others hard work) at no cost. While the poorer you are, the less money you are able to retain, and less money you are able to invest and grow so that you have little chance outside of the age of 25 (school years) to grow your money in any significant way.

Purchase taxes really are the opposite of progressive tax rate that we have now, where the burden is mostly placed on the people that make less. If anything I think a supplier tax would be the best way (off the top of my head). It would place the burden of taxes on the people that make their wealth from others purchasing your goods or services (which is how all businesses operate), and would be the simplest to monitor. The business would lower wages initially, but it would be pretty much a wash since we would not have to pay those taxes. We would know exactly what we would be making when hired and purchase goods. Really thinking about this that seems like the cleanest tax system to do......

The less the wealthy are taxed they more they'll spend and keep the economy going instead of the having our inefficient government use it and waste it. We've seen what has happened to jobs when our corporations are taxed and move overseas to avoid that tax.

The IRS employees have a hard time applying the complicated tax laws. It is too difficult to understand and work efficiently. Why keep it?

medicineman · May 26, 2010

Parker said:
No tax on food and medicine is one way to keep costs down for the poor.

The less the wealthy are taxed they more they'll spend and keep the economy going instead of the having our inefficient government use it and waste it. We've seen what has happened to jobs when our corporations are taxed and move overseas to avoid that tax.

The IRS employees have a hard time applying the complicated tax laws. It is too difficult to understand and work efficiently. Why keep it?

Redistribution of wealth, although it doesn't really do the job well enough. I would employ squads of heavily armed men with warrants to seize bank accounts and safe contents and then reverse the living situations. make the golf courses and mansions into homless abodes with mobile homes on all the greens and fairways, A cheap wine store at every Tee, and free drugs for all. Isn't that exactly what all you righties are afraid of??

NoDrama · May 26, 2010

medicineman said:
Redistribution of wealth, although it doesn't really do the job well enough. I would employ squads of heavily armed men with warrants to seize bank accounts and safe contents and then reverse the living situations. make the golf courses and mansions into homless abodes with mobile homes on all the greens and fairways, A cheap wine store at every Tee, and free drugs for all. Isn't that exactly what all you righties are afraid of??

Everyone knows you are all for stealing from others as long as they give you some of it.

hanimmal · May 27, 2010

How much of the road and public education do you think someone trading on wallstreet uses? Yet they make billions of dollars every year and have to pay a disproportionate amount of their income to taxation. Not that I am defending wall street, but you get the point.

FWIW Public Education is a proven failure, our performance has rapidly deteriorated since gubbermint took over. Probably 50% of the population couldn't even point to China on a map.

Why does it have to be about using?

That person on wall street is investing in companies whose direct profits are from using the roads and services. Plus the wall street guy is able to make safer bets due to the laws in place by our government to make sure that when they look over financials of a company they are correct. If those were not there they would not be able to make safe bets nor have the number and size of companies to choose to invest in.

If not for the efficiencies for the government those wall street guys would not be able to invest like they do and not make nearly as much money as they do. And before people go all spastic, wall street does help out businesses a lot. Funding for most business expansion comes from investors, and that helps us all out.

Proven failure eh. Then why is it that a high school diploma nets a person what 25% more income in their in their lifetime. Not to mention going through and getting a bachelors (which you benefit from the professors that achieved their high school education as well as their university diplomas).

Or how about unemployment rates:

I agree that Public schools need a lot of work, but to not be able to see how much we have benefited off having them is just not wanting to see. There are huge benefits from them, it is just a shame because we could be so much further along if we collectively pulled our heads out of our asses and got them running right for the children.

No tax on food and medicine is one way to keep costs down for the poor.

For sure that would help, thinking on that line it could work to make everything essential tax free so that way all the things that we need to live (and lower the income you have the higher a percentage of your income it takes to purchase).

The less the wealthy are taxed they more they'll spend and keep the economy going instead of the having our inefficient government use it and waste it. We've seen what has happened to jobs when our corporations are taxed and move overseas to avoid that tax.

The IRS employees have a hard time applying the complicated tax laws. It is too difficult to understand and work efficiently. Why keep it?

The tax avoiding businesses only really do so when they are trying to cheat the system. They stay here in the states but claim they live in another country to use our tax benefits while not having to pay. Most businesses concerns are the wages of the people, safety controls, and emerging market reasons and not so much taxes, because although a few % can be enormous, being able to stop paying someone $20 an hour, which usually is more than 50% of your costs and reduce it down to $3 a day is huge to their bottom line.

And I don't know how anyone can not like Warren Buffet, but if you get a chance listen to him talk about his taxes, it is pretty good. But if someone has to pay a few extra pennies for every dollar they invest do you really think they are not going to make that extra 57 cents per dollar because they are not making 59 cents per. They will still invest, they are not going to 'tighten their belts'.

When you really think about it doesn't it seem silly that because they have a 3% increase in their taxes that they are all of a sudden going to stop living the lifestyle they have always been accustomed to? I mean look at how much money they lose in divorces alone, and that doesn't stop them.

I could see changing the tax code, it is not like I am in love with it, but flat tax/ sales tax only stuff won't work well for us in the normal income ranges. The taxes are a mess because washington politicians have very little (not shoot from the hip/ gut type/grandpappy told me) ideas about anything besides law, because that is not what they studied. So everything becomes reactionary and messy. This guy used this as a tax haven, so they figure out a new tax for that, this went wrong here we need to band-aid that, ect. It is not a good idea to leave it like this, but it is better than a lot of the popular ideas for change that are out there.

NoDrama · May 27, 2010

hanimmal said:
Why does it have to be about using?

That person on wall street is investing in companies whose direct profits are from using the roads and services. Plus the wall street guy is able to make safer bets due to the laws in place by our government to make sure that when they look over financials of a company they are correct. If those were not there they would not be able to make safe bets nor have the number and size of companies to choose to invest in.

If not for the efficiencies for the government those wall street guys would not be able to invest like they do and not make nearly as much money as they do. And before people go all spastic, wall street does help out businesses a lot. Funding for most business expansion comes from investors, and that helps us all out.

Proven failure eh. Then why is it that a high school diploma nets a person what 25% more income in their in their lifetime. Not to mention going through and getting a bachelors (which you benefit from the professors that achieved their high school education as well as their university diplomas).
View attachment 959967
Or how about unemployment rates:
View attachment 959966

I agree that Public schools need a lot of work, but to not be able to see how much we have benefited off having them is just not wanting to see. There are huge benefits from them, it is just a shame because we could be so much further along if we collectively pulled our heads out of our asses and got them running right for the children.

For sure that would help, thinking on that line it could work to make everything essential tax free so that way all the things that we need to live (and lower the income you have the higher a percentage of your income it takes to purchase).

The tax avoiding businesses only really do so when they are trying to cheat the system. They stay here in the states but claim they live in another country to use our tax benefits while not having to pay. Most businesses concerns are the wages of the people, safety controls, and emerging market reasons and not so much taxes, because although a few % can be enormous, being able to stop paying someone $20 an hour, which usually is more than 50% of your costs and reduce it down to $3 a day is huge to their bottom line.

And I don't know how anyone can not like Warren Buffet, but if you get a chance listen to him talk about his taxes, it is pretty good. But if someone has to pay a few extra pennies for every dollar they invest do you really think they are not going to make that extra 57 cents per dollar because they are not making 59 cents per. They will still invest, they are not going to 'tighten their belts'.

When you really think about it doesn't it seem silly that because they have a 3% increase in their taxes that they are all of a sudden going to stop living the lifestyle they have always been accustomed to? I mean look at how much money they lose in divorces alone, and that doesn't stop them.

I could see changing the tax code, it is not like I am in love with it, but flat tax/ sales tax only stuff won't work well for us in the normal income ranges. The taxes are a mess because washington politicians have very little (not shoot from the hip/ gut type/grandpappy told me) ideas about anything besides law, because that is not what they studied. So everything becomes reactionary and messy. This guy used this as a tax haven, so they figure out a new tax for that, this went wrong here we need to band-aid that, ect. It is not a good idea to leave it like this, but it is better than a lot of the popular ideas for change that are out there.

Dude let me show you a picture I took of you...

Your posts make me laugh, I swear you are the most brainwashed person I have ever heard. You watch alot of TV don't you?

WALLSTREET does not make a profit from other people using the roads, what kind of ridiculous statement is that? Hey guess what buddy, most employers don't give a fuck if you have a GED or actually went to HS, the degree is only a basic qualification. They really could care less if you know anything about what you studied. Look at many recent college graduates, most have a nice degree in some subject, yet most either have no job or work at something that a high schooler could do.

You do realize that when you graduate college that you will not get employed as a economist right? Your going to fight all the engineers and business grads for shitty ditch diggin job or a waiter or cook job. There is no job waiting for Hannimal on the outside world, all the good jobs were pretty much moved overseas. You are going to be working in the service sector where your degree means jack squat, high school kids will be able to make a living because they will not be saddled with a HUGE college debt like you will be. You will have to ask your parents for more help, and will feel like a failure for many years to come.

Change the tax code, I mean it is seven times larger than the old testament at almost 6000 pages. Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year filling out the paperwork, imagine how much productivity could be garnered if it only took 10 minutes to do your taxes?

Operation 420 · May 27, 2010

medicineman said:
Redistribution of wealth, although it doesn't really do the job well enough. I would employ squads of heavily armed men with warrants to seize bank accounts and safe contents and then reverse the living situations. make the golf courses and mansions into homless abodes with mobile homes on all the greens and fairways, A cheap wine store at every Tee, and free drugs for all. Isn't that exactly what all you righties are afraid of??

So your Union is trying to get special deals for it's workers, but you're for redistribution of wealth?

Right/left paradigm is mindless....

hanimmal · May 27, 2010

WALLSTREET does not make a profit from other people using the roads, what kind of ridiculous statement is that? Hey guess what buddy, most employers don't give a fuck if you have a GED or actually went to HS, the degree is only a basic qualification. They really could care less if you know anything about what you studied. Look at many recent college graduates, most have a nice degree in some subject, yet most either have no job or work at something that a high schooler could do.

You don't get it, What does wall street make their money from? They do it off of investing in businesses, and those businesses very heavily rely on being able to get their goods to and from where they are build to where they are sold. Pure and simple, wall street benefits greatly off of all the things we have through having government spend money.

And do you really not think that if an employer is faced with filling a entry level job and has the choice between the kid that finished high school and the kid that didn't they don't care? Come on I know you believe some crazy shit, but that is just silly.

You do realize that when you graduate college that you will not get employed as a economist right? Your going to fight all the engineers and business grads for shitty ditch diggin job or a waiter or cook job.

Funny enough I will be fine getting work, there are tons of postings and actuarial economics (Which is what my undergrad degree is next year) and even more for the PHD that I will have when it is all said than done.

And actually the fun of the degrees I will have when it is done is that I will have the skills to get exec jobs at manufacturing companies to help with efficiencies, I can do research work, start up a company of my own, ect. There is a whole world out there, and if you have the skills it takes to get the job done, and didn't just piss away the opportunities our society has for us, you will be just fine.

Oh and actuarial jobs were ranked #2 last year.

There is no job waiting for Hannimal on the outside world, all the good jobs were pretty much moved overseas. You are going to be working in the service sector where your degree means jack squat, high school kids will be able to make a living because they will not be saddled with a HUGE college debt like you will be. You will have to ask your parents for more help, and will feel like a failure for many years to come.

We are all set, you forgot that I put my fiance' through school and she is doing fine as a pharmacist, you know one of those other worthless degree careers. Which came rolled up in a signing bonus before she ever even graduated. But if I could buy a house when I was 23 and kept up working with a high school diploma as a sales guy for the last 9 years, I think we can manage our school loans. Because when you think of it, even if we pay 150k in school loans, we more than made up for that with the increase in our household income, that it is a sucker bet not to take it.

So keep thinking what you want, because as shitty as it is, I will actually do even better, because you could have been competition for a job that I may want if you would have busted your ass like I am to get the skills that only a higher education can bring. Which you may have, but you missed the point, if we understand how shit works, we can work with it.

Change the tax code, I mean it is seven times larger than the old testament at almost 6000 pages. Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year filling out the paperwork, imagine how much productivity could be garnered if it only took 10 minutes to do your taxes?

I'm game for that. I like turbo tax for that stuff, it only takes me bout 20 minutes or so.

Rand paul wins

hanimmal

Well-Known Member

kendothegreenwizard

Active Member

Allan Watts

Well-Known Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member

kendothegreenwizard

Active Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member

NoDrama

Well-Known Member

NoDrama

Well-Known Member

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member

Sustainable420

Active Member

Parker

Well-Known Member

medicineman

New Member

NoDrama

Well-Known Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member

NoDrama

Well-Known Member

Operation 420

Well-Known Member

hanimmal

Well-Known Member