|
This might be the best one yet. I know love is blind (and doesn't look at credit reports) but holy crap how could you let yourself get financially entwined with that guy.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:People's ideas of "I'm doing great now!" are completely ludicrous in this country and saying how a barely six figure incomes isn't life-changing when you live like "most people" makes me an rear end in a top hat and "completely unrealistic." The lady in the article's ideas of "doing well" by my definition are not that far from my idea of scraping by - $120k / yr as a working couple in an area where you could even buy a $250k house during the bubble is not "naming your price" as a professional in an industry that's considered booming. Similarly, during the worst of the recession I read about construction workers that had gotten "crazy" earnings of $80k / yr and they were buying the entire bar rounds and "that truck they'd always wanted." It's like people thought they won the lottery by temporarily doubling their income when it was barely liveable before. The perception Americans have about their personal wealth being so aggrandized bothers me when so many people are living on so little. Maybe I'm crazy, but suddenly making what would be a minimum wage income if pay-outs matched living costs since the minimum wage was introduced shouldn't make people think they won the lottery if you ask me. It's like we're in an alternate reality of the Onion article saying India's version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" that amounted to "Who wants 500 Rupees, a full meal, and a bus ticket home?" I think that people get caught up on their yearly salary as some sort of number that means that it's already in their hands. I know people who, upon getting their job in the healthcare industry at around $50k/year, proceed to lease a brand new $40k vehicle. They do this before they get their first pay stub, because they are "finally earning the big bucks!" There appears to be some disconnect between getting a job and actually earning the money. While they may be earning a good amount, they spend as if they've already accumulated their entire yearly salary way before they actually have. I think if people actually stopped and analyzed how much take-home pay they were earning monthly, they would be shocked that it's nowhere near their yearly salary divided by 12. Also, most people forget to deduct taxes, insurance costs, 401k (if they're smart enough to enroll), and other things that reduce the amount they actually take home. While I know exactly how much my company pays me yearly, I know that I really only get to play with a little more than half that amount once all of that stuff is taken out. Nocheez fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:I think that people get caught up on their yearly salary as some sort of number that means that it's already in their hands. I know people who, upon getting their job in the healthcare industry at around $50k/year, proceed to lease a brand new $40k vehicle. They do this before they get their first pay stub, because they are "finally earning the big bucks!" I think it has more to do with the expectation that your spending should grow to match your income. Because your income is a sign of success/worth as a person. Plus, sometimes when you're broke for a long time, making real money for a while makes you go sort of stupid. I did it when we hit a low six figures. I tried to save(And did some, but not enough), but I spent a ton of money on stupid poo poo and still managed to live pay check to pay check. Thankfully, I came to my senses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:I think that people get caught up on their yearly salary as some sort of number that means that it's already in their hands. I know people who, upon getting their job in the healthcare industry at around $50k/year, proceed to lease a brand new $40k vehicle. They do this before they get their first pay stub, because they are "finally earning the big bucks!" This is one of the reasons that it's really dumb that Americans talk about their salary in terms of their gross income, and not their take-home pay. It's actively misleading. Sure, it's still confusing because it varies with how much you can deduct, etc, but yeah it's a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Citizen Z posted:I think it has more to do with the expectation that your spending should grow to match your income. Because your income is a sign of success/worth as a person. Plus, sometimes when you're broke for a long time, making real money for a while makes you go sort of stupid. Yeah, this was me a few years ago before I started earnestly saving for a house (and now for my Roth IRA + investments). Until you actually look at the poo poo you're spending and really look at how much it's a death of a thousand papercuts, you really don't seem to notice how fast you are draining the reserves. E: Jeffrey posted:This is one of the reasons that it's really dumb that Americans talk about their salary in terms of their gross income, and not their take-home pay. It's actively misleading. Sure, it's still confusing because it varies with how much you can deduct, etc, but yeah it's a big difference. This too. It'd be much more lovely if salaries were based on take home vs pre taxes in my mind; less fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:I think if people actually stopped and analyzed how much take-home pay they were earning monthly, they would be shocked that it's nowhere near their yearly salary divided by 12. Jeffrey posted:This is one of the reasons that it's really dumb that Americans talk about their salary in terms of their gross income, and not their take-home pay. It's actively misleading. Sure, it's still confusing because it varies with how much you can deduct, etc, but yeah it's a big difference. Isn't the main reason that the net earnings will depend on your individual tax rate, which, in turn, depends on various rates for single/married individuals, dependents, etc? Anyway, I have to admit I wish that the practice of thinking of salaries in terms of yearly gross earnings would catch on here. Most people here think of their salaries in terms of monthly net earnings, which while being much better for short term budgeting, doesn't seem to be too great for long term planning and for negotiating wage increases. edit: On a second thought, the premise of negotiating wage increases as a major (or even relevant) issue seems a bit ridiculous. The actual reason why I would like for the habit of specifying the annual income to catch on here is that it might put real estate and big ticket (cars, etc) item prices into perspective with the relatively low annual earnings. a podcast for cats fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Citizen Z posted:I think it has more to do with the expectation that your spending should grow to match your income. Because your income is a sign of success/worth as a person. Plus, sometimes when you're broke for a long time, making real money for a while makes you go sort of stupid. Relevant: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/05/05/308380342/most-americans-make-it-to-the-top-20-percent-at-least-for-a-while Most people hit have some peak earning years and do pretty well during them. Unfortunately, most people don't come to their senses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
My dad's idea of retirement is buying assault weapons.  At least it's not drugs, but sometimes I think it might as well be. There's no arguing with him; he isn't preparing financially because he's convinced the federal government is going to collapse any day now (after banning all guns, of course) and roaming hordes of looters will invade his property to steal ??? I don't even think he knows.My mom just shrugs about it. I feel bad for her because she works like crazy at a stressful job, but hopefully she'll get a good CalPERS pension. My dad won't bring anything to the table other than social security. He does have crazy life insurance, so maybe the plan is he'll drop dead of a heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Barry posted:This might be the best one yet. I know love is blind (and doesn't look at credit reports) but holy crap how could you let yourself get financially entwined with that guy. As far as bad with money, yeah I agree. I can't help but feel bad for them. Did you read the part where he tried to represent himself at his custody hearings in order to save money and ended up having his child support raised from $500 --> $700/mo and he actually keeps the kid half of the month (physical shared parenting but nothing on the legal books.) The common theme of this thread is that there are instances when spending money is actually good with money. Hiring an attorney is the best thing you could do with money when it comes to divorce/ex-spouses/child custody. nikosoft posted:I feel bad for her because she works like crazy at a stressful job, but hopefully she'll get a good CalPERS pension. My dad won't bring anything to the table other than social security. He does have crazy life insurance, so maybe the plan is he'll drop dead of a heart attack. Does your mom also pay into SS? If so I think your dad will be eligible to draw SS checks using her income level rather than his if they've been married >10 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:Does your mom also pay into SS? If so I think your dad will be eligible to draw SS checks using her income level rather than his if they've been married >10 years. This is why a lot of people get a divorce at 61 but still live together and pretend they didn't get divorced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:Does your mom also pay into SS? If so I think your dad will be eligible to draw SS checks using her income level rather than his if they've been married >10 years. Sorry - I meant her pension is CalSTRS. And I think she does, my husband is with CalPERS and looking at one of his pay stubs he does pay into SS. Talking bad with money, my blind spot has been my parents and it's only been recently that I am thinking about what is going to happen to them. I grew up lower middle class and was always acutely aware of how precarious our situation was because my parents would always individually come to me to complain about the other's spending habits, how we may not be able to pay the mortgage that month, etc. Looking back on it, I realize now that is an extremely hosed up thing to do to a child. It made me crazy paranoid with my own money and as a kid I never, ever spent any, but when my parents would complain about finances I would get so upset I'd have to leave the room. I'm trying to break out of that mindset now and it's really hard and uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Am I bad with money? I'm just about to finish studying (no debt, glorious Europe) and am currently looking for jobs. As anyone who has no income, I can't help but salivate at the prospect of earning money, though I do definitely plan to budget for aggressive savings. Here's the potentially bad with money bit. I really don't know how I feel about retirement deductions. I know it's common advice to max them out, and I certainly see the benefit of the tax deduction. However, there's two major factors at play. I am about 90% sure I won't actually live to retirement age, due to having a whole bunch of lifelong health conditions. The other is, I am very mobile, and I have no idea which country I'll actually end up in long-term or if I will ever stick to one for more than a couple years at a time. All I know is I'm entirely sure I don't plan to stay in my home country due to low wages, but might very well return here if I ever manage to save up a decent amount and just coast by on low cost of living. In the event I do live to retirement age, I imagine being in different countries all the time complicates things immensely. In the event I don't, isn't that money basically wasted, and cannot be inherited? Am I right in thinking I'm better off just doing the minimum and then saving aggressively and investing in a portfolio of index funds, or should I follow the general advice and just max out deductions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
It's going to depend on exactly what sort of retirement deductions we're talking about. With 401ks in the US there is no reason it will just go away, though collecting might be inconvenient if you expatriate. It's still your money. I can't imagine a country where that would be any different unless you foresee a currency collapse. Look up the rules in question for the retirement account in question, I can't imagine anyone here is going to have a handle on retirement accounts across Europe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
I don't think it would go away because I would go somewhere else, but if I live three year here, two years there, a year somewhere else then I think there's a crapload of bureaucracy to get it all sorted. I was more worried about it going away if I don't live to retirement age, which I think is very likely. If I decide to have kids, I want to leave a bunch of fat index funds for them. Especially considering that radical retirement reform seems inevitable within my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:I don't think it would go away because I would go somewhere else, but if I live three year here, two years there, a year somewhere else then I think there's a crapload of bureaucracy to get it all sorted. I think most of the value of pre-tax retirement contributions comes not from the tax exemption, but from the structured nature of contribution and the illiquid nature of the accounts they are held in; for people who lack the emotional and fiscal maturity to save money and invest it, it never hits any of their liquid accounts and cannot be spent, it must be saved. However I've moved jobs a not insignificant number of times over the past decade and have accumulated a number of individual contribution, pre-tax accounts. Managing them all is marginally inconvenient, and combining them to one account is sufficiently inconvenient that it doesn't seem worth the cost. And that's all still under the same legal framework. So, taking the money post tax and investing it is not bad with money (there are some arguably speculative investment vehicles pre-tax investments accounts are barred access to in the U.S. for example), but not contributing it to your retirement account is an enabling factor to taking the money and not investing it at all, which is definitely bad with money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Oh, I definitely intend to have a very strict setup. I have good financial discipline, and the savings will be sacred (well, some categories, of course). I do have an economic education and I've been raised by parents that although bad with money themselves, managed to instill good habits in me somehow. I was just wondering if I'm being dumb thinking that only doing the legal minimum for national social security is the way to go, considering my circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
nikosoft posted:My dad's idea of retirement is buying assault weapons. If he lives in California, he can only buy a very narrow subset of guns and they're more expensive. So that's being bad with money, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:The other is, I am very mobile, and I have no idea which country I'll actually end up in long-term or if I will ever stick to one for more than a couple years at a time. All I know is I'm entirely sure I don't plan to stay in my home country due to low wages, but might very well return here if I ever manage to save up a decent amount and just coast by on low cost of living. If you're going to be living and working within the EU, the mandatory social security contributions towards your pension/retirement will be managed by the SS services of the individual countries you've worked in. I am probably terribly wrong by saying that, but from what I've read, it seems relatively straightforward - http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/retire-abroad/state-pensions-abroad/index_en.htm. As to individual, tax deductible contributions to private retirement funds in addition to mandatory SS contributions - this is going to vary country by country and individual tax regimes. It would make sense to research those as soon as you start earning and building a career in a specific country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Citizen Z posted:I think it has more to do with the expectation that your spending should grow to match your income. Because your income is a sign of success/worth as a person. Plus, sometimes when you're broke for a long time, making real money for a while makes you go sort of stupid. Same here. I've told the story a few times but we (my wife and I) went from $19,000 net a year to about $60,000 net a year, and well we have a thread here on the forums that talks about how we had pay day loans. necrobobsledder posted:People's ideas of "I'm doing great now!" are completely ludicrous in this country and saying how a barely six figure incomes isn't life-changing when you live like "most people" makes me an rear end in a top hat and "completely unrealistic." The lady in the article's ideas of "doing well" by my definition are not that far from my idea of scraping by - $120k / yr as a working couple in an area where you could even buy a $250k house during the bubble is not "naming your price" as a professional in an industry that's considered booming. Similarly, during the worst of the recession I read about construction workers that had gotten "crazy" earnings of $80k / yr and they were buying the entire bar rounds and "that truck they'd always wanted." It's like people thought they won the lottery by temporarily doubling their income when it was barely liveable before. The perception Americans have about their personal wealth being so aggrandized bothers me when so many people are living on so little. Maybe I'm crazy, but suddenly making what would be a minimum wage income if pay-outs matched living costs since the minimum wage was introduced shouldn't make people think they won the lottery if you ask me. It's like we're in an alternate reality of the Onion article saying India's version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" that amounted to "Who wants 500 Rupees, a full meal, and a bus ticket home?" I'm sorry but are you saying that $120k where you can maybe buy a $250k house is scraping by? If so I think that is a terrible view. When I traveled to south Asia people were living in aluminum built shacks and probably making it on less than $2.00 per day. Even when my wife and I did live on that $19k we were sustained, had a roof over our heads, a warm bed, clean clothes, internet, and a safe place to live. There were plenty of sacrifices that could have been made to still keep us comfortable and allow us more money in our pockets. The amount of money we or even just I make now-which isn't even half of what a lot of people make in here-is ludicrous. As much as I want to make more money and will strive to do just that, I feel like I could easily do without a dollar more pretty much ever. I think perhaps you need to really experience what it is like to be near the bottom to truly appreciate the amount of freedom even a mediocre American paycheck can offer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
froglet posted:Just yesterday it got better - South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon proposed allowing first home buyers to use their superannuation to help them gather that first deposit! Whereas Kiwisaver in New Zealand is a bit more reasonable. The money you draw for a house deposit is an considered to be a good thing. Rather than having to factor in 15 repayment of deposit on top of mortgage repayments which may put housing further out of reach. Although in New Zealand under the current lending rules a 10% deposit sticks you with high interest for the lending on the other 10% of the deposit. I just bought my first house a few months ago and I just came up with a 20% deposit to avoid ridiculous interest rates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Zeppelin Insanity posted:I don't think it would go away because I would go somewhere else, but if I live three year here, two years there, a year somewhere else then I think there's a crapload of bureaucracy to get it all sorted. Within europe it's relatively easy to move pension contributions in one country to another, I've got some friends who've done it. But that has little importance. About the retirement reforms, you are mincing your words: public pensions are going to dissapear in Europe. Are you Spanish? Because lemme tell you, that's the first country where they'll disappear, and that, within 5 years. So maybe you could pay instead into a private pension plan in one country and make all the payements there? Just an idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
The talk of there probably won't be a pension when I retire has been a common theme for some time. I found some figures for New Zealand. Apparently there are currently 5 workers per 1 retiree, and by 2050 there will be two workers per retiree. It looks like generation X is in for a lovely time. On the flip side such a large population with a small working population will mean there will be a lot of work around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Why do people have so many god drat kids? My divorce and custody clients usually had kids that they couldn't support because their lives were going nowhere and they thought having kids would give them a purpose in life. It rarely worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
She's worried about ETF and her credit. LOL... I can never relate to people who have kids that cannot afford them. I mean after the first one comes out, and it's a huge burden to take care of the child, they don't ever think, "nope no more kids" and get a vasectomy. Instead they double down and ruin more lives. If you want to have sex, wear a condom. Don't want to wear a condom? Get a loving vasectomy. Freeze your sperm if you think you'll want to have _more_ kids later. So goddamn selfish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:If you want to have sex, wear a condom. Don't want to wear a condom? Get a loving vasectomy. Freeze your sperm if you think you'll want to have _more_ kids later. So goddamn selfish. What makes you think people who can't afford to have more kids can afford these things? In the US, you won't even know how much these things cost until you've had them done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
"These things" like condoms? If you have insurance and you want to know how much a procedure costs in or out of network, you call your insurance company and ask. Magic. If you still don't have insurance or you have crappy insurance, you call Planned Parenthood and ask. (Starts at $350, but some have sliding scales.) Freezing your sperm is hella expensive, though, I'm not defending that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:11
|
|
i like nice words
|
Remember the world is as big as a monthly payment. Surely they can afford a few more diapers, a bit more formula, and a few days off of work to afford that extra kiddo. I have tons of people call in for insurance and I'll say something like "$600 down and $200 a month". "how much was that a month?" They completely ignore the fact that the entire rate is asking for 3 months worth up front and then another $200 a month for 5 months. Its all about the car note, the end of month bill, and how much is left over. Its financial illiteracy combined with a lifestyle change, and both are hard to change. I'm getting SO many stories from my job though, let me tell ya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Dumb question, but how do you read reddit threads? You don't. Trust me on this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:If you have insurance and you want to know how much a procedure costs in or out of network, you call your insurance company and ask. Unless ACA changed things, no you don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:You don't. well like, its designed for poo poo to be recycled, nothing ongoing, so you skim a thread once, then forget about it forever
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:"These things" like condoms? This hasn't worked for me. No one has anything better than an order of magnitude idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:What makes you think people who can't afford to have more kids can afford these things? In the US, you won't even know how much these things cost until you've had them done. Fair point. I guess it's too much to just ask people to not have sex if they can't afford the kid...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Fair point. I guess it's too much to just ask people to not have sex if they can't afford the kid... Uh, yeah, it probably is too much to ask. It obviously doesn't fuckin work. You're suggesting that people who can't even grasp the symbolic system of money might be able to resist one of their most basic biological drives? People who make serious oaths of celibacy can't even manage it. Low cost sterilization procedures would be more effective than telling people to stop loving. And for the record, I don't think that even FREE vasectomies would go that far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Uh, yeah, it probably is too much to ask. It obviously doesn't fuckin work. Well it is a thread about people who make poor life decisions. Condoms are so much more expensive than raising and educating a child.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:The talk of there probably won't be a pension when I retire has been a common theme for some time. I found some figures for New Zealand. Apparently there are currently 5 workers per 1 retiree, and by 2050 there will be two workers per retiree. It looks like generation X is in for a lovely time. On the flip side such a large population with a small working population will mean there will be a lot of work around. Five workers to a retiree sounds very high. To put this into perspective, Romanian press reported last year that the number of pensioners already exceeds the number of workers there and the article I read gave their pension system about 10 years. A quick look at the statistics published by my own country puts the number at 1.53 workers for each pensioner in 2013. Considering the subreplacement birthrates in most of Europe, yeah, the 2050s are going to be interesting. So, to turn the narrative around, that deadbeat guy with four kids from four different women may in fact be sacrificing his own financial present and future for the common good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Unless ACA changed things, no you don't. What happens when you call?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm kinda confused too because that is how I've always done it (call my insurer). They're not going to tell me exactly how much something costs, but they'll tell me what percentage I am on the hook for. The thing that is tough is calling the Drs office to find out the cost of the procedure once I know how much I'd cover - what I've found is that many doc offices are actually not set up to answer such questions, are surprised you may want that info, and some are even set up to make this process harder. For example: I got some ultrasounds last year at a large cancer facility. After calling my insurer to check network status and such, I learned that the big crux depended on how the facility categorized itself and the procedure during billing (lab vs. hospital)- it would determine if the ultrasounds were fully covered, or if I'd be on the hook for the whole cost. I called the facility to find out and learned that 1) you can only get that info from the billing dept, and 2) the billing department does not speak with members of the public. I ended up having to lie and say I had a billing dispute to get someone willing to talk with me, and then sprung the questions on them. It all turned out ok in the end, but your average person is not going to have as much patience with labyrinthine bureaucracies, or be stubborn enough to fight to get to the billing department as I was. Which means that people with cancer, who are fatigued and just want treatment, are more than likely going into this place without knowing how much it will financially impact them because, well, they need the treatment anyway. They're just expected to suck it up and deal with it once they get the bill. StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
It seems terrifying having to pay for medical expenses. I can't even imagine it. It's a whole (major) finance issue we don't have to worry about in the uk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:Huh? That's what I've always done and it's always right. They might be like "oh it's only the cost of your copay" or "this one's free, but we only pay for one per year," or they might be like "well we only cover 30% of that procedure" so you would have to call your doctor's office to find out what it's 30% of. Last time it was supposed to be $100 for the hospital time/room and ?? for the doc. The hospital bill is $540 and I haven't received the doc bill yet. If the out of pocket cost isn't fixed and is instead a percentage of a number the hospital doesn't know, the sky appears to be the limit because the offices have no idea. I hadn't thought of lying to get to talk to billing, will give that a try before my next procedure. Ninja edit: I should add that I've only received the second bill from the hospital, usually the third is a fair bit lower, so the $100 may turn out to be correct. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Devian666 posted:Well it is a thread about people who make poor life decisions. Condoms are so much more expensive than raising and educating a child. I don't disagree with the sentiment but if you will kindly READ the post you quoted, you may see the point was "stop having sex if you can't afford babies" which sounds logical and all that, but is also completely unrealistic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:44
|
|