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 New York Times)   Everyone who thought their "guaranteed" pension plan was safer than a 401(k), step right up. Not so fast, PBGC   (dealbook.nytimes.com) divider line 70
    More: Obvious, legislative initiative, pensions, rescues, stock market crash, insurance companies  
•       •       •

1929 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Jul 2014 at 10:31 PM (2 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-02 09:25:40 PM
Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.
 
2014-07-02 10:37:07 PM
Job creators.
 
2014-07-02 10:40:21 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.


So the correct answer to under priced insurance is more government subsidies?
 
2014-07-02 10:48:47 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.


I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.
 
2014-07-02 10:55:27 PM

rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.


why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.
 
2014-07-02 10:58:27 PM

ricbach229: rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.


Increasing the premium would speed up the demise.

Defined Benefit systems are ponzi schemes that have finally run their course.
 
2014-07-02 10:59:51 PM
Glad I already draw a pension from my previous USAF career.
 
2014-07-02 11:01:10 PM
Romney took the money.
 
2014-07-02 11:03:34 PM

Another Government Employee: ricbach229: rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.

Increasing the premium would speed up the demise.

Defined Benefit systems are ponzi schemes that have finally run their course.


Can't tell if you're saying that like it's a bad thing.

I'm impressed that Obama has put the rules in place that have started a slow motion shattering of both employer pensions and employer health insurance and nobody on the left seems to give a fark.  I remember when McCain supported moving Insurance to a below the line deduction so that self employed people could get the tax advantages that regular employed people get and he was excoriated for it.
 
2014-07-02 11:21:11 PM
what's a pension?
 
2014-07-02 11:25:12 PM
People who took defined benefit "guarantees" at face value over the "casino" of the defined contribution plan confuse me. It doesn't matter whether your future consumption will be paid for by selling down assets you've accumulated in a 401(k)/IRA, by purchasing an annuity (income streams backed by the assets of a private insurer), or by taking a stream of income out of a single- or multi-employer pension plans backstopped by PBGC. Whether your retirement is a DB or DC plan, its assets are invested in the same markets, and those markets are subject to occasional shocks. A pension fund manager is paid to not make the same sorts of n00b mistakes as the average retail investor, but they're fallible humans too. A robot that tracks the index often outperforms both the pros and the retail investor, but even the robot that cheaply and efficiently manages an index ETF isn't immune to shifts in economic/cultural/demographic trends.

To guarantee a return on an investment over a 50-100-year timeframe requires knowledge, rather than assumptions, about the future, and Hari Seldon has yet to leap out of the pages of an SF novel to give us psychohistory. You can hedge against risk (for a price), but in the long run, there are no guarantees. Even Seldon had no way to deal with the Mule, aka the sorts of Black Swan events that show up if you wait long enough.
 
2014-07-02 11:37:26 PM
People have been saying for over a decade this was a problem that was eventually going to bubble up.

Nothing was done about it.

That's how ignoring problems work.
 
2014-07-02 11:49:50 PM

Another Government Employee: ricbach229: rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.

Increasing the premium would speed up the demise.

Defined Benefit systems are ponzi schemes that have finally run their course.




The Feds ZIRP policy has killed returns for the last 4 years.
 
2014-07-03 12:16:10 AM

rugman11: How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.


Pension plans already have priority over shareholders.  What I think you're really suggesting is to give pension plans priority over other  unsecured creditors.  That's a sensible idea.  It would modestly increase the cost of unsecured credit, but in the case of companies with underfunded pensions that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, it wouldn't much help most of these plans.  These multi-employer plans were a terrible idea from the start.  Basically, instead of a company having its own pension plan for unionized employees a bunch of companies with the same union just gave the money to that union and said, "here, you guys take care of this."  As companies failed, a smaller and smaller number of surviving companies became responsible for a non-shrinking pool of beneficiaries.  (There have also been problems of union mismanagement of the funds,but that's actually a tiny problem compared to the big ones).  We're getting to a state where the surviving companies, already penalized for succeeding where their competitors have failed, just can't afford the burden.
 
2014-07-03 12:20:38 AM
Meanwhile in California, single-payer CalPERS is doing great. Also, we're now offering public employee-style defined-benefit pensions to private sector employees. Which, you know, is smart.
 
2014-07-03 12:52:45 AM

some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?


Something that died with the unions
 
2014-07-03 01:07:48 AM

meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions


Still alive and well in the public sector.
 
2014-07-03 01:34:10 AM

gingerjet: meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions

Still alive and well in the public sector.


Software devs don't have a union anyways.
 
2014-07-03 01:39:18 AM

gingerjet: meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions

Still alive and well in the public sector.


I'm glad for that but with another 3 decades before retirement I'm not so confident I'll see it.
 
2014-07-03 02:11:35 AM

meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions


What's a union, grandpa?
 
2014-07-03 02:16:53 AM
Glad my 401k is invested in Bitcoins.
 
2014-07-03 03:44:37 AM
You're a goddamned idiot to rely on anyone but yourself for your retirement. I don't understand the thinking that the people you work for, or anyone else for that matter, owes you retirement.
 
2014-07-03 04:29:30 AM

Manfred J. Hattan: rugman11: How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

Pension plans already have priority over shareholders.  What I think you're really suggesting is to give pension plans priority over other  unsecured creditors.  That's a sensible idea.  It would modestly increase the cost of unsecured credit, but in the case of companies with underfunded pensions that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, it wouldn't much help most of these plans.  These multi-employer plans were a terrible idea from the start.  Basically, instead of a company having its own pension plan for unionized employees a bunch of companies with the same union just gave the money to that union and said, "here, you guys take care of this."  As companies failed, a smaller and smaller number of surviving companies became responsible for a non-shrinking pool of beneficiaries.  (There have also been problems of union mismanagement of the funds,but that's actually a tiny problem compared to the big ones).  We're getting to a state where the surviving companies, already penalized for succeeding where their competitors have failed, just can't afford the burden.


You're blaming unions for companies declaring bankruptcy and abusing ERISA to dump their pension obligations on PBGC?
I'll bet you blame unions for the decline of the middle class, too.
Back under the bridge with you.
 
2014-07-03 05:22:01 AM

meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions


Not everywhere. I actually ended up working for a company that has a pension plan... I'm an IT guy with a pension plan, I'm friends with bigfoot, and the Toothed Hen.
 
2014-07-03 06:35:23 AM
I knew a chick who was a teacher. She was glad that she wasn't, like me, in private industry, because her retirement was set in state law. I told here that that will do no good when the state runs out of money. She replied by saying, a little louder, that her retirement was set in state law!! Apparently, anybody can become a teacher.
 
2014-07-03 06:56:44 AM

gingerjet: meat0918: some_beer_drinker: what's a pension?

Something that died with the unions

Still alive and well in the public sector.


I've worked for 3 levels of government and had a 401k at each, so for anyone starting after like 1990 that is not the case.
 
2014-07-03 07:24:18 AM

rugman11: I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.


The shareholders are last already.  They generally get nothing.

DarkLancelot: I've worked for 3 levels of government and had a 401k at each, so for anyone starting after like 1990 that is not the case.


I don't know where you have been, but the federal government has still has a pension in addition to a 401k (TSP.)  And the massive unfunded liabilities that just about every state has are due to pensions which they are still giving out.
 
2014-07-03 07:35:38 AM
I worked for the Fed.  The "pension" is like 1% of your yearly salary if you aren't on the old system.  Otherwise it is entirely 401k for you.
 
2014-07-03 07:42:54 AM

DarkLancelot: I worked for the Fed.  The "pension" is like 1% of your yearly salary if you aren't on the old system.  Otherwise it is entirely 401k for you.


1% for each year you worked.  1.1% after 20 years.
 
2014-07-03 07:53:59 AM

DarkLancelot: I've worked for 3 levels of government and had a 401k at each, so for anyone starting after like 1990 that is not the case.


My mother is (thankfully) on an old contract pension system. She's a teacher going on 34 or 35 consecutive years and is one of 2 or 3 people still on the contract. The school system readjusted compensation plans in the mid-90s, but the union mandated that any existing teacher is on the system in which they joined. Every couple of years, contracts get resigned and she gets questioned on whether or not she REALLY signed the contract in the original period.

She's to the point where she is seeing kids (and very rarely grandkids) of her former early students.
 
2014-07-03 08:03:16 AM

DrPainMD: I knew a chick who was a teacher. She was glad that she wasn't, like me, in private industry, because her retirement was set in state law. I told here that that will do no good when the state runs out of money. She replied by saying, a little louder, that her retirement was set in state law!! Apparently, anybody can become a teacher.


That depends on the state, some states guarantee pensions even if it means dipping into the general fund. The entire state would have to go bankrupt and be down rated to junk bond status before the pension would be worthless. The federal government isn't going to let that happen so unless the entire government goes tits up she is probably right. Besides that, in California anyway, the teachers pensions (STRS) are separate from other public employee pensions and have their own managers and a lot of that is invested in land and not in the stock or bond market so they don't have to worry about the ups and downs of the markets like more conventional pensions or 401(k)'s. Last I heard it's way more solvent than the CALPers state pension system. Now THAT is a mess and I'm not sure that they can dip into the general fund.

But like I said that depends on the state. In California it actually is set in state law and while California might get themselves into a financial bind at times the teachers actually are covered by state law and California won't be running out of money anytime soon given their sheer economic power.
 
2014-07-03 08:05:41 AM

BMFPitt: DarkLancelot: I worked for the Fed.  The "pension" is like 1% of your yearly salary if you aren't on the old system.  Otherwise it is entirely 401k for you.

1% for each year you worked.  1.1% after 20 years.


That was not how it was explained to me and since I'm no longer a Fed the point is moot for me.  Thanks for the clarification.
 
2014-07-03 08:06:51 AM
Public employee pensions should be banned (although I'd really not like to see the people who have already been promised them get screwed). School boards and city councils promise outrageous benefits that their children's generation has to pay, and at least here in Pennsylvania every local government is increasing taxes the maximum allowed and still losing money.
 
2014-07-03 08:07:37 AM
Sheryl Sandberg took the money.
 
2014-07-03 08:11:00 AM

ricbach229: Another Government Employee: ricbach229: rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.

Increasing the premium would speed up the demise.

Defined Benefit systems are ponzi schemes that have finally run their course.

Can't tell if you're saying that like it's a bad thing.

I'm impressed that Obama has put the rules in place that have started a slow motion shattering of both employer pensions and employer health insurance and nobody on the left seems to give a fark.  I remember when McCain supported moving Insurance to a below the line deduction so that self employed people could get the tax advantages that regular employed people get and he was excoriated for it.


A both good and bad.

And this is NOT Obama's fault.  The path was set in the mid-1980's when Michael Milliken figured out how to leverage pensions to finance corporate buyouts.  By removing all of the reserve funding, the actuarial assumptions used to fund the pensions were obliterated and the weaknesses of the supporting participant populations became more apparent.

Some of them might be salvaged by consolidation. But the majority will never rebuild the worker base needed for survival.
 
2014-07-03 08:16:25 AM

DrPainMD: I knew a chick who was a teacher. She was glad that she wasn't, like me, in private industry, because her retirement was set in state law. I told here that that will do no good when the state runs out of money. She replied by saying, a little louder, that her retirement was set in state law!! Apparently, anybody can become a teacher.


Most State pensions are guaranteed by law. Even most Municipal pensions are (which is part of the problem in the Detroit bankruptcy).  That guarantee makes them among the very last things to get turned off in a financial crisis.

Some states are better than others in keeping the systems funded. (My former employer was one of the best).  But that said, Public Pensions lay just under U.S Government bonds in risk.
 
2014-07-03 08:26:49 AM
No retirement plan is "safe", but at least a 401(k) puts the ownership of the account in your hands, not some benevolent third-party that "promises" the money will be there when you retire.
 
2014-07-03 08:30:42 AM

ricbach229: why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.


But the much better way to do it is to promise your employees the pension, not fund it, take their labor, get promotes, collect your bonus, offshore and contract-out the subsequent employees, retire and then let the left-over shell of a company burn when it comes time for the retirees to collect.

SUCKERS

non-moochers get paid up front, biatches!
 
2014-07-03 08:37:29 AM

Notabunny: Meanwhile in California, single-payer CalPERS is doing great. Also, we're now offering public employee-style defined-benefit pensions to private sector employees. Which, you know, is smart.


Umm... no. Calpers is not doing great. It has already lead to 3 municipal bankruptcies. Why lie?
 
2014-07-03 08:40:25 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: DarkLancelot: I've worked for 3 levels of government and had a 401k at each, so for anyone starting after like 1990 that is not the case.

My mother is (thankfully) on an old contract pension system. She's a teacher going on 34 or 35 consecutive years and is one of 2 or 3 people still on the contract. The school system readjusted compensation plans in the mid-90s, but the union mandated that any existing teacher is on the system in which they joined. Every couple of years, contracts get resigned and she gets questioned on whether or not she REALLY signed the contract in the original period.

She's to the point where she is seeing kids (and very rarely grandkids) of her former early students.


They can whine about whether she "signed" all they want. ERISA says: if she's vested, she keeps it.
 
2014-07-03 08:40:26 AM

Another Government Employee: DrPainMD: I knew a chick who was a teacher. She was glad that she wasn't, like me, in private industry, because her retirement was set in state law. I told here that that will do no good when the state runs out of money. She replied by saying, a little louder, that her retirement was set in state law!! Apparently, anybody can become a teacher.

Most State pensions are guaranteed by law. Even most Municipal pensions are (which is part of the problem in the Detroit bankruptcy).  That guarantee makes them among the very last things to get turned off in a financial crisis.

Some states are better than others in keeping the systems funded. (My former employer was one of the best).  But that said, Public Pensions lay just under U.S Government bonds in risk.


Federal law trumps state law in bankruptcy. Pension holders are creditors. This is all being shown in Detroit.
 
2014-07-03 08:44:03 AM

MyRandomName: Another Government Employee: DrPainMD: I knew a chick who was a teacher. She was glad that she wasn't, like me, in private industry, because her retirement was set in state law. I told here that that will do no good when the state runs out of money. She replied by saying, a little louder, that her retirement was set in state law!! Apparently, anybody can become a teacher.

Most State pensions are guaranteed by law. Even most Municipal pensions are (which is part of the problem in the Detroit bankruptcy).  That guarantee makes them among the very last things to get turned off in a financial crisis.

Some states are better than others in keeping the systems funded. (My former employer was one of the best).  But that said, Public Pensions lay just under U.S Government bonds in risk.

Federal law trumps state law in bankruptcy. Pension holders are creditors. This is all being shown in Detroit.


The guarantee is why the Pensioners are on the Creditor's Committee and not just farked like most unsecureds.
 
2014-07-03 08:46:36 AM

MyRandomName: Notabunny: Meanwhile in California, single-payer CalPERS is doing great. Also, we're now offering public employee-style defined-benefit pensions to private sector employees. Which, you know, is smart.

Umm... no. Calpers is not doing great. It has already lead to 3 municipal bankruptcies. Why lie?


Won't be too bad if the DOW continues to perform . . . hey, wait a minute

             foolishreporter.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-07-03 08:46:37 AM

robohobo: You're a goddamned idiot to rely on anyone but yourself for your retirement. I don't understand the thinking that the people you work for, or anyone else for that matter, owes you retirement.


They owe you what the terms of your employment (among other things) say they owe you. Whether it's a company car tomorrow, a pay check next month, a bonus at the end of the year, educational opportunities later on, parental or sick leave as needed, a golden parachute when you leave, a pension after your retirement, what the fark ever.

Of course there is a chance of not actually getting a given benefit (including that pay check next month), whether because the company fails to meet its obligations or for some other reason, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot to accept those terms or to demand that the people you work for live up to their end of the deal.
 
2014-07-03 08:48:20 AM

ricbach229: Another Government Employee: ricbach229: rugman11: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Good luck convincing the Republicans in Congress to increase funding to PBGC.  They already got theirs.

I don't know that increasing government subsidies is the answer.  How about a change to bankruptcy law so that employee pension plans receive priority over shareholders.  This would give the companies incentive to get the plans back into solvency so that employees don't sue them into bankruptcy when they fall through.

why not just charge the correct amount for the insurance?  Annuities aren't cheap for a reason, if your company thinks it's the best way to get good employees then your company should have to pay for it.

Increasing the premium would speed up the demise.

Defined Benefit systems are ponzi schemes that have finally run their course.

Can't tell if you're saying that like it's a bad thing.

I'm impressed that Obama has put the rules in place that have started a slow motion shattering of both employer pensions and employer health insurance and nobody on the left seems to give a fark. I remember when McCain supported moving Insurance to a below the line deduction so that self employed people could get the tax advantages that regular employed people get and he was excoriated for it.


I'm impressed that anyone thinks Obama is a leftist.
 
2014-07-03 08:51:19 AM

GoldSpider: No retirement plan is "safe", but at least a 401(k) puts the ownership of the account in your hands, not some benevolent third-party that "promises" the money will be there when you retire.


You clearly have never had a 401(k) : unless you have the money under a mattress, it's in someone else's hands. And if you're earning any money with it, then there is a risk of loss. Ask anyone who spends thirty minutes  whining about the loss of 10% of their fund's value in one of their statements.

That's right; 401(k) accounts LOSE MONEY sometimes.

Additionally, Pensions work on two different principles:

1. Not everyone will qualify for the payout - some will work too little, some will die before collecting. As long as this is a substantial pool of the staff (>70%), you don't need to rely on ...

2. Profitable, long-term, low-yield, tax-free investment. 

#2 was particularly useful for things like municipal bond buying and funding infrastructure and development programs that would then be turned into public corporations or utilities that could pay back their initial bonds to the pensions at a rate that speculative investors would shun.

Most pension failures happen because :

A. Underfunding : Sometimes companies don't pay for their costs in the year they incur them. This can include pensions. If the company's revenue stream is impacted later, they can run into problems. Wise Executives salt away unexpected profits into their pension funds to keep annual obligations low. Bad executives try to cheat.

B. Fraud : When an executive invests in a venture that he knows is going boobies-up, he's stealing from the workers.

C. Critical Market failure : If the market is just totally wiped out, it's possible that your pension will go that way too, but having good staff working on it can help to get around this. Unfortunately, many Bankers and third party managers use the pensions (and 401(k) funds) of their less powerful clients as 'dumping grounds' used for their more powerful clients to quickly liquidate at high levels of capital preservation, sharing the 'risk' of the looming crash with more conservative institutional funds.
 
2014-07-03 08:51:30 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: They owe you what the terms of your employment (among other things) say they owe you. Whether it's a company car tomorrow, a pay check next month, a bonus at the end of the year, educational opportunities later on, parental or sick leave as needed, a golden parachute when you leave, a pension after your retirement, what the fark ever.

Of course there is a chance of not actually getting a given benefit (including that pay check next month), whether because the company fails to meet its obligations or for some other reason, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot to accept those terms or to demand that the people you work for live up to their end of the deal.


Most companies that are around today probably won't even exist when I retire, therefore it would be quite idiotic to put all of my eggs in their basket.
 
2014-07-03 08:52:38 AM
"But the pension fund was just sitting there!"
 
2014-07-03 08:54:46 AM
Man.... imagine hitting retirement age expecting to live on a nice pension that you worked all your life to build up. Just to have it yanked away from you at the last minute, when it is too late to make other plans.

That REALLY sucks.
 
2014-07-03 08:59:59 AM

BMFPitt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: They owe you what the terms of your employment (among other things) say they owe you. Whether it's a company car tomorrow, a pay check next month, a bonus at the end of the year, educational opportunities later on, parental or sick leave as needed, a golden parachute when you leave, a pension after your retirement, what the fark ever.

Of course there is a chance of not actually getting a given benefit (including that pay check next month), whether because the company fails to meet its obligations or for some other reason, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot to accept those terms or to demand that the people you work for live up to their end of the deal.

Most companies that are around today probably won't even exist when I retire, therefore it would be quite idiotic to put all of my eggs in their basket.


There are risks involved with any plan that extends decades into the future. And as far as I am aware, most pension plans do not forbid placing eggs in other baskets. But I was speaking mainly to the other poster's suggestion that no one owes you retirement.
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report