Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
September 16, 2014, 04:14:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: ATTENTION ALL NEW MEMBERS
PLEASE READ THIS OR YOUR ACCOUNT MAY BE DELETED - CLICK HERE
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FAIR SHARE TAXES  (Read 5034 times)
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2010, 04:45:58 PM »

It's been a long time since I've read Marx, I Believe Opium was the drug of choice in his day - hard hitting stuff that.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
beek4018
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 180

Location: Dublin, Ireland


« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2010, 05:29:15 PM »

Tim,

Thanks for the additional numbers.  From the incomplete figures you presented initially things looked funky.  Now I see where you're coming from.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2010, 05:36:27 PM »

"Earned income credit"

I have known some people that got back more in a tax return than they made that year.  rolleyes
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8127

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2010, 07:39:03 PM »


I have known some people that got back more in a tax return than they made that year.  rolleyes

Sign me up.   I'd like to double my income.   Who do I have to vote for? grin
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2010, 08:21:27 PM »

You just have to stop working and don't make any money then the government will give you the earned income tax credits.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2010, 08:25:58 AM »

a Tim snip..
So my statement is correct (I believe) that the lowest 50% contributed 3% of the total federal revenue.

a kathyp snip...
stats say that about 47% are paying no federal income tax at all.

tecumseh:
why do the above two numbers not correspond?

like I previously suggest if the only federal tax you consider is REGULAR INCOME tax then some gross analysis might apply.  neither of the snip post above seem to think working folks also pay fica and social security tax?  perhaps Tim need to rethink what Total Federal Revenue really means.

just a gross over view of who pays what should tell almost anyone quite a great deal.  people making over about 90 thousand per year have their fica/social security contribution capped... and thereby pay a smaller and smaller rate with the rate declining continuously for every dollar earned over the 90K figure.  the highest income earner take considerable income in the form of capital gains which is taxed (after right offs) at 1/2 the rate of wages.

why is it that some stock broker in NYC who takes 75% of their income in the form of stock options only effectively declaring half their income for tax purpose when compared to a blue collar working stiff.  does this sound equitable in any way form or fashion?

lastly who (which income group) uses the vast majority of tax write off and deductions?

a kathyp snip..
you need to go back and read Marx.  he was all about bringing everyone to the muddy middle.

tecumseh:
by your statements (the above + others) it is quite plain to me that you have never read Marx.  I suspect more likely you are quoting something someone else suggested to you that Marx said.

first Marx though little of the middle class.  secondly (and likely most informative to me) is that Marx didn't believe in redistributing income.  he did think ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY should be completely eliminated.

then kathyp writes:
i love a good debate, but there needs to be a starting point.  i don't mean this unkindly, but i am of the impression that you throw stuff out for the sake of argument, but not for the sake of debate.  debate takes preparation and knowledge.  i think we might be lacking that in our conversations?

tecumseh:
fair enough. 

I suspect what we lack is a certain understanding that our fellow citizen comes to any of these question with a different life experience and perhaps different level of understanding but we (I, you, who ever) shouldn't project this difference as some evil intentions or hidden agenda.

I also suspect you don't really know when you loading your own writing down with emotionally filled rhetoric?Huh 

argument vs debate... I would suggest that often times I come to these kind of questions with a purely academic mind set and often times am NOT a TRUE BELIEVER in the message the messenger carries.  Airing out all the various views should (my somewhat to highly obscure intentions) promote a bit wider understanding of any topic by everyone. 

I think the larger point here should be?Huh that WE haven't been paying our federal bill for quite some time now and that eventually everyone will have to make some effort to bring the difference between government expenditures and income more into line.  Although much hand ringing is given to this issue relative to the federal government, more than likely in what ever state you reside this picture is even worse there.   

Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
PeteG22
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2010, 08:52:08 AM »

Hello All- I'm PeteG, who put together the Fairsharetaxes website that generated this discussion.
I enjoyed reading the discussion and am opened to critiques and suggestions as my fair share tax proposal is a work in progress.  If you think it's thought provoking, send the link along to friends who might be interested.  That said I'd like to respond to some of the discussion:

Re: "punishing the rich""Robin Hood""Marx" Not at all. My aim is to have everyone pay their fair share.  I think our tax system should be progressive but as you can see from my home page, even a flat tax would be a step in the right direction. Warren Buffett and fellow billionaires pay less than 1% of their income and other investment gains. a single minimum wage worker making $14,500 a year pays 22% of her wages in total taxes, and no she does not qualify for the EIC or food stamps. The problem is that most investment gains are never taxed and others are taxed at much lower rates than work. And please note that my calculations include all taxes - federal, state and local.

Although our federal and state income taxes are somewhat progressive; the payroll tax, any sales or consumption tax, property taxes are regressive on income and wealth, the 2 best measures of ability to pay and the extent to which a household has profited from the financial infrastructure governments(ie all taxpayers) provide. Buffett himself says his taxes are too low and that he would have gotten nowhere without public education (of workers of the companies he invests in), antipoverty programs (Social Seecurity creates consumers), roads (for carrying commerce), the military (enough international peace to carry on trade and keep the oil flowing) etc. etc.

I don't think everyone should have the same income or wealth but I also don't think  - and over 90% of Republicans, Democrats, rich and poor (in a recent study) don't think  - the top 20% should own 85% of the nation's wealth - as they do now in the US. Those 90% surveyed  chose an ideal wealth distribution that is like Sweden's - where the top 20% own 35% of the wealth. Further, studies also show that developed nations with wealth distribution like Sweden do have better health, graduation rate, crime rates, mental health, substance abuse rates, teenage pregnancy rates, social cohesion... throughout society.  

The preferred tax rates for wealthy investors was put in place by anti-capitalist  GOP who tried to manipulate the market to encourage investment. This market distortion means that too many investment dollars chase too few worthy investments...prices rise artificially...investment bubble ... the relatively over-taxed working middle class can't consume enough ... market crash and recession ... all but the wealthiest lose their jobs, homes, and/or retirement savings. In the 30 years Reagan starting (and Clinton/BushII enhanced) reduced taxes for investors (the wealthy), the top 1% has gone from owning 22 to 44% of the nation's wealth and the average GDP has dropped to just 75% of what it was for the 30 years prior.

Re "all those that don't pay any taxes", here is what I say in the website: "Reducing taxes on the middle class? We also often hear that half of American households pay "no taxes." This sound-bite is simply wrong. About half of households pay no federal income taxes. There is probably no non-institutionalized adult in the USA who truly pays no taxes - no Social Security taxes, no sales taxes, no property taxes, no gas taxes. These regressive taxes shift the total tax burden to the middle class. Consider all the taxes paid by a single home health aide earning minimum wage for full-time work, $14,500 per year. She pays over $3000 in total taxes, 22% of her wages in all. Her taxes include $2400 in federal income and payroll taxes... The group paying no federal income taxes consists of mostly the elderly and disabled living on Social Security, those laid off in the current recession, students with part-time work, and large families earning very low wages. Nearly all of these groups pay other taxes, often exceeding their fair share compared to 1) their ability to pay and 2) their wealth derived from economic infrastructure provided by governments. The proposed tax system sets things right by considering all taxes and both measures of ability to pay: income and wealth."

In sum, I don't want to punish the rich (most would consider me among them and yes I am under-taxed and no my sending in an extra check to the Treasury won't fix the economy or anything), I want those rich people who insist on using the tax system to punish the middle class, our economy, our nation to cut it out and pay their Fair Share.

(Sorry wanted to add some links of the studies I cite, but Beemaster's antispam software made all sorts of threats.)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 09:10:25 AM by PeteG22 » Logged
tshnc01
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 134


Location: Orange County, NC


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2010, 09:13:31 AM »

Quote
I think the larger point here should be? that WE haven't been paying our federal bill for quite some time now and that eventually everyone will have to make some effort to bring the difference between government expenditures and income more into line.

Tecumseh,

Your right, this is clearly the larger point.  And btw, I do understand that we need to consider all money directed to the federal government when we consider who pays what.  That being said, when you make the statement that we have a "regressive" tax system, I think you may be neglecting to look at the benefits returned directly to people.  For example, that person that pays FICA from a wage level of $32,000 per year will receive MUCH more money back in social security and medicare benefits than they ever paid in (assuming the system stays viable).  The congressional budget office makes exactly this same point in claiming that taken on a whole it is a PROGRESSIVE benefit.

Also, this is a nit, but it would be much easier to read you posts if you would use the quote function - and i do enjoy reading what you have to say.

and PeteG22, welcome.  I agree with you 100% that we should not make distinctions regarding how income is created.  Capital gains, dividends, etc. should be part of the overall calculation, and not treated differently.  Can you explain your point that "most investment gains are never taxed"?  I understand the rate difference issue, but not this one.

Thanks,
...Tim
Logged

Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2010, 09:38:30 AM »

PeteG22

I think the link adding problem is because you are new here. If you send your links to a moderator they will be glad to add them for you.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6405


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2010, 10:07:59 AM »

PeteG22

I think the link adding problem is because you are new here. If you send your links to a moderator they will be glad to add them for you.


Yes, send the links to photos@beemaster.com and a mod will append them for you.
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


PeteG22
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2

Location: Hopelessly Lost


« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2010, 10:09:40 AM »

Testing ABC
Reply to Tim who asks: "Can you explain your point that "most investment gains are never taxed"?

Perfect question to let me do some more explaining. Most investment gains are capital gains (increase in market value). We have a capital gains tax, but it is avoided two ways:

1) The first way is something an investor does - taking paper losses.  When the market is down, an investor switches say from mutual fund A to mutual fund B.  He stays in the market and so has not taken a real loss, but has a paper loss. The IRS lets you use these losses to offset other income and carry it over to future years indefinitely to offset any future capital gains, (when the market is up and you actually do sell at a gain). Perfectly legal. Even  smallish unsophisticated  investors do this and so I know some who have not paid a capital gains tax in many many years.

2) The second way that capital gains taxes are avoided is written into the law. Only "realized" (cashed-in) gains are taxed. Most gains are never realized ie never cashed in. The very wealthy investor can easily live off their dividends (taxed at half rate). Thus their capital grows tax free indefinitely until they are passed to the next generation, often through a trust to avoid the estate tax. I'm doing the analysis now and it looks like in a typical year 85% of capital gains are left "unrealized" in the market are so are not taxed. (or reflected in reported tax rates)

Now the problems with taxing all capital gains are 1) the paperwork to figure them and 2)huge unpredictable swings in tax revenue depending whether the market is up are down. I circumvent this by doing away with all existing direct taxes on capital gains and taxing them indirectly through a tiny wealth tax on household wealth over $500,000 (or say 1 million - I don't really care). We know that in long run wealthy investors will make an average 8% in even a conservative portfolio and say 75% of this is in capital gains ... 6% capital gain return in all.  Then a wealth tax (on net worth-the full value of all the investments) of 1.5% is in effect a deemed tax of 25% on presumed long-run capital gains. The middle class pays about this rate in total taxes on their wages. The Netherlands justifies their wealth tax this way and it make sense to me. (See wiki wealth tax, Full disclosure I wrote much of it.)

Note I also do away with the estate tax since wealth is taxed in tiny chunks all through life, it does not seem right to tax it again at death. This scheme also avoids the rare case where a family business (with poor estate planning) is undone through the 55% maximum single hit estate tax and also avoids all the economic ineffieciency of estate-tax avoidance schemes (trusts-etc.)

Hope that makes sense.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2010, 10:26:24 AM »

LexisNexis strikes again!

Warren Buffett may not pay much in tax, but he puts most of his money into foundations and charities that will actually do some good, rather than having the government WHICH DID NOT EARN IT, take it a give it to someone else.

Quote
punishing the rich""Robin Hood""Marx" Not at all. My aim is to have everyone pay their fair share.


define "fair share".  is it like "living wage"?  do you forget that Robin Hood robbed the church/government to give back to the people what had been taken from them?  maybe RH is exactly what we need?

i think this is why i lean more toward the flat tax with no exemptions for anyone.  

tecumseh, do you find that people attach the descriptor "arrogant" to your name on a regular basis?

Marx is someone that anyone who does even a superficial study of economic theory, must include.  Marx did not talk about the middle class and neither did i.  it is fair to say that the "worker" that Marx did talk about has been changed to "the hard working middle class" by the progressives.  it is class warfare.  "the worker" was used in the same way that the middle class is now being used.  Why?  two things, i think.  numbers and passion.  in the days of KM, the workers were ready to rise up and fight the ruling class.  in the last election progressives convinced the middle class that progressive ideals were the way to go.  
contrary to what the left would tell you, we don't have enough poor people in this country to swing an election.

Marx did believe in redistribution of wealth.  his economic theory depended on it.  the entire idea was to strip property and wealth and make it communal.  when they were stuffing peasants into the (formerly) private homes of the wealthy, they were claiming the property for the people.  Marx just forgot to take into account the fact that someone would have to oversee the redistribution and he forgot that man is a greedy, mean, nasty, creature, in his natural state.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2010, 10:40:25 AM »

do you forget that Robin Hood robbed the church/government to give back to the people what had been taken from them?  

You have done this before. Most people think of Robin Hood as the one that robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. Yes it was the Government and Church that was rich and yes they got it from the people.

I think the flat tax with no exemptions is the only way to be fair.

Say 10% tax for everyone.
 
you make    /    you pay
$1                   $.10
$10                 $1.10
$100               $10.00
$1,000             $100.00
$10,000           $1,000.00

You see how that goes??

$100,000,00     $10,000.00
$1,000,000.00   $100,000.00

You see, the richer you are the more you pay this way.

I can even figure it out.  tumbleweed
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2010, 10:44:09 AM »

Actually, I have read Marx, it was required reading in a course I took. The "communism" as executed in 'the real world' after Marx was EXACTLY the kind of communism he described - his assertion was that a strong government would have to oversee the equitable distribution of labor and goods until the government was able to phase itself out of the equation. Marx also asserted that communism could not begin without a bloody overthrow of capitalistic systems.,  Kindly, before insinuating that I havent read marx, perhaps read it yourself.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
tshnc01
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 134


Location: Orange County, NC


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2010, 10:49:35 AM »

Quote
1) The first way is something an investor does - taking paper losses.  When the market is down, an investor switches say from mutual fund a to mutual fund B.  He stays in the market and so has not taken a real loss, but has a paper loss. The IRS lets you use these losses to offset other income and carry it over to future years indefinitely to offset any future capital gains, (when the market is up and you actually do sell at a gain). Perfectly legal. Even  smallish unsophisticated  investors do this and so I know some who have not paid a capital gains tax in many many years.

PeteG22, I understand the mechanisms you describe, but I do not agree with some conclusions you draw.  Lets take an example:  Suppose I have $100,000 to invest.  I purchase two funds (A and B), putting $50,000 to work in each.  A year later the "stock market" values my investment in fund A at $60,000 an my investment in fund B at $40,000.  If I sell fund A I have a capital gain of $10,000.  If I sell fund B I have a capital loss of $10,000.  Why do you call my $10,000 loss a "paper loss"Huh  If I realize it (ie. sell) then I have an "actual loss".  If I sell them both, I have EXACTLY what I started with a year earlier, and in my opinion, should not owe anything.  If I do reinvest the proceeds from fund B into a fund (lets call it B1 as it looks basically the same as B), my cost basis in that fund is now $40,000.  So if at some point in the future, it does go up and I sell it, I will likely owe more as the difference in basis is captured.
Quote
2) The second way that capital gains taxes are avoided is written into the law. Only "realized" (cashed-in) gains are taxed. Most gains are never realized ie never cashed in. The very wealthy investor can easily live off their dividends (taxed at half rate). Thus their capital grows tax free indefinitely until they are passed to the next generation, often through a trust to avoid the estate tax. I'm doing the analysis now and it looks like in a typical year 85% of capital not gains are left "unrealized" in the market are so are not taxed. (or reflected in reported tax rates)

Pete, much of the "wealth" in the country is not held by "passive investors"; it is in the form of closely held businesses, real estate, etc.  In my opinion, a gain is a gain until it is realized.

Quote
We know that in long run wealthy investors will make an average 8% in even a conservative portfolio and say 75% of this is in capital gains

This assumption is exactly why we are in such trouble with our public/private pensions today.  It is not true

...Tim

Logged

kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2010, 11:24:45 AM »

Quote
his assertion was that a strong government would have to oversee the equitable distribution of labor and goods until the government was able to phase itself out of the equation. Marx also asserted that communism could not begin without a bloody overthrow of capitalistic systems.,  Kindly, before insinuating that I havent read Marx, perhaps read it yourself.

don't know who you were aiming that at  grin

my point, if it need clarification, was that Marx didn't envision communism the way it turned out.  it is true that he was all for revolution.  didn't care how the goals were achieved as long as they were, etc.  that has been the blueprint for every communist revolution, that the end justifies the slaughter.  he did know that a strong government would be needed to oversee the achievement of the goals and to keep the bourgeoisie from regaining power.  he believed that a proletariat government would abolish class struggle.  they would be the only "class".
 remember that Marx and Engels were German academics.  while Germany and Russia (for instance) have much in common, they also have many differences.  not the least among them, size. Marx believed in forced relocation of population to achieve goals, but  he probably would not have thought about what that meant in a country like Russia with a Stalin in charge.
anyway...marx/engles are perfect examples of what happens when academics think things up and real people try to implement them.  Wink  they often don't turn out the way the theorists expect.

went back to re-read the communist manifesto.  always good stuff.  thought i'd post this summary from a section.  we might recognize much of it?

 Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2010, 11:31:16 AM »

Kathy, I was addressing a generalized shot from tecumseh ( 'and others'). I'm not a fan of Marx because I know that while it's a lovely pipe dream, that's all it is.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15143


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2010, 11:35:07 AM »

i don't know why you aren't a fan.  it sounds so good!   evil
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2010, 12:46:43 PM »

i don't know why you aren't a fan.  it sounds so good!   evil
I prefer dragon stories and sci fi - I think we have a better chance of developing interstallar wormholes than having a working communist utopia phase on earth.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2010, 01:17:22 PM »

i don't know why you aren't a fan.  it sounds so good!   evil
I prefer dragon stories and sci fi - I think we have a better chance of developing interstallar wormholes than having a working communist utopia phase on earth.

I'm all for that as long as I don't have to do anything  grin
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.535 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page September 13, 2014, 11:59:06 AM