Wednesday, December 5, 2007

An Analysis of the FairTax

There is significant grassroots movement calling for implementation of the FairTax. FairTax supporters are numerous and enthusiastic, especially on the Internet. In contrast to many Internet-based grassroots movements, FairTax fans are generally polite and well mannered- no trolling chat rooms or spamming polls. Their points are usually thought out, and their goals (such as the abolition of the IRS) are appopiate. However, it is doubtful that the FairTax is actually a viable or practical tax solution.

The FairTax would repeal all federal taxes and replace it with one giant sales tax. FairTax supporters claim that the FairTax would abolish the IRS, simplify the tax code, and close the loopholes in our present plan. These are worthy goals to conservatives. Unfortunately, the FairTax is no way to achieve them. The FairTax almost certainly would not work.

Firstly, the usually tax rate given by FairTax supporters is incorrect. They claim it is 23%. The actual rate 30%. The FairTaxers arrive at this number by calculating the percentage of the sales tax in the total purchase, not the percent added on. For example, a coat that is $100 dollars now will will cost $130 dollars if the FairTax is implemented. 30 dollars, which is 23 percent of $130, would be added, therefore, say the FairTaxer's, the tax rate is 23%.

This is actually correct if the FairTax is compared to an income tax. But the FairTax usually bills itself as a sales tax, and claims that the tax rate is 23% on every dollar. This is inaccurate, and intentionally or not, is misleading. (Ramesh Ponnuru explains this at NRO).

Also, the claim that the FairTax would abolish the IRS is wrong. The FairTax would include a monthly "prebate", a government check that would cover the FairTaxes on essential goods and services. Now apart from the fact that it gives government the power to decide what is "essential", it would necessitate some Washington service to handle the monthly checks. The responsibility of this service would be revenue, particularly internal revenue. Sound familiar? The Internal Revenue Service would probably have a different name, but it would be the same old bureaucracy.

Fans of the FairTax may also want to consider the possibility of a black market arising in order to avoid taxes. After all, if all sales are taxed through the roof, many may opt for "unofficial" sales that would avoid taxes. In addition, it is inevitable that Congress would exempt at least some unnecessary things (perhaps charitable giving) from the sales tax. This would lead, assuredly, to many more exemptions. Special interest groups would get involved, and we would soon have our present corruption-riddled system back with us.

Of course, before we could even start to implement the FairTax, a Constitutional Amendment would be in order. The 16th amendment allows for an income tax. Since no one wants both an income tax and a FairTax (except maybe Hillary, who takes all positions on every issue just out of habit), the 16th amendment would have to be repealed. A Constitutional Amendment must pass both Houses of Congress by a two thirds majority, then be approved by the states with a three fourths majority vote. Considering that our two major political parties can't agree on even the most basic things, does anyone think that any proposal of this magnitude could get that sort of support?

What with "prebates", black markets, and Constitutional Amendments, the FairTax's complexity would make our present tax code look childishly simple by comparison. The FairTax is fatally flawed in many areas, making it fortunate that it is essentially impossible to implement.

25 Comments:

At December 5, 2007 at 1:03 PM , Blogger Beth said...

How about a flat tax? I think that would be the fairest tax of all!

 
At December 5, 2007 at 1:39 PM , Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

Beth, I agree 100%.

 
At December 5, 2007 at 1:52 PM , Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

Great Post Danny,

Graet explanation of this.


Somehow I knew this was going to cost us all something, and in the process if big corporations have to pay 30% tax, there will be layoffs and lost jobs.

Democrats never seem to understand the concept that raising taxes in any way hurts this Nations economy and the average working Joe.

I have grown wrather fond of my money and would like to keep most of it.

 
At December 5, 2007 at 11:45 PM , Blogger Ian said...

Yes, FairTax is a sales tax; but to compare it to the status quo (which it will/must replace), it's simply rendered in terms of a comparable rate - that's all there is to that! apples to apples. Duh.

Prices after FairTax would look similar to prices before FairTax - not 30% higher. This is because FairTax removes the cost of business income and payroll taxes currently embedded in prices. Economist Dale Jorgensen, Harvard University, was commissioned to find out what portion of prices were represented by costs for complying with the federal tax code. The figure he came up with, on average, was 22% at the retail level - essentially, a hidden consumption tax," on top of income tax and FICA.

The FairTax rate on new items would be 29.9% on prices - declining 20% to 30% - or 23% of the tax-inclusive price tag (comparable to how income tax is figured, i.e., parts of a total dollar earned). Eliminating income and payroll taxes on business, as FairTax does, reduces the cost of doing business and attracts competition to the market space - driving out excess profit.

In order to make FairTax a progressive consumption tax (such as that called for, recently, by Warren Buffett), a citizen family is simply sent a monthly consumption [tax] allowance, called a "prebate." This prebate is intended to reimburse taxes on necessities without need for record-keeping or reporting. Moreover, the direct payment bypasses the creation of a tax code specifying exempted products and services around which a lobbyist industry could grow. The amount is variable, based on family size, and is equal to the FairTax rate on poverty-level spending, as defined by the Dept. of Commerce. At present, a family of one would receive ~$200/month, a family of four, ~$500/month. Thus, the effective FairTax rate, paid by citizens, will never equal the full 23%. Of course, U.S. visitors (legal, and illegal) will pay the full FairTax when they purchase anything new, at retail (used goods do not carry the tax). Under FairTax, working families will have their whole paychecks (minus any state or local income tax withholding) plus their monthly family prebate.

Additionally, citizens will no longer have to spend the average 50 hours per year preparing their federal tax returns. They will tend to use credit less, and they'll save more. Saving more will make it easier to purchase a home, at a lower interest rate and monthly payment. (Thus, mortgage deductions will no longer be applicable, because income will no longer be the basis for taxation.)

But is the FairTax fairer? To provide substantive answers, Prof.'s Kotlikoff and Rapson (10/06) have concluded,

"...the FairTax imposes much lower average taxes on working-age households than does the current system. The FairTax broadens the tax base from what is now primarily a system of labor income taxation to a system that taxes, albeit indirectly, both labor income and existing wealth. By including existing wealth in the effective tax base, much of which is owned by rich and middle-class elderly households, the FairTax is able to tax labor income at a lower effective rate and, thereby, lower the average lifetime tax rates facing working-age Americans.

"Consider, as an example, a single household age 30 earning $50,000. The household’s average tax rate under the current system is 21.1 percent. It’s 13.5 percent under the FairTax. Since the FairTax would preserve the purchasing power of Social Security benefits and also provide a tax rebate, older low-income workers who will live primarily or exclusively on Social Security would be better off. As an example, the average remaining lifetime tax rate for an age 60 married couple with $20,000 of earnings falls from its current value of 7.2 percent to -11.0 percent under the FairTax. As another example, compare the current 24.0 percent remaining lifetime average tax rate of a married age 45 couple with $100,000 in earnings to the 14.7 percent rate that arises under the FairTax."

Further, per Jokischa and Kotlikoff (circa 2006? ),

"...once one moves to generations postdating the baby boomers there are positive welfare gains for all income groups in each cohort. Under a 23 percent FairTax policy, the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 enjoy a 13.5 percent welfare gain. Their middle-class and rich contemporaries experience 5 and 2 percent welfare gains, respectively. The welfare gains are largest for future generations. Take the cohort born in 2030. The poorest members of this cohort enjoy a huge 26 percent improvement in their well-being. For middle class members of this birth group, there's a 12 percent welfare gain. And for the richest members of the group, the gain is 5 percent."

The current income-based tax system is also more expensive to run, because of the manner in which the tax code is gamed by politicians and lobbyists. Politicians realize great power, and attract constituencies for support, by granting tax favors (i.e., credits, deductions, exemptions) through lobbyists. Fully, fifty-three percent (that's 53%!) of Washington lobbyists are there because of the tax code! The tax code is continually changing, making it more complex and more difficult to understand. And, the salaries and costs of tax lawyers and lobbyists end up in the prices of the products and services we buy. Additionally, the time and money required to keep records, file returns, report for audits, retain accounting and legal help, pay IRS penalties and interest, is time and money lost for other productive, or recreational, activities. Depriving us of the use of withheld wages increases our expenses through zero-interest withholding, inflation, return preparation time, and interest paid on credit cards and loans that would not have been necessary without withholding. Summed up, the cost of tax compliance, nationally, has been estimated to range anywhere from $265 billion to twice that amount, depending on the extent to which tax-avoidance consultation is sought and utilized. These expenses constitute a substantial hidden tax which is incomprehensible to the average working American. And the FairTax gets rid of all of it for most Americans, and most of it for business owners.

It is our belief that government should serve We, the People, with a fair tax system that will not enable politicians to pit poor against rich (creating barriers to achieve wealth, adding tax penalty to the sacrifices made for personal success). Nor do we want politicians to continue using business as a tool to hide taxes from consumers, often villifying business, which discourages entrepreneuship, personal achievement, economic growth. Liberty and happiness depends on restoring the fruits of labor to those who produce them. We believe that the tax function should align with economic growth, not against it, that government should be paid for in the same manner as working Americans - when, and because, something is sold.

As things stand at present, Americans labor under nothing less than tax slavery, having our wages confiscated every working hour, as reflected in our paychecks every two weeks.

Many of us have joined FairTax.org in order to build a national movement to free ourselves, our family pocketbooks, and our businesses from confiscation of income, and punishment of productivity. And this we say to our federal representatives, "Either scrap the code and enact the FairTax, or we intend on replacing you with someone who will."

(Permission is granted to reproduce in whole or part. - Ian)

 
At December 5, 2007 at 11:50 PM , Blogger Ian said...

And, the "flat" tax won't stay flat very long. Consider this excellent rebuttal of Bruce Bartlett, republished from 1999 in the face of a re-emergent Bartlett steeped in absurdity and misrepresentation about the FairTax. He put his "FairTax was a scientology plot" rubbish up at OpinionJournal.com, WSJ, and The New Republic where he was roundly critiqued as quite unprofessional (this despite his long-term conservative economics, having served as an economic adviser to Reagan! Dumbfounding!)


(Paraphrased) Reply by Dan R Mastromarco (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown, principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org) to:

"A National Sales Tax Doesn’t Add Up" by Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999

Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I'd like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.

For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a "money machine"). Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka "subtraction method"[ H-R ] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side. Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings. Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the "flat tax" and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that its DNA characterizes it as being.

Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal). Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn't), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn't). In the next breath, he "throws his arms around" the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.

An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times. Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes. Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.

While some have even suggested that hey are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.

Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn't mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other. If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have much material with which to honestly do so:

• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don’t understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, “tax bill”


FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences. The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.

Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them. The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we're killing ourselves!

Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.

( Source May republish in whole or part. - Ian)

 
At December 6, 2007 at 6:34 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

I'll go one step further! I say how about a Flat Tax in its purest sense?!!

Not as a percent of one's income but rather a flat dollar amount across the board?

I mean that is if we want to be "fair".

In terms of real dollars, an assumed flat rate of 9% on $300,000is certainly more than 9% of $50,000 is it not?

 
At December 6, 2007 at 6:37 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Additionally, I should add that any potential gains via Huckabee's wont for a Fair Tax (while it would be better than our current tax code) would be completely negated by the myriad of his disasterously and fiscally liberal policies of which he was a proponent of while governor of Arkansas.

 
At December 6, 2007 at 7:02 AM , Blogger Ian said...

Huckabee used to be a "flat" taxer, when it came to tax reform. Then he heard about FairTax, and actually took a trip to Houston to meet with Americans for Fair Taxation (FairTax.org). He immediately understood what this could mean for Americans, and America.

What's wrong with the "flat" tax was articulated well in this rebuttal to a 1999 Bruce Bartlett diatribe against a national retail sales tax (FairTax), resurrected recently in the face of yet more castigation of same by Bartlett. It's informative.

(Paraphrased) Reply by Dan R Mastromarco (LL.M., Taxation, Georgetown, principal in the Argus Group, adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, International Management Program, and research consultant to Americans for Fair Taxation - FairTax.org) to:

"A National Sales Tax Doesn’t Add Up" by Bruce Bartlett, December 29, 1999

Many engaged in true tax reform find Bartlett-type attacks exasperating, if not embarrassing. I'd like to convey perspective of both flat taxers and sales taxers who believe that such attacks are counterproductive, but first provide some political history by which to frame said perspectives.

For years Conservatives have posited that a VAT is bad policy (when liberals were discussing it), fearing it would become additional to an income tax (it was called a "money machine"). Circa 1980, conservative intellectuals touted Hall-Rabushka "subtraction method"[ H-R ] VAT which taxed business value added at the business side and labor value added at the labor side. Unlike European VATs (identical in scope), H-R became favorite of Dick Armey and Steve Forbes. It eliminated steeply progressive tax rates and tax on savings. Because of the prior VAT criticisms, H-R was packaged as the "flat tax" and is sold as an income tax to this day, rather than the VAT that its DNA characterizes it as being.

Some conservative commentators have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment and for the adoption of the flat tax, (despite the fact that it is styled as a direct tax and could not be adopted with such repeal). Mr. Bartlett has called the national sales tax [ie, the FairTax] a VAT (which it isn't), castigated VATs as evil, and has said that sales taxes have become VATs in Europe (which they didn't). In the next breath, he "throws his arms around" the flat tax (which is a VAT). He quotes Bill Gale that the [FairTax] would have to be imposed at 60 percent, but glaringly fails to recognize that if the two bases are the same, he would have to impose that rate for the flat tax to be revenue neutral. In truth, all economists know that the two plans differ NOT in economic effect or base, but in administration.

An income tax taxes savings and investment multiple times. Both flat tax and FairTax are neutral as to savings and investment, tax income only once, and are both consumption taxes. Both are single rate taxes, have nearly the same base, and would improve the U.S. standard of living. Neither redistributes wealth.

While some have even suggested that hey are the same plans under different names, the flat tax taxes value added at each stage in the production process, but the FairTax prefers to tax it when it is added up at the end and eliminate the need to make everyone a taxpayer and collector.

Substantive commonalities between the flat tax and FairTax doesn't mean that there are NO key political and policy distinctions that could be exploited in pitting one against the other. If FairTax supporters wanted to retaliate in response to the Bartlett-type critique, they would have much material with which to honestly do so:

• The flat tax will make small firms and farmers pay the tax even if they have no profit
• The flat tax is opposed by many small business groups
• The flat taxers implicitly support big government by disguising even more of the overall tax burden as the current law
• The flat tax has been kicking around for nearly 20 years
• The flat tax makes everyone a taxpayer and collector, while the FairTax exempts 115 million filers [2000 figure] from ever having to deal with the IRS
• The flat tax is regressive, but the FairTax would enable everyone to keep his full paycheck.
• The flat tax has not only stalled, it has lost public and Congressional support.
• The FairTax is instantly understood, while even some proponents of the flat tax don’t understand it
• There are no transition rules developed for the flat tax and they would be very difficult to craft
• The flat tax taxes exports and relieves imports from tax
• The flat tax confuses tax reform with temporary tax reduction and makes both twice as hard
• The flat tax retains the entire income tax apparatus which erodes as quickly as you can say, “tax bill”


FairTaxers could advance these truthful points without resorting to bigotry associated with a cultic religious organization. However, for the most part, FairTax supporters have chosen not to attack the flat tax, but rather accentuate the commonalities between the plans - despite the above-noted differences. The reason is that, in the battle for tax reform, the real enemy is our current system.

Income tax advocates look down upon the articles of Bruce Bartlett with smug chortling, as Bruce is doing their work for them. The IRS and the liberals who want an income tax to ensure (1) taxes can be raised without the American people knowing it, and (2) wealth can be redistributed from the middle class to the poor, do not even need to fight us - we're killing ourselves!

Perhaps Mr. Bartlett believes that the flat tax will help elect Republicans, effect tax reform, and provide tax cuts; however, the real effect of his criticism is to divide conservatives, to delay serious national consideration of tax reform, and to fertilize the roots of the income tax.

( Source May republish in whole or part. - Ian)

 
At December 6, 2007 at 8:46 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

no tax and free health care. vote for King Hillary Clinton.

 
At December 6, 2007 at 9:07 AM , Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

thanks for the enlightenment Daniel and happy Chaunukah and holiday season to u as well!..:)

 
At December 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

Hey anonymous. It's unfortunate that in your apparent infinite wisdom, you've failed to become cognizant of the fact that there's no such thing as "free" healthcare.

 
At December 6, 2007 at 2:08 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who says there is no such thing as free healthcare Mr. Soapboxgod... have you seen one.

 
At December 6, 2007 at 3:29 PM , Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

Allen (I think), if you want free health care, go to Norway. There is be free health care, as long as you don't mind waiting a while to get it. Plus the system will go bankrupt eventually. I know you are kidding (offline, Allen here hates Hillary), but there are a lot of people who think the way you say you do here.

P.S. Actually Norway's healthcare isn't free its prepaid.

 
At December 6, 2007 at 5:46 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

daniel ruwe,
I do not know who you are talking about, I am a liberal from NV and will stand behind what i have said about Hillary, healthcare and taxes. I do, however, appreciate your civility and the time you have put into this blog. It shows a real sense of independence and character.

Thank you,
Susan

 
At December 6, 2007 at 6:32 PM , Blogger Daniel Ruwe said...

Susan, if you are a real liberal, how come you told us to vote for "King Hillary"? I'm not doubting you, but am curious.

 
At December 7, 2007 at 5:47 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

You're missing the point anonymous. There is no such thing as a "free" anything (healthcare, coffee, donut, etc.). Costs are incurred to produce anything. Things don't simply just come about out of thin air.

Take the day off blogging and responding to blogs and do yourself a favor and go pick up Nobel Prize winning author Milton Friedman's book, quite appropriately titled "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

 
At December 7, 2007 at 5:54 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At December 7, 2007 at 6:45 AM , Blogger Name: Soapboxgod said...

And Susan, I don't know specifically what you've uttered with respect to Hillary, healthcare, and taxes. But, if I've correctly assumed you're an advocate of a universal healthcare plan, let me say this:

Any ill conceived perception of healthcare being your "right" fails miserably to exist as an actual right once you expect me to pay for it. Rights do not coerce, compulse, or intimidate another individual in their attainment. You have no "right" to healthcare at my expense and enslavement.

What you do have is a "right" to pursue healthcare at your own expense.

As an individual, I am a end in myself. I am not a means to the ends of others.

 
At November 5, 2014 at 4:48 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

louis vuitton outlet, coach purses, prada outlet, tiffany and co jewelry, nike shoes, red bottom shoes, longchamp handbags, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, christian louboutin outlet, oakley vault, kate spade handbags, louis vuitton handbags, true religion outlet, louis vuitton outlet online, coach outlet, ray ban outlet, nike air max, burberry outlet online, polo ralph lauren outlet, kate spade outlet online, polo ralph lauren, coach outlet store online, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, cheap oakley sunglasses, coach outlet, true religion, christian louboutin, longchamp outlet online, burberry outlet online, michael kors outlet online, michael kors outlet store, michael kors outlet online, tory burch outlet, michael kors outlet, chanel handbags, gucci handbags, michael kors outlet online, nike free, louis vuitton outlet, michael kors outlet online, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin shoes, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, prada handbags

 
At November 5, 2014 at 4:51 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

nike blazer pas cher, lacoste pas cher, timberland, north face, air max, guess pas cher, nike free, air jordan, sac louis vuitton, air max pas cher, hollister, michael kors canada, lululemon, barbour, abercrombie and fitch, burberry pas cher, hermes pas cher, vans pas cher, north face pas cher, nike air max, sac vanessa bruno, chaussure louboutin, mulberry, nike roshe run, ralph lauren pas cher, louis vuitton, louis vuitton pas cher, sac michael kors, converse pas cher, nike free pas cher, oakley pas cher, ralph lauren, longchamp, new balance pas cher, hollister, nike roshe, louis vuitton uk, tn pas cher, scarpe hogan, true religion jeans, nike air force, longchamp pas cher, michael kors uk, ray ban pas cher, ray ban uk, true religion outlet, nike air max

 
At November 5, 2014 at 4:54 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

marc jacobs outlet, beats headphones, canada goose, rolex watches, abercrombie and fitch, celine handbags, new balance outlet, instyler ionic styler, ugg boots, reebok shoes, roshe run, uggs on sale, ghd, north face jackets, nike huarache, valentino shoes, vans outlet, ugg outlet, p90x workout, ugg soldes, mont blanc pens, chi flat iron, canada goose outlet, lululemon outlet, ferragamo shoes, longchamp, nfl jerseys, asics shoes, mac cosmetics, bottega veneta, north face outlet, herve leger, birkin bag, wedding dresses, insanity workout, soccer shoes, soccer jerseys, giuseppe zanotti, nike trainers, canada goose outlet, babyliss pro, canada goose outlet, hollister, jimmy choo shoes, uggs outlet, ugg, mcm handbags

 
At November 5, 2014 at 5:01 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

moncler, moncler outlet, hollister, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, moncler, louis vuitton canada, montre femme, moncler, canada goose pas cher, pandora uk, parajumpers outlet, thomas sabo uk, iphone 6 case, ray ban, lancel, oakley, swarovski jewelry, supra shoes, moncler, louboutin, uggs canada, coach outlet, swarovski uk, wedding dress, ugg, canada goose, baseball bats, canada goose, timberland shoes, replica watches, pandora jewelry, gucci, moncler, converse shoes, air max, karen millen, hollister clothing, juicy couture outlet, pandora charms, hollister canada, vans, converse, links of london uk, nike air max, moncler, toms outlet, canada goose uk

 
At November 5, 2014 at 9:56 PM , Blogger oakleyses said...

longchamp handbags, coach outlet store online, true religion jeans, louis vuitton outlet stores, coach factory outlet, ray ban sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp handbags, tory burch outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, oakley sunglasses cheap, coach purses, burberry outlet, air max, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, jordan shoes, louboutin, prada outlet, coach outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, tiffany and co, louboutin outlet, true religion jeans, longchamp outlet, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet, nike shoes, nike free, gucci outlet, louis vuitton outlet, kate spade handbags, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, tiffany and co, michael kors outlet, louboutin, louis vuitton handbags, louis vuitton, christian louboutin shoes, air max, oakley sunglasses, chanel handbags, prada handbags, michael kors outlet

 
At October 11, 2015 at 11:53 PM , Blogger 风骚达哥 said...

20151012 junda
coach factory outlet
Buy Kobe Shoes Online Discount
ralph lauren
michael kors bags
michael kors outlet
Canada Goose Jackets Outlet Online Sale
Michael Kors Outlet Online No Tax
coach outlet store online
louis vuitton outlet
celine
Abercrombie T-Shirts
Wholesale Authentic Designer Handbags
cheap jordans,jordan shoes,cheap jordan shoes
michael kors handbags
Louis Vuitton Clearance Sale
michael kors outlet
nfl jerseys
canada goose outlet
Official Coach Factory Outlet Online Sale
Michael Kors Online Outlet Shop
ugg boots sale
Louis Vuitton Handbags Discount Off
cheap uggs
ugg boots
Gucci Outlet Online Sale
ralph lauren uk
Louis Vuitton Outlet USA
michael kors outlet
tory burch outlet
Louboutin Red Bottoms Shoes Outlet

 
At April 26, 2016 at 6:28 PM , Blogger Xiaozhengm 520 said...

2016-4-27 xiaozhengm
tiffany and co
louis vuitton handbags
nike sb
abercrombie
adidas originals
nike sb shoes
toms outlet
tods outlet
ray ban wayfarer
cheap jordan shoes
coach outlet
gucci outlet
supra shoes
tory burch outlet
michael kors handbags
fitflops sale clearance
adidas trainers
ugg boots
coach outlet
mont blanc
rolex submariner
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
lebron james shoes
true religion
jordan 3
christian louboutin sale
oakley sunglasses
toms shoes
coach factory outlet
ray bans
christian louboutin shoes
michael kors online
replica watches
coach outlet
true religion jeans
louis vuitton
adidas shoes
adidas superstar
nike air jordan

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home