Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-07-2011, 07:33 PM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
So, how do employees who expect to receive a pension value it as part of their compensation?

My expected FERS pension is a big part of my total compensation. If they told me right now that it wouldn't be there, or be greatly reduced I would have to seriously consider looking for another job.
I think this is an excellent question.

IMO a pension is too generous; if it allows someone to work for 25 years and retire at any age and collect more than 50% of their salary, or 30 years and collect more than 2/3 of their pay, get a COLA, while contributing less than 10% of their pay. (An obvious exception to this rule of thumb is military).

I have no problem with government workers retiring early but philosophically or more importantly financially I think to do so they need to save a considerable portion of their salaries.

As has been said many times Federal aren't too generous, because when Uncle Sam switched from the old CSRS to the new FERS they eliminated most of the provisions which make so many state and local pensions unsustainable.

So for instance lets compare the retirement of Federal firefighter with a Central Falls firefighter. They both start working at 23 back in 1986 (for simplicity lets assume they make the same salary although probably the Fed is paid higher). At age 48 after a close call they both retire. The Central Fall fireman starts collecting a pension immediately equal to 65% of his last years pay. The Fed fireman has to wait 8 years until age 56 to collect any pension. His pension is equal 25% of the average of 3 years of his base pay, no overtime included. Since he took retirement early his pension reduced by 5%/year before age 62, which is a 30% reduction so at age 56 he starts collecting a pension of 17.5% of salary. I think even for the most frugal retiring on 17.5% of your salary alone is almost impossible.

The impact of COLA is even more dramatic. The Central Falls fireman gets COLA immediately, the Fed Fireman isn't eligible for a COLA adjustment until age 62. With a 3% inflation, the Central Falls pension will increase by more than 50%, making his pension at age 62 approximately equal to his salary at retirement vs a 17.5% pension for the Fed firefighter.

When you combine all of the factors, the cost to the taxpayers of Central Fall to fund their firefighters pension is at least five times the cost to US taxpayers for a federal fighter. This is why when I see them get cut drastically I am not too sympathetic.
__________________

__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-07-2011, 09:39 PM   #62
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 200
IMO, the sooner the public employees move to defined contribution plans like most private employees the sooner we'll all be playing on the same level playing field.

I find a real problem with the simple fact that unions implicitly tell politicians "we'll get our members to vote for you if you support us with better benefits" or "we'll tell our members to vote for the other guy if you don't agree to our demands". The politicians don't care what they agree to so long as they get re-elected, because they won't be around when those benefits have to be paid by future generations.

I'm generally supportive of the collective bargaining power of unions, but the entire system can't work under those circumstances. It needs to be "pay as you go" with 401k plans for employees, and forget about these pension plans that assume rosy 10% returns to be paid many years from now.
__________________

__________________
PaddyMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 12:22 AM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
packrat44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: near Canadian border and near Mexican border
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
I think this is an excellent question.

IMO a pension is too generous; if it allows someone to work for 25 years and retire at any age and collect more than 50% of their salary, or 30 years and collect more than 2/3 of their pay, get a COLA, while contributing less than 10% of their pay. (An obvious exception to this rule of thumb is military).
.
FERS is not that genorous. It is 1% per year of their salary. If you have served greater than 20 years and are older than 62 when you retire, the rate is increased to 1.1%.

I agree with you regarding pensions that are much more generous than taxpayers can afford. I have known police officers who after retiring with a generous pension with the minimum time served have gone into another law enforcement job and acquired a second generous pension. When your pensions are greater than your salary was, something is wrong.
__________________
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
packrat44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 07:06 AM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
clifp and others are correct about the more common sense FERS takes to pensions. FERS offers a modest size pension and relies on social security and a 401K style plan to round out the overall package, and it is fully funded from an actuarial basis so taxpayers shouldn't be subject to a significant unfunded liability. But for those considering a Federal career, FERS is actually a better deal than may seem. To get that 1 percent per year pension you only pay 1% of salary. The rest is funded by the employing agency. And from 56 until SS kicks in at 62 you get a supplement to make up what SS will pay. Add in the TSP and, all told, not too bad. And that firefighter or law enforcement officer does better. He or she pays in at 1.1% of salary but gets a pension based on 1.7% of the first 20 years and 1% of remaining years. And he or she can start taking a pension at age 50 with 20 years of service or any age with 25. I would have to research the question but I don't believe there is a reduction for years under age 56 like there is for other employees.

Just to perk everyone up and help in recruiting those thinking of running for office, the FERS Congressional provisions are much more generous than the law enforcement provisions. They get 2.5% per year of service.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 07:10 AM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,169
OK, I'm sitting here reading and thinking. What do people who are asked to do high risk jobs deserve? A living wage is a given but what level of safety-net is fair value for the added risk over another government job at the same salary but with little risk? Does the public need to pay a premium for job related hazards? Would a fireman or policeman stop and think before they act if their families were not provided an adequate safety-net? Would they perform as well if they received low pay, low benefits, and longer required service? I think most of these jobs require a college degree today. Should this requirement be dropped so the worker can be offered less? What is the useful career lifetime of a person in high risk jobs? Are we disappointed that after years of public service these people actually survived and asked to claim the benefits they were offered in exchange for their high risk service?

I may the only one who finds it hard to feel sorry for the taxpayer. The taxpayer is the voter who hired the people to act in their names on government issues. This often is a penny-wise, pound-foolish relationship as current taxpayers are bribed by political con-people to elect them to a position where they can serve themselves. The bribe is fiscal responsibility (con-word, low taxes). So they let current salaries lag while hiring with offers of benefits to the applicant in the future. Well, if the offer is a con, then the taxpayer is the con-man. City councils, state legislatures, and Congress make the laws that govern the salaries and benefits an applicant when a job is offered. Those are all elected positions. Are there any surprises? I would say - probably not. If an incumbent is part of a con-government, I am sure opponents have tried to point it out during elections. I am equally sure that people chose to ignore any and all warnings in favor of their "current year" personal income. The applicant, probably young and just out of college, was just interviewing for a job and simply weighed the benefit of the offer.

I am sure that some of the people who legislated the past-cons or their friends and relatives are now running for office expressing outrage for the result of their previous cons. And I am sure people are still falling for it. It is that applicant who suffers and is powerless.
__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 07:26 AM   #66
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
OK, I'm sitting here reading and thinking. What do people who are asked to do high risk jobs deserve? A living wage is a given but what level of safety-net is fair value for the added risk over another government job at the same salary but with little risk? Does the public need to pay a premium for job related hazards?
The thinking on firefighter and law enforcement retirement is that these jobs are robust enough that employees often can't work as long as they could in other careers. They also have mandatory retirement ages from covered positions for the same reason. So you are paying for both the added risk and the shorter career life span. Similarly, these jobs have maximum entry level ages (usually around 35) based on the same reasoning about the rigors of the job. Us 50+ers are just too decrepit.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:07 AM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
The thinking on firefighter and law enforcement retirement is that these jobs are robust enough that employees often can't work as long as they could in other careers. They also have mandatory retirement ages from covered positions for the same reason. So you are paying for both the added risk and the shorter career life span. Similarly, these jobs have maximum entry level ages (usually around 35) based on the same reasoning about the rigors of the job. Us 50+ers are just too decrepit.
Couldn't they be assigned to other jobs that aren't that strenuous? I would think their experience would be valuable in all sorts of assignments (building inspection, safety reviews, etc). Or offer training for those positions.

I also know that many firefighters work a second job since their schedule usually gives them 3-4 days of off time since their on time is 24 hours. So their work isn't so stressful that they couldn't handle more.

These jobs are special, due to the risk. But I just think that can be adjusted in other ways than an early out.


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:19 AM   #68
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
If a company plan goes belly up employees get some relief through ERISA which, IIRC, is backed up by us the taxpayers. Public pensions are not covered probably because it was assumed they are already backed up by the taxpayers. As long as these public employees get benefits commensurate with ERISA that would seem fair. In most cases they do better but when it comes to small municipalities it would seem public employee pensions are at greater risk than private since the taxpayer base is not sufficient to provide backup.
You don't recall correctly, PBGC is funded by premiums paid by the pension funds covered by it.

Quote:
PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.
__________________
chemist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:21 AM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Couldn't they be assigned to other jobs that aren't that strenuous? I would think their experience would be valuable in all sorts of assignments (building inspection, safety reviews, etc). Or offer training for those positions.
-ERD50
Sure you could but people are not things that you can move around as you see fit. The idea behind the retirement system is to help make a career in the field attractive -- same with the military retirement system. If your options under say age 62 are find another position yourself when you get booted out or we will stick you where we want you, the whole package becomes less attractive. This is not to say that sh** can't happen. Police and firefighters get riff'ed like anybody else and they have to make do like anybody else. But designing a system that by its nature ends with a lot of uncertainty is not ideal.

Edit: besides, in FERS the agency contribution (i.e. part of the compensation package) makes the whole deal fully funded. So the tax payers are not on the hook for unfunded liabilities. Assuming that the overall benefits package is fair (and we have no a priori basis to assume it isn't), the question thus becomes, do we (and the employees involved) prefer to raise salaries and leave them to fund retirement on their own or continue with a decent pension system. The same applies to general employees as well. I prefer a decent retirement system as part of the attraction for civil service and military service.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:35 AM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bimmerbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,631
I just read an article stating that FERS is more expensive than CSRS. I thought it would be the opposite. News Articles: FERS After 25 Years

Don't forget the considerable and permanent penalties for federal employees retiring at 56. 5% penalty per year below 62, permanent. Also no COLA until age 62. You need 30 years of service to avoid that penalty. I will have 30 years of service at age 60.

There is talk of increasing the FERS pension contributions paid by the employee. Currently it is .8% of salary. There is talk of a phased in increase up to around 6%. I don't disagree, but hope its phased in slowly since there is also talk of a 5 year pay freeze now, an increase from the current 2 year pay freeze.
__________________
Bimmerbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:37 AM   #71
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
You don't recall correctly, PBGC is funded by premiums paid by the pension funds covered by it.
Thanks Chemist. I was under the impression there is a Federal guarantee. I guess the tax on companies must simply go up when a lot of pension funds crash. In any event, covered employees are insured up to the PBGC limits. Government employees are not covered so no guarantee other than the full faith and credit of their fellow tax payers.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 08:41 AM   #72
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
The idea behind the retirement system is to help make a career in the field attractive -- same with the military retirement system. If your options under say age 62 are find another position yourself when you get booted out or we will stick you where we want you, the whole package becomes less attractive.
True, but if it is still attractive enough to fill the positions, then something along those lines could be reasonable. I do not know if we are having problems filling firefigher positions, I was under the impression (possibly mistaken) that law enforcement has many applicants for each opening.

I'm all for keeping the funding of the position and the retirement much more 'real time'. We need to understand what the costs are as we commit to them.

Quote:
Sure you could but people are not things that you can move around as you see fit.
Tell that to the people in the private sector who were downsized, or moved to other positions or locations, or merged and eliminated as 'redundant''.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:01 AM   #73
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post


Tell that to the people in the private sector who were downsized, or moved to other positions or locations, or merged and eliminated as 'redundant''. (referring to my people are not things comment)

-ERD50
Red herring. As I mentioned in my post, sh** happens. Companies get stressed and Government agency funds get cut, posts get closed. I ran many a Christmas RIF that put my fellow Feds on the street or sent them packing to new locations and new jobs (the impact of funding cuts are such that it is important to get people off the Government rolls in the first quarter, Oct - Dec). But that is far different than designing the system to end in such an action. The perception that many companies do think of their employees as things feeds the frustration and anger that your comment expresses. Not something you want to plan into the system.

I do agree with your concern for transparency - the agency contribution to fully fund FERS is substantial and is not readily apparent to the taxpayers or the employees who benefit from it.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:12 AM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,169
BimmerBill, Anyone who has done a stint as a federal manager knows that FERS is more expensive on the front end and cheaper on the tail end. CSRS and FERS employees pay the same out of their salaries for the the government retirement funds. All of the CSRS contribution goes to the CSRS/FERS retirement fund. FERS employees pay into the Social Security fund then the rest goes into the CSRS/FERS retirement fund. The total for both is a little over 8%. So the small contribution to FERS was done to maintain overall fairness in the take home and to divert pension contributions from the government employee fund to the Social Security fund. The changes in both retirement programs were made in the same era (the 80s). The FERS system also has the TSP. So the federal manager is matching the SS payroll tax and contributing up to 5% of contributions to the employee TSP. I recall that when budgets were being prepared, FERS employees were a bigger bite on the budget than CSRS. However CSRS employees get the larger pension and, consequently, are the most expensive on the tail end of the budgets.
__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:20 AM   #75
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
The FERS system also has the TSP. So the federal manager is matching the SS payroll tax and contributing up to 5% of contributions to the employee TSP. I recall that when budgets were being prepared, FERS employees were a bigger bite on the budget than CSRS. However CSRS employees get the larger pension and, consequently, are the most expensive on the tail end of the budgets.
Yes, the budget bite is big for FERS. The agency pays its match to the TSP, the employer half for SS, and the bulk of the FERS pension component. It is good for managers to have to wrestle with the full costs and beneficial to taxpayers (or their watchdogs) who can more readily see those costs if they choose.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 09:23 AM   #76
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
.... feeds the frustration and anger that your comment expresses. Not something you want to plan into the system.
If there was anger in my post, it wasn't intended, none was there as I wrote it.

I think the idea that we would plan to move people from short, high-risk careers to a less physically demanding/risky job for their later years is worth considering. Let them know up front, we should not pull any punches on them. It would be extra years that they would be contributing to their pension, and fewer years that they would be collecting and running up the COLA portion. That has to help balance the books.

Do they really need to collect before 65? How many go out and get jobs while collecting an early pension?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 10:21 AM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
If there was anger in my post, it wasn't intended, none was there as I wrote it.
Sorry, my miscommunication. I didn't mean to infer that you were angry and particularly not that you were angry at me. I saw your comment, "Tell that to the people..." as reflecting the frustration and anger a whole generation of middle managers and others felt when the rug was pulled out from under them in their 40s and 50s. Lots of legitimate reasons for that downsizing but also lots of cynical, self serving justifications from some corporations that did treat people as things. That poisoned the attitudes of lots of managers and employees. Not something I that I think you want to intentionally build into your system.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 11:00 AM   #78
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
Sorry, my miscommunication. I didn't mean to infer that you were angry and particularly not that you were angry at me. I saw your comment, "Tell that to the people..." as reflecting the frustration and anger a whole generation of middle managers and others felt when the rug was pulled out from under them in their 40s and 50s. Lots of legitimate reasons for that downsizing but also lots of cynical, self serving justifications from some corporations that did treat people as things. That poisoned the attitudes of lots of managers and employees. Not something I that I think you want to intentionally build into your system.
No problem, I appreciate the response, and I'm sorry for any confusion - w/o tone and body language posts don't convey emotions well.

When I mention the people that were displaced in the private sector, I was just stating a fact. And I have trouble seeing why one group of employees should be treated or thought of differently, simply based on who their employer is (a govt versus a private company).

We often see firefighters (whom I greatly respect) used as an example of a group who deserves special treatment in terms of short careers and early pensions because of the risk. But googling brought up some interesting stats on risks in various jobs:

Firemen don't even make the top 10 list. I had to go elsewhere for the stats:

Firefighter
Fatalities per 100,000 full-time workers: 4.4
Average salary: $47,760

Note firefighters are 4.4 versus an industry average of 3.3 (that surprised me). These are annual numbers, so if a firefighter can afford to (or is required to, due to physical demands) cut their career short, it seems their career exposure to risk may be lower than the average worker?

Here's a list: americas-10-most-dangerous-jobs: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Quote:
Only 4,340 people died on the job last year, down 16.8% from 2008, according to new data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a rate of 3.3 deaths per 100,000 workers -- the lowest ever reported by the BLS

America's Most Dangerous Jobs

Fisherman
Fatality Rate: 200 per 100,000
Median Wages: $23,600

Logger
Fatality Rate: 61.8 per 100,000
Median Wages: $34,440

Airplane Pilots
Fatality Rate: 57.1 per 100,000
Median Wages: $106,240

Farmers and Ranchers
Fatality Rate: 35.8 per 100,000
Median Wages: $32,350

Roofers
Fatality Rate: 34.7 per 100,000
Median Wages: $33,970

Ironworkers
Fatality Rate: 30.3 per 100,000
Median Wages: $44,500

Sanitation Worker
Fatality Rate: 25.2 per 100,000
Median Wages: $32,070

Industrial Machinist
Fatality Rate: 18.5 per 100,000
Median Wages: $39,600

Truckers and Drivers/Sales Workers
Fatality Rate: 18.3 per 100,000
Median Wages: $37,730

Construction Laborer
Fatality Rate: 18.3 per 100,000
Median Wages: $29,150
If you loaded the value of benefits in those salaries, I image it would look quite different. Almost all of the above are private sector jobs. If they can get people to work for them, with those kinds of risks, it makes me wonder if we really need to provide the level of benefits that we do to get qualified firefighters.

.

No doubt the skill sets are different - I'm not saying a $23,000 fisherman would make a good firefighter. But I think it does lend some perspective to it. I don't think most on that list are offered the kind of early pensions that firefighters are. The only 'pension plan' I know of for farmers is the value of their land - which gets taxed at 50% when they die! Pensioners can spend their pensions on family members while alive. Farmers can't spend the value of their land.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 11:47 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post

Here's a list: americas-10-most-dangerous-jobs: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance



If you loaded the value of benefits in those salaries, I image it would look quite different. Almost all of the above are private sector jobs. If they can get people to work for them, with those kinds of risks, it makes me wonder if we really need to provide the level of benefits that we do to get qualified firefighters.

-ERD50
I have to admit, in terms of jobs I would prefer, I would choose pilot, police, firefighter above the rest of that list even with salary and pension being equal.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 11:55 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bimmerbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,631
I still believe pensions can be actuarily sound and a great benefit for the employee as well as the employer.

Wasn't there a series of articles about how the 401K plan is a failure? Sure, it failed because people didn't participate, took money out for stuff, didn't roll it over when changing jobs, etc.

Does anyone have any ideas how to value a pension as part of total compensation?

Today's political climate is seriously anti-pension. I agree that there are a lot of pensions mismanaged and in financial problems, but there must be a large number that are solvent.
__________________

__________________
Bimmerbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:09 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.