Angelina Jolie on Unbroken, directing Brad Pitt & the mansion tax 

*****​​​ I'm pretty sure she eats...people need to lay off with the "all thin women must be anorexic " bullshit. Though considering the average person in America is over weight, all of the hate about her weight shouldn't surprise me but seriously, shut up with your rude remarks.

***** darling, everyone says I'm skinny, but i probably eat more than the fattest man on earth…

+ImaRobin M "Oh, she's not fat... must be starving herself."

+Pearl 09 But she is way to skinny compared to what she used to be for example in Tomb Raider or even Mr Mrs Smith. Everybody knows she looked much better in terms of body with nice curves compared to now. If she was as skinny as Keira Knightley her whole acting career then nobody would care about that.

in terms of her looks as well she has aged terribly....it's a shame because she was very beautiful in her day.

She did correct him

I give some of my wages to charity that still doesnt make me a good person.

Je Suis d'accord avec Linda York.

Mr TIMI T,Qui n'a jamais Peché,Qui jette la Pierre!Jésus à Dit.Maintenant,Ils ont des Enfants;Jennifer a fait sa vie avec un Autre!Nous Tournons la Page!Bientot 2015 Peut étre Brad et Jenny n'étaient pas fais de vivre ensemble!

Just a completely different side note, but it is possible she does charities not for publicity, but a lot of the wealthy donate their money to non-profit organizations so they won't lose a large portion of their taxes to the government, but in turn choose where to place their money.

Timi T. soccer mums argument? Lol there are many people who know what she is about. Go read real accounts of aid workers. She comes for the photo ops and is back in her tent. She talks about mansion tax as if she has no money at all. How is she down to earth? How many times has she been caught going back on her words? Lying about where her dad was when she was a child (upstairs apartment not somewhere else like she said),never getting with a man who would cheat or leave his woman. She ended billy bobs relationship and brads. He was such a prick he even told jennifer that he was getting attracted to angelina and got her to meet her. You will never understand the pain of a woman who has been cheated on. Many do whatever theycan to show love to a man but they still lack morals and cheat. It isnt a human flaw. Its a lack of morals and values. Since hollywood began women with good reps have had affairs but werent takendown because of their clean image and charity work. Audrey hepburn grace kelly had family in high places and yet messed about with married men. Audrey wanted kids only and ditched william holden after finding out he had a vasectomy. Before that she encouraged him to ditch his wife and kids. Jolie might be pretty due to being surgically enhanced but karma doesnt spare anyone. As for brad he is not even worth a penny. People who lack morals are being glorified in our society.

finally something other than angie herself. i agree with you. we should focus on this instead.

Alicer Koh people didnt talk about audrey hepburns affairs with married men (who she ditched if they couldnt give her kids). Or grace kellys affairs with married men and then social climbing. Yet marilyn who had one affair with a co star and a sex symbol status was given all the slack. Jolie had family and people in high places as did audrey and grace. People like marilyn were abused molested married off expoloited then thrown away with a bad rep. You would expect more of the others but it seems society only glorifies those who lack morala

morals*

why should it be? She was promoting her movie...not misleading at all...didn't state how much they would talk about mansion tax...jon snow and jolie are legends...one speaks out and unbias and the other shares her riches for good causes...

who cares? none of us have mansions

How 'bout we just tell people - if you're only interested in "directing Brad Pitt & the mansion tax," start at 4:00. First four minutes are about Jolie acting, directing and UNBROKEN.

I know exactly what you mean. The title is somewhat misleading. Clearly everyone else took your comment too much to heart haha!

+Angelica Smith REPTILIANS TOO

Enkhtuya Batbold I agree on whst you say

It made me cringe so hard

I laughed so hard lol

Courtney Ray LOL

hahahhahahahaha

1) How much was saved from cutting services in the DWP to the disabled and needy? How much was saved by capping housing benefit and essentially cutting benefits for the most vulnerable people in the UK? Not much, but they did it anyway..and the tax breaks remained. I think your initial premise here is misguided, trickle down is a pisspoor fallacy. it shouldve happened sooner then maybe we'd have less poor people committing suicide and burning themselves alive outside the job centre, the people that should pay the most tax are the people that can afford to. 2) Bullshit, we're talking about houses that cost 2 million or more, if you got 2 million to buy a house then your doing well enough. Lets not forget here that the mansion tax will only affect about 0.4 of all households in the UK..and the people that can afford them can afford to pay..see point 1. 3) Bullshit, France saw the bastard French actor make a big deal out of moving to Russia because of the tax hike on the rich..umm France is still alive and kicking, the taxes are still in place and they now have more revenue to reinvest in the country..so. And were exactly are the "rich" going to go? They gonna go and live in Vietnam or Ethiopia? The rich live here because we invest in our society and so our society is healthy and our people are not walking around half starved. More investment means more opportunities means better living standards means the place ends up being quite nice to live in..this is not hard to figure out. 4) Charities will not be hit, this again is pure bullshit. Btw, the poorest people end up giving a larger portion of their money to charity then the rich, why do you think that is? Charities are often given large donations via governments also so that money just gets redirected. Lastly on this point, nobody wants to rely on charities...food banks under this government have gone up 5 times the amount because of the cuts to the poorest and most vulnerable, yet you are complaining about mansion tax? Please, get some perspective here. 5) Again, another hypothetical bullshit excuse. Prove this..prove it please..would love to see your evidence here! Historic houses are protected by government incentives, many are already closed to the public..in fact if they want more revenue they could actually make them truly public and not pretend they are and when you ring them up to visit they fob you off. Many rich people do this purely for more tax breaks and subsidies, if they were in a position where they had to actually make money off of the house or sell it then thats not a bad thing. One final point here, the houses in the UK are massively overpriced. Some central London places are 5 million and more..why is that? BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO PAY THAT AMOUNT. Otherwise they'd be worth a lot less, its that simple, do you seriously think that Saudi prince's and the super rich care more about money or the prestige that money, power and expensive mansions bring? They will buy them regardless of mansion tax, and stoop with the sob stories for the super rich please..its incredible patronising when, as I said, people are committing suicide because they've been sanctioned, they're benefits stop and they are thrust into starvation and homelessness. You should be ashamed. Where is your long diatribe and point by point argument for them? I'm betting it doesn't exist because it doesn't affect you..right? Mansion tax is one way, we need others in order to raise revenue and keep our essential services afloat, it wasnt that long ago when our tax money was given to the richest bankers in the form of "quantitative easing" by the tune of trillions, this created many rich people who want mansions, and also is the reason why our services to the poorest have been cut, its time to start claiming that money back and putting it back in the hands of the vulnerable rather then have them rely on sketchy charity and completely abolish their dignity.

John Drain WOW. Seriously, John. You clearly have failed to either read my post properly and/or failed to comprehend its meaning. Hence I would like to helpfully recommend you re-read it and do so PROPERLY this time, because you have your facts backwards in more ways than one. Firstly, you need to realize that items 1 - 5 are NOT MY OPINIONS they are a compendium of FACTS, in fact 100% ACCURATE FACTS that have been previously published in factual-accuracy-screened articles. For example, with Item (4) the source is Lord Winston, who as it happens is a LABOUR PARTY PEER; and with item (5) the source is the HISTORIC HOUSES ASSOCIATION. I repeat these are IRREFUTABLE FACTS. You repeatedly stating "bullshit" and deluding yourself that these facts are not true does not make it so, my friend. And your 'comments' in this regard are as misguided and wholly factually incorrect as is your erroneous assumption that I will have to pay the Mansion Tax and that this is the reason why I am lobbying against it. Like I said you are so very, very wrong about a great many things. For what it's worth, personally I won't have to pay the Mansion Tax. As it happens, I manage a property development company whose core business is high-end residential properties in London. We develop and sell our own properties and have a number of projects in the pipeline. If the Mansion Tax is imposed, for numerous reasons, I will have absolutely no choice but to shut down the company and hence all my staff (53 people), which includes families who have worked for my company for decades, will all be out of a job... and who these days hires over-50-year-olds recently made redundant? (of which there will be many). Nobody, that's who. I am trying to save my staff. THAT'S my motivation here... consideration for other people. Secondly, if you bother to read my post properly you will note that I am actually stating that the rich SHOULD be taxed; AND I am saying that the rich should be taxed MORE THAN THE MANSION TAX will be taxing them. Wherein, a primary problem is of the Mansion Tax is that too many of the rich get off scot-free and hence it won't raise enough money to make it worthwhile, all things considered, as a result. I won't bother to address all of your many, many factual errors in your post, because, with the utmost respect, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence will comprehend what I say is correct and the only "bullshit" here is yours, no offense intended. As an example of this, with respect to CHARITIES - to clarify, many charities, including Cancer Research UK have their primary income source being LEGACY GIFTS, which are monies left to a charity/charities within a person's WILL, such that when they die the specified LEGACY GIFT sum of money is paid to the specified charity/charities from their estate. I repeat, these are not my opinions, but are FACTS. Go and look them up. Google is your friend in this regard. You will discover that everything I state here is 100% FACTUALLY CORRECT. Lord Winston, Labour peer, who devotes a lot of his time to raising money for charities said THIS about the Mansion Tax: “It makes it extremely difficult to raise charitable donations. Because [those liable to pay the mansion tax] will start refusing one of the most important areas of [charity] giving, legacy gifts… That will affect charities like Cancer Research UK, which relies on legacy gifts” (which are in fact its primary source of income). Furthermore, the Mansion Tax, being a government tax will take legal precedence over any such legacy gifts, EVEN WHEN still included in someone’s will. In other words, in the legal ‘pecking order’ for receipt of funds the Mansion Tax will be higher than charities, and hence monies that would otherwise be paid to whatever charities will end up being paid to pay the Mansion Tax bill instead. So you can spout "bullshit" as many time as you like, but it won't change the fact that CHARITIES most certainly WILL suffer as a direct consequence of the Mansion Tax. Understand? And finally, again for what it's worth (because I have a feeling this will be falling on 'deaf ears') for your information, yet another instance of you jumping to the wrong conclusion, I am actually IN FAVOUR of introducing a Wealth Tax that targets the rich; BUT it needs to: 1) Be fair such that ALL the rich pay their fair share, and hence should be taxed according to total combined wealth, including ALL assets, not just properties; and 2) Ensure that it does not catch people in the net who should not be included; as is the case with Mansion Tax. Labour’s Mansion Tax is an instance of RIGHT IDEA but WRONG METHOD. There are two ways in which many of the rich are not paying their fair share in taxes. Firstly, there are those who avoid paying EXISTING taxes; and secondly, there are those who have not contributed anything like as much as the aforementioned 70% total as combined taxes, whom it would be appropriate for them to contribute more, such that they are paying their fair share. The Mansion Tax does not address EITHER of these issues properly. But it’s worse than that… not only does it fail to properly target ALL the rich and ensure that they pay their fair share, but it also clobbers way too many people who either shouldn’t be paying at all or will be forced to pay more than is appropriate for their circumstances. For example, with MT someone who owns a singular property worth £2m with a £700,000 mortgage and hence net wealth of £1.3 million will have to pay, but a guy who owns £400 million of assets including private jets, helicopters, luxury sports cars and expensive artwork, but a massive castle in Scotland that’s valued at £1.8 million would not have to pay a penny. How in what universe is that fair?! IMO what’s really required here is to BOTH: 1) Clamp down and closing loopholes with respect to EXISTING taxes that many of the rich should be paying, but are currently avoiding doing so - this alone would raise substantially more net revenue than the Mansion Tax; AND 2) To comprehensively review and update the council tax system; which, should comprise NOT ONLY adding more Council Tax Bands, BUT ALSO shifting the payment distribution significantly upwards such that the existing Council Tax Bands A to H pay significantly LESS than they currently pay, new higher Bands I (£500K+) & J (£1m+) should pay the same as existing G & H, and new higher Bands K (£2m+), L (£4m+), M (£8m+) and N (£16m+) should pay significantly proportionately MORE; with total revenue evolving to be appropriately split between local authorities and the Treasury. Wherein, the existing Council Tax exemptions and discounts will prevent people being forced to pay more than appropriate with respect to their circumstances (unlike Mansion Tax). Plus an updating of an EXISTING tax (Council Tax) is substantially more palatable and will be better accepted by all than the addition of a NEW tax (Mansion Tax), especially with all of its many fundamental flaws and countless issues. IMO this two-pronged attack is the ONLY way to: 1) Properly ensure that all the rich pay their fair share in taxes; 2) Succeed in raising sufficient NET PROFIT for the Treasury that will make a significant difference to the NHS; and 3) Avoid clobbering too many of the wrong people and causing all the other many, many problems associated with the horrendous Mansion Tax. Capiche?

Neil Wraith All facts are refutable mate. But thats not why I was calling it bullshit, most of what I did was add perspective, something your facts conveniently miss out. Like all the cuts and suffering the poorest have had to endure whilst the rich enjoy not only the bank bailouts, but taking advantage of tax breaks and subsidies, not to mention free labour if they enlist in the workfare program, so many advantages to big rich in the UK, yet the poorest and the divide in wealth is growing daily..thats the bullshit and perspective I'm talking about. Its time for the richest to also take a blow for the society that protects and houses them if only for the importance of no longer cutting benefits that sustain the most vulnerable, like the disabled who have seen sanctions and "fit for work" demands even on their fucking deathbeds, all because of cutbacks that are due to bailouts and the complete lack of personal responsibility by the richest to pay their fucking way like everyone else, maybe they'll have to wait a little while longer to clean their moats or buy a second helipad..but these are the breaks. To answer your second paragraph, no, it not fair. But mansion tax is ONLY ONE WAY OF TAXING, Ive already said this (im saying to the guy who claims I didnt read his post properly), you got better ideas to include them in reclaiming some of that ridiculous amount wealth they have accrued thanks to all of us? By all means present your ideas to the government, but dont tell me that just because it doesnt include some other people that doesnt mean its pointless, its a step in the right direction, further steps should be made..that is all. Now your point, 1) I agree with you. 2) As far as im aware, we already have a council tax band system that is proportional to your earnings, that makes more sense then to an area, even though council tax in certain areas is already also set at different rates. So I dont get how this would help and could potentially mean rich people buying up all the places in the lowest council band rates and living there. As for in scotland or where-ever, we'd be talking about acres of land in the middle of nowhere, the nearby villages will feel the brunt and would probably be normal working people, I think earnings for council tax makes more sense to me. 1) Yes, they need to pay their fair share but many of the problems are like the sophisticated tax exception statues in off shore accounts (those off shore accounts being under her majesties protection already), another issue is shareholders, dividends and banking instruments. 2) Why exactly does the treasury need a NET profit? The problem is nothing like that IMO, we rely on private banks to loan money into existence and our state printing merely controls interest rates, this needs to end. Our government has no need to save any money, ever at any time, its job is to print and spend money. Then it eventually reclaims it over time, via taxes and repeats the process, its NET profit and getting the rich to pay their fair share in taxes amounts to the same thing..apart from the fact that it should never have a profit and instead just do its job and spend. 3) Well I think the time for calling for justice and avoiding clobbering the wrong people are over, the wrong people have received a clobbering since the crash in 2008. The disabled, poor families, the low wage earners, they're the ones who have been taking all the blows while everyone else has seen little impact. So no, I think you're talking about the "rich, but not super rich" people right? Well until they find themselves committing suicide and setting themselves alight in front of the job centre out of desperate prote4st, then my sympathies are elsewhere, you know what I means mate? They have to pay their share too, they have to suffer the responsibilities of the bankers bailouts like the rest of us also...not just the poorest.

John Drain Hi John, I think we are on the same page in more ways than you realize. However, RE: "all facts are refutable" - Actually this statement is factually incorrect. Any and all facts that can be proven without a doubt to be true are by definition irrefutable. One such example of an IRREFUTABLE FACT is the fact that your username is "John Drain". Another such example is the fact that the person who has publicly confirmed the Mansion Tax will clobber charities is Lord Winston, and another is the fact that he is a Labour Peer. I could go on... but hopefully you get the idea. ;-D The primary problem with the Mansion Tax is that it will fail in every regard to do what Labour are claiming it will... namely tax the rich to the extent that £1.2billion in money will be raised that can be injected into the NHS. The problem being it won't do anything of the sort. The reason I mention terms like GROSS (=TOTAL) revenue and NET (=TOTAL MINUS ASSOCIATED DEDUCTIONS / REVENUE LOSSES) profit is because the crucial thing here is how much ADDITIONAL MONEY the MT raises for the Treasury. This is the true value that can and will be injected into the NHS... In other words, say £1.2billion in TOTAL REVENUE is actually raised by MT (which is never going to happen BTW as it won't be anything like as much as that) that's all well and good but the MT won't be operating within a vacuum will it? There's always CAUSE AND EFFECT, i.e. associated revenue losses that occur as a result of the tax being brought into existence, that needs to be factored into the economic calculations. With MT there will be a massive drop in revenue from STAMP DUTY because many £2m+ properties will drop in value below £2m which just happens to be the threshold for 7% STAMP DUTY. As a direct result of this there will be a massive drop in revenue generated via STAMP DUTY as compared with now when the Mansion Tax does not exist. Let's say the reduction in STAMP DUTY revenue is £800 million (which is likely in the right ball-park). Similarly, there's the ADMINISTRATIVE RUNNING COSTS associated with operating the MT; which, for the sake of this example let's say is £50m; and then there's CAPITAL GAINS TAX LEAKAGE as well, and let's say this equates to £300 million. This means, within this example, that whilst the MT raises £1.2b in GROSS (= TOTAL) revenue, it also causes losses of: 1) £800m in STAMP DUTY LEAKAGE; 2) £50m in ADMIN RUNNING COSTS; and 3) £300m in CGT LEAKAGE; wherein the NET PROFIT (= ADDITIONAL REVENUE) that is ACTUALLY raised by MT for the Treasury = £1.2billion MINUS £800m MINUS £50m MINUS £300m = ONLY £50 million; which in this example would be the REAL SUM OF MONEY that is ACTUALLY raised by the MT. THAT my friend is "why exactly does the treasury need a NET profit" - because the NET PROFIT is the ACTUAL SUM OF MONEY that overall is raised by the MT for the Treasury that will be available for injecting into the NHS. In short, NOTHING LIKE AS MUCH as £1.2billion... highly probably in the order of no more than circa £300 million; which, given the annual NHS BILL = £90 BILLION and its annual shortfall = £30 BILLION, won't be sufficient to be helpful in any regard whatsoever to the NHS. The fact of the matter is the Mansion Tax fails on every level. It will FAIL to properly tax the rich; it will FAIL to raise a significant and/or useful amount of additional money for the treasury; and it will FAIL to avoid hitting the wrong people. If Miliband and Labour were serious about wanting to tax the rich to pay the NHS they would have scrapped the Mansion Tax already in favour of a properly structured WEALTH TAX that successfully ensures the rich ALL pay their fair share... Wherein, the fact that Miliband himself lives in a £2m+ property and HAS DECIDED THAT ALL MPs WILL BE EXEMPT FROM PAYING THE MANSION TAX says it all really... Don't ya think?

Neil Wraith I do get the idea, but i still think all facts are refutable, I many have or may change my user name, I may delete this account and create another user name. refuting facts is a bing part of finding out what the truth is, and theres very little truth about. And fact is some of these "charities" Im sure you are well aware that some business and business people exist under that name of charity and also qualify technically, yet are no more then a ruse for a for-profit business that only helps themselves, right? i mean, here i am refuting these two irrefutable facts...doesnt that count for something? Facts are often misleading and are often used that way. If only there were irrefutable facts, the world would be a lot simpler. But i do respect and appreciate your friendly tone. :) Indeed i agree with you about the possibilities of a shortfall in MT, however most of what you are saying is speculative, and more importantly, this is a simle policy, more should be done, id rather they take 300 million (even if it is that low) from MT then from cutting services to the poorest and most vulnerable, which is what is happening. Sure its fulll of holes, I bet any plan thats brought forward with have structural weaknesses, is that reason to abandon them? There is no "one size fits all" solution here, I think MT is A method, but certainly not the end of it, that and more needs to happen. So i am still in favour of it simply as single policy, one of many that would plug the many holes in our systems and would help bring about the things we need, it doesnt just stop there. You may have a point about Miliband, but that is another issue, one that relates, one that needs to also be tackled, but if you tackled it in your way you would still find holes, you would still get people saying "well after you do this..and that..and these people wont be included,..and these people will escape it etc etc". Its inevitable, and then what? We throw out that too? No, we need a whole array of policies that try to ensure the rich are paying more, after all, it was them that lobby against MT, why? If it doesnt mean so much, why lobby against it? Because it takes away there wealth, inch by inch rather then increasing it, which is also done, inch by inch with subtle policy changes that effect over time. Anyway, as you say, i think we are on the same page..the disagreement we have is how meaningful it is, you say pretty little and i agree, the only difference is that i think many small changes make a big change, and the chances of installing a huge change is near impossible, especially when we see just how the rich haver come out in force against this supposedly small and minor change, right? They have gamed the system to their advantage with small, almost unnoticeable changes and here we are..we need to take it back using similar methods.

isabella mcc Well said

isabella mcc I hate the Tories as much as the next person but what has supporting the Tories got to do with being a humanitarian?

Probably because she realizes that the issue is not taking place her her country. After all she said that she'd love to have a place in London for work reasons. She didn't imply that she was going to buy a place but that she's probably thinking about it.

exactly LOLLLLLLLLLL