IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nice tax analogy
[link|http://www.hannity.com/index.cfm/bay/content.ontheshow2.htm?|The Truth about Taxes]

Darrell Spice, Jr.

[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

New Thats it in a nutshell.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Idiotic Analogy
I won't even bother with the algebra that shows how insipid this "analogy" is.

-drl
New What algebra,
If you do the math...this is what it comes to. Try it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Well...if we do some algerbra...we can figure out the
Their tax rates

  1. Paid 0 / Bill 100 = 0%
  2. Paid 0 / Bill 100 = 0%
  3. Paid 0 / Bill 100 = 0%
  4. Paid 0 / Bill 100 = 0%
  5. Paid 1 / Bill 100 = 1%
  6. Paid 3 / Bill 100 = 3%
  7. Paid 7 / Bill 100 = 7%
  8. Paid 12 / Bill 100 = 12%
  9. Paid 18 / Bill 100 = 18%
  10. Paid 59 / Bill 100 = 59%


Of course, this completely compares poorly to the US Federal Tax rates (2002):

  • 10%
  • 15%
  • 27%
  • 30%
  • 35%
  • 38.6%

[link|http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html| Source ]

(And this totally ignores standard and other deductions)

Mind you, if we still lack the incomes of the 10 men to complete this puzzle.

Assuming the #1 man is the poorest and married, the max they could make without paying taxes (standard deduction) would be $13,850. ($7,700 if single)

Assuming the #10 man is the richest, and is taxed at 38.6% what would he have to make to pay 59% of the bill. (59% of x = 38.6% of y). If we set X to $100 as in the example, I get y to be $152.84.

Of course, I'm now comparing apples to oranges, because man #1's income is based on the Federal Tax bill and man #10's income is based on the $100 in the example.

So what was the Federal Tax bill? Well, in 2001 (according to the IRS's 1040 Instructions) the Federal Income was $2.0 trillion dollars. Of that amount, Income Taxes (what we are discussing) was $1.0 trillion dollars.

So our #10 man's income is $1.52 trillion dollars.
New Your comparing the wrong things.
Nice try though.

[link|http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html|Try this]

According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service and a new Tax Foundation Special Report, the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers earned more than two-thirds of the nation's income (67.3%) and paid more than five out of every six dollars collected by the federal income tax (84%) in 2000.


After deductions and "loopholes"...the middle to lower end up paying even less a percentage of their overall income as income tax. Haven't you noticed that the itemized deductions all have income qualifiers. Make to much, you get no deduction. It works out to be the top 10% pay roughly 60% of the collected taxes.

And no matter how you slice it...the income tax system will NOT stop the polarization of the wealth. And the more you try to take it from them...the harder the wealthy will attempt to protect it, which results in the exact opposite effect of what you all seem to want.

To get that money back into the system the rich people have to be convinced to >spend< it and >invest< it in other's ventures. This is why high cap gains taxes are a bad idea.

The dividend exclusion would do alot of good for the economy short term. But I don't agree with it because it will also encourage companies to pay them at the expense of re-ivenstment. And long term that will hurt employment. The important objective is to get long-term, sustainable growth in sectors OTHER than services. You do that with cap gains. But that has the "taboo" attached to it.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New No I'm not...
I may not be solving the problem you wanted me to solve, but I am solving the one I was interested in. I was interested in the relative incomes of the 10 men.

Quoting your source, to be in the top 1% of income earning Americans, you have to make
$313,469. A high sum, but certainly not astronomical. (Hell, to be in the top 25% you have to make $55,225 - ie: about what a programmer makes).

By comparison, one CEO last year made $25 million. (And no, that wasn't Kenneth Lay). So that top 1% has a LOT of range to it.

Now, there's been a lot of talk in certain sectors of making the lower classes "pay their fair share", but like bank robbing, to pay for taxes, you have to go where the money is.

In our example, we've got the #1 man making (at most) $13,850. We've got the #10 man making $1.52 trillion dollars. And we equilant $1.52 trillion to $100. What's the #1 man making in the 100 dollar scale? (1,520,000,000,000 * x) = (100) (13,850)

x = 13,850 / (1,520,000,000,000 / 100)
x = 0.000000... (it blows out my calculator).

Basically, the guy doesn't have any money.

Trying to bleed him of money isn't going to do anyone any good.

(BTW: for the record, I have never agreed with the concept of using taxes as a means of redistribution of wealth, and I support the idea of flat taxes with no deductions.)
New You don't understand.
The same reason Ben's posting on this subject isn't relevent.

This isn't about facts or applicability of anything else.

This is about marketing a tax reduction for the rich to the populace as a whole.

This is about hoping that the people who read it will NOT understand the tax system nor their place in it nor the reasons behind cutting (certain) taxes while increasing the cost of government.
New Nice misdirection.
Still irrelevent to this analogy.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I understand what you're saying.
Honestly I do.

But the reality of the situation is very simple. The top 10% pay 60%...the top 25% pay 84% etc...the math was there.

Saying this isn't the case is misrepresenting reality. Thats the way the current system works. This is not a question of whether this is good or bad. It just is.

And...in order to make an impact to the economy, >real< money has to shift. 100 million isn't going to do anything to move a ten trillion dollar economy.

And so, any >breaks< given on income taxes that will be enough to have any impact are >necessarily< going to favor the richest xxx% of the population....simply because they are the ones who are paying. Income taxes changes cannot benefit the poor...the bottom 40% don't even pay. How can you reduce >their< burden any more.

And while the analogy shows the top guy just leaving the table, which isn't a real option at this point, the effect of hammering them over and over will make them shelter income, or not bother to earn it at all. Another example of this extreme are the "dissappearing" businessmen in Atlas Shrugged. Sooner or later it isn't worth it any longer...and the effect of these men quitting impact far more people than just themselves.

England and several other European countries see this all of the time. Prize athletes, F1 drivers, entertainers...the super wealthy...[link|http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1997/swimsuit/karen/monaco/monaco.html|move to Monaco] to avoid taxes. If it gets much worse here...you might start seeing the same thing...and in some cases...it probably already does.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Right, the rich will shelter income
The first stop to doing that is to create nice income shelters of course. Like the proposed dividend giveaway.

BTW did you know that above a fairly low national average income the single largest factor in lifespan is income disparity? Apparently large disparities cause stress, and stress very literally kills. Just noting that while trickle-down has not been proven to make the masses better off, it does seem to put them out of their misery sooner.

It is not entirely a coincidence that the US has one of the lowest life expectancies in the industrialized world...

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build
communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Zoooom.. the sound of - -
New Chuckle... I think we agree.
although I don't think the economy is going to get stimulated by a tax cut. (I think the economy follows a cycle regardless of what the goverment or others do).

But, politically speaking, the President has to try to get the economy moving and a tax cut (of a substantial amount) is the only way to do it and it's going to favor the highest earners.
New Let me translate that
"We shouldn't try to tax the rich, only count on their being generous because they are too smart for us."

Why does that sound like bullshit?

Going beyond that, some of us are talking about the rich and here you are equating that with the top 25%. Waitaminute. I know what rich is. I know what top 25% is. Rich ain't top 25%. It ain't top 10%. Top 1% is getting there, though not really. Top tenth of a percent, now that is the ballpark. Totally different kettle of fish. Million dollars a year, like Bush.

I can't find the figures that I want, but I found some that I find interesting. Visit [link|http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irsfigures.guest.html|http://www.rushlimba...igures.guest.html] and ignore the spin there. From 1986 to 2000 the amount of money that you had to make to get into the top 1% doubled. The portion of the income that was made by the top 1% went from 11.30% of the US income to 20.81%. The tax rate on that money fell from 33.13% to 27.45%. The total portion of tax paid by the top 1% therefore rose, but nowhere in line with their actual income.

Now that is an amazing trick. Make more. Pay a smaller portion in tax. How do they do that? Because they are smarter than us? Wow, good accountants, don't you wish you could afford that!

Nah. It is really pathetically simple.

What has happened is that the very well off have realized that it is cheaper to buy politicians than it is to pay taxes. So they buy politicians, get exemptions, and then don't pay tax. And then apologists for them say that we can't tax them, we have to hope and pray for their generousity!

Wouldn't it make more sense just to cut out a ton of the special rules that make life easy for them (like a proposal making it possible for those who live almost entirely off of existing investments to stop paying income tax entirely) and cut rhetoric that lumps the fraction of a percent of the top quarter that really makes money with the rest of us in that category?

Oh sorry. Guess Bush wouldn't like that because guess how HE makes his money...

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build
communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Nothing objectionable there.
Your translation is a tad loose.

But most of the rest is fairly reasonable. And glaring examples of why silly things like campaign finance reform and tax code revision are necessary.

I'm not a big fan of the elimination of taxes on dividends. It does, however, have short term benefits that will do good things for the market and thus consumer confidence. Problem is you can't really >undo< it and maintain the positives. And long term...encouraging dividends will reduce re-investment and cost jobs and long-term growth. Neither one of these is a good thing.

I think your solution is acceptable. There should be alot of rules tossed out.

Make it too extreme, though, and you encourage capital flight. (like the mega-rich in Europe moving to Monaco). The objective is to find the right spot on the Laffer curve and stay there...the hard part is knowing where that is ;)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New The translation might be slightly loose...
But I think it accurately captures the perception that people are actually reacting to, as fair or unfair as it might be.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build
communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Fair enough
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Now after dinner they go to a bar
the rich guy sez he paid for most of dinner, the next richest guys said make the poor people pay for all the drinks after all they ate for free so they took the wallest of the 4 poorest ones and drank on their dime. That is the correct anology of the payroll tax scam.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
New Close
The first two would not only have to pay, they would 'get back' a couple bucks. Effective tax rate on the poorest is negative.
-----
Steve
New You REALLY don't understand taxes.
Unfortunately, Liberals cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!
Okay, I'll start with the BASICS.

#1. The government takes money from you in a VARIETY of ways.

payroll taxes
social security taxes
sales taxes
usage fees
cigarette taxes
and so on

Do you still follow?

#2. In that example, each of the 10 people HAD THE SAME CONSUMPTION. This does not happen. And this is linked to #1. Someone who smokes pays taxes that are not levied against a non-smoker.

#3. Reducing the price of a meal by $20 is the same as giving the person $20. Isn't it?

Well, that depends upon how that person is paying for the meal. If it is on a credit card or with cash or with a check and so forth.

#4. Bush has NOT proposed to cut the TOTAL TAX by 20% (don't argue about the number). Bush has proposed to cut CERTAIN REVENUE STREAMS by certain amounts.

In the example, they are offered $20. Not 50% of the cost of their dessert and 10% of the cost of their drinks and 15% of the cost of any beef dishes for a total of $20.

#5. And, finally, that $20 is coming out of the owner's PROFITS! The government does NOT make a PROFIT.

I cannot believe how ignorant people are about how their government operates.
New This is true
as well, but I had in mind something even simpler.

This is a trick, like proving zero=one but not quite as ridiculous. There are a lot of tricks like this in the magician's bag.
-drl
New Then do it.
Give me the "algebra"

Cause his numbers are accurate re: >income< taxes...which is what the article is about.

So...prove 0=1
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Exactly.
Now, I know there are going to be those out there who will say this is about "income taxes".

So, I'll quote the lines containing the word "income".

...


This isn't about any SINGLE tax.

This is about "taxes" and how it's only fair that the people who pay more should get more tax relief.

Like I pointed out in my reply, the $20 is coming from the owner's PROFITS.

Government doesn't MAKE a profit.

Right now, we're running a DEFICIT. For those of you with limited brainpower, that means we are SPENDING more than we are TAKING IN.

Is this a hard concept for people to understand? Only for certain people.

So, the tax cut isn't coming out of EXCESS MONEY (as in the example).

The tax cut is a means to an end. That end is ... To get the economy running again. Because, despite what certain people might keep claiming, the economy sucks and has sucked and is predicted to continue sucking.

So, do you take the same tact when you don't have enough money as when you have too much money?

Only a pathetic moron would do that.

But then, a pathetic moron wouldn't understand our tax system either and would fall for simplistic "examples" such as this.

If this were an accurate example, the owner would have mortgaged his establishment and the diners would each own a chunk of that mortgage. Then the owner would have to explain why he couldn't pay the mortgage and would they like a discount on some portions of their meal? Just so other people could see them eating there and then those other people might come in and buy something and then he could pay the mortgage.

Simplistic works for fools.
New And the counter...
...that only a fool couldn't grasp the context in the current political debate about >income< taxes.

And further would introduce irrelevent facts about whether the owner of the establishement owed money to the bank while still treating customers well.

Lesse...theres the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion...and what was that other guy full of....he would be a ...

nah...couldn't be.

And every single restaurant owner in America who has a bill to pay and gives >any< customer a discount or rebate has now been branded a "pathetic moron".

Thats a pretty big list.

Not to mention any other business owner that carries debt and gives discounts or rebates. Boy that list of pathetic morons is getting long.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Focus on Federal.
It really does get simpler.

But, of course, the view doesn't agree with yours...so you introduce alot of unrelated items. >Federal< sales tax? When was that introduced? Are we changing social security withholding? No. Cigarette taxes? Sure theres a little piece thats federal but mostly state.

Focus...Brandi-san...must focus.

The article was about the >income< tax debate.

Funny how that works.

---

If you want to debate that there are too many of these various taxes at various levels of government...you will not get an argument from me...because I agree...and they all need to be cut.

If your going to try and convince someone that the article was innacurate about the >income< tax system...introduce something other than "you don't understand"...because he does...and thats pretty much how the numbers come out.

You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New federal sales tax on gas cigs alcohol telecommunications etc
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
New Certain items...sure.
General >sales<...not really. Cigs and booze are insignificant compared to state levied taxes on same.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Those aren't "taxes", they're "user fees"
I only pay them when I purchase the product, or pay my monthly service bill. They're still insignificant compared to income tax, but at least these are ones I can CHOOSE to avoid if I don't buy the products and/or services that are being taxed.

Example: My monthly cigarette tax is $0.00, but my monthly gasoline tax is probably around $40 - $50 (guesstimate).

lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
New and sales tax on food is also a user fee?
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
New Fed? Food?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New state not fed except for ag subsidies which are levied
against general fund, so round about, food is taxed.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
New Not quite
You forget the part about where the reason why the rate went down is that the group discovered that the best off guy was willing to float the group a long-term loan. And after doing this when the interest came due, he told them, "Look guys, I am already paying the lion's share, someone else needs to pick up more of the tab."

And far from beating the guy up, they make him their leader because 3 others want to be just like him, and 3 move didn't vote. (He voted for himself of course...)

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build
communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Ahh...
...an honest effort.

Refreshing :)
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Yabut here's an even Better Analysis - by the same guy (new thread)
Created as new thread #74038 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=74038|Yabut here's an even Better Analysis - by the same guy]
New Yeah, but whats missing
is what each of them had.

First 4 guys ate the free crackers on the table.
Next guy got tuna on white bread.
....
I'm guessing the rich guy got the all you can eat champagne buffet.

Relative services provided by the government seem to have something to do with your income level. If I have enough money, I can get the feds to build me a logging road that I can use to cut down their trees and sell to the japanese while providing me with a tax break on the income from the lumber exports.

System is much more complex than this little toy.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 06:01:04 AM EDT
New Actually, if you're the rich guy...
you can get the government to guarentee a billion-dollar loan to build a power plant in India.
New A Buzzflash response
From a much longer piece by Rebecca Knight the [link|http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/03/01/15.html|Southern Style] columnist
Subject: The TRUTH about tax cuts

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. 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 $7; The eighth $12; The ninth $18. The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant 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 meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

In the nasty and brutish universe inhabited by right wingers, the men go on to argue about how much of a reduction each should get, and end up physically beating on the richest man, who then quits coming to dinner.

Fortunately, I live in a different universe. In my universe, the men decide that there are at least a couple of ways to distribute the savings\ufffdor even increases in the price of the dinner, for that matter\ufffdequitably. Maybe they actually consulted a woman on the matter.

One of the ways to distribute increases or decreases equitably is to use income growth as a measure. The rich man\ufffds income has grown much faster than the others, and in fact the four with the lowest incomes have even experienced a decrease in real income. The richest man has also had the greatest growth in wealth accumulation. After all, the poorest four spend everything they have on food and shelter for their families, the absolute minimum required for human existence, and have nothing left over. The higher the men\ufffds income, the more wealth they can accumulate.

The richest man also realized that he benefits disproportionately from the system. He knew that the entire infrastructure of the country serves him as an individual, and also serves the companies he owns stock in. He realized that he takes advantage of the educational system every time one of those companies hires an employee. He understood that the companies he owns use government administrative functions and courts far beyond the needs of the poor. He may even have seen that his companies aren't paying their way completely. Maybe those companies are polluting, rather than cleaning up their waste. Maybe those companies aren't paying a living wage to all of their employees, causing the need for extra social services provided by the government.

And the richest man realized, once he thought about it, that as smart as he was and as hard as he had worked\ufffddamn hard, as a matter of fact\ufffdthere was still an element of luck in his financial success. A lot of people were as smart as he, or even smarter, and had worked as hard as he, or harder, but hadn't done as well. So if good luck was part of his success, maybe bad luck was part of what made poor people poor. Doesn't he owe something back? Of course he does, and his religion tells him so. I say that with confidence, even though I don\ufffdt know what his religion is. I say it because every major religion and moral philosophy demands that we help our neighbor.

This whole exercise taught the richest man that people with the lowest incomes don't pay enough in taxes\ufffdbecause they don\ufffdt MAKE enough. He resolved then and there to work with other rich people and employers to increase their incomes. After all, the poor will then be able to buy more products made by his companies, and may even at some point be able to take pride in buying their own dinners. And maybe another benefit of increasing incomes would be less crime, so the richest man could get rid of some of the watchtowers and searchlights protecting his property.

In my universe there was no need to beat up the richest man, or anyone else. There was no need for anyone to quit coming to the restaurant.

As a matter of fact, I'm led to believe that they all lived happily ever after."

Carolyn Kay, www.MakeThemAccountable.com

* * *

And one final point: Does anyone know of a wealthy person who would choose to switch places with someone of a lower income just to avoid paying taxes? Please contact me! I volunteer to exchange my income for a higher one and never open my mouth to complain about tax levels. I would happily pay every cent and whistle in glee as I skip home from the IRS office!
Hee hee. "...nasty and brutish universe inhabited by right wingers", what an excellent descriptive.
Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage?
-[link|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107|Molly Ivins]
     Nice tax analogy - (SpiceWare) - (36)
         Thats it in a nutshell. -NT - (bepatient)
         Idiotic Analogy - (deSitter) - (14)
             What algebra, - (bepatient) - (13)
                 Well...if we do some algerbra...we can figure out the - (Simon_Jester) - (12)
                     Your comparing the wrong things. - (bepatient) - (11)
                         No I'm not... - (Simon_Jester) - (6)
                             You don't understand. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                                 Nice misdirection. - (bepatient)
                             I understand what you're saying. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                 Right, the rich will shelter income - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     Zoooom.. the sound of - - -NT - (Ashton)
                                 Chuckle... I think we agree. - (Simon_Jester)
                         Let me translate that - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                             Nothing objectionable there. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                 The translation might be slightly loose... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     Fair enough -NT - (bepatient)
         Now after dinner they go to a bar - (boxley)
         Close - (Steve Lowe)
         You REALLY don't understand taxes. - (Brandioch) - (11)
             This is true - (deSitter) - (3)
                 Then do it. - (bepatient)
                 Exactly. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                     And the counter... - (bepatient)
             Focus on Federal. - (bepatient) - (6)
                 federal sales tax on gas cigs alcohol telecommunications etc -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                     Certain items...sure. - (bepatient)
                     Those aren't "taxes", they're "user fees" - (lincoln) - (3)
                         and sales tax on food is also a user fee? -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                             Fed? Food? -NT - (bepatient) - (1)
                                 state not fed except for ag subsidies which are levied - (boxley)
         Not quite - (ben_tilly) - (2)
             Ahh... - (bepatient) - (1)
                 Yabut here's an even Better Analysis - by the same guy (new thread) - (Ashton)
         Yeah, but whats missing - (tuberculosis) - (1)
             Actually, if you're the rich guy... - (Simon_Jester)
         A Buzzflash response - (Silverlock)

I could make a hat... or a brooch... or a pterodactyl!
133 ms