NotThePars

Plain common sense would dictate that many people would be happy to earn a specific amount and stay where their roots, family and friends are. If the only people you know would up sticks and move anywhere to spend a large portion of their life where a few thousand more was available then you must know some seriously sad individuals. Even your football example is off. It's a short term career where the amount a player earns has to be maximised as they have zero transferable skills and may have to live off what they earn now till they die. Even then you only have to look at players that opt to live in London over Manchester because of what each city has to offer, or in Dimitry Payet's case taking a massive paycut to move home to France, to see that your earning capacity isn't the be all and end all to a lot of people. This is why other countries in Europe don't have such enormous differentials in pay between top and bottom. Why aren't there people flocking to America?

You always ask questions and post baseless assertions. That's it.

"You can prove anything with facts. I prefer to rely on instinct and blind prejudice." I think it's pretty apparent that you believe kissing and pleading at the feet of the very rich and hoping they don't run off to some Central Asian shithole is your way of resolving our disgraceful economic inequality but I think it's quite obvious that most people would happily stay in the UK if they were earning a decent wedge. Not everyone's a money grabbing psychopath who needs to fill their bank account endlessly till they die. Prove me wrong, chief. Is America where all the Scottish graduates are flocking to?

I just gave you an example and renton has also explained what should be done. You're the one who offers absolutely nothing in your defence other than right wing individualistic drivel which you then demand other people disprove. Why should we have a flat tax rate. Give us examples and statistics that support your argument. You come on here periodically, pick and choose which replies to acknowledge and then offer nothing but your own prejudices in response. Start doing your own legwork.

Buckled lefty JP Morgan said the salary of a CEO should never be more than 20 times their employees otherwise they would be in it for themselves and not everyone.

It doesn't have to be a set number. I'm sure Corbyn or someone proposed a cap of bosses earning 20x what their employees earned which seems fair enough. If you honestly believe that this would cause capital flight and the death of business in this country then I want to see any examples that support that.

Salary caps and a higher minimum wage for a start.

We are one of, if not heading for the, most unequal countries in the developed world. What people are suggesting about a more equal society where businesses are run with a much tighter difference in pay structures is not some pie in the sky lefty bullshit. It's completely feasible and exists in the rest of the developed world. Maybe if our politicians didn't refer to the country as "UK PLC" and talk about Britain "being open for business" we would be able to see ourselves and our fellow Britons as slightly more than another worker to fulfil a role but I'll take what I can get.

There's no chance of Balor moving if Wyatt goes to RAW as that's the most natural feud for either superstar.

WWE doesn't know how to build new supe- BRAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWNNNNN

Unlucky, Dom. You might as well hand in your notice now.

That could genuinely be the case going off his white-knighting for transphobes in the past.

I bow to your superior knowledge on the meerkat lads.

The meerkat?

Is Radger no Lichtie For Life?

Aye, I mean shame on him for changing his mind on an evolving issue over the span of nearly 30 years.

Oh christ don't let oaksoft know they got depression he'll be demanding they lose their PIP payments for something as trivial as that.

Well imagine my shock

Is Paul Joseph Watson the guy who sounds like Mark Corrigan and is scared to leave his house?

It's really telling that a lot of liberals are flocking to congratulate Trump on approving bombing of Syria rather than focusing on his refusal to take in refugees. It's utterly depressing that the UK as well would rather argue the case for bombing runs rather than taking in the people who will suffer from these strikes.

Seeing some people deploy the "nasty nat" thing earnestly on Twitter and the wider media as well. Will be interesting to see whether they go down the abusive Scottish nationalists route again after a British nationalist murdered a sitting MP in 2016 and a bunch of them brutally assaulted an asylum seeker.

Except I've pointed out once you start putting stringent checks on benefits to weed out suspected scroungers you end up catching genuinely vulnerable people in the crossfire. This is what's been happening for the past 7 years of Tory government. Also blaming the Tory's ideological dismantling of the welfare state on benefit scroungers is heavy dull.

That bottom image is still the saddest thing I've ever seen. So much going on in it as well.

Also incredible that it took dropping bombs for Trump to be presidential to liberals. Dunno where this leaves the "Trump is safer for the world than Clinton" crowd though.