A conga line of morons

It is the day after the budget so it is not surprising that a long conga line of morons has formed to spout idiocy, ignorance and incompetence.

And it should not surprise Cats to know that right near the front of this conga line of morons is that genius Peter Van Onselen.

TAFKAS does not know why he bothers, it always make him angry, but reading PVO in the Oz today ….

Worse still, the tax cuts favour high-income earners with someone earning $200,000 getting a benefit of more than $11,000 compared to a paltry $255 for someone on $35,000. This gives Shorten an opportunity to paint the tax cuts as unfair and the government as out-of-touch. Shorten doesn’t miss such opportunities.

Worse still!  Worse still!

Let’s start with the fact that someone on a $35,000 annual income pays around $3,300 in income tax (~9%) and someone on a $200,000 annual income pays around $67,000 in income tax (~34.%).  Let’s add in the almost certain likelihood that the person on $35,000 will be getting more than $3,300 in government benefits making them essentially net tax recipients (not payers).

How much of a tax cut should someone who does not pay tax get?  Tell us oh Doctor Van?

Of course Shorten doesn’t miss such opportunities.  He is an economic nihilist.  The job of the media is to call him out for misleading and not set the foundations for it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to A conga line of morons

  1. Karabar

    How much of a tax cut should someone who does not pay tax get?

    That’s the argument that Chris Bonehead makes for eliminating the franking credits!

    Except in that case tax has already been paid.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    compared to a paltry $255 for someone on $35,000

    Whereas electing Labor will cost those people at least $500 more a year for electricity, through the cap and trade thing. You must never call it a carbon tax though.

  3. Mak Siccar

    The job of the media is to call him out for misleading …..

    Ha ha ha ha! Good one Sparty! Whilst you are dead right, that is NOT going to happen in the MSM!

  4. teamv

    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  5. Biota

    Thanks for reminding me why I never read that blokes columns. I suppose what he is inferring is in the interests of equality the person on $200k should only pay $3300 tax.

  6. Shy Ted

    Perhaps he’s the green nude conga eel.

  7. teamv
    #2978317, posted on April 3, 2019 at 10:21 am

    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    It will almost happen if we have voluntary voting and a very simple civics test.

  8. Fred

    It’s all just fiddling at the edges. LITO. LMITO.

    The minimum wage is $719.20 per week, or $37,398 per year.

    The tax free threshold should be raised to $37,398, and adjusted each year to the minimum wage.

  9. Why not just have everyone paying the same ‘equitable’ tax rate, say 20% and no work related deductions allowed. Would PVO be happy with that?

  10. Roger

    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    Here! Here!

    No representation without taxation.

  11. EvilElvis

    Whereas electing Labor will cost those people at least $500 more a year for electricity, through the cap and trade thing. You must never call it a carbon tax though.

    Yep. The AC needs to get onto this type of shit and provide the alternative of ‘no increased handouts, cheaper utilities, more jobs, freedom to spend YOUR money’.

  12. Speedbox

    Rum Rebellion this morning.

    Josh Frydenberg handed down his pre-election budget last night. It was a return to Liberal ideals. That is, tax cuts and budget surpluses….albeit thin ones. Clearly, the aim is to challenge Labor on economic credentials. Given Bill Shorten’s high spending and high taxing agenda, it’s a challenge the Coalition should easily win.…if the electorate cares enough.

    But Labor are much stronger in the climate change debate. While the sands will shift over the next six weeks, this election is shaping up as one between climate change action and economic management. It should be fascinating.…if that’s your thing.

    What’s really interesting is that these issues appeal to the opposite of each party’s natural constituency. Frydenberg’s budget gives immediate tax relief to low and middle class income earners. Shorten’s climate change policies appeal to the more financially secure, city voter.

    The best reform in the budget is one that may never come to fruition. I’m talking about the tax cuts that come into play in 2022-23 and the following year. After that time, Australian taxpayers will have a simple, three tier tax system, with marginal rates of 19%, 30% and 45%.

    This means 94% of taxpayers will have a marginal rate of no more than 30%. It also aligns personal tax rates closer to the company tax rate.

    It’s a much more sensible and efficient tax system than we’ve had for many years. Let’s hope this simplified system becomes reality.

    One thing I find pretty funny when reading commentary about the tax cuts is how they’re referred to as a ‘gift’ or a ‘tax splash’ for consumers.

    Umm….it’s our money. The government is just graciously taking less of it. It’s not a gift, its just less theft. So let’s cut the crap that the government is doing us a favour and being generous. They are simply allowing us to keep more of what we rightfully earned.

    And the tax cuts won’t result in more overall spending. This is not a boost to the economy. It’s simply returning the dividend of increased economic growth to the people who helped create it, rather than the government taking the money and spending it as they see fit. So, in that respect, its more efficient spending. Money in the hands of those who earned it, rather than those who taxed it, is always spent more efficiently.

    The other centrepiece of the budget is the return to surplus next financial year —2019-20. The budget is expected to be in surplus to the tune of $7.1 billion, or 0.4% of GDP. Then, in the following years, the surplus is expected to be 0.5%, 0.8% and 0.4% of GDP.

    In other words, there is not much room for error. If the economy, or China, slows more than expected, the government can kiss those numbers goodbye.

    The most important number for determining government receipts (and therefore the budget balance) is nominal GDP. This is in turn influenced by our ‘terms of trade’, which is the ratio of export prices to import prices.

    Thanks to the boom in iron ore and coal prices, our terms of trade boosted nominal GDP in recent years (to June 30). Take a look:

    2016/17: 6.3%
    2017/18: 5.5%
    2018/19: 5% (govt. forecast)

    The budget papers rightly expect nominal GDP to slow in the years ahead, as commodity prices decline from near historic highs. But the expected fall is pretty tame. Here’s how the government sees it:

    2019/20: 3.25%
    2020/21: 3.75%
    2021/22: 4.5%
    2022/23: 4.5%

    But during the last major China slowdown from around 2012 to 2016, in which Australia experienced a commodity price bear market, here’s how the nominal GDP figures looked in each financial year:

    2012/13: 3%
    2013/14: 3.3%
    2014/15: 1.6%
    2015/16: 3.4%

    Let’s just say that any greater than expected slowdown in China will blow the forecast surpluses out of the water.

    Also, keep in mind that while China was going through that managed slowdown from 2012-16, interest rates in Australia fell from 4.75% down to 1.5%. This inflated the housing bubble and created a residential construction boom, which helped soften the blow from China’s slowdown.

    Now, Australia has very little interest rate ammunition to fight a sharp terms of trade fall. That’s the problem with the government’s nominal growth forecasts. They factor in a comfortable pullback, and then an increase. But the real world doesn’t work like that. Commodities, especially, don’t work like that.

    China’s huge run up in debt levels over the past decade makes its economy difficult to manage. If the communists want continued growth, it means debt will continue to grow strongly. But that creates long-term stability issues, which the leaders want to try and avoid.

    At some point in the next few years, you’d expect China to have another crack at managing its debt bubble. When that happens, it won’t be good for Australia. That’s a worry for another time though — at least until after the election. Putting aside the inherent uncertainty about the longer-term budget projections, the next six weeks on the campaign trail should be very interesting indeed.

    The government is at long odds to win. But a well argued and aggressive campaign could just see Labor losing the unlosable election.

    Perhaps Bill Shorten should chat with John Hewson…

  13. Josh Frydenberg handed down his pre-election budget last night. It was a return to Liberal ideals.

    Who honestly believes this? It is like the forecast surplus. As silly as Wayne Swan’s prognostications as Treasurer.

  14. FelixKruell

    Sadly Shorten has been very good at making that (false) argument.

    The Liberals have also been very bad at making TAFKAS’s point about net tax.

    PVO also fails to mention that the person on $200k doesn’t get that tax cut (or any of substance) for another 5+ years, and 2 governments. Well after the person on $35k gets their tax ‘cut’.

  15. Paulo Nigrum Anatis

    Isn’t PVO political editor for Channel 10? Says it all really! “Swan Light”

    I think The Oz only has him for some sort weird notion of counterbalance. I’m amazed the number of times he’s completely off the mark and he keeps his job? PVO should stick to biographies which by nature is already all known, all past tense which is all he seems to be able to handle.

    For he sure is as weak as piss on present and future!

  16. Susan O’Brien of the current bun is on the same page as Van Wrongsolen.
    I could not resist a missive to her:

    Hello Susan
    I believe some of your statements require a closer analysis.
    You state that the “largesse” benefits those with jobs who pay taxes.
    I guess that’s the idea because the tax on $37,000 is currently around $3,300 unless single without dependants, in which case it’s around $4,000.
    I would suggest that most of the 2.3 million you refer to have a spouse and child so it is most likely that they are getting more than $3,300 in government benefits so are not net taxpayers.
    So you say that the loss in welfare payments will offset the tax cut.
    So the magic is that they will still not be net taxpayers.
    I’m happy if you do the sums and prove me wrong.

  17. Mak Siccar

    teamv
    #2978317, posted on April 3, 2019 at 10:21 am
    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    Does that include those of us who paid lots of tax all our working lives, are now retired and pay little or no tax (excluding GST) ?

  18. Ian of Brisbane

    When I received my group certificate showing I paid $67k in tax, I stopped work. It’s embarrassing sending so much to the money wasters in Canberra.

  19. Roger

    Does that include those of us who paid lots of tax all our working lives, are now retired and pay little or no tax (excluding GST) ?

    No, you would have the franchise for life .

    Exceptions would also apply to veterans & war widows.

  20. Percy Popinjay

    John Roskam (as some sort of antidote to the unrelenting idiocy of Perfesser von Wrongsolen):

    After announcing that the 32.5 per cent tax rate on personal income tax would be reduced to 30 per cent from 1 July 2024, the Treasurer had to excuse himself and he explained these tax cuts by saying this:

    “Following these changes, our tax system will remain highly progressive, with the top five per cent of taxpayers paying one third of all income tax collected. And someone earning $200,000 paying 10 times as much tax as someone on $45,000.”

    That’s coming from a Liberal treasurer? If Liberals aren’t arguing everywhere, all the time, for lower and flatter taxes for EVERYONE they’re not doing their job (or at least what their job should be). If someone earns 4.4 times as much money as someone else they should be paying 4.4 times as much tax – not ten times.

    Spot on.

  21. Percy Popinjay

    When I received my group certificate showing I paid $67k in tax, I stopped work.

    In 2015-16 my income tax bill was $71,000, which included a significant CGT slug.

    Describing it as extortion is an understatement.

  22. Tom

    The reason why the news media’s credibility and public trust are at an all-time low is that its has so many parasitic sucker fish like Van Onselen attached to its anus, arguing against the public interest and for the benefit of the wealthy green-left-voting elite that is dedicated to crippling Australia’s system of wealth generation with high taxes and regulatory strangulation.

    Not to mention PVO’s lying and trickery, as Sparty demonstrates above, about who pays the vast bulk of this country’s taxes — the rich.

    The Paywallian’s readership, however, is quite a bit smarter than PVO and recognises that the paper is merely using him to troll its own readers. It’s a mad strategy that can only be understood by accepting that the Paywallian’s management (not to mention most of its staff) is as far left and against the public interest as PVO.

  23. You guys aren’t even counting State and Local taxes, excise, tariffs or the GST.

    I reckon some of you would actually pay over 70% tax on raw turnover/hours worked.

  24. Percy Popinjay

    You guys aren’t even counting State and Local taxes, excise, tariffs or the GST.

    I believe someone may have written a guest post on the prevalence of such “imposts” several years ago.

  25. Entropy

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
    So, that’s what they decided to do.

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men– the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    And so:

    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

  26. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Progressive is code for marxist Darkness.

    For only true Darkness will satisfy the feelings that rage inside a true marxist for ultimate equality.

  27. Mak Siccar

    Entropy
    #2978440, posted on April 3, 2019 at 1:12 pm
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    +100

  28. Dr Fred Lenin

    If all the stupid career leftist politicians in the Western world were laid end to end they would stretch for a bloody long way ,that might be a good idea laying them end to end ,keep them from annoying us with their crap.

  29. Deplorable

    teamv
    #2978317, posted on April 3, 2019 at 10:21 am
    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    I assume you mean income tax not GST,stamp duty,rates,registration and all other charges.
    This would mean that most families with children should not be able to vote as they can suck back more than they pay.

  30. Bruce

    “If all the stupid career leftist politicians in the Western world were laid end to end ….” they would probably be surprised, but smugly satisfied in a stupid, careerist sort of way!

  31. teamv

    Deplorable:

    Correct.

    We can’t include GST because it isn’t recorded (yet).

    The other “taxes” you inclouded are state based and so the majority of people would still be a net draw on the federal government and shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  32. RobK

    People who pay no net tax shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
    So how much tax paid gets a vote?…..how many votes?
    Those with off shore accounts can chuck in a couple of bob for the pleasure? Do you add those extra taxes as mentioned above?
    The same people who say tax is a bad thing are also saying it should determine how its run. Effectively you are asking 50% of the population to be expunged from a democratic process in a most arbitrary way. I dont think it is a very good plan.
    A better plan would be not to tax income.

  33. notafan

    The other “taxes” you inclouded are state based and so the majority of people would still be a net draw on the federal government and shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    Permanently or only when they are in a particular part of the life cycle

    Young singles in full time employment, families are probably mostly not net taxpayers, when their children reach adulthood they go back to being net taxpayers

    Sounds pointless to me

    May as well to back to the UK system in the 19t century when only wealthy landholders were allowed to vote.

    I’m pretty sure my dad’s generation, who went to war for their country would let you lot to naff off, if taxation is the only thing that should count as to voting rights.

  34. Geoff

    Someone paying $67k in tax is essentially the breadwinner for two families.

  35. RobK

    Effectively a scheme that gives the vote only to net tax payers means government gets to payoff sections of the community so they cant vote. Not a good plan.

  36. nota

    Let’s say we merge libertarians and conservatives.

    Freedom. Personal responsibility.

    Military veterans vote for the executive, taxpayers vote for the lower house and the States appoint Senators.

    Maybe this is the way to go. Let’s call it “responsibilitanism”.

  37. RobK

    If things still dont go your way you might say; well, only those who pay 2k in nett tax, or 10k or what ever arbitrary line you want to draw.

  38. notafan

    All very well FWFNT but arguing ‘net’ taxpayers is a nonsense, and discriminatory against people with families.

    I would prefer to get right of all the so called allowances, most of which have replaced tax deductions for dependent spouse, medical and educational expenses anyhow.

    Which people get regardless of whether or not they expend the money via the so called tax free threshold.

  39. RobK
    #2978482, posted on April 3, 2019 at 2:29 pm

    If things still dont go your way you might say; well, only those who pay 2k in nett tax, or 10k or what ever arbitrary line you want to draw.

    But…think about the how the incentives would work in a dynamic sense. It would self regulate to a degree.

  40. notafan

    It would be awesome

    People would avoid having children and we could import a million more net taxpayers

  41. RobK

    Frank,
     It would self regulate to a degree.
    I’m not sure about the degree. Surely it would be more simple to do away with income tax and just have a broad based consumption package. Surely voters should be persuaded by argument. Paying tax to vote is as evil as welfare buying votes, or in the proposed case, welfare paying people to rescind their vote.

  42. notafan

    It’s a so called free lunch because of how much was taken out of the tax system and put into the welfare system

    basically all the things that make people not net taxpayers are driven by the progressive lobby, child care being the worst example

    Net taxpaying or not, is a feature of the human life cycle, for most of us, sometimes we are and sometimes we are not

    depriving people of the right to vote because they have families is just wrong

    and working out who is or isn’t too damn intrusive

    This is pie in the sky hypothetical

    What we need is a major shift in the tax system to reward personal effort and reducing the taxation burden starting with making it possible for mums to stay at home with young children.

    Families own earnings in their own pockets without a ticket clip from the government.

  43. The BigBlueCat

    I assume PvO is a high-income earner … why is he so upset that he gets a better tax break than a low-income earner? He’s carrying more of the burden, isn’t he? why does he not understand this?

    If he’s that upset, on his next tax return he should be donating extra! Hopefully, that will let him sleep a bit easier. Perhaps a tip for PvO is: “don’t bother getting out of bed!” His writings are so nonsensical we’d all be better off without them.

  44. RobK

    Do you only vote in the election cycle where you paid nett tax, or over your whole of life nett tax? Sounds very messy to me. Older players become non voters, then non players.

  45. notafan

    hmm age pensioners not allowed to vote

    sounding better and better

  46. If he’s that upset, on his next tax return he should be donating extra! Hopefully, that will let him sleep a bit easier. Perhaps a tip for PvO is: “don’t bother getting out of bed!” His writings are so nonsensical we’d all be better off without them.

    I’ll bet he has an accountant that will squeeze every last cent possible in his tax return in his favour and then he’ll gripe about how much tax he has to pay (privately and amongst Leftist friends).

    This is simply a Leftist’s way to virtue signal that he’s such a caring and sharing fellow.

  47. hmm age pensioners not allowed to vote

    Age pensioners are more likely to be conservative voters than Leftist voters. Do you really want them ineligible to vote?

  48. notafan

    No room here for jokes

  49. RobK

    Does a graduate with a hecs loan rescind their vote under such a scheme?

  50. Blair

    If Bill Shorten thinks the tax cuts are unfair then all he has to do is remit his tax savings to the Treasury.

  51. Balance sheet or P&L statement?

    It is not such a bad idea really. It might discourage stupid degrees. It would also quarantine some loopy lefty academics too for many years.

    My preferred, and much easier to implement idea is voluntary voting and a simple civics test.

    I don’t want to really stop someone who has worked all their life from voting, let alone a young radiographer or emergency doctor etc.

  52. RobK

    Does a shareholder, director or CEO of a company that gets a government grant rescind their vote if the grant leads to distributed profits that should be taken from their net tax paid?

  53. RobK

    Does a public servant rescind their vote?

  54. RobK

    Now we are getting somewhere.

  55. RobK

    Maybe it would be better to say; if you receive public money, you cant vote. I don’t think it will fly.

  56. RobK

    My preferred, and much easier to implement idea is voluntary voting and a simple civics test.
    And ID. Much simpler. Not sure about the test.

  57. Confused Old Misfit

    if you receive public money, you cant vote.

    Hard to tell that to a Digger in Afghanistan.
    Although I could happily advise all members of the PSU (state and federal) and their capital city bound bosses, that their votes were only worth 1/3 of a bona fide value adding earner.
    But that is not really fair either.

  58. Cynic of Ayr

    I’ve often wondered, not being rich myself, if the tax rate on the rich was the same tax rate as on the poor, what would the rich do?
    For example, a QC charges what is to me, an outlandish amount of money. Does he charge as much as possible? Does he have a mental cap on what is enough money? Competition isn’t that much of a factor in this case, as one charges as much as the other, and one doesn’t undercut the others, for ethical reasons.
    If he paid a lot less tax, would he charge less?
    (Substitute who you like for a QC. QC is just an example. Could be medical specialist, transport business owner, furniture and white good stores owner. Whatever. )
    My feeling is no, he would not charge less, just become richer.
    For example, Bill Gates. Bill Gates sold a product that for all intents and purposes became a monopoly. He just became richer and richer and richer. I’d bet that it never occurred to him to charge less for his product, and become less rich.
    Ditto Zuckerberg.
    Ditto Murdoch.
    Ditto heaps more.
    However, if the rich became richer by less taxation, would they spend more? Would they spend it on servants and cars and stuff that someone was on a wage to make? Or, would they just let it Scrooge McDuck into the bank?
    If he did spend it, would all these people on wages who benefit from his purchases, pay enough tax to make up the reduction in tax paid by the rich?
    I saw a story recently on someone who has made hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate. He says he intends to give it all away. This is weird.
    Here’s a fellow who sold property for as much as he could possibly get. It’s not mentioned, but possibly from a housing estate development. So, he charged maximum for the blocks from, say, wage earners, and now intends to give the money away. To whom? The same people he sold the blocks to?
    Why not charge less for the blocks in the first place, and instead of making hundreds of millions, just make a couple of million.
    Sometimes the rich give to a charity. Fine, but if the poor didn’t pay so much to the rich in the first place, maybe the poor could give to the charity. I dunno. Maybe the poor wouldn’t give to charity, because they want to be rich!
    I wish someone would gift me a few million, and I would carry out the experiment myself. Purely in the interest of monetary science, of course!

  59. Squirrel

    “This gives Shorten an opportunity to paint the tax cuts as unfair and the government as out-of-touch. Shorten doesn’t miss such opportunities.”

    Shorten’s job is made that much easier by a Government which would need to set up a very large search party to find the Howard Battlers – they may not pay much tax (net or otherwise), but they vote, and so far, what they’ve had from this Government is ham-fisted dog-whistling and a dog bikkie, or two. That’s not to say they deserve buckets of money, but the wisdom of talking up a long term plan to flatten the tax scales, when there’s so little on offer at the lower end, is not smart for a Government in such a dire political position.

  60. Boambee John

    Notafan at 1446

    Plus lots.

  61. dauf

    First thing i thought i of when i read the above about that moron PVO (and saw some idiots on TV last night as well) was the old ‘taxes explained in beer’ that even most australians actually understand.

    Nice to see ‘Entropy’ has done an Australian translation from the English version

    says it all

    Why can’t our useless politicians explain things, instead of just telling people what to think and what they want the conclusion to be…we deserve what we get; unfortunately

  62. Why can’t our useless politicians explain things, instead of just telling people what to think and what they want the conclusion to be…we deserve what we get; unfortunately

    There is only one politician in the world, in modern history, that has tried to explain things to the people, Trump.

  63. Dr Fred Lenin

    The disrespect to our altruistic political leaders shown here is terrible we should have an enforcement body to prevent this disgracefull behaviour,youse are all for re education when the gangrene party gains office y=the whole lot of yez ,ask comrade shortperson .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.