Futile to resist rise in tax

I’m still working through the backlog that built up while I finished my book manuscript. In the process, I forgot to post my Fin column from Thursday 25 March, which points out that we will, sooner or later, need more tax revenue. Here it is


Futile to resist rise in tax

In the early 1970s, radical American economist James O’Connor was among the first to detect the arrival of what he called ‘the fiscal crisis of the state’. As O’Connor realised, the combination of growing demands for services such as health, education and publicly-funded pensions with the costs of the US military machine could not be met from available tax revenue.

Connor anticipated that the resulting crisis would provide an opportunity for the left. In fact, of course, the ‘tax revolt’ which began in the late 1970s paved the way for a resurgence of market liberalism in the 1980s. The resurgence was led by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and emulated around the world

The advance of social democracy, which had seemed unstoppable for most of the 20th century was halted and then put into reverse. Governments everywhere reduced taxes, and particularly top marginal rates of income tax. The welfare state was cut back. Governments tried to shed their responsibilities for infrastructure, handing them over to ‘Public-Private Partnerships’ assembled by financial institutions.

For a while this seemed to be working. Deficits were reduced and debt levels stabilised. But in the wake of the global financial crisis, the fiscal crisis of the state has re-emerged with a vengeance. Governments everywhere are looking at empty coffers and wondering if they will be able to repay their debts.

A fairly common set of responses is emerging. First, governments around the world have finally bitten the bullet on the need to increase the eligibility age for pensions. This process is painful and uneven, but it looks likely that a pension age of 70 will be the norm in most countries by 2050. That is, broadly speaking enough, to restore the solvency of publicly-funded pensions.

In other areas such as health, education and infrastructure,however, the demands on governments are only going to increase. Structural change has led to an increase in the proportion of national income needed for social and physical infrastructure.

At the same time, the financial sector, which seemed to offer painless ways of providing such infrastructure without drawing on the public purse, has turned out to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Even after the costs of the current crisis have been met, the requirement for the state to guarantee financial stability will represent a huge contingent liability.

The only solution is an increase in revenue. For most governments, the simplest way to raise a lot of revenue is to increase the rate of value-added taxes such as the GST.

Income taxes present a bigger problem. Although both the US and UK have increased the top marginal rate of taxation, this is still in the ‘too hard’ basket for most governments. Instead the main focus so far has been on broadening the base, particularly by attacking tax avoidance and evasion. After decades of delay, the OECD has finally taken action to shut down the international tax haven industry. Individual governments have gone further, going in to the market for bank employees willing to sell lists of tax-dodging clients.

Finally, there are some new options. One is revenue from a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. This has been overstated by some proponents, and even more by detractors, as in Tony Abbott’s Great Big New Tax on Everything. The revenue from pricing carbon is unlikely to amount to much more than 1 per cent of GDP, a fair bit of which will be need to compensate vulnerable households and to fund adaptation and mitigation measures.

Then there is the appealing prospect of making the financial sector pay for the government guarantees that allow it to keep on making outsize profits. The current betting is on President Obama’s proposal for a levy, but the long run solution must surely be a tax on financial transactions, as proposed decades ago by Nobel Prize winner, James Tobin.

Compared to the rest of the world, Australia’s position is relatively strong. Our debt levels are comparatively low, the hard decisions on the retirement age have been taken, and top marginal tax rates were never cut to unsustainably low levels. Our biggest constraint is the virtually impossibility of raising the GST rate. The Henry Review will make interesting reading.

Regardless of how we do it, taxes must rise to meet the demands of a modern society. Tony Abbott gave an eloquent demonstration of that point recently when he proposed his own Great Big New Tax to finance paid maternity leave.

John Quiggin is an ARC Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.

87 thoughts on “Futile to resist rise in tax

  1. “Regardless of how we do it, taxes must rise to meet the demands of a modern society. Tony Abbott gave an eloquent demonstration of that point recently when he proposed his own Great Big New Tax to finance paid maternity leave…” – Touche John 😉

  2. PrQ,
    Perhaps some statistics showing that the total government tax take had dropped as a proportion of the economy or perhaps even in absolute terms during the 1980s and 1990s would have added some weight to your contention that “[g]overnments everywhere reduced taxes”. Perhaps you could use the OECD data. Except that it shows the exact opposite of what you were contending. Sure, personal income tax revenue did drop (slightly) as a proportion of GDP (the last table) – with this drop being more than counterbalanced by increased social security “contributions”, but virtually nowhere did governments reduce the tax take in GDP terms in the 1980s or 1990s and nowhere did they reduce it in absolute terms.

  3. Andrew Reynolds, do you write for publication in newspapers? First thing an editor would take out. And even if true, it doesn’t diminish the central argument at all, in fact it kinda makes it stronger..

  4. AR, I agree that this was sloppily stated, and invited confusion between tax rates (which were cut) and tax revenue (which was stabilised as a share of GDP, but not cut). It would be more accurate to say that the fiscal crisis of the state brought an end to the rapid expansion of the tax share of GDP, but did not put it into reverse. Even though the state withdrew from many areas of economic activity, growing demands in core areas like health and education more than offset this. I have spelt this out more carefully on other occasions and can only plead pressure of time and space.

  5. As I keep saying, google “Baumol effect”. As it gets ever easier to make food and widgets, an ever bigger proportion of human effort goes on services to other humans. And governments provide services.

    And yes, the line that “governments everywhere reduced taxes” is very arguable. The startling thing about the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions was how unsuccessful they were in reducing government spending as a proportion of GDP – and as Milton Friedman said “to spend is to tax”. The lack of success, of course, is basically because they were fighting that Baumol effect.

  6. PrQ,
    The data, though, does not even support a statement about stabilisation, it has clearly and unambiguously continued to increase as a share of GDP with only minor and temporary reductions in some countries.
    Even the statements about personal tax rates is of questionable correctness once social security “contributions” (a word I had always associated with some measure of being voluntary) are taken into account. All that seems to have occurred was that a rapid increase has been replaced by a more sedate increase.
    .
    As for any withdrawal from areas of economic activity (while I recognise this is more contentious) I would doubt that. While (for example) the government now owns less banks than they used to, they have a large amount of regulatory powers they they still continue to use and extend. Perhaps this could be (IMHO) more accurately be described as a “refocussing” of control methodology, rather than any “withdrawal”, as (to me at least) a withdrawal would imply that they no longer have any significant control.

  7. In terms of physical infrastructure an alternate payment option is user pays, even if the government owns and operates.

    In terms of funding hospitals a quite viable alternative to government funding is government financing in the form of HECS style income contingent loans with Medicare cards acting merely as a payment system.

    Whilst affluence may lead us to use more services it does not follow that all these services must be government provided or even that they will be health or education related. Our use of telecommunications services is much higher than it used to be and this now almost entirely provided by the private sector.

    Given Australia has superannuation then it is hard to see why we would need any sort of aged pension in 2050. And if we did the eligibility age could be higher than 70.

    If we capped government spending per capita for 10-15 years then assuming normal economic growth we could abolish income tax over that period. That would be quite an accomplishment with no cut to services or revenue. As such revenue increases need not mean we can’t have cuts in tax rates. Nor that we shouldn’t.

    If governments can’t reduce tax rates the main cause is a lack of creativity in policy formulation.

  8. John: Good to see you challenging complacency on tax – especiall given arguments about funding Health – and the prospect of a Federal takeover. But I cannot bring myself to accept a retirement age of 70.

    Retirement should be an opportunity for personal development, civic activism, time with famlily – and finally just time to relax. We glad to have the extra dollars in our pockets now that comes from such ‘reform’.

    But when our bodies and minds are aching – and many are tired of drudgery involved in work – then I think many would prefer that we maintain a threshold of 65 for aged pension applicability. Someone should really take those issues up- -as it is really a basic question of quality of life – and of setting priorities. Quality of life in retirement needs to be a very high priority.

  9. I think the inability of governments to reduce taxes, points to deeper causes. One such might be the effect of demographic bulges on demand for education and patronage opportunities argued by Jack Goldstone – in which case some of the pressure will subside as the baby boomers fade away. Another might relate to diminishing returns relative to social complexity. Signs that this is among the drivers could include the way governments and employers have been able to shift risk on to the less powerful, together with the increasing concentration of administrative structures (private as well as public).

    Terjw – as an aside, you might want to think about whether people who only pay taxes indirectly feel they have any stake in their governmental or social arrangements. Poll taxes go with pitchforks.

  10. Tristan,
    Some people I know are still happily working at 85 and others are stuffed at 55. To me at least the idea of a single day where you magically become “past it” is a silly one. When 65 was first settled on it was because most people died before they got that far. We should be able to decide for ourselves when we have had enough.
    Private super allows for this well by allowing us to decide when we have enough to retire on and to make choices on our own circumstances. I would agree with Terje – let’s move towards getting rid of the pension completely.

  11. Peter – I’m not in favour of poll taxes and I didn’t mention poll taxes so I’m not sure what you are getting at. All welfare payments with the exception of disability pension are subject to income taxes so any reduction in income taxes also benefits people who receive welfare income. I’m not sure why you think paying income tax is necessary for feeling like you have a stake in government. Please elaborate.

  12. @Andrew Reynolds
    Andrew – Ive never heard a sillier comment than this “I would agree with Terje – let’s move towards getting rid of the pension completely.”

    You just dont understand that the social costs of such a move would far outweigh any benefits. This isnt a third world country but some are trying to make it one..most people are in private super – mandatory private super. Is it enough when employers use every method possible to minimise super payments – case in point – universities. They pay a double rate to staff on permanent or part time positions – but then they hire enormous amounts of casuals on half the super rate.

    Ahh but its all private isnt it? Well its just plain not enough and people know if they can barely afford their mortgages (which many cant – the stats are out there – financial distress looming large already – private debt through the stratosphere).

    Im wondering Andy, whether you live in the real world. I dont think so. You “individual free choice peddlers really worry me…as if many people even have the choice of private super extra payments when they are trying to feed their families and keep their houses.

    Clearly you have the choice Andy but what makes you think the majority live like you?

  13. Alice – the majority have enough to pay their own way. For the minority we have disability pension and unemployment benefits. I’d suggest we ought to have a negative income tax or general social wage instead. Either way we don’t need a benefit for oldness. The case for the aged pension at this point in time is that it was part of the setup when currently old people were paying taxes. However with mandatory super and plenty of notice we ought to be phasing out the aged pension. The way to do this is to increase the retirement age over time until it is irrelevant. The ALP was quite reasonable in making a start on this.

  14. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    The majority have barely enough to pay for their own roof..let alone the electricity impost the state govt is planning.

    You do live on a different planet when one in four are facing housing induced financial stress Terje. What affluent suburb do you live in that you cant see outside its borders?

  15. Aly,
    Which “real world” do you live in? The one where people hit 65 and all want to immediately leave the workforce or should get forced to do so? The point with private schemes is that you get the flexibility that a government pension cannot provide. There is also no (or limited) intergenerational subsidy.
    The pension (as opposed to unemployment benefit) was put in place to be a reward for those few that managed to live to what was then a ripe old age. It is no longer that and as we all age more than we used to (thanks, in no small part, to more wealth for us all) it has become a de facto indication of the point at which companies can expect us to leave the workforce.
    The reason I say work towards getting rid of it is simple – I disagree with a one size fits all world.
    There are plenty of providers out there that would be able to provide appropriate schemes for most, if not all – the unions, credit societies and others like them notably amongst them.
    Note that “private” does not necessarily mean “for profit”.

  16. Why not consider Dr Jonathan Swift’s ‘modest proposal’? The poor would then become transformed from a public liability into a public asset. And, perhaps most attractive, the problem would be solved through the bounty of the wondrous ‘free’ market. That said, Dr Swift’s excellent proposal would almost certainly run into food safety, so-called, concerns.

    Shouldn’t all the solutions to life’s problems be sourced to the 18th Century?

  17. When the aged pension was first introduced, the average life expectancy was only around 65 years. The pension was designed as an insurance measure so that people who happened to live longer than usual could receive assistance. It was never remotely intended as some sort of entitlement to retire at the taxpayers expense.

    The problem with all government programs is that they tend to breed a sense of entitlement, and the sense of entitlement tends to last long after the programs have ceased to be affordable.

  18. Terje has a valid point that there is no inherent reason for a government payment based solely on being old. If a person is unable to work due to age-related problems of declining strength and poor health and they lack other means of support they could just be paid a disability pension. There is no reason why an individual should have an automatic right to income support without having to seek employment based on age alone, regardless of how fit or qualified or not one may be.

    The only valid objection is that beyond a certain age the likelihood of significant impairments becomes high enough that it is easier and less costly to simply guarantee income support than assess for disability. But given increased life expectancy and an aging population, that age should be revised upwards.

  19. Ditto Monkey’s Uncle? He who takes anti ageing tablets every day and thinks he is going to live and work forever young and has no tolerance for age (unless it is constantly revised upwards)? I too would like my work aptitude revised upwards infinitely a long with it my pension age..who knows? They might even invent the eternal life pill in my lifetime…but until they do and until I am fit enough to work forever…Id suggest you and Terje keep your young men;s opinions where they belong (with selfish youth who dont want to support the aged that gave them a reason to exist). That is not the way life goes MU.

  20. “Id suggest you and Terje keep your young men;s opinions where they belong (with selfish youth who dont want to support the aged that gave them a reason to exist). That is not the way life goes MU.”

    Alice, I believe our host has warned you before about making hostile generalisations based on age, gender etc. We can really do without these foul-tempered and bigoted outbursts every time you cannot maintain an argument on its merits.

  21. Aly,
    Just because something is old does not make it useless. This applies as much to ideas as to people. You seem to want to condemn both on the same basis.

  22. Super as support in old age relies on the continued smooth functioning of financial markets. This is not guaranteed. And those who retire in a market downturn will not be happy.

    BTW, pensions were invented when it was obvious that previous community systems (parish relief as a backstop, but the obligation on landowners and families to provide) had irretrievably broken down. Old age is not new.

    Terje – my tax return gives me a good idea of what I have paid, and I have a good, if rough, idea of what I get for it. And it tells me what the scale is for others. Historically, complete reliance on indirect taxes goes with lower class resentment and unrest – people tend to feel they are carrying an unfair share of the burden, and have no way to check. And yes, I know income tax came in in Britain only in 1806 or so, but landowners paid land tax.

  23. Considering most pension recipients have put in a life of work, I reckon they deserve to be paid enough to at least maintain a reasonable standard of living. Let’s face you’re not going to be living high on the hog on the pension. Anyway it would be political suicide.

    The best way to reduce future pension obligations is to up compulsory super to the original 15% target. This could also have a dampening effect on wage inflation, which could be pretty handy if the rosier forecasts turn out to be correct.

  24. Peter T :
    Super as support in old age relies on the continued smooth functioning of financial markets. This is not guaranteed. And those who retire in a market downturn will not be happy.

    True. But funding aged pensions and every other government program still relies on sufficient economic growth to maintain the revenues to fund them. Given that virtually every developed nation is already experiencing major financial problems in terms of large budget deficits and public debt, things can only get worse as populations age? What is happening in Greece at the moment is merely a harbinger of the economic and societal collapse that could well happen more broadly.

    Government provision often creates the illusion of security, but actually increases insecurity as people come to depend on things that are not sustainable. At best governments can delay the reckoning by borrowing against the future up to a point.

    I agree that there has to be a safety net for those whose investments tank or for other reasons can’t adequately provide for their old age. But it is not wise to encourage too many people to be dependent on government.

  25. Greece seems destined to experience a reduction in the size of government the god awful hard way.

  26. @Monkey’s Uncle
    MU. Kindly point to where you beleive I was warned by the host re comments on age or gender. You are making things up as you go along MU. I was alluding to the fact that it is somewhat easier for the young to be resentful and to express that resentment vociferously about those who receive the old age pension and having to contribute with their taxes (which some resent even more especially in this blog)…of course until its their turn to be old or in need. My comment had nothing to do with being either ageist or sexist and to label my comment ‘bigoted” is your feeble view… and misses the point completely.

  27. Monkey’s Uncle

    You do not need growth (otherwise transfer payments could not have been made in previous times of no growth). Although the proportion of older people is growing, the proportion of younger is shrinking. And even if the overall dependency ratio rises, this can be dealt with by fairly minor reductions in consumption by the working age population.

    The old are not going to disappear. If there were no pension, they would be living with their children, and still be dependent.

    Growth just allows us to avoid distribution issues.

  28. Peter,

    Even if it is true that a declining ratio of working-age people can support more older people without economic collapse (I’m skeptical about this, but even if it were true), there is still the issue of intergenerational equity.

    Is it fair that younger people should have to support a higher proportion of older folks than previous generations ever had to when they were younger, simply because older generations either raised fewer children, or put more effort and resources into prolonging their own lives, or decided not to prepare for their own old age. It effectively amounts to punishing the young for the mistakes made by older generations.

    The problem is that expecting a declining ratio of working-age people to support more older people is not only economically inefficient, but it is also not terribly equitable. It fails on both efficiency and equity grounds. Any such policy is hard to justify.

  29. Hi John,
    What’s your opinion of the Neo-Chartalist argument that (to oversimplify) deficits are not a problem in a fiat monetary system because the government can issue money up until the point where all effective demand is actualised, and has no need to balance its budget in the same way a household does?

  30. Alice, I recall on one thread you had a comment deleted for saying something like ‘the young are tired of old white men’. For you to insist you have never been cautioned for making hostile generalisations based on age, race, or gender and to accuse me of simply making it all up is extraordinary. I am sure there are other examples, and readers are welcome to search this blog. In any case, I will appeal to the fair-mindedness of the blog owner and regular readers here and ask ‘can anyone recall Alice being cautioned for such comments?’.

    I don’t wish to derail a thread over this. I only mentioned it because a serious breech of the guidelines was directed at me, and I have to respond again as I was falsely accused of making things up.

  31. James,
    That economic strategy has been used before and proved a roaring success – Weimar Germany, several times in Argentina, recently in Zimbabwe and in several other places for example. It is generally known as having recourse to the printing press.

  32. Monkey’s Uncle

    What do you think happened in previous periods where population was static or declining? Things did not collapse.

    Talk of fairness and efficiency is fine. But the old do not go away whatever the policy, and remain dependent. The issue is how and what level of suppport. We could, for instance, withdraw pensions (tried in Russia post 89). Then most would move in with family, some would starve, some would beg, and some would eke out an existence selling matches on the streets.

    We have mandated reliance on super, but some fall through the cracks, and market returns look very chancy for the next decade as economies rebalance. In any event, this policy favours the rich, and so breeds discontent.

    And we have to fgo through the demographic transition someday – the earth can carry only so many.

  33. @Monkey’s Uncle
    Can anyone recall Alice being cautioned in this blog for the things you suggest MU (ageism and sexism??)

    The answer is no and you obviously cant find the caution. I await your apology for “making things up” MU.

  34. @Monkey’s Uncle
    BTW MU – you proved my point with the following comment

    “Is it fair that younger people should have to support a higher proportion of older folks than previous generations ever had to when they were younger, simply because older generations either raised fewer children, or put more effort and resources into prolonging their own lives, or decided not to prepare for their own old age. It effectively amounts to punishing the young for the mistakes made by older generations. ”

    As I said (which wasnt ageist)

    “I was alluding to the fact that it is somewhat easier for the young to be resentful and to express that resentment vociferously about those who receive the old age pension and having to contribute with their taxes (which some resent even more especially in this blog)…of course until its their turn to be old or in need. ”

    I think you are a fair example of resentful youth objecting to pensions for older age people….until they belong to the same older demographic of course. You also forget the oladr age voting block in Australia, which is why we have old age pensions. I could say…and it would be true…historically there have been those in much greater need of assistance, like single mothers, and I might even prefer such assistance be directed to those in greatest need. You also ignore the political influences on welfare and who gets what. That is neither sexist or ageist and you need to ponder your membership of a lesser voting block when you make such comments. Liklihood of things going your way right now? Almost zero. Likelihood of welfare payments going where I think they should…about the same.

  35. I was alluding to the fact that it is somewhat easier for the young to be resentful and to express that resentment vociferously about those who receive the old age pension and having to contribute with their taxes (which some resent even more especially in this blog)…of course until its their turn to be old or in need.

    If this is targeted at me then it is wrong.

    Firstly your comment presumes a malicious motive. Unfortunately in this regard it is so damn typical of leftist claims to moral superiority. The leftis logic being “I think your policy is driven by evil motives therefore you’re wrong and I’m right”. I’m not resentful of those that receive the old age pension. I am starting to get a bit ticked off by somebodies repeated attempts to malign my character.

    Secondly I have advocated a graduated increasing of the aged pension over time. I happen to be of a generation that had madatory superannuation since very early in our working lives. On that basis the phase out of the aged pension that I artculated in the LDP policy on the aged pension means my generation would be the first to get no aged pension. The protects the entitlement for the current crop of oldies. So rather than taking from the older generation I’ve advocated preserving for the older generation and removing for my generation.

  36. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Terje – you read into my comment what you like. If you take it personally Id suggest you are being little paranoid…however I have noted your repeated calls for lower income taxes of all descriptions…and Im much more inclined to agree with the thread title.
    I get a little ticked off with people who keep pushing what appear to me “beggar thy neighbour ideas” as long as it means lower income taxes for them.

    If you ever advocated a graduated increase in the age pension over time Terje…how do you intend to fund it? By an impost on private sector business (given that you want smaller government and lower income taxes – Im really not sure what you are suggesting here or anywhere else – or do you mean an increase in the age at which people can access the pension – it is not clear).

  37. @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Furthermore Terje
    “On that basis the phase out of the aged pension that I artculated in the LDP policy on the aged pension means my generation would be the first to get no aged pension.”

    People quite naturally change their views come pension entitlement age (and if you do not, the majority of your generation are likely to disgree with your plans). You cannot plan for that Terje. I mentioned before, the age pension is a political hot potato although you may get your way if you are a demographic minority. Just blame the baby boomers Terje. They usually got what they wanted!

  38. @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    I happen to be of a generation that had madatory superannuation since very early in our working lives.

    Well, boo-hoo. Which was a function of neo-liberal politics in action. That which you support, defend and advocate.

    Suck it up.

  39. @Alicia
    Unfortunately Alicia…the GFC did suck up a lot of people’s superannuation which just served to show it is not a safe form of retirement savings…which may be why property continues to be so hot in this town?
    What point to mandatory retirement savings that can vanish into the ether with the speculative shenaningans and trailing commissions of packs of globally de-regulated fund managers and assorted middlemen? I dont know whether Terje isnt backing a losing horse advocating the removal of pensions for his age group, when there is no certainty their mandatory super will provide for them in their old age.

  40. There is a typo in my comment above.

    Secondly I have advocated a graduated increasing of the aged pension over time.

    Should have been:-

    Secondly I have advocated a graduated increasing of the eligibility age for the aged pension over time.

  41. @Andrew Reynolds
    Andrew,
    My understanding of the neo-chartalist perspective is that they acknowledge that the money supply should be constrained to match the total supply of goods and services in a situation where all effective demand has been actualised, as opposed to the current situation where the money supply is constrained by the amount the government can tax. We can tell that all effective demand has not been actualised by persistent high levels of unemployment and poverty compared to, say, the post-war “golden age”. This is rather different from Weimar (paying off punitive war reparations without an economic base) or Zimbabwe (a kleptocrat seizing control of the central bank).

  42. Alice, I’m generally highly sympathetic to your views, however your debating skills are atrocious, you’re incredibly rude and personal and like making sweeping, outrageous generalisations. I recall you being warned along such lines by our host several times.

    So, even though I think you’re often right, I agree with Monkey’s Uncle, if anyone’s going to be coughing up an apology, it oughta be you.

    Of course, from now on you’ll think I’m a fascist capitalist old white male (without really knowing a damn thing about me), and will dismiss or attack everything I say. Oh well, my loss.

    Others (e.g. you Terje), please don’t generalise Alice’s comments to the ‘left’ (whatever that means these days), you know she’s not here representing anyone other than herself (nor are any of us).

    On the topic at hand, I think it’s a matter of risk management. A basic retirement sustenance wage is a fundamental need for a fair society. While most can provide for themselves, it would surely be cost effective across the economy for government to provide a basic safety net, absent the vagaries of the market? So yeah, the pension should stay, and should not have its eligibility expanded, however with compulsory super the proportion of elderly Australians calling on it should naturally decline.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s