Let’s Talk About Tax

44 comments on “Let’s Talk About Tax ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   2 September 2024 at 6:07 pm

   They got this way despite the Labour-Greens government generating greater public spending and greater public debt than we’ve seen in our lifetimes, yet mostly our public services went backwards, and National making them even worse. We should not be expected to give more of our money up until government proves it will improve public services. Otherwise, stop taking my money.

   What we are seeing now with government expenditure is the peak boomer effect. It is directly related to the 1947-1960 rise in births. Right now it equates to slow and inexorable increases in expenditure for superannuation and medical demand over the last ~20 years. The effect will rising at an increasing rate for the next 20-25 odd years before it hits an equilibrium.

   It is essentially why the tax base has effectively been shrinking. Labour just plugs the dike for a while, until National has another unsustainable tax-cut.

   This was obvious to me at a 18 year old in 1978 when I was looking at the birth rate then just as it was starting to fall.

   Responsible tax management would look at a previously incurred debt (essentially the idiocy of Muldoon's National Superannuation swindle) and the demographics (lots of unwell elderly) and start paying for it early.

   The problem is that we really only have the Cullen Fund and a bit of ACC to plug the gap with.

   Need to start measuring the current taxation against the forward expenses and build up more taxed investment so we don't get either a whacking great tax bill or a nasty political issue with the elderly saying – "but we already paid for this". Which they are entitled to do (bloody Muldoon and the Nats) but they only paid a portion of it.

   

   
2. thinker 2

   2 September 2024 at 6:12 pm

   All my working life I paid paye tax and interest on the mortgage (which isn't a tax but feels similar).

   I haven't reached 65 so I'm still paying paye but I paid off the mortgage and have a small investment portfolio that, in better times than now) does provide small capital gains, enough that I feel their benefit.

   In my head, I wouldn't like capital gains tax, but my heart says they would be the right thing to do, provided I could pay tax on NET capital gain, which is the gain left to me after any losses have offset any gains.

   What I don't think is fair, though, is a wealth tax. It might seem like a good idea to box the ears of the fat cats, but I would say the majority it would impact would be people like me, who started out in life with nothing and for whom the memory of how that feels spurred me on to work long hours and challenging work environments, so I never go there again.

   Also, the really rich, who I think are the people a wealth tax is targeting,would simply move their money offshore. Love them or hate them, the impact of that on our currency would hurt us all, imho.
   • Tony Veitch 2.1

     3 September 2024 at 10:04 am

     the really rich, who I think are the people a wealth tax is targeting, would simply move their money offshore.

     Slap a FTT on them and make it sufficiently onerous to discourage the "John Keys" of this country from squirrelling away their surplus in tax havens!
3. Mike the Lefty 3

   2 September 2024 at 6:39 pm

   One irony of the whole tax system is that people get taxed for working, whilst those who sit back and watch the money roll in from investments, shares and trusts pay bugger all, if any, tax.

   Even children get their bank accounts taxed, thanks Roger Douglas.

   And the other irony is that those who can afford to pay the most tax inevitably pay proportionally the least.

   Yes, we definitely need to talk about that.
   • georgecom 3.1

     2 September 2024 at 8:54 pm

     A CGT is a no brainer. other types of wealth tax may be more open to varoous arguments about their merit, but a CGT is pretty logical. a key to getting it in, some simple by lines and speaking points to negate the greedy nat/act type wealth hoarders who will moan loudly about it.
     • mikesh 3.1.1

       3 September 2024 at 10:52 pm

       A CGT is a no brainer

       True. It is advocated by those with no brains.

       other types of wealth tax may be more open to varoous arguments about their merit, but a CGT is pretty logical.

       A capital gain, whern it occurs, becomes a part of a person's wealth; but a tax on capital gains is too selective when other components of wealth are not being taxed. A wealth tax would also tax capital gains.
   • thebiggestfish7 3.2

     2 September 2024 at 11:56 pm

     You’re not very well informed.

     Income from trusts is taxed. Interest and Dividends are taxed at your marginal tax rate. Anyone or any vehicle that owns 50k worth of overseas shares gets taxed through the Foreign Investment Fund rules.

     The big loophole in NZ is the major tax advantage from buying investment properties through leveraged debt with no capital gains tax.
     • Descendant Of Smith 3.2.1

       3 September 2024 at 4:32 am

       Not when as my Aunty did had trust accounts in all our children's names – I only found out because I turned 18 and got a letter. The account was quickly closed. Saved her tens of thousands of dollars in tax over the years.

       Not when our farmer neighbor just takes out loans against the appreciating capital of his trust farms. These loans are but a small proportion of his farm and other businesses capital value.

       Not when my uncle puts loads of expenditure on his credit cards, pays it off at 28 days but gets loads of free money through points schemes.

       Not when the man I was sitting next to on the bus skited that he had bought port shares over and above the allocated amount person by applying for shares for both his wife and four children.

       Not when we live in a no risk business environment where you can owe IRD millions and close the business down and start a new one up the next day. (One tax change I favour is to have workers deductions paid to IRD on the pay day it is deducted.)

       Not when debts are set up for benefit overpayments but not for stand alone assistance such as accommodation supplement. Different rules for the middle class.

       Not when you can put overseas trips as a business expense on the flimsiest of business reasons e.g. investigate a new business opportunity that just happens to coincide with an All Black test.

       I'm not a fan of a wealth tax never-the-less. I'd rather just bring back things like stamp duty at a decent rate – at least 10%, increase tax rates substantially over $200,000, bring in a decent universal family payment to enable families with children to have one partner not work, use that money for childcare or raise their child as a sole parent. We pay all three now but simplify it and let families decide how to use it. I can almost guarantee we would see a drop in sole parent numbers as families managed their own payment. High income earners would pay it back through the tax system as would those on NZS who decide to work as well. (The same rationale as to why benefits became taxed. By adding what was a previously non-taxable payment to your annual income you paid some of it back if you were working for part of the year.) Phase out accommodation supplement over 10 years alongside building more state housing. Property values will drop as baby boomers die off unless their is massive immigration. Stop the tax deductability for interest on housing – or allow homeowners to claim it as well without the need to set up businesses and trusts.

       I'm also still a fan of turnover tax at 2% or 3% so every business in New Zealand contributes to the tax system. If every worker as to pay, so should every business – who use more of the infrastructure than workers do but contribute less. In adding this tax get rid of most of the business expenses you can claim – leave that between the shareholders and business owners to critique.

       The whole system is geared around well off people making maximum incomes at present. There is no sense of fairness.
       • Cricklewood 3.2.1.1

         3 September 2024 at 1:14 pm

         A turnover tax would be an absolute disaster, so many small businesses are currently running at break even or a loss trying to ride the reccession intact. A tax even at 2 percent of turnover would be the final nail in the coffin.
         • Descendant Of Smith 3.2.1.1.1

           3 September 2024 at 3:39 pm

           So they currently pay no tax and get a free ride and you think that is OK. I thought that it was a matter of tax law that businesses had to be run for a profit. If they can't do this should they not be shut down? Isn't survival of the fittest the rule of the market. Should they not have put money aside when times were good for when they were not? Should I as a wage worker be subsidising their non-profitable business? Don't business people keep going on about wanting a simpler tax system? Wouldn't it spread the tax burden more fairly across all businesses – many large ones currently pay no tax.

           Should you even be in business?

           It sounds harsh, but if you’re a business but making losses, it may be time to think of doing something else or change your business model.

           https://www.beany.com/en-nz/resources/hobby-vs-business

           35 countries have a turnover tax for small businesses already.
           • Res Publica 3.2.1.1.1.1

             3 September 2024 at 4:34 pm

             That's part of having a social licence to operate, right?

             If you are reliant on:

             • The government topping up low wages through programmes like WFF,
             • The government slowing or supressing the growth of the minimum wage,
             • Taking advantage of tax settings,
             • Not having to pay for using public resources such as water,
             • Not having to pay for pollution

             to make a profit, then you should have no right to be in business in New Zealand
         • KJT 3.2.1.1.2

           3 September 2024 at 4:41 pm

           Amazing how so many small businesses admit to being a tax payer and employee funded, hobby!

           Time they got a real job, along with landlords, and actually contributed to our society.

           And stopped bludging off those of us that do pay taxes.
           • mikesh 3.2.1.1.2.1

             3 September 2024 at 11:20 pm

             Time they got a real job, along with landlords, and actually contributed to our society.

             No need for sarcasm.
             • KJT …

               4 September 2024 at 2:08 am

               Truth hurts?
               • mikesh …

                 4 September 2024 at 8:11 am

                 Whose truth?

                 I prefer to stick to the facts. The fact is that landlords are generally not producing any new accommodation capacity but, rather, exploiting pre-existing acacity; so they can hardly be regarded as contributing anything.
         • mikesh 3.2.1.1.3

           3 September 2024 at 11:07 pm

           A turnover tax also duplicates the amount of tax being paid since, if you are not getting deductions for expenses, you are effectively paying tax on your suppliers' turnover, on which those suppliers will already have paid tax.
           • Descendant Of Smith 3.2.1.1.3.1

             4 September 2024 at 4:53 am

             But you have no problem with workers being taxed twice – once on their wages, the second time with GST on their expenditure.

             Besides you are looking at it from an existing paradigm.

             It is a simple question – should all businesses contribute to the cost of running the country and building infrastructure. In my view the answer is yes. Deduct the 1% at transaction point and pay directly to IRD on the day.

             (I'm of the same view about PAYE and student loan deductions).

             We've just decided tourists should pay towards the infrastructure they use. Workers do. Why should some businesses pay nothing?
             • mikesh …

               4 September 2024 at 8:20 am

               But you have no problem with workers being taxed twice – once on their wages, the second time with GST on their expenditure.

               Actually, I think GST should be abolished. It's regressive and, as far as I can see, it serves no useful purpose other than to allow income tax to be less steeply progressive.

               should all businesses contribute to the cost of running the country and building infrastructure. In my view the answer is yes.

               It doesn't need a turnover tax in order for businesses to contribute. They contribute through the payment of ordinary company tax.
               • mikesh …

                 4 September 2024 at 8:33 am

                 “Deduct the 1% at transaction point”

                 But it's not just 1%. As I pointed out above, the one percentage points of all the business's previous suppliers (and their suppliers etc) get built into the selling price paid by the final customer.
                 • mikesh …

                   4 September 2024 at 8:49 am

                   PS: By the you're finished you will find that your turnover tax will be adding more than 15% to the final price. You will then be asking the government to cancel your turnover tax and bring back GST.
                   • Descendant Of Smith …

                     4 September 2024 at 11:20 am

                     Nonsense. To do that you would need 15 layers from raw components to final price. That would be highly inefficient and an exceptional amount of ticket clipping along the way (and disregards the current GST regime which adds to me the consumer 15% currently).

                     They contribute through the payment of ordinary company tax.

                     Except the many that do not.
                   • mikesh …

                     4 September 2024 at 12:16 pm

                     Each 1% added by all suppliers in the chain gets transfered and appears in the final selling price to the consumer. If each supplier has, say five suppliers of his own it would only take three steps to get to 15%.
                     You must rember that the all expenses they pay, including wages and salaries, are inluded in the final selling price.

                     They contribute through the payment of ordinary company tax.

                     Except the many that do not.

                     Now you you are clutching at straws. Virtally all companies contribute, when they pay company tax. The only ones that don't are those which inadvertantly make a loss – though I suspect there would more companies running at a loss if this so-called turnover tax were to be applied. At that event the government loses tax in the long run because these companies wind up their businesses if their losses persist.
       • SPC 3.2.1.2

         4 September 2024 at 1:08 pm

         Wealth tax payments can be made annually against a future estate tax liability. The longer they are paid the more likely there would be little estate tax left to pay off (we had estate tax till 1992/3 and a gift duty till 2013).

         Property values will drop as baby boomers die off unless their is massive immigration

         Very unlikely. The economics of super affordability is a larger working age population via migration. The estate land will offer building options …if not earlier via granny flat/small builds out of a factory.

         Phase out accommodation supplement over 10 years alongside building more state housing

         It would take 30 years of state housing to get to that point (and National will not help – just offload funding for social housing onto others land – this is finite).

         The alternative to WFF was payment to the non working partner while the children are under 5 (similar to the SPS terms). Given we chose variable support based on income, the option now is to allow non working partners to receive JSB for up to a year (when between jobs or sick and after a birth, if not working at the time). And to allow those on SPS to

         1. share housing with another on a main benefit

         2. be in a relationship with a non resident

         3. be able to cohabit with a relationship partner for up to one year without impact on the main benefit before moving to WFF tax credits.

         Our current terms result in a poor use of housing – long term loss to government.

         As well as a stamp duty (over $2M) at the Oz 5% rate for this level) – back of envelope figure c$500M, a 5% tax on banks and supermarkets c$500M, there is a 1% surcharge on landlord mortgages, $900M.

         Turnover tax.

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnover_tax
     • Mike the Lefty 3.2.2

       3 September 2024 at 6:50 am

       No mention of how the rich can hide their income by using overseas tax haven places like the Cayman Islands.

       Your everyday Joe Blow can't do that.
4. Descendant Of Smith 4

   3 September 2024 at 4:52 am

   It would need a further proviso that no income splitting is allowed: a couple jointly earning 2 x $190,000 or $380,000 should pay the full whack.

   Who the fuck earns those amounts? Currently on one income supporting a wife who is unable to work I already pay an extra $5,000 a year in tax over and above a couple earning the same amount. The average household income is $126,000 at present. I only wish I earned that much let alone 2 x $190,000 and I consider I have a good job that requires specific skills that not everyone has and continue to learn new skills.

   I will have the mortgage paid off by 67 (thanks to having to do some expensive repair work) but have no real way of providing for Kiwisaver for two people. I'm less worried about myself but would like to see that $5,000 extra tax I pay at least go into Kiwisaver for her given she is likely to live longer than I despite her health issues.

   I'm pretty sure that some of the DPB growth is due to the lack of support for non-working partners due to financial pressure – this was certainly seen amongst quite a few of my friends who separated during the 1987 crash – and never ever got back together. The assumption built into the system that both can work is a falsity.

   Oh and lets make employers go closer to the employer contribution superannuation levels in Australia. In two years in Oz my son has more in his super fund there than in seven years in New Zealand.

   Back in the day employers actually paid an allowance to married men with non-working partners til their income reached a certain level. None of us single people minded.
5. Descendant Of Smith 5

   3 September 2024 at 4:55 am

   All my working life I paid paye tax and interest on the mortgage (which isn't a tax but feels similar).

   Profit is a private tax. Any price you pay over the cost of production is a tax. Public good versus private good.
6. Res Publica 6

   3 September 2024 at 8:04 am

   Hypothecation is one of those things that's simple and intuitive for the taxpayer in theory, but expensive and difficult for governments in practice. Yes, the money can't be spent on anything else. But the other half of the bargain is that there's no need for additional funding.

   Which is very much not the case with revenue from the FED on Petrol, RUC, and road tolls, which is hypothecated and can only be spent on transport. Waka Kotahi has been pretty clear that this only makes up less than 50% of the amount they're spending on the National Land Transport Programme. They're being topped up to the tune of about $10B over the next 3 years from general taxation. And that's not even counting Simeon Brown's new Roads of National Significance.

   I'd be reluctant to repeat the exercise across other critical public services.

   I also think one of the biggest flaws in our taxation system is that it has the effect of directing investment away from increasing the productivity and efficiency of our businesses, or generating new jobs through creating new enterprises, and into unproductive rent seeking (e.g. landlords).

   Any tax reform (and I agree it's well overdue) will need to address that gap in our capital gains regime.
   • SPC 6.1

     3 September 2024 at 10:09 pm

     I also think one of the biggest flaws in our taxation system is that it has the effect of directing investment away from increasing the productivity and efficiency of our businesses, or generating new jobs through creating new enterprises, and into unproductive rent seeking (e.g. landlords).

     There is a reason why 24 of 36 OECD nations have a CGT and an estate tax.
7. pb 7

   3 September 2024 at 9:37 am

   In the end, the doctor shortage, the teacher shortage, the police shortage, the nursing shortage, the lack of public services, they are all down to us not paying enough tax. It’s kind of simple really that if you want stuff it has to be paid for and for big, national stuff it only works if we all pay. That this government provided tax cuts when the system is in so many ways stuffed is criminal really and that they are borrowing for roads even worse.
   • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1

     3 September 2024 at 10:56 am

     
   • Ngungukai 7.2

     3 September 2024 at 11:26 am

     Agree +100%
8. Champaign Socialist 8

   3 September 2024 at 11:12 am

   The problem, for the left, with tax as a policy solution for redistribution, is that it places the elected government at the behest of the private sector. It implies, that somehow, the state has no other financial instruments available other than economic growth solely produced by "the markets". In this picture the local private sector and external trade are the only sources of income the country has and that somehow, if we convince enough of the electorate, we might be able to increase taxes a little bit to pay for some essentials.

   In this scenario government deficit – new money created by the reserve bank minus taxes – is not considered an option. Instead it is seen as something that has to be constrained and reduced as quickly as possible. This approach is demonstrated by UK Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves and NZ's Nicola Willis, at the moderate end, to Milei in Argentina at the extreme end. All three share an identical economic view of government deficit spending and are completely focused on reducing that spending in favor of private sector growth.

   The left needs to reframe the economic narrative in order to re-assert the governments positive role in the economy as a deficit spender. The repeated supplication to the right wing narrative of running the country like a business needs to be confronted head on.

   Firstly with the simple observation that successful business will operate with huge deficits for decades to build up infrastructure and productivity – Amazon being the obvious example.

   Secondly the purpose of government spending is to do things that the private sector does not deliver effectively – education, health, public welfare, water, electricity etc. Privatization of monopolized essential utilities has a single outcome – massive returns for the owners.

   Thirdly – and most difficult to explain – a fiat currency issuing government is not dependent on the private sector and taxes or bonds to pay for public services. These are paid for by the creation of new money ‘out of thin air’ at the reserve bank.

   Taxes do not pay for government expenses – the purpose of taxes is to remove money from the economy to control inflation. So we could have an interesting conversation around that problem and using varying and targeted taxes to manage inflation in a more nuanced way than we do now.

   Voters need to be confronted honestly with the real economic choices – more public provision of services with more economic redistribution means less free market choice, managed slower growth and less dependence on asset prices as the only economic option.

   What does an economy look like when it doesn't have the preservation of existing wealth and investment as the center of it's universe?
9. thinker 9

   3 September 2024 at 2:27 pm

   Some time ago, I think there was talk about a 2 cent tax on currency speculations would bring in heaps, but lately there's been nothing about it.

   Was it a red herring?
10. Craig H 10

    3 September 2024 at 5:05 pm

    Charitable donations reduction is already in place: https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/individual-tax-credits/tax-credits-for-donations

    I know that a credit/refund of a fixed rate with a limit of taxable income is slightly different to reducing taxable income, but would it be worth the effort of changing from one to the other?
    • SPC 10.1

      3 September 2024 at 10:07 pm

      0 tax on the R and D, would be a tax credit increase from the current 15% to the company tax rate of 28%. A rough doubling.

      The charity one is fixed at 33%, a change would benefit those in the tax bracket above 33 cents.
      • Craig H 10.1.1

        4 September 2024 at 12:59 pm

        R & D I get, my question is really whether it's worth the effort on the donation tax credits given it already exists. It would also reduce the value of the donation credits for lower-income folks.
        • SPC 10.1.1.1

          4 September 2024 at 1:46 pm

          My answer is no.

          I think he sees it as encouraging more voluntary charity from those of wealth as they seem motivated by "incentives" as to where there money goes.

          The government paying for the extra charity funding – they can look more altruistic at no extra cost.

          And if it appears the wealthy are doing more, a bi-partisan policy around not having a wealth tax can be sold to the masses.
11. SPC 11

    3 September 2024 at 10:35 pm

    Advocating that approach and opposing Hipkins remaining leader is a paradox.

    I'll suffice with

    1.there has never been a Labour-Green government.

    2.the budgetary impact of a 6 month payment out of an insurance fund for unemployment (layoff or ill health) is marginal. That was not its purpose.

    (the policy was deferred because of cost of living stress – mortgages/rents/rates/insurance and the fact it cannot begin while unemployment is growing).

    ACC covering sickness is the more decisive measure (but that does not allow a growth in the ACC Fund size because of the cost).

    3.the bi-partisan tax policy of the OECD is where 24/36 nations have a CGT and estate tax.

    4.no tax on the first $10,000 is irresponsible without covering the cost.

    We have a sea of budget deficits ahead on current tax policy.

    5.As for the Cullen Fund continuing to grow to 2100 …

    He said the fund was essentially inter-generation wealth transfer, and would start paying some of the national superannuation costs from the mid-2030s, but the peak would be in the 2050s and as it paid out it would still be earning from investments.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/503125/superannuation-fund-aotearoa-reaping-rewards-of-michael-cullen-s-creation-outgoing-ceo
    • Ad 11.1

      4 September 2024 at 9:38 am

      I do appreciate the weirdness of Hipkins proposing tax policy change; whether Barbara Edmonds is up to the task of fronting such policy change is not something there's good evidence for.

      There have been multiple governments in which the Greens have been a part. The formal instruments for their formation differ.

      There was no suggestion that the "Worker insurance" scheme was good for the government budget. I put in the frame of extracting some of the social stigma of unemployment benefit. The proposed levy was $3.54 billion the scheme paid by 1.39% of a worker’s salary, from both the worker and the employer. A person earning $1160 a week could expect a $16.12 levy, and $928 in weekly insurance payments if made redundant. Probably only philosophical as a proposal now; can't see any other party supporting it.

      I had thought that in the OECD only Denmark, Korea, UK and united States had estate taxes. Capital Gains Taxes in Europe are all over the shop in rate from 0% to 42%, and widely varied in application.

      I found this paper useful on NZSuper's purpose.

      https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/wp/wp-21-01#executive-summary

      No-one except maybe the Retirement Commission wants to open policy discussions about this fund. That's a measure of taking the political noise out of a massive Crown asset that serves the population.
      • SPC 11.1.1

        4 September 2024 at 10:10 am

        I agree Edmonds is respected because she is within the current mainstream parameters.

        But she has the TWG support for a CGT, evidence of the low rate of tax paid by the wealthy, and thus cause to look at either a wealth tax or estate tax.

        She has the Oz example of a higher income tax bracket and their stamp duty and land tax.

        And until recently a progressive tax regime on companies in the USA. Another is a windfall profits tax – say 5% (28-33 cents) restricting this to large banks and the supermarkets only.

        24 of 36 OECD countries levy wealth transfer taxes. Only four countries (Denmark, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States) levy estate taxes on deceased donors. Most countries that levy inheritance or estate taxes also levy a gift tax on inter vivos transfers, typically on the beneficiary.

        Detail as per terminology – on the estate, or on the recipients.

        https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/estate-and-inheritance-taxes-around-world/

        Greens have been support partners of only one government, the LNZF coalition 2017-2020 (they did have a 30% of GDP spending cap agreement with Labour – which GR has moved on from, and not the only one).

        NZSF projections

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/twp-21-1-fig04.gif

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/twp-21-1-fig05.gif

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/twp-21-1-fig06.gif

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/twp-21-1-fig07.gif

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-06/twp-21-1-fig08.gif

        https://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/wp/wp-21-01#1-why-the-contribution-rate-keeps-rising
12. Ad 12

    4 September 2024 at 9:42 am

    Just wanted to thank everyone for the quality of the responses.

    I sure ain't no tax expert, so it's great to hear from people on it.
    • SPC 12.1

      4 September 2024 at 10:26 am

      Labour has the option of listening to Bollard a former RBG who sought the option of a mortgage surcharge rather than a OCR rate rise

      $350B of house mortgage loans – 1% is $3.5B pa.

      https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/lending-and-monetary/registered-banks-and-non-bank-lending-institutions-sector-lending

      The amount of revenue would afford a zero tax threshold up to $10,000.

      An alternative is to to exempt everyone from the 1% surcharge, except those not resident in the property (unless it is a new build).

      An incentive to direct investment into new builds.

      $90B – $900Mpa.
13. Jim Skeats 13

    5 September 2024 at 6:13 pm

    The result- the plan will fail. Spectacularly. [deleted]

    [Making unsubstantiated claims is a characteristic trait of trolls. Lift your game and address anything specific in the OP with some substance instead of hot air emanating from your brain farts – Incognito]
    • Incognito 13.1

      5 September 2024 at 6:28 pm

      Mod note

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS