| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Radicalised Registered: 09/26/18 Posts: 6,234 Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours |
| ||||||
|
Lol.
Maybe you should post who you're voting for in the sustainability thread? Nothing says sustainability like coal right? These are the greedy obnoxious fucktards you're voting for you do realise?... Of course you do ![]()
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
What do you propose as the replacement to the income coal brings to Australia?
$54.62-billion for 2020. And huge sums like that years back too. https://www.statista.com/statis You have to be realistic. We have a welfare bill of $180-billion a year. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports I guess your idea of a "redistribution of the wealth" will sort it out, correct? Then we'll all be broke because no one will want to put in any graft when those that didn't still get the same. You should also appreciate Australian coal is high quality, energy dense, low in sulphur. If Australia ceased coal exports our main buyers (India and China) would source else where seeing to greater emissions and sulphuric acid rains. https://www.minerals.org.au/new You should also note, as you'll be reading this tonight, that the overwhelming majority of NEM generation is coal, simply because the grid is already near tapped out on intermittency and at risk of not meeting critical the 50 mhz frequency. Unless further renewable input is commensurate to dispatchable gas and/or storage then coal will remain in the mix. See the live generation data graph. https://reneweconomy.com.au/ All up cease with your emotive drivel and debate with the facts. Coal is not going to be ended by idealism but rather by staged and nuanced policy.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
If you earn less than 100k a year and you think that a redistribution of wealth will have a negative impact on you, then I think we need to start a discussion about the specifics of what wealth will specifically be taxed, who it belongs to, how much has been payed in the past, and why it hasn't been payed in the past.
etc. Quote: All I want is campaign finance reform of some sort. The Australian 'Democratic' Party is literally unheard of with little to no support or members, but I'm at least a fan of this idea specifically for an accountability plan. Quote: P.S. I say 'democrat' because American democrats are corrupt corporate shills and I'm not a fan of American democrats. Obviously American republicans are too.
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Well over that and I'm not interested in the ideas of the "redistribution of wealth", and "who it belongs to" is the one who earned it. I rather like Kerry Packer's take on this subject.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
I earned all my money yet I still pay taxes.
Do you think it's okay to have loopholes that allow billion dollar companies to pay nothing in taxes? What benefit do you get out of a company like Google or Apple paying pennies in taxes? Unless you're the CEO of a multinational company that actually benefits from these kind of loopholes, I'm curious why this would be a good thing.
| |||||||
|
Explorer Registered: 05/06/16 Posts: 3,024 Last seen: 2 months, 7 days |
| ||||||
|
You aren't a company though. They use their money to hire more people(create jobs) and reinvest in their company. These things arent taxed because they help the country.
As soon as someone in the business gets paid then it is taxed. I am an American so sorry for jumping in your aussie thread :P -------------------- "That you are here—that life exists, and identity; That the powerful play goes on, and you will contribute a verse.” ― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass ![]()
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
And yet in the US companies are considered people, allowing for legal bribery which is considered 'free speech'.
Quote: If you can find support for trickle down economics I'd appreciate sharing it here. Stock buybacks don't help the common person, and profits get stored in bank accounts, not spent. If a company makes a billion in profit, you don't want that taxed? Quote:
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The money not squandered by the government is better re-invested into the companies. With their capital retained they can expand their operations employing more people. You may see a CEO has a luxury home, a yacht and the rest of the bling, that pales to the waste once in the government hands - I worked in federal departments and they're plain hopeless. The amount of money the CEO's have is a tiny fraction of what constitutes the business. Some people have this idea a CEO of a billion dollar company is sitting in an underground secret 007 bad guy like vault with a billion dollars all stacked up to the ceiling. He/she is not. They'll live with a small proportion of bling and the MOST in the business. If the government was managing that they'd be a whole lot less efficient and drive the business bust. I have no problem such wealthy people exist because they're the reason why we have the world we do. If capitalists want more they earn it. Socialists simply steal it. It should be appreciated the private sector employs the vast majority of the people which in turn pay the taxes. It also allows shareholders to get in on the action whose capital further enables companies to grow and employ. If you're not investing and expect a basic salary to get you ahead you're dreaming. You need to get your money working for you by time leverage and not you working for it. That's how it is. There's a thread here railing against capitalism dated 16 years ago. The same whines today. Had they put their dough into ETF's they'd have multi-baggers to this day which is driven by the very capitalist companies they loath. I'd trying to tell you your cries are punching the ocean. Pointless. Yep, 16 years from now it will all be the same. And they're not tax evading. They're legally tax minimising same as that Kerry Packed video I put up. I minimise my tax too. I've already spoken about how one can do that earlier in this thread and if you're not doing so you should. You should also be aware you can arrange with your accountant a concessional catch-up if you have not contributed sufficient in the prior FY to 25k. This FY is 27.5k. Important numbers. Don't miss out on them.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
Unless implemented in a recession, a corporate tax reduction doesn't create jobs.
I haven't looked up Australian data yet, but in America there has been a lot of new jobs in the past few years, but a lot of them are low paid, and hence people requiring 2 or 3 jobs to survive. Quote: Overall, it doesn't matter what the CEO spends their money on, or if they have nice things, that's not what I'm talking about here. It's the fact that multibillion dollar companies do not pay a dime in taxes, and that this puts a tax burden on middle and low income individuals because they are the ones paying for roads, healthcare, subsidies etc. It sounds to me like you're completely fine with corporate welfare. There are good and bad aspects to both socialism and capitalism. Everyone appreciates the input of business, and the frameworks of our society like roads, hospitals and firefighters. If you gave all your money to your kids they wouldn't pay taxes until they're 12. There are ways to reduce your tax, but as an individual there is no way to pay no tax.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
Unfettered capitalism is also why prescription prices are through the roof in the US. So a kudos to Australia for some regulation to prevent price gouging.
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Corporations do pay tax. https://www.ato.gov.au/general/
Pharmaceuticals are subsidised and there is a public medical system called Medicare. I believe health is a national matter. I'd like to see a sugar tax on processed foods to drive processed foods to use less sugar and to encourage the public to eat more whole and unprocessed food. The US is a bad model for health hence the obesity it has and why COVID has killed so many. The difference of Australia to the US is here has more checks and balances. That doesn't stop the Left however demanding more which would simply see business leave to more tax friendly shores.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
And kudos to those that do.
Quote: Millionaires don't tend to leave the country if they pay their fair share. Quote: And then of course billionaires already hide their money offshore as shown in both the Panama and Pandora papers. Quote: The US health model is like fairy floss in rain. Too much stuff has sugar in it at the super market, I'll say that again!
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Well, I guess you won't like this post given your kudos to the Left. And yes I could get caught in the weeds and argue on all your points or just shrug and accept you're either in the club or you're not. This club will grow as why leave what is the best country (so you're right there). Seventy-three millionaires paid no tax in 2017-18, while Australia's richest people live in Sydney's Double Bay, on average earning more than 16 times the nation's poorest, who live in central-west Queensland. https://www.abc.net.au/news/202 From my summary sheet the conservative retirement model I crafted in May 2019 for the years 2019 to 2029 has been eclipsed by 160k and we're only in 2021. I started the count from September 2019 and is currently 3.622-mil, and the previous FY reached ~3.5-mil. I'll see how I go at the end of this FY quarter and there may be a Santa rally. Doesn't include the property I own, or gold bullion, and cash I side line for shares and doing nicely on the Omicron dip we've had. Here's my tax for the FY. I redacted the income dollars so it's somewhere in $17,000 and the return to somewhere in $2,000 and the ATO number. It even came with a return. Why? Because I came in under $18,200 income so it was zero tax. Same for my wife and her tax return was even better than mine. Only way to get ahead is tax minimisation. We're over $1,000 every day, weekends too since the count started; yes, aiming to be in the same club the ABC article ^above howled about. Too true, this was Kerry Packer's accountant... Another myth is people go round and say 'I'm paying more tax therefore I must be making a lot of money', that's rubbish, you pay more tax because you've got a lazy accountant. https://9now.nine.com.au/a-curr From the same link ^above. Kerry Packer is totally correct... I am not evading tax, in any way shape or form, now of course I am minimising my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their heads read, because as a government I can tell you, you're not spending it that well, that we should be donating extra," Mr Packer told the room back in 1991. Kerry Packer was at one point Australia's richest man and even managed a mere $30.55 income tax. Packer stated in 1991: 'I pay whatever tax I am required to pay under the law--not a penny more, not a penny less.' As this case demonstrates, it is perfectly legal under the present order for an individual with a multi-billion dollar fortune to pay absolutely no tax. https://www.wsws.org/en/article His ATO notice of assessment would have looked similar to mine. Total legend as a billionaire to achieve that. Inspiration! All 100% legal; unlike the hoards of drug dealers on these boards who declare zero of their illicit gains despite their profits milking their buyers' burglaries and other theft. Yes, on this type of board I'm sure I'd earn more acrimony from this post than if was a drug dealer who increases violence and crime. Where as on the Motley Fool forums they all praise any who get to zero tax to keep margins fat.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
Quote: To support this in my opinion is a delusion of grandure, a greed in that if you were a billionaire you wouldn't want to pay taxes either. The first 18k isn't taxed.. Yeah. I'm not sure why your retirement plan starts with 1.8 million dollars but it puts in to question whether you earn less than 18k a year. It's an important question here, if a billionaire pays nothing in taxes, how does that help you?
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: First up, my accountant managed that. I pay for skills I don't have. And 1.8m? You mean 3.6m per per what I posted (includes wife). Not including other assets, as said. Re-read my post. I'll also add I have no mortgage or debt. You can believe or not. But given you appear to have misunderstandings that assets can grow on paper and be exempt from tax means you're not investing. Otherwise you'd know the market gains on property are not taxed nor the growth on shares. In Australia franked shares are not taxed either. Wealth is created this way by holding long term because real wealth is on paper. Even gold has a paper value per what the market price bears being the sell price. Ignoring other metal trades my original 2 kg of gold I bought in 2004 for $37,004 and still have, has on paper being market value, gone up to $160,177.08 per buy back from the Australian Bullion Company. No tax paid on that. Imagine a world where for example one's house value goes up from 800k to 1000k in a single FY (as has happened in Australia's current real estate bull market - in fact there's even been 40% rises). To deal with this social disparity the Australian Taxation Office has seen the light and has finally adopted the "sudly school of thought" having read your Shroomery posts, and so they issue a tax bill on a deemed 200k of undeclared income. Really? Please, paper value is not taxed. Back to your view on retirement plans, try this thought experiment: if you owned your own home and can't retire with your wife on say 3-mil in assets (that's 1.5m each), such as other properties and/or shares, then something is wrong. What's your figure you think you'll arrive at to retire? What are your plans to get there? Have you considered how to minimise taxes? How would you structure it in your SMSF and Trust? Do you know how? What sort of retirement would you like and would you like to do this much younger than most? Before FIRE became a Millennial buzzword I has a similar mindset. https://www.investopedia.com/te Quote: Lets say a company share price goes up many fold and you think the billionaire CEO should pay tax? The growth, as already said, is on paper and 100% legal to not pay tax on. With the increase in capital the company they lead has more capital to grow, expand, employ and borrow as money is currently cheap. As a shareholder you will see greater capital growth and dividends too (which you roll back into more shares). The people employed pay taxes. Far more efficient having private enterprise manage capital than the government who are full of bureaucrats with no business experience.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
It can take quite a while to get a good return on your investments, and living in a country that supports your tuition, pays a good income and has affordable housing is a benefit.
I'm not sure if you see the point I'm making here but yes, wealth is not taxed. And there sure are ways to reduce your capital gains taxes, Quote: You can make money on stock prices increasing, but it's not in tangible, spendable, taxable money. So you can make a million dollars in a year but pay nothing in taxes. The system is based on only paying taxes when you actually sell something. Your worth isn't taxed unless you sell your stock and it's taxed as a capital gain. If you have enough stocks, like billionaires, you can even get loans against your stocks to live off. Without having to spend any money, because without a sale there is no tax. There is also a large loophole in capital gains taxes that the rich exploit called the stepped up basis. If Bezos sold a stock, he'd have to pay capital gains tax based on his profit. So the cost of the stock minus the original investment. But if he holds of selling his entire life, when he dies, whoever inherits the stock and then sells it, would only have to pay taxes on what they earned after they inherited it, leaving all those original gains untaxed. It's part of what's called, 'buy, borrow, die'. It's one way the richest families avoid paying taxes. It's this system and the fact that most of the capital gains are going to the top 1% (60%) that lawmakers are looking to change the capital gains tax, which in the US at least stands at 20%. Closing the stepped up loophole and increasing the maximum tax rate from 20% to 39.6% for people making more than 1 million a year. Even if some millionaires sold less stock, it would bring in more tax revenue. Then a billionaire like Warren Buffet would be paying close to the tax rate of his secretary. There are a lot of things we could do to make the system more fair. From taxes on wealth, to gains on the stock market. Changes to capital gains taxes wouldn't be the whole solution, but it would be an easy place to start. The system is making the rich get richer and richer and richer and everyone else just not.
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Absolutely correct. And lets face it the only plausible way to wealth is to go long term seeing your assets rise and you let them rise by not selling. Sure it may take a while but it's the long game not some get rich scheme. You start young and by your mid-40's you're set. This should be taught to one's kids and no surprise the wealthy always make sure they're financially literate. Property in Australia has certainly doubled every 10 years for the last 25 years and in some hot real estate locations far more. Even ETF's will yield 7% or so p.a. Individual stock picking will do better. The trick is to go long, don't sell and certainly not in the same financial year. All wealthy people are wealthy on paper; be it property, shares, commodities, precious metals, company ownership and so on. Few have more than 5% in cash because with today's piss poor interest rates that's a sure loss when it would be better working in the market, and needless to say to liquidate that much paper wealth will attract unnecessary CGT. Only liquidate as you require and always factor in loss incurred by tax and mitigate that loss such as sell a bad share. That way you'll have a folio that glows green on the screen. I will say the Left, being the Australian Labor Party (ALP) led by Bill Shorten, had plans to increase CGT on shares by 25%. He also wanted a tax on franked shares, a reduction in non-concessional Super contributions from 100k p.a down to 75k p.a, and the non-concessional contributions bring forward rule of 300k for 3 years down to 225k. He also wanted to get rid of negative gearing. He lost his bid for federal election in a landslide to the Liberal National Party (LNP) being the conservatives, because Bill Shorten's policies were the politics of envy, an attack on the retired and the investing. Well the non-concessional contribution has increased to 110k p.a this FY (no small part thanks to the LNP), so I opted to putting 660k on the bring forward rule to Super for myself and wife. I'm also concerned the ALP might win the coming federal and again legislate these Shorten type policies. Basically you want to get what you can into super to avoid the ~35% tax on growth to a reduced 15% tax regime in pre-preservation. The aim to is to get 1.7-mil into Super per individual, or 3.4-mil per couple and this ceiling will grow based on CPI. Super in Australia attracts zero tax on growth once you reach preservation age which is why you want to get to the said number. Shorten felt that's too much so he wanted to reduce the pace in which one can stash it so he could get his taxing hands on the growth for longer at a steeper rate. This also hurt tradespeople who often invest in property and wouldn't be able to put as much equity into the lower tax haven of Super. They voted against him. I'm hoping sanity prevails as the mean and median average prosperity in Australia is at risk if the ALP wins this coming federal. https://www.afr.com/policy/econ Credit Suisse Australia head of private banking Michael Marr expects the number of US-dollar millionaires in Australia to increase “dramatically” by 70 per cent over the next five years to 3.1 million, based on trends identified in the bank’s annual global wealth report. Quote: That's the same here. It's good and only fair and is why one has binding beneficiaries on their Super and confidence their assets outside of Super will be exempt of death duties. And really, if it wasn't stock and instead a property would you apply the same attack? Property goes up like stock but unlike stock which has an explicit stated value property is far more rubbery in its value. Fortunately Australia doesn't have these absurd death taxes unlike the scandalous UK. Over there they let the beneficiaries keep the first 350k sterling and every quid after that is done 40 pence in the pound. If one gifts their children to avoid this they apply this inheritance tax retrospectively for 7 years. Quote: You mean they're excluded from buying on the stock market?? You can get into that without having to borrow, unlike property. Go read the Australian Financial Review link I gave ^above and you'll see many are getting on board. So much so Australians are about the wealthiest on average (mean and median) in the world. Capitalism is working here. To get ahead you may have to work two jobs, move to where it is cheaper in rent, part-time study to get a better qualification or to change career, save, invest and live frugally. Stay off the drugs to be focused as required. One commonality with many wealthy people is they're work-a-holics. They'll put in 70 to 80 hours a week. They're not on the bongs. No one said life would be easy. Edited by Oz_Salvia (12/09/21 06:08 AM)
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
Before I go on, let me ask, did you inherent anything, was your tuition paid for by the government (your taxes), and if you own a house, in what year did you purchase it?
| |||||||
|
Conservative Registered: 04/14/20 Posts: 165 Last seen: 2 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I paid up front all of my tuition because I worked part-time in undergraduate and then worked full-time and studied part-time in post-grad, to get the 20% discount on what was called the Higher Education Contribution Scheme known as HECS. If you didn't pay this up front you then carried this HECS debt for the rest of your days where it would rise based on CPI and would be paid back once you earned over a certain threshold of income. Sure it's cheap money to borrow given it's only CPI growing but it's another complexity in life. It's easier in life to get ahead without debt and if you take on debt you only do it for an appreciating asset. After all banks and other lenders take HECS into consideration on what they can lend. HECS was created by the ALP Governments of Hawke and Keating ending the era of what the ALP Whitlam government had set up as free tertiary education in 1973. Not a bean to be paid back. It created an entire and endless hoard of university bums, many into Marxism who never worked a proletariat day in their lives. Whitlam was a socialist in every sense and this was his intention to pollute the academic landscape long after he popped his clogs. To this day we have these boomers who all crow on about how there must be free education because theirs was. PM Turnbull, the worst LNP PM to date and as Fabian Leftist as any in the ALP (hence his name Turncoat), decided to get rid of the 20% discount so he could cook the books by a sudden "on paper" increase of 20% HECS money to come back. All bullshit when the money is only projected over decades from now. Thankfully there is now, as of this year, a reintroduction of a 10% discount to HECS if paid upfront. It should be reinstated to 20%. Because I know, if I had 80 cents in the dollar up front I'd be able to build back that 20% difference and even multi-bag it over the decades going forward; rather than wait on the principle growing on a meagre CPI only if the borrower actually earns an income of threshold. This is why I argue government is not as good in managing money as the private sector. Yes, one day the debts will be privatised and market rates will apply and thresholds be abandoned. University should be looked at strategically as one would do a trade. You do it for a career not to get all WOKE. HECS is scaled on four bands and each band is more expensive as it goes up. It is a means to curtail too many in a particular area to reduce the glut of graduates unwanted in their field. So when you're a kid looking at uni you take this into consideration (or at least your parents do if you're that inept). You may even be flexible in your degree and change course to improve your career options and switch your studies e.g. geospatial to cyber architecture security (very much in demand so the band is lower). Life is about being agile. You adapt, you improvise and you overcome. As for property, my first house I purchased was in 1997. I was young in my 20's. Property was cheaper back then in measure of gross income ratio, however interest rates were several times greater than they are now. As for inheritance, from my grandmother it was ~$7,500, and from my mother it was $20,000. That's the sum of it. I don't begrudge others getting large inheritances, even if it's a billion+ dollars. It's the private wealth of other people and not there for pillage by strangers. Your point? You think I had an entitled/privileged upbringing? I paid my own way in life leaving home age 18 - the age one becomes an adult in Australia. I believe in making your own way in life. If the ne'er-do-wells can't cut it in the good times imagine how they'll go in the bad. Fortunately I live away from what I call sink-estates so they won't be coming here.
| |||||||
|
Quasar Praiser Registered: 01/05/15 Posts: 11,594 |
| ||||||
|
The opportunities older generations have had are not available to younger generations. To say pick yourself up by the bootstraps while scoffing at the frustration of having a wall 3 times higher to climb is a privilege.
Quote: Inheritance aside, the young are at a disadvantage from how things used to be, it straight up is harder to get a foot in the race and catch up or keep up with the crowd that's been in the game since the rules made it easier for them to win. That's not even mentioning university tuition, which for a lot of the older generation was abolished in 1980 and kept for 14 years. It wasn't until participation increased that instead of capping tuition support to give everyone a fair opportunity, they scrapped it entirely. The trick is to be born earlier. The point is that laws surrounding wealth and stock transactions ought to be changed, and if it were only houses and not stocks, some changes would be good too. For example, mega landlords buying up housing to decrease the supply and increase the median price is an issue too. Estate taxes vary in who would actually pay them, sometimes they are designed to be for actual estates, not homes. Quote: No one is excluded from buying on the stock market, and capitalism has a lot of great aspects, plenty of it is making money hand over fist. Less loopholes and adjusted capital gains taxes don't destroy millionaires or billionaires, they take burden off the middle class and even the playing field at least some. Some people in the US have three jobs because each pays less than a livable wage. I don't expect to be buying a house in my 20s, we all understand investing has its merits, saving is a mindful thing, and hard work pays off. I think an issue arises when one day, people have to work hard 3 times as long to achieve the same as their predecessors.
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Bush Plays Politics with 9/11/01 | 1,617 | 12 | 10/23/03 09:07 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
Whistleblower Explodes 9-11 Commission Report | 737 | 2 | 08/05/04 09:25 AM by Learyfan | ||
![]() |
The 9-11 Commission Charade | 561 | 1 | 08/25/04 10:20 AM by CJay | ||
![]() |
Commission singles out "lack of imagination" ( |
4,610 | 57 | 10/06/04 12:10 AM by Xlea321 | ||
![]() |
Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission ( |
3,055 | 21 | 04/30/04 03:09 PM by sir tripsalot | ||
![]() |
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission | 1,230 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot | ||
![]() |
IRS and FEC Gag Political Speech | 855 | 2 | 02/09/04 06:52 PM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
The Official Israel/Hamas War Thread. ( |
58,954 | 7,515 | 05/18/24 01:53 AM by Bigbadwooof |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 14,765 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



