Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Dishonest Tax Rhetoric, Part 2 of 3

Yesterday, I began a three-part series about dishonesty in tax discussions. If I were committed to the notion of a Top Five All Time list, as in the great movie and book "High Fidelity," or to something like David Letterman's Top Ten list, it would be easy to fill any such list with tax dishonesties. Therefore, it is best to view this list as my excuse to vent about a small subset of the dishonest arguments that are made in the area of tax. (For my critique of conservatives' recent attempts to distort the notion of progressivity in taxes, see "Big Tax Lies" on this blog and my most recent guest column on FindLaw.)

Of course, the biggest dishonesty of all is the idea that taxes are bad, really bad, truly terribly bad all the time, which then leads to the idea that any particular tax that we are thinking about on a given day should be cut or eliminated. As one of the comments on yesterday's post also pointed out, the distributional effects of tax cuts are always ignored. (Bringing up distribution is "class warfare," another wonderfully Orwellian bit of dishonest tax rhetoric. But I digress.)

The silver medal goes to the claim that the proposed national sales tax (which, in what should really be a surprise to no one, its backers have inaccurately labeled the Fair Tax) can be imposed at a 23% rate and be revenue neutral.

Even though the proponents of this tax system have been pushing their plan for some time, this issue is actually somewhat timely, because half of the Republican candidates have apparently committed to signing the plan into law if Congress passes it. There is obvious wiggle room there, but that's beside the point. (On the Democratic side, if you consider Mike Gravel to be a candidate for president and not someone who keeps wandering on stage at inappropriate moments, it's worth noting that he is a huge fan of this tax plan.)

If you buy an item that costs $100 pre-tax under this proposal, the federal tax would be $30, for a total cost of $130. How is this not a 30% tax? Because $30 divided by $130 is 23%. This point has been hashed out in many places, but it's obvious that this is a deliberate intent to deceive. Yes, there are taxes that are measured on a tax-inclusive basis; but sales taxes have always been expressed as tax-exclusive rates. Anyone saying that this is a 23% tax has to know that listeners (and voters) will think that such a tax would add $23 to a $100 item, not $30.

This tax plan also comes with its own set of related dishonesties, including the claim that it will eliminate the IRS (which one can easily do by renaming the tax collection agency anything you like, such as the No Longer the IRS Tax Enforcement Department). There is also the small matter that the 30% rate (or the 23% rate, if you prefer) is only revenue neutral if you tax every item of consumption, including the federal government's own consumption. Yes, that's right. The federal government will charge itself sales tax on its consumption and then include that as part of its annual revenue.

Despite all of that, this example of tax dishonesty does not win the gold because the 23% number has at least some basis in reality. It is the difference between lying and intent to deceive. This should not be a meaningful difference, but it is enough of a difference to clear the way for tomorrow's big winner.


Sobek said...

I asked you a while back whether you've read Neal Boortz' Fair Tax book. Have you had a chance to get through it yet?

Neil H. Buchanan said...

I did read the FairTax book, but I decided not to review it on Dorf on Law (or anywhere else, for that matter), in part because it's too tedious to go through all of the distortions in the book, in part because even I have a limit to how much time I'm willing to spend being negative (and negative treatment is all that this book deserves), and in part because many others have already written good reviews of the book. Among the best was written by Joel Slemrod, an economist on the faculty at Michigan's business school. (See this url: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/books/review/13slemrod.html?ex=1186632000&en=43b86373c727ff48&ei=5070,) Joel is scrupulously honest, and he tried mightily to find positive things to say about the book. Ultimately, though, there's nothing good to say. The book wants its readers to believe that there is a free lunch, which conservatives always told me doesn't exist.

Sobek said...

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it when I get the chance.

I don't know about Congressman Jim Matheson, but Neal Boortz calls himself a libertarian, not a conservative. FWIW.

Neil H. Buchanan said...

Milton Friedman is the go-to guy on "no free lunch." I've always thought of him as both a libertarian and a conservative. I'm aware that there are key differences between pure libertarians and American conservatives, but for the current purpose, I'm not sure that the differences are germane. I could, of course, be wrong.

Readers might also find FactChek's review of the claims in The FairTax Book useful: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

egarber said...

Somebody correct me where I'm wrong but I think this is true about the national sales tax proposal:

1. Capital Gains taxes go away -- so stock trading literally becomes tax free.

2. The tax wouldn't apply to the sale of used items. If true, there's a huge market distortion potential people aren't talking about. I mean, if you can avoid paying any tax on a car that's a year old, why bother looking at new ones?

Again, I haven't thoroughly researched anything -- so I welcome corrections.

DavidFL10 said...

You wrote: If you buy an item that costs $100 pre-tax under this proposal, the federal tax would be $30, for a total cost of $130. How is this not a 30% tax?
If you have exactly $1000 to spend in a month, will you pay $300 (30%)in taxes or $230 (23%)?
You are correct that we need to discuss the tax as an exclusive number when we are adding it to the pretax price of a good or service. It is equally important to discuss the rate in the inclusive sense when discussing total amount of available spending.
I'd like to use an illustration if I may.
Please take a dollar bill out of your pocket.


Do it!


How much did you have to earn to have that dollar bill in your hand?

I am in the 15% income tax bracket. For me, I had to earn $1.27 to have a dollar in my hand.
For every $1.27 I earn, I pay $.19 in Federal income taxes and $.08 in payroll taxes.
Before I get to see it, $.27 is taken from every $1.27 I earn. So that means that for every dollar I get to spend, I had to earn $1.27.

Are you with me so far?

We have let the IRS get away with calling this the 15% bracket for way too many years.
I understand the math, but it still feels like I’m paying 27%.

With the FairTax, you will take home your entire paycheck. You pay no federal taxes at all until you have spent more than the poverty level on new goods and services, and then when you spend the next $1.00, $.23 of that dollar will be federal tax. When you spend $1.30, $.30 will be tax.

Nobody who can be taken seriously about the FairTax tries to hide these numbers at all. In fact, much of the literature specifically avoids using the word percent and instead says, “twenty-three cents out of every dollar you spend.”

The real question is why aren’t you devoting your energy to blasting the IRS for lying to us about the 15% tax rate?

DavidFL10 said...

You wrote: The federal government will charge itself sales tax on its consumption and then include that as part of its annual revenue.
Please consider federal spending today.
Under today's system, the Federal government witholds payroll and income taxes from the check of every federal employee before issuing that check.
When a corporation works under contract with the Federal government to perform a particular service, that contract amount will include enough to cover the corporate taxes, payroll taxes, and income taxes the company must pay in order to provide the service just as it must cover all other costs involved.
How is this any different than the Federal government explicitly charging itself a sales tax?

Tam said...


Those who use the 23% figure to advance the "fair tax" aren't making a claim about an effective tax rate. It's clear that they are sending the message that under the "fair tax," a 23% sales tax would apply, the plain-language meaning of which is thoroughly explained by Neil's post.

And indeed, the method for determining an effective tax rate on income under a consumption tax wouldn't be as straightforward as your proposed methodology. Most obviously, it would depend on the individual's consumption level relative to their income. Your approach tacitly assumes a 100% consumption rate, thus concealing the steeply regressive distributional effects.

gordon gekko said...

It strikes me that if the revenue neutral fair tax is 30%, then how much in hidden and embedded tax truly exists in every thing we buy.

That's more disgusting than the lying on the rate.


Dan M said...

Professor Dorf: In this recent blog, you state the FairTax makes four dishonest arguments (1) that the FairTax cannot be “imposed at a 23% rate and be revenue neutral,” (2) that “the federal government will charge itself sales tax on its consumption and then include that as part of its annual revenue,” (3) ”that referring to the tax as 30 percent tax exclusive is “an intent to deceive” because “sales taxes have always been expressed as tax-exclusive rates, and (4) that it will not eliminate the IRS.

As a tax lawyer who had some hand in writing this legislation, allow me to respectfully disagree and try to respond to your charges in seriatum.

First, the 23 percent tax-inclusive (30 percent tax exclusive) rate is revenue neutral. The FairTax.org group has spent a great deal of time and resources researching the plan with universities and think tanks throughout the nation. Doubt about the rate has been generated mainly by Bill Gale of the highly political Brookings Institution, who has been a critic of a consumption tax even though the models the Institution employs shows economic growth. At the truthful level, which often bears only a slim resemblance to the demagoguery, the rate does not matter. The FairTax has to have lower marginal rates since it considerably enlarges the tax base. The problem these critics have is that the FairTax discloses honestly the hidden taxes we all pay, including the hidden taxes resulting from compliance and deadweight economic loss and that puts downward pressure on the size of the government.

To begin with, nearly half of the U.S. population today see themselves as paying no income tax to the IRS and feels more pleasure than pain. More precisely, an estimated 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will report a zero or negative income tax liability in 2006. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who will file no income tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans – or 41 percent of the U.S. population – and will see themselves as fully unvested with the income tax, except for what the revenues can do for them.

But the hidden costs go well beyond the question of economic incidence versus legal incidence or the compliance burden which is also hidden. Every tax system distorts economic decisions, alters economic behavior, and retards economic output below that which otherwise would occur, resulting in what economists agree is the “deadweight loss” or “excess burden” of taxation. Deadweight loss is a hidden extraction cost of taxation – the machine that didn’t spin, the worker who didn’t show up – which represents a depletion in purchasing power perhaps more nefariously improvident than if the government had collected that resource. The average worker is of course completely anesthetized to the deleterious economic effects of a tax system that imposes a drag on economic growth, despite its nontrivial implications. The current system imposes such a severe relative drag on economic growth vis-à-vis the FairTax that it will reduce capital per unit of human capital is said to decline 5.0 percent over the course of the century for an 18.0 percent long-run decline in after-tax take-home pay – all of which is hidden. Jokisch, Sabine and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, “Simulating the Dynamic Macroeconomic and Microeconomic Effects of the FairTax,” NBER Working Paper, September, 2006.

However, allow me to directly address your charge. The fundamental confusion over the rate sown by Bill Gale has been clarified by recent analysis from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Laurence Kotlikoff of Boston University. Their analysis provides a sound methodology for estimating the FairTax base and computing the FairTax rate and goes into great detail about how the FairTax base can be derived from NIPA data. This work was a genuinely collaborative effort and each point was thoroughly discussed and agreed to by all authors, and indeed they discussed their study with Bill Gale. Those that determine higher rates – such as Bill Gale -- typically do not show their work or do show their work and it becomes apparent that they have invented their own loophole ridden sales tax to estimate.

I encourage you to review the Tax Notes article written by Drs. Kotlikoff and Trueck. Table 2 (p. 667) summarizes the tax base calculations. It places the FairTax base in 2007 at $11,244 billion or 81% of GDP. The base arithmetic would be identical for a BTT. The rate would only vary if fewer taxes were repealed.

We noted as well that Bill Gale debated David Trueck of BHI and Dr. Kotlikoff at a February 28, 2007 AEI event hosted by Alan Viard and given the same title as their Tax Notes piece, “Taxing Sales under the FairTax: What Rate Works?”. Their report, the published article and the debate demonstrates that the 23 percent tax-inclusive rate (which compares to current rate terminology for the taxes the FairTax replaces) specified by the Fair Tax Act (HR 25) is eminently feasible. In fact, they examined what led Gale (Gale, William, “The National Retail Sales Tax: What Would the Rate Have to Be?” Tax Notes, May 16, 2005) to reach a different – and incorrect – conclusion.

In particular, BHI and Dr. Kotlikoff estimate the FairTax base for 2007 to be $11.244 trillion. Implementing the FairTax rate of 23 percent on this base would generate federal tax revenues equal to $2.586 trillion – $358 billion more than the $2.228 trillion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2007 spending (assuming current levels) is projected to be $3.285 trillion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23 percent tax rate ($2.586 trillion) plus other federal revenues not repealed by the FairTax are estimated to yield $3.209 trillion – an amount $76 billion less than the CBO projection. The $76 billion figure is remarkably small when set against the more than 30 percent increase in the real value of discretionary spending since 2004. At 23 percent, non-Social Security spending in 2007 would be $2.102 trillion compared to $2.113 trillion in 2006, a difference of only $12 billion or less than one percent.

Second, it is a gross oversimplification to assert the “federal government will charge itself sales tax on its consumption and then include that as part of its annual revenue.” We acknowledge that increased revenue from taxing federal government consumption is exactly canceled by increased costs in the federal budget (as pointed out by the President’s Tax Panel members most of whom are now back ensconced in their lobbying firms lobbying for loopholes). What the tax panel neglected to point out is that this accounting method is used today by the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office.

The FairTax taxes all consumption, including government consumption, once. Today, the income tax and payroll tax are imposed on government consumption by taxing government employees and government contractors, making government pay more than it would in the absence of these taxes. This tax revenue appears in the receipts column in the federal budget, and the added expense is counted in the federal budget as spending (exactly canceling each other out). Fortunately, at least in this respect, the federal budget is honestly presented.

This tax revenue currently “paid” by the federal government is part of the tax revenue that the FairTax replaces. The federal government could artificially reduce both spending and tax revenues by exempting its workers and contractors from both income and payroll taxes and lowering wages paid to employees and amounts paid to contractors accordingly. Similarly, the FairTax taxes government consumption and, like today, the expense and revenue would be reflected on the federal budget as such. If the FairTax were to exempt government from tax and if federal spending were held constant, then the purchasing power and size of the federal government as a share of the economy would be dramatically increased. Further, not taxing government consumption would artificially make government consumption appear cheaper and promote increased consumption via government. So, though a wash, there would be negative economic consequences if the FairTax did not continue the practice of taxing government consumption. This is not deceitful any more than it is deceitful to tax government workers and the income of government service and good providers today.

Third, referring to the tax as 30 percent tax exclusive is actually honest not deceitful.
The FairTax is a 23 percent tax as measured by the same basis we measure all Federal taxes it replaces. I believe FairTax.org has noted in every opportunity -- on their Web site, in testimony and in public position papers, -- the FairTax rate can be considered to be 30 percent, but only if one measures the FairTax in a “tax-exclusive basis.” The fact that some our bloggers understood this shows they must be doing a good job of explaining the importance of this distinction.

Measuring the income tax in a tax-exclusive basis, would result in completely different rates of the income tax today as pointed out by one of your bloggers. For instance, that a middle-income taxpayer in the 25 percent income tax bracket today would be in a tax-exclusive tax bracket of 48.5 percent because they would need to earn $148.50 to have $100 to spend after income and payroll taxes. In fact, this taxpayer total tax-exclusive rate is 67.5 percent because we should consider employer payroll taxes. According to the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform’s final report, “Economists have found the burden of the employer’s portion of the payroll tax is largely passed on to employees in the form of lower wages” (page 29).

Somehow, income tax proponents never get around to mentioning that the tax-exclusive tax rate on middle-income taxpayers today is over twice the FairTax 30 percent tax-exclusive tax rate.

Since the FairTax is a replacement for income and payroll taxes, and they are both measured, reported, and quoted on a tax-inclusive basis, it is appropriate to use the 23 percent tax-inclusive rate when referencing the rate. To do otherwise would actually be misleading. In other words, apples should be compared to apples, not to oranges; and the tax-inclusive rate of the income and payroll taxes today should be compared to the tax-inclusive rate of the FairTax tomorrow.

To quote the tax panel’s final report, “Although tax-exclusive and tax-inclusive rates are both valid ways of thinking about tax rates, the easiest way to compare the retail sales tax rate to the state sales taxes paid by most Americans is to consider the tax-exclusive rate. On the other hand, it is appropriate to compare the retail sales tax rate with current income tax rates by utilizing the tax-inclusive rate” (page 208).

Fourth, you state the FairTax will not eliminate the IRS. FairTax.org has never claimed its exaction is voluntary: that compliance is as legally optional as a charitable contribution. The FairTax, like any tax system is by definition enforced by the power of the state. The relevant distinction is not whether one pays tax by his own volition or is coerced, but rather the degree to which the various plans suppress economic and civil liberties. By not taxing returns on capital or labor, savings, gifts, charitable contributions or education the FairTax impinges the least on economic freedom. Under the FairTax, taxpayers are no longer forced to choose between work or leisure, investment or consumption because the fruits of one’s labor or capital are not taxed until consumed and then taxed but once. By exempting expenditures before the poverty level from taxation, the necessities of life are untaxed. The taxpayer is given the maximum choice over legal ways to avoid and time taxation. Equally important, because the FairTax is least destructive of economic growth, it extracts a lower proportion of the return to work or savings than any competing plan.

FairTax supporters do not prevaricate by claiming the IRS would be dismantled. The IRS is literally eliminated under the bill and the records destroyed. Legally, state sales tax authorities, most of which already collect state sales taxes (in the 45 states that have them), will collect the FairTax with another line on the tax return requiring only a small oversight bureau to monitor the states. But more importantly, it is what the IRS represents that is eliminated.

For those who would like answers to any of these questions, log on to the FairTax.org web site. You may find most of your answers there.

DavidFL10 said...

You put my name at the top of your post, reiterated Neil's points, but failed to respond to any point I made.
If anyone, supporter or detractor says that the FairTax will impose a 23% sales tax on a single item, or to any purchase, they are mistating the fact.
My point is that I often hear detractors say that if a person spends X amount in a year, they will be paying X time 30% in taxes, and that is also incorrect.
You accuse me of tacitly assuming a 100% spending rate. I have never done that. In fact, I beleive that the FairTax is set up as it is with used goods untaxed specifically because people of lesser means buy more used stuff (including appliances, cars and houses). I said nothing about effective tax rates under a consumption tax.
If you're going to put my name at the top of a post, please respond to some of the points I made.
I would indeed like feedback on my actual points.

MARK said...

Fairtax doesnt slow down at stupid -- it goes right to insane.

Its crazier than anything the Mad Hatter ever said to Alice in Wonderland.

Fairtax pretends -- and knows better -- that it will just collect over a trillion dollars a year in taxes FROM the government.

Thats right -- just TAX the government. Make the governmetn PAY itself.

How frankly stupid can you possibly get? The government has to PAY it, so its not INCOME.

If those morons can put a sales tax on the government -- why can't we put an INCOME tax on the government.

No moron would say we could tax the government an INCOME tax. Where would it get the money to pay an INCOME tax?

The same frigging place it would get money to pay the SALES tax -- NOWHERE.

Fairtax leaders aren't stupid. THey are dishonest. And this isn't the only wacked out BS from Fairtax. Thats just the start.

Another tid bit of the Fairtax nonsense - Fairtax pretends 100 million American workers will take a voluntary cut in pay. They hid this for 10 years, and it finally came out. Fairtax insists -- like a lunatic insist the end of the world is coming -- that all prices will go down, so that the added sales tax (the highest sales tax on earth) won't raise prices.

What kind of moron can sit there an listen to someone say they will apply the highest sales tax on EARTH -- and prices won't go up?

Anyway, Fairtax plans for prices to come down -- by cutting WAGES. And this lunatic plan isn't even part of the HR25. Its just part of Fairtax bullship. Its just deep down in their fine print, of how this lunatic tax is gonna work.

Boortz says your employer will have to "readjust your pay figures
" by cutting your pay 30%-or whatever you used to pay in taxes,. Read his own words about it in Freerepublic. Google readjust your pay figures.

Unless your employer "readjust your pay figures"{ (cuts your pay -- cuts the pay of 100 million American workers) then prices don't go down.

This is CENTRAL to the lunatic farce of Fairtax -- 100 million workers taking a huge cut in pay.

Funny -- something so basic -- but they HIDE it.

Gee --- I wonder why?

Fairtax are a bunch of lying con artist.

They arent serious about getting this insane bill passed. Its a gimmick and they know it.

ITs been 15 years -- 23 million dollars -- and they can't even get a hearing in congress?

They don't want a hearing, they don't even want to talk about Fairtax anymore. Too many people know its a con job, bullship, and deceptive.

The Fairtax leaders have abandoned ship, and let the few lemming followers stay on the TItanic.

Boortz has quit banging the drum for Fairtax, Linder has hid under a rock somewhere, to find an excuse.

Its all bull.

Darn it -- I wish they had Congressional hearing on this, it would have been soooooo much fun to see.

路傑 said...

免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/

kutyhgvd said...

It is the knight noah which makes me very happy these days, my brother says knight gold is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually knight online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the knight online noah back and give me some cheap knight gold to play the game.

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,舞廳,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,理容院,日領,龍亨,學生兼差,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,

. said...

酒店喝酒,禮服店,酒店小姐,制服店,便服店,鋼琴酒吧,兼差,酒店兼差,酒店打工,伴唱小姐,暑假打工,酒店上班,日式酒店,ktv酒店,酒店,酒店公關,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,酒店上班,酒店打工,禮服酒店,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,台北酒店,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,禮服店 ,酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店小姐,經紀 彩色爆米花,經紀人 彩色爆米花,酒店傳播,酒店經紀 彩色爆米花,爆米花,童裝,童裝拍賣,童裝大盤,童裝寄賣,童裝批貨,酒店,酒店,童裝切貨,酒店,GAP童裝,酒店,酒店 ,禮服店 , 酒店小姐,酒店經紀,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,招待所,酒店小姐,酒店兼差,寒暑假打工,酒店上班,暑假打工,酒店公關,酒店兼職,酒店經紀

wsty said...

www.eshooes.com .

www.eshooes.com .
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,,

Edwin said...

Buy Kamagra
Earn Google
Viagra Cialis
Cheap Kamagra
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Cialis
Make Money on Google
M65 Jacket
M65 Field Jacket
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Viagra Cialis
Earn Google
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Airline Approved Dog Carriers
ED Hardy Wholesale
Copy DVD Software
How to Send Fax
14k Yellow Gold
Redneck Costume
14k Gold Heart
Tandem Baby Stroller