Huguenot

There's a very strong catholic feeling to animal rights, rooted in original sin. It's as if humans deserve to die of their ailments, and animals do not. The cruelty, harsh realities and nasty deaths of a 'wild' existence are seen as a righteous path. Crackpot.

I too wear a helmet, although I fear it affects my pulling power. To be fair, I'm marginally more successful than I would be with a debilitating brain injury, eating through a tube. Sensibly, since there is no downside (apart from the injury to a fucking massive ego), I can't understand why anyone wouldn't wear a helmet. I'm sure DJKQ will come out with some spurious argument about the restricted view of homicidal pterodactyls.

They'll all be cheap shots Tommy, they'll all be manipulative, and they'll all be prejudiced. 4pm in the afternoon for me ;-)

Well, as it happens silverfox, that's exactly what religion does. Religion kills dissent and diversity, it kills original thinking and the spirit of enquiry. It takes people who have 'different ideas that conflict with their own' and burns them at the stake. It takes daughters who want to meet their boyfriend, slits their throats and buries them in the yard. It sets arbitrary rules based on iron age social issues and applies them to the 21st century. It refuses to accept that they may be flawed. Then it has the nerve to call people who welcome liberalism and calls them 'discriminatory'...

It is political. Of course it's political. Politicis has nothing to do with rationalism, and everything to do with motivation. HMG's annual budgie is about 750bn. The 50p tax rate generates about 1bn a year That's the difference in a the price of a pint between 7.49 and 7.50. It's not significant. The 50p tax rate has no impact on cutting public services or sacking union workers, but stupid crazy thickheads (i.e. most of us) will think it does. That's life. So cutting services at the same time as cutting 50p rate? Light the blue touch paper and retire... As for 'all in this together'. That's the point. We're not in it all together at all. One guy earning 150k a year is 'all in it together' for 60,000 a year, and a guy in the wood shop is 'all in it together' for 800 a year. Fine, that's progressive taxation. Just don't call the guy a greedy cock when you're fleecing him. And I wouldn't patronise them either. Taking 60,000 a year off someone, then calling them a greedy cock, but 'calm down be happy' is the kind of thing that gets people punched in pubs ;-)

Ha ha. I suspect that John's irrational behaviour stems from the (somewhat Yorkshire) conviction that 'art' is 'rubbish'. I don't see why he should see the books. It's none of his business. Who appointed him to be social auditor? John, mate, if you truly think that an empty parking lot is preferable to hundreds of people having a good time, then 'curmudgeon' is an inadequate word. Get thee back to your dusty shelves ;-)

I don't think there's any point in cutting the 50p rate, because no-one has generated a quantifiable argument about what benefits this will deliver. In that sense there's not much point in cutting it, as any incremental revenue is, well, revenue. However, that's very different to justifying it. I'm staggered that anyone should argue that not having it is ideological. It's the clear f*cking opposite. As Loz pointed out, it doesn't generate a significant income line on government budgets - so the only reason for having it is 'principle'. That's ideology. It's the definition of ideology. Strafer imagining that this government would have removed it on day one is plain silly. What - announce that we're cutting public services, sacking union workers and.... cutting taxes on the rich???? Are you insane? Regardless of D_C's convictions, there is a very serious question about whether the extraordinary government spend on welfare (not health and education please, just welfare) is a wise way to spend taxpayer money. SG Plc. gives $50,000 to any young person wanting to launch a business with a sound plan and evidence of skill. They also provide a biz guru overseer. I think this is wiser than giving the same kid 50k in handouts for sitting on their arse playing World of Warcraft. I think welfare should be a lifeline, not a career. In this light it's entirely understandable that people in the 50p zone would enquire why they're being singled out for a tax that delivers nothing to the bottom line, but everything in terms of the politics of envy. This doesn't make them greedy bastards, just perfectly reasonable happy people. Regards the NHS, the fairly obvious point is that it costs every person in the UK 2k a year to run. If you paid that kind of premium on private healthcare the nurses would be waking you with a hand shandy, not calling you a bastard rich c*nt.

You want to tax the roof over your head??? You want to tax moving house??? Ha ha! Good luck. Get elected ;-) Mikeb, your argument has validity if it targets profiteering (ie. secondary housing), but you're completely insane if you want to prevent people changing their primary house for work. BTW, there is, of course, tax on moving house anyway - it's called stamp duty. It had no effect on the housing boom.

Like an addict, silverfox cannot disassociate the hormonal surges he receives in a cathedral when 'Jerusalem' raises the roof from intellectually rigorous arguments about religion. Silverfox likes that surge. Like Nick O'Teen he wants other people to experience it too. He can't explain it. He doesn't 'think' he's having a good time. He's genuinely having a good time. The thinking brain is in the bin. When you challenge 'faith' schools it's like taking a bottle from an alkie. He doesn't care, he's f*cked in the head. He's angry, he quotes nonsense. He wants his bottle back. When you ask him to stop drinking, he thinks it's your failure because you're not drunk too ;-)

So now you've moved from liptsick in bunny eyes, and you're on to smoking? Ha ha. Your desire to generate extreme, barely-existent, examples knows no bounds. Bullshit. Whatever your limited knowledge may be Tommy, it clearly doesn't stretch to biology. It simply is not possible to 'model' the effects of medicines in computers. We're not that advanced. It's not medieval, it's reality. The world is not full of animal torturers who do it for fun. Most people want to get treehuggers out of their lives. If they could. they would.

Well they only build them so car crivers can block them and then moan about the fine.

Most of Labour work in London seemed to me to be done by pretty, sloaney middle class interns whose parents can afford to pay for them to live in Clapham for a year on no salary to build their 'connections'. I once dated a left wing editor of a well known political community magazine, and she used to go back regularly to Lymington to go yachting ;-) The Tory ones were more bossy, stout, ruddy cheeked types.

Gives you some idea about how many car drivers think their own needs are more important than everyone else's ;-) Park legally and you won't get a ticket.

Ha, yeah right! More like... Blushing 23 year old party apparatchik from monied middle class family with a social conscience flounces across the office... "Blousie, Blousie... we haven't, yooo know.... *whispers* spent the budgie. What shall we do?" "Oh Annie, really? Why don't you speak to Timsy? I'm sure he likes you, you know - why don't you have a 'chat over supper' at a bistro like Tony and Gordon? See if you can tickle his fancy?" "Really? Do you think he does?" *blushes* "Felicity told me about this super thing they had in Islington that all his chums thought was really cooooool? Do you think he'll like me more if I say that?"

The thread title is just another cynical attempt to leverage an obviously distasteful practice (cosmetics testing) that most people despise and barely exists, to achieve another end - a ban on all animal testing. The vegan extremists want to use lipstick in bunny rabbits eyes to ban the creation of medical products that save the lives of our nearest and dearest. It's cyncial, it's underhand, it's manipulative - it's, oh yes - the Blue Brick bunch again.

Why spend it on a fireworks display when every other bugger is having one? Why not spend it on a 3 day festival? Summer market? Christmas Fayre? May Day Festival? Get local retailers in, instead of touring entertainers?

Sorry for any confusion Timster, it was your sound bite that confused me ;-) "The very sensible reason for taxing high earners more than those on low incomes is that they can afford it."

It does beg the question whether if they could only support one event, why they chose one on the same night that every other bugger in town is having one, and why it is taking place at such a time, and in such a context that it provides nothing to the local economy. I'm guessing it's about a complete lack of iamgination rather than anything else.

Timster, your logic is flawed because you're trying to make it work on simple principles. These 'it's obvious innit' solutions don't work in practice, because the outcome of little tweaks are rarely obvious. For example, hikes in top rate tax in s sophisticated modern financial model will more likely see employees remunerated in stocks rather than salary. This increases a drive for corporate earnings to be divested as dividend rather than reinvestment in growth - which results in less R&D, less expansion, and less.... jobs. Your view that tax is progressive because rich people find it easier to pay is simply incorrect. Modern economists don't work on moral priciples, but on productivity. Rich people are taxed more because taxation of this income has less impact on economic productivity. In other words they're taxed more because it helps the economy, not because they can pay. Loz's flat personal allowance instead of housing allowance adversely disadvantages lower paid workers in the South East. This leads to a drain in the service sector from the SE, which leads to increasing differentials in wage weighting by region, which leads to industrial unrest, wage inflation that leads to strikes, which leads to productivity drops and lower tax takes, which leads to increases in income tax etc etc. MM's simple tax systems prevent the government from advantaging certain activities which incentivise long term growth or social engineering which is necessary for our future prosperity. These are driven by imperfect markets (such as energy or pollution) where the cost the consumer pays is only part of the cost future generations will pay. Anyway, they're all just examples of how 'it's obvious innit' rarely is.

Call that a fire Shorty? That's not a fire, this is a fire... http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/06/21/200610top.jpg

Well I can't reslly agree with you there MM, progressive taxation is a reasonable and just social system. I don't even think the 50p rate should be reversed. I just don't think you should abuse people who contribute such vast sums to the exchequer by calling them greedy thieving bastards just because they question whether centralised welfare payments or private jobs creation are the best way to recover our economy.

It is a heavy investment for an needless service. It's like the freee school dinners thing - they seem to be buying off monied middle classes with perks they don't need at a price they would be perfectly capable of paying for themselves. It also sounds pretty snooty and pretentious - not exactly mass appeal.

D_C foraging for Christmas Puddings... http://www.treehugger.com/titi-monkey-photo.jpg

I think they're truly beautiful, and their ecological contribution enhances them... Windy Miller... http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Images/Wind_Turbines_Impact.jpg Are you shitting me? http://powerplantss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Coal-Fired-Power-Plant-Process.jpg

It just strikes more that the more offensive people on this thread calling people 'greedy bastards' might be wiser to thank those people who were willing to run it at a loss for several years for the benefit of what seems to be a shrinking group of foul mouthed abusive ingrates?