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.

(The Big Story) NewsFlash US Senate passes Internet Sales Tax Bill. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 573
    More: NewsFlash, Senate, internet, senate passes, sales taxes, D-Ill, United States  
•       •       •

16638 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2013 at 10:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

573 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-06 11:55:01 PM

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: This is the worst thing ever, right?  Whenever Fark freaks out about something, it's always the worst thing ever.


I feel like I walked into a Tea Party rally.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:12 PM

ParadoxDice: Yeah, and do you know what they'll do next? The brick stores will complain that it's unfair online stores are open 24/7, so a law has to be passed that no online transactions can happen between 9 pm and 10 AM.

I say we pass a law that requires all stores in states that collect online taxes be open 24/7 for the convienence of the consumer.

It's only fair, after all.


I'd imagine that they'd just stay open 24 a day without pushing for new legislation limiting online sales times.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:44 PM

doglover: The first thing we do, we kill all the tax lawyers.


IANAL. Also, not a lawyer.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: This is the worst thing ever, right?  Whenever Fark freaks out about something, it's always the worst thing ever.


It's funny because most of this is already the law, just a new enforcement mechanism because noncompliance is off the charts and the states are begging for a better way to enforce their laws.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:54 PM
No one pays Use Taxes. No one. Not one person in the history of ever has put a number on that line of their state tax return.

So now online retailers like Amazon may have to collect it, boo hoo. Accounting nightmare, my ass. It's no different from what they'd have to do if they operated a physical store.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:04 PM

GoldSpider: tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

To be fair, he hasn't signed the bill.  Yet.


This bill does not raise taxes.  It only enables collection of delinquent taxes.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:26 PM
Every time I bought something out of State over the phone or via the Innertubes, they charged me a "sales tax" of 9% to 9 1/2% even though Texas sales tax is only 8%.

There is no doubt they put that money in their pockets, no way in hell will a Texas bureaucrat travel to some other State to collect such a small amount of money.

\\ and it wouldn't be legal anyway.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:42 PM
Endive Wombat:
I have never purchased a single item online simply to save a few bucks from sales tax...I've purchased stuff online because it is usually 20%-30% less.

Us, too.  Plus, there's often more options to choose from online, and it saves us the hassle of having to get in our car in drive to a store.

/Los Angeles
//We'll do anything to avoid dealing with traffic
 
2013-05-06 11:58:36 PM
I always had thought the added expense of having to mail individual items to single points was a fair trade off for having to charge tax.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:23 AM

ArgusRun: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.

Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.  Way esier for the seller to do this than for individual purchasers.

All this does is help to ever so slightly level the playing field between brick and mortar retailers and online only stores.  those cheap prices come at the expense of retail jobs, property taxes and commerical rents.

And the warehouse jobs are notoriously bad even when compared to other warehouse jobs.


Adapt or die. I know what I want, I get it delivered to my door. Why should I pay more so that the lemmings can "browse".

/devils advocate
 
2013-05-07 12:00:35 AM

Vangor: shifty lookin bleeder: Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer

Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.

Sorry, I mean "to a retailer" in order to differ between retailers which must collect state taxes and those which do not.



And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.

And if he FAILS to do so correctly, he will no doubt be subject to penalties, fines and/or imprisonment.

Right?

I suppose these states, counties and municipalities are going to pay said retailer to compensate him for the time, effort, capital outlay and RISK he takes in handling said transactions, no?

NO???


Well, then, better repeal that pesky 13th Amendment, hadn't we?

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


/Pesky, it is
 
2013-05-07 12:01:58 AM

skullkrusher: First part, I don't think so. As long as a retailer is paying his sales taxes, everyone's happy whether those taxes are specifically tacked on and broken out on a consumer's receipt


I'd have to do some research to tell you which ones specifically, but that would be illegal in many states. Probably a civil infraction as opposed to criminal, but consumer friendly states generally have pretty clear rules that taxes must be fully disclosed and that the retailer can't say certain things regarding the sales tax that they're not legally able to do, i.e that the retailer will pay or waive the sales tax.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:11 AM

JWideman: Let's not pretend this is about protecting small businesses. This is about helping Amazon crush Ebay.


Right on the money with that.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:04 AM
I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.

It would have delightful economic consequences, since more states would start to cut sales taxes in an attempt to pull those businesses in for jobs. With a lower sales tax, the other option is a higher income tax or property/vice/estate taxes which are all fine by me. Any state that refuses to play ball gets shut out of a new revenue source - looking at you South.
 
2013-05-07 12:04:45 AM

spamdog: JWideman: Let's not pretend this is about protecting small businesses. This is about helping Amazon crush Ebay.

Right on the money with that.


Yep.

And given enough time, that million-dollar limit is going to evaporate, one way or another.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:14 AM

shifty lookin bleeder: skullkrusher: First part, I don't think so. As long as a retailer is paying his sales taxes, everyone's happy whether those taxes are specifically tacked on and broken out on a consumer's receipt

I'd have to do some research to tell you which ones specifically, but that would be illegal in many states. Probably a civil infraction as opposed to criminal, but consumer friendly states generally have pretty clear rules that taxes must be fully disclosed and that the retailer can't say certain things regarding the sales tax that they're not legally able to do, i.e that the retailer will pay or waive the sales tax.


you may be right - there could be laws against saying certain things to customers to give them the impression you're cutting them a deal when you're actually not
 
2013-05-07 12:06:33 AM
Not surprised.  The government's never met a tax it didn't like.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:44 AM
1. Stop selling anything after $900,000 in sales.
2. Pocket the x% you've been collecting in sales tax.
3. Go on vacation until January 1.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:22 AM
Meh.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:57 AM

Amos Quito: And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.


That's a better argument than most of the ones raised in this thread, in my opinion, but this responsibility to other jurisdictions has precedent in a process called escheatment; commonly referred to as Abandoned or Unclaimed Property.  I doubt that the courts would look at this any differently and escheatment is far more tenuous and has been repeatedly upheld.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:18 AM
So, phoning in an order from another state is still tax free?
 
2013-05-07 12:08:31 AM

Amos Quito: And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.


I'm so glad you read the article before going off on your rant.

Oh, you didn't. Know how I can tell? Because of what I quoted before: to collect sales tax under this bill, states must provide a free service to determine the tax owed. Not only that, but by "various thousands of government entities" you mean "50" (an awfully small definition of "thousands"), as the bill requires states to set up a single state-wide collection point.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.


To me, the buyer's state makes more sense, it also avoids (well, to a much greater extent) the thorny issue of "what state is the seller state if the company has several locations", and it aligns with the existing use tax requirements.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:48 AM
As a foreigner who often buys from US sites and has items shipped to me in New Zealand, if it's cheaper elsewhere then I will take my business elsewhere.
 
2013-05-07 12:09:21 AM

Mike_LowELL: - Benghazi
- Dijon Mustard
- ACORN
- Internet Sales Tax

Just adding another item to the list of reasons Taxbongo should be impeached.  Don't mind me.

Just like liberals don't mind showering.  LOL!!!  Get owned, stupid libs.  Get owned.


lets see...
Benghazi, it seems the right have there painties in a wad over the wording the president used in the first few hours when information was still coming in
Dijon Mustard...has to be a joke, but at this point i am sure there is some far right blog all about how Dijon is some anti-american Muslim mustard
Acorn...you mean that Organization that got killed due to a scam artist Lieing, along with complying with federal laws concerning voter registration
 
2013-05-07 12:10:00 AM

Voiceofreason01: Mock26:
Go for it.  If you can legally do so then do it.  A good friend of mine is moving to Florida because they have no income tax.  He will save about $75,000 a year by moving down there.  Sure, it is still Florida, but $75,000 buys you a lot of trips out of state.  And, it is perfectly legal.

Your friend would save $75K a year in State income tax?

/bullshiat


He makes about $1,750,000 a year and the Illinois State Income tax is a flat 5% rate.  You do the math.
 
2013-05-07 12:11:04 AM
This i swhy more people should live in oregon. What's this thing called a sales tax?
 
2013-05-07 12:14:32 AM

badhatharry: One more nail in the coffin of the Post Office.  People still use the Post Office, right?


I use it nearly every day, and I doubt this will make much of a dent in actual sales volume.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:18 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: shifty lookin bleeder: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,


Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it. As to the rest of your post, it's essentially about full disclosure of pricing to the consumer.

Actually, you're both wrong/right.  Some states impose a "vendor privilege tax" (i.e., a tax for the privilege of selling goods within that state) on the vendor, others impose a "consumer sales tax" on the purchaser.  And some states just charge a tax on retail transactions with equal liability for both merchant and customer.

Source


This is the first valid concern I've seen about this bill.  Pity your source didn't name the states in question.

Arizona has a "transaction privilege tax" levied upon sellers for the privilege of "doing business in Arizona."  However, even the Arizona Dept. of Revenue says

"The Arizona transaction privilege tax is commonly referred to as a sales tax; however, the tax is on the privilege of doing business in Arizona and is not a true sales tax."

The bill explicitly limits its effect to "sales and use taxes."
 
2013-05-07 12:15:32 AM

evaned: Amos Quito: And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.

I'm so glad you read the article before going off on your rant.

Oh, you didn't. Know how I can tell? Because of what I quoted before: to collect sales tax under this bill, states must provide a free service to determine the tax owed. Not only that, but by "various thousands of government entities" you mean "50" (an awfully small definition of "thousands"), as the bill requires states to set up a single state-wide collection point.


How will the states adapt? Most states will find a reasonable way to regulate this, but a few states will turn it into a massive clusterfark because of inefficient regulation. This will cause millions in legal problems for a select few for the next decade. In theory, it is a good idea, but the execution is too ambiguous.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:50 AM

evaned: umad: Why should ebay charge sales tax? Wouldn't that be like forcing people to charge sales tax when they have a garage sale or sell something on craigslist?

How many people have a garage sale where they sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year?


How many people sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year on ebay? I guess I just don't see how ebay qualifies as a "retailer."
 
2013-05-07 12:16:10 AM

evaned: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.

To me, the buyer's state makes more sense, it also avoids (well, to a much greater extent) the thorny issue of "what state is the seller state if the company has several locations", and it aligns with the existing use tax requirements.


I can see some major legal complications, I admit. But, I'd go with nearest (as the crow flies) point of distribution but still stick with the seller's state (part of it is, I also admit, a desire to give a giant middle finger to the less savvy parts of the country) because they're acting as economic free riders - sending my data to California for the textbook and getting the book shipped to Indiana means that Indiana gets the benefits (tax dollars) while California gets the costs (tax breaks or amnesty or credits for companies doing the employment). Sending it to the seller's state means that all the bootstrappy states have to drop their little Randian parade or risk losing out on tax revenue.

I will concede you make a good point with use taxes though.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:49 AM

thisispete: As a foreigner who often buys from US sites and has items shipped to me in New Zealand, if it's cheaper elsewhere then I will take my business elsewhere.


I don't think you understand how US sales tax works - it's only charged on sales within the US. Foreign buyers aren't affected at all.
 
2013-05-07 12:17:56 AM

Amos Quito: FROM EACH
according to his ability

TO EACH
according to his need


 /You're not selfish, are you?


Paying sales tax isn't "Marxist", you dork. Where the frak did you go to school?

/ruffles yer headfur
 
2013-05-07 12:21:45 AM

FuturePastNow: No one pays Use Taxes. No one. Not one person in the history of ever has put a number on that line of their state tax return.

Close.  The assn. of state revenooers estimates that 1.6% of citizens pay use tax.

 
2013-05-07 12:21:56 AM

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Incorrect.

Use tax collection varies by state. In some states, they only require you pay the full percentage on very large purchases (e.g. over $1000). If you don't make any large purchases, you can either itemize your use tax or pay a fixed amount based on your income. So say I earn minimum wage and make $15,000 in 2013 and spend $999,000 in out-of-state, online purchases. If this was in the form of one thousand transactions at $999 each, I could either pay (assuming 6% sales tax) $59,940 in use tax by itemizing, or $12 if I go based on income. BOTH ARE LEGAL. It's just like you have the option of the standard deduction or itemizing your deductions. You can CHOOSE to pay more if you want, but it's perfectly legal to go the route that requires the lowest amount of tax to be paid.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:34 AM
What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:14 AM

evaned: detritus: Of course the million dollar sales exemption won't expand with inflation, so when our currency is devalued further, all the more online businesses will get farked in the future.

I wonder what consequences would be to a new Constitutional amendment that automatically indexed any dollar amount mentioned in a law to inflation.


World Peace?
 
2013-05-07 12:30:43 AM

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


Quit reminding people that you pay taxes in order to GET something.  It all just goes into the ether.  Poof!
 
2013-05-07 12:32:12 AM
I live in Washington, so I already had to do that.
 
2013-05-07 12:32:36 AM

BarkingUnicorn: GoldSpider: tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

To be fair, he hasn't signed the bill.  Yet.

This bill does not raise taxes.   It only enables collection of delinquent taxes.



Who owes said "delinquent taxes? The consumer.
Why are said taxed "delinquent"? Because the government bodies are not collecting.
Why are the government bodies are not collecting? Because it would be far too time consuming and expensive to try to collect from the consumer.
Solution: Force retailers (outside their own government jurisdiction) to act as unpaid, involuntary collection agents - at the point of a gun.
At the point of a gun? Are you crazy? Just try to avoid compliance, and see where it leads.

Just wait 'til the Federal Government sticks THEIR hands in your pockets via the same method.


/Gotta' pay for the "War On Drugs" and the War On Terror" somehow
 
2013-05-07 12:33:10 AM

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


Exactly, lobs love taxes they don't have to pay
 
2013-05-07 12:34:02 AM
Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:07 AM

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


what services do brick and mortar stores receive that warehouses and delivery services don't?
 
2013-05-07 12:37:11 AM

ArgusRun: Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.


Calculations and accounting, yes. Though you need very specific address information to get the right tax rate if a state doesn't have the same tax rate everywhere, and a subscription to a service that lets you translate that into a tax rate.

But filing, no. You'll have to pay for each one of those (either a person or a service), probably quarterly, and you'll have to do it for each state and possibly for more specific localities, if they collect their own tax separately.

If there were just one harmonized sales tax form to fill out once a year, where you apportion your sales to their respective states, it wouldn't be a big deal. But there are forms for each state, each with different rules and schedules, and it *will* be a big hassle to keep them all straight. There's already an industry built around the hassles of foreign statutory representation (i.e. it's enough of a problem that business owners are willing to pay someone else to do it) and I'm sure they'll be happy to expand into this new field as well.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:25 AM

farkinglizardking: How will the states adapt? Most states will find a reasonable way to regulate this, but a few states will turn it into a massive clusterfark because of inefficient regulation. This will cause millions in legal problems for a select few for the next decade. In theory, it is a good idea, but the execution is too ambiguous.


I'm not saying there aren't potential problems. (For instance, TFA makes it sound a bit like a state can sue a retailer in the home state instead of the retailer's state, which I think is a mistake.)

However, I think it's very disingenuous to imply that it's the retailer that has to keep up with the mess of what is taxable where and at what rate, because they're just  not.

umad: How many people sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year on ebay? I guess I just don't see how ebay qualifies as a "retailer."


I can't give you a number, but it's certainly my impression that there are a number of actual businesses that basically use ebay as a store front.
 
2013-05-07 12:39:48 AM

The Muthaship: This is where the people who think everyone needs to pay their fair share figure out they'd rather not pay their fair share.


I want other people to pay taxes. Its not hypocrisy because I never claimed anything to the contrary. I'll jump through any loopholes I see while voting for higher taxes on the wealthy.

At least I'm honest.
 
2013-05-07 12:39:51 AM

dumbobruni: Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

what services do brick and mortar stores receive that warehouses and delivery services don't?


Usually they require more in the form of things like sidewalks, traffic control devices and road features, different types of inspections, more likely to need police for things like shoplifting, etc.
 
2013-05-07 12:41:02 AM
900+ taxing jurisdictions, each with its own rules and its own rates. The Wall Street Journal mentioned one locale where there's a 1400 word regulation determining whether or not an ice cream cake is taxable (number of layers of ice cream vs number of layers of cake, etc.). Multiply the number of regs per jurisdiction by the number of jurisdictions and you get the idea of what every business selling on the internet is going to have to deal with. Oh, and not to mention that there will be 50 different state auditors with demands to meet too. And the WSJ asked if, since there are supposed to be consolidated auditors (one per state), a business can just throw away a demand from any other taxing entity that wants info as well. No answer from the sponsors of the Senate bill.  Another Obamacare-like bill that you'll have to pass in order to see what's in it. Yay.
 
2013-05-07 12:41:57 AM

Do the needful: AverageAmericanGuy: How did JC Penney and Sears do it before in the age of catalog ordering?

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 471x640]

See about 3/4 of the way down?


Yup, 3% sales tax.
Then it went to 5%. Thanks Mike Dukakis.
Now 6.25%. Thanks Duval (Obama Lite) Patrick
 
2013-05-07 12:42:09 AM
I sort of wish all that sales tax money had to go to the state with the physical presence. Easier on the accounting, and then all of a sudden it isn't such an election topic since voting for it would have meant raising prices without helping the local economy.

At least that way the cities that are impacted by the businesses are reaping the benefits instead of local coffers for no good reason.
 
2013-05-07 12:42:23 AM

jjorsett: 900+ taxing jurisdictions


Make that 9000+ taxing entities, not 900+.
 
Displayed 50 of 573 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report