$1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:18:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  $1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 79
Author Topic: $1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread  (Read 109130 times)
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,396
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #600 on: November 22, 2017, 08:26:52 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

I didn't read your post but I agree with it's premise: the in.g GOP is gonna raise our taxes
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #601 on: November 22, 2017, 08:31:06 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

I didn't read your post but I agree with it's premise: the in.g GOP is gonna raise our taxes

Depends on your definition of "our."  In my personal case I am a tiny net loser under the House plan but gain somewhat under the Senate plan.  Married tax filers tend to get hit a lot less that single filers in the high income range for NY (especially NYC) taxpayers.  Even people in my situation should get hit badly but does due to some somewhat unique circumstances for my personal situation my hit is almost nothing if not net positive.  But of course the higher your income goes the bigger the hit with the caveat that "our" would refer to salaried workers and not business owners.
Logged
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,396
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #602 on: November 22, 2017, 08:38:45 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.

I didn't read your post but I agree with it's premise: the in.g GOP is gonna raise our taxes

Depends on your definition of "our."  In my personal case I am a tiny net loser under the House plan but gain somewhat under the Senate plan.  Married tax filers tend to get hit a lot less that single filers in the high income range for NY (especially NYC) taxpayers.  Even people in my situation should get hit badly but does due to some somewhat unique circumstances for my personal situation my hit is almost nothing if not net positive.  But of course the higher your income goes the bigger the hit with the caveat that "our" would refer to salaried workers and not business owners.

Well.ill be damned. .it's even worse for me. Last year I paid a 38% tax rate....I can only imagine this year

GODdamn Paul Ron Ryan
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #603 on: November 22, 2017, 08:56:46 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.
Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #604 on: November 23, 2017, 12:03:02 AM »

If I am right, this is still a 51-49 match. Personally I wonder why Murkowski who voted nay in July she reversed her stance against ACA (individual mandate) or maybe what stuff from DC persuaded her to do this.

Wasn't Murkowski really opposed to Medicaid rollbacks, seeing as Alaska was a state where the Medicaid expansion was relatively popular? IIRC she was publicly against anything that would touch Medicaid but not against changes to the individual mandate or the exchanges.

For all the fawning over Murkowski post Miller, as some moderate hero, at end of the day she is just a corrupt nepotist who is deeper in the pocket of big oil than Joe Barton.

She will vote aye because ANWR drilling is in the bill.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #605 on: November 23, 2017, 09:18:41 AM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.
Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #606 on: November 23, 2017, 10:01:37 AM »

Just to show what I am talking about.  If we take a household in SF that has AGI of 500K with some reasonable assumptions about real estate tax, mortgages, and charity.  The 2018 federal tax under current law, House plan, Senate plan with this household being Single vs Married are the following
               
              Current Law     House       Senate
Married     $124.5K      $121.8K      $117.5K
Single       $125.2K      $135.3K      $138.0K

If you are married you gain but gain more under the Senate Plan.  If you are single you lose and you lose more under the Senate plan.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #607 on: November 23, 2017, 01:21:03 PM »

Just to show what I am talking about.  If we take a household in SF that has AGI of 500K with some reasonable assumptions about real estate tax, mortgages, and charity.  The 2018 federal tax under current law, House plan, Senate plan with this household being Single vs Married are the following
               
              Current Law     House       Senate
Married     $124.5K      $121.8K      $117.5K
Single       $125.2K      $135.3K      $138.0K

If you are married you gain but gain more under the Senate Plan.  If you are single you lose and you lose more under the Senate plan.

So why should I support this?
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #608 on: November 23, 2017, 01:38:48 PM »

Just to show what I am talking about.  If we take a household in SF that has AGI of 500K with some reasonable assumptions about real estate tax, mortgages, and charity.  The 2018 federal tax under current law, House plan, Senate plan with this household being Single vs Married are the following
               
              Current Law     House       Senate
Married     $124.5K      $121.8K      $117.5K
Single       $125.2K      $135.3K      $138.0K

If you are married you gain but gain more under the Senate Plan.  If you are single you lose and you lose more under the Senate plan.

So why should I support this?

Well, if you are married ....
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #609 on: November 23, 2017, 02:55:57 PM »

Just to show what I am talking about.  If we take a household in SF that has AGI of 500K with some reasonable assumptions about real estate tax, mortgages, and charity.  The 2018 federal tax under current law, House plan, Senate plan with this household being Single vs Married are the following
               
              Current Law     House       Senate
Married     $124.5K      $121.8K      $117.5K
Single       $125.2K      $135.3K      $138.0K

If you are married you gain but gain more under the Senate Plan.  If you are single you lose and you lose more under the Senate plan.

So why should I support this?

Well, if you are married ....

...and have an AGI of $500K and live in San Francisco. Smiley
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,284


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #610 on: November 23, 2017, 07:53:59 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.
Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

Maybe. The real beneficiaries of the old system were one-income couples (i.e., mostly families with stay-at-home moms). It seems to me like the biggest beneficiaries now are double-income higher earners. Unclear what the "family" motives are if that's the case.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #611 on: November 24, 2017, 10:24:35 AM »

So who else here is about to start paying for someone else's new toys?
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,964
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #612 on: November 24, 2017, 11:35:32 AM »

When I mathed this out a couple weeks ago I think i found it would be about $1K a year less in taxes for me. I think that was based on the House plan. That said, I'd rather not have this.
Logged
Matty
boshembechle
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,905


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #613 on: November 24, 2017, 04:18:10 PM »

I'm surprised the media hasn't reported more on where net senators stand on this bill

There could be a floor vote next week and nobody knows what Corker, flake, etc are thinking

Is it lazy reporting or are these people just faking being "opposed" to it and then will fall in line?
Logged
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,396
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #614 on: November 24, 2017, 04:19:58 PM »

I'm surprised the media hasn't reported more on where net senators stand on this bill

There could be a floor vote next week and nobody knows what Corker, flake, etc are thinking

Is it lazy reporting or are these people just faking being "opposed" to it and then will fall in line?

Cut the media some slack: The checks from the bribes have to clear
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #615 on: November 24, 2017, 04:20:13 PM »

I'm surprised the media hasn't reported more on where net senators stand on this bill

There could be a floor vote next week and nobody knows what Corker, flake, etc are thinking

Is it lazy reporting or are these people just faking being "opposed" to it and then will fall in line?

That's what I predict will happen.
Logged
gottsu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 822
Poland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #616 on: November 24, 2017, 06:50:29 PM »

I'm surprised the media hasn't reported more on where net senators stand on this bill

There could be a floor vote next week and nobody knows what Corker, flake, etc are thinking

Is it lazy reporting or are these people just faking being "opposed" to it and then will fall in line?

That's what I predict will happen.

Why do you think like that?
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #617 on: November 24, 2017, 06:59:58 PM »

So this article mentions Todd Young as a potential defector. Strange.: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/24/republicans-tax-reform-plan-deficit-cost-257604

----

To Summarize the view of the Senate:

Solidly Opposed: The 45 Dem Senators who signed the tax reform demand letter

Likely Opposed:
Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp - they didn't sign the letter and have said they have an open mind regarding the legislation, but they are strong supporters of ObamaCare and I really don't think they'd vote to overturn the mandate - however, I can't rule out the silm possibility that if Republicans have 50 votes without them, one of them would vote yes anyway because "My vote wouldn't change the outcome and I want to show bipartisanship so I can get re-elected"

Lean Opposed:
Corker - deficit hawk - but will he actually have a spine? We'll see.

Paul - he voted against the framework, and his preferred amendments were rejected overwhelmingly. Politico has said in at least one article that he appears to be open to the final legislation, the addition of ObamaCare appears to  have been a ploy to get his vote, and party pressure is a powerful tool. But I still expect him to vote No because he voted No on the framework.

Collins - Appeared to indicate on 11/19 CNN interview that her support would depend on passage of Alexander-Murray and a separate bill she wrote with Senator Nelson, and keeping the top rate at 39.6%, instead of lowering it to 38.5%.

Lean Support:
Lankford - he's said he'll vote against it "if it increases the deficit too much" - but didn't define what too much meant. He's a reliable vote for leadership, so the odds are he gets to yes, but we'll see.

Johnson - Said he can't support it right now, but he also said he wants to get to Yes. Odds are he'll find a way to vote yes eventually.

Flake - Might want to show opposition to Trump, and has raised real doubts about the eventual affect of the bill, but also probably supports the intent of this bill, and he did vote for all versions of ObamaCare Repeal.

Murkowski - Has come out in support of mandate repeal, and she usually supports cutting Taxes. But she was a thorn in the side of Senate R's during the ObamaCare repeal debate, says she has come to no final decision on the plan, and is still promoting Alexander-Murray heavily.

Likely Support:
McCain - Voted against Skinny Repeal and opposed Graham-Cassidy, but he is a strong supporter of the tax cut portions of this bill, and his opposition to repeal was based more on the process of passage rather than the substance of the bill. I doubt mandate repeal alone would be a dealbreaker to him. But it's not impossible.

Young - Apparently has been raising deficit-related concerns about the bill, but I highly doubt he actually has a backbone.

Safe Support: Other 43 GOP Senators


Overall: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #618 on: November 24, 2017, 07:12:15 PM »

I'm surprised the media hasn't reported more on where net senators stand on this bill

There could be a floor vote next week and nobody knows what Corker, flake, etc are thinking

Is it lazy reporting or are these people just faking being "opposed" to it and then will fall in line?

That's what I predict will happen.

Why do you think like that?

Because I think there is great pressure on Republicans to pass some kind, any kind, of tax cut.  In the end this should be enough to get some bill passed.  I'd love to be wrong about this, but decades of observing politics have given me a certain level of cynicism.
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,284


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #619 on: November 24, 2017, 08:19:56 PM »

So who else here is about to start paying for someone else's new toys?

Big time here. I would guess I'm probably looking at the largest tax increase of anyone on this forum. Not much to be done about it, sadly.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #620 on: November 24, 2017, 08:28:01 PM »

It looks like most people's taxes are going from the current amount in 2027. Increases of thousands of dollars are common.
Logged
gottsu
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 822
Poland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #621 on: November 24, 2017, 08:44:05 PM »

So this article mentions Todd Young as a potential defector. Strange.: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/24/republicans-tax-reform-plan-deficit-cost-257604

----

To Summarize the view of the Senate:

Solidly Opposed: The 45 Dem Senators who signed the tax reform demand letter

Likely Opposed:
Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp - they didn't sign the letter and have said they have an open mind regarding the legislation, but they are strong supporters of ObamaCare and I really don't think they'd vote to overturn the mandate - however, I can't rule out the silm possibility that if Republicans have 50 votes without them, one of them would vote yes anyway because "My vote wouldn't change the outcome and I want to show bipartisanship so I can get re-elected"

Lean Opposed:
Corker - deficit hawk - but will he actually have a spine? We'll see.

Paul - he voted against the framework, and his preferred amendments were rejected overwhelmingly. Politico has said in at least one article that he appears to be open to the final legislation, the addition of ObamaCare appears to  have been a ploy to get his vote, and party pressure is a powerful tool. But I still expect him to vote No because he voted No on the framework.

Collins - Appeared to indicate on 11/19 CNN interview that her support would depend on passage of Alexander-Murray and a separate bill she wrote with Senator Nelson, and keeping the top rate at 39.6%, instead of lowering it to 38.5%.

Lean Support:
Lankford - he's said he'll vote against it "if it increases the deficit too much" - but didn't define what too much meant. He's a reliable vote for leadership, so the odds are he gets to yes, but we'll see.

Johnson - Said he can't support it right now, but he also said he wants to get to Yes. Odds are he'll find a way to vote yes eventually.

Flake - Might want to show opposition to Trump, and has raised real doubts about the eventual affect of the bill, but also probably supports the intent of this bill, and he did vote for all versions of ObamaCare Repeal.

Murkowski - Has come out in support of mandate repeal, and she usually supports cutting Taxes. But she was a thorn in the side of Senate R's during the ObamaCare repeal debate, says she has come to no final decision on the plan, and is still promoting Alexander-Murray heavily.

Likely Support:
McCain - Voted against Skinny Repeal and opposed Graham-Cassidy, but he is a strong supporter of the tax cut portions of this bill, and his opposition to repeal was based more on the process of passage rather than the substance of the bill. I doubt mandate repeal alone would be a dealbreaker to him. But it's not impossible.

Young - Apparently has been raising deficit-related concerns about the bill, but I highly doubt he actually has a backbone.

Safe Support: Other 43 GOP Senators


Overall: 51 AGAINST, 49 SUPPORT

Splendid job!

I posted your analysis on a FB group devoted to US politics (translated to Polish, as this is Polish group) which I am a mod here, and gave you credits.

Screen: https://imgur.com/a/4XdUS
Logged
Adam Griffin
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,090
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #622 on: November 25, 2017, 07:47:25 AM »

For all the fawning over Murkowski post Miller, as some moderate hero, at end of the day she is just a corrupt nepotist who is deeper in the pocket of big oil than Joe Barton.

And harder, too? Huh
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,151
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #623 on: November 25, 2017, 11:24:52 AM »

How tax reform will affect me depends on the future phases of my life.

Currently - Net loss of 2-3K under House plan, gain of 4-5K under Senate plan. 

In 2-3 years when I will go into semi-retirement by working part time and DW completely retires - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because AMT goes away.

In 5-6 years when I will completely retire but live in Scarsdale until my kid goes to college - loss of 6K-7K under House plan and loss of 7K-8K under Senate plan mostly due to loss of deductions of real estate taxes will shift what rates my qualified dividends will be taxed at.

In 11-12 years when I will move to FL in retirement - gain of 4-5K under House Plan and gain of 4-5K under Senate plan mostly because of the larger standard deduction and lower rates.

Overall this plan is a plus for us and it goes through most likely I will work part time a bit longer I had planned to make up for some of the losses I will incur under this plan when I go into full retirement but still live in high tax Scarsdale.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #624 on: November 25, 2017, 04:10:25 PM »

I played around with my income tax plan calculator that I built based on the House and Senate plans and added in the feature to do calculations for Singles and Head of Household recently. One thing I noticed about the House and Senate plans is that both closes the gap on the marriage penalty for higher income taxpayers.  But it seems the Senate plan is much more aggressive on closing that gap than the House.  High income singles will get hit badly by this.  It seems the greatest net loser in the Senate tax plan, by far, is the high income single salaried taxpayer living in an ultra-high tax area, say, San Francisco or NYC.   Wow.  My wife tells me some of her single investment banking friends in NYC are very steamed by this plan.  I can see why.  I put in some numbers and nearly fell off my seat on how badly they will get hit.
Combine this with the Republican Party's "family values" rhetoric, and I can't help but wonder if there's a motive for this.

I think it is a bit more complex then that.  It is more about assortative mating at the higher income levels.  The current tax code actually make is neutral or even slightly advantageous for a doctor to marry a nurse but carries heavy punishments when a doctor marries a doctor.  The House and to much a bigger extent the Senate plans reduces or even eliminates this punishment.  This would be a non-issue 50 years ago but with the change in social norms and social expectations of women in professional world this is a relevant issue.  To some extent assortative mating at the top plus the rise of services in the economy are major drivers of household income inequity last couple of generations.  This marriage penalty in the tax code partially offset this trend.  Now if the Senate plan passes, with my total support, this economic constraint on assortative mating will be removed, as it should be.

So tell us, we'll this family values plan be a sufficient windfall for you invest in your profit-making Southeast Asian child rape Factory? You said you might go into it if it was a money-making Venture. And therefore incidentally forever cementing you as an amoral POS. Just curious.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 79  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 12 queries.