Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "tax the rich" mantra
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, June 10, 2007

The Skeptical Optimist does a little digging into a paper by the Tax Foundation and charts the info. He suggests everyone read it as it is the first and only place he has found that categorizes the total federal tax burden by quintile.

To whet your appetite, three very interesting charts:



A couple of questions: What "fair share" aren't the rich carrying now? And, why should they "contribute" more?

Lastly, this seems to give credence to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation's point that low-skilled illegal immigrants will be net consumers of tax dollars (to the tune of 2.5 trillion dollars).

Oh, and if you're still unfamiliar with what redistribution of wealth looks like, see chart 3.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I’ve always liked this, from a Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia:
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
pay 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.

So, 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 ten only cost $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 eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying
customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone
would get his "fair share"?

The six men 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 eat their meal. So, the restaurant 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 paid $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
eat 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 me!"

"That’s true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2? 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 surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate 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, boys and girls, 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 at the table anymore.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Bruce,

I compliment you in pointing out all these facts. I reluctantly point out, however, that mere facts will never win over a socialist’s mind.

Indeed, it almost seems that they tend to ignore them, when given the opportunity.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Scott, I like the message behind the analogy.
I have a hard time believing that 40% of Americans pay no taxes.Might there be a different figure for that?
 
Written By: kindlingman
URL: http://
Scott,

That story is famous, but it has one big flaw. It’s only talking about ONE of the many taxes we pay — the federal individual income tax. As the study linked above shows, that tax only made up around 1/4 of total federal, state and local tax collections in 2004. So although the story is a useful way to explain how the burden of the federal income tax is distributed, it’s highly misleading to say that it’s a story about the U.S. tax system overall. Every time I see this story on the web I try to get those posting it to change the wording at the beginning to make clear that it’s not counting excise taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, or any of the many others. So far, I’ve had little success, unfortunately...
 
Written By: andrew
URL: http://
Well, they pay taxes, but when it all gets refunded, it’s effectively the same thing.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
kindling - As far as income tax goes, the percentages hold up well enough. Not counting the Ponzi Tax, around 4 out of 10 Americans don’t pay federal taxes.

andrew - Do you really want to go into how big a share of the other revenue sources are paid by the "rich" guy?
 
Written By: Brian Epps
URL: http://randomnumbers.us
This is hilarious, the benefactors of the mega-technic oligopolistic monopoly-finance capital system complaining aobut the taxes they are forced to pay for being the beneficiaries of the Gaia-devouring, soul destroying system-hegemon that bestrides Gaia eating the provender of the many for the enrichment and entertainment of the few, whilst tossing a few bones to it’s compradors worldwide and it’s dutiful wage slaves at home....

Department of Defense, Department of Imperialism and Occupation, that alone ustifies the entire system, as the US’ economic losers, led by the deluded mouth-breathing Godbags of NASCAR-land, pillage the planet, beating the poor and people of colourt into submission, so that...

Department of Commerce can open up "trade" relations, might as well call a pimp a labour magnate, striking deals with the greedy, false-consciousness-inspired wh*res of Empire to effectively gauge their nations and people for the rapacious greed of Wall Street and its many "Little Eichmanns".

Department of Labour, the masked has slipped under the BFEE 43 regime (with the abolition of over-timefor millions), but always a tool for controllling the masses and bringing them to heel for their corporate masters.

Department of (In)Justice, the "stick" of the corporate shills, enforcing the uniformity of thought and compliance for the Sheeple, where the "carrot" of the corporate-controlled media can not make willing compliance an option, REMEMEBER JOHHNY AFRICE! FREE MUMIA!

The list of organizations is endless, a non-stop parade of alphabet soup designed to lull or brutalize, in turn or as necessary the People of Amerikkka, so that the rich Haliburton-serverd 1% can continue their profligate and unsustainable lifestyle behind their gated community walls for a few more years, until the Gaia’swrath and the incandescent rage of the exploited overwhelm them..."Finally effacing, just it’s on reflection blazing in the sun."

Man taht was fun and easy...I’m changing sides.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
These charts, as eye-catching as they might be, are inconsistent with the study itself. To see why, look at the income bars on the first one. They show the top quintile getting a bit more than 40% of the total income, and the bottom quintile getting almost exactly 10%. Since the quintiles by definition include equal numbers of people, that means the average income in the top quintile is about 4x that in the bottom quintile. Now look at figure 3 on page 17 of the study. According to that table, the lower bound for the top quintile is $99,502. The upper bound for the second quintile, which is within epsilon of the upper bound for the first, is $23,700. That’s already more than the 4x difference shown in the charts. In other words, according to the study every person in the top quintile makes more than 4x as much as every person in the bottom, and we all know that including even a few ultra-rich in the top group (remember the difference between bounds and averages) will only make that ratio higher. In fact, table 4 on the very next page of the study shows that the ratio is greater than 10:1.

The charts simply do not reflect the study results. They’re misleading, and intentionally so. For all that the ultra-partisan Conover whines about "outsourcing opinions to ideologues" that’s exactly what he seems to be hoping others will do - either directly through him or through second-tier third-rate commentators who repeat his claims uncritically.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
I meant to say "...the lower bound for the second quintile..."
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
They show the top quintile getting a bit more than 40% of the total income, and the bottom quintile getting almost exactly 10%. Since the quintiles by definition include equal numbers of people, that means the average income in the top quintile is about 4x that in the bottom quintile.
99,502 / 23,700 = 4.2

Since I consider slightly less than 4.2 to be equivalent to "about 4x", I’m missing your point.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Table 22 shows income shares for the quintiles. Again, I don’t see Platypus’ argument. The income bars in the first graph reflect the report EXACTLY.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
In fact, table 4 on the very next page of the study shows that the ratio is greater than 10:1
In fact, you have misunderstood the table.

1) This table is for household income while the quintiles are divided equally by individuals. You’ll note that Table 3 shows that the lowest quintile has considerably more "households" than the top quintile. (That makes sense since a household consisting of one individual is less likely to have as much income as a household with two individual earners).

2) When you get to the end of Table 4 where they add everything up: 4,284 / 1,013 = 4.2

Therefore, you need to present new evidence to support your argument. So far, everything matches up EXACTLY.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Since the quintiles by definition include equal numbers of people,
Having only read the Skeptical Optimist’s post and the paper’s abstract I can comfortably say your "by definition" is inaccurate. The study looked at households not individuals.

The Current Population Survey of the U.S. Census has some demographic information concerning the Households in the various income quintiles.

In 2005 there were 22,877 thousand households per quintile. But in the highest earning quintile, 20,017 thousand were families (90% of which were married) and included only about 2.8MM individuals living alone, while in the lowest earning quintile, only 9,377 thousand were families (less than half of which were married) and had about 12.7MM individuals living alone. These relationships are monotonic across the quintiles.

Further, the number of aggregate earning individuals in the highest income quintile is more than 4x the number of aggregate earning individuals in the lowest income quintile.

 
Written By: m.jed
URL: http://
What has always confused me is why any self-respecting socialist would ever favor taxing businesses or personal income. That all businesses merely pass on their tax burden to consumers is indisputable. It is likewise indisputable that whatever government taxes we wind up with less of. Taxing businesses and income mean less employment and less income. I thought socialist were supposed to support more jobs and higher wages? This is the worst tax scheme imaginable for labor.

I suspect it has to do with the fantasy that taxing income is really taxing wealth. But it’s not. You may wash dishes for a living and live with your wife and one year-old in the backseat of a car behind the restaurant. But if you make $200K one year by, say, selling a screenplay (or whatever), the government is still going to help itself to half of it regardless.

Earth to Left: income taxes ≠ wealth taxes.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
I can comfortably say your "by definition" is inaccurate. The study looked at households not individuals.I can comfortably say that you need to read the report because you’re 100% wrong in this case.

Table 3: quintiles divided by equal INDIVIDUALS (households in bottom quintile are more than 30 million while households in top quintile are 18 million).

I used the term "by definition" because the report itself has a section in which it provides definitions. They say (page 16):
Each quintile contains roughly equal numbers of people, and thus unequal numbers of households.
Try reading next time.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Opps...I hit the wrong button an posted before I was done...
I can comfortably say your "by definition" is inaccurate. The study looked at households not individuals.
They may have looked at household income, BUT they divided the quintiles by individuals.

Table 3: quintiles divided by equal INDIVIDUALS (households in bottom quintile are more than 30 million while households in top quintile are 18 million). They even write just before this (page 16)
Each quintile contains roughly equal numbers of people, and thus unequal numbers of households.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Boy, you guys are just all hell-bent on falling for the conflation of bounds with averages, aren’t you. Here’s a clue. The average for a range where the upper bound is $23,700 will be less than $23,700. The average for a range where the lower bound is $99,502 will be more than $99,502. Therefore, the ratio between the sums or averages will be at least 4.2:1 and then only if each quintile is clustered around the bound. In reality, anyone who actually looks at the study can see that the very next figure on the very next page provides the actual aggregate numbers that Conover incorrectly and misleadingly extrapolated from the bounds. That ratio is more than 10:1, as anyone who has examined similar figures from other sources would know, but that wouldn’t have suited Conover’s rhetorical purposes nearly as well so it’s not the one he used for the chart.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
That all businesses merely pass on their tax burden to consumers is indisputable.
Rubbish. In a market that has healthy supply-side competition (as opposed to the monopolies in disguise that so-called free marketeers actually seem to prefer) a business can only charge a price that sits well with their competitors, and profit margins are limited by competition. Unfortunately, few markets function properly and the free movement of capital means that development of oligopolies is inevitable. The role of government is to tax the businesses to a) make an appropriate contribution to the cost of running a country and b) restrict unfettered profit-making, so that consumer price gouging is not an attractive option for the business.
You may wash dishes for a living and live with your wife and one year-old in the backseat of a car behind the restaurant. But if you make $200K one year by, say, selling a screenplay (or whatever), the government is still going to help itself to half of it regardless.
So you’re saying because the writer is poor he shouldn’t be taxed as much as someone making 200,000 every year from investments etc ?
 
Written By: Blewyn
URL: http://
So you’re saying because the writer is poor he shouldn’t be taxed as much as someone making 200,000 every year from investments etc ?
Actually, he’s making a case for income averaging, somethng that existed in the tax code until about 1986.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
the sums or averages will be at least 4.2:1
Yes, and the report is talking about the share of each group out of a total of 100%.

The graphs accurately represent this, contrary to your claim.
the very next figure on the very next page provides the actual aggregate numbers that Conover incorrectly and misleadingly extrapolated from the bounds. That ratio is more than 10:1
Show us exactly which numbers you are using. I believe you are the one distorting what the report says by trying to use a different definition for household income than the report. You are trying to use a subset of their definition of income to make some sort of point.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
incorrectly and misleadingly extrapolated from the bounds. That ratio is more than 10:1
To further demonstrate that Platypus is trying to change the definitions from the study in order to claim that the graphs don’t accurately reflect the study, let’s quote from the study again:
Table 22 shows the share of comprehensive household income earned by each income quintile between 1991 and 2004. Households in the top income quintile earned approximately 41.5 percent of comprehensive household income—which consists of both market-based income and the net value of government transfer payments—in 2004, while paying 48.8 percent of total taxes. In contrast, households in the bottom quintile earned 9.8 percent of comprehensive household income, while paying 4.3 percent of total taxes, illustrating the overall progressivity of total U.S. effective tax rates.
Conover is correctly portraying the report. Platypus is doing the misleading.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Show us exactly which numbers you are using.
I’ve been perfectly clear about that: figures 3 and 4. Break from laissez-loser tradition and learn to read.
You are trying to use a subset of their definition of income to make some sort of point.
No, I’m using the most obviously applicable set of figures in the report. It’s Conover who’s plucking numbers out of context to make a point, and you who are following his bad example. His first chart purports to show one thing, and actually shows another because it makes the bars look better.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
"a business can only charge a price that sits well with their competitors, and profit margins are limited by competition"

"b) restrict unfettered profit-making, so that consumer price gouging is not an attractive option for the business"

There sems to be a contradiction here.

"That all businesses merely pass on their tax burden to consumers is indisputable."

Where do businesses get the money to pay taxes? Printing their own is illegal.





 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Tim, that phrase means that if you increase taxes on a company, they will raise their prices to compensate and retain the prio profit-margin.

Say a company makes a buck profit from a sale of Item A. Now raise that company’s taxes a little. Whatever price the company sells Item A at will be raised so as to maintain the $1 profit.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The role of government is to tax the businesses to a) make an appropriate contribution to the cost of running a country and b) restrict unfettered profit-making, so that consumer price gouging is not an attractive option for the business.
How does taxing a business make consumer price gouging unattractive?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Tim, that phrase means that if you increase taxes on a company, they will raise their prices to compensate and retain the prio profit-margin.

Say a company makes a buck profit from a sale of Item A. Now raise that company’s taxes a little. Whatever price the company sells Item A at will be raised so as to maintain the $1 profit.
As with any other cost of doing business, a company has the option of eating all or any part of its taxes, rather than pass the entire cost on through higher prices. But a tax is a cost to the business, and every dollar that a business pays out through costs comes in from customers. It’s impossible to argue that customers don’t pay the business’s taxes.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"a business can only charge a price that sits well with their competitors, and profit margins are limited by competition"
That and by deciding to go out of business.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Platypus, you’re either lying to cover your a**, or you’re a complete idiot.

What Platypus claims:
[Table 4] provides the actual aggregate numbers that Conover incorrectly and misleadingly extrapolated from the bounds. That ratio is more than 10:1
What Table 4 ACTUALLY says:

Household Comprehensive Income:
Q1=1,013
Q5=4,284

That is most definitely NOT a ratio of 10:1. The only part that shows your ratio is a subset of the report’s definition of "income".

The total income shown in Table 4 along with Table 22 (share of income for each quintile), demonstrates that Conover provides an EXACT representation of what the report says.

You can’t be this stupid, so you must be a liar.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Just to make it absolutely clear that Table 4 and Table 22 are saying the same thing as what shows up on Conover’s graph, let’s compare tables:

Table 4 (Total income)
Q1 = $1,013
Q2 = $1,261
Q3 = $1,594
Q4 = $2,171
Q5 = $4,284
Total = $10,323

Table 22 (Share of income)
Q1 = 9.8%
Q2 = 12.2%
Q3 = 15.4%
Q4 = 21.0%
Q5 = 41.5%

By golly...what happens when you take the data from Platypus’ most favorite table (Table 4) and divide each quintile by the total? Wait...it couldn’t be, could it? Table 4 and Table 22 are the same? And they match Conover’s graph exactly?

How can this be? I thought Conover was "plucking numbers out of context to make a point".
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Tim, that phrase means that if you increase taxes on a company, they will raise their prices to compensate and retain the prio profit-margin."

Yeah, I know. My comment was in response to Blewyn’s, but I screwed it up. I actually agree with you.

" It’s impossible to argue that customers don’t pay the business’s taxes."

Yep, I agree with you, too.

I seem to be very agreeable today.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The truly fun part comes when more than half the voters don’t pay taxes. We’re nearly there vis a vis income taxes. If some Libs have their way, Ponzi taxes will be next. Once that happens, socialism will not be far away, because buying votes of those who don’t pay when govt is expanded will be easy.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Pay attention, JWG. Look at the first line of table 4 - market income, not the cooked-up "comprehensive income" below. Market income is what most people are going to expect when they see comparison of income shares. It’s what they would assume Conover’s graph shows, but it’s not what Conover’s graph shows. That’s why I claim that Conover is plucking statistics out of context in an attempt to mislead.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
Platypus,

The rationale for using comprehensive income rather than market income is clearly spelled out in the paper (emphasis mine):
While simple concepts of income like cash money income are useful for grouping households into easily understood quintiles, they are not an appropriate measure of households’ total economic income. Households receive income from many non-cash sources as well, such as unrealized capital gains and implicit rental income from home ownership. A household’s full economic income is generally much broader than cash money income alone.

For this reason, whenever taxes or spending are expressed as a percentage of household income, it is important to use a much broader definition of income that better reflects a household’s true economic ability to pay taxes. . .

Because all taxes in the economy are assumed to be borne by households, it becomes important to also attribute to household all the income in the economy that is available to pay those taxes. Expressing tax burdens as a percentage of narrow income concepts like cash money income does not provide a sound measure of a household’s true ability to pay taxes, and thus may overstate true effective tax rates by a large amount.

For this reason, tax distribution studies have traditionally used broader definitions of income when comparing taxes to income. These broad income concepts generally have two features. First, they include households’ productive market income such as wages and salaries, interest income, and so on. Second, they include the value of government transfer payments received by households, such as Social Security, unemployment compensation and welfare payments. Since many low-income households rely heavily on government transfer payments, and any broad income concept that does not account for transfers risks greatly overstating the apparent tax burden of low-income households.

In this study, we also use a broad income concept whenever taxes or spending are expressed as a percentage of income.
If you disagree with either the concept of broad income or the methodology the authors use to arrive at broad income by quintile then lay out your rationale, but based on my reading of the paper, The charts simply do not reflect the study results. They’re misleading, and intentionally so. is a false claim.

 
Written By: m.jed
URL: http://
Pay attention, JWG. Look at the first line of table 4 - market income, not the cooked-up "comprehensive income" below
Pay attention, dumbsh*t...

You are changing the definition of income that the report clearly defines. The first line is a subset of total income according to the report.

In order to claim Conover is misrepresenting the report, then you have to explain why Table 4 and Table 22 and Conover’s graph match exactly.

Your problem is with the report, not Conover’s representation of the report.

You have demonstrated some serious idiocy, Platypus.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Sorry to distract from the actually on-topic discussion with Platypus, but Scott Jacobs posted that old conundrum about the ten men, and I have that one personally debunked. The problem lies right here:
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."
If the story was really written by a professor of economics, would it include a free lunch? Without the help of a kind restaurant owner/free lunch fairy, the only way you can get 10 lunches for $80 is to buy an $8 lunch.

Now you can see that the five poor guys are going from a $10 lunch to an $8 lunch, while the rich guy is stepping down to an $8 lunch but getting $10 back to buy himself dessert. Now you can see his tax cut came from five people giving up $2 worth of lunch. Now you can understand why they wanted to beat him up.
 
Written By: Noumenon
URL: http://
his tax cut came from five people giving up $2 worth of lunch
According to your point, they’re giving up something for which they have never paid.

Instead of getting a $10 lunch and paying nothing (actually $1 for the fifth person), all five are getting an $8 lunch and paying nothing.

What would be your perception of a group of five people who complained about getting an $8 meal for free?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
What would your perception be of a group of people who complained about getting a stick of gum for free? Even if they showed up expecting lunch?

I just thought the point of the original story, that "people who pay the highest taxes get the benefit of a tax reduction," is weakened considerably by adding, "but people who pay no taxes at all still share equally in the pain." Because in the long run, less taxes equals less lunch.
 
Written By: Noumenon
URL: http://
less taxes equals less lunch
Not quite — Fewer taxes equal less lunch for FREE (if the same number of people are still getting it for free). I don’t think anyone disputes that.
Even if they showed up expecting lunch?
"Expecting" is the operative word. They "expect" a FREE lunch. I don’t think very highly of people who "expect" a FREE lunch and complain about it later.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider