Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8776
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by nicole » 27 Jun 2017, 15:13

lunchstealer wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
Shem wrote:
JasonL wrote:I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?
A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.
So then this isn't meant to replace most/all current forms of assistance? Because I thought the whole idea of assistance in general was to enable those with no means to survive, i.e. provide food and shelter. If UBI won't cover that, then I would think it would have to be on top of what's there already. No?
The Finns are still getting some benefits -- public schools and universal health care, e.g. I would say $8k on top of that is more than enough to live on, as Hugh says, if you want to.
Is that $8k PPP or $8k exchange?
Exchange. I couldn't find a super-recent PPP figure and the ones I did find were within about 10% of nominal.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 15:20

I found 2016 ppp finland euro / dollar at .905. That gets you $7500 or so annualized 2016 dollars. These numbers are funny to look at with the euro cratering against the dollar.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 15:38

JasonL wrote:I'll say for the bazillionth time there is no historical analog for doing this.
And I'll say for the bazillionth time that neither is there any historical analog for people being content with just the bare minimum, in a world filled with far more than that. ["Bazillion" is, of course, a hyperbolic statement, but I gather you've abandoned your longstanding objection to that particular rhetorical tactic?]
Disability fraud on a large scale.
People on disability are forbidden to work and make more money; that would not be an issue with a UBI.
The behavior of trust fund kids.
Trust fund kids have far more than merely "bare bones necessities are guaranteed, but they need to work if they want any luxuries or just-for-fun stuff beyond that."
The behavior of the extended families of my fathers 2nd and third wives. Everything my my sister says. Everything all of her friends say.
If I recall correctly, your trainwreck of a sister is being supported by a husband who makes enough money to cover far more than just the bare minimum for her to get by.
If people can afford some beer and weed, there are lots and lots of people who wouldn't bother doing anything annoying by their own account.
Even beer and weed are more than "bare minimum necessities," especially given the prices they generally sell for.

FWIW, I'd've been making very similar arguments 100 years ago, against someone who swore this newfangled "Communist" philosophy would work out fine (and there were not yet any actual historical examples of failed Communist governments to point to): "Your idea is wrong because it would require the bulk of people to put the common good ahead of their own personal self-interest, all the time, and human nature does not work that way. Please, if you want to convince me Communism would work out, point to anything in history thus far which suggests people actually are wired that way." And the diehard Marxist believer would be unable to offer any examples to support their assertion about how human nature works, just as you've been unable to offer any examples to support your assertion about how human nature works: you both think that so long as absolute destitution isn't on the table, the bulk of people will be content with that and never want anything more.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 15:52

The things about history you seem to think matter to this argument from my view are completely irrelevant to a condition of guaranteed income. There is a fish market full of red herring, so I'll just say all of it is inapt. You keep repeating the same thing but please understand to me you are insisting you have evidence for something I don't see at all. People haven't been satisfied in the past in part because there was no option for infinite leisure time without work of some kind.

Then, too, you either don't understand or are willfully disregarding the examples I've given that I think are apt. People are willing to engage in disability fraud in large numbers, that means they are willing to take extraordinary steps to get a guaranteed income that prevents them from working. Why am I supposed to believe they will be more interested in working the same kinds of jobs once they don't even have to commit fraud to get the check? They fled the job market.

Same with the 25 year olds not looking for work. I'm supposed to believe that situation is improved or even indifferent if we start cutting them checks to just sit there?

And, it should go without saying, but since you seem so shocked by the idea - paying people to do a thing gets you more of that thing. UBI is payment to do nothing.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 8776
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by nicole » 27 Jun 2017, 15:58

JasonL wrote:
And, it should go without saying, but since you seem so shocked by the idea - paying people to do a thing gets you more of that thing. UBI is payment to do nothing.
This, though, I would dispute. SSDI is truly paying people to do nothing. UBI is not. UBI is paying them for existing.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"This is why I carry a shoehorn.” -jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 16:01

That's a distinction I don't get (I get the SSDI comparison, but not the idea that UBI doesn't have an effect).

Has the cost of hours spent in no economically productive activity gone up, down, or remained the same in a UBI regime?

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17070
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Hugh Akston » 27 Jun 2017, 16:03

JasonL wrote:That's a distinction I don't get (I get the SSDI comparison, but not the idea that UBI doesn't have an effect).

Has the cost of hours spent in no economically productive activity gone up, down, or remained the same in a UBI regime?
SSDI penalizes you for working at all. UBI only drops off after you pull in some significant income.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 16:07

I understand that distinction. I agree SSDI is way worse per person using it.

If we look at a world without UBI vs a world with UBI, the cost of leisure is lower and, critically the program is universal.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 16:54

JasonL wrote:The things about history you seem to think matter to this argument from my view are completely irrelevant to a condition of guaranteed income. There is a fish market full of red herring, so I'll just say all of it is inapt. You keep repeating the same thing but please understand to me you are insisting you have evidence for something I don't see at all.
Yet you're not even insisting you have evidence; you're simply making statements of faith "People WILL behave thusly. No, I can't offer examples why; just trust me when I say they will."
Then, too, you either don't understand or are willfully disregarding the examples I've given that I think are apt.
Except your examples are not apt; at best they're exaggerations and at worst they're strawmen. "Rich trust fund kids" held up as examples of bare-bones UBI recipients? Your sister being supported by her prosperous husband and the big inheritance she recently received? Upthread a few days ago you even posed a hypothetical "imagine people receive 75 percent of a Fortune 500 salary without working." Whenever a UBI proponent mentions "bare-bones existence," somehow you interpret that as "luxury existence," then argue against it on those grounds. Trust-fund heirs! Women whose husbands make upper-middle-class incomes! 75 percent of a rich-guy salary for no effort at all!
People are willing to engage in disability fraud in large numbers, that means they are willing to take extraordinary steps to get a guaranteed income that prevents them from working.
Or -- given the reality of the welfare/social safety net actually in existence right now -- people are willing to commit "disability fraud" because it's effectively the only poor-person assistance currently available. When even food stamp benefits for childfree people are limited to three months, after which point people are cut loose and effectively told "If you can't afford to eat, tough shit," it should not be surprising to discover that the surplus population is not willing to quietly die and get out of the way. IOW: when the only poor-person assistance available is for those deemed "disabled," don't be surprised to discover an increase in thenumbr of poor people claiming they're "disabled."
Why am I supposed to believe they will be more interested in working the same kinds of jobs once they don't even have to commit fraud to get the check? They fled the job market. ... And, it should go without saying, but since you seem so shocked by the idea - paying people to do a thing gets you more of that thing. UBI is payment to do nothing.
As Nicole already explained, this is wrong: disability is "payment to do nothing," and indeed "doing something" gets one's disability benefit cut off. UBI simply pays people to exist, with no penalties for going ahead and "doing something" on top of that.

Whether you are unwilling to see this distinction, or genuinely unable to see it for some reason, I genuinely don't know at this point.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 17:05

The cost of leisure has been decreased once you implement the UBI.

Overall, there's no point in you and I continuing this about why I think people will do X and you think Y. We disagree. Set at a low enough level, our differences are small on that point anyway. Doesn't mean I endorse the idea though. There's still the cost and persistence of the program which to me make it a non starter at scale for many years.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 17:21

JasonL wrote:The cost of leisure has been decreased once you implement the UBI.
The cost of leisure has already been decreased by world historical standards: even the lowest-income American today need not work two-thirds of a day to afford a single loaf of bread (as was the case in Elizabethan England, which was considered a prosperous country at the time). No need to collect two or three years' wages to afford a single set of clothing sufficient to keep one from freezing in the winter. Yet nobody settles for that one loaf of daily bread plus one set of clothes, then spend the rest of their time basking in leisure.
Overall, there's no point in you and I continuing this about why I think people will do X and you think Y. We disagree.
FWIW, I'd also oppose a UBI if I viewed it through the same straw lenses you do: should all Americans be guaranteed an unearned income equivalent to a rich trust-funder kid? Hell no! Should all Americans receive 75 percent of a Fortune 500 salary sans any effort? No way. Should everybody get an unearned income equivalent to what your sister gleans from her husband plus her recent inheritance? Definitely not.

I understand why you oppose those proposals -- for the same reasons I'd oppose them, no doubt -- I just can't figure out what makes you incapable of digesting that's not what UBI proponents are proposing, nor even grok the fundamental difference between "modern disability payments, which literally forbid recipients from working to earn any additional income" versus "UBI payments, which would not."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2017, 17:39

JasonL wrote:The cost of leisure has been decreased once you implement the UBI.
Decreased relative to what?

Under the UBI leisure comes at the opportunity cost of time that could have been spent working for money. With means-tested benefits, working for money is already punished, so the cost of leisure is already low.

If you're talking about the fact that the marginal utility of income goes down as you have more money, I agree that a generous UBI carries that hazard, and I join you in condemning whichever grylliaders are calling for a generous UBI. Those people (whoever they are) need to just GTFO already.

I could contemplate a UBI in the ballpark of $8k/year, geographically adjusted to local cost of living. The real problem is getting people to also agree that it comes with (1) substantially less generous disability benefits, (2) very strictly limited additional benefits for kids, and (3) no minimum wage. Too many vested interests would oppose that.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 17:41

Yeah there's no point.

To put numbers on it. I could live with under $8k on incentive grounds. HHS puts single person poverty at $12,060. Im getting pretty nervous there.

I oppose flatly anything above that on incentive grounds.

I oppose even those on cost and persistence and incrementalism grounds.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2017, 17:49

I share your nervousness about the segment of the population that really, really, REALLY doesn't want to work. What I wonder is if we make things worse rather than better with the perverse incentives of means-tested benefits, the large bureaucracy used to supervise recipients and try (often unsuccessfully) to shepherd them out of the system, and the medicalization of chronic poverty and shiftlessness via SSDI. Maybe it makes more sense to strip away the perverse incentives, unburden the healthcare system, stop spending so much on the bureaucracy, and leave it to the handful of more positive figures in their lives to harangue them into working at least part-time.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 19:41

thoreau wrote:I share your nervousness about the segment of the population that really, really, REALLY doesn't want to work. What I wonder is if we make things worse rather than better with the perverse incentives of means-tested benefits, the large bureaucracy used to supervise recipients and try (often unsuccessfully) to shepherd them out of the system, and the medicalization of chronic poverty and shiftlessness via SSDI. Maybe it makes more sense to strip away the perverse incentives, unburden the healthcare system, stop spending so much on the bureaucracy, and leave it to the handful of more positive figures in their lives to harangue them into working at least part-time.
Yeah, I daresay a huge percentage of that population that "really, really, REALLY" doesn't want to work can more accurately be described as "doesn't want to work under our current system, where working will leave them worse off than before." If a disability check were the only thing keeping me from being hungry and homeless, and I knew that doing any work at all would kick me off disability, I wouldn't want to work either. If I had a kid to worry about, it would be even worse.

But I daresay that, in a world with a bare-bones (NOT "trust-fund kid" or "75% of a Fortune 500 paycheck" or "Jason's sister with the rich husband") UBI, even the lazy Jim Anchower-types will at least want to work enough to earn beer and weed money, the latest video games, concert tickets when their favorite bands come to town (or state-fair tickets if the bands play there), a car of their own plus gas to put in it rather than relying on shank's mare or the city bus to get around, and similar non-necessary luxuries.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2017, 19:56

Jennifer wrote:
thoreau wrote:I share your nervousness about the segment of the population that really, really, REALLY doesn't want to work. What I wonder is if we make things worse rather than better with the perverse incentives of means-tested benefits, the large bureaucracy used to supervise recipients and try (often unsuccessfully) to shepherd them out of the system, and the medicalization of chronic poverty and shiftlessness via SSDI. Maybe it makes more sense to strip away the perverse incentives, unburden the healthcare system, stop spending so much on the bureaucracy, and leave it to the handful of more positive figures in their lives to harangue them into working at least part-time.
Yeah, I daresay a huge percentage of that population that "really, really, REALLY" doesn't want to work can more accurately be described as "doesn't want to work under our current system, where working will leave them worse off than before."
Oh, I've seen enough to know that there are plenty of people out there who would do damn near anything to avoid work, even if we took away means-testing disincentives.

I'm more interested in taking away penalties for those who really do actively try to improve themselves. They'll try either way, but removing means-testing would help them, and removing the bureaucracy that means-tests them would also reduce the cost of subsidizing the genuinely shiftless.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 22234
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by JasonL » 27 Jun 2017, 20:20

Agree removing penalties for people working is good. Agree a very strict version of UBI is one way to do that. Disagree it is better than expanded EITC for that purpose. Disagree that the zone of concern is people who really really don't want to work. The zone of concern is people who strongly dislike the types of work they have to date been performing and who, to improve their condition materially into another type of job would have to undergo something pretty unpleasant such as relocation, new skills training, and possible identity adjustment (I'm a factory man, not no nurse!). The incentives at the margin for those people do not smoothly increment with each additional dollar. The opportunity of paid leisure is sitting there. They really really don't want to retrain, move, or think of themselves as the sort of person who does jobs that happen to be in demand. Those people, if you do this just wrong, have a way out of that pain I don't want to give them.

I also simply do not believe a specified low level of benefit would persist at low levels. "This is basic income for someone in the 1900's! Let's list the basic needs we don't seem to care about! Look at this baby!" Blah blah blah.

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6630
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by tr0g » 27 Jun 2017, 20:30

My objection to UBI has not changed: mission creep. Okay, here's your monthly UBI check. Do I care that 2 minutes after you got it, you blew it all on heroin and have no money for food? No. Them's the breaks. Make better choices, junkie. Does the rest of the world care that people (some of them children!) will starve under a UBI system? A great deal, I'm guessing. So 5 minutes after the first person starves to death under UBI, we'll have the usual suspects advocating for a revival of food stamps and WIC. Any system that doesn't try to force the recipients into "better choices" is dead in this country.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2017, 20:34

tr0g wrote:Any system that doesn't try to force the recipients into "better choices" is dead in this country.
Yep.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 20:42

tr0g wrote:My objection to UBI has not changed: mission creep. Okay, here's your monthly UBI check. Do I care that 2 minutes after you got it, you blew it all on heroin and have no money for food? No. Them's the breaks. Make better choices, junkie. Does the rest of the world care that people (some of them children!) will starve under a UBI system? A great deal, I'm guessing. So 5 minutes after the first person starves to death under UBI, we'll have the usual suspects advocating for a revival of food stamps and WIC. Any system that doesn't try to force the recipients into "better choices" is dead in this country.
Even under the system we have now, parents who neglect their kids that badly are not rewarded with expanded welfare benefits, but end up having their kids taken away and handed over to someone less-incompetent to raise. Plus, there's no reason to think private-charity food banks would disappear in a UBI world, either. (If anything, I suspect such food banks and food pantries would have even more to give their clients, due to a combination of "less people poor enough to become clients in the first place" and "more people prosperous enough to make at least occasional donations." Churches and Kid Scout troops will still do their canned-food drives and the like.)

Though in all seriousness, I would propose any UBI checks be administered every fortnight or even every week rather than once per month, in part to avoid the problem you mentioned.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17997
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by dbcooper » 27 Jun 2017, 20:54

What's the probability of the US getting a federal UBI program in the next 10 years? Must be close to zero, I assume. Universal healthcare seems much more likely. The fight with the AMA and hospitals over that will be quite something.

Another question about UBI: how much bureaucracy can it really eliminate?
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25922
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2017, 22:03

dbcooper wrote:What's the probability of the US getting a federal UBI program in the next 10 years? Must be close to zero, I assume. Universal healthcare seems much more likely. The fight with the AMA and hospitals over that will be quite something.

Another question about UBI: how much bureaucracy can it really eliminate?
Truth.

Maybe our time would be better spent trying to get a sensible health care plan into the hands of whatever C-list celebrity is currently on Trump's speed dial. "Donald, I was talking to somebody who's so smart and they had an idea for a Trump Gold Card Plan. You should do this! Forget what the Republicans in the the Congressional Senate of Representatives are telling you, those guys know nothing and they don't even like you. This Gold Card Plan, it's great."
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 22236
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2017, 23:04

thoreau wrote:
dbcooper wrote:What's the probability of the US getting a federal UBI program in the next 10 years? Must be close to zero, I assume. Universal healthcare seems much more likely. The fight with the AMA and hospitals over that will be quite something.

Another question about UBI: how much bureaucracy can it really eliminate?
Truth.

Maybe our time would be better spent trying to get a sensible health care plan into the hands of whatever C-list celebrity is currently on Trump's speed dial. "Donald, I was talking to somebody who's so smart and they had an idea for a Trump Gold Card Plan. You should do this! Forget what the Republicans in the the Congressional Senate of Representatives are telling you, those guys know nothing and they don't even like you. This Gold Card Plan, it's great."
On the downside, Alex Jones will tell Trump that all those sob stories you read about people with cancer who'll die for lack of treatment if Obamacare is repealed are false-flag actors who don't really exist. Plus they only got cancer because of their vaccinations anyway. And there's no such thing as a pre-existing condition.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2789
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Jasper » 28 Jun 2017, 08:31

Jennifer wrote: Except your examples are not apt; at best they're exaggerations and at worst they're strawmen.
lol
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22679
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

Post by Mo » 28 Jun 2017, 09:03

Re: trust fund kids

Is there any evidence they work less than the average American? I had a trust fund kid on one of my prior teams and she came to work every day despite having the worst manager in the world. She was a bit unreliable with deadlines and kinda space cadety despite being smart, but some people are like that, yo. Heck, our trust fund kid in chief, despite his numerous faults, worked hard his whole life. Primarily on scamming people, but grifting ain't easy, yo. Even Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are working.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests