Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Tax Facts

Peach Pro





Posts: 202
(202 all sites)
Registered: 5/8/2013
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:02 PM
Since it is April 15th
Tax facts:
100 years ago the tax code totaled 400 pages
Today 74,000 and growing
Tax rates:
100 years ago 1% to 7%
Today 10% to 40%
Americans pay 30.2 percent of their income 4.5 trillion dollars for federal and state income tax
That is if you pay taxes- 43% donít pay anything
The IRS Cost the taxpayers 12 billion dollars
Not to mention the corruption and civil right violations to the American citizens
Time to repeal the 16th Amendment
Fairtax.org
Abolish the IRS

 
Replies:

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:08 PM
But how else could we fund all the corruption and cronyism if we didn't have income-based taxation? It makes all that possible and more.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5483
(5482 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:17 PM
repealing the 16th amendment won't do away with taxes or revenue from taxes. it would just shift where that revenue comes from.
 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 202
(202 all sites)
Registered: 5/8/2013
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:18 PM
yeah you got that right. I have spent all day today trying to figure out some tax issues and have been working with outside CPA and they are not even sure of the code and what should be done with a specific issue. We could get rid of so much special interest by taking power away from the politicians and if not eliminate at least drastically reduce the scope ,size and power or the IRS with at least a flat tax with zero deductions with one standard deduction for all.
 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 202
(202 all sites)
Registered: 5/8/2013
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:19 PM
getting rid of the 16th amendment could go a long way in taking the away the corruption in the tax code
 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5483
(5482 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 04:22 PM
quote:
But how else could we fund all the corruption and cronyism if we didn't have income-based taxation? It makes all that possible and more.




not to change the subject but i can't remember where you fell on the citizens united issue.

edit

LOL i shouldn't post when i'm gonna be drinkin. sometimes i feel a tinge of regret.

[Edited on 4/15/2014 by LeglizHemp]

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 05:10 PM
quote:
quote:
But how else could we fund all the corruption and cronyism if we didn't have income-based taxation? It makes all that possible and more.
not to change the subject but i can't remember where you fell on the citizens united issue.

edit

LOL i shouldn't post when i'm gonna be drinkin. sometimes i feel a tinge of regret.
I think Citizen's United is faux outrage from people that think somehow more regulation and laws on campaign spending are somehow going to stop or alter money in politics. Nothing could be further from the truth, and decades of laws prove it.

And it really is connected to taxes - or at least the power to selectively tax - so it's relevant.

Big money will spend to influence politicians when the system permits the public trough to be raided and handed over to private interests. The more we allow that sort of system to exist, the more the powerful will try to corrupt it for their gain. I don't care how anyone thinks campaigns can be financed. As long as we allow politicians to have more and more power over how we are taxed, how the economy is manged (central command & control), and how public monies are spent (grants, loans, etc to private companies), then money will continue to corrupt on a massive, uncontrollable scale. When it becomes easier to profit from the manipulation of gov't than from competing in the marketplace, no laws are going to stop the corruption.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3225
(3224 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 06:27 PM


Heres one more fact= Every year people fail to claim close to one billion dollars and even with this extra bonanza of cash the gov still cant manage itself out of debt.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 09:10 PM
Leave the IRS alone. The Democrat party depends on it to try and silence people and as a vital enforcement arm.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69263
(69624 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/15/2014 at 09:50 PM
Yes, only democrats...... lol.....

 

____________________

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4289
(4287 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 02:23 PM
quote:

Tax rates:
100 years ago 1% to 7%
Today 10% to 40%



Here is a little more perspective on tax rates over the last 100 years since you are implying that tax rates have kept going up over the last 100 years, which is not at all true:


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 02:27 PM
Great topic! I just telling my wife this morning how awesome it would be if everything could be just like it was in 1914.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5483
(5482 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 02:28 PM
that's strange 2112. that period there in the 50's, where conservative groups seem to want to go back to because life was so great, had the highest tax rates.
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 04:59 PM
How many times do we have to cover the same thing? Tax rate comparisons are meaningless unless the tax code was also identical. They are even more meaningless when unless we add the perspective of global competitiveness.

There were way more broad classes of deductions in past decades (like all interest paid to any source), flattening considerably what people paid. And there was far less 'progressivity' built into the code, so that a broader portion of wage earners were footing a more evenly distributed portion of the bill.

Global economic conditions in the 40's thru 60's were such that tax rates didn't matter as much because there were no serious manufacturing economies to compete with us. Concerns such as where investment finds it best return were essentially unknown, because our competitors were digging out from WWII. Hence, tax concerns were nil.

Instead of the pointless exercise of looking at tax history through a keyhole, we'd be far better off focusing on how to maximize our competitive advantages for investment so that opportunity can once again be built here. We will not last long with a shrinking portion of the population supporting a growing number of dependents.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4289
(4287 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 05:39 PM
quote:
How many times do we have to cover the same thing? Tax rate comparisons are meaningless unless the tax code was also identical. They are even more meaningless when unless we add the perspective of global competitiveness.

There were way more broad classes of deductions in past decades (like all interest paid to any source), flattening considerably what people paid. And there was far less 'progressivity' built into the code, so that a broader portion of wage earners were footing a more evenly distributed portion of the bill.

Global economic conditions in the 40's thru 60's were such that tax rates didn't matter as much because there were no serious manufacturing economies to compete with us. Concerns such as where investment finds it best return were essentially unknown, because our competitors were digging out from WWII. Hence, tax concerns were nil.

Instead of the pointless exercise of looking at tax history through a keyhole, we'd be far better off focusing on how to maximize our competitive advantages for investment so that opportunity can once again be built here. We will not last long with a shrinking portion of the population supporting a growing number of dependents.


But let's face it. The lower taxes leads to a better economy argument is a great story that seems like it might make sense, but it has never actually happened. Our tax rates over the last 13 years are as low as they've ever been, and the economy hasn't exactly been booming during this time. I can find graphs to show this, and you'll find excuses saying that it was all due to other factors. Ok, sure, correlation does not equal causation, but if lower taxes were to help the economy, wouldn't you think that it would have been shown historically at least once? It higher taxes hurts the economy, wouldn't you think that data would show that at some point? There are other factors, of course, but if it's always the other factors at play that skews the data and never the tax rate itself that is influencing the economy, then why do we keep having the same conversation that lower taxation is going to turn everything around?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/16/2014 at 07:38 PM
quote:
quote:
How many times do we have to cover the same thing? Tax rate comparisons are meaningless unless the tax code was also identical. They are even more meaningless when unless we add the perspective of global competitiveness.

There were way more broad classes of deductions in past decades (like all interest paid to any source), flattening considerably what people paid. And there was far less 'progressivity' built into the code, so that a broader portion of wage earners were footing a more evenly distributed portion of the bill.

Global economic conditions in the 40's thru 60's were such that tax rates didn't matter as much because there were no serious manufacturing economies to compete with us. Concerns such as where investment finds it best return were essentially unknown, because our competitors were digging out from WWII. Hence, tax concerns were nil.

Instead of the pointless exercise of looking at tax history through a keyhole, we'd be far better off focusing on how to maximize our competitive advantages for investment so that opportunity can once again be built here. We will not last long with a shrinking portion of the population supporting a growing number of dependents.


But let's face it. The lower taxes leads to a better economy argument is a great story that seems like it might make sense, but it has never actually happened. Our tax rates over the last 13 years are as low as they've ever been, and the economy hasn't exactly been booming during this time. I can find graphs to show this, and you'll find excuses saying that it was all due to other factors. Ok, sure, correlation does not equal causation, but if lower taxes were to help the economy, wouldn't you think that it would have been shown historically at least once? It higher taxes hurts the economy, wouldn't you think that data would show that at some point? There are other factors, of course, but if it's always the other factors at play that skews the data and never the tax rate itself that is influencing the economy, then why do we keep having the same conversation that lower taxation is going to turn everything around?
Lower taxes - across the board lower rates (not the idiotic 'targeted' cuts currently favored) - have definitely helped grow our economy in the past.

Kennedy lowered rates and growth followed. Reagan also did. And as much as actually lowering the rates helps, it sent a signal that gov't is behind growth and opportunity creation. It creates a more positive attitude, which people respond to. Contrast that against the never-ending 'fairness' debate from the current crowd, laced with hints of taxes and new gov't actions to come. They've created economic suspended animation, where if its not financed by gov't, few want to risk new ventures.

However, your point is not wrong. Cutting rates is not having the desired effects that it used to. There are a few reasons for this.

One is what I mentioned earlier regarding competitiveness for global investment. We are no longer as high on measures of economic freedom as we once were, and that directly translates to investment in productive enterprise looking towards other markets. It's incorrect to say that lowering rates for the wealthy resulted in no investment that helped the lower classes. Unfortunately, much of that investment occurred offshore and helped the lower classes in other countries.

Another problem is in the increasingly artificial nature of our markets due to currency and industry manipulation from gov't. The accumulating effects of destroying the dollar's value means that tax cuts just don't create the same real value in the market that they used to. And in an environment where it's so easy for big, connected companies to get gov't favors to help keep them afloat (too-big-to-fail banks, too-big-to-fail car companies, and now with Obamacare; too-big-to-fail insurers) innovation is not the engine of change it once was, lessening opportunity overall.

There's many things we could do besides having Washington politicians give away the wealth and opportunity of the future, but that's all they seem to want because it preserves their power. Giving economic power back to the individual, and adopting a policy of economic patriotism, is the answer. It's how the the country was built in the first place. But we'll never return to it unless the people wise up.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4289
(4287 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2014 at 12:37 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
How many times do we have to cover the same thing? Tax rate comparisons are meaningless unless the tax code was also identical. They are even more meaningless when unless we add the perspective of global competitiveness.

There were way more broad classes of deductions in past decades (like all interest paid to any source), flattening considerably what people paid. And there was far less 'progressivity' built into the code, so that a broader portion of wage earners were footing a more evenly distributed portion of the bill.

Global economic conditions in the 40's thru 60's were such that tax rates didn't matter as much because there were no serious manufacturing economies to compete with us. Concerns such as where investment finds it best return were essentially unknown, because our competitors were digging out from WWII. Hence, tax concerns were nil.

Instead of the pointless exercise of looking at tax history through a keyhole, we'd be far better off focusing on how to maximize our competitive advantages for investment so that opportunity can once again be built here. We will not last long with a shrinking portion of the population supporting a growing number of dependents.


But let's face it. The lower taxes leads to a better economy argument is a great story that seems like it might make sense, but it has never actually happened. Our tax rates over the last 13 years are as low as they've ever been, and the economy hasn't exactly been booming during this time. I can find graphs to show this, and you'll find excuses saying that it was all due to other factors. Ok, sure, correlation does not equal causation, but if lower taxes were to help the economy, wouldn't you think that it would have been shown historically at least once? It higher taxes hurts the economy, wouldn't you think that data would show that at some point? There are other factors, of course, but if it's always the other factors at play that skews the data and never the tax rate itself that is influencing the economy, then why do we keep having the same conversation that lower taxation is going to turn everything around?
Lower taxes - across the board lower rates (not the idiotic 'targeted' cuts currently favored) - have definitely helped grow our economy in the past.

Kennedy lowered rates and growth followed. Reagan also did. And as much as actually lowering the rates helps, it sent a signal that gov't is behind growth and opportunity creation. It creates a more positive attitude, which people respond to. Contrast that against the never-ending 'fairness' debate from the current crowd, laced with hints of taxes and new gov't actions to come. They've created economic suspended animation, where if its not financed by gov't, few want to risk new ventures.

However, your point is not wrong. Cutting rates is not having the desired effects that it used to. There are a few reasons for this.

One is what I mentioned earlier regarding competitiveness for global investment. We are no longer as high on measures of economic freedom as we once were, and that directly translates to investment in productive enterprise looking towards other markets. It's incorrect to say that lowering rates for the wealthy resulted in no investment that helped the lower classes. Unfortunately, much of that investment occurred offshore and helped the lower classes in other countries.

Another problem is in the increasingly artificial nature of our markets due to currency and industry manipulation from gov't. The accumulating effects of destroying the dollar's value means that tax cuts just don't create the same real value in the market that they used to. And in an environment where it's so easy for big, connected companies to get gov't favors to help keep them afloat (too-big-to-fail banks, too-big-to-fail car companies, and now with Obamacare; too-big-to-fail insurers) innovation is not the engine of change it once was, lessening opportunity overall.

There's many things we could do besides having Washington politicians give away the wealth and opportunity of the future, but that's all they seem to want because it preserves their power. Giving economic power back to the individual, and adopting a policy of economic patriotism, is the answer. It's how the the country was built in the first place. But we'll never return to it unless the people wise up.


But the economic growth after the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts were very short term, and the second one under Reagan did nothing at all. We also have seen economic growth after tax increases, and the economic growth following tax increases seemed to last longer, so really the correlation is pretty meaningless. Unfortunately the decrease in taxes was also the start of the run up in debt. I'm with you that we need to get our economic house in order and that the path we are on is unsustainable, but I'm not sure we agree on the solution. I'm positive that neither party has a workable solution that I see. Spending has to be cut a lot, and we both know the big ticket items (social security, defense, subsidies, welfare) are sacred cows that one party or the other won't have the guts to touch, and unless ALL of the sacred cows are offered up for slaughter than the best we can hope for is to keep treading water. As for the tax code, I have read quite a bit about Fair Tax and I'm still not convinced. All of the pro fair tax estimates assume a spur in economic growth. As I've pointed out, I don't think we should assume that there will be economic growth. Past predictions of economic growth based on lower taxes have not exactly panned out. Without the assumption of additional economic growth, the middle class will bear the burden with an increased tax burden along with those who spend their previous savings (retirees). The winner will be the income generating wealthy. Doesn't really sould like a fair tax to me.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2014 at 07:45 AM
quote:
As for the tax code, I have read quite a bit about Fair Tax and I'm still not convinced. All of the pro fair tax estimates assume a spur in economic growth.
Without growth, we either penalize everyone with higher income taxes to cover what we're currently putting on the credit card, or raise the rate in a consumption-based tax system. Either way, people pay more. I think it was Heritage who did a study some years ago that calculated income tax rates would have to increase 2.75x to just cover our deficit spending. I can't imagine that going over very well - or doing anything but destroying the economy.

The Fair Tax creates a more honest discussion about taxation and spending because it brings it all out in the open, and removes the politician's power to hide taxes in every niche imaginable. I'd take that any day.

quote:
Without the assumption of additional economic growth, the middle class will bear the burden with an increased tax burden along with those who spend their previous savings (retirees). The winner will be the income generating wealthy. Doesn't really sould like a fair tax to me.
Everyone can find features they don't like of any tax system, and the statement about the middle class bearing the brunt really depends upon how one describes middle class in terms of income. If we divide the whole range of earners into fifths, and take the middle three layers as "middle class", then even today they are not bearing the majority of taxes paid. The top fifth (or top 20%), pays something well over 80% of the taxes (but does not have commensurate income).

Without getting into a boring tax-fact-fest, we're increasingly balancing the bulk of tax revenues on a smaller and smaller portion of the population. This isn't a healthy model, since economic swings that effect that class could create major revenue differences. The structure becomes less and less stable as this continues.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 202
(202 all sites)
Registered: 5/8/2013
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2014 at 02:08 PM
quote:
But the economic growth after the Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts were very short term, and the second one under Reagan did nothing at all


That is not true

As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:

"Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase."

quote:
I have read quite a bit about Fair Tax and I'm still not convinced. All of the pro fair tax estimates assume a spur in economic growth.


If you are right about this and I have waffled back and forth myself. I really think there should be more debate about it. If not the fair tax we should go to a simple flat tax. Can't we agree there in not a need for a 74,000 page tax code?

Why can't we have at least a simply flat tax with one standard deduction for everyone?
Get rid of the specialized deductions - ALL of them!
Wouldn't it be so much more transparent?
If an emergency came up such as a war the rate(to be debated) could go up 1/2 point or 1 point to pay for that?








 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4289
(4287 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2014 at 04:19 PM


Here is a chart. Nice quick growth after the first Reagan tax cut, then slowdown in growth. Nice decrease in growth after the second Reagan tax cut. Nice increase after the Clinton tax increase. Draw your own conclusions.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8410
(8411 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2014 at 05:01 PM
quote:
Nice quick growth after the first Reagan tax cut, then slowdown in growth. Nice decrease in growth after the second Reagan tax cut. Nice increase after the Clinton tax increase. Draw your own conclusions.
The conclusion is only that taxes by themselves are not a 100% predictor of the outcome. That should not be surprising.

But I was watching TV the other night and saw this commercial...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB5tJwS-3zw

If one of the most liberal and highest taxed states in the country is now offering no taxes for 10 years to entice firms to the state, then it puts the lie to any belief that taxes don't matter.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5604
(5603 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2014 at 06:23 PM
A comparison on the tax rates chart.

As little as 30 years ago you could deduct from your taxable income interest paid on car loans, credit cards, personal loans, road use taxes, gas taxes, car license plates, state taxes, local taxes, local sales taxes, gasoline tax (based on mileage in your state), any fees related to your job, education fees (tuition), health insurance and fees not covered by health insurance, dozens of other things (such as, believe it or not, gambling losses) could be deducted.

What, if any, of those can be deducted from your bottom line today?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2014 at 08:12 PM
quote:
As little as 30 years ago you could deduct from your taxable income...

quote:
What, if any, of those can be deducted from your bottom line today?

I don't know the answer specifically (many are deductions today, but I don't know about all) , but I do know know that deducting from your taxable income and deducting from "your bottom line" are two very different things.

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4289
(4287 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2014 at 01:56 AM
quote:
A comparison on the tax rates chart.

As little as 30 years ago you could deduct from your taxable income interest paid on car loans, credit cards, personal loans, road use taxes, gas taxes, car license plates, state taxes, local taxes, local sales taxes, gasoline tax (based on mileage in your state), any fees related to your job, education fees (tuition), health insurance and fees not covered by health insurance, dozens of other things (such as, believe it or not, gambling losses) could be deducted.

What, if any, of those can be deducted from your bottom line today?


Not from your bottom line, but against your taxable income, you can still deduct about half of those things, including gambling loses (against gambling winnings).

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/29/2014 at 03:14 PM
The bottom line is that the 16th Amendment is one of the ten planks of Communism and is a slave tax. It means that you work for the State for between four and five months a year. There are other means and ways to raise revenue through consumption taxes, excise taxes, importation taxes and a national sales tax. The caustic and compulsory nature of the sixtieth amendment is tyranny plane and simple.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com