Or Maybe It Was The Communism?

In related news, China has also seen tremendous foreign investment and GDP growth lately. This clearly shows that a massive, intrusive, one-party state is the key to economic success.

Two of the reasons why it is harder here are the special interests involved in tax legislation (the length of the federal tax code has increased by 20,000 pages under Bush); and the lack of good online tools, which is due to Intuit and other companies lobbying congress to disallow simple online filing directly to the IRS.

Let's not forget that not only did Estonia benefit from abandoning Communism, but it also benefited from its Communist past.

Soviet-style Communism was of course hostile to free-market activity. But it was much more democratic and egalitarian than, say, the United States with respect to education. (Still is, the last remaining Soviet-style Communist state - Cuba.) Estonia is surely benefiting from that legacy in its transition to a market economy.

But almost all variants of a flat tax would eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) the deductions, exemptions, credits, etc., so the calculating your taxable income part would be a lot easier.

Of course, you could do the same thing (make the tax code a lot simpler) and keep higher marginal rates, in which case you get the time savings plus keep the progressivity; this is my preferred option.

The Economist's flat tax issue of a couple years ago is what inspired me to allow my subscription to lapse. To their credit, they actually pointed out that what makes taxes difficult is, as you say, calculating your taxable income and that this has nothing to do with the flat tax. But then to their discredit, they ignored that fact both before and after they stated it. It was a truly amazing example of the doublethink that all flat tax advocates seem to be possessed by. (I don't think the term is hyperbole here.)

The truly amazing thing is that the standard script for flat-taxers at this point is "The flat tax is great because it makes doing your taxes so easy! And it can be made fair by having a large deduction!" or, in non-hackspeak, "Flat taxes are great for something that has nothing to do with it being flat! And it can be made fair by making it non-flat!". That people actually run around saying these things without being laughed out of the room is emblematic of the deep stupidity of our political culture.

Stossel fails to note that most Americans can fill out the 1040EZ, which is only two pages and pretty simple.

Moreover, reports claim that 54% of Americans filed electronically in 2007, and many more might do so if the IRS didn't charge $15 for the privilege, a little bit of corporate welfare GOP officials negotiated with the tax prep industry.

As I mentioned in another post, there is no reason you can't have a progressive flat tax (or, I guess, "quasi-flat tax"). Here's an example: the first 50K of income is tax free, and all income above that is taxed at .5. This would be much more progressive than what we have now, and it would be simple.

The problem is, you still have to calculate your total income. The simplest form of the flat tax has the benefit of being truly simple, because you can pay as you earn (just as you pay-as-you-spend with a sales tax). The problem is that this is not progressive.

The main thing is, we need to find a way to get rid of the deductions etc, and try to fix it to prevent future meddling by politicians. Otherwise, they'll just go and make it complex again in a few years.

I defy anyone to define 'taxable income' in less than 10,000 words.

Right now, it is fairly easy to define 'adjusted gross income' because people are not taxed on that figure. They are taxed on 'taxable income'. People will work really hard, far to hard in my opinion, to reduce 'taxable income'.

BTW, most people have absurdly simple tax returns. Many can file the 1040EZ and most people don't itemize. If we could simplfy schedule D for capital gains and investment income then more people would have no trouble doing their own taxes.

I am a CPA so I understand a little about our crazy tax system.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if pundits could put their ideology aside for a moment and consider taxation from a more empirical and objective perspective? Why not ask what policies seem to increase prosperity and economic growth around the world? Perhaps because those on the left and right would have to acknowledge some unpalatable (for them) truths.

For example, it seems pretty clear that a first world economy can prosper with higher top tax rates than ours. It also seems pretty clear that lower corporate income tax rates are a factor in successful economies. An empirically-driven tax policy would likely include an increase in our top income tax rate (perhaps to the Clinton-era 40%) and a decrease in our corporate income tax rate.

RT:

"Soviet-style Communism was of course hostile to free-market activity. But it was much more democratic and egalitarian than, say, the United States with respect to education. (Still is, the last remaining Soviet-style Communist state - Cuba.)"

Are you serious? Do you think anyone who wanted to go to college in the Soviet Union got to go? The state decided who went to college, who learned a trade, who served in the military, etc. That's far from "democratic and egalitarian". Also, are you still holding Cuba up as a positive example at this late date? Of what, exactly?

The biggest joke of the "flat tax"..soon to be called the "fair tax" is the fact it is a flat tax for WAGES ONLY...and a tax ELMINATION for capital gain, interest, and dividend!

Most jon-six pack who are drawn to the "simpicity" have NO IDEA that wages are the only thing that is taxed!

I'd agree with your point if it wasn't for me, an Estonian visiting countries in the former USSR circle, teaching to them Estonian policies. You see, they all sort of abondoned communism, but still are driving old Volgas and Moscviches. I am not saying that flat tax is micaculous cure, but abandoning communism is not enough.

Fred - I assume you are an expert on the economy and history of the Soviet Union ... not!

What you are repeating is the cliche that came out of books like 1984, which was an exaggerated take on the worst part of the Stalin era, i.e. the late 1930s.

I lived in Russia for some years at the end of the Soviet period, and my conversations with many Russians punctured a lot of the similar myths I had held. It seemed that people had a lot more choice in their careers, education, where they lived, etc. than I had ever imagined based on the cliched image of the Soviet Union that I had absorbed. I'm not defending or condoning the Soviets, just pointing out the truth is a bit more complicated.

The idea that one can set the marginal rate too high--so high that it discourages additional work--is obviously true. (I mean, a 100 percent rate is the extreme example of this.) But has anyone ever been able to figure out, empiracally, exactly what that rate is? And how that changes as people make more money?

I suspect that rates as high as 45 or 55 percent wouldn't discourage people who are already making $1 million a year from making a second million. I mean, let's face it, a million a year is enough to satisfy virtually all material needs, so the only reason to make more is social--status seeking, greed, competitiveness, what have you. Granted, a lot of the economy is driven by just those social needs, so you don't want to eliminate them (entirely) but it seems you could skim a lot of the cream off that income without any adverse effect.

For what it's worth, young'ens, top marginal rates used to be 70 percent or so without leaving us prostrate before our communist enemies. There's reason to believe that a top marginal rate in the 50s wouldn't lead to a crushing victory by the Salafists.

To finish the thought:

Whatever the highest rate that doesn't discourage further work--that is the rate that a flat tax should be set at, were one to have a flat tax. Then, set the personal deduction so that you get the revenue needed to run the government, e.g. 40 percent for all income over $40k, or 62 percent for all income over $127k, or whatever.

Well, lets be fair to the flat taxers... since they only want to tax wages, it would be a lot easier to do your taxes. You'd get your W-2, look up the number next to income in the table and bam! you're done.

Then there is the joke on the side that we could add a deduction to make it more fair. But then you start thinking... is that really fair to the people making 80K/year versus the people making 200K/year? Maybe we should create an additional rate for richer people. And then you realize that there's no difference b/w this flat tax and what we already have.

Except that the flat tax excludes investment income. What!? Conservatives are trying to pass a policy to dramatically benefit the super-rich and they are trying to sneak it in by pretending to focus on something else? Who would have thought. The flat tax should be called the non-flat tax because it doesn't tax a huge portion of income. And, really, can taxes ever be simple? If its going to be possible for people to run a personal business or even invest there will always have to be a distinction between personal expenses and business costs/investments/loss. And accounting for these distinctions is the bulk of the work for people I know that file taxes. (I'm not an accountant, so I can't speak for everyone).

jlw:
"Whatever the highest rate that doesn't discourage further work--that is the rate that a flat tax should be set at, were one to have a flat tax."

The question is, do you actually think this is a good idea? Even if we were to have a flat tax, which is pretty dumb, in my opinion, I couldn't agree with this claim. A tax distorts and discourages economic activity. As the percentage increases, it discourages more and more activity. At some point, it is theoretically possible that a tax generate less revenue as you increase that percentage (the basis of the famed Laffer curve). But what do you mean by the highest rate that doesn't discourage further work? The peak of the Laffer curve? B/c work starts getting discouraged from 1% onwards. So not only do I feel that this is the wrong sentiment, I'm not sure its even well-defined.

By the way, my understanding of the online filing deal is different from other people's here.

My understanding is that the fed made a deal with the big players, intuit, turbo tax, etc. The IRS only accepts online filings through those guys, but in exchange those guys have to offer free use of their programs for filing 1040EZs and online filing. Basically, making filing taxes free for people with limited or simple income. Not a bad policy in my opinion.

Can anyone verify if this story is wrong?

Do libertarians seriously expect me to believe that the fact that Estonia has reaped significant benefits from abandonning Communism demonstrates that the United States ought to abolish progressive income taxation? Isn't it possible that the moral of the story here has something to do with command economies rather than tax rates?

Well, we need to disaggregate the "abandonning Communism" effect from the "flat tax" effect. After all Estonia could have reaped benefits from both abandonning Communism AND from adopting the flat tax. A good way to do this would be to compare the economy of Estonia to it like-situated neighbors Latvia and Lithuania. If Estonia is significantly better, we can say that the flat tax is potentially responsible for the difference.

But this has nothing to do with your flat tax. I just did my taxes a week ago. It was pretty complicated and annoying. But the complicated and annoying part is calculating your taxable income not applying the formula that relates income to taxes owed.

I think the term "flat tax" means different things. To some, it means simplifying the method of calculating taxable income (i.e., eliminating a lot of deductions and exemptions), even if we retain the progressive brackets. Now, mind you, I understand that this means that the term is a bit of a misnomer. But there you go.

mpowell:

Is it true, though, that work gets discouraged with the first small percentage of tax? I mean, that's the theoretical claim, to be sure, but is there any empirical evidence--experiments, studies, something more substantial than a curve on a napkin--that backs this up? It wasn't that long ago that it was a given that raising the minimum wage destroyed jobs, until it was shown that in the real world, this didn't in fact happen.

It seems to me that in the real world, there's probably not as much sensititivity to marginal rates as theory would dictate. I'm going to work as hard as I can whether the last dollar is taxed at 25 percent or 30 percent--I'm far from having more money than I can spend. The CEO of Coca-Cola is likely not going to change his work habits (or compensation demands) if his last dollar is taxed at 37 percent or 52 percent--he's likely more concerned about his top-line income than his take home, since the top-line is what is used as comparison between other CEOs.

I think the term "flat tax" means different things. To some, it means simplifying the method of calculating taxable income (i.e., eliminating a lot of deductions and exemptions), even if we retain the progressive brackets.

No, it doesn't.

Do libertarians seriously expect me to believe that the fact that Estonia has reaped significant benefits from abandonning Communism demonstrates that the United States ought to abolish progressive income taxation?

If you do get in such a discussion, perhaps you could remind your libertarian friends that Iraq has had a flat tax for the past few years.

In further news, Estonia has a population of 1.4 million, i.e. the same as Philly or Phoenix. This is actually fucking significant. Economies do not scale in a linear fashion according to population.

And in even further news, Al appears to be receiving his TPs straight from Cato to his basement.

did matt forget that their are other post-communist economies that are not booming? this doesn't prove anything about flat taxes, but it does undermine what matt is trying to say here.

"For what it's worth, young'ens, top marginal rates used to be 70 percent or so without leaving us prostrate before our communist enemies."

No, but one obvious benefit of lowering marginal tax rates down from 70% during the Reagan administration was that it put a lot more investment capital to productive use. When tax rates were 70%, popular investments were actually bad uses of capital -- limited partnerships in unproductive mines and such that could generate depreciation and other tax benefits. After tax rates came down, a lot more capital went into investments that generated new jobs, products, etc., e.g., IPOs for Microsoft, etc.

Estonia used to be poor by western standards, but it had a very high standard of living and educational achievement level (maybe the highest) in the Soviet Union. Estonia's boom also owes a lot to its historically close ties with Finland, Sweden and Germany (the countries that ruled Estonia before the SU did). Cheap cigarette and booze tourism had a lot to do with early boom after independence, and the domestic public health blowback has Estonian public health officials tearing their hair out. I don't know if things have changed but you used to be able to check out that foreign trade action at the "Finnish Hotel" in Tallinn, if you were careful to avoid clouds of spinning, drunken Finns.

Estonia has a mechanism to tax investiment income, but it has run afoul of European Union free market standards for free movement and transfer of capital, so we will see what happens to their tax structure after they have to fix that.

Anyway, I agree with comment above that Estonia and Iraq would make interesting matched flat tax case studies. When will Cato sing the praises of the free market miracle in Iraq?

Not that I'd necessarily advocate a 70 percent marginal rate, but back when rates were that high a lot of capital went into companies such as GM, IBM and ITT. If you can point to a time in history when there weren't investiments being made--or bad investiments were being made--I think one could point to poorly written tax laws or extraneous factors, such as wars or depressions, rather than the top marginal rate on the income tax.

Anything that is completely solved by giving a bunch of documents to an accountant with a $150 check for the fee cannot be a significant restraint on economic growth.

I'vw also seen recent commentary in Estonian press saying that the honesty and transparency of Estonian finance and business practices have sent a lot of business their way from Russia. Stuff like, it's better to go to Tallinn to buy a car or invest in real estate, since less likely to have to deal with criminal gang somewhere in the transaction. So, there is a lesson their for Cato types who don't seem very worred about the fate of rule of law among the Bushies.

Also need to check back to see how they handle the ultimate fate of their first out of control real estate boom, which has recently driven a lot of their growth.

I think attributing everything to the flat tax is silly. And Estonia did not set its flat tax rate with growth only in mind. The level of government services that could be financed and resulting level of social amenities had a big influence. There is a video on the internet someplace of Mart Laars speaking to some flat tax conference -he said that Estonia set its effective average income tax rate higher than neighboring countries simply becuase Estonians expected more, and much higher quality, government services than, for example, Russians. It was a concern to keep the place attractive to live in, since the country was losing high talent high skill high education workforce to Scandinavia and Finland (and how would those places rate on the flat tax free market paradise scale). Laars also said that simple feasibility of effective tax enforcement in a new, very small, country, was a very important issue in adiption.

IPOs for Microsoft, etc. - Fred

Kinda OT, but how much of the IPO madness of the dot-com bubble was simply Econ 101 level "a market will provide a supply meeting a demand"? The IPO frenzy kinda corresponded with a period of increased demand for stocks (because a whole bunch of baby boomers were entering the market in a big way), so how much of those IPOs were in effect the market just supplying more stocks to meet a demand?

A market's a market, after all, right?

In further news, Estonia has a population of 1.4 million, i.e. the same as Philly or Phoenix. This is actually fucking significant. Economies do not scale in a linear fashion according to population.

Good point. Please relate that to those (like Jonathan Cohn, who Matthew cites favorably) who tell us that the Danish economy's success story means we should model our economy after Denmark's welfare state. I note that Matthew also questions what the "causal mechanism for non-scalability is supposed to be". Perhaps pseudonymous in nc can inform both Matthew and me on that point.

I too would like some empirical evidence regarding the disincentive nature of income taxes.

The only time I have made a decision regarding taxes is whether to purchase expensive electronics in New Hampshire since they don't have sales tax. I also somewhat regret purchasing my home in a town with a high property tax percentage and bad services, especially because they are about to raise the home evaluations which were low and kept my taxes close to that of surrounding communities.

On the flip side, I have never turned down a raise at work that has pushed me into the next marginal tax bracket. I have never met anyone who ever claimed they wanted to get paid less to avoid hitting a higher bracket.

Yet, while everyone claims to hate how complicated filing taxes are those I know who complain the most vociferously are also the ones taking every deduction in the book (whether they really should or not). The people who are filing the EZ form don't complain so much.

Exactly what does 'scale' and 'scalability' mean? Estonia's boom has not been very scalable for many of its rural areas, many of which are quite poor and squalid. Boom has also not been scalable to much of Russian speaking population. Estonia's boom has been scalable to its capital, some nice resorts and high tech educational towns, and some upperscale rural resort areas.

Stop with the scalability buzzword until you can explain what it means.

I'm not that familiar with Estonia's economy, but it's certainly possible that a lower corporate income tax could attract foreign investment, especially a small country with a skilled, cheap labor force. There are other countries in Europe that have used low corporate taxes to attract FDI (e.g. Ireland, Slovakia).

Of course, the United States is a very different situation from Estonia and Slovakia, so I don't know how applicable their policies are to us.

It's not necessarily true that lowering income taxes will create greater incentives to work. One effect of lower taxes is that it increases rewards of work relative to leisure (what economics call the "substitution effect"), the other effect is that takes less hours of labor to gain the same amount of income (the "income effect"). Taxes will increase hours worked only if the substitution effect predominates over the the income effect.

The larger point is that most people have limited control over their work schedules, which is why most studies show that the elasticity of labor supply decisions to be remarkably low.

"For example, it seems pretty clear that a first world economy can prosper with higher top tax rates than ours. It also seems pretty clear that lower corporate income tax rates are a factor in successful economies. An empirically-driven tax policy would likely include an increase in our top income tax rate (perhaps to the Clinton-era 40%) and a decrease in our corporate income tax rate."

Hello, Denmark. Considering Al above used the Denmark article as an example of lefty insanity, is this really upsetting to the left?

The relevant comparison is not to Estonia's Communist-era, but to other state's post-Communist eras. Estonia has done better than most, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask why. Its unusual tax policies would be a reasonable place to investigate. So, Stossell is being more rational than you are.

DAS:

"Kinda OT, but how much of the IPO madness of the dot-com bubble was simply Econ 101 level "a market will provide a supply meeting a demand"? The IPO frenzy kinda corresponded with a period of increased demand for stocks (because a whole bunch of baby boomers were entering the market in a big way), so how much of those IPOs were in effect the market just supplying more stocks to meet a demand?"

I was of course referring to the early 80's but in response to your point about IPOs and supply & demand: you are mostly correct. Benjamin Graham made a similar point in The Intelligent Investor decades ago. IPOs tend to increase as stock market booms peak, and toward the end of the cycle, the quality of the companies that go public tends to diminish.

"It seems to me that in the real world, there's probably not as much sensititivity to marginal rates as theory would dictate."

In the real world, some of the highest earners vote with their feet when it comes to high marginal tax rates. For example, Johnny Haliday moved to Switzerland to avoid France's high taxes. Similarly, the billionaire founder of IKEA moved out of Sweden for the same reason.

I'm sure there are plenty of less famous examples. The broader point is there are plenty of places a highly-productive, highly compensated individual can live and enjoy a high quality of life, assuming his work isn't tied to a particular location.

Even when location is important -- for example, where certain industries cluster around areas with the necessary labor pool -- marginal taxes play a role in decisions. Consider the hedge fund industry, which is clustered around NYC. Why do so many hedge funders live and work in Greenwich Connecticut? Why not nearby Westchester, NY or Bergen County, NJ? Is it a coincidence that CT has the lowest income and property taxes of the three states? I don't think taxes are ever the sole factor in these decisions, but they certainly are a factor.

If the goal is to raise revenue, instead of trying to wring the last drop out of every affluent tax payer, why not try to attract more of them? There is a certain country that has done this successfully, and real estate in its capital city is now prized more than real estate in Manhattan.

Being a Norwegian and subject to anything but a flat tax (and I do not at all complain about that - I consider it a cornerstone of our social welfare system) I use a grand total of 35 seconds to fill my tax return. I get it in the mail from the tax authorities and checks it is is correct. When I have established that (usually takes ten seconds) I send an SMS or log on online and hand it in that way.

This has to do with the spread of high speed internet connections, technological equality in the population and a uniform system for a relatively small sountry (4.5 mill). It has nothing at all to do with the tax rate.

mpowell 2:47PM -- more or less.

Fred 2:41AM -- US law does not include the concept of "tax exile", so the threat of "we're gonna take our ball and go live somewhere else" doesn't really apply on the federal level.

I think Estonia has also benefited a lot from joining the EU.

Strangely enough, a lot of people in favour of flat income taxes neglect to to tell us, that in the countries with flat taxes, income tax revenue is a relatively unimportant part of total tax revenue.

According to the online encyclopedia of Estonia http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?kateg=40&menyy_id=1117&alam=81&leht=16

"Estonia's tax burden is often said to be low but this is the case in comparison with the Nordic countries. In comparison with the salaries, taxes relating to the workforce (personal income tax, social tax, unemployment insurance tax) are among the highest in Europe. The excise and value added tax revenue in relation to the volume of economy is very high by European standards.

...The regular value added tax rate in Estonia is 18% ...

Estonia has established a social tax, which is divided into two – 20% goes to the social fund for the pensions of the present pensioners (16% in the case of those who opted for compulsory pension insurance) and 13% to health insurance to finance the Estonian health care system. Those sums cover both medical treatment expenses and health insurance benefits. Estonia has also established an unemployment insurance for which a person pays 1% of the salary and the employer pays 0.5%. "

The income tax is off course on top of this.

Re: I suspect that rates as high as 45 or 55 percent wouldn't discourage people who are already making $1 million a year from making a second million.

And people who are making income at that level are not really putting forth much effort to do so, unlike those of us whose income comes mainly from work (I suppose athletes and entertainers are the big exceptions). Most millionaires are making their big bucks from investments, something that requires very little time and effort, albeit a lot of luck and smarts. Still, telling someone, "You will be be taxed at 40% on income over a million" when that income requires very little in the way of effort to earn is unlikely to discourage that effort. I'd be perfectly happy to walk away with $600,000 instead of $1,000,000 from an acitivity that could be accomplished with about the same time and energy that it has taken me to post this message here.

Re: Well, lets be fair to the flat taxers... since they only want to tax wages

This is true of some flat tax schemes I suppose, but not all. The simplest I have seen make no discrmination as to income, but really do tax everything.

Re: Estonia's boom also owes a lot to its historically close ties with Finland, Sweden and Germany

The Germans ruled Estonia for a very short while in WWII. Sweden ruled the region for a time in the later Middle Ages and into the 16th century. Finland, which was not independent itself until 1918, never ruled Estonia, although the Estonians are close ethnoliguistic kin of the Finns. In modern times Estonia as mainly ruled by Russia.

I don't have any statistical evidence regarding the elasticity of the labor market over the entire range of taxation, though I do believe that the loss incurred at our current rate is not negligible. As well, there is an easy econ101 explanation of how even a 1% tax incurs some loss. But that's not really my point. I was just observing that its not as if these effects kick in all of a sudden at some level. They are introduced gradually and continuously. Which makes choosing tax levels harder. In my opinion, this disincentive effect should be used to our advantage for higher levels of income (instead of throwing away the opportunity with a flat tax). People who make a lot of money frequently do so because they are in charge of deciding such things. Corporate execs being the most prominent example. People assume that the labor market is far more inelastic than it actually is, in my opinion. And whereas the typical guy may not get to decide how much he works, a CEO has a lot more ability to do so. Fact of the matter is, I think at that level, lobbying the right people to get paid more is more important than job performance. And that's an activity we would rather discourage.

Regarding JonF's comments below: OK, I was sloppy on who ruled Estonia, but I think JonF confuses the idea of historically close cultural ties (that may last centuries) with political rule. And I think longstanding cultural ties are what are key, and I think Estonia has more of them than other Baltic states. It is true that Finland never ruled Estonia, and sorry for the slip. But Estonians did watch and could to a great extent understand Finnish TV broadcasts through Soviet era (wasn't legal, but they could do it). German, not Russian is the second language you still hear among many older Estonians, owing to long standing commercial ties. Estonia certainly has long standing cultural ties to Sweden, and it my understanding from both reading and personal contacts, Sweden is where most Estonians fled during both WWII and Soviet era. These all make as much of an impact as who had official sovereignty, and it had a big impact on Estonian development after SU fell apart, and should be considered.

"Re: Estonia's boom also owes a lot to its historically close ties with Finland, Sweden and Germany

The Germans ruled Estonia for a very short while in WWII. Sweden ruled the region for a time in the later Middle Ages and into the 16th century. Finland, which was not independent itself until 1918, never ruled Estonia, although the Estonians are close ethnoliguistic kin of the Finns. In modern times Estonia as mainly ruled by Russia.

Posted by: JonF on April 19, 2007 01:24 PM"

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

sexshop

sexshop

sexshop

sexshop

sexshop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

sex shop

seksshop

seksshop

seksshop

seksshop

seksshop

seks shop

seks shop

seks shop

seks shop

seks shop

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü

penis büyütücü

eroserotikshop@hotmil.com