An example of regulation creating a monopoly...

2010-01-07 20:10:19

#1

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

We're guessing that when Americans think of outlaw industries, tax preparers aren't the first rogues that come to mind. But lo, the nation's green eyeshades are now destined to come under the regulatory rule of the Internal Revenue Service as part of the Obama Administration's latest revenue grab.

Under the plan, which would begin with the 2011 tax season, anyone who takes money to help people with their taxes will have to register with the IRS, and eventually pass competency tests and sign up for continuing education. So having made tax filing so complicated that most Americans need help with their forms, Washington now wants to raise the price of such counsel by regulating advisers in a way that may reduce their supply.

Defending the decision, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman declared that regulating tax preparers was reasonable because "In most states you need a license to cut someone's hair." Yes, the cosmetology guild does like to raise the barriers to entry for competitors.

Cheering the new regulations are big tax preparers like H&R Block, who are only too happy to see the feds swoop in to put their mom-and-pop seasonal competitors out of business. Kathryn Fulton, senior vice president for government relations, told the Washington Post the company was glad to support rules that meant H&R Block "won't be competing against people who aren't regulated and don't have the same standards as we do." With fewer tax preparers in the market, H&R Block will find it easier to raise prices.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 36150.html

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 20:21:55

#2

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6327|eXtreme to the maX

Thats not a monopoly, since there will still be many companies competing. Restrictive practice maybe.
Anyone not too dumb can still do their own return.

Suggest you look up big words before you use them.

Fuck Israel

2010-01-07 20:29:50

#3

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6691

ha ha ha

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-01-07 20:51:09

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

I'm gonna surprise you, John. I agree.

I have personal experience with this business, and I've already seen the bureaucracy many state governments force upon these businesses. I don't see the necessity in adding to it via the feds.

2010-01-07 20:56:56

#5

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
I'm gonna surprise you, John. I agree.

I have personal experience with this business, and I've already seen the bureaucracy many state governments force upon these businesses. I don't see the necessity in adding to it via the feds.

The feds seem to be rather desperate for tax dollars. If they increase the regulation it will drive up the cost of going to a preparer. End result? More people use turbo tax and the like and less tax credits and deductions are then used. The average tax payer ends up paying more.

It's completely unethical but Obama painted himself into a corner with his no new taxes bs. He's done just about everything possible to keep his stupid promise and the end result has been the IRS and the Treasury running around closing loopholes and other silly stuff to generate revenue, all of which probably cost them more to accomplish than they are gaining.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 20:59:53

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6374|what

Nothing stopping the Govt. from then propping up a competitor when a monopoly does look like forming. Or even competing themselves if it is in the best interest of the population.

off topic though: I'm surprised at the number of articles lately that keep using the terminology "tax grab" and implying Obama is greedy for more money. It's like they don't even consider how much debt the country is already in.

2010-01-07 21:05:00

#7

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Nothing stopping the Govt. from then propping up a competitor when a monopoly does look like forming. Or even competing themselves if it is in the best interest of the population.

off topic though: I'm surprised at the number of articles lately that keep using the terminology "tax grab" and implying Obama is greedy for more money. It's like they don't even consider how much debt the country is already in.

They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:05:23

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
The feds seem to be rather desperate for tax dollars. If they increase the regulation it will drive up the cost of going to a preparer. End result? More people use turbo tax and the like and less tax credits and deductions are then used. The average tax payer ends up paying more.

Possibly... So far as I've seen, most tax programs are relatively easy to use, and they've gotten better at updating them quicker. Some people will miss out on deductions, but honestly, I don't think the switch to automated tax filing will have much of an effect on overall government revenue. If anything, this policy is just speeding up the inevitable in that respect. More and more people already are learning how to do their own taxes via programs and such.

JohnG@lt wrote:
It's completely unethical but Obama painted himself into a corner with his no new taxes bs. He's done just about everything possible to keep his stupid promise and the end result has been the IRS and the Treasury running around closing loopholes and other silly stuff to generate revenue, all of which probably cost them more to accomplish than they are gaining.

I think closing loopholes is a good thing. But yeah, I can't support government making a needless move that favors corporate entities like H&R Block over small businesses. I would think lobbying by companies like H&R Block had more to do with this policy than any real attempts to gain more tax revenue.

2010-01-07 21:07:53

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.

Ultimately, I think you'll see some cuts in government spending before the end of Obama's term. This will likely happen with or without the GOP gaining a majority in either house, because we've basically borrowed all we can at this point. Something has to give, and I think they'd rather cut spending than raise taxes.

Besides, cutting spending is a better move anyway.

2010-01-07 21:09:53

#10

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6374|what

JohnG@lt wrote:
They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.

I can't comment on the spending, as I don't know exactly where most of it is going, or have the knowledge of the govt spending a US citizen would, but I will say hopefully it's going into investment.

Obama should have said we need to raise taxes and is at fault for not being more transparent about it. The US really does have to start getting it's debt into order quickly.

And I agree, bonds are going to devalue, almost inevitably this year.

2010-01-07 21:10:56

#11

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.
Ultimately, I think you'll see some cuts in government spending before the end of Obama's term. This will likely happen with or without the GOP gaining a majority in either house, because we've basically borrowed all we can at this point. Something has to give, and I think they'd rather cut spending than raise taxes.

Besides, cutting spending is a better move anyway.

They've already increased spending by 18% for the year so when they come back and say they're going to cut spending by 2-3% they're just flapping their gums. They will never cut real spending.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:14:17

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.
Ultimately, I think you'll see some cuts in government spending before the end of Obama's term. This will likely happen with or without the GOP gaining a majority in either house, because we've basically borrowed all we can at this point. Something has to give, and I think they'd rather cut spending than raise taxes.

Besides, cutting spending is a better move anyway.
They've already increased spending by 18% for the year so when they come back and say they're going to cut spending by 2-3% they're just flapping their gums. They will never cut real spending.

Let me put it this way... Bill Clinton cut government spending. This did involve a Republican Congress, but it happened nonetheless. Maybe the same will happen with Obama with a Republican Congress.

Another thing to consider is that Blue Dogs seem to have more power in the Democratic Party than they did back during Clinton's time. A lot of them lean conservative on fiscal issues.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-07 21:15:27)

2010-01-07 21:14:34

#13

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
They've been getting super creative at generating tax revenue without raising tax rates... They went after all the people with offshore bank accounts in Switzerland recently, they've closed a bunch of loopholes, they just decided to pass a tax on 'cadillac' health plans etc. Our government is nigh well completely fucked financially and they're spending money like it's going out of style right now (probably because it is). I fully expect our bond rating to drop this year, then you'll REALLY see some financial fireworks emanating from Washington.
I can't comment on the spending, as I don't know exactly where most of it is going, or have the knowledge of the govt spending a US citizen would, but I will say hopefully it's going into investment.

Obama should have said we need to raise taxes and is at fault for not being more transparent about it. The US really does have to start getting it's debt into order quickly.

And I agree, bonds are going to devalue, almost inevitably this year.

Investment? The money comes in and goes swiftly out the door to pay for Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits and military spending. Our spending on anything remotely considered investment i.e. infrastructure improvements is woefully inadequate. Our national infrastructure is crumbling and our congress instead decides to waste 900 billion dollars on a healthcare bill that is a giant handout to the insurance industry and still won't provide universal coverage. Our government doesn't invest, it just increases spending on socialist programs. Why do you think our right wingers are so shrill about governments wasteful spending? It's not because we enjoy yelling.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:16:30

#14

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Ultimately, I think you'll see some cuts in government spending before the end of Obama's term. This will likely happen with or without the GOP gaining a majority in either house, because we've basically borrowed all we can at this point. Something has to give, and I think they'd rather cut spending than raise taxes.

Besides, cutting spending is a better move anyway.
They've already increased spending by 18% for the year so when they come back and say they're going to cut spending by 2-3% they're just flapping their gums. They will never cut real spending.
Let me put it this way... Bill Clinton cut government spending. This did involve Republican Congress, but it happened nonetheless. Maybe the same will happen with Obama with a Republican Congress.

Another thing to consider is that Blue Dogs seem to have more power in the Democratic Party than they did back during Clinton's time. A lot of them lean conservative on fiscal issues.

And yet they still rolled over on Health Care and Cap and Trade. Seriously, in a completely non-partisan way, our countries only hope right now is for the Reps to win the 2010 elections and stop Pelosi and Frank in their tracks. Those two are the biggest threat to our country that we've ever faced.

P.S. - I would feel exactly the same way if the Republicans controlled the Legislative and Executive branches. Nothing good comes out of one party rule. Ever.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-07 21:19:36)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:20:49

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

They've already increased spending by 18% for the year so when they come back and say they're going to cut spending by 2-3% they're just flapping their gums. They will never cut real spending.
Let me put it this way... Bill Clinton cut government spending. This did involve Republican Congress, but it happened nonetheless. Maybe the same will happen with Obama with a Republican Congress.

Another thing to consider is that Blue Dogs seem to have more power in the Democratic Party than they did back during Clinton's time. A lot of them lean conservative on fiscal issues.
And yet they still rolled over on Health Care and Cap and Trade. Seriously, in a completely non-partisan way, our countries only hope right now is for the Reps to win the 2010 elections and stop Pelosi and Frank in their tracks. Those two are the biggest threat to our country that we've ever faced.

Not really... What happened is that the Blue Dogs gutted the public option and got the pork they wanted for their constituencies and lobby connections. The healthcare bill is repugnant not because of any "socialism" but because it's evidence of how much power insurance companies and other special interests have in our system. A proper healthcare bill would involve a single payer national system. Instead, we have a watered down bill that favors corporate interests.

It's not Pelosi and Frank you have to worry about. It's who buys people like Frank. It doesn't matter which party you elect if both parties are largely bought off by corporate entities. Something has to be done to separate corporate influence from our system, but the problem is... I don't know if that's possible.

2010-01-07 21:27:17

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Let me put it this way... Bill Clinton cut government spending. This did involve Republican Congress, but it happened nonetheless. Maybe the same will happen with Obama with a Republican Congress.

Another thing to consider is that Blue Dogs seem to have more power in the Democratic Party than they did back during Clinton's time. A lot of them lean conservative on fiscal issues.
And yet they still rolled over on Health Care and Cap and Trade. Seriously, in a completely non-partisan way, our countries only hope right now is for the Reps to win the 2010 elections and stop Pelosi and Frank in their tracks. Those two are the biggest threat to our country that we've ever faced.
Not really... What happened is that the Blue Dogs gutted the public option and got the pork they wanted for their constituencies and lobby connections. The healthcare bill is repugnant not because of any "socialism" but because it's evidence of how much power insurance companies and other special interests have in our system. A proper healthcare bill would involve a single payer national system. Instead, we have a watered down bill that favors corporate interests.

It's not Pelosi and Frank you have to worry about. It's who buys people like Frank. It doesn't matter which party you elect if both parties are largely bought off by corporate entities. Something has to be done to separate corporate influence from our system, but the problem is... I don't know if that's possible.

It's possible when you completely remove government from the sphere of business. The only true functions of our government are and should be Justice and Defense.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:30:10

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6626|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
It's possible when you completely remove government from the sphere of business. The only true functions of our government are and should be Justice and Defense.

I don't see that making a difference, especially since the Defense industry is one of the biggest that exists. If there's a profit to be made, business will have an influence.

I guess the best that we can hope for is to set up a system where the masses have a voice that at least reasonably competes with corporate interests. Our system is better than most in the world in this respect, but much of the rest of the First World still shows us that there is room for improvement here.

2010-01-07 21:32:12

#18

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
It's possible when you completely remove government from the sphere of business. The only true functions of our government are and should be Justice and Defense.
I don't see that making a difference, especially since the Defense industry is one of the biggest that exists. If there's a profit to be made, business will have an influence.

I guess the best that we can hope for is to set up a system where the masses have a voice that at least reasonably competes with corporate interests. Our system is better than most in the world in this respect, but much of the rest of the First World still shows us that there is room for improvement here.

If you want to read up on my beliefs, this best represents them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 21:39:00

#19

mikkel: Member; +383|6822

This is the tried and tested government method of building a broken system, and then strictly attempting to mitigate the government's inconveniences, rather than addressing the fundamental flaws. The tax payer gets the shaft as always.

Here in Denmark I can do my taxes on the Internet in a few minutes, assuming that my financial situation changes. I didn't have to touch my taxes this year at all. This is what you get when unacceptable processes are identified and scrapped completely in favour of actually modernising bureaucracy. It's time to join the 21st century.

2010-01-07 22:02:27

#20

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

mikkel wrote:
This is the tried and tested government method of building a broken system, and then strictly attempting to mitigate the government's inconveniences, rather than addressing the fundamental flaws. The tax payer gets the shaft as always.

Here in Denmark I can do my taxes on the Internet in a few minutes, assuming that my financial situation changes. I didn't have to touch my taxes this year at all. This is what you get when unacceptable processes are identified and scrapped completely in favour of actually modernising bureaucracy. It's time to join the 21st century.

Yes, because Denmarks enhanced and modernized bureaucracy hasn't led its citizens to pay more taxes per capita than anyone else on the planet.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 22:05:22

#21

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6327|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not a monopoly, since there will still be many companies competing. Restrictive practice maybe.
Anyone not too dumb can still do their own return.

Suggest you look up big words before you use them.
Does your own mother even like you?

If:
Anyone can file a tax return themselves
Anyone can file a tax return for someone else if they do something as simple as 'registering'.
There will be many thousands of companies competing for the business of filing tax returns.

- Its not a monopoly.

Fuck Israel

2010-01-07 22:20:29

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6928|67.222.138.85

I am in shock.

Forcing someone to prove competency before they fuck up peoples' federal taxes is creating a monopoly? That's like saying forcing teachers to prove competency before they can teach is giving them a monopoly. Or for an even closer analogy, that forcing lawyers to prove competency is creating a monopoly. Doctors? Accountants?

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not a monopoly, since there will still be many companies competing. Restrictive practice maybe.
Anyone not too dumb can still do their own return.

Suggest you look up big words before you use them.
Does your own mother even like you?

Nice DAST response.

JohnG@lt wrote:
Seriously, in a completely non-partisan way, our countries only hope right now is for the Reps to win the 2010 elections and stop Pelosi and Frank in their tracks. Those two are the biggest threat to our country that we've ever faced.

Drama/irony more please.

Dilbert_X wrote:
If:
Anyone can file a tax return themselves
Anyone can file a tax return for someone else if they do something as simple as 'registering'.
There will be many thousands of companies competing for the business of filing tax returns.

- Its not a monopoly.

2010-01-07 22:42:55

#23

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5579|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I am in shock.

Forcing someone to prove competency before they fuck up peoples' federal taxes is creating a monopoly? That's like saying forcing teachers to prove competency before they can teach is giving them a monopoly. Or for an even closer analogy, that forcing lawyers to prove competency is creating a monopoly. Doctors? Accountants?

Yes, I overstated it when I called it a monopoly. Why should the government be in the business of approving those who prepare taxes? Millions of people prepare their own taxes every year and millions more go to tax preparers. Why target tax preparers instead of questioning the general competency of the public at large? Why is this regulation needed?

All it will do is put seasonal tax preparers, the people that open up an office for a few months out of the year and do it as a side job, out of business. Who benefits? Corporate interests like H&R Block. It sure as hell isn't the consumers who will now face steeper pricing because competition has been limited. They are using crony capitalism to force out competition in the same way RJ Reynolds seeking FDA approval on tobacco will force out any possible competition that they may face. How? By massively increasing the cost of entry into their given spheres. You damn sure don't need to be a CPA in order to prepare a 1080EZ form so why pass a regulation like this now?

Edit - And yes, some would argue that the entry requirements to become a doctor or a lawyer create a monopolistic environment by limiting competition via limiting the number of schooling slots available.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-07 22:45:14)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-01-07 23:11:28

#24

Phrozenbot: Member; +632|6837|do not disturb

If H&R Block and others have to go through hurdles to practice their business, why not everyone else? I don't like it, but it makes some sick business sense.

As far as taxing us though, they really ought to figure out it's a spending problem, not a revenue problem. You could tax every penny made in savings here in 09 and still come up short for spending that year.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FYFSD_Max.png

*sigh*

2010-01-07 23:33:21

#25

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6928|67.222.138.85

JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, I overstated it when I called it a monopoly. Why should the government be in the business of approving those who prepare taxes? Millions of people prepare their own taxes every year and millions more go to tax preparers. Why target tax preparers instead of questioning the general competency of the public at large? Why is this regulation needed?

All it will do is put seasonal tax preparers, the people that open up an office for a few months out of the year and do it as a side job, out of business. Who benefits? Corporate interests like H&R Block. It sure as hell isn't the consumers who will now face steeper pricing because competition has been limited. They are using crony capitalism to force out competition in the same way RJ Reynolds seeking FDA approval on tobacco will force out any possible competition that they may face. How? By massively increasing the cost of entry into their given spheres. You damn sure don't need to be a CPA in order to prepare a 1080EZ form so why pass a regulation like this now?

Edit - And yes, some would argue that the entry requirements to become a doctor or a lawyer create a monopolistic environment by limiting competition via limiting the number of schooling slots available.

You "overstated" it by putting it in the title and making it the focus of the discussion. Even the idiot that wrote the op-ed had the good sense not to use the word monopoly, because monopoly has nothing to do with it. Dilbert called you out on it, and you make fun of him.

Because as you want the government recognizes the populace as competent enough to file their own returns or recognize their ignorance and pay someone to do it for them. What the government is doing is making sure that people don't get fucked into committing a federal crime because the person they paid to do their taxes is stupid or a snake.

How much does this licensing cost? You have no fucking idea. It could very well be next to nothing. There is no evidence to suggest that this is putting anyone but those too incompetent to pass the test out of business.

"Some people" have an IQ two standard deviations below the median. "Some people"? Grow the balls to put your name on it or leave it alone.

"Some people", jesus.

BF2S Forums An example of regulation creating a monopoly...

Turquoise wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Board footer