KiwiSaver

May 10th, 2011 at 7:58 am by David Farrar

I like , as it provides an incentive for people to save. In fact you have to be very very poor or very very stupid not to go into as you effectively get a 200% subsidy for the first $30,000 of income you earn. For every dollar you put in, the employer puts in one dollar and the Government one dollar.

The Government is signalling that the Government contribution may be removed or reduced. This is not entirely surprising as when Labour established KiwiSaver there was huge surpluses. KiwiSaver was set up to reduce that surplus.

Today the Government is borrowing $300 million a week. Borrowing money to save money has never been a sustainable strategy, so the changes are not unexpected – especially as there is doubt if KiwiSaver has increased overall savings.

What I would love to see going forward is a co-ordinated approach and policy around retirement savings – looking at public superannuation, workplace superannuation and other private superannuation schemes.

How much of someone’s retirement income should be funded by public super, and how much by KiwiSaver or other private savings?

Tags:

53 Responses to “KiwiSaver”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,176 comments) says:

    Step one for reforming superannuation and saving for retirement requires that John Key is no longer Prime Minister. Only at that point can meaningful change occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. smttc (692 comments) says:

    David, would you care to comment on whether the signalled changes, if implemented in the budget, would constitute a broken promise by John Key and National?

    [DPF: It depends on when any changes take effect]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    Kiwisaver changes would probably not take effect until after the election so National would have a mandate.

    It always looked too generous when it was first set up. It’s done the job, attracted large numbers to retirement saving, reducing the incentive (but keeping some incentive, so maybe halving it) makes sense.

    What doesn’t make sense is this thinking: Taking from Kiwisavers & giving to the rich.

    How thick are some people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Richard Hurst (756 comments) says:

    Beyond debates over contributions is ensuring both public and private schemes are safe and under proper supervision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. flipper (3,557 comments) says:

    Given that Kiwisaver includes a Government subsidy which must be borrowed, all such subsidies should cease forthwith. But agree with PG that likely cessation date will be January 1 or March 31, 2012.
    NZ super ….. eligibilty age should rise one year every year to Max of 70, starting 2018 by which time JK will have announced his retirement as PM.
    Lots of options here for sensible policy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. campit (462 comments) says:

    Today the Government is borrowing $300 million a week

    We keep hearing this, but is it actually true? Are we really increasing the funding deficit by this amount, or is some of this debt rolling over?

    [DPF: Sadly this is new debt. Some of it is borrowing for capital which is fine, but most is borrowing for operational expenditure which is not fine.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. annie (537 comments) says:

    Kiwisaver got retirement savings off the ground for over a million people, and now it looks like it will go the way of every govt retirement scheme since the last Muldoon government – it has lasted one change of government only before being disabled.

    Which is fine, but shortsighted in the extreme. Most people without financial expertise won’t trust savings with private organisations for the very good reason that in the past, these have proven to be poorly regulated and many untrustworthy. For most people, there is no real way to tell which providers are relatively safe and which aren’t, so they don’t save.

    No government is going to deny superannuation to indigent elderly and people know that. They’ll go back to relying on government superannuation alone.

    The potential maximum $60000 savings per saver doesn’t even begin to cover the longterm losses that changing Kiwisaver will result in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. smttc (692 comments) says:

    If Labour cannot make hay out of this then there really is no hope for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    smttc,

    They will struggle to make anything out of as Key is announcing any changes prior to the election this year. What is their possible attack line: “you can’t trust National because they are being open with you prior to the election”?

    Or – by implication – Labour believes you should hide your real intentions before the election

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. berend (1,634 comments) says:

    Prediction: we can safely leave it to the Nats to AND abolish the kiwisaver subsidy AND continue to borrow $300 million a week.

    Did you guys know the national socialist are borrowing 10% of GDP this year? Come on National voters, any kind of defence? Any??

    No? Just silence? Pathetic.

    PS: to inject some real facts: kiwisaver has never lead to an increase in saving, it basically has supplanted other forms of saving. Secondly, it only works if you have income to save, i.e. it’s another welfare subsidy to those who can afford to save (the rich so to speak). DPF likes it obviously, because it’s a subsidy to him, and as a true blue liberal he likes the government throwing money at him, but not to others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    likely cessation date will be January 1 or March 31, 2012.

    The likely date of change is 30 June 2012 – member tax credits are dished out for each year 1 July to 30 June.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (3,557 comments) says:

    PG – OK
    But, perhaps a variation for current year?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. labrator (1,750 comments) says:

    In fact you have to be very very poor or very very stupid not to go into KiwiSaver …

    Or maybe you think you can do better with the money yourself or might have some use for it before you turn 65, (or will it be 75 by the time most 20 year olds get there?)? Or maybe you don’t agree with having your money tied up in govt control until they tell you you can have it back, if ever? Or maybe you don’t agree with a scheme that uses bribes to get people to use it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    PS: to inject some real facts: kiwisaver has never lead to an increase in saving, it basically has supplanted other forms of saving.

    Not a fact. Fiction.

    It is a fact that KiwiSaver favours those who earn more, which makes it very strange for Labour to be criticising cutting it back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. themono (132 comments) says:

    What I never understood was why the Kiwisaver scheme wasn’t balanced out on the other end of things by a reduction in superannuation entitlements – presumably raising the age – instead it helped subsidise people saving extra for retirement while not evening out how much government funding they got when they got there.

    There’s a question for the government to ask – if the people of NZ had to choose between cutting the Govt kiwisaver subsidy, or a fiscally neutral to that increase in the retirement age, which would they rather? At a guess I’d say the retirement age, but I’m not sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. nasska (10,674 comments) says:

    It can be interesting to look back a few years & with the benefit of hindsight identify the tipping point at which people have altered their behaviour. Savings for retirement through life insurance & superannuation schemes was widespread & doing well until some halfwitted Government in the 70/80′s changed the tax deductability from the time of contribution to the time of payout.

    I can’t remember which Government effectively destroyed the nations savings habits…another commenter might but when the axe is taken to Kiwisaver it’s worth recalling the effects of short sighted political action taken for immediate gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. decanker (222 comments) says:

    Will kiwisavers be entitled to exit the scheme if significant changes have been made? Do you think they should be entitled to renegotiate or exit their contract because of changes to the terms? Or will kiwisavers who have already signed contracts be exempt from the government’s planned changes? Will the changes be fair to future generations? Many questions, many potentially pissed off kiwisavers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. garethw (205 comments) says:

    Catching Australia by running even further away from their strong savings culture is genius! And no, Kiwisaver was not setup to reduce the surplus, that is ABSURD David. It’s a long term retirement savings policy that spans many many many economic cycles.

    themono, I agree – at some point in the future, Kiwisaver balances should determine super payment levels. Means testing has such a bad meaning these days unfortunately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (9,430 comments) says:

    DPF just called me very very stupid :( That took the spring out of my step!

    He’s right though, I should get my shit together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. James Stephenson (2,029 comments) says:

    Or maybe…

    You took one look at the fact that percentages are calculated on before tax income, including car allowances etc but come out of after-tax income and said “Fuck that for a game of soldiers!” and kept on paying down your mortgage…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. smttc (692 comments) says:

    garethw, for that to work, super would have to be tested against all means. Otherwise people will simply not open kiwisaver accounts and invest in other forms of saving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. garethw (205 comments) says:

    “and kept on paying down your mortgage…” and then demanded welfare payment from the state once you retired because you hadn’t saved income-earning assets before then and refuse to sell your house because its your home damnit. Fuck THAT for a game of soldiers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. decanker (222 comments) says:

    And I know contracts say in the fine print things like “Government may change legislation from time to time that may impact your Kiwisaver scheme” though that will make kiwisavers feel no less aggrieved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. garethw (205 comments) says:

    smttc – yep to a certain extent. Realizing the fraught history of full means testing though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. 103PapPap (125 comments) says:

    The Govt could take the wind out of everybodies sails by announcing that it was shifting the parlimentary super scheme to Kiwi Saver!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. James Stephenson (2,029 comments) says:

    “and kept on paying down your mortgage…” and then demanded welfare payment from the state once you retired because you hadn’t saved income-earning assets before then and refuse to sell your house because its your home damnit. Fuck THAT for a game of soldiers

    Mortgage free later this year…25+ years until official retirement age…I don’t need hand-outs from the state and I don’t need politicians, or you, doing my thinking for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Cunningham (815 comments) says:

    I disagree that it hasn’t improved savings. In Aus this may be the case but Kiwis are so bad at saving that I think in our case it has improved our savings record. I don’t think I am that keen on changes for this to be honest. I understand the need to cut expenditure but I think touching the KS scheme at this stage is a mistake. Labor will have a field day over this unfortunately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. garethw (205 comments) says:

    James I wasn’t meaning you personally, just the outcomes that do happen. With zero means testing and free for all super payments, plenty of people have little incentive to save for their retirement now… Well done on your mortgage freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Because of smiley assassin’s affluence enhancing tax-cuts, today the Government is borrowing $300 million a week. This is not economically sustainable. nor is it socially sustainable. National is creating a pressure-cooker environment for those on the margins of society. The disenfranchised class grows ever larger, and that is a divisive force in society. It reduces socialising between rich and poor, provokes destructive acts of desperation by the increasing number of people who feel both that they have nothing left to lose, and therefore, no allegiance to society. This makes for lower levels of trust in your fellow man/woman, and more fear of persecution, for both rich and poor. Can’t the beneficiary basher types see that a well-funded welfare system is so much more important for everyone than tax cuts for the rich? You’re forcing me to live in a poisoned society, ridden with mistrust and fear, and it’s pissing me off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    .. and before some moron tries it on, no i’m not advocating anything like communism – just a more humane society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. smttc (692 comments) says:

    Magic, what is the point and relevance of your post to this issue? KS doesn’t affect the poor as they haven’t opted in yet. Talk about an off topic rant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. decanker (222 comments) says:

    @magic bullet, I’d much prefer a well-funded sustainable enterprise investment system than a well-funded welfare system. One means we don’t have as much need for the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Mick Mac (1,091 comments) says:

    Kiwisaver is a good thing as the demographic bomb will hit us at some time.
    So how do we get NZ national savings going and be able to keep the politicians out of it?
    There is no policy nor vision for the man in the street and can you expect it from a man worth $50 million NZD?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. decanker (222 comments) says:

    In a small country such as NZ, the state is best positioned to use its governmental leverage and capital base to seriously invest in high value technological export enterprises – that happen create meaningful inclusive jobs for kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    smttc – this is about government fiscal priorities. Without tax cuts for the rich we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, and we may have been able to afford more support for the many thousands of NZers who are on the breadline currently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cunningham (815 comments) says:

    Magic a generous welfare system will do nothing to get poorer people into work but will simply cost the country more at a time when we can least afford it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    Decanker – i don’t disagree with the idea of government employment-increasing initiatives. In fact i whole-heartedly support targeted ones (i.e. youth that are off the rails should be helped in to work at all costs), but welfare is important, whether there is full employment or not. There will always be mothers and fathers who need support to get out of a situation that is bad for both them and their children. There will always be those that have injuries, either psychological or physical, that mean it’s better for them and everyone else that they take a break from their work-load. Let’s not forget these important issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. smttc (692 comments) says:

    Magic, now if you had said this is about the hypocrisy of Bill English and National constantly going on about the use of lower income taxes and higher GST to incentise savings rather than spending then you would have had me. Because the signalled changes will disencentivise opt in to and therefore savings via KS. But you didn’t. So you failed to say anything of relevance to the thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. magic bullet (776 comments) says:

    smttc

    Just because i am able to see the big-picture, doesn’t make me off topic. What you’re advocating is censorship of issues relevant to the post-topic, so the debate is limited to terms set by the right. So, kindly take your thought-police attitude and shove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Grendel (951 comments) says:

    Just some facts and some anecdotal evidence.

    1. anyone who does not like the changes to Kiwisaver (and there have already been heaps and in OZ they have had over 2000 and theirs is still going strong), can go on a payments holiday onc ehtey have been in for a year, this can go for 5 years and then be rolled over again and again.

    2. Kiwisaver is privately run (for the person who said its not), all fund managers are private companies who invest however they like). its just the reporting, PAYE access, rules for shifting funds etc are set by govt legislation. the difference between the onepath SIL fund (NZs oldest super fund, or close to) and the Kiwisaver SIL fund is almost nothing in terms of how the run.

    3. Kiwisaver has outstripped all expectations in terms of participation. it hit the expected membership level for 5 years in 9 months and has not stopped. its over 40% take up in NZ. Do we really need to motivate people to join still?

    anecdotally i have seen people who never saved (and i have hundreds of clients in Kiwisaver) actually have some savings. these are people who never saved mroe than a few hundred dollars before. now they have thousands in thei kiwisaver funds. so i disagree its not helping savings.

    as much as i like Kiwisaver and how it helps people get focused to retirement savings (and the benefit i get from it), its not sustainable to keep the govt contributions in the current economy. remember its outstipped all expctations of growth so even labour never allowed for the current level of govt contributions.

    hopefully they can just lower the govt contributions and allow for future changes to raise it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. decanker (222 comments) says:

    magic bullet, I agree, but the only way for NZ to continue to afford the welfare support we’ve come to expect is if NZ as a nation radically increases diversification and volume of sustainable high value exports. Otherwise we’re just cutting up a shriveling pie. To meet these goals requires genuine state effort and support through monetary and capital structures and international networks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. KiwiGreg (3,176 comments) says:

    @ dime I’m also very very stupid apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    Some observations:

    It seems a little premature to be either praising or denouncing changes to KiwiSaver until we know what those changes actually are.

    It is true that in many cases KiwiSaver has simply supplanted other forms of saving (I am a case in point). But I am sure that it has gotten many saving who previously did not too. And changing the form of saving may be a big positive. If people are putting money into KS instead of into houses this is a very good thing.

    Even if the Govt were to abolish the tax credit subsidy (and speculation is that this will merely be trimmed), KS participants still get an employer subsidy of up to $1000pa. That ought to be enough to keep people in!

    Is KS a welfare subsidy to the rich? Arguable, But the $1000pa cap and widespread uptake mean that the “subsidy” reaches well down the income deciles, and that low income people benefit far more from it on a proportional basis. And I might note that “the rich” pay almost all the tax that funds it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. KH (687 comments) says:

    New Zealand is a country that doesn’t do the little things because we are talking talking talking about the big things.
    Note how long it will be before somebody next promotes an idea where “New Zealand will be a world leader”. It won’t be long. And usually in an area we now do badly locally. ie finance.
    Kiwisaver ain’t perfectly solving all problems. But it’s doing good stuff and I like it.
    It should be compulsory. Beneficiaries and all. Should be increased to a total contribution of about 15%. And employers (and I am an employer) should be making making half that contribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    Yes, if only the government could plan private savings in a more co-ordinated way, that would make things a-ok.

    What nonsense. Subsidising savings is a middle class subsidy. Using the savings for public works, which is only one short step away, then makes it taxation by stealth. Money that would otherwise have been raised through taxes to be spent on the latest government bondoggle, will simply be funding by subsidised savings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Grendel (951 comments) says:

    S.russell. you have some of it wrong.

    there is no employer subsidy up to 1000pa. that the tax credit, that matches you up to $1043 pa.

    the employer part is 2% matched by your employer.

    now even if Kiwisaver gets rid of (rahter than trim) the tax credit, and even if the employer component is part of your overall salary package (so you get less income becuase of KS) its still worth it as your employer contributions are not taxed, whereas your personal contributions are from post tax money.

    ben, the only way that Kiwisaver funds would go into public works is if the fund managers decide to invest some of the money earmarked for local shares into those works. and if they are not offereing a return, then they won;t do it. the govt has no control over where or how the funds are invested. thats for the private companies to do.

    also while i am not a fan of govt intervention, Kiwisaver is actually pretty efficient in how its run and organised. so they have actually managed to organise a well run private savings scheme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Paulus (2,501 comments) says:

    Kiwi Saver is still a labour election con.

    A person would do better to put a similar amount regularly into a Bank savings account, transferring to term deposits.

    The return, particularly from the “famous “default managers is appalling, remembering that the published figures do not take “Management Expenses” into consideration.

    Sometimes after these expenses there is a negative return, and some show a pathetic return. As a monthly income is put to the fund it is often nigh on impossible to know your actual return, until a statement, months after the actual period date, actually shows a poor figures explained in big words to the innocent.

    From harsh experience the only people to get fat from Managed Funds are the Fund Managers.

    My published figures, at say a quarter end, bore no relationship to the actual advised return months later. I was told in confidence, that the newspaper “share price” is deliberately inflated at the period end, and you did not know this until months later when you studied this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pete George (22,839 comments) says:

    A person would do better to put a similar amount regularly into a Bank savings account, transferring to term deposits.

    Only if you got the equivalent employer contribution in a wages top up, and you got the government contribution in a tax cut.

    The return, particularly from the “famous “default managers is appalling,

    I’ve been in KiwiSaver about three years.
    Personal contribution: $7,000
    Employer contribution: $3,000
    Government contribution: $3,600
    Account fee $80 less $40 subsidy: -$40
    IRD interest less PIE: $20
    Total input: $13,580
    Fund income: $3,610
    Current value: $17,190 – $10,190 than I put into it, $7,190 than my plus employer contribution.

    I call that a bloody good return.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Paulus (2,501 comments) says:

    Pete

    Short term – you cannot touch until you are 65.

    I went for 8 years, with a few hundred thousand dollars of early “earned” pension, purchasing a highly advertised share, at $1.34 selling 8 years later at 98c, not being able to sell for 5 years, during which time my Managers took their management fee at inflated share prices on a quarterly basis. They are possible the largest default provider currently.

    Return during 8 years minus 27%.

    Time will tell as Kiwi saver is a very very long term concept, pushed heavily by the Fund Managers to the ignorant Labour Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. garethw (205 comments) says:

    A person would do better to put a similar amount regularly into a Bank savings account, transferring to term deposits.
    Holy shit, what transactional savings account and term deposits are delivering (well) over 100% returns? I’d really be keen to know…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bullitt (137 comments) says:

    Its only a 100% return if you can get it out the same year. Every year after that with substandard returns on an increasing balance the return gets less and less. Over a long enough period it wont beat mortage interest rates especially on a risk adjusted basis.

    I hope subsidies are cut so people start to realise theyre paying their own bribes to join and the country would be better off without them. This will hopefully be enough that I wont be forced against my will to join and let me manage my own future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. garethw (205 comments) says:

    You honestly believe that an instant at-deposit 100%+ return will wither away to a tuny return over time? You folks must be investing in some damn poor funds.
    I do understand the point about always reducing debt before investing from a mitigation POV (doing it myself – I’ve cut my contributions to minimum to pay off mortgage debt faster and maximize return in the scheme) but those people actually choosing not to contribute to KS because they can do better in a term deposit are deluding themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,392 comments) says:

    The easiest cut in government spending is to end the Kiwi Saver tax incentives – the 2% employer contribution is reason enough to save. They should also restrict the $1000 start up allowance to those in work over the age of 18. Public borrowing to fund peoples private savings is ridiculous.

    So would be borrowing to fund the future of tax paid super, that should have been provided for via dedicated funding so that it could continue across the economic cycle.

    This dedicated funding for the “Cullen-English” fund should be a separate and compulsory 2% from both employee and employer.

    Similarly the government can signal from 2012 a 1% levy to meet Canterbury public works rebuild costs.

    These three measures alone reassure foreign creditors that the government has placed its books on a sound long term footing (across the political cycle).

    As for tax paid super itself – our age of eligibility is more than the average within the OECD now and at the average for 2030 as it is. So increasing the age it is not an urgent matter – the increase in age to 70 will probably occur over 10 years 2025-2035. Five to ten years notice places the debate for the 2015-2020 time frame.

    Besides increasing the age when there is unemployment means keeping families in poverty. It also means anyone over 65 (imder 70 or so) without a job is also in poverty (unlikely to find work for up to 5 years at that age). Cost management is better done me from means testing those over 65 who are in work (this does not impact on incentives to save).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.