Too Much Information…
Have you ever had gum-grafting?
I did. On Friday. And it was far worse than I thought it would be.
I almost chickened out, to be quite honest. After they froze my teeth, mouth, lips, gums, and basically half my face, I panicked. But eventually I calmed down, and in the words of Gary Gilmore I just said, “Let’s do it.”
It’s awful. I’ve been splitting blood for three days, and that made for some very interesting client interactions on Saturday & Sunday.
So………on to something real estate related, then?
–
F*** The Rich, And Tax Them Too!
Nobody cares about this, right?
Only me?
In 2019, I see just as many examples of people caring too much about things that don’t affect them as I do the complete opposite: people not caring at all.
Toronto City Council, in its infinite wisdom, is contemplating (ie. this is already a done deal) the creation of a new land transfer tax threshold for those properties selling over $3,000,000.
Read the article here:
“Create New Land Transfer Tax Bracket On Home Sales Over $3-Million, Toronto Councillors Propose”
Man, it must be nice to be a city councilor! You just sit around all day and come up with ideas for new taxes, without consulting anybody in the process.
This idea is being floated by none other than Joe Cresey, he who would literally put a safe-injection site in your living room if he could. In fact, he might have already tried, but you wouldn’t have been told, because he doesn’t like communicating with his constituents when they disagree with him.
Now I understand that people who don’t own housing, or people who purchased for $985,000 really don’t care about the land transfer tax that those buying over $3,000,000 are going to pay. But maybe they should.
Let’s not forget, the Toronto Land Transfer Tax didn’t exist until 2008 when Mayor David Miller essentially pulled it out of nowhere. Well, not nowhere, of course. The Ontario government already had the same tax in place, but the Toronto government thought nothing of doubling the tax. Imagine Toronto City Council suddenly coming up with a 13% sales tax to match the HST? And suddenly we paid 26% in tax on every purchase we made? Crazy, I know. Except that this is exactly what happened with land transfer tax, and the fight against it just wasn’t strong enough.
Toronto expects to collect a whopping $730 Million this year from land transfer tax, which goes a long way toward paying the bills at city hall.
But how much is too much?
City council has increased the land transfer tax amounts twice already since its debut in 2008.
And we’re constantly hearing the boo-hoo’s of city council about “missing their targets” and not raping home-buyers enough, as per this December 2018 article:
“City Of Toronto Land Transfer Tax Revenues Miss Target For First Time”
Just couldn’t quite make that $818 Million “target,” eh? Boo-f’ing hoo.
Imagine that. A “target” for tax revenue.
Am I the only one insulted by this?
I just can’t get over the fact that this tax didn’t exist just over ten years ago, and now the city cries when it can’t quite get it’s billion dollars for absolutely, positively, nothing.
This is a nothing tax, plain and simple.
We pay property tax to the city, which is a tax directly attributable to services received in exchange for home ownership.
And the insult to injury here is the new’ish fee of $75.00 required in order to pay your land transfer tax bill just to begin with!
Folks, don’t delude yourselves into thinking that city council’s pending increase in LTT for homes over $3M is an isolated event. It merely opens the door to further taxes down the road.
Every resident of the city should be outraged. Or, I dunno, maybe you just love paying taxes…
–
Can I Get A Do-Over?
This is from the library of “Worst possible scenario.”
Imagine you put your home on the market and everything is going according to plan. You’re getting showings, the open house is busy, and you’re gearing up for an “offer night” on Monday.
But then imagine the worst possible scenario.
What could it be?
Perhaps, I dunno, a massive tree falling down in a storm and crushing the house?
Close.
A couple of weeks ago, a house flooded during the Sunday open house, and this was one day before offers were scheduled to be reviewed on the following night.
If I were the listing agent for the property, there’s no question what I would do: I would terminate the listing, fix the problem, and re-list in a couple of weeks, or a month, when the buyer pool is less scared of the problem.
What did the agents in this particular case do?
They went ahead with the offer night!
They sent an email to everybody that had shown the house and disclosed what had happened, which was great; that’s exactly what you’re supposed to do. But it just reeked of “Nothing to see here, folks. Just this little spot of water, which we’ve cleaned up, and now there’s no problem.”
Why in the world would they go ahead with the offer night?
What buyer in his or her right mind would purchase a house that just flooded?
The listing agent sent a 3-page email complete with times, dates, repairs, and photos, which, again, is exactly what you’re supposed to do if and when making a disclosure. But the tragic decision to go ahead and try to sell this house on the scheduled offer night, to buyers that wanted to purchase a newly-flooded house, was terribly misplaced.
The house still sold, and over asking too. I know, I know, “over asking” means less and less these days, but it did sell a good amount over list.
However, there’s absolutely, positively no doubting that one, two, or ten buyers said, “Thanks, but no thanks” at the prospect of buying a house that just flooded, and for the life of me, I just can’t understand this course of action by the sellers and the listing agent. Unless they needed to sell, like, that day, then there’s just no reason for this.
–
How Tough Is The Rental Market?
Really tough, if you’re incapable of performing common, routine, day-to-day functions. Honestly, just listen to this…
I have a listing right now in an area in the northwest-GTA, and the interactions I’m getting with would-be tenants and agents are bizarre.
I’m looking at an Equifax Credit Score of 522 right now. Five-twenty-two.
I have never seen a credit score that low in 15 years. I’ve never actually seen one below 600. Bless these folks for trying, but two prospective tenants who both have credit scores in the 500’s, one of them unemployed, and looking to spend 65% of their household income on rent. It doesn’t make sense.
But the real kicker here was the folks who took eight days to get their offer and supporting documentation together. For real, an agent sent me an offer to lease eight days ago, with zero accompanying information. Even if it wasn’t common knowledge in the agent community that you need to have a credit check, employment letter, and rental application (plus often pay stubs and references from previous landlords), I always write this on my listings!
I told the agent that the offer wouldn’t suffice, and he just said, “Oh. Okay. So now what?” It made me want to spit blood….
I outlined exactly what the agent needed to do, and every day for the past eight days, I’ve been receiving one more piece of the puzzle. Except even those pieces don’t fit.
For example, I received an email saying, “Here is the husband’s credit report,” only it wasn’t a credit report, but rather it was an iPhone screen-caputre of the first page of an Equifax Credit Score Report, which is typically 12-15 pages in length. I told the agent to please have the tenant download the report, save it as a PDF, and email it. I was told, “He doesn’t know how to do that, and I can’t help him right now.”
Really? Then how is he going to take care of a house?
These folks completely disregarded the process required to find housing in this market, and seemed to be willfully ignorant about what they needed to do. The agent kept asking me, “Is this really necessary? These are good people. I promise!”
This went on for eight days; I’m talking employment letters that aren’t signed by anybody, and are in an MS Word file, upside-down photos of the OREA Rental Application, only 1/3 filled out, and a screen-capture of a TD Bank account with 10-15 debits/credits, but no date, no name, no account number, nothing. So, this would-be tenant spent $87.20 at Fido last month? Great!
And you know what? I don’t blame the prospective tenants. I blame the agents representing them.
It’s times like these I couldn’t be happier that it now takes a 2-year college course through Humber College to get into real estate.
–
Not In My Backyard!
A friend of mine is part of a running group that passes through several different areas of the city with a horde of joggers every week, and I was shocked to hear about his latest experience.
Do you know Heath Street? Great spot, right? Family-friendly, scenic, really nice jogging trails connecting to the ravine.
Well, a local yahoo apparently told this group of runners that they “weren’t welcome” and stressed that they, apparently, had no right to trespass on this particular section of city-owned streets.
But it didn’t end there; this yahoo also called the head of the running group (I suppose this person was listed online?) to complain, and tell them to stay away.
Isn’t that nuts?
It reminds me of the Nike ads from the late 1990’s comparing the treatment of skateboarders to other athletes. They did one about running…
–
Bottom Of The Barrel?
You know we’ve really become lax with the rules surrounding home building when you see this noted on the MLS listing:
“All Building Permits In Place And All Done Legally”
Really? We’re actually advertising this now?
It’s like a parent bragging, “I take care of my kids.” We’re just noting things that are supposed to be done?
A person selling a newly-built house got permits? And it was done legally? And this simply MUST be noted on the listing?
Yeah, well, I guess that’s where we are now. That’s how far we’ve come.
Toronto is full of homes that were renovated without permits; some even built without permits! And I have a sneaking suspicion that the Canada Revenue Agency is going to start coming after the buyers of homes if they can’t go after the builders.
Consider the “substantial renovation.” You all know what this is, right?
The developer keeps the side walls of a brick bungalow so he can claim this wasn’t a “new build” but rather a “substantial renovation,” and then doesn’t apply for the TARION warranty so he doesn’t have to charge GST.
The Canada Revenue Agency has become more fierce than ever. Just ask your accountant, and he or she will tell you stories. And guess what, folks? They’re coming after your substantial renovation.
Like every other agent in Toronto, I have sold homes without a TARION warranty.
But going forward, consider the red flag raised.
–
Okay, if you see me this week, just cut me some slack.
Yes, I look like a vampire.
Yes, I look like I have the mumps too.
Yes, I scare my daughter daily with my bright purple mouth, dripping blood like a zombie.
And yes, I have consumed eight packs of Kraft Dinner, five cans of Zoodles, and a family-pack of Spaghettini cooked so soft you could almost drink it.
Happy Monday, everybody!
Ed
at 7:57 am
that it now takes a 2-year college course through Humber College to get into real estate.
Wow, when did that change?
Ellie
at 12:00 pm
My Monday laugh. Thanks for all your updates Dave. ????????????
Paully
at 12:21 pm
Wow! Based on your regular postings of absolutely ridiculous, incompetent MLS listings, I thought that the only requirement to become a real estate agent was the ability to (barely) fog a mirror!
Izzy Bedibida
at 12:53 pm
…And print your name on the commission’s form…
TOPlanner
at 2:52 pm
David, there are targets for tax revenues because the City uses tax revenue to pay for services. As most people who use the TTC or try to sign their kids up for recreation programs know, we are short a whole lot of $$$ for sorely-needed services. Are you suggesting that people buying homes over $3 million can’t afford to contribute more, or shouldn’t? Who should then?
I have to say, I object to your use of the verb rape in this context as well.
Chris
at 3:11 pm
One of the definitions of “rape” is “an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force”. While I would personally avoid its use in this context, because people tend to dislike it, it seems David has not misused the word.
With regards to the tax, I don’t understand how Toronto city council’s response to LTT revenue falling short (primarily due to lower sales volumes) is to add another LTT, which will further impede transactions. We’ve talked about LTT and Stamp Duties on this blog before, and how notoriously inefficient they are.
I don’t think anyone is arguing municipal services shouldn’t be paid for. But a third LTT doesn’t seem like the right way to go about it. Personally, I would prefer higher property or land value taxes.
TOPlanner
at 3:32 pm
I would also prefer higher property taxes. However, the mayor and his supporters are notoriously averse to raising them.
Some of the same councillors proposing this change to the LTT also proposed higher property taxes or other revenue tools during the City’s budget process that were rejected.
Chris
at 4:02 pm
Fair points. While I tend to like John Tory, I do wish he wasn’t so insistent on holding property taxes down.
Maybe I’m naive, but I think he could politically pull off a property tax increase above inflation if coupled with a reduction or elimination of the municipal land transfer tax. Pitch it as helping to get young families into homes, reducing barriers to relocation given new economic realities and more tenuous employment, etc. etc.
Peter Anderson
at 6:42 pm
I think I’ll take a shot at this since David so seldom answers questions on here. And that’s by no way a slight, I would imagine writing the blogs is time consuming enough for a busy agent.
I won’t speak for David, but in the past he has mentioned that he is a “fiscal conservative,” as am I. I would argue that every government’s constant answer to any shortfall in revenues is simply to increase taxes on the most wealthy. It is the easiest thing to do, and since the wealthy represent the smallest percentage of the population, it also is fought the least. To look at cutting services, searching for efficiencies, outsourcing, utilizing the private sector, or eliminating the “gravy train“ is uncouth. It is so much simpler to merely take a page from Justin Trudeau‘s book, and suggest that “in times of need, the wealthiest Canadians have always been there to help out,” as though they have a choice. I believe I’ve seen that quote on this blog before too. 🙂
The words “can afford to help” are problematic, since it takes fairness out of the equation, and simply relies on ability. Those people who “can afford to pay higher taxes” can also afford to live with four TV’s instead of five, but to suggest taking one of their TV’s would be ridiculous. I believe the taking has to stop somewhere, in the interest of fairness. Otherwise why not take it all? How can you possibly draw a line? Why not implement a 70% personal income tax bracket? We know the 1% are powerless to stop it.
TOPlanner, if your moniker is any indication, you are employed directly in a field where tax dollars are seen at work. I can see how this hit you right where it hurts.
David, perhaps your two cents would be worthwhile here?
David Fleming
at 10:21 am
@ Peter Anderson
Okay, I’ll bite.
The by-product of being positively authentic, not holding back, and providing opinion at all costs, is that on a long enough time horizon, every single reader/commenter will be offended by something I say. TOPlanner is a regular reader and commenter, and on this topic we disagree. You are correct that his or her work in the field is obviously going to mean offense is taken.
The rest is not quite a short answer, but in the interest of keeping this page from scrolling down further than one cares to move their thumb on an iPhone, I’ll keep this as short as I can.
As for being a fiscal conservative, you are correct, I am one. I think your point about “fairness versus ability” is spot on. I also agree that we have completely lost sight of “fairness in 2019.” I was disgusted by the NDP suggesting that “It’s time the rich pay their fair share.” We live in a country where the highest tax bracket is over 53%. I agree with Conrad Black that for any government to believe they are entitled to more than HALF of what an individual makes, equates to theft. Adding in a 13% sales tax on everything we purchase, plus property tax, sneaky eco-fees built in to thousands of consumer purchases, and the best – estate tax when you die, how much of our incomes are we actually handing over to the government? It has become impossible for anybody in this country to get ahead.
But as it pertains to the wealthiest, I see what’s happening in the United States where the radical left (many won’t like that phrase but how else do you describe AOC’s Green New Deal, which is fantasy written by an intellectual lightweight) want to institute a 70% tax for those uber-wealthy individuals, and I think that’s a microcosm of where society has gone.
We talk a lot on this blog about financial literacy, but I also speak of personal responsibilty and entitlement. The other story in today’s blog – about the would-be tenants who don’t want to “bother” submitting the correct documents with their offer to lease, is also a microcosm of the laziness and entitlement that’s so pervasive in society as well. I do believe that government policies and hand-outs over the past decade have shaped these beliefs, or at the very least, reinforced them, and it’s why society has come to believe that the government is there to provide.
We truly have developed a nanny state, and the more people want, the more money has to be spent. The more money has to be spent, the more must be collected. Look no further than the wealthy for who has money, and who is, as Peter Anderson said above, powerless to stop it. Although I will never be one of those individuals, it doesn’t mean I won’t call out treatment that I believe is wrong.
I also agree that TOPlanner’s use of the words “can afford to” are misguided. It’s not a matter of being able to afford to, it’s a matter of fairness.
I probably shouldn’t tell this story, but when I was in first-year university, I wrote a paper on progressive tax brackets, and how misguided they were. I surmised that if the overall tax rate were 30%, and we only taxed individuals over a certain threshold, then an individual making, say, $60,000 would pay $18,000 to the government in taxes. An individual making $3,000,000 would pay $900,000 to the government in taxes. That, in my mind, was unfair. Not unfair in the way that most people think, ie. that individual should pay at a higher rate, but rather the exact opposite. I argued that to pay $900,000 to receive essentially the same services as the person who paid $18,000 was unfair. Sure, the person making $3,000,000 likely has a car and drives on the roads that are paid for by government tax dollars, whereas the person making $60,000 might not. And we can come up with other examples accordingly. But that person still receives the same crappy healthcare (and can’t pay for private healthcare because the government doesn’t want the wealthy to “have”), has access to the same public services, and for the most part, simply pays more because they make more. I argued that this is not, in any way, “equal.” My T.A., who was probably in his 6th year of undergrad, on the way to becoming a lifelong academic with no real-world experience, gave me a D on the paper, even though it was in a course on philosophy where the purpose of the paper was to argue for or against a societal norm.
I wrote that paper when I was 18-years-old, and have come to realize that progressive tax brackets are an accepted part of the system. But I bring that up to illustrate the origin of “fairness” in a taxation system.
TOPlanner, you asked “where should the money come from,” and I would ask you to examine the other side of the coin, that perhaps along with spending more, the government could also spend less. We talk about the housing market in terms of both supply and demand, ie. if you want prices to go down, you need to decrease demand, or increase supply. So in the context of city spending, why is the conversation never about cutting costs? I know, I know, nobody wants to hear that. But do you know what a blight on the city the TTC has become? I asked a freind of mine who works for a pension fund what the TTC is “worth.” He said somewhere around negative $500 Million. That is to suggest if somebody were to buy the TTC, they would want a $500 Million incentive from the city, because the TTC, in its current form, is set up to lose money. Fare collectors making $90,000 to stand in front of a box? That would never happen in the private sector, which is far more efficient. So many city services are costing 10x what it would cost in the private sector, but the public is fed this idea that the private sector is evil, when all the while, tax dollars could be spent elsewhere if the money that IS spent was done so with efficiency.
Everybody hates the Toronto Sun, and I know it’s a rag. But they were the only newspaper to write about the expense accounts of city councilors: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/levy-choo-choo-the-gravy-train-returns-to-city-hall
So there. I’ve probably lost a couple fans, readers, and maybe even clients, but we all have opinions, and I’m not embarassed to share mine. My name is at the top of the site, my opinions are my own, and while others enjoy the cloak of anonymity (including blog trolls who work as failing real estate agents…), I’m always willing to share my two cents.
Apologies for not being more responsive to the message board, I will make more of an effort to provide commentary when asked, or answer specific question when they arise.
David.
Kathy
at 11:35 am
Far from your most controversial posts. And I’m in agreement for the most part.
As you said, it’s really just a matter of too many mouths to feed and not enough food. That and never knowing where to draw the line.
Anthony
at 1:21 pm
The TTC is awful and I would love to see it privatized! It makes me sick to think these civil servants get almost six figure salaries plus medical, dental, pension, and the backing of a strong union when they beat people up for fun:
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/father-and-son-charged-in-brawl-with-ttc-officers-speak-out-1.2310085
Sitting on a stool and watching people put a ticket in a box is a minimum-wage job. Torontonians should be outraged by the salaries these people receive.
Libertarian
at 2:03 pm
Well said David!
The only thing I would disagree with is about the gov’t policies and handouts of the last decade. It’s been going on a lot longer than a decade. More like 3 or 4 decades. Your T.A. gave you a D because he had been brainwashed by academia that the public sector is good and should be as big as possible.
I am hoping that there’ll come a time when all these millennials apply Marie Kondo principles to gov’t. Show your gratitude to useless, outdated services and kiss them goodbye. That’s the only way things can get back under control. If the gov’t wants to spend more money on something, the money has to come from cutting spending on something else.
David (Not the David who runs this website)
at 2:36 pm
Libertarian, you’re 100% correct. The problem that we face in Toronto and Canada for that matter, is that all levels of government have a spending problem. They just don’t care that they are slowing killing this country and seem to think that they can just tax and spend as they want. At some point, the tax rates will be so high that we’ll have nothing left.
I’m already doing without a lot things that I could have because I have to fork over a huge part of my earnings to the government thugs. It’s getting to the point where I can’t have much of anything because I can’t afford it.
David’s quote, “It has become impossible for anybody in this country to get ahead.” is spot on. There really is no point in trying to get ahead because it’s taken away from you. The tax rates are far too high at mid income levels and the government has a hate-on for anyone who’s successful. I wonder what it’s going to take for the people to push back and say, enough of this!
Derek
at 3:03 pm
Tax policy is one complicated can of worms. Would be curious to learn of any similarly sized (population) countries with good mortality rates with tax policies that are “fairer”. I thought I read recently that there is a high percentage of Canadians that pay no (income) tax at all (net). Likely no property tax either, then. That’s bonkers.
Progressive brackets dampen the greater proportion of taxes paid by higher earners versus an uncapped flat tax that David appeared to describe in his old paper. Anyway, I would like to find an atlas to tax schemes around the world. Maybe someone has a better one.
Regarding public sector jobs and wages one thought I have is that it is amazing how total the victory is for corporate anti-union interests where not only have the people been convinced that it’s unthinkable that private sector employment should come with good secure wages and benefits like our parents used to enjoy, but that public sector jobs shouldn’t either. It now goes without saying.
I think It’s dangerous to get into a pi**ing contest to identify all jobs that should be minimum wage because there’s always someone who thinks someone else’s job is beneath him.
There was a time when public sector jobs struggled to compete with private sector jobs. If one shouldn’t be better than the other then improving on the private sector side is a worthy pursuit. And la te da etc 🙂
Derek
at 3:36 pm
…another thought…in addition to reducing spending and/or skimming more taxes, there are other policies that can increase revenue. One important area that comes to mind and ties in with my earlier post somewhat is the example of that large corporate bakery that was in the news last year for worker injuries / deaths. The gov’t allows such places to hire workers through agencies and pay their workers in cash daily or weekly or whatever it was. In addition to a host of issues with this employment practice (skirting WSIB premiums for ex.), the company did not appear to be withholding or remitting taxes. How prevalent is this in the private sector? I remember arguing with a federal MP on the phone about the increased taxes on small businesses. So you want to tax me more but a multimillion dollar bakery can pay it’s (surviving) workers in cash!?!? And not remit the taxes Or cpp etc!?!
Julia
at 11:18 pm
Thanks for being so candid, David – it’s truly refreshing to read – I concur on all points especially the one about personal responsibility and cost cutting.
TOPlanner
at 1:41 pm
I’m a little delayed in my response here, but wanted to respond to these points.
Peter, you are correct if you’re assuming I’m an urban planner. For me, it is less about having tax dollars to fund urban planners’ salaries, and more about having tax dollars to provide services and infrastructure that create quality of life for the public.
David and Peter, I agree that we are coming from different perspectives (fiscal conservative versus economic progressive). I enjoy having these kinds of conversations because I find that I learn more from people who think differently from me. David, this is one of the main reasons I read your blog.
My larger argument is that we, as a society (including the wealthy), should pay for things that contribute to the basic health and well-being of all members of our society. Let’s use the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a list of the essentials – your standard liberties + food, medicine, shelter, education, etc.
Beyond the moral argument, there is an economic argument here. There is a lot of research that shows that is actually less costly to provide social services like housing support than to pay for homeless shelters, ER stays, and jail time for homeless people. I’ve pointed this out in comments on previous posts of David’s.
It is not as simple as spending more or spending less – it matters what we are spending tax dollars on.
Let’s talk about crime, since the Toronto Police take up the largest chunk of the City’s money. Do I think it’s a good idea for the Toronto Police to buy expensive tech software to track gunshots (ShotSpotter)? Heck no.
Do I think it’s a good idea to increase spending to keep libraries open longer, fund after school programs and social worers in a community based approach to reducing crime? Heck yes.
The right social programs are an investment in a healthy, safer population that requires less of the expensive, reactionary type of spending (police tasks forces, homeless shelters, etc).
I hate to trot out the tired example of Scandinavian countries, but guys, there is a reason that Denmark, Finland and Norway are always at the top of the healthiest and happiest country lists. You can disagree with whether you’re willing to pay the taxes required to fund the programs that create this health and happiness, but you can’t argue with the outcomes.
Jimbo
at 9:28 am
I think you are describing a flat tax vs progressive tax. If it were progressive then the $60k a year would pay less than $18k as the first half would be at a lower percentage than 30.
Sirgruper
at 7:11 pm
If you are old enough, you will recall that Land Transfer Tax was 1/2 of 1% on the first $55,000 and 1% thereafter. The Province then added a new bracket of 1.5% on true luxury homes of the Bridle Path, Lower Forest Hill and Rosedale at $400,000.00 to tax the rich. A house of $400,000 was a mansion. BUT they never index it. Now, entry level tax is based on a “rich persons percentage” So “tax the rich”, is really tax yourself or your children in the future.
crazyegg
at 11:03 am
Hi All,
I like to always play devils advocate when it comes to what defines a “less desirable” tenant. My colleagues think I am nuts but here goes:
I have had nothing but positive experiences renting out to “non-professionals” such as students, the under employed at precarious jobs and business owners with low declared net income. In my experience, I find these groups to be more motivated and have a different mind set when it comes the work ethic.
“Professionals” may be less inclined to roll up their sleeves to get “real work” when they get laid off…
Regards,
ed…
Mxyzptlk
at 4:11 pm
“Wealth reminds me of manure in the field. When it is in a big pile, it makes a bad smell. But when it is distributed everywhere across the field, it makes the soil fertile.”
– Leo Tolstoy (A Calendar of Wisdom, 1909)
Words of wisdom from a person who certainly knew what it meant to possess (inherit) great wealth, most of which he subsequently gave away. I daresay progressive taxation, had it existed in 19th Century Russia, would have gladdened his heart no end.
Julee Jaji
at 10:22 am
With only a few of us bucks you can obtain some good cards. The unique features of poker have to do with the betting, and do not seem in any known more mature game. It does mark a doorway in lifestyle for all males.