Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
RavenHawk

Taxing the Rich

226 posts in this topic

No it's not "completely different" than what I said and in fact it's NO different than what I said AT ALL. Nitpicking is sometimes useful, but not this time when it's for no reason at all. Means and medians are common ways of expressing percentage increases in prices, including housing prices in California the past year. I didn't say that it was AT LEAST 19.3%. I didn't say that only the most expensive homes were up 19.3%. I didn't say that the cheapest homes were up 19.3%. I said HOUSING was up 19.3% and that is a fact, medians or no medians.

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%

Wrong, I do have an idea of what you know and think because I read what you post.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?

You think it's decent? What's decent about hiding the true costs that people have to pay in this country? It's deceptive as hell. It's a BS number that means nothing. It's a number that bureaucrats use like a whip to push their pathetic policies on us and you're defending it. Not impressed.

Do feel free to publish your own inflation figure and petition the government to use it, then.

Obviously - if it's anywhere near as accurate as your 19.3% figure - best of luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?

Do feel free to publish your own inflation figure and petition the government to use it, then.

Obviously - if it's anywhere near as accurate as your 19.3% figure - best of luck with that.

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%

What are you talking about? Housing prices are up 19.3% in California in one year alone. I'm not misstating anything. You are deliberately obfuscating and dishonestly at that. Someone has trained you well to play semantics to deny every instance of inflation ever brought to your attention. Do you need it read verbatim from the article to include all the little booberries like "median" and then accept it? No, you can't even accept the article. You can't accept that housing prices are up 19.3% in one year.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?

Can you follow a discussion? Again, the government hides the true increases of the costs we must pay for and then admits it. Why do you even ask me to provide evidence for this when the government admits it? It's not accurate at all. How sheltered from living are you? Do you buy gasoline? You do have electricity? Here we go again with mommy's basement because there's no way you're as immune to inflation as you claim you are and even if you are, that's your personal pedestal not any reflection of reality. Do we need to revisit the same discussions ad nauseum or can we acknowledge that inflation is much higher than what's "reported" by the money controllers down at the bureau if we include what's excluded?

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet - not a single house has risen in price by 19.3%

What are you talking about? Housing prices are up 19.3% in California in one year alone. I'm not misstating anything. You are deliberately obfuscating and dishonestly at that. Someone has trained you well to play semantics to deny every instance of inflation ever brought to your attention.

No. Housing prices are not up by 19.3%.

The average price that a house sold for is up 19.3% because many, many expensive houses have been sold, and not so many cheaper houses.

The average house price rise in Los Angeles, for example - the physical change in the year to year value of someone's property, on average, rose just over 4%.

If you can't appreciate the difference between the two - then I really don't know what to tell you.

Wonderful. Perhaps you could show where I've previously written about me knowing "plenty of the sort when the government excludes the costs and admits" then?

Can you follow a discussion? Again, the government hides the true increases of the costs we must pay for and then admits it. Why do you even ask me to provide evidence for this when the government admits it? It's not accurate at all. How sheltered from living are you? Do you buy gasoline? You do have electricity? Here we go again with mommy's basement because there's no way you're as immune to inflation as you claim you are and even if you are, that's your personal pedestal not any reflection of reality. Do we need to revisit the same discussions ad nauseum because of dementia or can we acknowledge that inflation is much higher than what's "reported" if we include what's excluded?

Gasoline and Electricity prices are currently included in the CPI used by the Federal Reserve. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing prices are up in California 2.1% in one month. I won't extrapolate that monthly rate linearly for 12 months because then I'd be taking liberties not calculated in the article already like the 19.3% figure.

Has Ben Bernanke ever visited a gas station or a grocery store when he's pushing his laughable inflation numbers? Maybe he did and that's why he's excluding these prices from the price index.

Other than promoting the Fed's ponzi scheme and duping people into accepting it, what possible purpose does excluding the most critical and important costs we have to pay for our survival serve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Housing prices are not up by 19.3%.

The average price that a house sold for is up 19.3% because many, many expensive houses have been sold, and not so many cheaper houses.

The average house price rise in Los Angeles, for example - the physical change in the year to year value of someone's property, on average, rose just over 4%.

If you can't appreciate the difference between the two - then I really don't know what to tell you.

Gasoline and Electricity prices are included in the CPI used by the Federal Reserve. Perhaps you didn't get the memo.

BS.

The median price of all houses and condos sold in the Golden State was $291,000 last month, up 2.1% from October and 19.3% from $244,000 in November 2011.

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-california-home-sales-20121213,0,5057854.story?track=rss

Housing prices are up 19.3%. Get a grip.

Show me this memo where the core CPI used by hero Bernanke doesn't exclude food and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS.

The median price of all houses and condos sold in the Golden State was $291,000 last month, up 2.1% from October and 19.3% from $244,000 in November 2011.

http://www.latimes.c...story?track=rss

Housing prices are up 19.3%. Get a grip.

And again - from your source:

"He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

You'll note that I quoted that to you earlier. Not to mention linked you exactly the same article.

Perhaps you should go and look up the word "Median" and think about it for a bit.

Show me this memo where the core CPI used by hero Bernanke doesn't exclude food and energy.

"The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy, and hence the Committee has the ability to specify a longer-run goal for inflation. The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate targets"

Et voila - and here's some press reaction to it, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again - from your source:

"He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

You'll note that I quoted that to you earlier. Not to mention linked you exactly the same article.

Perhaps you should go and look up the word "Median" and think about it for a bit.

"The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy, and hence the Committee has the ability to specify a longer-run goal for inflation. The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate targets"

Et voila - and here's some press reaction to it, too.

"Determined by monetary policy"; they got that right. And what horrid monetary policy it is, giving that Committee the ability to specify long range goals for inflation. This isn't the government's job; to control prices. That's the market's job. Our fabulous price controllers from Washington are a poison that wipes out the middle class and hurts the poor the most. Can you not see your position always favors the earliest recipient of the capital and punishes the latest? I do not accept the rich and powerful mortgaging the future of this country on the backs of our children and the poor by feeding the spenders of today, just so we can juice these holy numbers from the government like the GDP and CPI.

But what you quoted isn't a memo that Ben Bernanke is now including food and energy. Look up the definition of the core CPI and that's how he warms the elite circle of money fixers in the committee. Prices for food and energy would be a lot less volatile if the government got its maws out of both of them. How convenient that a problem that government causes is also the excuse to cause more of it, now just in other sectors of the economy.

Aggregate indexes should be as inclusive as possible in order to be as accurate as possible. When I tell you that housing prices are up 19.3% in California last year, that must include all of it, or else the number is horribly inaccurate. That's the game we play with the CPI and it's shameful.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it's a median, that's why I'm able to accurately say that housing prices in California are up 19.3% in the past year. I prefer the mean myself, but the median is equally as good.

The way one knows whether prices of something have gone up is by what that thing is selling for. The sales price is the best predictor. Based on actual sales, prices are up 19.3%.

Your digression into property values in LA going up 4% are statistical predictions made from the activity in the housing market, the prices at which properties are sold and leased for, or at least they're expected to sell and lease for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Determined by monetary policy"; they got that right. And what horrid monetary policy it is, giving that Committee the ability to specify long range goals for inflation. This isn't the government's job; to control prices. That's the market's job. Our fabulous price controllers from Washington are a poison that wipes out the middle class and hurts the poor the most. Can you not see your position always favors the earliest recipient of the capital and punishes the latest? I do not accept the rich and powerful mortgaging the future of this country on the backs of our children and the poor by feeding the spenders of today, just so we can juice these holy numbers from the government like the GDP and CPI.

But what you quoted isn't a memo that Ben Bernanke is now including food and energy. Look up the definition of the core CPI and that's how he warms the elite circle of money fixers in the committee. Prices for food and energy would be a lot less volatile if the government got its maws out of both of them. How convenient that a problem that government causes is also the excuse to cause more of it, now just in other sectors of the economy.

And again. As per the Memo - "as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures".

They're not using core CPI any more.

Of course it's a median, that's why I'm able to accurately say that housing prices in California are up 19.3% in the past year. I prefer the mean myself, but the median is equally as good.

The way one knows whether prices of something have gone up is by what that thing is selling for. The sales price is the best predictor. Based on actual sales, prices are up 19.3%.

Your digression into property values in LA going up 4% are statistical predictions made from the activity in the housing market, the prices at which properties are sold and leased for, or at least they're expected to sell and lease for.

Once upon a time, there were three little pigs, who owned a straw house, a wood house and a brick house.

The little pig who had bought a straw house bought it last year for $1,000. He sold it this year for $1,000.

The little pig who bought a wood house bought it two years ago for $10,000. He sold it this year for $10,000.

The little pig who bought a brick house bought it three years ago for $10 Squillion. He sold it this year for $10 Squillion.

And thus - the median prices of house sold went up 1,000% from last year.

Because last year, only one house sold, and it sold for $1,000.

This year, all three houses sold. The median value of those houses was $10,000.

Because that's the price of the house in the middle.

And so - in Yamato world, house prices have now gone up 1,000%.

Even though not a single one of those houses have actually changed in value.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK tried tax hikes on the rich and it produced LESS tax revenue. Maybe we should do the same and expect a different result.

I've read several articles where Famous French Celebrities are moving to Belgium and Switzerland, to escape escalating taxes in France on the Rich. The French press has been Booing them as un-patriotic, greedy and selfish. But, it is happening.

I agree it did not work for the British. Time will shortly tell if it will work for the French.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/25/world/la-fg-europe-wealthy-tax-20121026

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again. As per the Memo - "as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures".

They're not using core CPI any more.

Once upon a time, there were three little pigs, who owned a straw house, a wood house and a brick house.

The little pig who had bought a straw house bought it last year for $1,000. He sold it this year for $1,000.

The little pig who bought a wood house bought it two years ago for $10,000. He sold it this year for $10,000.

The little pig who bought a brick house bought it three years ago for $10 Squillion. He sold it this year for $10 Squillion.

And thus - the median prices of house sold went up 1,000% from last year.

Because last year, only one house sold, and it sold for $1,000.

This year, all three houses sold. The median value of those houses was $10,000.

Because that's the price of the house in the middle.

And so - in Yamato world, house prices have now gone up 1,000%.

Even though not a single one of those houses have actually changed in value.

No, in my world the data set is larger than three, and the obfuscation continues when you're now telling me that only three houses sold in the state of California last year for your reply to have any bearing on reality Unless the housing market is incalculably worse than I thought it was. Further still, I said I preferred the mean over the median, which would have prevented your little piggie parable from having any inaccuracy in its result, even with an unrealistic sample size of three.

If you want to play this class warfare game to defend inflation and only wind up hurting the poor the most, if you're really this insulated from cost of living increases, if you want to make pretend with no evidence that the housing data I just provided is somehow due to a few very rich people selling very expensive houses to other very richer people, if you're so obedient to the powerful few who control you and tell you what your money should be worth, and what housing prices should be, while ignoring the central costs that the poor pay the most, that you can't even acknowledge inflation that your government doesn't want you to while you're supporting self-destructive monetary policy, I don't know how to help you. I could recommend some Econ books so you won't have to tell me what no economist absolutely-ever said again, but I fear you won't understand it if you can't even get a layman news article about prices right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in my world the data set is larger than three, and the obfuscation continues when you're now telling me that only three houses sold in the state of California last year for your reply to have any bearing on reality Unless the housing market is incalculably worse than I thought it was.

Yes, Yamato. What I'm telling you is only three houses sold in California last year, all of which were previously owned by pigs.

Or, perhaps - I'm just showing you a simplified example of why changes in the Median house price and inflation are two entirely different things.

Further still, I said I preferred the mean over the median, which would have prevented your little piggie parable from having any inaccuracy in its result, even with an unrealistic sample size of three.

Ah, I see. So - in Yamato world, using the mean average - where we total all of the sales and divide by the number of sales made - house prices would only have gone up by 3.3 Squillion x 10-1 percent.

Wonderful.

if you want to make pretend with no evidence that the housing data I just provided is somehow due to a few very rich people selling very expensive houses to other very richer people,

Yes. I have absolutely no evidence, apart from that sentence I keep continually quoting to you from the very same article:

"He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

This "increased sales of high-end homes". By George - It's almost as if very rich people are selling very expensive houses to other very rich people, isn't it?

Thank God it's not a big factor in the rising median price, right?

Because if there were - it would skew the results and make them look higher than the indexes that track the actual difference in changes in house price for a given house.

if you're so obedient to the powerful few who control you and tell you what your money should be worth, and what housing prices should be, while ignoring the central costs that the poor pay the most, that you can't even acknowledge inflation that your government doesn't want you to while you're supporting self-destructive monetary policy, I don't know how to help you. I could recommend some Econ books so you won't have to tell me what no economist absolutely-ever said again, but I fear you won't understand it if you can't even get a layman news article about prices right.

I think I can safely say that you're quite possibly the last person in the Universe who I'd ever ask to recommend me some Econ books.

Since we've apparently reached the Ad Hominem stage of the conversation - as usual - our conversation is over.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There two opposing parties are getting closer to reaching an agreement. Dems want to raise taxes on anyone making over 400k a year...Rep have thrown out a figure today. Increase taxes for those making more then 1mil a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Surprisingly, it seems BOTH Obama and the Republicans are actually working toward compromise. We haven't seen this level of compromise in Obama's Administation.... ever?? Maybe he's going to go all "Clinton" on us and actually turn into a President that will do the work of the People.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Yamato. What I'm telling you is only three houses sold in California last year, all of which were previously owned by pigs.

Or, perhaps - I'm just showing you a simplified example of why changes in the Median house price and inflation are two entirely different things.

Ah, I see. So - in Yamato world, using the mean average - where we total all of the sales and divide by the number of sales made - house prices would only have gone up by 3.3 Squillion x 10-1 percent.

Wonderful.

Yes. I have absolutely no evidence, apart from that sentence I keep continually quoting to you from the very same article:

"He noted that a big factor in the rising median price is increased sales of high-end homes, which skew the results to the upside. Indexes that track specific home resales, such as Case-Shiller, show far lower price appreciation."

This "increased sales of high-end homes". By George - It's almost as if very rich people are selling very expensive houses to other very rich people, isn't it?

Thank God it's not a big factor in the rising median price, right?

Because if there were - it would skew the results and make them look higher than the indexes that track the actual difference in changes in house price for a given house.

I think I can safely say that you're quite possibly the last person in the Universe who I'd ever ask to recommend me some Econ books.

Since we've apparently reached the Ad Hominem stage of the conversation - as usual - our conversation is over.

The median is immune to extreme values at either end of the price spectrum; that's why we use the median. Regardless, if there is no low-priced real estate that's actually selling in California the past year and that's the excuse that you're making here, then that makes my own argument for me, because the lack of affordable prices is the problem that inflating the money supply causes. So learning a little bit about statistics and why we prefer to use the median over the mean, and understanding the impact that sample size has on the accuracy of our measurements would be helpful here.

There is no ad hominem in my reply. Though it seems the kettle is calling the pot.

You might not like reading economics textbooks that prefer freedom of choice over government force and coercion but it might open your eyes a little bit to the idea of greater freedom and free market economics.

Suggested reading list

Beginning:

'Understanding the Dollar Crisis' by Percy Greaves.

Intermediate:

'Causes of the Economic Crisis' by von Mises

'America's Great Depression' by Rothbard

Advanced:

'Choice in Currency' by Hayek

'Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles' by Huerta de Soto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the sarcasm in my post was missed. Lets say a compromise somewhere between 400k and 1m is had. No loopholes are closed to get the Reps down to 700mil a year and we raise 0$. The working class continues to suffer. They are not close to an agreement. They are close to saying **** it. Lets go on Christmas break.

and Obama and Reid does not make a deal. They then have to go back to there parties and sell it. Then the House has to radify it. The House holds the purstring of America. And its Republican.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For extremely large sample sizes, like the total number of home sales in the state of California, use the median.

For much smaller sample sizes particularly where n=30 or less, use the mean.

A sample size of three isn't statistically significant, no matter how much lube one uses on the numbers to work like we imagine it will. If we're going to use and trust in statistics, let's use them right. I can only make suggestions for things, such as how to make a CONSUMER price Index a lot more accurate.

Hiding government's failure in the sectors it manages food and energy, and using "volatility" as the excuse for hiding it, and instead relying on bureau-cooked exclusionary numbers is economically and fundamentally unacceptable to me. Yeah there's volatility alright, and and it's the government that's causing it. It should wear it on its face and not find bureaucratically acceptable excuses for its failure.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might not like reading economics textbooks that prefer freedom of choice over government force and coercion but it might open your eyes a little bit to the idea of greater freedom and free market economics.

You can add several hundred more unemployed gun manufacture laborers (a skilled proffesion) and small business owners to your unemployment if thats part of your guys argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can add several hundred more unemployed gun manufacture laborers (a skilled proffesion) and small business owners to your unemployment if thats part of your guys argument.

The market should decide whether there's several hundred more unemployed gun manufacturers, not the government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a helluva lot of people that agree with you. I couldnt give you enough thumbs up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres a helluva lot of people that agree with you.

I hope you're right about that, but when looking at what all this bipartisanship has done to us, I'm not convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a time of tribulation in America right now. Things WILL be different when the dust settles. The only thing we have right now going for us is networking and reaching out to have our greivances heard. If you have not read the Declaration of Indepence deeply and the Constitution which spells out our civil liberties that cannot be infringed upon and reflect upon if you feel you have been oppressed. Have you been heard trying to air your greivances. These questions are answered in that document. I know we come with different dogs in this fight but I do live in an impoverished state so I came here. I cannot be taxed because I have nothing left that can taxed.

A change of guard may be the only answer if our government cannot be reasonable and just with its people. Thankfully our forfathers were smart enough to leave that option and spelled out exactly what the types of greivances unheard would make such a drastic change a reasonable change.

They are not almighty and cannot be Tyrranical in there rule. The government is suppose to be for the people. I dont feel it is anymore.

I dont want to berate with constitution mumbo jumbo but I am really only saying if you have not read those 2 documents deeply lately then perhaps it is time that you do so again. You might find heart in what our forfathers left for us in wisdom. It may apply to the argument that I have noticed you are passionate about. And if it does I hope it helps you prevail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a time of tribulation in America right now. Things WILL be different when the dust settles. The only thing we have right now going for us is networking and reaching out to have our greivances heard. If you have not read the Declaration of Indepence deeply and the Constitution which spells out our civil liberties that cannot be infringed upon and reflect upon if you feel you have been oppressed. Have you been heard trying to air your greivances. These questions are answered in that document. I know we come with different dogs in this fight but I do live in an impoverished state so I came here. I cannot be taxed because I have nothing left that can taxed.

A change of guard may be the only answer if our government cannot be reasonable and just with its people. Thankfully our forfathers were smart enough to leave that option and spelled out exactly what the types of greivances unheard would make such a drastic change a reasonable change.

They are not almighty and cannot be Tyrranical in there rule. The government is suppose to be for the people. I dont feel it is anymore.

I dont want to berate with constitution mumbo jumbo but I am really only saying if you have not read those 2 documents deeply lately then perhaps it is time that you do so again. You might find heart in what our forfathers left for us in wisdom. It may apply to the argument that I have noticed you are passionate about. And if it does I hope it helps you prevail.

I think what you're alluding to is to stay familiar with the Spirit of our highest law, and I couldn't agree more. I think that knowing what our Founders intended and why they intended it is probably the most important political action we can take as individuals.

I bought Ron Paul's pocket-sized US Constitution as well as his family cookbook during the 2012 campaign, and enjoyed reading both. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself I am tired of watching the errosion of the Constitution. It has weakened us morally, financially, and spiritually along the way. What was prosperity is despair to most now I have seen this even in my lifetime. can you offer any glimmer of light or tidbit of gold that would make me see otherwise ?

Obviously you have been in a very different talk here in finances then I have been in over in 2nd Amendment land. Is there a glimmer of light at the end of this tunnel ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's neither Math nor Physics.

I’m sorry. I should have said that in the real world, it is about math and physics.

Firstly - Maximum Entropy would mean a situation where all money would be distributed entirely evenly. No-one would be either rich or poor, because richness or poorness is a relative measure.

And what do you think wealth redistribution does?

Secondly - the second law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. As there are Central banks that can create money - the financial system isn't closed, and thus - entropy doesn't apply here.

For all practical purposes, the Earth today is a closed system. You may be able to print more money but the value of each individual unit is worth less. The total value stays the same. Those that are producing are getting out stripped by takers and redistribution.

Thirdly - this is a chart of the US's historic GINI Coefficient - a mathematical index between 0 and 1, with 0 showing total income equality (which would be maximum entropy) and 1 showing total income inequality (a single person getting all the income). You'll note the current direction that it's heading in:

Well, first of all, one person would never have all the wealth in a free market. The competition would be too great. It’s that competition that floats all boats. Next, your chart doesn’t show what was going on in the 50s. You just get the hint that it had to be dropping, more than likely due to the high taxes. But if you go to the chart on the link you provided, it shows the index in the 50s. The US index was very stagnant, if not declining. But also if you notice the trend of the European nations, especially the three notoriously Socialist nations of France, Italy, and Norway are all declining. And you see all of them coagulating in the same spot, at the verge of austerity. This is not a chart that you want to be approaching 0 (left alone 25). Mexico and Brazil would seem to indicate that ideally, you want to be below 60, perhaps 50. Going back to your chart, the peak of the Reagan boom hit just prior to the 110th Congress coming into power and after that, the economy collapsed. Now we have a President that wants to redistribute our wealth so that we’re all poor. We have some time but if enough of Europe drops below 25, the EU will collapse. A nation just simply cannot hold together with anything less. By keeping it low, assures that no one else will have the opportunity to rise up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.