| Elite 08:23 - Oct 31 with 14859 views | blueislander |
So “the elite” are going to be under attack from Labour. Who are they? Top surgeons? Top sportsmen and women? Scientists? I think they need to be a bit more specific., or just stick to “the corrupt” |  | | |  |
| Elite on 09:09 - Nov 1 with 3002 views | chicoazul |
| Elite on 07:06 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
The likes of Amazon and Starbucks paying no tax in the UK despite making huge profits. |
A flip side argument to this would be that Amazon and Starbucks employ many many people in the UK directly and in supply chain and maybe they wouldn't if we closed the loopholes they exploit. I would be surprised if there was a nett gain to the Exchequer if they paid any/more corporation tax which resulted in fewer people being employed. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 9:10]
|  |
| |
| Elite on 09:12 - Nov 1 with 2995 views | footers |
| Elite on 09:07 - Nov 1 by sparks |
Im paying plenty and have been affected by tory tax rises... importantly any objection by me to paying more would be directly linked to concern about how it would be spent. Corbyns ideology is problematic in that regard. |
Me too, but it still wouldn't bother me if we saw the improvements to public services that Corbyn is offering. There are always concerns about how tax is spent but it's obviously not something you can pick and choose. I'm not overly thrilled that we spend an arbitrary 2.1% of GDP on 'defence' spending and the renewal of Trident but ho hum. |  |
| |
| Elite on 09:14 - Nov 1 with 2991 views | footers |
| Elite on 09:09 - Nov 1 by chicoazul |
A flip side argument to this would be that Amazon and Starbucks employ many many people in the UK directly and in supply chain and maybe they wouldn't if we closed the loopholes they exploit. I would be surprised if there was a nett gain to the Exchequer if they paid any/more corporation tax which resulted in fewer people being employed. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 9:10]
|
Wouldn't it be nice if we forced them to pay what they rightfully owe or bar them from doing business here. It's not rocket surgery. Every SME pays their tax or they're closed down. Google have just been fined 1bn in France for tax evasion but we're awfully reticent to do the same. Strange. | |
| |
| Elite on 09:15 - Nov 1 with 2990 views | chicoazul |
| Elite on 08:32 - Nov 1 by Churchman |
My cousin is one of the top skin specialists in the UK. Her husband is a surgeon. They both work ridiculously hard and are paid very well, have a large house in north London and a beautiful house in Suffolk and other assets. They are very wealthy people. By most definitions they are part of ‘the elite’.
If Mr Corbyn goes after ‘the elite’, these are precisely the people he will go for because they pay their taxes and have tangible assets. Unlike people who are paid cash in hand or big corporations, they are ‘captive’. Is this a good thing? Should they manage with a little bit less for the sake of the ‘many’? What if they decide that Mr Corbyn’s great vision is not for them and decide to take their obvious talents abroad? No more taxes from them and a loss of their skills to the people of this country.
I think it’s right to go after non taxpayers, the rules around large corporations, criminals (some of whom have assets amounting to £millions) etc, but Mr Corbyn needs to be a bit more specific about it. |
By no definition, based on that, are your family part of the elite IMVHO. This is part of the problem. People dont understand what rich really is, it certainly isn't what you describe. Your family members between them probably earn something like 200k a year, Denise Coates gets £240m. Pretty sure the Maximum Leader isnt talking about your family when he talks about the elite. He's talking about people who earn enormous amounts on dividends (and who don't pay UK taxes on them) and the rentier class. | |
| |
| Elite on 09:28 - Nov 1 with 2973 views | Churchman |
| Elite on 08:47 - Nov 1 by footers |
Given that the UK already has one of the lowest personal tax rates for high earners in the Western world, would your 'very wealthy' relatives really feel the burden of a few percentage point increases on that? From what you've said it doesn't really seem like it. Likely it would be less of a financial burden than upping sticks and moving elsewhere. |
I actually don’t know and I’ve probably been a bit unfair on them. I suspect they would pay more but to what limit I have absolutely no idea. But certainly there is a limit.
As far as tax take is concerned I’ve always been in favour of scrapping National Insurance and having one transparent progressive tax. Not sure the tories would like it as they in particular have done the we will cut income tax bit while at the same time pushed up NI. Slight of hand. |  | | |
| Elite on 09:38 - Nov 1 with 2958 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 09:09 - Nov 1 by chicoazul |
A flip side argument to this would be that Amazon and Starbucks employ many many people in the UK directly and in supply chain and maybe they wouldn't if we closed the loopholes they exploit. I would be surprised if there was a nett gain to the Exchequer if they paid any/more corporation tax which resulted in fewer people being employed. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 9:10]
|
Amazon especially have taken big Government grants to build in deprived areas, and then filled these warehouses with people who have to work in awful conditions on terrible contract terms.
It's difficult to have any sympathy with them when their owner is worth $100bn+.
The arguments you make allow them to get away with it, and why betting companies lobby the Government because they offer jobs - often crap jobs - and inflict misery on many more |  |
| |
| Elite on 09:40 - Nov 1 with 2954 views | chicoazul |
| Elite on 09:38 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
Amazon especially have taken big Government grants to build in deprived areas, and then filled these warehouses with people who have to work in awful conditions on terrible contract terms.
It's difficult to have any sympathy with them when their owner is worth $100bn+.
The arguments you make allow them to get away with it, and why betting companies lobby the Government because they offer jobs - often crap jobs - and inflict misery on many more |
All fair comments. | |
| |
| Elite on 10:14 - Nov 1 with 2932 views | DanTheMan |
| Elite on 09:15 - Nov 1 by chicoazul |
By no definition, based on that, are your family part of the elite IMVHO. This is part of the problem. People dont understand what rich really is, it certainly isn't what you describe. Your family members between them probably earn something like 200k a year, Denise Coates gets £240m. Pretty sure the Maximum Leader isnt talking about your family when he talks about the elite. He's talking about people who earn enormous amounts on dividends (and who don't pay UK taxes on them) and the rentier class. |
I wouldn't say they are part of the elite either.
However you say they aren't rich which is itself a fairly subjective measure. They aren't billionaires or millionaires (unless they've saved very well), however I imagine they would be in the top 5% of families in the UK. I think to be in the top 1% it's somewhere around £150,000 as an individual. They probably don't even feel rich despite earning massively more than the average person and owning two homes.
What I do find interesting is that (and this isn't aimed at you but Churchman) they could potentially move if more taxes were placed on them.
Now for some very naive maths.
Let's say they do earn 100k each, and pay say 10% pension contributions and get no bonuses and don't do any overtime.
Right now they'd be taking home £5,325.33 each. The average person takes home £2,166.11. That is, one a household basis that is an over £6,000 difference a month.
Now let's imagine that we want to say people over £50,000 have to pay an extra 5% tax (and at the same time we also go after the super rich). Given the calculations above I think each person at £100k would be £1,520.45 a month at 40% and £1,596 at 45% (I think).
I have a feeling that someone earning £5,325 a month is not going to want to move countries over losing £80 a month, just over 1% of their actual take home pay.
I could have calculated this all wrong, but I do think it's interesting that when we say that people who are well off should pay more, how people think we are talking sums worth moving entire countries over.
Generally though we should be targeting the obscenely wealthy. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 10:16]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Elite on 10:23 - Nov 1 with 2916 views | blueislander |
| Elite on 08:24 - Nov 1 by footers |
At least it wouldn't be the working class as per, eh? I wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax, would you?
Besides, most of that increased tax revenue would come from corporation tax and tightening up of personal loopholes, tax havens. Something the Tories have been weirdly reticent about doing. Wonder why. |
You appear to think that individuals can simply evade taxes by putting their money into certain jurisdictions which you would call "tax havens" This is no longer possible as virtually every jurisdiction now participates in the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) which obliges financial institutions to report all financial holdings to the fiscal authority in their particular jurisdiction , and , in turn the fiscal authorities are obliged to report these holding to the fiscal authority where the individuals are resident. The only country of any importance that has not signed up to the CRS is the USA. So if you want to evade your taxes put your money there. In fact , as people have noted large corporations such as Starbucks , Amazon etc. manage to avoid paying taxes in the UK , thus making the UK a "tax haven" | | | |
| Elite on 10:31 - Nov 1 with 2908 views | StokieBlue |
| Elite on 10:14 - Nov 1 by DanTheMan |
I wouldn't say they are part of the elite either.
However you say they aren't rich which is itself a fairly subjective measure. They aren't billionaires or millionaires (unless they've saved very well), however I imagine they would be in the top 5% of families in the UK. I think to be in the top 1% it's somewhere around £150,000 as an individual. They probably don't even feel rich despite earning massively more than the average person and owning two homes.
What I do find interesting is that (and this isn't aimed at you but Churchman) they could potentially move if more taxes were placed on them.
Now for some very naive maths.
Let's say they do earn 100k each, and pay say 10% pension contributions and get no bonuses and don't do any overtime.
Right now they'd be taking home £5,325.33 each. The average person takes home £2,166.11. That is, one a household basis that is an over £6,000 difference a month.
Now let's imagine that we want to say people over £50,000 have to pay an extra 5% tax (and at the same time we also go after the super rich). Given the calculations above I think each person at £100k would be £1,520.45 a month at 40% and £1,596 at 45% (I think).
I have a feeling that someone earning £5,325 a month is not going to want to move countries over losing £80 a month, just over 1% of their actual take home pay.
I could have calculated this all wrong, but I do think it's interesting that when we say that people who are well off should pay more, how people think we are talking sums worth moving entire countries over.
Generally though we should be targeting the obscenely wealthy. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 10:16]
|
I think the numbers are slightly off (depending on assumptions and simplifications). If I follow you correctly it should be 208 GBP per month (or 186 GBP if the pension is taken from that salary) more tax at 45% rather than 40% but in the end that's fairly irrelevant to your main point which is fundamentally sound.
I also don't believe anyone would leave the country over that much tax increase.
It's not an insurmountable money for people in that wage bracket to be absorbing for the general good of the country. I guess the argument from those opposed would be they don't believe it will be spent well - that's a more ideological rather than economic argument though.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Elite on 10:37 - Nov 1 with 2895 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 10:31 - Nov 1 by StokieBlue |
I think the numbers are slightly off (depending on assumptions and simplifications). If I follow you correctly it should be 208 GBP per month (or 186 GBP if the pension is taken from that salary) more tax at 45% rather than 40% but in the end that's fairly irrelevant to your main point which is fundamentally sound.
I also don't believe anyone would leave the country over that much tax increase.
It's not an insurmountable money for people in that wage bracket to be absorbing for the general good of the country. I guess the argument from those opposed would be they don't believe it will be spent well - that's a more ideological rather than economic argument though.
SB |
Not aimed at you - but the argument back would be is it better for their £185 to be spent 'badly' by the Government, or for it to sit in their savings account, or ISA, or somewhere waiting for it be passed down to their kids.
I get people wanting to limit tax exposure, and pay less - I do myself, but I pay what is due and get on with it.
I see a couple in here talking about a plumber taking cash in hand for a job, the main difference I see is that generally cash goes straight back into the local community one way or another whereas the mega-rich don't do the same - trickle down economics..... | |
| |
| Elite on 10:40 - Nov 1 with 2889 views | blueislander |
| Elite on 10:31 - Nov 1 by StokieBlue |
I think the numbers are slightly off (depending on assumptions and simplifications). If I follow you correctly it should be 208 GBP per month (or 186 GBP if the pension is taken from that salary) more tax at 45% rather than 40% but in the end that's fairly irrelevant to your main point which is fundamentally sound.
I also don't believe anyone would leave the country over that much tax increase.
It's not an insurmountable money for people in that wage bracket to be absorbing for the general good of the country. I guess the argument from those opposed would be they don't believe it will be spent well - that's a more ideological rather than economic argument though.
SB |
In the 70s under the Wilson government the highest rate of income tax went up to 98% which did result in people leaving the UK (The Rolling Stones being perhaps the highest profile of those who left) One would like to think that no government now would put it up to that level. | | | |
| Elite on 10:43 - Nov 1 with 2882 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Elite on 09:36 - Oct 31 by giant_stow |
The guardian have just posted an extract of his speach which explains:
You know what really scares the elite?
What they’re actually afraid of is paying their taxes. So in this election they’ll fight harder and dirtier than ever before. They’ll throw everything at us because they know we’re not afraid to take them on.
So we’re going after the tax dodgers. We’re going after the dodgy landlords. We’re going after the bad bosses. We’re going after the big polluters. Because we know whose side we’re on.
So are you on the side of the tax dodgers, who are taking us all for a ride? People who think it’s ok to rip people off, hide their money in tax havens so they can have a new super yacht. Or the children with special educational needs who aren’t getting the support they deserve because of Tory and Lib Dem government cuts?
Whose side are you on? The dodgy landlords, like the Duke of Westminster, Britain’s youngest billionaire, who tried to evict whole blocks of families, to make way for luxury apartments? Or the millions of tenants in Britain who struggle to pay their rent each month?
Whose side are you on? The bad bosses like Mike Ashley, the billionaire who won’t pay his staff properly and is running Newcastle United into the ground? Or his exploited workforce, like the woman who was reportedly forced to give birth in a warehouse toilet because she was terrified of missing her shift?
Whose side are you on? The big polluters like Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s richest man who makes his money by polluting the environment? Or the children growing up in our cities with reduced lung capacity because of choking pollution?
“Whose side are you on? The greedy bankers like Crispin Odey, who makes millions betting against our country and on other people’s misery and donated huge sums to Johnson and the Conservative Party? Or are you on the side of working people, the people who create the wealth that’s then squirreled away in tax havens?
And whose side are you on? The billionaire media barons like Rupert Murdoch, whose empire pumps out propaganda to support a rigged system. Or the overwhelming majority who want to live in a decent, fair, diverse and prosperous society?
You know whose side Labour’s on. And we have something that the Rupert Murdochs, the Mike Ashleys, and the Boris Johnsons don’t have.
We have people. Hundreds of thousands of people in every part of our country, who will make this the biggest people-powered campaign in history. [Post edited 31 Oct 2019 9:38]
|
Hard to argue with that. Who wouldn’t want people to simply pay the taxes they owe, whilst not exploiting people or screwing over the environment? Apart from an arse. |  |
| |
| Elite on 10:44 - Nov 1 with 2880 views | DanTheMan |
| Elite on 10:31 - Nov 1 by StokieBlue |
I think the numbers are slightly off (depending on assumptions and simplifications). If I follow you correctly it should be 208 GBP per month (or 186 GBP if the pension is taken from that salary) more tax at 45% rather than 40% but in the end that's fairly irrelevant to your main point which is fundamentally sound.
I also don't believe anyone would leave the country over that much tax increase.
It's not an insurmountable money for people in that wage bracket to be absorbing for the general good of the country. I guess the argument from those opposed would be they don't believe it will be spent well - that's a more ideological rather than economic argument though.
SB |
I'll be honest, I'm always awful at working at how much would be taxable at 40% vs 45% when over x amount and paying y so you're probably right. I was going at 5% increase on what would be what they pay now per month.
I hope nobody on here takes my post as me attacking anyone as well. These debates tend to get fairly heated especially if you do earn around some of the sums talked about. | |
| |
| Elite on 10:47 - Nov 1 with 2872 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Elite on 09:09 - Nov 1 by chicoazul |
A flip side argument to this would be that Amazon and Starbucks employ many many people in the UK directly and in supply chain and maybe they wouldn't if we closed the loopholes they exploit. I would be surprised if there was a nett gain to the Exchequer if they paid any/more corporation tax which resulted in fewer people being employed. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 9:10]
|
And then there’d be a gap in the market for the local cafes and coffee shops that they probably forced out the market in the first place. Shops that would still employ people AND pay what they owe to the exchequer. | |
| |
| Elite on 10:48 - Nov 1 with 2871 views | StokieBlue |
| Elite on 10:44 - Nov 1 by DanTheMan |
I'll be honest, I'm always awful at working at how much would be taxable at 40% vs 45% when over x amount and paying y so you're probably right. I was going at 5% increase on what would be what they pay now per month.
I hope nobody on here takes my post as me attacking anyone as well. These debates tend to get fairly heated especially if you do earn around some of the sums talked about. |
I don't think your post reads as an attack, I wouldn't worry about that.
I think even at the 200 GBP number it's pretty hard to come up with reasons why it's not beneficial for the country as a whole. I don't think people are opposed to taxation if it's reasonable and proportionate.
It's certainly likely to yield better results for the country at large than Boris plan which was to give everyone in the bracket you specified (well up to 80k) an extra ~500 GBP per month.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Elite on 10:49 - Nov 1 with 2868 views | DanTheMan |
| Elite on 10:47 - Nov 1 by Swansea_Blue |
And then there’d be a gap in the market for the local cafes and coffee shops that they probably forced out the market in the first place. Shops that would still employ people AND pay what they owe to the exchequer. |
Also worth noting that unless Amazon's only product is Lamborghinis made entirely of gold, their business model relies on people who are not rich buying their products.
I find the argument that people only have jobs because of rich people to be a bit silly. | |
| |
| Elite on 10:50 - Nov 1 with 2862 views | DanTheMan |
| Elite on 10:48 - Nov 1 by StokieBlue |
I don't think your post reads as an attack, I wouldn't worry about that.
I think even at the 200 GBP number it's pretty hard to come up with reasons why it's not beneficial for the country as a whole. I don't think people are opposed to taxation if it's reasonable and proportionate.
It's certainly likely to yield better results for the country at large than Boris plan which was to give everyone in the bracket you specified (well up to 80k) an extra ~500 GBP per month.
SB |
Even then that £500pm is only going to be for those near the £80k bracket. That idea was madness, I'm glad it's been dropped. | |
| |
| Elite on 10:54 - Nov 1 with 2856 views | sparks |
| Elite on 10:48 - Nov 1 by StokieBlue |
I don't think your post reads as an attack, I wouldn't worry about that.
I think even at the 200 GBP number it's pretty hard to come up with reasons why it's not beneficial for the country as a whole. I don't think people are opposed to taxation if it's reasonable and proportionate.
It's certainly likely to yield better results for the country at large than Boris plan which was to give everyone in the bracket you specified (well up to 80k) an extra ~500 GBP per month.
SB |
There are already people who are on a marginal rate of 60 or 70 percent.
Its interesting that the government get accused of tax breaks for the rich having increased the personal allowance etc and hit higher earners with removal of child benefit and tapering of personal allowance. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Elite on 10:56 - Nov 1 with 2850 views | itfcjoe |
| Elite on 10:54 - Nov 1 by sparks |
There are already people who are on a marginal rate of 60 or 70 percent.
Its interesting that the government get accused of tax breaks for the rich having increased the personal allowance etc and hit higher earners with removal of child benefit and tapering of personal allowance. |
They literally tried to launch a policy recently which was a tax break for the rich.
Also, increasing personal allowance doesn't just help those in lower paid jobs | |
| |
| Elite on 10:57 - Nov 1 with 2847 views | noggin |
| Elite on 09:36 - Oct 31 by giant_stow |
The guardian have just posted an extract of his speach which explains:
You know what really scares the elite?
What they’re actually afraid of is paying their taxes. So in this election they’ll fight harder and dirtier than ever before. They’ll throw everything at us because they know we’re not afraid to take them on.
So we’re going after the tax dodgers. We’re going after the dodgy landlords. We’re going after the bad bosses. We’re going after the big polluters. Because we know whose side we’re on.
So are you on the side of the tax dodgers, who are taking us all for a ride? People who think it’s ok to rip people off, hide their money in tax havens so they can have a new super yacht. Or the children with special educational needs who aren’t getting the support they deserve because of Tory and Lib Dem government cuts?
Whose side are you on? The dodgy landlords, like the Duke of Westminster, Britain’s youngest billionaire, who tried to evict whole blocks of families, to make way for luxury apartments? Or the millions of tenants in Britain who struggle to pay their rent each month?
Whose side are you on? The bad bosses like Mike Ashley, the billionaire who won’t pay his staff properly and is running Newcastle United into the ground? Or his exploited workforce, like the woman who was reportedly forced to give birth in a warehouse toilet because she was terrified of missing her shift?
Whose side are you on? The big polluters like Jim Ratcliffe, Britain’s richest man who makes his money by polluting the environment? Or the children growing up in our cities with reduced lung capacity because of choking pollution?
“Whose side are you on? The greedy bankers like Crispin Odey, who makes millions betting against our country and on other people’s misery and donated huge sums to Johnson and the Conservative Party? Or are you on the side of working people, the people who create the wealth that’s then squirreled away in tax havens?
And whose side are you on? The billionaire media barons like Rupert Murdoch, whose empire pumps out propaganda to support a rigged system. Or the overwhelming majority who want to live in a decent, fair, diverse and prosperous society?
You know whose side Labour’s on. And we have something that the Rupert Murdochs, the Mike Ashleys, and the Boris Johnsons don’t have.
We have people. Hundreds of thousands of people in every part of our country, who will make this the biggest people-powered campaign in history. [Post edited 31 Oct 2019 9:38]
|
I'm on his side. |  |
| |
| Elite on 11:01 - Nov 1 with 2842 views | footers |
| Elite on 10:54 - Nov 1 by sparks |
There are already people who are on a marginal rate of 60 or 70 percent.
Its interesting that the government get accused of tax breaks for the rich having increased the personal allowance etc and hit higher earners with removal of child benefit and tapering of personal allowance. |
Why would higher earners need child benefits? | |
| |
| Elite on 11:05 - Nov 1 with 2835 views | sparks |
| Elite on 11:01 - Nov 1 by footers |
Why would higher earners need child benefits? |
They dont. But its the recent govt which remived this for better paid people. And shafted damilies where one parent is main earner. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Elite on 11:06 - Nov 1 with 2832 views | sparks |
| Elite on 10:56 - Nov 1 by itfcjoe |
They literally tried to launch a policy recently which was a tax break for the rich.
Also, increasing personal allowance doesn't just help those in lower paid jobs |
Of course it does.
Someone on min wage now pays virtually no income tax. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Elite on 11:07 - Nov 1 with 2829 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Elite on 10:14 - Nov 1 by DanTheMan |
I wouldn't say they are part of the elite either.
However you say they aren't rich which is itself a fairly subjective measure. They aren't billionaires or millionaires (unless they've saved very well), however I imagine they would be in the top 5% of families in the UK. I think to be in the top 1% it's somewhere around £150,000 as an individual. They probably don't even feel rich despite earning massively more than the average person and owning two homes.
What I do find interesting is that (and this isn't aimed at you but Churchman) they could potentially move if more taxes were placed on them.
Now for some very naive maths.
Let's say they do earn 100k each, and pay say 10% pension contributions and get no bonuses and don't do any overtime.
Right now they'd be taking home £5,325.33 each. The average person takes home £2,166.11. That is, one a household basis that is an over £6,000 difference a month.
Now let's imagine that we want to say people over £50,000 have to pay an extra 5% tax (and at the same time we also go after the super rich). Given the calculations above I think each person at £100k would be £1,520.45 a month at 40% and £1,596 at 45% (I think).
I have a feeling that someone earning £5,325 a month is not going to want to move countries over losing £80 a month, just over 1% of their actual take home pay.
I could have calculated this all wrong, but I do think it's interesting that when we say that people who are well off should pay more, how people think we are talking sums worth moving entire countries over.
Generally though we should be targeting the obscenely wealthy. [Post edited 1 Nov 2019 10:16]
|
As a general comment, there’s also an assumption in this that Tory = low tax, Labour = high tax. I’m pretty sure that hasn’t been my experience over the last say 12-15 yrs. I had some hefty tax hikes under Osborne, which rankles when you see services being slashed.
People get to believe the electioneering messages. It would be good to see some proper data behind this whole argument around taxation and public spending. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
