dcsimg

Federal Tax Brackets 2010

Published 10/7/09 (Modified 6/17/11)
By MoneyBlueBook

Federal Tax Brackets 2010

Death and taxes. You can try to fight them both tooth and nail, but at the end of it all, it's a losing proposition. Especially when it comes to taxes, the government is going to want its fair share cut of your salary and business profits one way or another, whether you like it or not. Rather than engage in tax evasion and possibly live the remaining years of your life on the run as a tax fugitive from the long arm of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), you might as well confront the issue of taxes head on. All we can do is try our best to understand how income taxes work and take reasonable steps to minimize their effects on our financial lives as much as possible.

One of the most introductory ways to plan for the effects of income taxes is to recognize how the various marginal rates are applied to the corresponding tax brackets. Because the United States does not yet currently engage in a flat tax system, our taxable incomes are broken down into different taxation ranges with specific taxation percentages assessed depending on where they fall along the tax bracket spectrum. Although our 2010 tax returns won't be filed until April 15, 2011, for planning purposes, it's always good to find out the new changes to the tax code as early as possible. Let's examine some of the upcoming tax rate changes that are being projected for 2010 and compare them to the previous year's 2009 tax brackets.

Projections Of New IRS Tax Rates Have Historically Been Extremely Accurate

Year after year, even before the official IRS income tax brackets are released, a select number of tax experts have gotten together and crunched a determinative number of officially released statistics by governmental agencies - to project and extrapolate the upcoming year's tax brackets. Year after year, the tax rate predictions released by these groups have yielded results in advance with near 100% accuracy. Such an income tax bracket projection ahead of time is possible because many of the major tax code numbers are pegged to officially released inflation statistics - including the standard deduction, the personal exemption, the actual income ranges of the tax brackets, and contributions limits for the investment retirement accounts (both the Traditional and Roth IRA account).

One of these tax prognosticating groups is the Tax Foundation, a Washington D.C. think tank which collects data and publishes research studies on federal and state tax policies. The other notable group operates under the auspices of the Wall Street Journal and is comprised of a merry band of private tax professionals and economists - namely William E. Massey, a senior tax analyst from the Tax and Accounting arm of Thomson Reuters; George Jones, a senior federal tax analyst from CCH; and James C. Young, an accounting professor from Northern Illinois University. For numerous years now, both the Tax Foundation and the Wall Street Journal group have consistently released to the public very accurate, albeit unofficial, early bird peaks at the following year's projected income tax brackets based on available financial data - well in advance of the official IRS releases. If you're eager to get a head start on tax year 2010, read on.

IRS Tax Rate Schedule Updates For Tax Year 2010

This year, citing a very sluggish economy and extraordinarily low inflation rates for 2009 to which upcoming 2010 tax rates shall be pegged to, the Tax Foundation and associated experts are predicting very little year to year change for the 2010 federal tax brackets. If there's anything good that came out of this global economic recession that has been plaguing us for the entirety of 2009 - it's that the combination of low gas prices, depressed consumer spending, and high jobless numbers with so many people filing for unemployment - have enabled inflation rates to stay quite low during the span of 2009 - at a mere 0.19%. Just compare that to the incredibly high inflation rate of 4.26% during the previous year of 2008 when gas prices were skyrocketing, and it's clear the recent sudden and precipitous drop in inflation has been extremely unprecedented.

As a result of low inflation, for the most part the 2010 tax bracket ranges will likely stay relatively unchanged. As noted by the tax pundits, for the very first time since the IRS started to index the official federal income tax rates to inflation during the mid 1980's, taxpayers will get virtually no significant benefit from inflation in 2010. As such - year 2010 tax brackets, standard deductions, personal exemptions, and even retirement account contribution limits will see very little (if any) alterations from prior year numbers.

I will update the table below to reflect the official IRS tax rates for 2010 if decidedly different numbers are ultimately released by the IRS. However, with tax bracket projections by the experts having enjoyed a near perfect accuracy rate for quite a few years now, I don't have any reason to doubt that the displayed figures below will ultimately wind up as official.

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 - Based On Taxable Income Ranges

Tax Rate
Married Couples Filing Jointly
Most Single Filers
10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 – $209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650

Beyond some slight numerical shuffling of the taxable income ranges, there will not be too many significant tax changes from 2009 into 2010. Here is a breakdown of the projected changes (if any) for 2010 as they compare to the prior year:

  • Personal Exemption: No change. For the very first time, the standard exemption for 2010 will not be going up and will stay unchanged at $3,650, the same as it was in 2009.
  • Standard Deduction: No change, except for Head Of Household filers. The standard deduction for married couples filing jointly will remain unchanged at $11,400. For those filing as single, the standard deduction will remain at $5,700 as well. However, Head of Household filers will see a slight increase by $50 - from $8,350 (year 2009) to $8,400 (year 2010).
  • Overall Tax Bracket Thresholds: Will increase across the board for all tax filing statuses, albeit at a significantly lower amount compared to past tax year increases.
  • Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount: No change. For tax year 2010, the current gift tax exclusion limit of $13,000 will stay the same. Often overlooked by most taxpayers, the gift tax stipulates that gift givers must pay a special tax on gift amounts that exceed a certain amount per year.
  • Traditional and Roth IRA Contribution Limits: No change. Despite the fact that IRA and Roth IRA contribution limits did not rise in 2009 in response to strong inflationary pressures in 2009, there will still be no corresponding change in the maximum contribution limits to individual retirement accounts for 2010. The standard IRA contribution limit for 2010 will remain unchanged at $5,000. The catch up contribution limit for those 50 or older will remain at $6,000 as well.

Disclaimer: Discover is a paid advertiser of this site.
Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.

Feed for this Entry

436 Responses to “Federal Tax Brackets 2010 | Income Tax Brackets 2010 | Money Blue Book” 

  1. Boo Hoo needs to wake up and smell some coffee! says:

    This is a follow up from the US Marine Private turned 33% who posted earlier in this thread.

    To Oh Boo Hoo... Check your logic before you make assertions that don't hold water.

    "Consider the defence bufget, for example. Defending the country benefits everyone, but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it."

    - Since when is FREEDOM valued differently for any American? I served this country for 8 years and I can assure you that at no time during my service did I consider I was protecting "the rich" more then "those with less wealth". Furthermore, I can assure you that IF our homeland was ever threatened directly via invasion, you would not find our military protecting the assets of "rich" over the assets of others. Instead, as The Marines have done for 234 years, we would be protecting the freedoms of EVERY AMERICAN as laid out in the Constitution and the ideals of our forefathers.

    - Your insurance principal simply doesn't hold water. While those with more expensive houses & cars do pay more for Insurance in actual dollar values the percentile they pay relative to the value of their asset IS THE SAME for everyone with a policy from that company in that geographic market.

    "Social security payments, which makes up another good chunk of the budget, are dependent on income– if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire."

    - Again, your argument doesn't hold weight as a comparison to the current progressive income tax system. Every American is taxed an equal percentage up to the current limits of the Social Security system. While that may result in a different dollar contribution, the bottom line is the percentage is the same. The payments from Social Security are again equally proportionate to the amount paid into the system based on lifetime contributions from the SAME Social Security tax rate for every American.

    "Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry. "

    - Once again, you mistakenly try to illustrate that additional consumption equates to a justification to tax "the rich" disproportionally. Energy is charges to every American at the SAME RATE based on their location. The more you use, the more you pay. The power company doesn't require W-2's from residents to determine what to charge them based on a progressive scale per kilowatt hour.

    Bottom line, your examples reflect nothing more then a variability in the actual dollar amounts paid by those that have more wealth compared to those that have less. In each of your examples however the "percentile of liability" is EQUAL across the spectrum of income. Conversely, and the point of my original post is that our current personal Income Tax system is unfair since it disproportionately taxes higher income Americans relative to those with less wealth thereby creating a disincentive to live the AMERICAN DREAM! You examples even further prove through various situations where a proportionate liability is fair such as a flat consumption tax similar to the Fairtax. Higher income earners are still taxed more in dollar figures because they generally consume more but there is no additional liability or should I say penalty for excuse the term, "getting off your butt and doing something with your life" (aka Living the American Dream!).

  2. cogipro says:

    If this blog is going to continue, it must remain civil. I am a capitalist through and through, but I stand by the rights of others to speak their minds. If we are not tolerant of other views, then we are just as bad as the dictators that our President admires. Indeed these are incredibly difficult times, the times our forefathers have said "try men's souls". The least we as citizens can do is avoid stooping to the low brow tactics of Mr. Frank, Mr. Ayers, Mr. Soros and Ms. Pelosi amongst others.

    If you really want to do something about the liberal takeover of our country, then contact your congressmen. If you don't know how, go to www.grassfire.org and join the movement to take back our freedom while it still exists. Otherwise you are just flagellating in the breeze.

    As for taxes, the current tax system is about as fair as any we have seen in this country. If the rates are simply left as they are, we can live with them. The trouble is, we are being led by irresponsible spenders on both sides of the aisle. Time to extricate the irresponsible big government proponents and find some true small government thinkers who can pay the bills with the taxes we already pay.

  3. Chris says:

    Interesting debate. Those objecting to the idea of a flat tax, understand that there are many examples of how to do this, and some of them actually revolve around a consumption tax, rather than based purely on income.

    It is quite simple to add a touch of progressive taxation to a flat tax, by not taxing expenses for primary residence, as an example (this would be an improvement over our current "progressive" tax system).

    One of the central problems with our current system is the fact that your income doesn't take into account the context in which you live. Living in Los Angeles, it's impossible to find a two bedroom for under around $1500 (unless you want to live in a location that puts your family in danger). The same apartment in the Chicago suburbs I can get for $1000. If I lived in Iowa City? Significantly less than that. But if I'm making $50K, the federal government will tax me the same in any of those locations. That's patently unfair, as the person living in Iowa City is indeed making an excellent living, whereas the same person making that in Los Angeles will be scraping by.

  4. Crystal says:

    I've never hated a president as much as I hate the piece of garbage in office right now. What happened to the "your taxes won't go up if you make under $250,000 as an individual"?! What an effing liar...LIAR LIAR LIAR. So not only are our taxes going up, our deductions have NO CHANGE.

  5. Elder Jones says:

    The "Right" still wants its Medicare and SS, and its world empire. The "Left" wants it all. The Libertarian Party might save us, but methinks Armageddon and austerity for All Americans will come first. The Light will come, but not before we have seen the Depths of Hell.

  6. Alan says:

    If you think it is bad this year, come back NEXT year!

  7. Robert Haney says:

    If you have a flat tax then the GOVERNMENT will have to spend what they get then they could't BLOW all that money, live week to week like us!

  8. Jessica says:

    I don't have any answers, just opinions.
    My husband and I work hard at our full-time jobs, but we still do not make alot of money. Our educations allow for better wages, but with the job market what it is we consider ourselves lucky to have A job, and have accepted the pay cuts as a small price to pay for having ANY job. We will probably fall in the 15% tax bracket, which is not bad, we will survive it.
    And Really, I don't care what other people make or pay. I'm doing my share and I just wish everyone else was too. Too many people are in our country that are not here legally and are burdening the system (I do not forget those that are here legally and are also burdens to the system). If everyone pulled their weight, whatever amount it was, this situation would not be as disportionate as it seems.

  9. Poppa says:

    Gwen, you are a communist.

  10. z-man says:

    All comments interesting. I talked to a Canadian couple who pay 51% in taxes. They mentioned this nonchalantly.....kind of like the frog in boiling water! Yes, even we can become accustomed to being 'screwed', and think there is no other way. By the way, this couple paid extra money for private health care when needed!! If I remember correctly, wasn't there some big uproar in the 18th century in this country about "taxation without representation"? Certainly there is no constituent representation now (health care reform an example), so why do citizens continue to go along with increasing taxes; federal, state, local? These folks who say it's OK to tax those with money don't have a clue. All have to be government workers, don't you think? We are indeed sheep who get what we deserve, unless we get rid of the leeches in D.C. and start over.

  11. SoCalGal says:

    Many of our ills would go away if prudence were the policy of the day. If I ruled the USA, for starters I would:
    (1) Return politics to a service industry with a ten year total onetime limit overall; the public would determine what a livable stipend would be for the period
    (2) Strip away all airline, farm, auto etc. business subsidies & bailouts
    (3) Make all politicians abide by the same health care/pension/social security/tax policies by which all other Americans live
    (4) Stop awarding citizenship to every living being who happens to breathe American air on the day of birth
    (5) Boot out all illegals (kids born here go with their illegal parents) with a comprehensive national sweep, coupled with generating a truly thoughtful immigration policy geared toward true need; only illegals serving in the military on our behalf would get amnesty, humanitarian [dire medical] cases would be reviewed for temporary stay considerations
    (6) Stop all govt support of 'making things fair or equal' programs so charities can take up the slack
    (7) Dump the idiot now in the WH who has a G-D complex and cannot get enough of himself so he shares himself 24 hours a day with all of us, and replace with a true patriotic leader who feels the USA is surely the greatest nation on earth, remembers how it got that way and preserves it without changing its underlying foundations--and without apologizing to the world for our existence and successes
    (8) First and foremost, support our military
    (9) Add line item veto power to the executive office
    (10) Create elections focused on issues and not on candidates - no individual campaigning allowed, no donations - no 2-party system which has devolved into failure
    (11) Benefits including but not limited to health, pensions, vacations, holidays or bonuses for public sector jobs at every level to be set by the taxpayers
    JUST A START...

  12. just trying to stay afloat says:

    I have read this page this early morning of Christmas, and I understand both sides
    of this debate. My sister, who worked hard in school, put herself though college and
    found a great job makeing 100k or more is part of the *rich* people everyone is fussing about here.
    Me, on the other hand, got an education and work in a factory in my town, making
    around 30k a year.
    This does not mean I think my sister, who wanted more out of life, should pay for me,
    or that she should pay for my healthcare or all the other things the goverment is going
    after the *rich* for supposely.
    I work, I pay my own way, and that makes me proud.
    I dont agree that those people who sit around and say to the goverment give me give me, and the goverment is more then happy to provide for them. That is what makes me mos upset.
    I know in this econmy there are those out of work, not by choice, and those are not who I speak of. I speak of the welfare generations of familys, who, that is their JOB.
    I agree with z-man on the start all over theory....only, I figure by the time they get
    into office, there has been so much backscrathing, that whatever good intention they
    had.......is covered up by *You owe Me*
    I am not sure of the solution, to the problem, but I am pretty sure it is not socialism..

    thanks for listening

  13. kiran says:

    My friend you are not rich man government is not your friend. Do you contribute money in their campaign? If president, house of rep and senate think like you think we do not have problem every body in U.S.A is happy. We trust two face people and elect them. They don't care for you they only care for their pocket

  14. Dustin says:

    I am interested in seeing last year aggragate taxes paid by each income level. I am thinking the rich don't actually live pay check to pay check and can afford to manage their money in ways that take advantage of the books and books and tax code or potential write-offs. What percentage of total income, before any write-offs or deductions did each segment pay in taxes on average?

  15. cogipro says:

    Got news for you, Dustin. There are no tax breaks for high income earners, unless you count our government officials who just don't pay their taxes. It seems you can't swing a dead cat in D.C. without hitting an elected official who should be in prison for tax evasion. We usually find out who they are when they are vying for an appointment by the White House.

    As far as your run of the mill high income earner is concerned, it is impossible to get a "write-off" as the 'Alternative Minimum Tax' kicks in for everyone who attempts to claim large deductions. The AMT negates any deductions that lower ones tax bill below a certain level.

    For example, a wage earner making say $550,000 is going to pay about $165,000+ in Federal taxes alone. He can't get out of it because the AMT cancels out deductions, and the exemptions for dependents go away with increases in income. That is roughly 30% of his gross income. On average, state taxes will equal about $33,000. Then there is FICA and medicare tax totaling about $18000. That comes to about $216,000 in just Fed/FICA/Medicare/State income taxes. That comes in at 40% of his gross income.

    Whether a person lives pay check to pay check is a function of lifestyle, not income. Most everyone in this country spends more as they make more. One reason we are in the national economic pickle we are in is that the people have followed the government's lead in spending MORE than what is earned/collected. So, pay check to pay check? That is a personal choice. Not a good one, but a choice nonetheless.

    I know that many folks look at the above example and say: Wow. That leaves a whopping $330,000 to spend. Sure enough. And that is as good as it will get, and the party is over. Under Obama's/Liberals' Plan, The $550,000 earner's total tax (F/F/M/S) will likely top out at around $300,000 or 56% in taxes. Now isn't that one hell of an incentive for people to work hard? Who wants to bust his tail to get to this high income level only to keep 44% percent of it?

    Kill the individual with taxes and you kill the country. That is EXACTLY what Obama and his robotic followers will do unless they are stopped.

  16. Z-Man says:

    Responding to Dustin, a person making $195k per year, with 25k in deductions (mostly charity) pays over $40,000 in Federal Tax....which equates to 25%.

    He is correct that a person who makes this type of annual wage should not have to live paycheck to paycheck. Only by poor money management or bad decisions should this occur. However, those who don't make this much money don't pay 25% of every extra dollar they make, and those who make significantly more pay an increased percentage in tax, according to the system we now have, and unfortunately, we will all pay more to fund this Administration's proposed programs.

    In this particular example, there is a significant amount given to others (charities) that demonstrates a degree of generosity. Some who make far less give even a larger percentage of their income to charitible organizations, which shows not just a greater desire to help their fellow man, but perhaps even better money management skills and not living beyond their means. It may not be germane to this issue, but our current President gave less than $100 to help his fellow man.

    I personally believe living "beyond one's means" is the major problem many have. Failure to save, failure to manage money, failure to put one's life in proper perspective regarding age and occupational volatility, seems to me to lead to a "class envy" or "coveting" attitude. I see this first hand in the Health Reform issue. I spent 27 years in the military, many years flying off aircraft carriers. I signed a contract with the U.S. Government to do so, and risked my life, sacrificed time away from family, and made less money than my peers. I did so because I felt a calling to it, and I did so knowing that if I made it to retirement age, I would be compensated with a small retirement and a good health care program. The government knew it wasn't paying what I was worth, and they gave the health care in old age as a carrot. I tell you this because a relative of mine recently said that she deserved the same government health care I receive because she worked 11 years as a teacher. Where is her equity? She never spent 9 months each deployment away from her spouse and children, never hurled her body at the back end of a carrier at night, and never was shot at. People make career choices, which equate to consequences, at many junctures during life. I don't belittle anyone who makes more money than I do, nor do I feel superior to someone who makes less. Our lives reflect the choices we make, in all aspects. And, regarding Health Care, it does need reform, but not in the manner thus proposed. My opinion.

    Our tax system is progressive. Those who make more pay more. I personally feel a flat tax, with no loopholes, is a better means to finance our government. But the downturn in the economy has shown the true colors of the newest generation that have had to weather an economic storm. Many want to have someone else pay for their education, their home, and pay their bills. This was not the mindset a generation or two ago. By the way, I also run my own business. And if the Health Care Reform bill and Cap and Trade bills go as the Democrats envision, I will close my business doors. More jobs lost. There are basic business and economic principles that have been in place since bartering and the invention of coinage, and it is too bad this Administration does not understand them. This Administration has the lowest percentage (8%) of any administration in the history of our nation to have actually worked in the private sector. Too bad America. I can't help but think the recent upturn in the economy would have happened sooner if left alone to correct itself. Certainly the billions in the Stimulus Package weren't a catalyst. It's time to wake up folks, and it may be too late.

  17. Russ says:

    Nothing like taxes to generate responses short, long and passionate.

    The big point that's missing in most of this is the Constitution. Not surprising since few of our elected officials have read it to any detail.

    The Constitution allows for the taxation of profit as associated with an enterprise or business. It has long been debated as to whether the Federal Income Tax is constitutional as it relates to personal income. Years of influence from big business and big industries (like Wall Street and Higher Education) have distorted the tax system and made a bad situation worse.

    If anyone has seen Aaron Russo's "America - Freedom To Fascism," know what I'm talking about. And those who haven't can contact me and I'll send you a copy.

    For those who are making $50K and paying 38% in taxes, it means you're living in a City and State that is taxing you at over 13% or your employer is withholding too much. If they're withholding too much you're getting a decent refund. You can adjust your W-4 or move, if possible.

    College can be a wonderful thing but the cost of it can be equally obscene. With Government pushing and promoting higher education for everyone and subsidizing loans, it has become a huge industry. Ultimately financed on the backs of those who can afford it the least. Graduates who pay their students loans are paying a higher interest to cover the cost of the lender for making loans to people who don't pay them back. Does having a 6 figure debt to get a 5 figure job make a lot of sense? Then again we have elected officials who spend 7 figures to get a 6 figure job. But their "job" comes with benefits the majority of college graduated will never see.

    Yes, it is a vicious cycle that is worthy of a "start over" consideration. But the Lehman/Bear Sterns fiasco represented the best opportunity for someone to say "This system might not be working" and it didn't happen. We are a long way from changing things but it starts with us at the voting booth.

    Keep voting out all incumbents, even the good ones. They can come back and get re-elected but we, the general population, need to send a message to the elected officials and that's the only way I can think of getting their attention.

    Having a revolving door in Congress will make the Lobbyists head spin. They won't know who to go after since they'll only be there for for a short time. No more career politicians in Congress for 30, 40 and 50 years or more. Once the power of the vote has been establish there might be some progress for the middle class. Lets hope there still is a middle class by the time that happens.

    Happy New Year, everyone.

  18. Joe says:

    Josh for president!

  19. CG says:

    I just checked and the top 5% of earners pay 60% of the income taxes. It seems fair enough. There is no easy solution as I believe people working smart and hard earn the right to their reward. I also sympathize with those less fortunate and am fine paying a higher level of taxes, thus I do not have a problem paying 28% on my final earnings. When my deductions start getting phased out, it starts to hit a little hard. Already 1/3 of my income goes to taxes and social security.

    The real solution is to run the government more like business. The pork barrel projects to which Congress treats itself and government waste and entitlements are the real problem. Less spending is the answer, not taxing people up to half of their income. When tax rates reached higher levels historically, the economy stagnated as investment did as well.

  20. cogipro says:

    This appears to be the perfect time to introduce the Congressional Reform Act of 2010. It is a reproduction of an email I received this week from a very thoughtful citizen.

    1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
    A. Two Six year Senate terms
    B. Six Two year House terms
    C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    2. No Tenure / No Pension:

    A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

    8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

    The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
    -----------------------
    I could not agree more. Get the foxes out of the hen house and take away their key!

Leave a Reply



If you liked this site, please Add To Bookmark and/or Subscribe To A FeedReader

Search this site