1. She is also implying that if you work hard you get rich. Or conversely, if you’re poor, you don’t work hard. In every company I’ve worked in, how hard you work does not correlate with salary. Shift work is hard. Call-outs are hard. Short notice over-time is hard. Changing incomes season to season is hard.

   My first permanent job was “harder” than any subsequent one.

   • Indeed, Heather. I was going to make that point in my blogpost – but decided to leave it for a future time.

     I think the implications of suggesting that the “rich work hard”, therefore “the poor are lazy” is not lost on most folk.

     With those comments, Horton reveals her over-inflated sense of entitlement and bewilderment that, yes, the rich should pay their share. Only the rich (with notable exceptions such as Warren Buffet – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=3&amp ) and their loyal sycophants would dare suggest otherwise…

2. Gotta love plutocracy:

   -do everything within your power to deny the poor a chance to even things up
   -pat yourself on the back for giving ‘charity’ to people impoverished by your politics
   -get titled Sir/Dame in recognition of your ‘charity’ work

   Arise, Sir Key.

3. The sheer nerve of it, higher taxes on the wealthy means lower paid would work less hard!
   How hard did you work for yours Rosie?
   Up at four in the morning cleaning MP’s bogs wouldn’t even come to the paltry tax you pay now, (if any after it’s salted away into trusts)
   Now we have to be thankful for the “trickle down charity” from her and her tax evading chums, if that’s so why are so many in poverty, it has still a very long way to trickle, keep your charity and just pay your fair share.

4. Thanks for that insightful article Frank, I enjoyed the graphs and it is obvious you have researched to give weight to your argument.

   Nothing against Rosie Horton, but she does not, and has not lived in the real world that is NZ for the remaining 99% of us. She does not have to work and I don’t consider she is qualified to make any comment on taxation in this country.

5. In my limited experience I have found that those born into wealth think differently to us lesser morals.
   I use to date an extremely pleasant, well-off woman who expected me to pay for everything while, on the other hand, poorer dates have been generous to a fault.
   I suppose a propensity to hang on to one’s stash is what keeps the rich rich.

   • Interesting you say that, Yogibare…

     I know a guy (he may even post here) who has very little cash and no assets to speak of.

     Yet, he’s generous to a fault and I’ve rarely met someone who thinks of others in the way he does. He may be poor monetarily, but his sense of compassion is beyond measure.

     Maybe because the poorer one is (generally speaking – there are a couple of vindictive exceptions to this rule) , the more empathy one has for others at the bottom of the scrap heap…

     • Frank,
       I suspect that for some wealthy people money is an addiction and power trip. Others of us realise there are many things far more important than money. We also understand that it’s only worth anything because we have been conditioned to believe fiat money has value without the backing of gold or sterling.
       I understand that it’s easy for me to say this while I have a few pennies to rub together in my pocket; a starving man with empty pockets may well have a different view of the value of money while it’s still able to be exchanged for food.

6. It’s easy to set up a straw man (or woman), and then proceed to knock them down. The fact remains that 10% of New Zealanders pay 70% of the net tax, according to hansard, and Finance Minister Bill English.

   http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/business/qoa/49HansQ_20110713_00000002/2-tax-system—fairness

   Furthermore, the lowest-income 43 percent of households currently receive more in income support than they pay in income tax.

   Regardless of how you splice it, we already have a highly redistributive system with the top 10% of tax payers already carrying a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The fact this is largely true throughout Ociania as your graphs show, doesn’t make it less onerous.

   The causes for poverty are multiple, and not having enough money is often a symptom of a deeper malise rather than being the problem itself. I’m talking here about substance abuse, poor work ethic, mental health issues, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, criminality and so on.

   The Centre for Social Justice in the UK has identified ‘five pathways to poverty’ which can be viewed here:

   http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/policy/pathways-to-poverty

   They include:

   Family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependency and worklessness, addiction and serious personal debt.

   It’s difficult to see how increasing taxation and redistribution is going to deal with the bulk of those issues. The best advice we can give our young people including those from disadvantaged backgrounds is as follows:

   1) Stay at school until you obtain a meaningful qualification.

   2) Get a job and keep it.

   3) Defer child bearing until you are married, or in a realtionship in the nature of marriage.

   Brookings Institute in the USA found that of all young people who followed those three precepts only 2% ended up in poverty. That beats the 20% we apparently have today.

   http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins

   • 10% of New Zealanders pay 70% of the net tax do they?
     So, what percentage of the income do they make?
     What percentage of the assets/wealth do they own?
     Given those values, does it really seem unreasonable that that 10% pay 70% of the net tax?
     Afterall, if 43% are requiring more in income support than they pay in tax, doesn’t this say something about the income of that 43% of the population?
     And don’t the 10% creaming it at the top bear a responsibility to the rest of the society to provide that income support? After all, without society being set up so that 43% of people have low enough income that they need income support, it would be impossible for the 10% to earn 70% of the income.

   • No Shit Brendan. Myself my partner and our offspring have all followed those precepts to the letter. Guess what?
     None of us have ever had work in NZ that paid us a living wage.
     All of us enjoy the standard of living that we do because most of our working lives have been spent working in Australia and other countries. NZ- good place to be educated , ok for home ownership/investment but employment? forget about it. Get to Aussie and don’t come back in a hurry.

     • This was a message from a Kiwi in Australia, back in 2011;

       “A Victorian-based Kiwi with a student loan debt, who did not want to be named because he did not want to be found by the Government, said he did not intend to pay back any of his student loan.

       The 37-year-old’s loan was about $18,000 when he left New Zealand in 1997. He expected it was now in the order of $50,000. The man was not worried about being caught as the Government did not have his details and he did not want to return to New Zealand.

       “I would never live there anyway, I feel just like my whole generation were basically sold down the river by the government. I don’t feel connected at all, I don’t even care if the All Blacks win.

       “I just realised it was futile living [in New Zealand] trying to pay student loans and not having any life, so I left. My missus had a student loan and she had quite a good degree and she had paid 99c off the principal of her loan after working three years.”

       Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5488966/Student-loan-avoiders-told-to-pay-up

       • Well based on that, good riddance to him.

     • From what you say, it sounds like you made wise and sensible choices, and as a result you have avoided poverty and economic dependency. Good on you.

     • From what you say, it sounds like you made wise and sensible choices, and as a result you have avoided poverty and economic dependency. Good on you.

   • “not having enough money is often a symptom of a deeper malise rather than being the problem itself. I’m talking here about substance abuse, poor work ethic, mental health issues, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, criminality and so on. ”
     So….all those who can’t get by on the pittance they can earn fall into one of those “loser” categories, do they/ How self-servingly supercilious you sound, trotting out all the standard “it’s their fault they’re poor because……” statements, beloved of those who really haven’t got a f*cking clue!

     “1) Stay at school until you obtain a meaningful qualification.

     2) Get a job and keep it.

     3) Defer child bearing until you are married, or in a relationship in the nature of marriage.”

     Yep – that’ll do it…..not. I know large numbers of young people with meaningful qualifications – when they can get a job, it rarely has anything to do with what “qualifications” they may have studied and usually on pay less than people got,(relatively speaking) when they left school at 15, got a job and on job training 40 yrs ago!

     I admit #3 would help.

     As for Rosie – I’m finished with the wealthy bleating about how hard done by they are – none of us care any more – I certainly don’t. If you want any of the benefits of a society to a country and it’s infrastructure, be prepared to help pay for them, or F— off!

   • lol linking the centre for social justice that’s a fuckin right wing think tank set up by the ex leader of the tories you twat, that’s like fuckin whale oil you toolbox it’s just some pricks opinion

   • Please try to understand how the monetary system works.
     Government spends money into the economy and then taxes some of it out , maybe even all of it.
     If it just spends money in without taxing it out then we get inflation – money worth less and less.
     It cannot really tax poor people or people on a pension all of the money they get as a pension otherwise they would not have any money to spend on food.
     So if the economy is actually working some people get to make money- so you tax them because they won! They got the money so it is OK to tax them

   • “It’s difficult to see how increasing taxation and redistribution is going to deal with the bulk of those issues.”

     It won’t. Bit ot’s a popular left wing mantra nine the less.

     As you rightly point out we already massively redistribute. Any tax paid over the lowest income tax rate is redistribution. We already have a system in which the more a person earns, the greater proportion that person has paid towards the cost of public services than those who earn less. Perhaps a discount on user pays charges would be in order?

     • User pays was a colossal mistake – it short-circuited political accountantability for poor management. When local councils are charging hundreds of dollars for minor parking and WOF infringements it has nothing to dowith road safety. User pays created a culture of faux corporatism in local government which is expensive and at best marginally effective. This should be an issue for both the right and the left.

       • Stuart parking and WOF infringement fines are not user pays. They are penalties for breaking the law. None of us like it, but user pays they are not.

         What user pays does is put a value on a product or service we use, making it easier for us to decide whether or not we receive value for money. The alternative is we each pay for services other people use, which is inequitable.

7. If Dame Rosie can explain how exactly one can work hard enough to accumulate $220 million, I’d be happy to hear it.

   So would a lot of other people, I’m sure.

   I won’t hold my breath.

8. ” The fact remains that 10% of New Zealanders pay 70% of the net tax, according to hansard, and Finance Minister Bill English.”

   Untrue. That is a myth spread by supporters of the current system/government.

   Your figures do not include GST and other indirect taxes and government charges, which impact disproportionately more on low-to-mid income families; http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/3/0/3039b7804c954465a748ff34d41f12c2/fig-5-thumbnail.jpg

   In fact, National’s 2010 tax switch and post-2010 gave a tax cut to high income earners and raised taxes/charges at the same time. The latter swallowed up any tax “cut” for low-mid earners.

   The causes for poverty are multiple, and not having enough money is often a symptom of a deeper malise rather than being the problem itself. I’m talking here about substance abuse, poor work ethic, mental health issues, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, criminality and so on.

   You left out the main, number cause: a lack of jobs – especially jobs with decent pay.

   With corporations transferring manufacturing to low-wage societies , jobs are in effect exported to nations such as China, Pakistan, India, Fiji, et al.

   New Zealand lost 29,472 jobs in the manufacturing sector since 2006. We can guess where they went. (http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-national-highlights/work.aspx)

   It’s difficult to see how increasing taxation and redistribution is going to deal with the bulk of those issues.

   So I keep hearing. So… if more money is not helpful for the poor then what was the point of the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts for the rich?

   Why is it that tax cuts for the rich are “helpful” – but “increasing taxation and redistribution ” to the poor won’t help them?!

   One would think it actually makes more sense to offer resources to the poorer sectors of our society than the rich, who are already privileged as it is.

   Defer child bearing until you are married, or in a realtionship in the nature of marriage.

   Really?

   So… what should the 95,000 New Zealanders who had jobs pre-GFC in 2008 – who lost their jobs post-2008 – have done with their children?! Put them back into their mothers’ wombs??? Put them up for adoption?

   And even if a couple are married “or in a realtionship in the nature of marriage” – what if one of the partners dies? Abandons the family? Or a spouse and children have to escape an abusive relationship?

   Or, the relationship simply doesn’t work full stop?!

   It seems you’re proferring simple solutions to complex, multiple problems.

   I’m not sure how relevant the Brookings Institute is to NZ. The US has poverty, unemployment, and teen pregnancies even worse than our country. They’re hardly a role model for us.

   • Frank just to clarify, your claims about the 2010 tax cuts have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, but for the record…

     “A person on the average annual wage of about $50,000 paying an average rent or mortgage will get a weekly income tax cut of about $29 per week before the increase in GST is applied, and $15 post the increase.

     A typical family with two children and an average household income of $76,000 will be about $25 per week better off.

     The Government estimates workers earning between $15,000 and $50,000 a year will be paying between 40 and 50 per cent less tax than they were in 1996 under the tax changes.”

     Note the inclusion of the gst impact.

   • Source please.

     • http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10646047

       and:
       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10646343

       • “A person on the average annual wage of about $50,000 paying an average rent or mortgage will get a weekly income tax cut of about $29 per week before the increase in GST is applied, and $15 post the increase .”

         And if you’re paying above average rent or mortgage, there goes that $15.

         Plus increases in food, school fees, petrol, ACC, prescription fees (from $3 to $5)…

         Smoke and mirrors, IV, smoke and mirrors.

         And as mortgage rates begin to rise from March this year, that $15 will well and truly be gobbled up.

         Your pro-government spin is pretty much what it is; pro-government spin. Aka, bullshit.

         Keep posting, IV. It offers opportunities to reveal the scams that National have play on low-middle income earners.

         • What do “increases in food, school fees, petrol, ACC, prescription fees ” have to do with the 2010 tax cuts Frank? You’re being a bit naughty aren’t you.

           • “What do “increases in food, school fees, petrol, ACC, prescription fees ” have to do with the 2010 tax cuts Frank?”

             Quite a bit, actually.

             • No, nothing actually. Your article is about tax rates, not living costs.

               You said “After two tax cuts (2009 and 2010) which saw the wealthiest and top income earners benefit the most…”

               The material I have posted shows that is categorically incorrect. Not only did low and middle income earners come out better off, the supposed ‘rich’ were penalised in a raft of ways, including changes to LAQC’s and property tax.

   • Yeah, I suspected IntrinsicValue’s number were dodgy too, but didn’t know how to find the data to show them up.

     • Well as you can see, S, they aren’t dodgy. Citation above.

       • Further to that, Frank has been bandying around these claims without even understanding the real facts.

         • “Further to that, Frank has been bandying around these claims without even understanding the real facts.”

           [TRANSLATION:]

           “Further to that, Frank has been revealing facts which are embarressing to me and my 1% Masters.”

           There. Fixed it.

           • Facts? Like unemployment in the soviet union? The 2010 tax cuts?

       • Not quite dodgy, IV – you just haven’t told the whole story. As usual, you are selective with the factrs and information.

         Oh well, at least it wasn’t 81 years old like that last piece of garbage you tried to present as evidence of your bizarre ideas.

         • The ‘evidence’ that I presented that was 81 years old, for the record, showed that your claim that there was no unemployment in the soviet union was claptrap. That’s why it was 81 years old, Frank. The soviet union was in existence 81 years ago. The evidence was from that precise era.

           • This is the article I cited. It was published in 1933, about why there was unemployment in Soviet Russia – http://www.garethjones.org/soviet_articles/unemployment_russia.htm. – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/08/this-is-what-inequality-looks-like-in-nz-beneficiaries-vs-ceos/#comment-188132

             You were wrong Frank. Again.

             • *shakes head*

               IV, if I tried justifying my political points with information nearly a hundred years old, you’d be the first one to laugh me out of the blogosphere…

               Now, squire. Try again.

               • Oh but I’m not refuting a ‘political point’ you made am I. I am refuting an historical one.

                 You made a claim that there was no unemployment in the Soviet Union.

                 I posted an article that was written in 1933 (an historical document) that specifically spoke of unemployment in the soviet union.

                 And then of course there is the other cites I posted, which you have conveniently forgotten:

                 http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842009,00.html http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1811163?uid=3738776&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103481338443 http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/pre1998/1992-806-36-2-Moskoff.pdf

                 I ask again, are you going to be a man and admit you got this wrong.

           • But out of date and out of context.

             Because you had nothing else to use.

             • No Frank, neither. It’s history. How can an article from the very time we are debating be out of date? LOL Man up and admit you were wrong.

     • Indeed, Shrubbery. His selectiveness is laughable and topped of with links to a document penned in – wait for it – 1933!! 😀

       Oh lordy, I was laughing all day!! 😀

       • No Frank. My material on the 2010 tax cuts was from 2010. You got it wrong. Man up and admit it.

9. NOW this lady is the sort of person who makes money by the increase in the number of immigrants into NZ, when we have a housing shortage …….AND not many others do………..I bet she’s a GREAT friend of John Key and the National party.

   They are the type that own the (MOST of the) land, probably from dubious means many many years ago.

   They are the ones with the MASSIVE tax breaks (that DWAFT any thing you could imagine !!!), e.g. No capital gains tax when they sell small (or larger) parcels of land, to build new houses on (ONLY NEEDED because of stupid mass immigration !!!). They only sell small parcels of land to keep the land price ARTIFICIALLY high, so they can sell their land over the next few hundred years and still have a wealthy family that DOESN’T need to work…..all the better to have the time to tell the poor off for being so poor !!!

   They’re the ones that control the political parties with their contributions-money.

   They’re the ones that have the PR companies to make them look good, ………e.g give SOME money to SOME poor people (who are poor DUE TO such wealthy families actions). etc etc.

   Tax them with a LAND holding (speculating) tax, …………..tax their capital gains ………….and have a Death duty, to require each generation to WORK (sadly only a tad harder-) fairer for ‘their’ (inherited) money !!!! instead of inheriting it, purely by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth, and then having the AUDACITY to tell us poor why we deserve to be poor, e.g. we don’t work hard………LOL, it’d be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

   This sort of family is the MAIN cause for the mess NZ is in !!!! Tax them until the pips squeak…..to quote an old politician

10. The greedy will say and do anything to maintain their addiction.

11. The following comment appeared on an article in Aunty Herald titled “Right wings equality fight back”

    It was from a contributor called Raptor 79 and is one of the better ones I have read for a while, thanks for it, hope you don’t mind I copied and pasted it, but I thought it worthy of a wider audience, thanks.

    “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you!

    But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea – God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

    But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

    What do you reckon

    • @ Raegun – yup, it’s a brilliant quote from US Congresswoman, Elizabeth Warren. (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/439207-there-is-nobody-in-this-country-who-got-rich-on)

      I think it sums up things nicely. *Big Thumbs Up*

    • It’s socialist claptrap Raegun. Anyone who is wealthy from having built a business has most likely paid a heavily disproportionate contribution towards those roads and other public utilities. In fact the lower earners should thank their lucky stars that we have the high earners to tax.

      • And of course, received heaps and heaps of deductions in order to minimize that taxation, none of which are available to the employee.
        Meaning, employer gets to deduct cost of travel to business, employee does not get deduction for cost of travel to work. That is fair, how?

        • You argue as if tax deductions somehow happens after the data is collected. The fact is the wealthy pay a far higher proportion of the total tax take than the non-wealthy, and therefore pay a far higher proportion towards public amenities. That makes this cliched pice of hand-wringing nothing more than claptrap. It might make you feel good, but it’s still clap-trap.

          • As usual, more garbage from you, IV.

            You conveniently don’t mention that they pay more tax because their income is greater.

            Also in your apologist excuse-making, you still have cottoned on to the fact that income tax is only about 45% of taxes gathered. http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/3/0/3039b7804c954465a748ff34d41f12c2/fig-5-thumbnail.jpg

            Those on lower income pay disproportionately more because of GST, ACC, government charges, user-pays, etc.

            Try telling the whole story next time.

            • Now, lets’ see.

              A person who earns $35,000 per year pays $5,145 in income tax. That is around 14.7% of their income.

              A person who earns $135,000 per year pays $35,470 in income tax. That is around 26.3% of their income.

              The rich pay more in $ terms and in proportionality to their income Frank.

              • Good and they should pay more. Even higher proportions thank you. If it means more revenue to spend on social services to gives others a chance to enjoy the fruits of society that the wealthy so happily feast upon, great.

                • Oh yes I know that is the socialist response Martyn, and at least you’re honest about that. But what are you going to do when an increasing number of high income earners decide to base themselves offshore? Who will support your gravy train then?

                  • LMAO – and where will all the precious wee rich things go to IV? Australia? Their top tax rate is higher than us, so is the UK. Those rich volk get to live in a relatively crime free safe environment to raise their children in a relatively unspoilt slice of paradise – if they feel the need to run off to tax havens, good riddance, our intrinsic value as a place to raise a family stands. Let them enjoy the need for bodyguards and smog choked air. For someone who calls themselves intrinsic value you seem to not understand it.

                    • Wrong Martyn. There are many countries with lower top tax rates than NZ, including nations in Scandanavia and central Europe, at least some of whom would be attractive to high earning NZer’s. You also forget that when they go, so does their wealth, and the job’s that their wealth supports.

                    • Oh sweet comrade, when we send those tax rates higher of course we should implement wealth limits for people to stop pillaging the nation. It would just be unfair for those people to be able to generate so much money in our country, (because of our country) and then they take all that wealth that NZ has enabled them to gain.

                      That would just be silly.

            • Now, to proportionality.

              Why do you propose that, having paid a disproportionate amount towards the running of the country in their income taxes, that high income earners should pay more than lower earners to access user pays services?

            • And if you are are really interested in educating yourself, you could do worse than read this article about the impact of GST on the wealthy and not so wealthy:

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10865532

              • Or… you can comment on the data I’ve presented above, instead of deflecting elsewhere.

                I’ve noticed you studiously ignore the information I’ve presented in my blogpost.

                Now, why is that, IV? Is my information wrong?

                Nope.

                Can’t be.

                If it was, you’d be all over it like a rash after shaking hands with the MP for Epsom…

                • I notice you have studiously refused to admit you were wrong about the 2010 tax cuts, and about unemployment in the soviet union.

                  And I have been commenting on your blogpost Frank. I started on Feb 10th at 10.22 by challenging your 2010 tax cuts claim. And you are yet to admit you were wrong.

          • Judging by the miserable state of too many of our highways and byways, our decrepit schools and hospitals, our pitifully equipped armed forces, our sparse numbers of people who ensure ‘elf and safety’ then there’s a block in the spigot, Intrinsic Values, and trickle down has ceased.

            Meanwhile, back at the reservoir…

            As a related aside – just what is this ‘hard work’ that ‘the wealthy’ are supposed to do? How different is it from long days or nights on low pay under the whim of some fairly unwholesome ‘managers’ with a taste for being savage. (Google’s an equal opportunities search engine: you can find the grim tales just as I can.)

            And, apart from directing The Team of Humble Folk that Dame Rosie undoubtedly uses to manage her assets, what does she actually DO?

            Plus – which income bands pay the most in that inescapable economy killer – GST?

            And, of The Wealthy, how many of them really are ‘job creators’ for the local economy? It’s a fable oft told. Any evidence?

            BTW – most people don’t want the drudgery of being ‘wealth makers’. Interesting work. Decent conditions and pay. Reciprocal loyalty and competence from the company. Promotion opportunities. And a life beyond the old 7-7 working hours is what most people are about. And why should it be otherwise?

            • “just what is this ‘hard work’ that ‘the wealthy’ are supposed to do? ”

              No idea. I don’t remember even mentioning it.

              “miserable state of too many of our highways and byways, our decrepit schools and hospitals, our pitifully equipped armed forces,”

              What country are you living in? The Government is involved in massive investment in roading. Perhaps you are confused with local roads, which are actually the responsibility of councils. As to schools and hospitals, the facilities I see are fantastic. I’ve had cause to spend quite a bit of time recently with my elderly father at both Auckland and Middlemore hospitals, and the facilities are world class.

12. and then there is this little gem that had me spitting in my weetbix
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11198686

    I think the comments on the herald opinion piece say it all – that no-one swallows this horse pap.

    great article!

13. Good for Dame Rosie who never worked a real days work in her life! We will have a great deal of pity for her when the guillotine built by minimum wage engineers is oiled,sharpened and ready to fall.

Comments are closed.