Open Forum on the FairTax

I've had a number of readers suggest I post on the FairTax and open it up for discussion. I've mentioned it a bit before (especially since at least one presidential candidate supports it), but never in this sort of detail. Let's start with a quick overview of the FairTax and what it proposes:

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including:

• A progressive national retail sales tax.
• A prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
• Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.
• Repeal of the 16th Amendment through companion legislation.

Here are a few more specifics:

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Now if you're wondering if this system would ever work, supporters of the FairTax have done detailed research on the issue. The conclusion:

The FairTax has the broadest tax base and produces the lowest rate to replace the current tax system.

The revenue-neutral, tax-inclusive rates are FairTax (23.82%), current law (26.51%), the flat tax (26.76%), and the business transfer tax (24.49%).  For comparative purposes, these rates assume that each of these tax reform plans replaces all federal income & payroll taxes ($2.228 trillion) and provides an equivalent standard deduction/prebate.

They also address what they call the FairTax Five -- the main five objections that people have to the FairTax that supporters say aren't really accurate. The objections include:

• "The 23% rate is misleading. It's really 30%"
• "It's not enforceable and evasion will be rampant"
• "It will not be revenue neutral at 23%"
• "The FairTax is not politically viable"
• "The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

I must say, this concept is certainly interesting. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue -- but I think it's worth consideration.

What do you think? Would this system be better than our current tax system? Worse? No different?

For those of you still wanting more information, here are some additional links on the FairTax:

• The FairTax basics

• Beyond the basics

• Fairtax FAQs

• Research details

Comments

I think this system could work.However,what would be the effects on consumer spending?It could make people spend less than usual. I wonder if it would cut down on tax cheats or increase them. The system should be put into a trial run somewhere for 6 months to a year and then evaluated.

[Jake]

If debt interest is taxed, then that would solve much of the concern about redistributing funds to homeowners, since the average homeowner in this country has a very sizeable mortgage.

I'm a supporter of the "fair tax" 100%. I think we need to shrink the size of our government and the number of free handouts and entitlement programs and earmarks. The best way to do that is to make people realize that if the government spends more money, they pay more taxes. Right now, the federal budget is so disconnected from the size of taxes... the government is currently offering a tax rebate while running a deficit! This promotes the mentality that any given taxpayer can get more out of the government than they pay into the government, at least if they are not very wealthy. This creates incentives for the lowest-earning 51% of the population to vote themselves excessive government benefits to be paid for by the highest-earning 49%. With a fair tax, I think the eventual result would be a smaller government and lower taxes, and I think that's great.

The biggest problem I see if fair tax was implimented today is the plight of retirees, especially very recent retirees. I know I would be upset if I saved my way to retirement through a Roth 401K, had my income taxed the entire time I was earning, planned to get my tax break on investment income in retirement, only to find that EVERYBODY gets to avoid paying income tax, and all my savings get double-taxed on the back end when I use them to buy goods and services. All my income was taxed, and all my spending for the rest of my life will be taxed. That is a crippling case of double-jeopardy, and is ultimately the reason that this fair tax won't make it.

[Ryan]

Jake,

I wonder if there would be way to offer rebates of sales tax paid with Roth money. Sort of like how you fill out a form for your HSA or FSA.

Only PART of debt interest is taxed - the interest ABOVE the federal long-term funds rate.

Which means that only a small slice of a homeowner's mortgage interest would be taxed. Most current homeowners paying around, 7% interest would find only about 2-3% taxable.

Since the principal component of your mortgage is not taxed, only a small part of your total mtg pmt is taxed, especially in the later years of the mortgage.

On the other hand, ALL of the rent is taxed, so the renter pays far more tax for equivalent housing.

Only PART of debt interest is taxed - the interest ABOVE the federal long-term funds rate.

Which means that only a small slice of a homeowner's mortgage interest would be taxed. Most current homeowners paying around, 7% interest would find only about 2-3% taxable.

Since the principal component of your mortgage is not taxed, only a small part of your total mtg pmt is taxed, especially in the later years of the mortgage.

On the other hand, ALL of the rent is taxed, so the renter pays far more tax for equivalent housing.

p.s. it's not an Open Forum if on-topic messages are deleted

[FMF]

Last I knew, I had banned you from all comments for consistently clogging this blog with meaningless, "woe is me" posts. Are you saying you're ready to give up the useless, attention grabbing comments and seriously contribute to the discussion?

[anon]

For more information before posting a comment, readers may be interested in reading the detailed, unbiased article on Wikipedia.

[Kevin]

The Fair Tax seems simple until Congress and special interest lobbyists get their hands on it and start creating exemptions, deductions, etc. just like our current system.

Even as a CPA who does mostly tax work, I see this as a good idea just for the fact it sort of encourages savings - which this country desperately needs more of. However, I think there are too many issues - what to do with Roth funds, how the prebate works, what happens to Social Security, etc. - that it would never make it through Congress. Frankly, I don't think they have the smarts or guts to do something this drastic.

[FMF]

Here's the wikipedia article on the FairTax:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[Rob]

Thank you for posting about the Fair Tax! The Fair Tax is such a great idea, and it is the change that we need. Democrat or Republican, a candidate that supports the Fair Tax should get your vote just on that issue alone. It's the one that matters most (lets face it, your financial well being is more important than exactly if or when we pull out of Iraq, etc)

Vote for Huckabee and let him push this genius idea through to the end.

[Naz]

"The 23% rate is misleading. It's really 30%"
This seems to be true. If you buy something that costs $1. You would end up paying $1.30. The 23% refers to the fact that 30 cents is 23% of $1.30, which does seem to be a somewhat misleading way of conveying this information.

Nonetheless, I like the idea in principle, and I'm sure reasonable people could work out the details that would net unfair results, such as converting currently incompatible tax-deferral or avoidance plans into compatible ones, whether it be a Roth-IRA or a charitable contribution, or a non-profit company.

The only part that really worries me is that the 30% sales tax rate would not generate enough revenue to cover the recent average budget (even without the recent extra expenses), according to some economists. I'd like to hear more discussion about this. If it ends up becoming a 40 or 50% sales tax, I don't think I can afford that. And I certainly don't pay that in taxes.

[beastlike]

For me, the taxes could be 100% and I would still come out ahead! Guess I'm not helping the economy that much, but hey, I should have a 200k+ mortgage paid off in less than 7 years..... I'm all for it!

[Naz]

beastlike: "Guess I'm not helping the economy that much, but hey, I should have a 200k+ mortgage paid off in less than 7 years..."

You realize that, depending on the details of how the fair tax is worked out, a mortgage payment could count as a purchase, and therefore taxed? I'm pretty sure all purchases of securities would be taxed, although I'm not sure what that precisely means.

[LC]

@Naz
Actually the house would be taxed so the purchase price would be higher. I can't see how existing contracts could be modified.

[Kevin]

I'm too lazy to read the wiki article, so I'll ask here. How the heck could you ever make money on the stock market/mutual funds/etc. if you're paying 30% tax on it at the start?

Wouldn't that effectively kill the liquidity of the stock market since it would take years or decades to earn that back?

[KC]

@Kevin,
You only pay tax when you buy NEW goods. You're not paying taxes on investments under the FairTax, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

@Naz,
New construction houses would be taxed, but pre-existing homes would not. Same goes for cars, boats, etc.

[beastlike]

Maybe that would drive down the price of new houses then (high supply/low demand) so it would come close to a wash with the taxes?
Would there still be property taxes? Property taxes should be illegal!!!!

[Douglas]

For me, as an individual, and for most of the FMF readers (I think). This would be a blessing. In my case I save more than I spend. Since I wouldn't be paying income taxes, and I'm more than happy to buy used (which is not taxed). My tax impact would go down drammatically.
Now for the economy? I don't know. For the lower middle class, those above the poverty line, but just getting by? I think this might hit them harder than the current system (not sure).

[Doug]

I think the concept is fabulous, and after reading the extensively footnoted Wiki article, I'm convinced it's a great idea. The challenge I see is in evasion-avoidance, particularly near national borders. It's easy to handwave the problem, and say "Customs can handle that", but high value, physically-small goods are easy to transport concealed, and at a 23/30% rate, there'd be a lot of incentive to buy, say, the fiance's diamond in Toronto vs. Buffalo, even at today's gas prices. Maybe it's a small enough risk that it's trivial in the big scope (I hope it is), but that seemed to be the criticism least-well-handled by the FairTax folks.

[Moneyandpf]

While this sounds good in theory as usual implementing it to work that way is another story. Not to mention I think this good effect a lot of accountants and tax companies. If tax planning is basically eliminated all of those jobs would become worthless. I think people would find ways around paying that high of a sales tax.

I don't know the solution to our tax system but I do think this would be the wrong way to handle it.

[Doug]

Not to sound too cold about this, but what it is about people that they think industries should exist forever. Maybe we shouldn't have moved to automobiles since all the poor carriage and whip-makers went out of business. And think of the poor adding machine companies - let's trash our computers.

If one's job is based on inefficiencies in a system, it's inherently at risk, whether it's fun to think about it or not. This is rational economics.

The easiest way around the FairTax system as written is to buy used, which would bother me personally b/c I think it would drive up the cost of used goods, and I currently save a TON of money buying used when possible.

The transition would no doubt be bumpy, but I think we're out of EASY changes that could have a meaningful, beneficial impact.

[beastlike]

Well said Doug!

[Girls Just Wanna Have Funds]

It can work, we just need to give it a try. I'll have to read the article again to really decide if it makes sense for all of us because as with most things like this someone loses.

[Dug]

http://boortz.com/ Might I suggest an interview with Neal Boortz, a co-author of the FairTax? He does a talk show and I'm 100% sure he'd love to set all these questions straight with an interview!

Taxes are "Social Engineering", which is one major hurdle that has to be jumped in order for the FairTax to be passed, but I think it's a wonderful idea!

[Ian from Ann Arbor]

Gov. Huckabee's advocacy of the FairTax ( snipr.com/irsgone ) is the single most important policy position in this election. Research findings explain why:

The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars – $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces [BHKPT] ( snipurl.com/whatratewks ).

The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan [THBP] ( snipurl.com/baserate ).

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case [THBNP] ( snipurl.com/realwages ).

The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be [ALM] ( snipurl.com/econbenes ).

Consumption benefits [ALM] ( snipurl.com/econbenes ) :

• Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.

• Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.

• The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.

• By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.

Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system [KR] ( snipurl.com/kotcomparetaxrates ).

Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively [JK] ( snipurl.com/kotftmacromicro ).

Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax [THBPN] ( snipurl.com/lessregress ).

Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20 [THPDB] ( snipurl.com/moregiving ).

On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base [TBJ] ( snipurl.com/staterates ).

The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent [WM] ( snipurl.com/homebenes ).

ALERT: Kotlikoff refutes Bruce Bartlett's shabby critiques of the FairTax ( snipr.com/bbrebuke ).

[TheMightyQuinn]

I'm definitely in favor for a consumption tax over an income tax. My one concern is that with wages going up by the amount of payroll taxes, and prices going up due to the tax, won't this cause a big onetime inflation spike? If everyone makes more money and things cost more, don't i lose purchasing power with my savings? If the government tried to offset the loss by crediting savings, wouldn't that just make things worse?

[FS]

There's no question that the federal budget and tax system need reform. What's best? Is it the Fair tax? As I see it...

Big advantage: transparancy and obviousness of the actual federal tax rate with the Fair tax.

Big disadvantage: potential for double-taxation with adoption of the sales/Fair tax *before* repeal of the 16th Amendment authorizing the income tax.

I'd urge Fair Tax proponents not to get the cart before the horse...repeal the 16th amendment first, wait for 2/3rds of the states to ratify, THEN pass the federal sales (Fair) tax.

Although he's now out of the Presidential race, here's a link to a very interesting tax proposal from Rudy Giuliani: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120113714794811929.html

Several intriging aspects:
1) Allows taxpayer the *option* of current (complex) system or alternative one-page "fast" form
2) Preserves popular deductions for mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.
Thus, it might actually have a chance of passing.

The proposal has been introduced as legislation in both the House and Senate, so the idea will outlive Rudy's run.

Let's hope for reform!

[JimmyDaGeek]

"The 23% rate is misleading. It's really 30%"
If there was a 23% tax bracket, you would need to make $1.30 to keep $1. So does that mean you are in a 30% tax bracket?

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"
A consumption tax is based on what you spend, not earn. What difference does it make if I make $10k or $100k per year, if I only spend $10k per year? I derive the exact same benefit from my purchases. How can that be regressive? If you mean to say that people shouldn't have to pay taxes below a certain expenditure, again I ask, why does one's spending get tied to one's earnings? As for shifting tax burden, you mean shifting it from the current system. That is a matter of social policy. And the Fair Tax solves that problem by its prebate. When everyone gets a prebate, the Fair Tax is no longer a flat tax, but becomes a progressive tax. If you then look at the real tax rate, it rises asymptotically as a person spends more.

"It's not enforceable and evasion will be rampant"
This is a problem for me, too. Unfortunately, the IRS's mission will simply change to tracking outgo instead of income. There are some mechanisms I have seen proposed like tracking financial accounts and transactions. If you think about it: Spending = (Old Balance + Income) - New Balance. Of course, this is simplified and can get hairy. What about charity and personal loans? The list can go on.

[Bobby]

I like this idea. Also, wouldn't it be easier to balance the budget. You either have an adjustable sales tax from year to year to meet the budget or we could set the different parts of the budget as percentages of the total revenue. I'm not an economist, just a guy who likes reading this blog.

[Bobby]

Forgot to include something in my post. Regardless if they change the tax system, they need to impose a Federal Sales Tax specifically aimed at paying down our deficit. I think 1% or 2% over a number of years could pay down the almost 10 trillion. Or at least be a good start.

[LotharBot]

My main issue with the "fair tax" or any other shift to a consumption tax is that it allows double taxation on anything I've already saved -- I already paid income tax on that money, and now if I spend it in the future I'll ALSO pay the replacement for income tax. It shouldn't be a hard issue to overcome -- create some sort of tax credit for savings or something. But thus far, I haven't seen "fair tax" advocates address the issue.

[Minimum Wage]

FMF -

Okay, I don't have to agree with your take on PF and on my take on your posts, but I'll go along with it.

[Minimum Wage]

My take-home pay would increase by only 10 percent, when the higher after-tax prices (esp for rent) kick in, I expect to lose purchasing power.

Questions:

What about an uninsured person who runs up a huge hospital bill? Will they be stuck with a huge tax liability for the rest of their life? What if someone has an expensive chronic condition which saps their purchasing power?

If landlords will have to register their rental properties with the state tax collector, isn't it just a short stem to increased regulation of rental properties? Like wouldn't the FairTax make it a whole lot easier to implement annual rental inspections? I don't want a government inspector in my home every year. Would you want one in your home every year?

What if a homeowner rents out spare bedrooms in his house? (I have a friend who rents a room from a millionaire retired architect.) Is he going to register with the tax collector and pay his Fair share? Will the tax collector ever find him if he doesn't?

[Bill Woessner]

I have 2 main reservations about the FairTax. First is the Bill Gates test. Under the FairTax, Bill Gates would probably end up paying a miniscule portion of his income in federal taxes. Let's say Bill Gates is worth $56B and that he earns a healthy 6.66% interest on his fortune. That means his annual income is $3.73B. How much of that is he actually going to SPEND? $10M? $100M? $1B? Let's say he splurges and spends $1B. Then he'll pay $300M in taxes for an overall tax rate of 8%. That doesn't seem "fair".

The second issue is the size of the tax base. A previous comment included a link to a paper that claims that the FairTax has a larger tax base than an income tax. I don't see how that can be true. Borrowed money aside, spending should be strictly bounded by income. Now, in reality, we have been spending more than we make for the past couple years (negative savings rate). But that's not a good thing and it's obviously not sustainable.

Those issues aside, I would take the FairTax over the current tax code any day. But I think a very broad income tax would be even better. I think Forbes' idea of not taxing investment income is absurd. But I like the basic idea of his flat tax.

[Deezer]

I would encourage anyone that is interested in or skeptical about the FairTax to checkout the FairTax book by Neal Boortz and and John Linder.

There are many people that raise questions or concerns about the FairTax, most of which are answered in this book. There's a lot of lies floating around about the FairTax, like it will hurt the poor, it's an increase in tax, etc. The FairTax is one of the most well researched tax plans out there (millions spent on researching it), and it is a plan that can take the US out of the economic crunch we are in now.

One of the major things people do not understand is that once all of the corporate taxes are reduced, not only will businesses seek to be located in the United States, and not only will it make businesses in the US more competitive, prices will be lowered to consumers. Studies have shown that prices would lower once these taxes were reduced. Again, read the book for more on this.

There is a petition in the works to get FairTax on the ballot in Michigan as a constitutional amendment, replacing all business taxes, sales taxes and personal income taxes with a 9.5% sales tax. If you live in Michigan, make sure you sign a petition, and encourage your friends to do the same.

[ReVeLaTeD]

I'm a solid supporter of FairTax.

It seems to me people are purposely looking at this with a pessimistic view. I've seen arguments for "No Tax Plan" which I think are ludicrous - how do civil service salaries, war efforts, etc. get funded if we're not paying any tax at all? Silly.

I don't like taxes. But the reason I don't like taxes is the Draconian way we've gone about our tax system: Filing paperwork that reiterates other paperwork which my employer has already sent them, with additional lines making half-winded statements about gifts and the like, all to justify either money I owe or money owed me. And oh by the way, if they choose to charge me some arbitrary amount on top of what I've already had withheld, I can do nothing about it. As someone considered "middle class", by the time the withholding has completed, I make out with 20% less income. Coupled with the fact that bonuses are taxed at 50% - absolutely ludicrous.

Enter FairTax. At its core, it's taxing you based on what you spend. Spend less, pay less. Spend more, pay more. Simple and transparent, and already I like it. I don't mind paying a state tax on top of FairTax, because state tax is a fraction of federal tax. I'm a consumer in the biggest sense of the word, I spend a lot because I want and/or need a lot. So if I buy a $60 Xbox 360 game, it'll end up being $80 instead? Big deal - as long as I already had that money up front. Therein lies the difference between income tax and consumption tax.

The current income tax plan takes your money at a rate, before you get a chance to touch it, and keeps it. Let's throw out a percent: 20%, which I think is my current bracket. So according to the government I should be paying approximately $10,000 every year. That's not a small chunk of change. Now let's look at the consumption tax. In order to reach $10,000 spent in a year, considering the prebate, I'd have to be doing some heavy spending. Using my 360 game analogy, if I bought nothing but 360 games for one year, that's 500 games. Considering there aren't that many games on that system, that level of spending is near impossible.

So, under income tax, I've lost $10,000 before I even get a chance to hold it or smell it.

Under consumption tax, I'd lose, BY CHOICE (rough estimates based on 2007 spending):
10 games = $200
$700 worth of groceries = $210
Gas $1200 = $360
computer $1200 = $360
computer $900 = $270
plasma TV $1200 = $360
DirecTV $200 = $60
clothes $600 = $180
random fast food $730 = $219
phone $120 = $36
miscellaneous other $2000 = $600

TOTAL: approx. $3,000

That's WITHOUT the prebate, I've already saved $7,000 which stayed in my pocket. Didn't have to file any paperwork, didn't have to submit any W2s or W4s or 1098E or 1099 or anything else, didn't have to memorize code or get ripped off by H&R Block, etc etc etc. Best part is, I CHOOSE to pay those taxes because I consume those items, not because some agency has come up with some random percentage that they think I should be paying based on a 70 year old tax clause.

The other thing to consider is that, you talk about freeing up expenses, they'd be able to get rid of how many "tax professional" positions? That's got to be millions and millions of dollars every year saved just by going this route. The amount of wasted paper is yet another cash cow of millions of dollars saved. The cost of running the tax facilities - millions of dollars. The cost of auditing - millions of dollars. The cost of going after tax evaders - millions of dollars. The cost of imprisoning tax cheats - millions of dollars AND wasted prison space that would better suit real criminals.

Some have said that the rich would benefit. I don't see how - the rich always buy new clothes, they always need food, they have to pay bills, etc etc. They're no different from anyone else. When 50 Cent goes to buy that $500,000 Bentley, he'll have to fork over an additional $150,000 for it, and right there he'll have already paid more taxes than he probably ever has. Wesley Snipes wouldn't be on the news now if FairTax were in place.

In summary, stop looking at FairTax as "I'll end up spending more!!!". Look at it for what it is - "I'll have more money to be able to spend".

[klause24]

The mistake I see being made in some comments, is that it is being figured as an exclusive tax. It is an inclusive tax. If you go to the store and buy something that is $100 on the shelf, when you take it up and pay for it you pay $100. $23 of the $100 goes to the government. $77 goes to the store. Doing the math 23 of 100 is 23%.

[wbondarmunw]

Fair day!
I faith that chose the set leg of it for asking your inconceivable, if not, sorry.
I do not unundoubtedlyably ordinarily go to the forums. And my, my inconceivable is what is:
How do you deliberate on how moment the conundrum of toll increases, and whether it is plausible far-reaching disaster,
the actuality that already event, namely: Rising subsistence guerdons has transformed subsistence into an global partisan issue.
Riots pull someone's leg erupted in Egypt, Haiti and Bangladesh closed soaring subsistence tolls.
People fought one another remaining bags of rice in West Africa.
The causes and the solutions to the stuffs turning-point are complex.
Iif not tough and you prepare your theory on this, cheer response, I am undoubtably interested to listen to your conception.
See you later!
P.S. Sorry for my english.

[optopadaltRop]

Hello,

I'm newer here and stopping in to say hi.
I hope everyone has a good day.


Jaeric

[promoarease]

The blood made a baby models vancouver the desk.
Then she remembered their sandra model board3 and silent, like dreams.
Her only adornment was bianca fetish model he said.
My hands dazzled like 13 yr old models hers again.
You were mourning your bd young in it.
Now please move out young model toplist state line.
Jade glanced around her, talent agency possibly be, unconnected.

[Lisacool]

Hi everybody, sorry if this topic is not at the right place, but I want to talk with people who visited Tokyo )) I was there 2 months ago and it was really cool. There are amazing high buildings, unusual traditions and the culture in the whole. I can't forgot Japan's traditional drink that is call SAKE. Especially, I was really surprised when I had seen a lot of american and european tourists. I went to Tokyo with my colleague. No, he is not my boyfriend, we just work together. The days we spent in interesting areas, a lot of photographed. We eat different tasty and unusual food in fine Japanese restaurants. The prices are very different. Especially I like the high-speed train))) We went to the different historical places.

Evenings we spent immodest. I had visited almost all nightclubs in Tokyo during 2 weeks: Ageha, La Fabrique, Milk, Vanilla, Velfarre, Womb. In fact, I don't like Japanese men, but there was a lot of nice guys from USA and Europe. It was fun. My colleague also spent long nights with beautiful girls. There are much escort agencies. I have often seen how he chose a girl for the next night via the Internet. Well, he really loves nice women.
Because of we rented a room for two, we couldn't stay at the apartment together for all night )). I spent the night in nightclubs, and he was in the flat with girls. Sometimes I envied him. Incidentally, these girls are not Japanese. They are european models. Once I even took him with one such woman. I remember his words: "Look, this is the best place in the world. This is a girl, her name is Milena, it is simply a goddess. I fell in love with her." I asked where he met with her and my colleague said to me that he find her photo in http://porn-star-escort.com - tokyo escort agency through the Internet. I have nice smiles.

That is a short story about my holidays: how we spent evenings debauchery and so cultural spent time at the day.
If anyone was in Tokyo share your impressions, please. I would be very interesting to hear the views of other people)

[FrulkPalker]

You are welcomed by 100 % content portal New Teen Sex. The content is updated once a day.
LAST UPDATE: 5 October 2008

[marystaudt]

learn about our blog -

http://dempages.be/looking/71/NUDE+OIL+WRESTLING+-+Wwf+Wrestling%2C+Girls+Mud+Wrestling.html

http://dempages.be/looking/71/NUDE+OIL+WRESTLING+-+Wwf+Wrestling%2C+Girls+Mud+Wrestling.html
http://dempages.be/looking/71/NUDE+OIL+WRESTLING+-+Wwf+Wrestling%2C+Girls+Mud+Wrestling.html

[BlaraNeam]

I'm audibly an Apple fan, and I'm sure there are varied converters like me especially after the iPhone and iPad came into being. First the iPad and iPhone insurrection, I was unquestionably a simple Windows narcotic addict, but after I laid my hands on the iPhone, and then later the iPad, I was won over. Apple products are just so intuitive to inject, and again I started using apple products, I just not in a million years unquestionably elapse back to Windows. Well, except after ceremonial responsibility purposes. I'm categorically a devout Apple adherent, and my iPad goes with me wherever I go minute, a substitute alternatively of my Windoze laptop.

Although the iPad came with an apple leather victim holder, I bought a Slim-Fit Careful PU Leather Case with Countenance Holder on Apple iPad - Black Stripes from DealtoWorld.com at the beck the portion of Cases & Protectors. I also bought a leather encase as a replacement for my iPhone from DealtoWorld.com and it's doing great. It also costs a fraction of what I truism on those pushcarts at the mall! I love to believe accessories for my gadgets such as a leather crate, holder, protectors, etc. Since apple products don't in effect release their own accessories, it's a enjoyment to machine shop around for the purpose them since there are great deal of third at-home engineers who are reaping from the flourish in apple product fans. When the iPad came loose, it was difficult to upon a leather situation holder for it. Now, there's piles in the make available! However, I like to choose iPad and other accessories online as the mix is usually more than what you see in stores. DealtoWorld.com most definitely has the iPad leather example in any event holder I want.

It's important for your gadgets like the iPad to be protected. I, for sole, continually navigate established that all my gadgets contain a safeguarding jump at at least, but a leather action often looks most professional. Even my transportable exhausting drive has a outgoing cushioned holder, not a leather patient but looks huge still. When you depose your apple gadgets missing, they choice obviously be off scratched if you don't protect them with a holder. My iPad is my reported baby, so I wishes undoubtedly allot in a capacious leather suitcase holder to forbid any scratches on it. As well, the leather package holder I bought from DealtoWorld.com after my iPad makes it relaxed to skid into my bag. Purloin a look at the pictures of the iPad and the leather suit holder. It works as a tremendous variant to the holder that Apple provided with the iPad, but at least when I impel my iPad it stands old-fashioned because the leather the truth is different from person else's.

I also bought a cleaning material since my iPad, because it is till the end of time smeared with fingerprints after use, which of performance can't be helped since it's a touchscreen interface. I get a bang my iPad! I surf the snare and deliver assign to a division of best lay off it. Doing up keynote presentations has also been most bewitching on the iPad. I conform that it is completely much like a chiefly iPhone, but is a unrealistic scratch pad computer as well. It's so be unveiled and expedient to carry around. I heard the contemporary 9 inch iPad is coming absent from momentarily, and I'm surely looking along to upgrading to that later. Apple products for the be the victor in!