[Big Mac]

We're going to hear a lot about this campaign season, especially since the current leader of our country is hellbent on dividing Americans based on wealth and engendering as much class antagonism as possible. So I'd like to take the Forums' temperature on the issue.

What do you define as "rich"? When does a person qualify as rich in your view? Is it based on a year's income, and if so, does the person have to make that level of income for a number of consecutive years before qualifying, or is it a one time deal? After tax or pretax income? Is it based also on net worth?

Do you think it's correct to speak of the rich as the "most fortunate"? Do you think it's right to say they've been "given the most"? Those are the types of terms President Obama likes to use when discussing the rich, as if all of them fell into their wealth by good fortune or blessings from above and none of them earned that which they own.

Do you think that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, like the president loves to say? What would a fair share be? Do you think it's not fair enough that the top earners pay nearly all the federal income tax burden while around half the country pays nothing in federal income taxes?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Rich = has more money than me

Seems pretty simple to me

[BLAZE_MkIV]

FYI federal income tax is not the only tax.

[Big Mac]

I didn't say it was, BLAZE. The terms I used were specific for a reason.

Assuming that was a serious answer, how much is more money than you have, Uncle?

[chabig]

Uncle Skeleton is correct. "Rich" is somebody who makes more than you do. QED.

[turtle777]

It's a futile discussion.
As well as discussing what's "fair".

Life isn't fair. Period. Do we REALLY trust politicians to make life more fair ?

BULLSHIT.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We're going to hear a lot about this campaign season, especially since the current leader of our country is hellbent on dividing Americans based on wealth and engendering as much class antagonism as possible. So I'd like to take the Forums' temperature on the issue.

Well, you've certainly raised the temperature with an inflammatory intro.

When the rich buy politicians, that's "free speech." When the rich win tax breaks on capital investments, that's "investment inducements." When the rich lobby for self-interested policies on airport scanners and cheap prison labour and tax holidays on foreign income, that's "democratic participation."

But it's only "class warfare" when we fight back against those abuses. Pathetic.

What do you define as "rich"? When does a person qualify as rich in your view? Is it based on a year's income, and if so, does the person have to make that level of income for a number of consecutive years before qualifying, or is it a one time deal? After tax or pretax income? Is it based also on net worth?

Since we're talking about federal taxes, which are taxes of yearly earnings and not overall wealth, obviously we're talking about what a person earns in a year. I would say anyone who earns 6 digits a year is rich; that's per person, not per household.

Do you think it's correct to speak of the rich as the "most fortunate"? Do you think it's right to say they've been "given the most"? Those are the types of terms President Obama likes to use when discussing the rich, as if all of them fell into their wealth by good fortune or blessings from above and none of them earned that which they own.

Isn't it funny how the holier-than-thou crowd gets so indignant when their own religious terminology gets used against them?

Do you think that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share, like the president loves to say? What would a fair share be?

The working rich pay DOUBLE the federal taxes that the idle rich pay. Just because you have a job instead of a trust fund shouldn't mean you pay DOUBLE the taxes. Raise the capital gains taxes to the same level as earned income would be an extremely good first step to solving the federal deficit. Cut your obscenely bloated military and the problem would be completely solved.

Do you think it's not fair enough that the top earners pay nearly all the federal income tax burden while around half the country pays nothing in federal income taxes?

Do you think people with children shouldn't receive tax deductions? Because that's why some people don't pay income taxes.

Do you think people who can barely afford rent and food should pay more taxes? Because that's why they don't pay income taxes.

But you know all that. You're just playing dumb for rhetorical effect, which only works on stupid people. You know, the Republican base.

Let me ask you a question: do you think the idle rich, who pay less than HALF the federal taxes of the working rich for the same income, should finally be taxed fairly? Or do think their free ride is well-deserved?

[Big Mac]

But, turtle, don't you see that if we just surrender all power to Barack Obama and make him our emperor, he will make everything fair? Based on the way he speaks, that's exactly what he desires.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Life isn't fair. Period. Do we REALLY trust politicians to make life more fair ?

Politicians can't fix life, but they CAN fix the fncking tax code.

What a pathetic dodge.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But, turtle, don't you see that if we just surrender all power to Barack Obama and make him our emperor, he will make everything fair? Based on the way he speaks, that's exactly what he desires.

Right, your preferred candidate wants high school students to scrub toilets instead of doing math, but Obama is a would-be emperor? Pffft.

You are not a serious person with serious opinions.

[andi*pandi]

wealthy is anywhere over 200k/year.
rich is wealthy enough that they don't need to work anymore and can live off interest.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What a pathetic dodge.

You *really* believe that politicians will fix the tax code to make it truly more fair ?



-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You are not a serious person with serious opinions.

Our resident serious Canuckistani has spoken.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

wealthy is anywhere over 200k/year.
rich is wealthy enough that they don't need to work anymore and can live off interest.

Doesn't that largely depend on WHERE you live ?

Also, care to qualify the $200k ?
I assume you are talking income. Gross ? Net ?

-t

[andi*pandi]

Hey, just spitballing. Let's say I meant for Massachusetts, and that is income before taxes. Living comfortably if you don't overextend yourself. You still have a job.

You are correct that for other areas that might be rich, or just upper class.

Still, rich is wealthy enough to not need a day job.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You *really* believe that politicians will fix the tax code to make it truly more fair ?

I don't know if they will, but I know they can.

[Big Mac]

If you live in a highly taxed area of the country and have a family accustomed to finer things (higher-end house, new cars, nice meals, private education), $200K ain't that impressive.

[Wiskedjak]

Wealthy = being able to afford luxury
Rich = being able to afford luxury without having to work very hard (or at all)

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you live in a highly taxed area of the country and have a family accustomed to finer things (higher-end house, new cars, nice meals, private education), $200K ain't that impressive.

You didn't ask for "impressive," you asked for "rich." And every one of your "finer things" is emblematic of being rich. If you own a house, a car, eat every day, and can get a good education, you can call yourself middle class. If you have an expensive house, expensive cars, eat expensive food, and send your kids to expensive private schools, you're rich. This isn't rocket surgery.

Are you gonna answer my questions, or are you gonna dodge too?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Still, rich is wealthy enough to not need a day job.

I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that *IF* someone has income of more than $200k per year, he doesn't need a day job ?

What makes you assume they get the $200k w/o working ? Where can I apply ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Wealthy = being able to afford luxury
Rich = being able to afford luxury without having to work very hard (or at all)

That helps. But it still doesn't define "wealthy".

For someone making $25k a year, making $50k a year is wealthy.

"Luxury" for some might be going to Five Guys instead of McDonalds.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That helps. But it still doesn't define "wealthy".

For someone making $25k a year, making $50k a year is wealthy.

"Luxury" for some might be going to Five Guys instead of McDonalds.

-t

That's right. These are relative and subjective terms. That's why they work so good in political arguments; the more that you can say that will allow the listener to fill in the blanks with their own definitions without you being too specific, the better.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand what you mean.
Are you saying that *IF* someone has income of more than $200k per year, he doesn't need a day job ?
What makes you assume they get the $200k w/o working ? Where can I apply ?

-t

Thought it was clear, I was making two different definitions. There is wealthy, then there is rich. The guy $200k is working a job, but not rich. Somewhere above $200k, but below infinity, is rich. Where that exact number might be, well we have already pointed out that one person's luxury is another person's basic need. (See Wiskedjak's explanation also.)

For me to feel rich, somewhere over $500k. That is a magical mystery number to me. I know I will never make that in my lifetime, bar lottery tickets.

[mduell]

In terms of income I'd say about $300k/yr (the 1%) with an appropriate net worth for your age.

Aviation geek's perspective: If you responsibly own a jet, you're rich. Despite the president's claims, you're not doing that at the $300k/yr level, you're doing that at the $50MM net worth level.

Cynic's take: If you want to pay more in income taxes, you're rich.

[Shaddim]

Oh, this again.

Why are you guys arguing with a Canadian socialist regarding US federal taxes? At least US socialists can vote and have an impact, he's just... useless.

[Waragainstsleep]

How about this:

If you can buy anything you need and plenty that you just want then you are wealthy.
If you have a job because it gives you something to do, not because it pays for your lifestyle, then you are rich.

[ghporter]

A numeric definition is useless because it can cost 10 times as much to live in one place as in another. For example, a lot of Silicon Valley types make a very large number of dollars, but the cost of everything is so much higher there that it puts them back in the "I can afford a 2 bedroom house with basic cable" category. When the big move from Silicon Valley to Austin Tx occurred in the late 1990s, those that moved sold off their half-million dollar 3-2-2 houses and moved to Austin and made offers on nice, similar-sized houses. They thought offering $200K for such houses was a steal, and the Austinites they bought from thought they were robbing "them idiots" blind. Unfortunately the newcomers also had ideas about changing the architectural style of the area and had the money to do it, but that's a different story.

"Rich" seems to be better defined as "people with enough money to influence things where they are," as with the SV folks who significantly influenced Austin, or the really high rollers who spread their cash around to influence politics on a national level. Just having nice stuff and a nice bank account isn't something I'd label. Additionally, current income-based categorization produces a class of what are being called the "working rich," people who make a whole lot of money but do so by working at it (whether their income is wages, investment returns or whatever, they have to put in effort to get it) as opposed to people who inherited "a fortune".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Cynic's take: If you want to pay more in income taxes, you're rich.

-t

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh, this again.

Why are you guys arguing with a Canadian socialist regarding US federal taxes? At least US socialists can vote and have an impact, he's just... useless.

I find it extremely interesting that:

1) You pointedly never addressed his question. Even better, both Big Mac and turtle specifically commented on his post, but also avoided his question. The obvious silence is like the proverbial elephant in this thread at this point. Are any of you going to say whether you think his so-called "idle rich" should pay taxes in line with the "working rich?" Are the numbers mckenna threw out valid? Is this an identifiable problem, or is it a non-issue? Why or why not?

2) Resident "conservative" Americans on here continue to derisively use the "socialist Canuck" label (or derivations thereof) while simultaneously bitching and moaning because your country is in the shitter. Meanwhile, the "socialist" country of Canada actually has horrendous things like "free healthcare" and "welfare safety net" and yet also has one of the most stable banking systems in the developed world, currently has an elected government called the "Conservative Party" that is aggressively cutting government services and "bloat" across the board with a goal of getting back into the black after stimulus bailout spending during the recession (which you all say can't/won't be done, and yet we're doing), and we're also the country that ran significant yearly budget surpluses from the late 90s to 2008 mostly under a government called the "Liberal Party" (gasp!), paying down the country's deficit during that entire time.

Basically, we're the country you guys all wish you could be, with almost exactly the same standard of living, except that we pay slightly more taxes, and thus...we are not the country you guys all wish you could be.

3) The best part of it all? Here in Canada, we're all disgusted that our politics are getting "more American" - less cooperative, more aggressive, more based on half-truths and half-lies and soundbites, more blustery, more divisive.

Of course, we certainly don't want to be more American. After all, while everyone in America has been pointing their finger at everyone else, your country has gone into the shitter.

[stupendousman]

I don't define it for anyone but myself, because it's none of my business what someone else makes unless I'm responsible for paying them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that *IF* someone has income of more than $200k per year, he doesn't need a day job ?

What makes you assume they get the $200k w/o working ? Where can I apply ?

-t

It's entirely possible to make $200k+ without working. It's called investments. Once you have investments paying large enough dividends (it's exceedingly unlikely to be mostly interest income) you become 'independently wealthy' and no longer need to work for your money. This, I believe, used to be the definition of a gentleman.

Obviously at some point someone needs to do some work in order to make that initial investment, but with proper money management you're likely to keep that wealth and even grow it over time, allowing for your descendants to inherit it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

wealthy is anywhere over 200k/year.
rich is wealthy enough that they don't need to work anymore and can live off interest.

In the latter case, this is by definition all retirees. We don't want to "stick it" to all retirees along with the "rich" ones.

There is a problem with any definition of wealth that depends on assets instead of income, and that problem is that we're talking about the mechanics of an income tax. Even though true wealth reflects assets more than it does income, we will be unable to use that to decide what to do with our income tax. That's why this problem (fairness and taxation) seems so cryptic: it's fundamentally unsolvable (using the income tax). No matter how fair or unfair the formula, you will still have people with tons of assets that don't pay income tax, and people with no assets that pay lots of income tax. The only way around it would be to tax assets instead of income (like property tax). But that would introduce more problems than it solves.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How about this:

If you can buy anything you need and plenty that you just want then you are wealthy.
If you have a job because it gives you something to do, not because it pays for your lifestyle, then you are rich.

So the definition of rich is all about consumption? Sounds like a job for a consumption tax. "Fair" tax to the rescue!!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Assuming that was a serious answer, how much is more money than you have, Uncle?

Mostly serious. Rich and poor are relative terms. As I say in all tax threads, todays poor are richer than the rich of 100 years ago. The relativity doesn't end with centuries though, it is also inherent in the difference between one person's definition and the next's. Or even between one person and the same person after they start making more money. Driving a benz seems "rich" until you can afford it, then you realize it's not that great after all and it doesn't seem "rich" at all anymore.

If this post doesn't seem helpful, here's the silver lining. The median income not such an arbitrary boundary to call rich. In a democracy, more than half the people are going to see those above the median income as "rich," as that would be making more than them. That's my answer. Adjust as necessary for those 1%ers or whatever.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In the latter case, this is by definition all retirees. We don't want to "stick it" to all retirees along with the "rich" ones.

See Wiskedjak's explanation.

Wealthy = being able to afford luxury
Rich = being able to afford luxury without having to work very hard (or at all)

Most retirees can't be said to live in luxury (again, subjective speculation).

[finboy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

wealthy is anywhere over 200k/year.
rich is wealthy enough that they don't need to work anymore and can live off interest.

The first one is the current STATED political definition. With a household "rich" of $250,000. I don't think that those same politicians really believe that in their heart of hearts. I think some of the Lefties think that rich=someone with job. I say this because anytime I hear "tax the rich" it ends up being on "anyone with a job" in the end.

The second one punishes those folks who've saved enough to live on interest. I can usually spot class warfare based on how it treats income. If an argument treats dividends different from interest different from wages earned, it's usually a class warfare thing. FWIW everyone I've known who could live off of their interest every year ended up being very poor and frugal and that's how they did it.

Maybe we should define "rich" as "anyone with a trust fund." That might not be popular in Washington though.

I think it might be better to define "rich" as "anyone who lives without working (or, having worked in the past)." That would fix some of the problems with the discussion.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

If your house has a house.
If you own a car that costs more than most houses.
If you own a boat bigger than most houses.
If you own a jet airplane.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It's entirely possible to make $200k+ without working. It's called investments. Once you have investments paying large enough dividends (it's exceedingly unlikely to be mostly interest income) you become 'independently wealthy' and no longer need to work for your money. This, I believe, used to be the definition of a gentleman.

Of course I understand that. My point was that andi*pandi wasn't exactly clear on what she meant ("wealthy is anywhere over 200k/year").

See, it makes a HELL of a difference if someone earns $200k per year in investments (sitting on the beach), or through working 80/week.

The former is definitely richER. The later might not even be that wealthy, depending on where he lives.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I find it extremely interesting that:

1) You pointedly never addressed his question. Even better, both Big Mac and turtle specifically commented on his post, but also avoided his question. The obvious silence is like the proverbial elephant in this thread at this point. Are any of you going to say whether you think his so-called "idle rich" should pay taxes in line with the "working rich?" Are the numbers mckenna threw out valid? Is this an identifiable problem, or is it a non-issue? Why or why not?

2) Resident "conservative" Americans on here continue to derisively use the "socialist Canuck" label (or derivations thereof) while simultaneously bitching and moaning because your country is in the shitter. Meanwhile, the "socialist" country of Canada actually has horrendous things like "free healthcare" and "welfare safety net" and yet also has one of the most stable banking systems in the developed world, currently has an elected government called the "Conservative Party" that is aggressively cutting government services and "bloat" across the board with a goal of getting back into the black after stimulus bailout spending during the recession (which you all say can't/won't be done, and yet we're doing), and we're also the country that ran significant yearly budget surpluses from the late 90s to 2008 mostly under a government called the "Liberal Party" (gasp!), paying down the country's deficit during that entire time.

Basically, we're the country you guys all wish you could be, with almost exactly the same standard of living, except that we pay slightly more taxes, and thus...we are not the country you guys all wish you could be.

3) The best part of it all? Here in Canada, we're all disgusted that our politics are getting "more American" - less cooperative, more aggressive, more based on half-truths and half-lies and soundbites, more blustery, more divisive.

Of course, we certainly don't want to be more American. After all, while everyone in America has been pointing their finger at everyone else, your country has gone into the shitter.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the whole world is financially going down the shitter, not just the USA. If you plunder the incomes of the "rich" at obnoxious rates, as high as 90%+, it isn't going to fix the problem, not even close. You can bitch all you want about how some people have so much, but that's just jealousy, not a logical solution.

The fix is to slash government spending and cut off career welfare addicts. Entitlements, pork, and an over-stuffed military budget are the main fiscal problems in the USA. It's simple, if I spend $5M /year on toys, I'll be in trouble before too long. $2M I can keep up indefinitely. Politicians, however, see the US debt system as a bottomless pit that they can plunder to curry favor and increase individual wealth and power, and in the next 5 years the well is going to run dry. Tightening our belts on a global level, as well as taxation on a progressive yet linear scale is the key. I'm not averse to a ~35-40% federal tax on all income for the wealthiest 1%, and eliminating loopholes, but at the same time someone on the government end better start cutting back and instituting real spending reform.

[OAW]

My 2 cents ...

"Rich" is an upper middle class income (i.e. 100K+) generated from investment earnings.

That is all.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Are any of you going to say whether you think his so-called "idle rich" should pay taxes in line with the "working rich?"

They do in some sense. "idle rich" as well as "working rich" both pay the same rate on investment income.

See, nobody looks at HOW they got that investment income.
Yes, there are some that just inherited it or got lucky. You can't fix that, and it's not the governments business to fix that.

Many "idle rich" are just that because they deferred spending for a long time (called saving and investing), so that they build up enough capital to later live of off that.

I am not rich, and only moderatly wealthy (I can afford Five Guys). But I live off of only 50% of my income. The rest is saved and given to charity.

Later in life, when most people have squandered their income on cars, vacations, big houses, I will have saved up enough capital to live off of it.

F*CK the government and politicians that then brand me as a filthy rich 1%er.
I have EARNED it, because I lived frugally many many years.

If you want, make the tax system more fair by just taxing consumption (I'm all for it). Because then I can save money upfront from my gross income. But taxing BOTH income upfront (income tax), and then later the income from investment (savings coming out of NET income) again at the same high rate is bullshit.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

What do you define as smart (numerically?) A certain bracket above the average? So many IQ points over the median?

I figure you're flirting with rich territory as soon as you hit upper middle class.

The 1%? If we were taking intelligence we'd call them geniuses. Smart would be an understatement. As such, the term "rich" really doesn't accurately define them

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

have a family accustomed to finer things (higher-end house, new cars, nice meals, private education)

Sounds like that family has a sense of entitlement.

---

Another one of my issues is with how a minority of people like to portray this issue with that wanting to reduce the income disparity automatically means you want everyone earning the same exact amount of money.


But honestly, I'm more interested in what either side thinks the solution there is.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The fix is to slash government spending and cut off career welfare addicts. ... I'm not averse to a ~35-40% federal tax on all income for the wealthiest 1%, and eliminating loopholes, but at the same time someone on the government end better start cutting back and instituting real spending reform.

I'll repeat what I said - and what you apparently missed/ignored: the Canadian government, at least, is doing just that. Slashing budgets and spending with the goal of turning current "stimulus deficits" into the budget surpluses that we've enjoyed since the 90s. In fact, in the past couple weeks we've found out that our projected deficits are actually shrinking more quickly than expected, at least partly because the government has been aggresively targeting spending reductions in the 10% range - sparking recent debate whether they should be more moderate and aim for reductions closer to the 5% range.

Did you get that, Shaddim? Big Mac? Turtle? The Socialist Canuckistanis are debating whether its socialist government should ease its targeted spending reductions from 10% down to 5%. Tell me...what would a 5% spending reduction do to your budget?

...oh, but never mind all that, shall we? Continue to spout your ignorant nonsense about "socialism" and go right back to arguing over whom and how much to tax. After all, Americans can't possibly learn anything from surplus-running, government-spending-reducing "socialists"...can they.

Doofy wink

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

Did you get that, Shaddim? Big Mac? Turtle? The Socialist Canuckistanis are debating whether its socialist government should ease its targeted spending reductions from 10% down to 5%. Tell me...what would a 5% spending reduction do to your budget?

reminds me of Ron Paul, when being asked what his opinion is on 50% of the people not paying income tax.

"A Good Start", he replied

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut 

I'll repeat what I said - and what you apparently missed/ignored: the Canadian government, at least, is doing just that. Slashing budgets and spending with the goal of turning current "stimulus deficits" into the budget surpluses that we've enjoyed since the 90s. In fact, in the past couple weeks we've found out that our projected deficits are actually shrinking more quickly than expected, at least partly because the government has been aggresively targeting spending reductions in the 10% range - sparking recent debate whether they should be more moderate and aim for reductions closer to the 5% range.

Did you get that, Shaddim? Big Mac? Turtle? The Socialist Canuckistanis are debating whether its socialist government should ease its targeted spending reductions from 10% down to 5%. Tell me...what would a 5% spending reduction do to your budget?

...oh, but never mind all that, shall we? Continue to spout your ignorant nonsense about "socialism" and go right back to arguing over whom and how much to tax. After all, Americans can't possibly learn anything from surplus-running, government-spending-reducing "socialists"...can they.

Doofy wink

[turtle777]

Did they turn that road to Moncton into a dead end street ? It's about time

-t

[Athens]

I think you need a base line on income levels to categorize rich.

Whats working poor, anything under $25k
Whats middle class, anything in the $80k

You can't just use a number across the board because the cost of living isn't the same in every location. If Middle class is considered owning your own home, owning 2 cars, having x number of expendable dollars a year then the number for middle class is going to be different between say Vancouver and Winnipeg, San Francisco and Detroit. I think wealthy is some one who makes 5 times what is needed to be middle class. And Rich is some one that makes in a single year what a typical middle class person needs in a entire life time to remain middle class.

As for what is middle class, to own a typical 30 year old 2000 sq ft home in Vancouver is a million dollars while owning the same kind of home in Winnipeg is $300 000. So right there middle class has a different meaning. You would have to make $360,000 a year as a family income to afford a home in Vancouver where as $110,000 is enough to be middle class in Winnipeg. I would consider some one living in Vancouver making 18 million a year to be rich, or making 5.5 Million a year in Winnipeg to be rich. Wealthy would be 700k a year in Vancouver and 250k a year in Winnipeg.

[The Final Shortcut]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Looks like y'all been getting away with masturbation in place of argument for quite some time, hmmm? Guess a friendly little cock slap from Moncton on up in here should be enough to make you sit up and start using your brains for what God intended evolution to make them for.

Big Mac - don't worry, the cock slap is in a totally non-homosexual manner. But that shit is legal here, too...so be careful

[turtle777]

Damn, Shortcut, did they humor-impair you ?

-t