Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

ttwtt78640 · Jun 6, 2012

TurtleDude said:
if you read the babble posted by those who constantly whine that its "unfair" to tax the investment income of the wealthy less than that of their earned income you will quickly find that economic rationality or an understanding of investment is foreign to these people. rather they are oozing envy that others have the means to invest and they want the government to take more money from those more industrious than they are

their leader set the stage when he admitted he would still want to jack up investment tax rates even if it resulted in less tax revenue because it would be "FAIR"

fair would be all the parasites paying the same rates as the rich do

The first rule for a successful parasite is do not kill or debilitate the host; taking a little bit over the long haul works better than tyring to take a lot in a hurry. The rich did not get to be rich because they were stupid. They will simply shift investments to avoid the heavier taxation. Many times in the past we had super high marginal tax rates on the rich, but found that 80% of little or nothing is not as nearly as good as 35% of something fairly big and steadily growing. The rich have no great need to increase their wealth, in the short run, simply to maintain it. This is why all of the wise economists caution against raising taxes in tough economic times, as it tends to make them even tougher.

Catawba · Jun 6, 2012

TurtleDude said:
You forgot about the Buffett Rule-an EFFECTIVE tax rate of 30%--WTF do you think that means

Where is the link for the 40% tax rate on capital gains that you claimed?

molten_dragon · Jun 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
your point fails because you think that the tax code is fair now where the rich pay more than 40% of the income and estate taxes.

Where did I say that? I think most of the current tax code is unfair, to a lot of different people, and for a lot of different reasons.

TurtleDude said:
I have no hypocrisy I have never been against paying my share of the taxes.

You are absolutely a hypocrite. And it has nothing to do with being willing or unwilling to pay your share of the taxes. It has everything to do with the way you treat people who pay less taxes than you, when you essentially want the exact same thing they want.

TurtleDude said:
which ranges for my group somewhere between 1% (based on population) or 22% of the federal income tax burden (based on share of the income.

You keep saying this, and I'm still not seeing any hard data to back it up.

TurtleDude said:
Your idiotic claim that I vilify people completely ignores the current situation.

You can continue justifying your behavior and lashing out by calling me an idiot as much as you want, but all that tells me is that I've hit close to home. You know you're a hypocrite or you wouldn't be so pissed about me calling you one. And I'll stop when you stop the hypocrisy.

DA60 · Jun 7, 2012

I think the rich pay too much income tax and not enough capital gains tax.

No one should be punished for being successful.

I believe there should be one tax rate for everything (capital gains and income) and all amounts; outside of maybe no taxation for those under a certain amount.
I also think there should be no deductions except for charitable contributions.

MoSurveyor · Jun 7, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
And those changes, while unpredictable are still different than gambling.
"Investing" in a number, horse, dog, lottery ticket, is different from investing in an ownership interest in a business.

You keep saying that without showing it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Your "investments" in those gambling activities, do not produce value added, products or services.

Tell that to the casinos in Las Vegas.

To both quotes:
Sorry, when Steve sells 2000 shares of IBM stock to Bill the only one getting money from the deal is the stock broker and maybe Steve. IBM doesn't make a dime. There is no 'value added' anything, at least not anymore than there is from any other form of gambling activity.

I will give you that IBM stock will yield dividends but that's not really any different than putting money in a savings account or credit union, is it? Credit union deposits actually buy 'shares' in the credit union - but there are no tax breaks there. Why is that?

Harry Guerrilla said:
What does the horse produce?

Natural gas - which is still more than that IBM stock deal produced.

Harry Guerrilla said:
There aren't, but that's likely because the number of uninsured banks is hardly present.

I'm sure it's based on the idea that the government doesn't want uninsured banks and thus, they do not encourage this economic activity.

OK, so you're saying we give up tax revenue to encourage investment in certain areas? But most of the tax revenue we lose doesn't even go into the 'real' investments that go to businesses for expansion. They go into letting Steve and Bill keep more interest from their savings accounts - er, "dividends from stocks". For the betting side of Wall St, which is to say stocks that increase in value instead of paying dividends, the tax breaks only fuel exchanges of these stocks because nothing gets sold unless someone else is buying. There's still nothing added here and the only ones making money are the casino's - er, "brokerage houses and stock brokers".

If you would like to show some way to separate income from the savings accounts (dividend stocks) and lottery tickets (growth stocks) from the real investment stocks - newly released issuance's for expansion - then we might have something to talk about. Frankly, I thought most of that was accomplished through bonds but I could be wrong. It's been awhile since I really followed the market closely.

longview · Jun 7, 2012

I think the rich pay enough, it is the poor who should pay some.
People need to have some skin in the game.
People just don't value anything they don't pay for.

TurtleDude · Jun 7, 2012

molten_dragon said:
Where did I say that? I think most of the current tax code is unfair, to a lot of different people, and for a lot of different reasons.

You are absolutely a hypocrite. And it has nothing to do with being willing or unwilling to pay your share of the taxes. It has everything to do with the way you treat people who pay less taxes than you, when you essentially want the exact same thing they want.

You keep saying this, and I'm still not seeing any hard data to back it up.

You can continue justifying your behavior and lashing out by calling me an idiot as much as you want, but all that tells me is that I've hit close to home. You know you're a hypocrite or you wouldn't be so pissed about me calling you one. And I'll stop when you stop the hypocrisy.

your idiotic rant has no merit because I pay far more than my share and I am merely demanding that those who do not pay their share do so.

That you are ignorant of the fact that the top one percent make 22% of the icome but pay over 40% of the income and estate taxes (39.5% of the FIT and almost ALL the death tax) is not my fault. That has been posted hundreds of times on this board.

I am not calling you an idiot-merely noted you have uttered idiotic claims and its not hypocrisy for someone who pays too much based on objective factors to demand others pay more.

objective factors.

1) divide the government spending by each citizen-that is the individual share of the government spending. I pay far more than that number which I have seen listed as around 15,000 a year

2) the cohort I am in-the top one percent, pays almost 40% of the income tax. it makes 22% of the income. NO OTHER PERCENTILE pays more of the income tax burden than its share of the income. Objectively, "fair" would be the people who make 22% of the income pay 22% of the income tax. My group pays almost the entire death/estate tax. We aren't the only group that bequeaths wealth

longview · Jun 7, 2012

Sometimes it helps to use the absurd as a paintbrush to create an image.
Universities use something called (Full Time Equivalent) FTE to calculate how many classes
need instructors. I think we stated above that the Average cost of government is $12k.
So $12 K in taxes are one FTE taxpayer, each FTE taxpayer get one vote.
If you don't pay $12K in taxes, you have to team up with several folks who agree with you
until the group gets above one FTE, then the group gets one vote.
The FTE is derived by the cost of government divided by the population.
( before all of the flames, this is sort of how we elect our Representatives.)

OscarB63 · Jun 7, 2012

longview said:
People just don't value anything they don't pay for.

just take a drive through any govt housing project. graffiti and trash everywhere, doors hang off hinges, screens torn or missing, holes in the walls, etc. The residents don't take care of the place because they have no investment in it.

when you don't have to actually work to pay for things, you tend to take them for granted

MoSurveyor · Jun 7, 2012

OscarB63 said:
just take a drive through any govt housing project. graffiti and trash everywhere, doors hang off hinges, screens torn or missing, holes in the walls, etc. The residents don't take care of the place because they have no investment in it.

Because, of course, these sub-humans WANT to live in a place with holes in the walls and doors off hinges. It has nothing to do with gangs and street violence. It has nothing to do with the few people in these complexes that really don't care because they're addicted to some substance. No, ALL of them are sub-humans who want nothing better in their lives.

OscarB63 said:
when you don't have to actually work to pay for things, you tend to take them for granted

Does this mean you're offering all of them a job so they can pay to live in a dump that the landlord won't repair?

And where, exactly, will these jobs come from when there aren't even enough jobs for "normal" humans?
Or did another 4% of the population just over-night become sub-human because of economic disaster?

OscarB63 · Jun 7, 2012

mindless hyperbole duely noted

MoSurveyor said:
Does this mean you're offering all of them a job so they can pay to live in a dump that the landlord won't repair?

that's the point you are missing. the landlord (aka uncle sam) does repair it....they just trash it again

DA60 · Jun 7, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Because, of course, these sub-humans WANT to live in a place with holes in the walls and doors off hinges. It has nothing to do with gangs and street violence. It has nothing to do with the few people in these complexes that really don't care because they're addicted to some substance. No, ALL of them are sub-humans who want nothing better in their lives.

Does this mean you're offering all of them a job so they can pay to live in a dump that the landlord won't repair?

And where, exactly, will these jobs come from when there aren't even enough jobs for "normal" humans?
Or did another 4% of the population just over-night become sub-human because of economic disaster?

The government, imo, owes them basic shelter, food, clothing, basic medical/dental care (extensive medical/dental care if they are under 18) and nothing else.

If they cannot find a job - tough.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 7, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
Because, of course, these sub-humans WANT to live in a place with holes in the walls and doors off hinges. It has nothing to do with gangs and street violence. It has nothing to do with the few people in these complexes that really don't care because they're addicted to some substance. No, ALL of them are sub-humans who want nothing better in their lives.

Does this mean you're offering all of them a job so they can pay to live in a dump that the landlord won't repair?

And where, exactly, will these jobs come from when there aren't even enough jobs for "normal" humans?
Or did another 4% of the population just over-night become sub-human because of economic disaster?

The trashing of public housing is not done by 3 or 4 folks sneaking around in the dark, these perps are KNOWN but the attitude is "it not my place to mess wiff tyrone, he be one dangerous dude". What causes this "decay" is that NOBODY will stop it, because there is no way TO stop it. Say that you report the vandals to your local LEO, they actually make an arrest and it goes to court - what REALLY happens?

First the vandals are released pending trial and will attempt to find out who "snitched", making that reporting of the crime a very bad move if you are discovered. Second, you MUST show-up at trial to be a state witness in order to get a conviction, so you know that you can not remain anonymous and the vandal and/or their "crew" will exact revenge. Third, even if convicted the vandal will get no more "punishment" than possibly being made to over paint their "gang signs" or do some meaningless "public service" work that requires massive overhead in paperwork and supervision costs far out-weighing any real benefit.

Short of using the witness protection program, the "code of the hood" makes any attempt at controling these animals impossible. We just keep rebuilding and repairing the slums and letting them get torn up again, as it keeps the gov't liberals employed, the slum residents "in their place" and the "do gooders" convinced that they are "compassionate helpers of the poor" while wasting tax money but getting nowhere. So you may ask, what else can be done?

I would say that we need the "poor house", a public "family" shelter run as a basic minimum security work release "prison", providing food, clothing and shelter, but with MANY strings. You get out only for work/job training, anything you earn is "taxed" by the poor house to help provide child care and other services, but many of these services can become JOBS (with decent pay) for the residents as well. Once the "family" is employed, has saved up some "new start money" and can reasonably be expected to "make it" they are 'released' to make a new start OUTSIDE of the slum, in a regular town, part of the city or country that has no need for knowledge of their past slum life. They are simply the "new family" from "wherever" and may become part of general, productive society with dignity, self worth and pride that they "made it".

MoSurveyor · Jun 7, 2012

DA60 said:
The government, imo, owes them basic shelter, food, clothing, basic medical/dental care (extensive medical/dental care if they are under 18) and nothing else.

If they cannot find a job - tough.

I have no problem with that - up to a point. The government must also provide an environment where jobs are available to be had. Whether these people get them and keep them is not the same topic/discussion. Blaming people (de-humanizing them) for being out of work when there are more people than jobs is idiotic to say the least. "Get a job!" has no meaning if there is no job to get.

DA60 · Jun 7, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I have no problem with that - up to a point. The government must also provide an environment where jobs are available to be had. Whether these people get them and keep them is not the same topic/discussion. Blaming people (de-humanizing them) for being out of work when there are more people than jobs is idiotic to say the least. "Get a job!" has no meaning if there is no job to get.

Where exactly did I type that I was 'blaming' them?

The answer is 'no where'.

I did not because I do not.

The government's job (imo) is to enforce the law, protect the nation (military), look after those that cannot look after themselves (as I detailed above), provide health and safety guidelines and collect enough taxes to do that...and pretty much NOTHING else.

Creating jobs is 100% up to the private sector...not the government.

The private sector is called that for a reason...it's 'private'...NOTHING to do with government (so long as they stay within the law)...which is 'public'.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 7, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I have no problem with that - up to a point. The government must also provide an environment where jobs are available to be had. Whether these people get them and keep them is not the same topic/discussion. Blaming people (de-humanizing them) for being out of work when there are more people than jobs is idiotic to say the least. "Get a job!" has no meaning if there is no job to get.

There ARE jobs to get. They just might not be in your "field of expertise" or in your town. Far too many will neither get nor take advantage of any real help, they want to stay in place make no effort to improve, they just want a check or a reward for failure. We have no programs that really work. Some only need very minor help to get "back on their feet", while others are true basket cases, addicted lowlife, morons that have no desire to do anything other than party and breed, currently these "lowlife" folks actually get MORE gov't help. Try to go to the state employment office and get them to give you a cheap car/truck to get to work in (and two months rent money), they laugh at you, saying we don't have that kind of program. You ask not even for two months? You can even offer to pay 10% of your earnings as payment for it, they may cancel and repo the ride if you don't, but they say sorry we don't do that. Ask what job training they have, and how you can survive until you get a job, they say we don't have that kind of program (unless you have a dependent child). But have a kid, even out-of-wedlock, and all of a sudden you get a house, food, clothing allowance, medical care and untold rewards with NO requirements that you do ANYTHING except "promise to try". That is insane!

OscarB63 · Jun 7, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
There ARE jobs to get. They just might not be in your "field of expertise" or in your town. Far too many will neither get nor take advantage of any real help, they want to stay in place make no effort to improve, they just want a check or a reward for failure. We have no programs that really work. Some only need very minor help to get "back on their feet", while others are true basket cases, addicted lowlife, morons that have no desire to do anything other than party and breed, currently these "lowlife" folks actually get MORE gov't help. Try to go to the state employment office and get them to give you a cheap car/truck to get to work in (and two months rent money), they laugh at you, saying we don't have that kind of program. You ask not even for two months? You can even offer to pay 10% of your earnings as payment for it, they may cancel and repo the ride if you don't, but they say sorry we don't do that. Ask what job training they have, and how you can survive until you get a job, they say we don't have that kind of program (unless you have a dependent child). But have a kid, even out-of-wedlock, and all of a sudden you get a house, food, clothing allowance, medical care and untold rewards with NO requirements that you do ANYTHING except "promise to try". That is insane!

one of the big problems is that for many of the career welfare recipients, they get more $$$$ living off welfare than they could make working because they have no skills, education or training.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 7, 2012

OscarB63 said:
one of the big problems is that for many of the career welfare recipients, they get more $$$$ living off welfare than they could make working because they have no skills, education or training.

I agree. The "system" is set up to reward failure but makes, as a primary prerequisite, only those having a child be rewarded. That is insane, the last thing a destitute, uneducated moron needs is a child to raise, yet many programs make that insane move, step ONE. Even the NAME of the program AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) makes that crystal clear. We, the sheeple, fund and offer free K-12 public education yet make completing it an OPTION to get public assistance, yet seem to make having a child MANDATORY.

OscarB63 · Jun 7, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
I agree. The "system" is set up to reward failure, but has, as a primary prerequisite a child. That is insane, the last thing a destitute, uneducated moron needs is a child to raise, yet many programs make that insane move, step ONE. Even the NAME of the program AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children) makes that crystal clear. We, the sheeple, fund and offer free K-12 public education yet make completing it an OPTION to get public assistance, yet seem to make having a child MANDATORY.

when I was teaching public school, I ran across several 17-18 year old 9th graders who were only staying in school because as long as they were in school momma got a check for them until they turned 19

MoSurveyor · Jun 7, 2012

DA60 said:
Where exactly did I type that I was 'blaming' them?
The answer is 'no where'.
I did not because I do not.

I did not mean to imply that YOU specifically were "blaming them" for being jobless.

DA60 said:
The government's job (imo) is to enforce the law, protect the nation (military), look after those that cannot look after themselves (as I detailed above), provide health and safety guidelines and collect enough taxes to do that...and pretty much NOTHING else.

Creating jobs is 100% up to the private sector...not the government.
The private sector is called that for a reason...it's 'private'...NOTHING to do with government (so long as they stay within the law)...which is 'public'.

To use your form of rebuttal:

Where exactly did I type that I thought the government had to provide jobs?

The answer is 'no where'.

I did not because I do not.

Now, back to my normal programming:
All I said was that government needed to provide an environment where jobs are available. That is not the same as saying the government has to provide jobs. Providing financial assistance to the small business community is one way government creates a good environment for job creation. Dampening economic swings is another way to help provide a stable job market.

And of course it has something to do with government since government regulates business.

PirateMk1 · Jun 7, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
The trashing of public housing is not done by 3 or 4 folks sneaking around in the dark, these perps are KNOWN but the attitude is "it not my place to mess wiff tyrone, he be one dangerous dude". What causes this "decay" is that NOBODY will stop it, because there is no way TO stop it. Say that you report the vandals to your local LEO, they actually make an arrest and it goes to court - what REALLY happens?

First the vandals are released pending trial and will attempt to find out who "snitched", making that reporting of the crime a very bad move if you are discovered. Second, you MUST show-up at trial to be a state witness in order to get a conviction, so you know that you can not remain anonymous and the vandal and/or their "crew" will exact revenge. Third, even if convicted the vandal will get no more "punishment" than possibly being made to over paint their "gang signs" or do some meaningless "public service" work that requires massive overhead in paperwork and supervision costs far out-weighing any real benefit.

Short of using the witness protection program, the "code of the hood" makes any attempt at controling these animals impossible. We just keep rebuilding and repairing the slums and letting them get torn up again, as it keeps the gov't liberals employed, the slum residents "in their place" and the "do gooders" convinced that they are "compassionate helpers of the poor" while wasting tax money but getting nowhere. So you may ask, what else can be done?

I would say that we need the "poor house", a public "family" shelter run as a basic minimum security work release "prison", providing food, clothing and shelter, but with MANY strings. You get out only for work/job training, anything you earn is "taxed" by the poor house to help provide child care and other services, but many of these services can become JOBS (with decent pay) for the residents as well. Once the "family" is employed, has saved up some "new start money" and can reasonably be expected to "make it" they are 'released' to make a new start OUTSIDE of the slum, in a regular town, part of the city or country that has no need for knowledge of their past slum life. They are simply the "new family" from "wherever" and may become part of general, productive society with dignity, self worth and pride that they "made it".

That is a proposal I hope will never happen. Just a quick scan of it reveals a plan that can be abused and badly. I wouldnt want any part of it. This plan is a fast track for the return of indentured servitude, a nice term for slavery. Sorry but you might want to reconsider.

OscarB63 · Jun 7, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
That is a proposal I hope will never happen. Just a quick scan of it reveals a plan that can be abused and badly. I wouldnt want any part of it. This plan is a fast track for the return of indentured servitude, a nice term for slavery. Sorry but you might want to reconsider.

but aren't they basically slaves of the govt now? if they don't do what uncle sam tells them to, he cuts off their check and foodstamps.

DA60 · Jun 7, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
I did not mean to imply that YOU specifically were "blaming them" for being jobless.
To use your form of rebuttal:

Where exactly did I type that I thought the government had to provide jobs?

The answer is 'no where'.

I did not because I do not.

Now, back to my normal programming:
All I said was that government needed to provide an environment where jobs are available. That is not the same as saying the government has to provide jobs. Providing financial assistance to the small business community is one way government creates a good environment for job creation. Dampening economic swings is another way to help provide a stable job market.

And of course it has something to do with government since government regulates business.

My mistake if I assumed wrong.

The government should have NOTHING to do with the economy at ALL.

You say they should 'dampen economic swings'.

No, they should not - that is exactly why this recession keeps going and going.

Recessions are good for the economy - they are critical to the free market process.

They are painful but EXTREMELY necessary.

Recessions happen (usually) when an economy overheats - when prices get to high (like in real estate in '08 and stocks in the dot.com crash).

Recessions force those markets back to where they should be.

Once that occurs - then the economy can start to grow again.

Look at the housing market - it is still falling despite all the massive government attempts to stop it with trillions of stimuli and record low interest rates.

But their attempts are EXACTLY why the market refuses to bottom out - the government won't let it.

If the government/Fed had just left the housing market alone, housing prices would have (imo) bottomed out and started going back up again years ago.

But because they have not - millions of families have to suffer far longer then they would have had the government just let market forces work as they should.

This is basic, common sense in economics.

This notion that Keynesians (not that I am saying you are one) have that economies can have all the gain of a boom with little of the pain of a recession through massive spending is silly, wrong and illogical AND has proven by history to be dead wrong (just look at the 1920/21 Depression and the Great Depression for proof).

Also - governments should NEVER provide economic assistance to ANY companies.

If the company is properly run and has a product and/or service that is needed - it WILL almost certainly succeed without ANY government help.

If it is not - it SHOULD fail.

And to help one company at the expense of another is wrong.

Either you give the same amount of money to all businesses (on a per capita basis) - which I TOTALLY disagree with, but at least it is fair.

Or you give zero money to all businesses and let the market decide who survives and who dies (business-wise).

molten_dragon · Jun 7, 2012

TurtleDude said:
your idiotic rant has no merit

I'm not the one ranting here TD.

TurtleDude said:
because I pay far more than my share and I am merely demanding that those who do not pay their share do so.

You are demanding others pay more taxes so that you can pay less. Justify it however you like.

TurtleDude said:
That you are ignorant of the fact that the top one percent make 22% of the icome but pay over 40% of the income and estate taxes (39.5% of the FIT and almost ALL the death tax) is not my fault. That has been posted hundreds of times on this board.

I'm not ignorant of the fact. I read your posts. I question the data because I've never seen a source for it. The fact that you repeatedly post it means nothing in terms of the its accuracy.

TurtleDude said:
I am not calling you an idiot-merely noted you have uttered idiotic claims

You're splitting hairs here.

TurtleDude said:
and its not hypocrisy for someone who pays too much based on objective factors to demand others pay more.

When you frequently rage at people and go into rant mode at a moment's notice because they want you to pay more taxes so that they can pay less, you are absolutely a hypocrite for asking the exact same thing of them. It's not the wanting them to pay more so you can pay less that makes you a hypocrite, it's the way you react to them wanting the exact same thing.

TurtleDude said:
objective factors.

1) divide the government spending by each citizen-that is the individual share of the government spending. I pay far more than that number which I have seen listed as around 15,000 a year

2) the cohort I am in-the top one percent, pays almost 40% of the income tax. it makes 22% of the income. NO OTHER PERCENTILE pays more of the income tax burden than its share of the income. Objectively, "fair" would be the people who make 22% of the income pay 22% of the income tax. My group pays almost the entire death/estate tax. We aren't the only group that bequeaths wealth

Utterly meaningless until you post a source for the data.

TurtleDude · Jun 7, 2012

molten_dragon said:
I'm not the one ranting here TD.

You are demanding others pay more taxes so that you can pay less. Justify it however you like.

I'm not ignorant of the fact. I read your posts. I question the data because I've never seen a source for it. The fact that you repeatedly post it means nothing in terms of the its accuracy.

You're splitting hairs here.

When you frequently rage at people and go into rant mode at a moment's notice because they want you to pay more taxes so that they can pay less, you are absolutely a hypocrite for asking the exact same thing of them. It's not the wanting them to pay more so you can pay less that makes you a hypocrite, it's the way you react to them wanting the exact same thing.

Utterly meaningless until you post a source for the data.

you continue to persist in the stubborn assumption that what the rich pay now is fair and any attempt by the rich to actually pay what is truly fair is wrong

I want the government to massively cut spending so all taxes go down but if people like you continue to demand mucho government, then people like me shouldn't pay more

I find it idiotic that you think those who are overtaxed demanding others at least pay more for what they use is no different than those who don't pay their share demanding others pay even more

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Yes

No

Sometimes wrong

Disappointed Evolutionist

Anti-Hypocrite

warrior of the wetlands

Farts in Elevators

Farts in Elevators

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Farts in Elevators

Sometimes wrong

Farts in Elevators

Farts in Elevators

Anti-Hypocrite

warrior of the wetlands