Happy Face

The nerve of someone with one of those annoying gamertag sigs moaning about someone elses.

You're on $14000 a month! Well done If you haven't put a yearly amount in there I think you should pay for the upkeep on this place, you championship standard salary getting bastard

I'm glad it's not aimed at this thread because this thread didn't. People just started volunteering the information. Which, like you, I find quite grotesque.

Yo dawg! we heard you like facebook so we put facebook into yo car so can facebook while you drive.

Well this has taken a very gauche turn indeed hasn't it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356 Surprised by France, Canada and Germany. Thought they'd be in the same boat as the UK and Ireland.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-this-austerity-backlash-across-europe-could-transform-britain-7734670.html

I paid for my digs and travel but never bought a drink all weekend. I did spend a few hundred on a meal for everyone though. I'd say he's taking the piss if he wants to pay nowt. He should appreciate people spending money to come in the first place.

Her dad is paying for ours. Result. On the way home from my stag do now. I was handcuffed to an oompa loompa all last night. They're fanny magnets them things. Recommend it to any best men. I'm going to book one every time I'm out with the lads.

i got ireland in the work sweepstake so ive got my lucky charms out and am doing a riverdance.

Read some Tim Minchin lyrics. he has it about right. stuff about the happy couple falling within the bell curve of acceptable mating partners. None of your soul mates bollocks.

He'll be 75! A bloke that age shouldn't be picking up so many airmiles. Great news.

Balarney, are you going?

I was going to drive but apparently the whole 'city' of Sunderland has only one car park that's open after 11pm. Got another lad to drive so it's his problem.

I'm off to see them tonight. Looking forward to the pyrotecnic/light show.

The problem with Taranteeny now is that he's been using basically the same story to exercise his genre muscles in film after film. Kung Fu, War, to a lesser extent car chase, and now western....they're all just about people killing lots of people to get to a final showdown for ultimate vengeance. There's nothing wrong with a vengeance trilogy/quadrilogy (I love Chan Wook Park's), but after Kill Bill 1 which I thought was excellent, I think QTs have offered diminishing returns. Since Reservoir Dogs where he was constrained by finance, he's been much better with a co-writer keeping things reined in (Pulp Fiction & Jackie Brown) that allows him to apply his visual and dialogue style to something tighter and more interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUdM9vrCbow

Django Unchained trailer out tonight. January 2013 release.

your spot on with you're assessment. There they're own worst enemy over their.

The people who want to work can only work if there's jobs available. With lower benefits and lower take home pay for the vast majority of the country there's going to be lower demand for goods and services and with that comes layoffs so there won't be any jobs.

When you increase the top rate the threat is that people will leave the country and live on an island resort at no cost to us. A small increase on the basic rate would mean many low paid workers stop work altogether and start claiming benefits. It ends up costing the country. The point is to have a tax system that incentivises people to work (let low paid people keep most of it) while also encouraging people to pay (don't collect too much from the wealthy). You sound like the woman on Newsnight using household debt to argue with Krugman the Nobel Prize winning economist on why we should continue with austerity. It's not basic maths at all, it's a hugely complex discipline I have little knowledge of but am happy to listen to the experts on.

Again, this seems wrong headed to me. We can't tax at a higher rate, or actually collect taxes from most of the wealthiest, because if we did, they'd shift...surely that's their choice and we shouldn't allow them to stay without contributing what they can afford as everyone else has to. A company turning over billions and reporting hundreds of millions in profits every year in the UK isn't going to shut down because the chairman moves. They may chase corporation tax incentives. I'm not saying tax the rich to the hilt either, a 100% tax rate would obviously be prohibitive in the way you describe, it logically doesn't leave the billionaire much option other than to move away, but after all is said and done, once the maths is applied and you offset the lost income against the increaases, then 73% is reported to be the optimum level of taxation against the wealthiest in order to maximise revenues.

That's what the 70% figure takes account of. The notion that a British company (like Sports Direct) with £billions in turnover every year will stop investment in the UK because the chairman has to pay millions on personal income seems odd to me. Why would he cut off his nose?

Of course it's 'fair'. All great wealth is earned off the back of society. MacDonalds millionaires have made their wealth by forcefeeding faeces infested grade k meat to kiddies around the globe, they've contributed to an obesity problem that costs governments around the world a great deal. Tesco and convenience food purveyors resist proper labelling and do the same, driving down the cost of convenience shit while health foods come with a healthy price increase. They're in the same boat as tobacco barons. Oil billionaires jeopardise the environment of the entire earth, bankers bring about the financial ruination of the worldwide economy. Property developers drive up the prices of homeownership to levels that a first time buyer has little chance of getting on the ladder. Media magnates tap murder victims phones and cheer on illegal invasions. It's only fair that the huge income they gorge themselves on as a result of exploiting society is redistributed to a greater degree than a milkman. It's not envy, or anger that drives a progressive tax system though. I've used some cartoon examples there, and clearly there are a lot of wealthy people who are not pure evil, but it's simple economics. Any serious tackling of the deficit requires greater revenues for the government. Cuts and austerity measures cannot cover the cost of a growing and ageing population without poverty reaching levels where society begins to break down. Krugman explains it best as always, the maths of higher taxes on the wealthy .... http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/the-simple-analytics-of-soaking-the-rich-wonkish/