Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 4:55 AM
310 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 309 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Bernie Sanders is a Centerist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 31 of 76 (822389)
10-24-2017 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 1:40 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
If the rich get to keep more of their money, through tax cuts, who is going to pick up the burden ?

To add more. Proportion of income taken is much more important as a measure of impact than the proportion of the total contributed by any group. (And it also matters how much is being collected)

Even then, the rich can afford to give a higher proportion of their income, because basic expenses have to be paid by everyone (housing, food, clothes)

And then there are other taxes, too. Shifting the tax burden from income tax to others is one way that the burden can be shifted - which won’t show in your figures because they only show the proportion of Federal income tax each group pays.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 1:40 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:53 PM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 76 (822396)
10-24-2017 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
10-23-2017 4:34 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
Okay, I'm talking about totals.

Which doesn't show you how the rates have changed. End argument -- you are using the wrong data for the argument that tax cuts -- changes in rates -- for the rich is shifting to tax increases -- changes in rates -- for the middle class and poor.

Well, it depends. Hypothetically, the rate can decrease while the total amount increases if the income increases enough.

Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant.

It doesn't really matter to me how much the rate has changed since 1960. That the top 10% are paying 70% of the federal income taxes doesn't look like a problem of the poor and middle class having those taxes shifted to them. Especially when the bottom 50% are only paying 3% of the federal income taxes.

And still totally irrelevant.

If the rich are paying the vast majority of a tax, then it doesn't make sense to say that the tax has been shifted to another group.

Because totals don't tell you deltas. It doesn't matter how much they are paying if they are still paying less than before -- because that is a shift, a delta, a change, and not a total.

Turns out, if you look at federal income taxes, the rich are paying the bulk of them. They have not been shifted to the poor and middle class.

Still effin irrelevant to whether there has been a shift. You can't see it because you are looking at the wrong data.

It's like I'm saying it is getting cooler in the tropics and hotter at the poles, and you're saying that the temperature in the tropics is still way warmer than the arctic temperatures. That's a fact with no meaning to whether or not the temperature distribution is shifting from one place to another.

As others note, the real difference shows up in the levels of disposable income for the individuals. The poor and middle class have less disposable income than before, while the rich have more disposable income than before. This is due to tax cuts for the rich and increased burdens on the poor and middle class.

This is why the economy is not recovering at the bottom economic levels.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2017 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 3:02 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 33 of 76 (822414)
10-24-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taq
10-23-2017 5:41 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
I think there is something to be said for looking at the larger picture and not just at tax rates.

I agree, focusing on just the rates is too small of a picture.

The amount of inequality is getting pretty bad where the top 10% has 76% of the wealth, and that number is expected to get even worse as time moves on.

Okay. So, you're talking about holdings now - we were talking about income. Just sayin'.

I suppose an increase in holdings indicates an increase in income. I guess it makes sense that the rich are still paying most of the taxes even though the rates have changed so that some of the burden has been moved to the lower classes. But to the question of who is paying for it, the rates don't really tell you.

As far as the "problem" of the rich getting richer, I'm not convinced that is an issue with tax rates. Like, that people stopped supporting their local businesses and instead just go to WalMart is not a tax problem. If we want the rich to stop getting richer, then how about we stop giving them our money?

Giving them our money and then having the government force them to give it back in a roundabout way seems silly.

In 1960, a middle class family could easily could afford a degree from a state university. Now? It is much more common for a kid from a middle class family to leave school with $25,000 or more of debt, if they are lucky. Health care? That has skyrocketed, and benefits continue to decline.

Isn't that more of an issue with universities and health care than it is an issue with tax rates?

What tax cuts have done is push more of an economic burden onto the middle class, at least in my poorly informed economic opinion.

I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taq, posted 10-23-2017 5:41 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6025
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 76 (822415)
10-24-2017 2:51 PM


http://www.france24.com/...flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures

New figures published this week suggest that an increasing number of France’s top earners are leaving the country, with some observers blaming high taxes for the rising “wealth drain”.

A total of 3,744 people who earned 100,000 euros per year or more left France in 2013, a 40 percent increase compared to 2012, French financial newspaper Les Echos revealed citing figures from the national tax-collecting office.

Furthermore, 659 people who earned 300,000 euros or more annually said ‘au revoir’ in 2013, a 46 percent rise on the previous year. By comparison, the overall French migration rate in 2013 increased by only 6 percent.

More

Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 4:34 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 53 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 3:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 35 of 76 (822416)
10-24-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
10-24-2017 2:10 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
If the rich get to keep more of their money, through tax cuts, who is going to pick up the burden ?

Others, I get it.

That phrasing threw me for a loop, though: if the rich get to keep more of their money... yikes that sounds like theft.

Shifting the tax burden from income tax to others is one way that the burden can be shifted - which won’t show in your figures because they only show the proportion of Federal income tax each group pays.

I understand that. I don't doubt that some of the burden has been shifted.

I wouldn't call it a massive shift because the rich still pay the most. That they're less burdened by it is an aside.

And I'm not convinced that the rich getting richer is a tax problem. Nor am I convinced that taxes are the right solution.

Hyperbolic spin doesn't cut it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 2:10 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 36 of 76 (822418)
10-24-2017 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
10-24-2017 8:26 AM


Re: totals are not deltas
Which doesn't show you how the rates have changed. End argument -- you are using the wrong data for the argument that tax cuts -- changes in rates -- for the rich is shifting to tax increases -- changes in rates -- for the middle class and poor.

Actually, I'm just not arguing that.

Because totals don't tell you deltas. It doesn't matter how much they are paying if they are still paying less than before -- because that is a shift, a delta, a change, and not a total.

But the answer to the question of who is paying depends on how much people are paying and not how much their rates have changed. As I said, the rate could go down while the amount of payment goes up - and that would not be them paying less.

Still effin irrelevant to whether there has been a shift. You can't see it because you are looking at the wrong data.

I don't doubt that there has been some shifting - but I'm not buying your spin that it has been massive.

Maybe it has been, but I haven't seen it yet.

What was the amount of contribution from the top ten percent in 1960 and how does that compare to the 70% of today?

As others note, the real difference shows up in the levels of disposable income for the individuals. The poor and middle class have less disposable income than before, while the rich have more disposable income than before. This is due to tax cuts for the rich and increased burdens on the poor and middle class.

Is it really due to that? How do you know?

This is why the economy is not recovering at the bottom economic levels.

How do you know that's why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 8:26 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13297
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 37 of 76 (822419)
10-24-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 2:53 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
quote:

I understand that. I don't doubt that some of the burden has been shifted.

I wouldn't call it a massive shift because the rich still pay the most. That they're less burdened by it is an aside.


But that is not a valid argument. They pay a high proportion of Federal income tax, yes, although they also have quite a high share of the income. But that doesn’t tell us that there haven’t been big changes in the distribution of tax. It doesn’t even look at the changes at all - even in the only tax being considered.

The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. - for income tax - was 91% in the 50s. In 2015 it’s under 40%. Yes, there are some confounders in there but that looks like a pretty big change to me. And the 1950s are hardly regarded as bad by most conservatives.

Tax Policy Center


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:25 AM PaulK has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 38 of 76 (822425)
10-24-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-24-2017 2:41 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
New Cat's Eye writes:

Okay. So, you're talking about holdings now - we were talking about income. Just sayin'.

The super rich use those holdings to make income, and that income is often taxed at a lower rate than the salary of that same rich guy's secretary. Warren Buffet lamented that very fact. The super rich have worked in conjunction with congress to massively reduce things like taxes on carried interest and capital gains. Paid income (i.e. salary) usually makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of their overall wealth.

As far as the "problem" of the rich getting richer, I'm not convinced that is an issue with tax rates. Like, that people stopped supporting their local businesses and instead just go to WalMart is not a tax problem. If we want the rich to stop getting richer, then how about we stop giving them our money?

Economics is not my strong suit, but from what I have read . . .

If we increase taxes on the rich and that pays for health insurance subsidies for the middle class, this allows middle class families to have more money in their pockets so they can buy more. Right now, that money is just sitting in a bank account when it could be put back into the economy.

Isn't that more of an issue with universities and health care than it is an issue with tax rates?

A higher progressive tax rate would make those two things more affordable to the middle class and leave them with more of their own money in their pockets.

New Cat's Eye writes:

I don't have much of an opinion on it, but a 70% tax rate is ridiculous.

There are countries with nearly those tax rates (e.g. Finland, Sweden). They seem to get along just fine. The real question is what do you get for that high tax rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-24-2017 2:41 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 39 of 76 (822426)
10-24-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
10-24-2017 2:51 PM


Coyote writes:

Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?

All they would need to do is tax money that is moved out of French banks.

If there is money to be made by investing in companies within France there will always be people willing to invest, so I don't see a problem with capital investments. If some doctors or architects want to move to a country with lower tax rates, then au revoir. This will result in a labor shortage and raise incomes for the people who stay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 2:51 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 5:14 PM Taq has responded
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 6:45 PM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 40 of 76 (822427)
10-24-2017 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
10-24-2017 4:34 PM


We don't need corporate CEO's, we don't need the rich.
Coyote writes:

Actions have consequences. Maybe the socialists can begin forbidding people to leave their countries due to their policies? A new iron curtain, perhaps?

All they would need to do is tax money that is moved out of French banks.

Actually if the rich left, it would leave the economy to be run by the workers instead of the CEO leaches.

Good riddance.

In 1776 we declared independence from a feudal king who thought income produced in the colonies was his to take at will.

We now have corporations behaving in the same authoritarian feudal manner, thinking the income produced by the workers is theirs to take at will.

Pure capitalism fails just as badly as pure socialism fails -- what is needed is a balance, where the people decide together how to divy the dividends of their labour. It's called democratic socialism, and it works. The best examples occur in worker cooperatives, where the workers in a company decide the pay rates for all employees, including management -- who can be hired and fired at will.

Sans that process the best mechanism we have is the tax code and minimum wage laws, and how they are used to restore balance between workers and management.

If workers don't have a vote in deciding corporate wages, then they do have a vote in deciding what the tax rates are -- but it is a clunky system depending on government representatives to actually represent the people instead of the corporations. When those representatives are bought by the corporations you have a corrupt system that fails to balance the needs of the people against the greed of the rich.

As I say, if they leave, good riddance, we-don't-need-them: they don't provide anything of real worth to the working people.

We found we can do without kings, and we will find we can do without CEO's ... they are leaches.

imho.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 4:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 5:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 41 of 76 (822428)
10-24-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
10-24-2017 5:14 PM


Re: We don't need corporate CEO's, we don't need the rich.
RAZD writes:

Actually if the rich left, it would leave the economy to be run by the workers instead of the CEO leaches.

That has already happened in the 1st world with manufacturing jobs moving to 3rd world nations. The colonies have simply moved from one place on the globe to another.

Pure capitalism fails just as badly as pure socialism fails -- what is needed is a balance,

That is the secret to a healthy and just economy. You need to balance general welfare and incentive. You also need transparency and competition between different interests.

If workers don't have a vote in deciding corporate wages, then they do have a vote in deciding what the tax rates are -- but it is a clunky system depending on government representatives to actually represent the people instead of the corporations. When those representatives are bought by the corporations you have a corrupt system that fails to balance the needs of the people against the greed of the rich.

It also requires a populace that resists being conned by politicians who seek to distract them with social ideologies in exchange for their economic futures. While the rubes are askeered of losing thur guns the politicians are working the back rooms to make sure corporate barons are raking in the dough at their expense. Tell them elections are all about stopping brown people from coming into the country when it really turns out to be about changing the rules in favor of the mega-rich. Tell them elections are all about stopping lil' babies from being murdered in evil liberal clinics when it is really about funneling money from the poorest class to the richest class.

It still floors me that conservative voters will continually vote against their own best interests, but it happens every single election.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 10-24-2017 5:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6025
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 76 (822432)
10-24-2017 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
10-24-2017 4:34 PM


If the "rich" leave the taxes they pay will have to be paid by middle and lower income folks. Don't forget that the rich pay a huge percentage of the income taxes.

I'd think that folks would treat them as a resource to be protected and nurtured rather than as enemies.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-24-2017 4:34 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 8:12 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 8:48 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 10-25-2017 12:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 55 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-25-2017 6:00 PM Coyote has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 43 of 76 (822439)
10-25-2017 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
10-24-2017 6:45 PM


what resource?
If the "rich" leave the taxes they pay will have to be paid by middle and lower income folks. Don't forget that the rich pay a huge percentage of the income taxes.

Because they take a bigger percentage of the profits. If they leave, those profits can be divided more equitably among the workers (who actually make the money) and their income increase will offset their higher taxes and they will need less government assistance, lowering the tax load.

What is better, to have people working starvation wages and relying on government assistance to get the bare necessities while having no disposable income, or people working a living wage so they don't need government assistance and have some disposable income?

I'd think that folks would treat them as a resource to be protected and nurtured rather than as enemies.

A resource for what -- a constant drain on the economy that sucks most of the money out of the economy so that it staggers like a drunken drug addict? What do they add to the equation?

Should Walmart pay a living wage or should they pay a starvation wage, encourage/train/school their workers to get medicare, housing assistance and food stamps so they can pocket the difference and we basically subsidize that behavior through paying the government assistance programs with out taxes? Is that the kind of "resource" you think needs to be protected, treasured, nurtured and encouraged?

The economy in the 50's was boom time, and the tax rate was 90%. High taxes on the rich is one of the few balances a democracy can have for greedy corporate high salaries, to return money to the economy that the rich take out. There is still a net loss of money flow to the economy.

Why should rich people get to decide what their salaries are, when a democratically run corporation can make those decisions in a way that supports all the workers equitably.

We got ride of tyrants in the War of Independence, we don't need new tyrants in the running of corporations.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ,


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 6:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:36 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 44 of 76 (822440)
10-25-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
10-24-2017 6:45 PM


You're a conservative -- can you explain it?
Taq in Message 41 says:

It also requires a populace that resists being conned by politicians who seek to distract them with social ideologies in exchange for their economic futures. While the rubes are askeered of losing thur guns the politicians are working the back rooms to make sure corporate barons are raking in the dough at their expense. Tell them elections are all about stopping brown people from coming into the country when it really turns out to be about changing the rules in favor of the mega-rich. Tell them elections are all about stopping lil' babies from being murdered in evil liberal clinics when it is really about funneling money from the poorest class to the richest class.

It still floors me that conservative voters will continually vote against their own best interests, but it happens every single election.

Can you explain this Coyote?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 10-24-2017 6:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2017 11:32 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11812
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 45 of 76 (822449)
10-25-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
10-24-2017 3:22 PM


Re: totals are not deltas
But that is not a valid argument. They pay a high proportion of Federal income tax, yes, although they also have quite a high share of the income. But that doesn’t tell us that there haven’t been big changes in the distribution of tax.

Neither does the rate. The rate can go down while the contribution goes up if the income increases enough.

The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. - for income tax - was 91% in the 50s. In 2015 it’s under 40%. Yes, there are some confounders in there but that looks like a pretty big change to me.

What portion of the federal income tax was paid by the top 10% in the 1950s?* And how does that compare to the 70% of today?

How much of it has been shifted?

*totally googled that sentence before submitting. Found this:

quote:
In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.

But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent. sauce


That sounds like the tax is being shifted to the rich not from them - the portion they paid went from 41% to 55% to 70%.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2017 3:22 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2017 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017