Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The tax man's taken all my dough
May 4, 2010 7:02 AM   Subscribe

Do higher rates of taxation for high-earners kill entrepreneurial spirit?

The Economist recently came out in favour of the Conservative party for the 2010 UK general election. As part of its criticism of the Liberal Democrats it said:

"A 50% capital-gains tax, getting rid of higher-rate relief on pensions and a toff-bashing mansion tax are not going to induce the entrepreneurial vim Britain needs."
posted by northerner to Law & Government (32 answers total) 20 users marked this as a favorite
 
You'll be interested in this article by the Cornell economist and NYT columnist Robert Frank. Snippet:
Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth. In their familiar rhetorical flourish, they insist that a more progressive tax system would kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. On close examination, however, this claim is supported neither by economic theory nor by empirical evidence.

The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the time-honored belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less, as trickle-down theorists claim. As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.

If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal....
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:10 AM on May 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


I'm sorry I have no fornalized theory or data to back this up, but this argument is made in the US all the time, and I have always been skeptical. It asserts that the primary motivation for business development activity is cash profit, when in fact, most of the people I know who have started their own businesses are motivated more by the ability to be their own boss and do things their own way, make a unique contribution, dictate their own working hours and work relationships, and gain social capital. Many of them, in fact, make less money in take-home pay than their peers who work in corporate structures, but they have generally decided that they'd rather not trade the freedom and autonomy the have for the regularity of payment from someone else who dictates the terms of their work. I think the 'entrepreneurial spirit' is not one stimulated by cash gain, but a strong desire for self-directedness, and a powerful personal vision.

There are certainly gains to be made and it's definitely not a deterrent that one can become more financially secure, do and buy more, if a business does well enough to generate oodles of extra money. And the desire to reach for financial security is often what I see driving people I know who operate franchises - sweat equity in a prefab business is a viable path to financial betterment, whereas working similarly as a hiring and sourcing manager in a franchise is not.

But in any system where business ownership rewards you even incrementally more than just being a worker in a business, the financial motive exists. It doesn't need to be encouraged by further drastic cuts in the taxes that support the climate the business operates in, or capital-gains forgiveness, or any such things. In my opinion, those ideas are the ideas of already-rich people who would like to increase their wealth without having to increase their work.
posted by Miko at 7:15 AM on May 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


The "more likely to risk" theory doesn't seem to pan out either - there's a lack of evidence for it, according to this Gladwell piece. It's pay-to-read but the abstract gives you the basic gist: He says that the legends of risk in business are overblown, sort of a business mythology, when in reality the most successful businesspeople actually take very few risks - instead, they exploit knowledge or access only they are privy to, or exploit a market they have been the first to identify. In other words, what is later called "bold risk" was really a calculated plan that was the result of analysis and an awareness of usable resources to which the entrepreneur already had access.
posted by Miko at 7:20 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do higher rates of taxation for high-earners kill entrepreneurial spirit?

Not according to Gregory Clark's Farewell to Alms. He outlines the poverty of many innovators during the textile revolution of Europe (in particular England) in the Industrial Revolution. In fact during the height of the industrial revolution, and I really wish I had my book here, high-tech and innovative fields compromised only a small portion of the wealthy. While you would expect textile mills to be the big beneficiaries of the Industrial Revolution, the already wealthy ended up benefiting the most.

That is not to say that people don't get rich of innovation, they certainly do, but it rarely happens in a meritocratic fashion.

The idea that someone tinkering in their basement on the next technological marvel will give it up due to a high capital gains tax they might have to pay in the future is rather silly. I do think higher capital gains tax discourages some of the most fanciful bubble companies that we saw in the late 90s and are seeing again now.
posted by geoff. at 7:25 AM on May 4, 2010


Yes, higher tax rates hurt entrepreneurship. The problem isn't that entrepreneurs lack the motivation to start businesses under a high tax regime, but that people in general are less interested in investing and saving money (because it would be taxed away). This raises interest rates, lowers stock market prices, and generally makes it tougher to get the money you need to start or grow a business.

Of course you need some level of taxation to provide services that everyone needs. So this isn't, on its own, an argument for lowering taxes.

Republicans in the US make the altogether more dubious assertion that by lowering taxes, they'll create so much growth in business activity that the government will actually take in more money overall. I've never seen any convincing quantitative analysis of this rhetoric.
posted by miyabo at 7:32 AM on May 4, 2010


Regardless of economic theory we have empirical evidence. The last 10 years have had the lowest income and capital gains tax rates of the last 60 years. As Sarah would say, how's that workin' out fer ya.

The 50's, 60's and 70's had tax rates as high as 90% for income and 40% for capital gains and the entrepreneurship and economic growth were faster then than recent decades.
posted by JackFlash at 7:46 AM on May 4, 2010 [9 favorites]


Somewhat related is the Laffer Curve, which is based on the hypothesis that in terms of raising revenue, there is one maximally effective tax rate. If taxes were increased above this rate, the theory states that this would disincentive people to earn additional income and reduce the amount of taxes collected.
posted by thewittyname at 7:52 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Republicans in the US make the altogether more dubious assertion that by lowering taxes, they'll create so much growth in business activity that the government will actually take in more money overall. I've never seen any convincing quantitative analysis of this rhetoric.

In fact there's convincing evidence against it. "A 10 percent tax cut would result in a revenue loss of $1.241 trillion over 10 years. Under the most optimistic assumptions, increased economic growth generated by the tax cut would offset this loss by $345 billion dollars. That is a net revenue loss of nearly $900 billion." That's a paraphrase of a Congressional Budget Office study that was supervised by an advisor to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

Think about it: if cutting taxes led to higher government revenue, wouldn't every politician in existence be wildly enthusiastic about dramatically cutting taxes? If it were possible to give voters everything they want -- more money and more government goodies -- who would pass up that chance?
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:53 AM on May 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


I've known only a couple of seriously successful entrepreneurs in my life, but what's generally struck me about them is that profit is only of secondary concern to them. Some people are just wired to do that sort of stuff, and they would probably be doing it regardless of tax rates, etc.
posted by Gilbert at 7:57 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Do higher rates of taxation for high-earners kill entrepreneurial spirit?

No, but they'll sting a little if you work for the Economist editorial board.
posted by holgate at 8:04 AM on May 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


Can only speak from my own personal experience, but for me the answer is yes. I sold my business a couple years ago for a tidy sum, but not a retirement level sum. I am a lawyer by training and could make a lot more money by getting a full time job again but I just don't see the point of busting my ass to pay 35% (or more when the tax rates expire this year) in income taxes, approximately 15.3% in FICA, 6% in property taxes, plus sales taxes -- and I am in a no income tax state.

I know a lot of my experience comes from the fact that I have some financial security already built up from the sale of my business. I am also not a person who likes to shop and buy a lot of "stuff". I know I could reach my retirement # a lot more quickly if I got a full time law firm job again, but I truly do feel a disincentive to work harder just to pay more of my $ in taxes.

(And for what it's worth, I am really bitter about and sick of people who say that "rich" people do not pay their fair share in taxes. The top 10 % of earners pay 73% of all income taxes paid in the US. 47% pay no income tax. When I was in the former category and paying the tax rates stated above, I was actually okay with it. But to portray this group as greedy truly pisses me off. Yes, we can afford it more. Yes, we don't feel the effects as much. Yes, yes, yes. But to say top earners are greedy for wanting to keep more of what they have lawfully earned by people who are, IMO, actually greedy for wanting more of what they HAVE NOT EARNED, does make me less inclined to rejoin the ranks of top earners again.)
posted by murrey at 8:06 AM on May 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


One thing that bothers me about this argument is that the same people who claim to want to cut taxes to increase entrepreneurship also hate the idea of the public option in health care.

I believe that the single most important thing we can do to encourage people to start their own companies is to set it up so that they don't have to either do without or be independently wealthy in order to have health insurance while doing so. I know someone who just got his Irish citizenship so he could go to a country where he'll have healthcare while getting a biomaterials design company going. Think he'll come back if it's successful? Me neither.

In other words, unless those same people pushing for lower taxes to foster the 'entrepreneurial spirit' are simultaneously arguing for universal health care, I suspect they are lying to achieve their own private ends.
posted by overhauser at 8:09 AM on May 4, 2010 [5 favorites]


In the question's original form, it is almost impossible to answer decisively. There is a litany of academic/economic literature on the subject and none of it is clear cut, as the blending of tax policy, monetary policy, investment philosophy and financial stability becomes a question of political, economic and social ethos as much as a strict cause and effect paradigm. I'd suggest honing your question to a more manegable scope which could provide insight towards the correlation between tax rate and the genrally vague term of entrepeneurialism within a certain society, culture, district etc (e.g. investment philosophy and entrepeneurialism is dramatically different in Silicon Valley versus Austin Texas, let alone the United States of America versus the UK...).
posted by Hurst at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2010


But to say top earners are greedy for wanting to keep more of what they have lawfully earned by people who are, IMO, actually greedy for wanting more of what they HAVE NOT EARNED, does make me less inclined to rejoin the ranks of top earners again.)

I'm sorry, this is just BS. It assumes that somehow you are SOLELY deserving of whatever cash you've convinced people to give you, and that somehow your use of the community resources (roads, mail, the labor of public servants like policemen and bridge inspectors) did not contribute to your ability to rake in dough, and, by begrudging paying your taxes, you selfishly wish to deny others the opportunity to use kinds the stuff you've already taken advantage of, and which now may requires maintenance or replacement.

Listen: Ayn Rand was wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
posted by mneekadon at 8:14 AM on May 4, 2010 [12 favorites]


Like JackFlash says, we've been living the low tax dream and the resultant "entrepreneurial vim" did not produce another James Dyson but rather a load of esoteric fraud that destroyed the country.
posted by ninebelow at 8:16 AM on May 4, 2010


Tax all you want. If you tax too much, entrepreneurs move. Also, remember that taxes tend to be accompanied by regulations and bureaucracy, which is equally destructive of the entrepreneurial spirit, and another reason for business owners and wealth creators to leave a jurisdiction. Unless you go communist and seal the borders, these facts are non-negotiable.

Smart policy-makers are able to craft a balance of moderate taxes and regulation with progressive social policies.
posted by teedee2000 at 8:29 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


(And for what it's worth, I am really bitter about and sick of people who say that "rich" people do not pay their fair share in taxes. The top 10 % of earners pay 73% of all income taxes paid in the US. 47% pay no income tax.

Part of the problem is that there are too few tax bands. Treating the marginal income of someone making 150k a year the same as that of someone making 2m a year is nuts.
posted by atrazine at 8:30 AM on May 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


The whole concept of 'entrepreneurship' is in itself an ideological construct that contains various assumptions about how economic activity takes place; for a historical critiques see e.g.
posted by Abiezer at 8:33 AM on May 4, 2010 [3 favorites]


Trickle down is a whole lot of toosh. This was spread by Reagan, who told the sad story of not making a new movie because his income was tooooo high. Of course that has nothing to do with being a entrepreneur at all and is just a rich guy taking a vacation.

Two years ago 10% of the population of the US made 50% of the total reported income (and wages and salary made up only a little more than half of the aggregate too. For the first time since 1948, when much of the country was still agricultural). The top two percent now control nearly twenty percent of the GDP (compared to less than five in the 1970s), one ten thousandth of a percent controls nearly four percent of the GDP, up from less than one half in the bad old days when they shared the burden of supporting the country with their employees.

Is this what is meant by entrepreneurial spirit? Is this any kind of 'trickle down'? Or is this simply the rich getting richer while the middle class gets choked?

I believe that entrepreneurship is seen in new start ups, new small business start ups, people building new fortunes rather than adding to their grandfather's. And that kind of growth, the sort driven by class mobility was much higher in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, than it is now, when the only growth is seen in finance, not manufacturing or even commerce, and much of that growth in finance has come from investor driven bubbles. Now, rather than feed entrepreneurship, we are growing an oligarchy. . And that is only one kind of tax, it doesn't include the regressive sales and excise taxes, it doesn't include the inescapable per capita fees, or all the other things that nickle and dime the middle class to death and keep them from any chance to ever be successful entrepreneurs.

I know this was a UK specific question, and I don't know enough about there to specifically address it, but my understanding is that Britain is that it is already second among industrialized nations in having a regressive tax structure, and perhaps the US stats can be illustrative. (and I don't know a British equivalent for 'nickle and dime to death' either, but it's not a good thing to do.)

tl;dr: Does trickle down work? No. Hell, no!
posted by Some1 at 8:45 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


I just don't see the point of busting my ass to pay 35% (or more when the tax rates expire this year) in income taxes, approximately 15.3% in FICA, 6% in property taxes, plus sales taxes -- and I am in a no income tax state.

You don't pay 35% in income tax. The 35% rate is the upper end marginal tax rate, not your effective income tax rate, which is significantly less than 35%. Even if you make $500,000 per year as a single person, your effective income tax rate is only about 31%.

The top 10 % of earners pay 73% of all income taxes paid in the US.

As of 2007, the top 10% of American earners pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages. In 2001, the top 10% owned 71% of the wealth.

So that sounds about right given their share of income and wealth and the non-linear nature of the value of wealth to an individual (i.e. an extra $10 million does not increase a person's utility 10 times more than an extra $1 million, much less 1000 times more than an extra $10,000). In fact, I would argue that we need more tax brackets at the high end to address the extreme concentration of wealth in the top 1% or so.

47% pay no income tax

But they do pay FICA, excise taxes, sales tax, and property taxes. In many states and cities they pay state and local income taxes. In fact, because of the regressive nature of those taxes, many of those 47% pay more in tax as a percentage of their income than the wealthy.

But anyway, you're just one person. To address the asker's question we need broader statistics and models, not the opinion of one person who is displaying a lack of understanding of both economics and his or her own effective tax rate.
posted by jedicus at 8:55 AM on May 4, 2010 [18 favorites]


At a 100% tax rate, yes.
posted by yoyoceramic at 8:56 AM on May 4, 2010


Tax all you want. If you tax too much, entrepreneurs move. Also, remember that taxes tend to be accompanied by regulations and bureaucracy, which is equally destructive of the entrepreneurial spirit, and another reason for business owners and wealth creators to leave a jurisdiction.

That must be why all the American entrepreneurs live in states without income tax like Alaska and Wyoming and flee high tax states like California (10.55% income tax at the high end) and New York (7.85%). And it must also be why countries with high tax rates and strong regulatory regimes like Germany (45%), the UK (40%), and France (40%) have such terrible economies while countries like Spain (27%), Mexico (28%), and the Slovak Republic (19%) are powerhouses of wealth generation and entrepreneurship.

In fact, the picture is vastly more complex than that, and personal tax rates have little correlation with entrepreneurship or the strength of the overall economy of a country.
posted by jedicus at 9:09 AM on May 4, 2010 [11 favorites]


I agree with teedee2000. I've seen it play out multiple times, entrepreneurs will move to other places based on taxes. My boss moved to a state without income taxes to avoid state taxes on a hefty bonus she knew was coming to her. I know plenty of others that have moved to optimize their financial situation.
So do taxes kill the entreprenurial spirt? Absolutely not.
But taxes can become burdensome enough that entrepreneurial growth in a location is slowed.
posted by forforf at 9:26 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


This isn't a question that can be answered.

Sure it can. Like this:

(1) Scandinavian countries have very high marginal tax rates.
(2) Scandinavian countries have entrepeneurs.
(3) Therefore high marginal tax rates must not kill the entrepeneurial spirit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:26 AM on May 4, 2010 [4 favorites]


I can only speak from my own personal experience, but for me the answer is yes. I sold my business a couple years ago for a tidy sum, but not a retirement level sum. I am a lawyer by training

You say stuff like you did, you'd best have graduated exclusively from private universities and not availed yourself of any government-subsidized student loans. Which you might have, of course.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:33 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


[A couple comments removed. Please flag and move on, don't flag and talk about your flagging.

The question could have been presented better, but it can work if folks focus on the answerable "what does theory and practice say" angle at the core of it, so if folks stick to that and avoid getting in chatty arguments this should be fine. Carry on.]

posted by cortex at 9:33 AM on May 4, 2010


This article has a lot of interesting information about the most entrepreneurial countries in the world:

Our top four - New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, and Australia - place relatively few hurdles in the path of business owners. In each nation it takes between two and five days to start a business and requires five or fewer steps to do so. Those nations impose relatively low marginal tax rates too. That's critical, says William Bygrave, a professor at Babson and director of the GEM project, because it helps business launchers- and the friends, relatives, and angels who support them - accumulate savings for seed money.

Those nations also have in common legal systems that protect intellectual property, enforce contracts, and provide relatively rapid adjudication of disputes. Poland, which at No. 44 tops our bottom ten, is notorious for its sclerotic courts: To settle a claim of unpaid receivables takes upwards of 1,000 business days.


@jedicus: Not sure why you would describe the picture as "vastly more complex" after having made a series of overly simplistic comparisons. People evaluate many different factors in their personal decisions. New York and California have been coasting, so to speak, on their preeminent positions as centers of tech and finance, and their legislators have behaved as though there are no consequences to high taxes and excessive regulations. Whether they learn their lesson or not, people are leaving for more business friendly states (e.g. Texas). The truth is, it's a pain in the ass to start and run a business in California.

@ROU_Xenophobe: I doubt you would try to argue late 70s Britain's extreme marginal tax rates (83%, with effective rate of 98%) had no bearing on entrepreneurialism.

Finally, comparing national tax rates, one ought to examine corporate tax rates. Sweden's corporate tax rate is much lower than America's, which is one of the highest in the world (for more, see this Tax Foundation PDF).
posted by teedee2000 at 10:30 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sure it can. Like this:

(1) Scandinavian countries have very high marginal tax rates.
(2) Scandinavian countries have entrepeneurs.
(3) Therefore high marginal tax rates must not kill the entrepeneurial spirit.


Incomplete argument. Many have argued that Scandinavian entrepeneurship, which is innovative and bright, with a vibrant incubation atmosphere, is being stifled or underperforming relative to peer countries, gauged by various metrics (GDP being one). The reason for this? Arguable to say the least.

As yoyoceramic astutely points out, at 100%, yes it is killed. At what degree is the excise tax receipt marginalized or even negated by decreased output/creation is the question and that cannot simply be summarized.
posted by Hurst at 10:45 AM on May 4, 2010


Not sure why you would describe the picture as "vastly more complex" after having made a series of overly simplistic comparisons.

Those comparisons were designed to demonstrate that there are prominent counterexamples, which suggests that the issue is a complex one.

People evaluate many different factors in their personal decisions.

Sounds like a pretty complex situation to me, then.

New York and California have been coasting, so to speak, on their preeminent positions as centers of tech and finance, and their legislators have behaved as though there are no consequences to high taxes and excessive regulations.

In fact, California's highest income tax rate has actually fallen since 1976, from 11.6% to 10.5% today. New York's has also fallen from 12.8% to 7.85%. While Texas's tax rate has increased from 8.1% to 8.6%. (Historical data from the Tax Foundation [pdf], current data available elsewhere on the site)

Finally, comparing national tax rates, one ought to examine corporate tax rates. Sweden's corporate tax rate is much lower than America's, which is one of the highest in the world (for more, see this Tax Foundation PDF).

The problem with that analysis is that it's too shallow. The US doesn't have a value added tax, for starters, whereas most of the rest of the OECD does. It also ignores the real amounts actually paid by corporations. According to the GAO, 66% of all US corporations and 25% of the 1000 largest corporations pay no federal income tax (see table on page 23) [pdf].
posted by jedicus at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2010 [1 favorite]


A value-added tax is comparable to a sales tax, so bringing it up is kinda a non-starter.

The income tax is somewhat irrelevant to this question. And the focus on federal taxes ignores a few basic points. There's difficulty in parsing small business taxes from ordinary income. Also 44% of state/local taxes come from businesses, and most of the states that we consider low-tax states become that way by taxing businesses.

Further, look at this from the Economist's standpoint. They're not talking about America. They're talking about a country with universal health care and higher taxes. So America is only relevant when comparing against anyone else. America is not a low-tax paradise, but it does seem to have lower regulations and easier access to capital (this might change depending on new regulation). That seems to bear out.

I found the following quote from an EU publication: Despite this encouraging progress, the EU still needs to take further significant measures to release the full potential of SMEs[5]. In general, EU SMEs still have lower productivity and grow more slowly than their counterparts in the United States. In the US, surviving firms on average increase their employment by 60% by their seventh year, while employment gains among surviving firms in Europe are in the order of 10% to 20%. SMEs still face market failures undermining the conditions in which they operate and compete with other players in areas like finance (especially venture capital), research, innovation and the environment. For example, about 21% of SMEs indicate that accessing finance is a problem,[6] and in many Member States the percentage is much higher for micro-enterprises. Also, fewer European SMEs innovate successfully when compared to large businesses. The situation is worsened by structural difficulties such as the lack of management and technical skills, and remaining rigidities in labour markets at national level.

Obviously not definitive. But following the access to financing for small businesses is probably the best way to focus on answering this question. A capital gains tax doesn't stop the person who's tinkering in their basement. But it might slow that person from getting the necessary funding to bring that innovation to life. Instead they need to turn to personal wealth, family wealth, government funding or some other method of expanding their business into something that can actually support themselves.
posted by politikitty at 12:55 PM on May 4, 2010


I had a small business 20+ years ago. Dealing with IRS' incompetence and ridiculous paperwork encouraged me to sell. The IRS is not as bad now as it was then. Progressive taxes were in force then, and didn't bother me; if I made more, I paid more, but still had more in my pocket.

I don't think you can stop people from striving to improve, invent, think up cool stuff. I think monopolistic megacorps discourage small businesses. If I have a hardware store, and Lowe's moves in, I may be screwed. If Lowe's decides my town isn't profitable and closes, will somebody open another hardware store?

I just had an idea for a web-based business. When I thought about hurdles, taxes didn't enter my brain.

A friend and I have an idea for a product line, mostly because we think it could be fun as well as profitable, and startup costs are manageable. When we discussed it, the tax costs were not mentioned.

A friend who owns a profitable niche business watched my hassles with employment tax paperwork for the Federal and State gov'ts, and has kept his business small enough not to need employees.

Restrictions that require accountants and lawyers dissuade me from entrepreneurship, not income taxes. And some of the restrictions are acceptable to me when I know they make life more fair for folks with disabilities, or groups who have not been treated fairly in the past.

I enjoyed putting in my .02.
posted by theora55 at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2010 [2 favorites]


My apologies for issuing my previous response without first establishing my credentials for offering my personal opinion on taxation and its effect on entrepreneurship, written a diatribe on the marginal tax rate and the effective marginal tax rate and all of the other things I know about tax law as one licensed to practice before the US Tax Court, made clear that when I said "income tax" I really, really, really, really meant just income tax and not FICA and other types of taxes and written a thesis on the regressive nature of sales and (dare I mention the dreaded term) "'value added tax".

I should have first apologized for my success from the get-go and admitted my greed at having used public roadways, police services and yes, student loans as a means to achieve my success off of the backs of others. Had I done those things, I would have saved the precious time and indignation of those of you who picked every nit of apparently critical information missing from my response. I will not, however, apologize for my alleged “greed” for having earned more and paid more in taxes than my fellow drivers of public roads and users of police services.

And when I said it was my personal opinion, I really, really, really meant it. Higher taxation has lowered my personal investment in entrepreneurial endeavors atwhich I seem to excel.
posted by murrey at 4:42 PM on May 4, 2010


« Older Japanese Book Filter: Crime n...   |  You may remember me from this ... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.