Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Ultra Millionaire Tax Proposal


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

All good points.  But the idea behind the "wealth tax" is awful.   It's punishing Americans for being successful.  Yeah their billions will still be billions agfter they get taxed by the feds, but as I said, it can be a slippery slope.  I legitimately worry about my 401K.  I can totally see some sort of tax being applied to this (above and beyond regular income taxes) when I take my $$ out because I have "too much" and some drug addict down the street doesn't.  

I get that. Taxes generally don’t decrease once put in. 

It does seem that these thresholds are very, very high. If these thresholds lower then it is time to have the discussion again. 

That many people have zero saved is going to come to a head here in the next 20 years or so in a big way. 

Taking money from ultra wealthy doesn’t fix that but if the money is spent properly it should help alleviate this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The General said:

I get that. Taxes generally don’t decrease once put in. 

It does seem that these thresholds are very, very high. If these thresholds lower then it is time to have the discussion again. 

That many people have zero saved is going to come to a head here in the next 20 years or so in a big way. 

Taking money from ultra wealthy doesn’t fix that but if the money is spent properly it should help alleviate this. 

Well first.   There is no chance, and I mean zero chance that the government will spend the money wisely.  Now that may come down to a number of reasons, many of them partisan.  But that's how it is.  Even playing off your comment about how people have zero in savings.  This is very much what I'm against.  Some yahoo doesn't save a dime, because he is a dunderhead, and now Bill Gates has to fund his bank account.  Boo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sand said:

One of the reasons I admire Bill Gates.

Comparing efficiency of government and charity is... oh man... I don't want to get booted off of here.  

We're talking about government money management.  You know, the one that has allowed some 30B of unemployment fraud in California (about 1/3 of the COVID funds).  Colorado even worse at 1/2 the money being lost to fraud.  And that's just the latest debacle.

Certainly much larger numbers and easier to track public fraud and loss since it’s public. However, there’s endless cases of charities doing the same things. No need to detail, I definitely take your point on that as quite legitimate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

"We aren't in need of charity"

Wow.  Ok.    That is a statement.

How so? The country needs investment not people throwing money at it. It’s about more than just money, it’s about a shifting mindset.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

Well first.   There is no chance, and I mean zero chance that the government will spend the money wisely.  Now that may come down to a number of reasons, many of them partisan.  But that's how it is.  Even playing off your comment about how people have zero in savings.  This is very much what I'm against.  Some yahoo doesn't save a dime, because he is a dunderhead, and now Bill Gates has to fund his bank account.  Boo.

Agree to disagree to the level of our governments ability to function. 

My point is that there may be any number of reasons why people don’t have savings or don’t make a good wage. Some of those are definitely laziness, dumb personal decisions. 

Many people though this is not the case

In the end it doesn’t really matter is what I’d argue. Having such a large portion of the population with nothing and a few with so much is not a healthy place to be as a nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

How so? The country needs investment not people throwing money at it. It’s about more than just money, it’s about a shifting mindset.

I'm sorry. I don't have the time to explain the benefits of charity and charitable organizations to you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

I'm sorry. I don't have the time to explain the benefits of charity and charitable organizations to you.  

Charity is wonderful, it’s not going to fix systemic problems though. It’s not a counter to healthcare costs, higher ed costs, wage structure, etc. I think I am going to just ignore you. I don’t care for the way you handle yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think it's constitutional and I also feel it's double taxation.  I'd rather this be addressed in the income tax code.  I realize even as a fiscal conservative we have to have some revenue component to getting the deficit/debt under control, I just don't see this working.  Several European countries have tried this as well and it failed.

It is not constitutional to tax wealth.  Butin most cases it id not double taxation as billionaires accumulate vast wealth by holding shares of their company.  Unless they cash out their shares, their wealth escapes personal income tax.  The trick would be tax the gains in their stock ownership, whether they sell or not, as income.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Charity is wonderful, it’s not going to fix systemic problems though. It’s not a counter to healthcare costs, higher ed costs, wage structure, etc. I think I am going to just ignore you. I don’t care for the way you handle yourself. 

That hurts.  Take it back

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It is not constitutional to tax wealth.  Butin most cases it id not double taxation as billionaires accumulate vast wealth by holding shares of their company.  Unless they cash out their shares, their wealth escapes personal income tax.  The trick would be tax the gains in their stock ownership, whether they sell or not, as income.  

I follow what you're saying.  I think there have been discussions here about this before.  Easy to do with publicly traded companies.  Use the value at 12/31 and you're done.  Not as easy to do if it's a privately held company and trying to determine the value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Charity is wonderful, it’s not going to fix systemic problems though. It’s not a counter to healthcare costs, higher ed costs, wage structure, etc. I think I am going to just ignore you. I don’t care for the way you handle yourself. 

Its interesting that folks think a wealth tax in lieu of charity will fix these things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

My point was solely that your description of a wealth tax as some sort of cumulative income tax was misleading, particularly with respect to the very wealthy individuals that are subject to the tax.  My perception is that the individuals subject to the tax generally obtain little of their wealth through what we normally consider income.

In saying that a wealth tax is a tax on income minus consumption and donations, I wasn't trying to take a position on how capital gains or inheritances should be taxed. But my understanding is that those things are taxed. Capital gains is part of the income tax, and there's a separate tax for inheritance. (There's also a separate payroll tax, which I'd lump in with income tax even though it's technically not.)

In any case, my point was that rich people shouldn't have all of their consumption deducted from any tax. Which is why an income tax should be clearly superior to a wealth tax, such that raising $X trillion by an income tax alone should be better than raising $X trillion through a combination of an income tax and a wealth tax.

My position is conditioned on not having the income tax (loosely defined so as to include inheritance taxes and payroll taxes, etc.) be completely crazy, but I believe that condition is currently satisfied even if there is (a lot of) room for improving it.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The General said:

Agree to disagree to the level of our governments ability to function. 

My point is that there may be any number of reasons why people don’t have savings or don’t make a good wage. Some of those are definitely laziness, dumb personal decisions. 

Many people though this is not the case

In the end it doesn’t really matter is what I’d argue. Having such a large portion of the population with nothing and a few with so much is not a healthy place to be as a nation.

I've burned thru a lot of mine because of the pandemic, was sitting pretty good for a rainy day.  Most everyone in the service industry is far worse off than me.  This year is shaping up to be another loss also.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, randall146 said:

In college I had a conversation with a friend about the NBA playoff format. I grew up with a 2-2-1-1-1 format for 7 game series, and 2-2-1 for 5 game series. They were going to change it to 2-3-2 that year, and I was strongly against that. I thought it was unfair that the lower seeded team could have a chance to win in 5 games with more home games than the higher seed. My friend didn't see the problem. Debate ensued. 

I argued that ideally all series would be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1. It seemed fundamentally undeniable to me that this was fairest. I was dumbfounded that he could disagree with this foundational point. It seemed obvious that we'd want to keep things as even as possible. That was the essence of fairness, was it not? 

He responded that equality wasn't necessarily fair.

I was with your friend until that last sentence. I think 2-3-2 is perfectly fair. (I think 4-3 would also be perfectly fair, though generally shorter and less exciting. A 3-4 format [with the lower-seeded team at home first] might maximize series length.)

It doesn't matter what order the games are played in. If the lower-seeded team wins the first five games in a 2-3-2 series, it didn't really have more home games than the higher-seeded team, IMO. The final two un-played games count as well. The higher-seeded team got its four home games; it's just that the outcome of the last two didn't matter, so consider them to have won those games by forfeit if you want. They still lose the series fair and square.

(My way of thinking applies only to the question of which team deserves the trophy. If the question is which team gets to sell more tickets, then the un-played games are no consolation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:
22 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I don't think it's constitutional and I also feel it's double taxation.  I'd rather this be addressed in the income tax code.  I realize even as a fiscal conservative we have to have some revenue component to getting the deficit/debt under control, I just don't see this working.  Several European countries have tried this as well and it failed.

It is not constitutional to tax wealth.  Butin most cases it id not double taxation as billionaires accumulate vast wealth by holding shares of their company.  Unless they cash out their shares, their wealth escapes personal income tax.  The trick would be tax the gains in their stock ownership, whether they sell or not, as income.

I think what people mean when they say that a wealth tax is double taxation is that the same wealth is taxed annually, over and over again, every year, unless and until it is given away or spent on consumption.

Let's say you start a company when you're 20, and you live to be 80. You start with 1000 shares of stock, but there's a 2% annual wealth tax, so the government takes 2% of your shares each year from the time you start the company.

By the time you're 80, you will not have 1000 shares, or even 980 shares (representing a 2% tax), but only 1000 * 0.98^60 = 298 shares. So it's effectively a 70% tax in that situation, not a 2% tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think what people mean when they say that a wealth tax is double taxation is that the same wealth is taxed annually, over and over again, ever year, unless and until it is given away or spent on consumption.

Let's say you start a company when you're 20, and you live to be 80. You start with 1000 shares of stock, but there's a 2% annual wealth tax, so the government takes 2% of your shares each year from the time you start the company.

By the time you're 80, you will not have 1000 shares, or even 980 shares (representing a 2% tax), but only 1000 * 0.98^60 = 298 shares. So it's effectively a 70% tax in that situation, not a 2% tax.

I am not sure about that.  I think most people believe that Bill Gates has been already taxed on his wealth.  If Bill Gates holds on to Microsoft stock his whole life, it will have never been hit by taxes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, supermike80 said:

But the idea behind the "wealth tax" is awful.   It's punishing Americans for being successful.

Any sensible tax will punish Americans for being successful. (Good luck raising enough revenue to fund an army by taxing only unsuccessful people.)

The main problem with a wealth tax, IMO, is that it punishes successful, gluttonous people less than it punishes successful, abstemious people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I've burned thru a lot of mine because of the pandemic, was sitting pretty good for a rainy day.  Most everyone in the service industry is far worse off than me.  This year is shaping up to be another loss also.  

That sucks man. Sorry to hear this. This #### will turn, hopefully sooner than later.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Charity is wonderful, it’s not going to fix systemic problems though. It’s not a counter to healthcare costs, higher ed costs, wage structure, etc. I think I am going to just ignore you. I don’t care for the way you handle yourself. 

Why higher ed is so expensive (think: government contributed a lot to this)

 

2 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

I follow what you're saying.  I think there have been discussions here about this before.  Easy to do with publicly traded companies.  Use the value at 12/31 and you're done.  Not as easy to do if it's a privately held company and trying to determine the value.

If this went into effect you just thought quadruple witching day on the stock market was crazy...

 

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In any case, my point was that rich people shouldn't have all of their consumption deducted from any tax. Which is why an income tax should be clearly superior to a wealth tax, such that raising $X trillion by an income tax alone should be better than raising $X trillion through a combination of an income tax and a wealth tax.

Very salient point here.

Edited by Sand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Any sensible tax will punish Americans for being successful. (Good luck raising enough revenue to fund an army by taxing only unsuccessful people.)

The main problem with a wealth tax, IMO, is that it punishes successful, gluttonous people less than it punishes successful, abstemious people.

Maybe the lesson is that we should skip the income tax and the wealth tax, and instead implement a consumption tax.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Any sensible tax will punish Americans for being successful. (Good luck raising enough revenue to fund an army by taxing only unsuccessful people.)

The main problem with a wealth tax, IMO, is that it punishes successful, gluttonous people less than it punishes successful, abstemious people.

Why are you trying to disincentivize consumption by the rich?  One of the primary benefits of the tax in my view is that it diminishes wealth inequality.*  To achieve that purpose, it seems like the best choices, in order would be:

1) The government takes the money from the wealthiest Americans and uses it for the poorest Americans.  Yay wealth tax!!

2) The wealthiest spend the money on goods and services, and some non-super rich people are the recipients of that money in the form of wages or by selling stuff to the wealthy. Unanticipated additional benefit of wealth tax!!

It seems like the absolute worst choice is for the wealthy people to just stuff all their money under their mattress.**  That doesn't help with the problem at all.

I think this is a longwinded way of saying that the reason I like the tax is the reason you dislike the tax.

 

 

*I recognize that not everyone thinks this is a worthy goal and I'm happy to discuss my thoughts on that at some point but for right now, assume that the very purpose of the law is to diminish wealth inequality. 

**Yes, I know, they would actually invest it, and that capital would benefit some non-rich people, but it would also benefit the rich guy, causing even more wealth inequality!  That might even be worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Nobody wants to take all their money. Also if they made that money in this country they took advantage of the systems we have in place to allow for such incredible wealth. It’s fair to ask they reinvest in the county and system. We are all Americans here and should be working together to help the country.

It's a great warm and fuzzy speech.  But just because you're successful doesn't mean you owe anyone a dime.  It's great and noble if you want to do it.  But your utopian thoughts don't entitle the government to anyone's money.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The General said:

Agree to disagree to the level of our governments ability to function. 

My point is that there may be any number of reasons why people don’t have savings or don’t make a good wage. Some of those are definitely laziness, dumb personal decisions. 

Many people though this is not the case

In the end it doesn’t really matter is what I’d argue. Having such a large portion of the population with nothing and a few with so much is not a healthy place to be as a nation.

And the government deciding "You have plenty, we'll take some of yours" isn't a healthy place to be either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

It's a great warm and fuzzy speech.  But just because you're successful doesn't mean you owe anyone a dime.  It's great and noble if you want to do it.  But your utopian thoughts don't entitle the government to anyone's money.  

But we already have taxes. The precedent that the government is entitled to people’s money is long established. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea for a lot of reasons.  

The government has spent a ton of money over the last 2 decades.  I don't think it's the place of the ultra wealthy to bail out our government just because they've got money in their accounts.  

I agree with a lot points raised by @Shula-holic.  Agree it's a double tax.  Agree it's difficult to determine valuations.  

If virtually all of your assets are in the market--do  you have to sell assets to pay off your wealth tax?   And then pay capital gains taxes since you realized a profit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ilov80s said:

But we already have taxes. The precedent that the government is entitled to people’s money is long established. 

Sure.  That's taking it.  That's not "it's fair to ask them to reinvest."  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jm192 said:

I don't like the idea for a lot of reasons.  

The government has spent a ton of money over the last 2 decades.  I don't think it's the place of the ultra wealthy to bail out our government just because they've got money in their accounts.  

I agree with a lot points raised by @Shula-holic.  Agree it's a double tax.  Agree it's difficult to determine valuations.  

If virtually all of your assets are in the market--do  you have to sell assets to pay off your wealth tax?   And then pay capital gains taxes since you realized a profit?

We’ve spent that money defending the county which includes their business interests and subsidizing the economy so businesses can keep making money. It’s all working together. The US bails out the banks when they hit tough times. The parties need each other and have been mostly good for each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I don't like the idea for a lot of reasons.  

The government has spent a ton of money over the last 2 decades.  I don't think it's the place of the ultra wealthy to bail out our government just because they've got money in their accounts.  

I agree with a lot points raised by @Shula-holic.  Agree it's a double tax.  Agree it's difficult to determine valuations.  

If virtually all of your assets are in the market--do  you have to sell assets to pay off your wealth tax?   And then pay capital gains taxes since you realized a profit?

Agreed, especially with how poorly our government “manages” everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Sure.  That's taking it.  That's not "it's fair to ask them to reinvest."  

 

I think you took what I said too literally. I am describing the thought process and attitude of it. We are all aware the government wouldn’t go around begging for money. They either pass taxes and take it or don’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I think you took what I said too literally. I am describing the thought process and attitude of it. We are all aware the government wouldn’t go around begging for money. They either pass taxes and take it or don’t. 

No.  The distinction very clearly matters.  It's a warm and fuzzy nice thought to post on the PSF "America helped you succeed, so you should want to reinvest in it."

"Hey, we need money and you've got a lot, so we're going to start taking it" is not so warm and fuzzy.  

 

 

Edited by jm192
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jm192 said:

No.  The distinction very clearly matters.  It's a warm and fuzzy nice thought to post on the PSF "America helped you succeed, so you should want to reinvest in it."

"Hey, we need money and you've got a lot, so we're going to start taking it" is not so warm and fuzzy.  

 

 

A matter of perspective 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jm192 said:

"You should want to give me your money" is a heck of a perspective.  

I want to invest in America and I haven’t even made that much money. If you made a billion dollars in America, I don’t get why it would be such an odd perspective? Anytime we take money from others we do do with at least an expectation of what will be provided in return is beneficial. Government taxation should be no different. Of course not everyone will buy in but it should still come with a sales pitch and a plan.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Why are you trying to disincentivize consumption by the rich?  One of the primary benefits of the tax in my view is that it diminishes wealth inequality.

Because consumption equality matters about a thousand times more than wealth equality.

Consider two people who live basically similar lives except that one of them has bigger numbers tucked away on a spreadsheet somewhere. But they drive identical cars, live in identical houses, eat the same food, etc.

Wealth matters because it's a form of security. The two guys above don't have completely identical lives because the guy with the bigger numbers can deal with unexpected bills more easily. But their lives are still roughly kind of the same in most important ways.

Now suppose one of them has a yacht, an airplane, two mansions, and routinely eats caviar while the other guy lives in a dump eating ramen. That's the kind of inequality we should be trying to prevent.

Somebody being rich isn't bad for society at all. Some rich person consuming a huge proportion of the available resources for himself is what's bad.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Somebody being rich isn't bad for society at all. Some rich person consuming a huge proportion of the available resources for himself is what's bad.

Slowing money velocity is much more harmful to society than consuming a non-scarce resource.  If some dude buys a yacht I guarantee they will build another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

Maybe the lesson is that we should skip the income tax and the wealth tax, and instead implement a consumption tax.

I think a consumption tax would be preferable if we were starting from scratch, but we're logistically already set up to collect an income tax, so it has a path-dependent advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sand said:

Slowing money velocity is much more harmful to society than consuming a non-scarce resource.  If some dude buys a yacht I guarantee they will build another.

Which means that other non-yacht stuff won't get built. Resources are finite, so everything's a tradeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Which means that other non-yacht stuff won't get built. Resources are finite, so everything's a tradeoff.

Which means that nothing will get built.  This isn't a zero sum game.

(i.e. I respectfully disagree.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Because consumption equality matters about a thousand times more than wealth equality.

Consider two people who live basically similar lives except that one of them has bigger numbers tucked away on a spreadsheet somewhere. But they drive identical cars, live in identical houses, eat the same food, etc.

Wealth matters because it's a form of security. The two guys above don't have completely identical lives because the guy with the bigger numbers can deal with unexpected bills more easily. But their lives are still roughly, kind of the same in most important ways.

Now suppose one of them has a yacht, an airplane, two mansions, and routinely eats caviar while the other guy lives in a dump eating ramen. That's the kind of inequality we should be trying to prevent.

Somebody being rich isn't bad for society at all. Some rich person consuming a huge proportion of the available resources for himself is what's bad.

I think we have different views about what makes wealth inequality bad.  For me it’s about power, not about consumption.  Even if someone doesn’t seem like they’re exercising that power at a specific time, I think it’s a problem for them to have the power in the first place.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2021 at 9:55 PM, The General said:

Seems so far that people realize that the money needs to be raised, and that the ultra rich should be where it comes from.

I guarantee that this polls highly in both parties.

Got to be a way to do this.

I would agree we need to do something. The GOP likes to keep lowering taxes for the ultra rich even if it is already much lower than years past. As you scroll down through this article watch the graph show lower and lower taxes rates for the very wealthiest throughout the last 70 years

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think a consumption tax would be preferable if we were starting from scratch, but we're logistically already set up to collect an income tax, so it has a path-dependent advantage.

While that's true in terms of the effort and political capital needed for creating policy, "that's how it's always been" is never a good argument.

Edited by Rich Conway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think we have different views about what makes wealth inequality bad.  For me it’s about power, not about consumption.  Even if someone doesn’t seem like they’re exercising that power at a specific time, I think it’s a problem for them to have the power in the first place.  

I think poverty and the concentration of political power are both bad things that we should try to reduce. Which one is more important to reduce at any given time and place will depend on the circumstances.

I don't think a wealth tax is an ideal way to reduce either one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The General said:

Taking money from ultra wealthy doesn’t fix that but if the money is spent properly it should help alleviate this. 

ultra wealthy as defined by who ?

to a person who makes minimum wage, maybe you are ultra wealthy ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I think poverty and the concentration of political power are both bad things that we should try to reduce. Which one is more important to reduce at any given time and place will depend on the circumstances.

I don't think a wealth tax is an ideal way to reduce either one.

Seems to me like this isn't an either/or kinda thing.  I think we should be adopting many different strategies to attack both of these issues, and we should pursue them all in tandem so that if one strategy fails to address the problems in the way we want, other strategies will help too.  In my judgment a wealth tax would provide help in both areas.  Whether it's the absolute best way to accomplish either of these goals doesn't seem like the right question to ask, at least to me. 

But you and I are  just very ideologically apart here and I think that's contributing to our different views.  I'm not quite the fan of capitalism that you are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Sunday I'll start a thread about that.

I meant to type someday, but I'll let autocorrect set my calendar.

If you do this, can you figure out a way to do it in bite-sized chunks over time?  If you write some long essay then I'm going to feel like I need to write a long essay in response, which will be a bummer for me and nobody will read it anyway, if I even get around to it.  My preference would be for you to write a paragraph or two, then I respond with a paragraph or two, etc.  That seems more manageable and fun and it will encourage other people to join. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...