RealGM

Continued from here

TerdEGgo sucks

#impeachtrump

Zonkerbl wrote:You can't just wave a magic wand and fix the tax system. There will be some leakage. But it's also flatly false that any tax you impose will be 100% ineffective. That's just preposterous.

One of the reasons we have such an obtuse tax system is we're letting people get away with distorting the system for their own nefarious ends. The solution to that is sunlight - more people, more NGOs paying attention to the tax giveaways lobbyists have built into the system, like AOC is doing.

To claim that the system is so corrupt that there's no point in trying to tax rich people is absurdly self-serving. And by the way it's not true. If it were the effective tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year would be 0%. It's not, it's 26%. Can we base our discussion on facts please?

On the margin, yes, people find ways to dodge the system, so the effective tax rate is actually lower for those with income higher than $10 million and that is indeed wrong and broken and needs to be fixed. But we are still able to collect 26% from these people.

Yes, you can have a bill that can fix the tax code. You are saying that we need to leave the carveouts in place?

Great that the NGOs bring up the flaws - but running on increasing marginal rates vs fixing the code is disingenuous. To claim otherwise is absurd. And the reason we collect 26% is we go after the working rich - which makes them want to dodge the system even more - and those are the ones that are penalized by higher marginal rates.

The proposal is stupid without fixing the tax code.

#TrumpisGOAT

dckingsfan wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:You can't just wave a magic wand and fix the tax system. There will be some leakage. But it's also flatly false that any tax you impose will be 100% ineffective. That's just preposterous.

One of the reasons we have such an obtuse tax system is we're letting people get away with distorting the system for their own nefarious ends. The solution to that is sunlight - more people, more NGOs paying attention to the tax giveaways lobbyists have built into the system, like AOC is doing.

To claim that the system is so corrupt that there's no point in trying to tax rich people is absurdly self-serving. And by the way it's not true. If it were the effective tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year would be 0%. It's not, it's 26%. Can we base our discussion on facts please?

On the margin, yes, people find ways to dodge the system, so the effective tax rate is actually lower for those with income higher than $10 million and that is indeed wrong and broken and needs to be fixed. But we are still able to collect 26% from these people.

Yes, you can have a bill that can fix the tax code. You are saying that we need to leave the carveouts in place?

Great that the NGOs bring up the flaws - but running on increasing marginal rates vs fixing the code is disingenuous. To claim otherwise is absurd. And the reason we collect 26% is we go after the working rich - which makes them want to dodge the system even more - and those are the ones that are penalized by higher marginal rates.

The proposal is stupid without fixing the tax code.

Yes! Now you finally get it. It is literally impossible to legislate your way out of this problem. Thank you for finally understanding. The legislative process will ensure that, given the same amount of daylight and oversight, any new tax legislation that can actually pass out of Congress will have exactly the same level of brokenness as the previous system. Fixing what's wrong with our tax system is a *fundamentally different problem* than fixing inequities with targeted tax policy.

Now if you could stop making me repeat myself - you can use tax policy to redistribute wealth in the current system. It may only be 80% effective. But it is a flat out lie to say it would be 100% ineffectual and I don't understand why you keep insisting in believing this lie. Who is telling you this?

Finally, it is *mathematically impossible* for what you say about the 26% tax rate to be true. You can take my word for it or I can do the math for you. Just not right now, I'm working.

Zonkerbl wrote:

dckingsfan wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:You can't just wave a magic wand and fix the tax system. There will be some leakage. But it's also flatly false that any tax you impose will be 100% ineffective. That's just preposterous.

One of the reasons we have such an obtuse tax system is we're letting people get away with distorting the system for their own nefarious ends. The solution to that is sunlight - more people, more NGOs paying attention to the tax giveaways lobbyists have built into the system, like AOC is doing.

To claim that the system is so corrupt that there's no point in trying to tax rich people is absurdly self-serving. And by the way it's not true. If it were the effective tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year would be 0%. It's not, it's 26%. Can we base our discussion on facts please?

On the margin, yes, people find ways to dodge the system, so the effective tax rate is actually lower for those with income higher than $10 million and that is indeed wrong and broken and needs to be fixed. But we are still able to collect 26% from these people.

Yes, you can have a bill that can fix the tax code. You are saying that we need to leave the carveouts in place?

Great that the NGOs bring up the flaws - but running on increasing marginal rates vs fixing the code is disingenuous. To claim otherwise is absurd. And the reason we collect 26% is we go after the working rich - which makes them want to dodge the system even more - and those are the ones that are penalized by higher marginal rates.

The proposal is stupid without fixing the tax code.

Yes! Now you finally get it. It is literally impossible to legislate your way out of this problem. Thank you for finally understanding. The legislative process will ensure that, given the same amount of daylight and oversight, any new tax legislation that can actually pass out of Congress will have exactly the same level of brokenness as the previous system. Fixing what's wrong with our tax system is a *fundamentally different problem* than fixing inequities with targeted tax policy.

Now if you could stop making me repeat myself - you can use tax policy to redistribute wealth in the current system. It may only be 80% effective. But it is a flat out lie to say it would be 100% ineffectual and I don't understand why you keep insisting in believing this lie. Who is telling you this?

Finally, it is *mathematically impossible* for what you say about the 26% tax rate to be true. You can take my word for it or I can do the math for you. Just not right now, I'm working.

Yep, do the math for me... maybe your formulas are different than mine. Fixing the tax code problem isn't difficult, it just requires focus. Again, these proposals UNFOCUS on the real issue. That these new proposals may be 10% effective and have 90% ineffective unintended consequences is the real issue.

Again, the GND and Warren proposals are fundamentally flawed and really bad ideas.

dckingsfan wrote:

Zonkerbl wrote:You can't just wave a magic wand and fix the tax system. There will be some leakage. But it's also flatly false that any tax you impose will be 100% ineffective. That's just preposterous.

One of the reasons we have such an obtuse tax system is we're letting people get away with distorting the system for their own nefarious ends. The solution to that is sunlight - more people, more NGOs paying attention to the tax giveaways lobbyists have built into the system, like AOC is doing.

To claim that the system is so corrupt that there's no point in trying to tax rich people is absurdly self-serving. And by the way it's not true. If it were the effective tax rate on people earning more than $10 million per year would be 0%. It's not, it's 26%. Can we base our discussion on facts please?

On the margin, yes, people find ways to dodge the system, so the effective tax rate is actually lower for those with income higher than $10 million and that is indeed wrong and broken and needs to be fixed. But we are still able to collect 26% from these people.

Yes, you can have a bill that can fix the tax code. You are saying that we need to leave the carveouts in place?

Great that the NGOs bring up the flaws - but running on increasing marginal rates vs fixing the code is disingenuous. To claim otherwise is absurd. And the reason we collect 26% is we go after the working rich - which makes them want to dodge the system even more - and those are the ones that are penalized by higher marginal rates.

The proposal is stupid without fixing the tax code.

ok guys we are finally on the most important part of politics...our tax codes...so I am going to beg each and every one of you to stay on topic of the tax code. can we please do 10 pages of strictly tax talk? pretty please?

Tax talk is the alpha and omega of fairness and equality. think about it...you may never ever get the money "spent" in your district or on stuff you want....but if you can at least get the money confiscated from the elites you are half way home!!

DCkings and I disagree with zonk and Zonk and I disgree with dckings on a few things.


But lets just stick to "tax theory" for a second.

1. In theory, I entirely disagree that changing the tax code is hard. I think it is easy!!
2. and I entirely disagree that there is no magic wand...there is...there are many magic wands to change it.
3. the wand is nothing more than a pen and the magic is nothing more than writing out of the tax codes many of the pre-tax write offs.
4. one of my companies manages a massive real estate portfolio for a very wealthy family. and this family is constantly strategizing for "financial armageddon." Every single investment strategy pitched comes with a 90 day, 10 day and 24 hour exit strategy and expected losses/gains upon exit. They are not alone. I'm talking the smartest and most experienced asset managers on the planet with a team of wiz kids behind them crunching numbers. Most extremely wealthy families understand that they can lose hundreds of millions if not billions by not being diligent and staying ahead of any tax adcvantages...state, local, or federal. Conversely they understand that they can make millions if not hundreds of millions by taking advantage of any changes....there generally are many local changes and therefore (dis) advantages in tax laws...however temporary or local.

One family that I work closely with as an outside consultant has a consistent team of 5-10 senior analysts that rotate in and out 30 more wiz kids fresh out of school annually so as to keep the ideas fresh. These consultants all have either MBA's from harvard, NW, stanford...with specialties in finance, accounting, and managament. Each earn $250K per year and up/plus bonus depending on revenue they bring in. and each has sub specialty. there is a mergers and acquisitions team, and real estate and development team, and stocks and bonds team (essentially a team day traders), and a debt team. The combined payroll on the entire team is over $5 million. Think about that!!

They bring me in on real estate stuff because I'm tied in on the streets. As a doctor, I have access to stuff they dont. Stuff they wouldn't and couldn't touch in a million years but turns out to be there most profitable investments 3-4 years out. I've gained favor with them because even though i never took a single business class or tax class or accounting class in my entire life I can deliver 30% annual returns or better. Its through this family that I met Obama personally and talking with his entire cabinet at christmas in 2008.

And here's what i can guarantee you all. the uber wealthy understand how easy it is to change tax codes. Dont get me wrong...they will all fight it...all the (so called do gooders) (most of them claim to be democrats and fund demcoratic politicians) all of these billionaires will tie our government up in court for years trying to keep their money from getting taxed. <--think about that for a second. They are almost all "democrats." They are also billionaires. And they dont want their wealth taxed!!

What's their excuse for not wanting their wealth taxed? How do they justify being democrats?? The same lie DCkings tried to tell us on page 98 of the last thread...that they feel they can "do more" for people in their own foundations. Seriously!! You dont have free healthcare and free college because they are not fairly taxed...so that they can keep their money and fund programs like doctors without borders...which is a good program...a great program...ive been on over 20 missions in various countries helping others...but if you want my honest opinion?? we are just as wasteful in the doctors without borders program as we are in the federal government...and guess who the big winner is?? take a guess!! Bug frickin pharma!! Thats right!! Big pharma is the big winner. The losers? the idiots? The american people and the doctors and nurses who volunteer for free and get nothing out of it and the program would NOT exist without us. Frankly? its a big rip off. Its a massive transfer of wealth and resources. Money that should be taxed to pay down our down or provide services here in the US goes untaxed and gets slightly tranfered to foreign countries but the real gains go directly to big pharma who sells the medicine to the program...often batches of almost expired medicine that would rot...instead gets bought up and used overseas for massive profits for big pharma.

^^i bring this up just to demonstrate another fallacy about these non profits. Someone is always profiting!!!!! Always!! every single time!! and often hundreds of millions!!

So lets stay on topic of fixing our tax codes!! let's get focused. Lets define our agenda and lets come to a consensus as to how to fairly tax income.

FTR, I already know the magic wand:

1. flat rate 10% taxes on all gross revenue (not net) of sales or income over $24,000.

-----No pre tax write offs. no carve outs. nothing. and you pay as the revenue comes in. example...you buy a beer at a bar...10% of that sale automatically goes to the IRS. Wallgreens buys meds from big pharma? 10% goes to IRS upon payment!! not 21.5% post write off.

10% tax on all gross revenue is the magic wand!!!! .

thoughts?

Thoughts from some of our more left leaning posters?

Test of Finland's basic income: It creates happiness but not jobs

A nationwide experiment with basic income in Finland has not increased employment among those participating in the two-year trial, but their general well-being seems to have increased, a report said Friday.

The Social Insurance Institution of Finland, or Kela, said "it was not yet possible to draw any firm conclusions" from the first half of the experiment, where about 2,000 randomly selected, unemployed people aged 25-58 got tax-free income of 560 euros ($636) a month with no questions asked.

Finland is looking into ways to reshape its social security system and became in January 2017 the first European country to launch the trial, which will end in 2020.

Critics say universal basic income reduces incentives for people to look for work.

Proponents say it can empower people to start new businesses, knowing that they would continue to receive monthly income no matter how well their new venture does. It can also encourage people to try a new job without the fear of losing their unemployment checks or having to go through the paperwork of reapplying for benefits.

The report found that those on basic income and the unemployed people in the control group ended up working roughly the same number of days.

Associated Press

i can understand where UBI proponents are coming from, but i don't think as a society we're there yet, but we're relatively close.

without going into a thousand-word dive into it, the tl;dr is that we're hurtling towards convergence with the Star Trek universe in terms of efficiency, automation, and AI, and the closer we get, the more it makes sense a UBI society makes.

Jamaaliver wrote:Thoughts from some of our more left leaning posters?

Test of Finland's basic income: It creates happiness but not jobs

A nationwide experiment with basic income in Finland has not increased employment among those participating in the two-year trial, but their general well-being seems to have increased, a report said Friday.

The Social Insurance Institution of Finland, or Kela, said "it was not yet possible to draw any firm conclusions" from the first half of the experiment, where about 2,000 randomly selected, unemployed people aged 25-58 got tax-free income of 560 euros ($636) a month with no questions asked.

Finland is looking into ways to reshape its social security system and became in January 2017 the first European country to launch the trial, which will end in 2020.

Critics say universal basic income reduces incentives for people to look for work.

Proponents say it can empower people to start new businesses, knowing that they would continue to receive monthly income no matter how well their new venture does. It can also encourage people to try a new job without the fear of losing their unemployment checks or having to go through the paperwork of reapplying for benefits.

The report found that those on basic income and the unemployed people in the control group ended up working roughly the same number of days.

Associated Press

The problem with the Universal Basic Income is that it doesn’t recognize the dignity that some people have with working. I think on its face it’s an interesting concept, however I’m starting to think something like a Federal Jobs Guarantee would provide a better solution.

Pointgod wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:Thoughts from some of our more left leaning posters?

Test of Finland's basic income: It creates happiness but not jobs

A nationwide experiment with basic income in Finland has not increased employment among those participating in the two-year trial, but their general well-being seems to have increased, a report said Friday.

The Social Insurance Institution of Finland, or Kela, said "it was not yet possible to draw any firm conclusions" from the first half of the experiment, where about 2,000 randomly selected, unemployed people aged 25-58 got tax-free income of 560 euros ($636) a month with no questions asked.

Finland is looking into ways to reshape its social security system and became in January 2017 the first European country to launch the trial, which will end in 2020.

Critics say universal basic income reduces incentives for people to look for work.

Proponents say it can empower people to start new businesses, knowing that they would continue to receive monthly income no matter how well their new venture does. It can also encourage people to try a new job without the fear of losing their unemployment checks or having to go through the paperwork of reapplying for benefits.

The report found that those on basic income and the unemployed people in the control group ended up working roughly the same number of days.

Associated Press

The problem with the Universal Basic Income is that it doesn’t recognize the dignity that some people have with working. I think on its face it’s an interesting concept, however I’m starting to think something like a Federal Jobs Guarantee would provide a better solution.

There's only so many jobs, and many are being phased out by automation or outsourced. That's the whole reasoning behind it. A federal jobs program is only as good as the jobs available. Bernie Sanders has the best plan, since he's proposing a jobs program tied to an infrastructure rejuvenation bill, which tackles two problems at once.

OMG I JUST CAN'T

so 10% flat tax on all gross revenue pre "write offs." what do you guys think?

2 typical mom and pops


typical mom and pop decent sized small business: (lawyer, accountant, doctor, dentist, successful realtor)
Gross revenue: $375,000
typical Net profit on business tax return: $60,000
AGI on personal return: $40,000
total personal tax paid on pass through income: $10,000
Total employer contributions for employees: $9,000
real income: probably about $175,000 buried in carve outs and loop holes, expansion, business "rent paid to self owned commercial unit, meals, entertainment, meetings, vacations for CE, miles driven on car, etc. etc.
---under current tax codes (which didn't change much for small business) this corporation only pays about $19,000 in total taxes!! even though it has $375,000 in gross revenue. and all of their (about 2) employees make under $25k and would get money back at the end of the year!! $1-2k of that 19,000 collected would go back to the employee on tax personal return.
----we'd be better off taxing them 10% on gross and calling it a day!! that would be $37,500 in total taxes!!! and tax the employees the same 10% on their personal income!! so the total taxes collected would be around $40,000 instead of 17,000!!!

Thats it!! a typical mom and pop that grosses $350K in revenue is only paying $20,000 in total state and federal taxes (at most)<--high estimate. Most mom and pop's grossing $350K typicall wont claim more than $70K in AGI and wont pay more than $25,000 in total state and federal taxes. Tops!! usually more like 40K in AGI and $12K in total state and federal taxes.

They get away with this by not paying themselves very small amounts bi weekly. and buying the buildings the business occupies and writing off depreciation after borrowing against the business or writing the use of their home as a "home office."

So they end up with equity in their real estate. that continues to appreciate and they typically live within their means. If they want to buy a nice car? simple. the company buys it with cash and uses it for business!!

Why not just make using cash illegal for any purchase over $1.00 daily? and $10 monthly. and tax the transfer at 10%??? Call it all income!!! if you give your 18 year old kids $100 per week while they are away at college?? Thats income!! tax it at 10%!!!

it gets immediately taxed upon transfer!! no need for an IRS to audit anyone!! ever!! no need to ever file taxes again!!! it will save the US tax payers a ton!! Just force all money transaction to be taxed at 10%!!!!

tax any and all income at 10%...all transfers of any kind of meaningful wealth.

and make the inheritance tax a sustainable 25% This way the wealthy cant cry too much about it.

mom and pop very small business: (cake maker, small cafe, realtor)
total revenue: $90,000
net profit: $18,000
AGI on pass through: 0
total taxes paid: 0 (often a large refund if they have kids or "earned income credit")
welfare eligibility: full amount!! this couple or individual could easily get section 8 and full medicaid and food stamps.
real income: probably about $40,000 buried in some loop holes but mostly and likely unreported cash. and if they are not bringing home at least $40K why stay in business?? Why put in 8-10 hour days 6 days per week? 40 k tax free plud medicaid benefits is like making 80K as a W2 employee.
---10% flat tax as i describe would net the IRS $9,000.
---the current tax codes would net nothing and payout over $20K in "social" benefits!

so i say...tax them all at 10% pre write offs. Make it illegal to conduct business transactions using cash. force everyone to go electronic.

make it illegal for any business owner to collect any type of government aid be it section 8, cash, or food stamps, or medicaid. If you are "in business" for yourself you simply cant hide your wealth AND collect aid. If you truly suck that bad at "business" go work for someone else. You'd be doing yourself (and the rest of us) a favor anyway.

Pelosi....oh lord help us.

Anybody else getting a kick out of watching Real Billionaire with Real Newspaper vs Fake Billionaire and Fake Newspaper?

Does this Centrist Democrat have much of a chance in the Democratic Primaries?

Republicans gush over Klobuchar



Amy Klobuchar has an unusual constituency behind her as she launches her run for president: Senate Republicans.

In a Democratic caucus filled with presidential hopefuls taking a hard line against Donald Trump’s presidency, the Minnesota senator's brand of pragmatic politics stands out. And numerous Republicans are raving about Klobuchar — her personality, her respect for the other party, even her competitiveness in a general election.

In fact, a dozen GOP senators were so effusive in interviews this month that some worried they might damage her candidacy in a Democratic nomination fight that has many candidates embracing the party’s left flank.

Republicans say that Klobuchar was one of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who was most respectful when questioning Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year about sexual assault allegations...

Klobuchar’s Republican pals say that her political abilities would be imposing in a general election against Trump, noting her strong appeal in the Midwest — the region that tipped the presidency to Trump in 2016.

Some Democrats are “going to be looking for somebody that is actually going to be electable in a general election. And I think it’s a spot she could fill,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the GOP whip.

“I don’t like to give Democrats advice but they’ve got to be able to carry the Midwest,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

It’s not just Republican senators who are fans. George Will, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, penned an op-ed recently that described Klobuchar as “the person perhaps best equipped to send the current president packing,” pointing to her Midwest roots as an asset for Democrats and praising her even-keeled temperament.

Politico

Pointgod wrote:

Jamaaliver wrote:Thoughts from some of our more left leaning posters?

The problem with the Universal Basic Income is that it doesn’t recognize the dignity that some people have with working. I think on its face it’s an interesting concept, however I’m starting to think something like a Federal Jobs Guarantee would provide a better solution.

pancakes3 wrote:i can understand where UBI proponents are coming from, but i don't think as a society we're there yet, but we're relatively close.

without going into a thousand-word dive into it, the tl;dr is that we're hurtling towards convergence with the Star Trek universe in terms of efficiency, automation, and AI, and the closer we get, the more it makes sense a UBI society makes.

Thank you both for the input. I appreciate reasoned, well thought out responses to these types of issues.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Finland gave people free money. It didn’t help them get jobs — but does that matter?

Receiving a basic income had other great effects on the unemployed.



Preliminary results are in for Finland’s landmark experiment with basic income — the idea that the government should give citizens a regular infusion of free cash with no strings attached. The outcome is not what Finland hoped it would be. But it’s arguably a success anyway.

The Finnish trial, the results of which were released Friday, wasn’t an experiment in universal basic income (UBI), which includes all citizens whether they’ve got jobs or not. Rather, it was a targeted attempt to see what would happen if the government chose 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave them a check of 560 euros ($635) every month for two years. Participants were assured they’d keep receiving the money if they got a job. In fact, the experiment’s stated goal was about “promoting employment” — the government wanted to see if having a basic income leads people to accept more work, even if it’s low-paying or temporary.

By that metric, the experiment was a failure: Receiving free money didn’t impact the likelihood of people entering the workforce one way or another.

But here’s what the basic income did do: It made recipients feel happier and less stressed. “The basic income recipients of the test group reported better well-being in every way than the comparison group,” according to researcher Olli Kangas.

So, what’s the purpose of basic income?

The idea of universal basic income — that the state should dispense a guaranteed, regular stipend to every single citizen — has been around at least since the 16th century. Its classic aims are to reduce poverty and inequality. Some countries, like Canada, have been experimenting with basic income for decades and others, like Italy, just put a version of it into practice.

I bet it did make the recipients happier -- receiving free money, no strings attached.

My interest is officially piqued.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar has won every one of her elections by huge margins. Now she’s running for president

The Minnesota Democrat has a reputation of being the Senate’s pragmatist

In her 12 years as Minnesota’s senator, Amy Klobuchar has built a reputation as a quick-witted, hardworking, pragmatist: the “senator next door.”

Now Klobuchar is running for president, officially announcing a 2020 bid for the Democratic Party nomination Sunday, February 10. There are reasons to consider her a serious contender.

Klobuchar is popular with voters. At 58, she’s on her third term in the Senate — elections she’s won by landslide margins. She won reelection in 2018 by a whopping 26 points over Republican opponent Jim Newberger, including in 43 counties that President Donald Trump won in 2016.

But she also faces challenges. On the issues that that the Democratic Party’s base are prioritizing — Medicare-for-all, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage — Klobuchar is notably quiet. She hasn’t signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all or $15 minimum wage proposal. She supports universal health care and reducing drug prices more generally. Her views on trade are more middle of the road. Her answer to college affordability wasn’t making tuition free but rather a student loan refinancing proposal called the RED Act. On immigration, she was part of a bipartisan group of senators who tried to reach a compromise with Trump. And as Sanders, Warren, Harris and Booker compete with progressive bills to combat inequality, Klobuchar is touting a proposal she sponsored with Republican Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) that would allow people to use tax advantaged savings accounts to pay for educational expenses like skills training.

She’s also made headlines recently for her alleged mistreatment of staff — something that’s dogged her for years.

Klobuchar has the biography of a 2020 presidential candidate. She grew up in Plymouth, Minnesota, went to Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School. She’s the daughter of a schoolteacher and a famous Minnesota columnist — Jim Klobuchar.

Her candidacy will likely be focused on trying to make the case for pragmatism. The question is whether her vision, or the rising progressive wing’s vision, is where Democratic Party voters want to go.

“I don’t have a political machine,” Klobuchar said in the closing minutes of her announcement speech. “I don’t come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit.”

VOX

This is absolute ONE of the healthcare drivers that needs to be addressed before M4A can be successful. And although it shows that Ds support monopolies in general, it seems like they are "kind of" coming around. The reasons that they endorse monopolies is for control. They are "kind of" figuring out that it doesn't always work for them.

FAH1223 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter