Does KiwiSaver increase savings?

December 19th, 2011 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

has been only “modestly successful” at getting poorer people to save for their retirement, a new Treasury report says, warning that the scheme “may in fact reduce national savings”.

The working paper on the initial impact of the scheme on retirement savings argues that, because of the subsidies going to those who would have adequately saved anyway, the government may be paying out $13,000 a year for every person at whom KiwiSaver is aimed.

That does not surprise me. Those better off and already saving are the ones most likely to take advantage of 2:1 and 3:1 subsidies for saving.

The Treasury report said as many as 93 per cent of those in KiwiSaver were outside the target group, so the vast majority of the public cost of the savings scheme leaked away from those who may be poor in retirement.

A brave Labour Party would perhaps say we do not believe in middle class welfare where huge tax subsidies go to those who don’t need it, and we’ll restrict savings subsidies to low income NZers only.

Tags:

42 Responses to “Does KiwiSaver increase savings?”

  1. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    David Farrar says:- “A brave Labour Party would perhaps say we do not believe in middle class welfare where huge tax subsidies go to those who don’t need it, and we’ll restrict savings subsidies to low income NZers only.”

    You don’t need to be brave, just honest. Kiwisaver is fundamentally flawed, and you’d be a mug not to accept the subsidy.

    Problem with the poor is most of them are mugs. As David says, if you want to target them, then only offer the subsidy to those on a low income.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    My employer has a superannuation scheme. When KiwiSaver came along they allowed us to split it so that some went to KiwiSaver and some stayed with the company scheme. Which I did.

    I am one who is not saving any new money. However apart from the roughly 28% being taken in general taxation, 15% of my gross is going to the company/kiwisaver scheme, and I am putting another 8% (before tax) into private savings so I think 50% of my earnings being taken is quite enough thank you very much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Fletch (5,723 comments) says:

    I’ve never been in Kiwisaver; will probably never join it. It’s not that I’m great at saving, but I somehow just never trusted it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (2,935 comments) says:

    Prior to Rogernomics there were tax breaks for those with superannuation schemes or with investment products ‘locked in’ until retirement (managed funds and endowment and whole of life insurance policies). The reason for removing this tax break was that it had not encouraged saving – ie the people benefiting were those who would have saved anyway. Seems same with Kiwisaver.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    I would imagine that almost all of the Kiwi Saver Accounts are in surplus only because of the Government subsidies the actual investment showing negative returns. As the Government subsidises it, it would have been better for them to take the money and invest it in National infrastructure projects i.e. rebuilding Christchurch, rather than seeing it invested(gambled) in overseas loss making companies.From the Government’s point of view it has never made sense to me. No matter, the Fund Managers are big winners they collect no matter what the company performance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    To NOT be in Kiwisaver to me, IMHO, is just plain stupidity or laziness. FFS, you can even get a payments holiday – get the upfront contribution, make it work for you. Its one more plank in my retirement strategy – it will be another nice little bonus in 20 years when I hit the age, and to not take it up with so many subsidies is just plain dumb.

    And before anyone starts mouthing off about ‘poor people’ – live within your means FFS. Hell, Ive earned north of $250K for years now, but I still drive an 8 year old car and we dont have Sky TV, nor do we smoke (drink like a fish, but there you go). Chose to live within your means. Worked for me when I was unemployed too :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    I’ve never been in Kiwisaver; will probably never join it. It’s not that I’m great at saving, but I somehow just never trusted it.

    And that paranoia has cost you thousands of dollars. Well done champ.

    It amuses me the number of people who smugly boast about never being in KiwiSaver, as if leaving money on the table is evidence of a superior mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. immigant (950 comments) says:

    rouppe

    You can loose 50% of your pay and still live on that money? What are you complaingin about?!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    Hell, Ive earned north of $250K for years now, but I still drive an 8 year old car and we dont have Sky TV, nor do we smoke

    An 8 year old car you say? So what? Seriously. What does that prove? That you are better than other consumers? That you are showing the way, and if poor people would just take heed of your wisdom they too can make ends meet?

    I am serious. What was going through your head when you wrote that? At the moment it just looks like you are trying to win the daily prize for worst boast on the internet. Pretty sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. immigant (950 comments) says:

    8 Year old car. I bet it’s not a Corolla.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    hmmokrightitis …

    Hell, Ive earned north of $250K for years now,

    Your hardwork is being rewarded accordingly hmmokrightitis, but shushh!!! Be quiet about telling us here on a blog of how much you earn, otherwise Scott Chris will turn up here and tell you that if you need to say it, you ain’t got it...

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Wow.

    The real train wrecks usually take longer than this…

    (Kimble do you remember forum user gluetamus maximus?
    Used to talk about his Porsches quite a lot.
    You and he would have got on like a house on fire :-P )

    Hmmokrightitis is spot on. You can either be in it or not be in it, but why wouldn’t you be in it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. leftyliberal (601 comments) says:

    I’d suggest that a large proportion of that 93% are likely in the “would be saving, but might not have started just yet” bracket – i.e. there’s a bunch that have started from a younger age. This means the amount saved by those folk might be significantly higher, and thus shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing.

    Making KS (or a similar scheme for those that want more choice) compulsory will guarantee that everyone gets it – some people cannot see the benefit until they experience it for themselves (i.e. see the money piling up).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    No kimble, it proves I understand prioritisation – why bother having money locked up in a new (er) vehicle when I can be using that free cash to invest in a highly profitable manner? Consumer research shows that Sky City & Sky TV target the poorer communities in Auckland – being poor doesnt mean you are stupid, but many make poor choices, which with a little thought could be rectified.

    There are so many opportunities to educate yourself that are free these days, but people chose not to take those opportunities. Ive chosen to ignore your pathetic swipe, and respond positively. Why dont you try the same.

    And immigrant no, Ford Falcon :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. adze (1,695 comments) says:

    I’m not in KS yet even though I’d like to be. But I need every bit of spare income to retire debts first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,668 comments) says:

    Bloody fool. They are never first on the Mountain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. unaha-closp (1,033 comments) says:

    A brave [National] Party would perhaps say we do not believe in middle class welfare where huge tax subsidies go to those who don’t need it, and we’ll restrict savings subsidies to low income NZers only.

    Not too likely to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott Chris (5,678 comments) says:

    adze says:- “I’m not in KS yet even though I’d like to be. But I need every bit of spare income to retire debts first.”

    Unless you’re servicing credit card debt or similar, I’d recommend immediate take up of KS. The return is that good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (10,723 comments) says:

    How can we save more when National borrowed a billion dollars this year to subsidize Kiwisaver?? Dur, rocket scientist stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. immigant (950 comments) says:

    hmmokrightitis

    I wasn’t expecting that. A choice worthy of a prudent consumer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    immigrant

    Who said I was complaining? All I did was state facts.

    But since you brought it up, the reason I can do this is because I did the hard work in my 20′s and 30′s. I earn much, much less than hmmokrightitis but have no debt now. He was right. When others were haring off on OE’s, and skiing Whistler, and “finding themselves”, I was squeezing every cent out of the $18,000pa I started out on.

    Note to self: must go contracting…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Manolo (12,626 comments) says:

    Lower taxes and let employees fund his/her own retirement fund. Those who do not, will be in dire straits later in life. In a nutshell, reduce the state’s intromission in the life of its citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KiwiGreg (3,129 comments) says:

    @ manolo that will only work if the state stops telling everyone “dont save, you will have universal superannuation and other “free” stuff when you retire”. And that wont happen under this government and certainly wont happen under a labour government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    immigrant

    Was based on – what I need it for – road trips, trips with the family, MTB’ing weekends; what is safe; what I can afford. Bought it second hand 4 years ago, and Ive been convinced to trade in and up, but not too far – VW Passat SW, first time Ive bought a new car as Ive been able to negotiate a great deal on trade in, swap out price, stock on the floor, Christmas. No interest payments over three years, with a 18% discount from list. Perfect for around town AND a few long trips every year.

    But then Im happy being labeled as an anonymous braggart who owns a 7 year old Falcon SW lol :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Fletch (5,723 comments) says:

    It amuses me the number of people who smugly boast about never being in KiwiSaver, as if leaving money on the table is evidence of a superior mind.

    All it would take is for whatever overseas investments the Govt has invested your money is in for it to fall over. Just look what happened to all those finance companies several years ago – I think there were about 17 of them that fell over weren’t there?
    It’s not just my opinion though. At my last job I worked doing some accounting and we used the Ace Payroll software. I asked a help tech there once (while I had to ring up for something else) about Kiwisaver and she said she wouldn’t go into it either.

    Who knows the future of Kiwisaver, what with changing governments etc. Yes, this government has decided to keep it going, but that may not be the case with future governments.

    I just don’t trust it somehow. In the US, there is actually no money left in their Govt pension scheme – they’ve spent it already. Heaven knows where they’re going to get the money from to pay those who are retiring soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Joseph Carpenter (210 comments) says:

    I’m guessing the real secret agenda behind Kiwisaver is that it’s a devious variant of the Cullen Fund for front-end loading National Super, i.e. at some point a future government will directly abate National Super and care subsidies for pay-outs from KS schemes, probably at 2:1 (50%), and because IRD knows exactly whats in your KS there’s no avoidance. Don’t forget it came wholly from Cullen: the master terrorist economic timebomb maker who always made them extremely difficult to disarm when activated.

    But, but, but … I hear you say the whole point of the KS lock-in was in return for a TTE (Taxed on income, Taxed on earnings, Exempt on payment) type scheme, wouldn’t abatement be exactly the same as a means-tested surcharged National Super and the whole moral hazard of punishing prudent saver ants while rewarding careless spending grasshoppers? – YES (but craftily done via the back-door).

    Think it won’t happen? Think the protest from scammed diligent Kiwisavers will stop it? Think the abhorrent effective retrospective breach of faith will stop it? Really? Think a future Lab/Grn/Nat government won’t point to the evil “rich pricks” retiring with big money in their KS account AND still getting full universal National Super – a Super that would inevitably have to be substantially reduced to afford it and put all those who didn’t save/have KS into hardship? Think a future Lab/Grn/Nat government would point out that half of the KS account money came from the government anyway and now it needs it back? Think a future government won’t trot out poor old granny from Glenn Ines with nothing but a SKY dish, existing on a reduced National Super alone, eating dogfood while rich granny in Epsom gets the same Super plus owns her home and has $600K in her KS account? Think they can’t calculate the number of low income earners/ reckless spenders/ beneficiaries/ busted KS schemes/ deadbeat broken arses with no/tiny KS accounts will always exceed the number of greedy “rich pricks” with decent KS balances in the future?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    No kimble, it proves I understand prioritisation …

    No it just shows that you are arrogant and think that you know better than other people what they should have as priorities. How would you feel if someone told you that owning a car is wrong, or that working too hard is wrong headed?

    You have no right to say that someone elses preferences for new cars or for pay TV is incorrect. Thats as arrogant as those hippies who complain that people working 40 hours a week are slaves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    All it would take is for whatever overseas investments the Govt has invested your money is in for it to fall over.

    That just shows your ignorance. YOU choose where your money is invested. You could have it in cash. A lot of people do. In fact, if you didnt nominate a particular fund, then your money would be in something which is mostly cash and government stock.

    Just look what happened to all those finance companies several years ago

    Which KiwiSaver fund was invested in finance companies? None? Yeah, none.

    I asked a help tech there once …. about Kiwisaver and she said she wouldn’t go into it either.

    Another idiot.

    Yes, this government has decided to keep it going, but that may not be the case with future governments.

    Well, it is YOUR savings, not theirs, so they cant touch it. You may as well be worried about future governments stealing your bank account or equity in your house.

    In the US, there is actually no money left in their Govt pension scheme – they’ve spent it already.

    Yep, you are about as ignorant on KiwiSaver as it is possible to be.

    Heaven knows where they’re going to get the money from to pay those who are retiring soon.

    If only those people had saved for retirement in named accounts. The government should have set up that scheme decades ago, perhaps offering strong incentives to get people to sign up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Kimble, you really are quite silly arent you? I said prioritisation. If you dont prioritise based on available spend, you are a moron. If someone was able to back up their argument based on my circumstances, by all means I would listen. And work too hard? Define “too hard” – will differ for everyone. Last 12 months have seen me work in excess of 70 hour weeks, much less now, around 50, but then Im sure to some bludgers even 10 is too much.

    So go on convince me that saving money should take a step back from getting Sky TV, Im intrigued. Making sweeping statements with no foundation whatsoever just undermines any argument you try to make. $45 per month of TV, or $45 saving for your future. Im all ears. If people are on limited income, personal responsibility means they need to prioritise their spend choices. But then maybe you are against responsibility as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. s.russell (1,486 comments) says:

    I do not doubt that the Treasury research is roughly correct. In my case the effect may even have been negative, because of the KS subsidies I can now spend more while saving the same amount.

    However, it would be interesting to know how KS has changed the nature of savings. It might be that it has shifted the mix from housing toward more productive investment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    “We’ll restrict savings subsidies to low income NZers only.”

    An even braver party would restrict not on the basis of income but on the basis of wealth. i.e. taxation of capital (including the family home).

    The most interesting proposal I’ve seen on NZ super is Gareth Morgan’s Big Kahuna proposal.

    http://www.gmi.co.nz/bigkahuna

    I’ve heard a lot about why it would be politically difficult to implement but I have not yet met anybody who has read the book and understands the proposal who has argued that it wouldn’t be a hell of a lot fairer and more efficient than what we have now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    If you dont prioritise based on available spend, you are a moron.

    So you see how much money you have and then that dictates what you will spend it on? No. Preferences determine that. When you say that people shouldnt have pay TV you are making a judgement on their preferences, which you are in absolutely no position to do without being arrogant.

    So go on convince me that saving money should take a step back from getting Sky TV, Im intrigued.

    No. There is no single right decision, and I will not buy into your fantasy that there is. You are so blinded you cannot even IMAGINE how consumption today could possibly be better than consumption in the future.

    For one second stop assuming you know why everyone else is irrational and think about why what they are doing MAY be rational.

    What you are doing is as bad as what the lefties do everyday, assuming they know better how people should be managing their money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    I’ve heard a lot about why it would be politically difficult to implement but I have not yet met anybody who has read the book and understands the proposal who has argued that it wouldn’t be a hell of a lot fairer and more efficient than what we have now.

    All I get from this sentence is that people have told you that it wouldnt be fairer and more efficient, and you have dismissed their ideas simply because they havent read the book (regardless of how well they know the proposals), and when they have read the book, you dismiss their ideas because they “didnt really understand” the proposals.

    Consider: people who argue against the obvious truth of creationism, either dont understand it, havent actually read the bible, or are lying because they hate god for some reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. RightNow (6,338 comments) says:

    Kimble, what’s the difference between preference and prioritisation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. rg (190 comments) says:

    kiwisaver was/is a dumb idea, it takes money off those who can’t afford to save and gives it to those who are already saving. Any one with half a brain should have realised that. National should have ditched it, but they were/are too spineless to do anything of any value. Our only hope is a strong ACT Party in the future, yes ACT campaigned against kiwisaver. Don Brash said on tv it should be scrapped only to be met with hails of protest from the ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    what’s the difference between preference and prioritisation?

    Prioritisation can mean putting things in order of preference. The way hmmokrightitis was using it though, it is obvious he meant preference. He wasnt saying that poor people didnt put things in order of preference, he was saying they prefered (placed a higher priority on) the wrong things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. KH (686 comments) says:

    Compulsory Kiwisaver for everybody would sort out the problem of different sectors benefiting differently.
    Kiwisaver is just great. The problem to sort though is that it is dependent on the financial services sector. And that is a worry.
    Mind you everything you do in the financial services is hollowed out by that industry.
    Those thieves need sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. KH (686 comments) says:

    The financial services industry runs the campaign that scoffs at Mum and Dad residential investors.
    Because that is their opposition.
    But it’s one thing you can do, if you want to avoid seeing you investment into the financial services industry legally diverted, plundered, and generally ripped off you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Kimble, no I didnt – I inferred nothing of the sort. I give a rats arse how people prioritise, and I offered examples. How people prioritise is entirely up to them – if they chose Sky TV over savings, good for them, but Im also allowed to think that a piss poor choice – and I note no defence from you of that. My issue is that my hard earned taxes should not be used for what could be perceived as luxuries – Sky TV – when the basics arent sorted – and there is any number of studies that support the fact that this goes on. We live beyond our means and have done so for years, and look to government to tidy our mess up for us.

    I look forward to our current government implementing its payment cards for beneficiaries, with automatic payments for rent, power etc, and a balance for food and not piss and fags. Dont like it, do what I did, work hard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. seanmaitland (402 comments) says:

    @Kimble – sorry, had to interject, as I’m laughing my ass off at your attempts to defend why you are in KiwiSaver.

    Unless you are a creaky, old fella (55+) – its highly unlikely that KiwiSaver will be around when you hit whatever the retirement age is when you hit it (70?). The impending shitstorm of fifteen+ years of Baby Boomers retiring is going to put paid to it.

    If, on the off-chance that it is still around (assuming you’re not old) – then you need to pray and hope that you are not in the middle of the usual 7-year bust cycle at the time, and are somewhere in a 7-year boom/bear market .

    Going on your advice about investing in cash and government bonds is just a total piss-take as it will be completely eaten up by inflation anyway.

    I’m 35 and wouldn’t touch KiwiSaver with a 50-foot barge pole – but then, I’ve got the intelligence and drive to prepare for my own retirement – it sounds like you don’t have a clue how to do that. I’ll be retired by the time I’m 50 at the rate I’m going – enjoy collecting your KiwiSaver when you are 70 you cheeky old bugger you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    its highly unlikely that KiwiSaver will be around when you hit whatever the retirement age is when you hit it.

    seanmaitland, KiwiSaver money is YOUR money. Concerns that the government will take it later are as appropriate as concerns that the government would take any of YOUR money held anywhere else. Theoretically the government could take the money from your bank savings. But you dont avoid term deposits because of the risk.

    The fact you even have this concern, and apply it only to KiwiSaver, proves you do not know enough about the scheme to discuss it intelligently.

    A point that hasnt been made yet is that you think government changes only represent a negative risk. But once the scheme has been up and running for a while it is not inconceivable (in fact, it is quite likely) that even more control of your named account will be given over to you. Look at Australia. They had their scheme going for a while, and now have self managed super funds. That means the investors select the investments. They can even invest in their own home.

    then you need to pray and hope that you are not in the middle of the usual 7-year bust cycle at the time

    Why? Because then you would have 25% less than you did? Two problems. One, you can choose to move your investment to cash and government stock, so if you want more certainty closer to retirement, you can get it. Two, you would still have made huge gains on the free (other peoples) money the government gave you.

    You are acting as if every market downturn wipes out investments, which may be true if you invest in a single company. But thats why you diversify.

    Going on your advice about investing in cash and government bonds is just a total piss-take as it will be completely eaten up by inflation anyway.

    Its not advice, its an option that people have. A bad option for investors with a long time frame, but even so, how long would it take for inflation to wipe out the 100+% gains you made on your investments in your first year?

    I’m 35 and wouldn’t touch KiwiSaver with a 50-foot barge pole – but then, I’ve got the intelligence and drive to prepare for my own retirement

    Good for you. But there is no changing the fact that you left money on the table. It offends genuine intelligence that you think this makes you intelligent. Its not something to boast about.

    Let me guess. Given you dismiss equity investing (7-year cycles) AND cash (inflation) AND diversification, you are preparing for your own retirement by investing in property or a business. Right?

    Investing in KiwiSaver IS preparing for your retirement, no matter how much you ignorant, arrogant tools insist otherwise.

    Your attitude is the same as many “traders” who deride portfolio investing. They often say that everyone else is a mug for investing in more than a handful of companies that it should be obvious to any fool are guaranteed to make money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kimble (4,092 comments) says:

    I inferred nothing of the sort.

    I had to infer it from the context. You implied it.

    How people prioritise is entirely up to them – if they chose Sky TV over savings, good for them, but Im also allowed to think that a piss poor choice

    How can this not mean that you have a problem with peoples preferences?

    I said you used the term priorities instead of preferences, and that it was the preferences that you had a problem with. Then you immediately respond that this wasnt the case, and follow it up by stating… you have a problem with their preferences?

    My issue is that my hard earned taxes should not be used for what could be perceived as luxuries

    Really? Thats the first time you have said it. So.. it cant have been your original point. Could it.

    and I note no defence from you of that

    And why would that be?

    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.