If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Sheldon Adelson tried to buy the Presidency for about $150,000,000. This month he'll save $150,000,000 in taxes by paying himself an early dividend. You do the math   (cnbc.com) divider line 105
    More: Obvious, Micky Arison, free cash flow, share repurchase, special dividend  
•       •       •

14374 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 6:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-05 07:48:57 AM
10 votes:

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.


yeah the rest of the world looks at us in amazement. it's like a bus full of people letting the retard drive.
they see a huge debt,historically low tax rates. and they say can't these morons figure out the solution to the problem?
why are people in tri corner hats defending the billionaires who are bleeding them dry?
2012-12-05 06:57:30 AM
8 votes:
It's almost as if these major companies view the payment of dividends as not a business decision but as a way to give money to certain interests whenever they want.
2012-12-05 09:59:37 AM
6 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.
2012-12-05 07:21:24 AM
6 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


It's not envy fartknocker, its compassion for people who suffer. I don't care if Adelson buys a newspaper and tries to influence public opinion, I do care if someone who works for him has to go into bankruptcy to pay his medical bills.

So what's that? You don't care if people suffer?

Then yeah, I envy you.
2012-12-05 07:12:23 AM
6 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.
2012-12-05 06:41:05 AM
5 votes:
I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.
2012-12-05 09:28:29 AM
4 votes:
Gee, how can they possible survive with a higher tax-rate on their dividends?

i249.photobucket.com
2012-12-05 08:41:07 AM
4 votes:

ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.



It's still a problem, because it completely skewed and boosted the viability of an insubstantial and dangerous candidate. Just because it wasn't enough to win the election this time, it's no reason to assume it isn't incredibly problematic.
2012-12-05 07:27:21 AM
4 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.
2012-12-05 07:19:36 AM
4 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: wraith95: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Good.

Again, IOW "gimme"


The 'gimme' came when dividend income was given a special 15% tax rate.
2012-12-05 07:16:11 AM
4 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.
2012-12-05 07:06:09 AM
4 votes:
Remember how all these companies have been sitting on record levels of cash, just waiting to hire people once the economy recovered?

About that.
2012-12-05 06:59:28 AM
4 votes:
Meh. I remember that cockbag's commercials. "Badmouthing success." "Socialism." All the pavlovian bell-ringing that man did, and he still failed. It makes me smile.
2012-12-05 06:48:05 AM
4 votes:
Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.
2012-12-05 11:53:34 AM
3 votes:

the_geek: In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Believe me, that has never, ever, ever stopped him from shooting his keyboard off before. He is the resident master of the Dunning-Krueger Effect.

For instance, his laughable "zOMG DUBBLE TAXASHUN!!1!1!" argument only makes sense for him because he totally, and willfully, ignores the fact that the corporation is an entirely separate entity from the stockholders. It is a legal person in and of itself. The stockholders own shares of it, but they are legally separate from it, which is an important distinction.

If WidgetCo. goes bankrupt, is sued, or falls into any other kind of legal wrangling, you personally hold no legal responsibility for it even if you have 1,000 shares of WidgetCo. in your portfolio. Your credit rating isn't harmed if WidgetCo. goes bankrupt. Your personal savings are not at risk of WidgetCo. gets sued. You are not subject to prosecution if the officers of WidgetCo. are arrested for criminal activity. The extent of your personal risk is in the stock valuation, just like any other investment, but you hold no liability for the company. That's the whole point of establishing a corporation in the first place -- relieving the investors from personal liability. That being the case, the separation of liability is the reason for the corporation to pay a separate tax rate than shareholders. The money literally passes hands between two separate legal entities, and is taxed accordingly, just like any other transaction. Yo-yos who scream about double-taxation refuse to acknowledge this. They are literally demanding to maintain the separation of liability between the corporation and its shareholders without having to pay for it.

How bootstrappy of them, demanding protection for free.
2012-12-05 08:47:17 AM
3 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.

Instead of going to the owners of the farking company, who, you know, are farking entitled to the earnings. Unless you are posting from one of the two countries where communism hasn't collapsed yet.

/besides, in reality companies will just go back to using earnings to buy back stock once the new tax rates are in, instead of paying dividends.


They're entitled to the earnings that came from someone else's labor? Where have I heard that before?

They may (in part) own the company, but if they aren't working for it they didn't earn the income and aren't "entitled" to any of it.
2012-12-05 08:00:21 AM
3 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Vertdang: GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.

I love when people post that cartoon, as it proves my point, contrary to what the poster is thinking.

Hint: count how many times the income of the plumbing business is taxed before it gets in the pockets of owners, likewise the record store business and the bank. One of these things is not like the others.


5 times before it gets to the bank owners. so your argument is that 5 times is bad, but 6 is DEATH OF AMERICA?

/one of these things is EXACTLY like the others.
2012-12-05 07:42:38 AM
3 votes:
farklib


Holy farking cats, you are dumb.
2012-12-05 07:34:17 AM
3 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.


My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.
2012-12-05 07:16:18 AM
3 votes:
Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

And their money in the Caymen Islands is creating so many jobs in America!
2012-12-05 07:05:37 AM
3 votes:

BoxOfBees: Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.

Dividends. Let's see... is that considered to be earned income, or something else?


It's funny because the actual $ came from someones grandma playing nickel slots, who most likely lives on cat food. Lol.

Or maybe the cocktail waitress who makes $2.65/hr + hardly any tips and has to whore herself out to buy her kids braces.


USA! USA! USA!
2012-12-05 06:54:58 AM
3 votes:
You see:

a) give the super wealthy more money

b) the money "trickles down"

c) jobs are magically created out of thin air regardless of consumer demand or household financial strength
2012-12-05 10:21:45 AM
2 votes:
Plenty of money to undermine America and Sheldon will probably have enough left over to buy an illegal settlement or two in his real country.
2012-12-05 10:08:06 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.


Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?
2012-12-05 09:46:45 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: PreMortem: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?



Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out

Had Romney claimed he paid 40% of his income to taxes, he would have been laughed off stage every time.

He did correctly state that his actual tax rate is up in the 40s. Found with quick google search.


"found with quick google search"
but i'm not going to link it because im completely lying.
2012-12-05 09:42:27 AM
2 votes:

RembrandtQEinstein: Only one solution:

National Property Tax

Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


A banking tax might accomplish the same thing. Pay 0.1% every time money changes investment instrument. People making their money by gaming the system should have to pay a gaming fee.
2012-12-05 09:22:05 AM
2 votes:

beta_plus: Awesome - that's $150 million Libs will not get to encourage women to have children out of wedlock who they will raise to kill me.


Republicans are morons. This cant be said enough.
2012-12-05 09:18:27 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.


Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


Pop-a-shot taxation.


Mitt Romney never claimed he paid anywhere near 40% in taxes, so for you to claim he did is hilarious. Thanks for admitting that you're a partisan shill with no interest in furthering legitimate debate.
2012-12-05 09:08:06 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.


Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.
2012-12-05 09:04:17 AM
2 votes:
Ignoring the fact that Adelson may be indicted under FCPA now that Romney lost, in the minds of many of these billionaires who were told that ROMNEY WAS A GUARANTEED 100% LOCK TO WIN IF THEY GAVE MONEY - that's the key, because we know now in post-election analysis that the entire Romney campaign as well as the Rovians considered a loss as a zero-percent probability event - it made perfect sense for them to "invest" this money.

I'm sure Rove put it like this. "Look, Rich White Guy...if we can raise a billion to blanket the country with ads for this guy, he's gonna win. Look at my data. There no chance he's gonna lose, if you help us out. When Romney wins, and we take the Senate, we're gonna ELIMINATE the capital gains tax, and ELIMINATE the estate tax. That will save you hundreds of millions if not BILLIONS of dollars. If Obama wins, the Bush tax cuts expire and both the estate tax and capital gains rates go up. That will COST you billions of dollars over and above what it is now. So how about it - "invest" $100 million now, so Romney can save you more than a billion when he wins."

When he puts it that way, why wouldn't "Papa" John and Adelson and the like give him the money? Of course, Romney lost and the money ended up lining their pockets, but it also explains why Rove was shiatting his pants come Election Eve. He guaranteed - not just expected, not just promised to fight hard for, GUARANTEED - a win in exchange for these millions, and didn't deliver.
2012-12-05 08:00:53 AM
2 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WhyteRaven74: Debeo Summa Credo: "slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

Well then, perhaps the money that goes to dividends can go to something more useful, like employee salaries and capital improvements.

Instead of going to the owners of the farking company, who, you know, are farking entitled to the earnings. Unless you are posting from one of the two countries where communism hasn't collapsed yet.

/besides, in reality companies will just go back to using earnings to buy back stock once the new tax rates are in, instead of paying dividends.


I think he was critiquing this idea that taxes being structured to favor financial investment and lower income tax rates on upper income individuals are good for the economy because they encourage job creation. If anything, we've seen that such policies have lead to increased focus on short-term profits over capital investment by firms because the marginal value of each dollar taken out of the company is higher. It's true that the personal profits don't exist in a vacuum and that personal consumption by the stockholder/owner will stimulate the economy, but the marginal propensity to consume of the investor class means the economic stimulus of these policies is much less than virtually any other policy that has been proposed.

You can make the case that taxes should be lower for the rich than they will be under the law as it is currently written on objectivist grounds or make a moral case, but the "if we eliminated capital gains taxes and cut the top marginal tax bracket to 28% unemployment would drop like a stone" argument doesn't accurately reflect the incentives such policies realisticly provide people.
2012-12-05 07:43:07 AM
2 votes:
Re: "ACA taxes"

"A new Net Investment Income Tax goes into effect starting in 2013. The 3.8 percent Net Investment Income Tax applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts." (source: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions)

If you're asking us to be upset because Adelson has to pay an extra 4% on his 1.2 billion (with a B) dollars, that he decided to pay himself out of the coffers of the company that he is the CEO of, then you're gonna have a bad time.
2012-12-05 07:38:41 AM
2 votes:

GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.


assets.amuniversal.com
2012-12-05 07:36:52 AM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

I'm cool with this. How about long term vs short term gains?


I'd still treat it all as income. I'd rather not start trying to create incentives for people to earn certain kinds of income, as that's a slippery slope that will take us right back where we are.

... and as long as I've the wishing crown on, I'd follow this by eliminating tax deductions, while adjusting the brackets and rates to try to keep the amount that most people pay the same.
2012-12-05 07:36:44 AM
2 votes:
Debeo, they're not gonna fark you OR give you money..
2012-12-05 07:24:39 AM
2 votes:
This is what matters, not the income tax rates. The huge gap between the upper income tax rate and the capital gains tax means that the wealthy pay a lower effective rate than high income earners who are trying to become established, and the super wealthy pay a lower effective rate than the middle class.
2012-12-05 07:13:56 AM
2 votes:
And anyways, proto-teabagger Ayn Rand died as a "looter", in the end.
2012-12-05 07:11:51 AM
2 votes:
'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.
2012-12-05 07:03:09 AM
2 votes:

viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.


WTF does Obama have to do with CEOs voting each other huge bonuses for nothing? That's been going on since the 1980s, at least.
2012-12-05 06:55:02 AM
2 votes:

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Hey, keeping slaves dumb and scared isn't as easy as you think. Religion helps though, and its free.

Step 3: Profit
2012-12-05 06:54:40 AM
2 votes:
Luxury tax.

That is all.
2012-12-05 06:52:44 AM
2 votes:
But you don't understand, the super-duper-uber rich need MORE tax relief, right? (you can't just buy politicians with leftover dividend money... oh, I guess you can)
2012-12-05 03:07:11 PM
1 votes:
Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.
2012-12-05 02:41:02 PM
1 votes:
This is where I remind everyone in the thread that business are taxed AFTER EXPENSES. Yes, that's right, folks! Every penny of employee salary and every penny of expense such as acquiring your competition or buying a new skyscraper to house the corporate headquarters is excluded FIRST before taxes. (Yes, this is simplified, most real estate is amortized out over many years, but it all comes off eventually.)

I say, in order to equalize the tax code, I get to deduct everything I spend first and only be taxed on the "profit" too, which would be the amount I put in savings... which is a pitiful, shameful, feeble amount.

High corporate taxes ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the company to re-invest and spend the profit or be taxed on it. High personal taxes on the wealthy ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the wealthy to create new businesses which will sustain losses to offset the profits from other ventures, or force them to donate wealth to charities, again all to avoid paying it out in taxes. Employees are an expense to a company and a great way to eat up profit and build for more growth. Our highest rates of employment and wealth can be correlated to our highest tax rates.

Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

Trickle down doesn't work. Roll the tax code back to 1958. Nominal maximum at 91% sounds just about right. Diminishing returns is the only thing that kept the greed in check. Recognize that if you have that kind of success, you made it on the backs and necks of thousands of others, and pay your "fair share" for the infrastructure you use to such great extent.
2012-12-05 02:27:52 PM
1 votes:

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.



I keep hearing people say this and I don't understand the logic of it.

We live in a country that requires federal, state and local taxes to operate. Without these taxes we lose all roads, bridges, networks, education, emergency services, defense, clean food and water, and the preservation of our personal and communal health and land. As an individual there is no way I can volunteer enough of my time or give enough of my income to make up for our social inadequacies. In fact, if I gave all my time and money towards fixing the problem I'd be adding to the rolls of people who require assistance to survive; thus canceling out any good I may be attempting to accomplish. However, if an entire country of people were to give a bit more time and a bit more money we can not only repair any problems we may have, but can continue grow and prosper.
2012-12-05 01:33:13 PM
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes


The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.
2012-12-05 12:43:17 PM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.
2012-12-05 12:25:20 PM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Limited liability has exactly zero to do with corporate taxation.


It has everything to do with why it makes sense to treat shareholders, who take no responsibility for the debts of their corporation, different from business owners who do. That they need not accept personal responsibility for their businesses means they are not identical with their businesses. Which in turn means that taxing them on their dividend income is no more "double taxation" than is taxing any other transactions between separate entities.


Limited liability is intended to improve access to equity capital for such companies.


It certainly is.

Limited liability also exists among many LLPs and LLCs that are not subject to corporate taxation.


Which is bad public policy, unless there are facts I'm unaware of supporting the argument that LLPs and LLCs share legal identity with their owners in the same way that sole proprietorships and partners do.


Would you buy any stock if you knew that of the company did something wrong you might be on the hook over and above your initial investment? Would you even invest in a 401k or mutual fund when the manager might invest in a company that might be subject to huge liability and in turn require you to go into your pocket to cover losses?


No. But I also didn't say I was in favor of making stockholders fully liable for the their corporations. I think there are significant public policy gains from the legal structure of corporations. We're able to do things requiring large scale capitalization which would be impossible without them. But that has f*ck all to do with whether shareholders are different from their corporations, which they obviously are.
2012-12-05 12:04:11 PM
1 votes:
I don't feel sorry for rich people. And by rich I mean who's net yearly income is more that 300K.
2012-12-05 11:53:21 AM
1 votes:

hobberwickey: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.

This


The real flaw in his argument is comparing what ownership of stock means to what other kinds of ownership means. A sole proprietor, a partner, and even a silent partner (the most like of the three unto a corporate shareholder) are all liable in full for the debts of their businesses. That's because there is real legal identity between sole proprietors, partners, and their businesses. By divorcing personal responsibility from corporate ownership, you likewise divorce the legal identity of shareholders from corporations. Therefore, when a corporation pays its dividends, it is really paying separate legal entities the same way it does when it pays its employees their salaries and wages.

Make shareholders liable in full for the debts of their corporations, and it will make sense to treat them as one and the same. As of now, they are clearly not.
2012-12-05 11:21:50 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: The reason i get into these threads is because I argue that one needs to compare the "combined" rate to ordinary rates, not the 15% rate in isolation. When you consider the combined rate, you recognize that investment income does not receive a preferential rate.


Corporate person-hood means that the corporation counts as a 'hand' in the context of every time money changes hands it is taxed. There's nothing particularly special about the corporation as a hand except it's not an actual living breathing person. I posted this before but I'll post it again. I get paid a salary, pay taxes. I pay an independent plumber, he pays taxes. Plumber buys a Ford, Ford pays taxes. Ford hires a manufacturing worker, manufacturing worker pays taxes.
2012-12-05 10:42:53 AM
1 votes:
Subby?

How much did that egomaniac, POS and well known 'Man Behind The Curtain' George Soros spend?

Get back to me when Leftists spending millions upon millions of dollars on electing other Leftists bothers you as much as Conservatives spending money on electing Conservatives.
2012-12-05 10:26:56 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


Funny how people like you only call it "class warfare" when the middle class fights back.
2012-12-05 10:09:07 AM
1 votes:

clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice.

Nice in theory, but reality is that large corporations have even more tax loopholes than individuals, and routinely pay little to no tax.

And if your double taxation theory holds, we shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. We paid income taxes on our money when we earned it, then we have to pay more tax when we spend it. OMG double taxation. Then, the store where we spent our money has to pay taxes on that money again, OMG triple taxation. Then their employees have to pay income taxes on the money they get paid OMG quadruple taxation.

It's almost as if you have to pay taxes every time money changes hands. Funny how that works, isn't it?


EVERYTHING IS INCOME TAX!
2012-12-05 10:08:26 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!

Are you trying to play some kind of game where each successive post is incrementally stupider than your last? Amazing.


I'm not the one claiming corporate tax as a personal income tax. So I'm trying to talk down to your level of bullshiat since that is all you understand.
2012-12-05 10:04:57 AM
1 votes:

WSUCanuck: Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!


Are you trying to play some kind of game where each successive post is incrementally stupider than your last? Amazing.
2012-12-05 09:57:17 AM
1 votes:
Hey everyone! All those taxes you pay on *anything*? you can now count those as income taxes! Thanks, debeo summa credo!
2012-12-05 09:49:38 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.


How conveniently nebulous. If you want to throw random things into the mix (and count property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc) then you can spot Romney that 27% and I probably still pay more.

How about we just include income taxes, you know, like we're discussing.

Would you think it fairer if investors paid ordinary tax rates on income, but corporate taxes were eliminated? How about if dividends were taxed at ordinary rates, but we're deducted from corporate taxable income?


except you're not 'just including income taxes', you're including a corporate tax in claiming your 40/45/85% Romney rate.

I understand that "Corporations are people too, my friend", but Corporations pay income tax just like Homer doesn't pay the homer tax.

Its a home*own*er tax.
2012-12-05 09:46:10 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: clyph: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.

Jesus Christ. Every investment in a corporation is taxed at that level before it becomes income to the investor. An investors tax rate isn't 15%, it's 44.75% if the corp pays taxes at 35%!!

For those who seem hellbent on ignoring the corporate income tax, as if it doesn't exist, ask yourselves who would benefit if the corporate income tax was eliminated. Would the overall progressivity of the tax code be increased or decreased if we got rid of the corporate tax?


despite all your crying, not even Mitt Romney nor his advisors claimed his tax rate was at 45%.

Hell, you seem to want to raise his tax rates more than anyone. You first had Romney paying 40%, now its 45%!

By the time you leave the thread, you'll say Romney pays an 85% tax rate!

Poor Romney!
2012-12-05 09:39:39 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.


How conveniently nebulous. If you want to throw random things into the mix (and count property taxes, sales taxes, social security, etc) then you can spot Romney that 27% and I probably still pay more.
2012-12-05 09:35:33 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".


Bullshiat. Normal income over $388,351 is taxed at 35%. That's their fair share. Explain how paying less than half as much tax as everybody else is fair.

I make a pretty good living and I pay 28% taxes. He just got as much money as I'll make in 1000 years. I, and 998 other people making as much as I do are paying double so this twatwaffle can pay less than half his fair share.
2012-12-05 09:34:05 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.



So Romney pays taxes that corporations owe?

i780.photobucket.com

Interesting... 

If Romney was paid $100k in (long term) dividends, he would pay $15k in taxes. Of course he would be able to deduct the cost of stabling his horse, and pay what he did.... @ 13%. Study it out
2012-12-05 09:30:39 AM
1 votes:

viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama Everyone in the leadership of both parties.


FTFY, because you obviously have not been following this issue at all. This deal was cut so that the issue would be out of the way for the election and to be taken up again so soon after the election that they'd have time to cut a deal that screws the middle class long before the next election cycle. But President Obama is way smarter than John Boehner. Obama sucked that fool right into a trap he cannot get out of without damaging his party. Boehner was counting on a back-room deal, while he postured in front of the cameras. Obama took the show on the road, pleading his case with the American people. It's working and Boehner looks like an obstructionist idiot. He's now on the wrong side of the issue. If he doesn't cave, we go into another recession and then Obama holds all the cards. He can have the Democratic leadership introduce legislation to give tax breaks to the middle class and increase defense spending, and leave the pre-Bush tax rate in place for the very wealthy. And, he can spin both as national security priorities. Obama has the Senate and a sizable caucus in the House. He's in a very strong negotiating position and he'll get more of what he wants than he will have to give away. But make no mistake about it, Obama is going to give away a lot that is important to the middle class. We will see a back-door tax increase in the form of eliminated or capped deductions. This has happened in every revenue negotiation since 1986. Boehner and his party will be the ones who suffer the most. The deal is going to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and the GOP will walk away with support only from mouth-breathers, who won't be affected either way. Boehner has really screwed the pooch on this one.
2012-12-05 09:27:27 AM
1 votes:
Only one solution:

National Property Tax


Move the tax burden from labor to capital. Move the tax burden from the working class to the investment class. No way to avoid the tax since it doesn't matter who owns the property, corporation, trust, or individual. My napkin math says that at the federal level a national property tax of ~2.3% would be revenue neutral with the current tax scheme.

In addition to "real" property the tax needs to include intellectual property and "paper" wealth like bank accounts, stocks, and other investments.

No more corporations hiding from taxes by not having profits on paper.

Take away power from politicians since a single tax rate can't be used to help their friends and punish their enemies.

A possible problem is with farms where the value of the land and equipment is much greater than the value of any crop. One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.
2012-12-05 09:26:02 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: WSUCanuck: Debeo Summa Credo: Fu Manchu: Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.

No you don't.

Your fact shields are definitely at 100%. Anyone who paid more than 13% of their income in taxes paid a higher share than Mitt Romney.

Nope. Romney's investments were subject to corporate tax before being subject to individual tax. His rate when you include those are up near 40%.

But please keep your own "fact shields" at 100%.

Ahh pedantry. The corporate tax, which was paid by Mitt Romney NEVER counts as tax on Mitt Romney, the individual.


Pop-a-shot taxation.


Mitt Romney never claimed he paid anywhere near 40% in taxes, so for you to claim he did is hilarious. Thanks for admitting that you're a partisan shill with no interest in furthering legitimate debate.

Hmm. Your fact shields seem to be working perfectly but maybe turn down the dial on your stupidity blaster, your getting it all over the place.


awww are you mad that you got called out on your bullshiat?
2012-12-05 09:20:39 AM
1 votes:

ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.


Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)
2012-12-05 09:18:42 AM
1 votes:

Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.


Huh? I just went and checked Wikipedia. His dad was a taxi driver and his mom ran a knitting store.

Doesn't sound like the dude came from money to me.
2012-12-05 09:14:19 AM
1 votes:
Are these the magic loopholes Romney was talking about? I doubt it.
2012-12-05 09:12:53 AM
1 votes:
income, is income, is income. Don't care where you made it or how you made it.

The rich have more to loose thus should pay a higher rate
(the army is here to protect the wealth of the nation).

That being said, making $125,000 in New York City does not equal $125,000 made in Yuma Arizona.
2012-12-05 09:07:07 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.


No.

Some of the companies took near 0% interest loans to back the dividend payment and will write their earnings down on the dividend payment AND the loan value repayment. I'm trying to remember the companies cited on the radio but they were pretty big ones. If I do, or find it, I'll post the citation.
2012-12-05 08:52:47 AM
1 votes:
A few years back, Lewis Black: 'Three people took a billion dollars. Three people. A billion dollars. What are they going to do, start their own space program?!'

From the article: "The biggest dividend payday this quarter is for Sheldon Adelson, CEO of Las Vegas Sands. He'll receive about $1.2 billion from the company's dividend."

That's one guy.
2012-12-05 08:52:28 AM
1 votes:
We must really be jealous of Joe Sixpack since we're taking 30% of his income as taxes.
2012-12-05 08:49:08 AM
1 votes:
Can we put the whole 'they earned that much money because they're successful businessmen' nonsense now? If you have to spend 150 million to unsuccessfully unseat an incumbent, you're not that smart or that savvy.

And 'foreskin come to life' is an accurate description of this load.
2012-12-05 08:31:03 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.


i.imgur.com
2012-12-05 08:30:23 AM
1 votes:
Debeo Summa Credo:

Again, IOW "gimme"

I pay a higher share of my income in taxes than Mitt Romney, you insensitive clod.
2012-12-05 08:27:38 AM
1 votes:
After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.
2012-12-05 08:26:36 AM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Awesome - that's $150 million Libs will not get to encourage women to have children out of wedlock who they will raise to kill me.


"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

-- Pat Robertson, 1992
2012-12-05 08:24:54 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread


Wait 5 years and tell me more about "bitter envy", bud.
2012-12-05 08:24:24 AM
1 votes:

Phil Moskowitz: Money can't buy health.


It sure can move you up on the organ waiting list...
2012-12-05 08:21:10 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: No it's not. You've been misled or you misunderstand.


Fact shields are at 100%, keptin!
2012-12-05 08:15:26 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: LarryDan43: Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

Good for the economies of Luxembourg, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where these guys keep their money. They wouldn't want any Reagan trickle down from banks here where it might fall on 47%er.

Cripes. Do you think every dollar deposited in a cayman islands bank account stays in the cayman islands? Do the banks there use them exclusively to finance small business loans to the people that sell trinkets in every corner in the Caribbean?


Yes. It does. I know that's and exaggeration, but much of it lies there in tax free accounts being serviced by the valient and numerous law firms of the Caymans. Why don't us libs like lawyers in the Caymans? They're just middle class people who benefit from trickle down economics!
2012-12-05 07:56:16 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.


Good for the economies of Luxembourg, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where these guys keep their money. They wouldn't want any Reagan trickle down from banks here where it might fall on 47%er.
2012-12-05 07:48:26 AM
1 votes:
So they make some craven, but expected, moves to preserve and protect as much of their precious, precious money. Nothing will change the fact that Adelson and his reprehensible ilk wasted a (fractional, to them) fortune on Romney, and before that, the Primary Crazies.
2012-12-05 07:46:36 AM
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: This is as good a place to ask as any.

Does anyone know if Obama's proposal for the budget allows the Bush tax cut rate on Capital Gains and Dividends to expire? The 'news' only seems to report on the income tax rates and spending cuts. They just ignore one of the biggest parts of this whole debacle.


They will expire as well, as they are part of the Bush tax cuts.
2012-12-05 07:42:13 AM
1 votes:
This is as good a place to ask as any.

Does anyone know if Obama's proposal for the budget allows the Bush tax cut rate on Capital Gains and Dividends to expire? The 'news' only seems to report on the income tax rates and spending cuts. They just ignore one of the biggest parts of this whole debacle.
2012-12-05 07:39:57 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.


Nothing requires corporations to pay out dividends. Indeed there are plenty that don't.
2012-12-05 07:39:50 AM
1 votes:

EyeballKid: Why isn't this foreskin-come-to-life in court answering bribery charges?


It's one of those legal crimes.
2012-12-05 07:38:53 AM
1 votes:
Why isn't this foreskin-come-to-life in court answering bribery charges?
2012-12-05 07:32:29 AM
1 votes:
But if we do X, they'll just do Y, so we shouldn't even be talking about any kind of reform, no matter how small, because there's really nothing we can do.
2012-12-05 07:31:33 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.

Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.


I'm also fine with allowing that deduction.
2012-12-05 07:30:32 AM
1 votes:

SomeAmerican: Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.

The right approach would be to treat dividends as income, and cover them under the same tax code as income tax. The current approach of favoring some revenue over others distorts the market.


Income from corporate investments is treated differently because it is taxed twice. Your way (ordinary tax rates for dividends) would be appropriate if you allowed companies to deduct dividends from taxable income.
2012-12-05 07:29:46 AM
1 votes:

patent holder: Alphax: coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.

Ahead of the what?

Part of the almost tripling in taxes on dividend in 2013 has to do with the new taxes from the ACA (Obama Care) that kick in.


I see no mention of the ACA in the article.
2012-12-05 07:18:32 AM
1 votes:

coffee smells good: I see the article doesn't mention the god of the far left, COSTCO. They're borrowing $3B so they can pay a special one time $7/ dividend ahead of the Obama Care tax increase.


Ahead of the what?
2012-12-05 07:14:01 AM
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.

"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.


Good.
2012-12-05 07:13:04 AM
1 votes:

Alphax: 'Dividend Cliff'.. so their ability to suck massive amounts of capital out of the economy would be slightly slowed, once the 'temporary' Bush tax cuts expire. They make it sound like a bad thing.


"slightly slowed"? Tax rates on dividends will nearly triple next year.
2012-12-05 07:10:12 AM
1 votes:

vinniethepoo: viscountalpha: And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.

WTF does Obama have to do with CEOs voting each other huge bonuses for nothing? That's been going on since the 1980s, at least.


True. My companies CEO once sat on 7 other Dow Jones Co's boards and was on the Presidents Council of Something or Other.

The fix is in, and if you can ignore other peoples suffering, you can have your own G5.
2012-12-05 07:02:46 AM
1 votes:

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.


Preferred stock.
2012-12-05 07:01:05 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.
2012-12-05 06:59:30 AM
1 votes:

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Dividends. Let's see... is that considered to be earned income, or something else?
2012-12-05 06:55:56 AM
1 votes:
And what's this "small business owner" shiat that supposedly drives the economy?

No basis in reality, at all.
2012-12-05 06:55:18 AM
1 votes:
But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!
2012-12-05 06:52:04 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.



All shareholders benefit from the dividends, of course. But some of the biggest beneficiaries are corporate insiders and large shareholders. The companies paying accelerated dividends have an average insider ownership of 27 percent - higher than the broadermarket, according to Markit

2012-12-05 06:46:31 AM
1 votes:
And the process of the system eating itself has become irreversible now.


Good job Obama.
2012-12-05 06:45:09 AM
1 votes:
I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.
2012-12-05 06:43:55 AM
1 votes:
Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.
 
Displayed 105 of 105 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report