Lord Duckhunter

I wish people would just move on. The British people had a vote AFTER the Iraq war and returned Blair with a pretty healthy majority. To me this indicated that they weren't that bothered about the Iraq war and certainly didn't consider Blair a war criminal.

When Lambert pulled to the left during one move the bloke behind me shouted "what are you doing out there, get in the middle lambert". Within a few seconds he crossed the ball for MS to head home.

Surely the way to judge how much the richest pay in tax is the % of the total tax take that they contribute. In 1988 it was 28 cents of every dollar collected, and it's now 45 cents .

This is just completely untrue. In 1988 the richest 10% of Americans accounted for 28% of the total tax paid. It now stands at 45%.Therefore your claim that "working class" and "upper middle class" are paying a greater share is completely contray to what OECD reports claim. I would be interested in the data you have to back your claim up ,so we can judge who is right, The OECD or a bloke on a football forum...........

Deadline day......... Poor old Harry, I bet his like some herion addict going through cold turkey today. He's proberly sat on his drive in his car, talking to himself out of the window. Sandra's sat in the passenger seat playing the Bondy role.

But do you accept that there will be people in big houses, with no or little income coming in. Maybe a retired couple who bought the house 40 years ago. Also you have such variation of house prices over the country. You could set the bar at over £2mil, and that would catch middle class people in London, whereas just under £2mil house in parts of the North will be really rich.I'm no expert but I'm sure the rich could find a way of setting up a company to buy the house and then rent if off that company. If you tax shares too heavily, what incentive is there for people to invest in Companies via shares? Do you really think no Government has ever looked at your suggestions?

careful, you're starting to make sense.I posted months ago that a % is a %, and why should the rich pay a higher % of their money. By being a % they are in effect paying more. It would also as you say have other benefits. Jim davidson had an arguement with Portillo over this on "This week". You are taking Jim's side, repeating exactly what he said. Nick,Nick

Please tell us how you are going to judge someone wealthy. We cant have the buctootim ststem, where you decide who is wealthy and who isn't. To set taxes you have to have specific and clear guidleines. Earnings are easy, as is VAT. How are you going to define wealth, that clever tax experts cant drive a coach and horses through? but doesn't affect ordinary people?

No chance, although Fergie's son is there.................................nah, no chance.

I heard it, and Hawksbee even said stright afterwards "must be a Pompey fan trying to wind them up".Seems that it's worked.

Obviously that's the problem. The so called charity tax was put in place to try and stop aviodence, but there was an unintended consequence in that charity donations would be hit. Same with Jimmy Carr's scheme, that tax break was designed to help the film industry. There are some clever barstewards out there and as weve seen with the Skates, the HMRC are'nt a patch on them. I think we'd all love to be able to knock on these people's doors and demand they cough up, but its not that simple. It's been the same all through history. There was the window tax in the 18th and 19th century, as rich people's houses had more windows. What happened, they bricked them up. A simplistic example, but you get the jist.

They are already higher for the top 1%. They pay 45%.

Should go easy on Sky, with Redknapp gone they've lost at least 30% of their deadline day show. Wouldn't be surprised if they've had to make a couple of reporters redundant.

Perhaps I'm a bit simple, but I dont get the 300k figure and certainly never used it.Apoligies if it's in a link, but my understanding of the top 1% of income tax payers is baiscally the top 1% of everyone who pays income tax.Surely it's a number of people, not a £ and p figure. We already have VAT on luxury goods, and various other ways of sqeezing them too complicated to list on here. They pay for NHS, which I doubt they use. Dont you think that if there was a way of getting more out of the rich people who aren't in the 1%, a Government would have found it by now. The first thing you need to do is define what is rich . Secondly you need to then find assests that you can tax, without the unintended consequences of hammering others. Then you have to collect it, whilst having expensive tax advisors running rings around you.

As I wrote "How much do you want the top 1% to pay, it's already at 25% of income tax." I dont quite understand your point. According to the OECD rich Britons (they define rich as top 10%) pay about 39% of total taxes, contrast this with 28% in France, 31% in Germany, and In America the home of the "bad guys" it is 45%. Strange isn't it that in France the rich pay 28% but in the much-maligned USA, where greed is supposedly king, they pay 45%. Perhaps when Hollande's new super tax kicks in, we'll be able to see a massive increase in the richest in France's contribution to society. Personally, I doubt it, because as Healy found out when he raised the rate to 83% it's self defeating. If squeezing the pips of the richest in society was the answer, then we wouldn't have needed to go cap in hand to the IMF in the 70's and Labour wouldn't have spent 18 years trying to regain it's economic credibility.

Actually, I do believe it. As does Nick Robinson, although he claims it's 27% 5. The Rich Pay More Than You Might Think "The top 1% of earners - just 300,000 people - pay 27% of all income tax. Of course, many people believe that the rich should pay more, but identifying who's "rich" - and getting them to stump up - is fiendishly difficult for our politicians." That's what he said http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15843746 http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2107031/UK-Budget-2012-Top-1-earners-contribute-income-tax.html

It's important to some, season tickets could be returned over this..........

I think you'll find that the winter fuel allowence point was a very small % of my post. So it's hardly "all about" that. As an aside, why should the super rich be entittled to winter fuel allowence?

We are redistributing vast wealth already. How much do you want the top 1% to pay, it's already a 25% of income tax. Have you learnt nothing from the last time we tried to tax them until the pips squeaked.Talking about "political will" and upsetting the wrong people, is just rollocks. Anyway how do you define rich.Property, pension pot, wages (which are taxed already), shares, luxery goods owned? Do you really believe it's as easy as Cleggy makes out to collect this "time limited" tax?

Just sound bite politics from Cleggy. Trying to tax wealth is a very complex and very complicated thing, as well he knows. Do you tax people's pension pots, if not high earners will just put more into that. If you do you end up catching Doctors, senior police officers and in some cases head teachers in that trap. hardly people we consider the super rich. If it's just aimed at the super rich like Paul Macartney ect, well we could start by taking his winter fuel allowence of him. Poor bloke could put another jumper on if he's getting cold. These super rich will pay millions of pounds to run rings round the chumps at HMRC. To make it "time limited" is crazy as well. I'm no finacial whizz, but I'm sure I could delay payment of this until it went, maybe paying myself less whilst it's in and more when it's out. I'm sure there's some tax accountants licking their lips at the thought of the fees they'll earn. I despair at the rich bashing in this country nowadays. Most of them are hardworking, risk takers who generate money and already pay millions into the coffers. The top 1% of income tax payers account for nearly 25% of income tax take, far more of a % than they did when Healy taxed them at 80%. We seem to band all the "rich" together and then blame them for all the Countrys ills. Yes, some rich people behaved in a terrible way, but just as every man on benefit is not a benefit cheat, every rich person didn't cause the crash. I am seriously going to chuck a shoe at my TV the next time someone's on TV saying "I didn't cause the crash, why should I suffer". Most of the super rich didn't cause the crash and maybe they earn stupid amounts of money, but to lump them all together and believe we can wave a magic wand and somehow get loads of extra tax of them is deluded. It's unworkable and Clegg knows it.

I went to a 30 year one and it was ok. At first I was worried that everybody would think "look at that fat baldy loser", but as the night wore on, there were a lot fatter a lot balder and a lot of people in even worse jobs than me. Some of the chicks were minging, they hadn't aged well at all. By the end of the night I quite enjoyed it and was glad I went. Some bird came wandering round asking for everybodies contact details, "what for?" I asked "for next year" came the reply. I said "you're having a laugh, give me a call for the 50th year one and I'll come along" (fingers crossed I'm still about). My mate was even more scathing told her, "There was a reason I didn't contact you ****s in 30 years , I'm certainly not coming back next year".

4-4-2 has a place in the modern game and can be used at various times. Chasing the game against Wigan is not one of them and they passed us to death. NA obviously wanted Sharp & Lambo upfront, but should have gone with 3-5-2 in my opinion. If Man Utd have carrick at the back sun, I would go 4-4-2 early on and chuck it in the mixer a bit.

I cant think of a fairer system, apart from a couple of tweaks. I've always felt it a bit unfair that S/T holders who didn't travel away (and you'ld be amazed the number I've met) would be guanteed a cup final ticket if we were lucky enough to get there. This method acknowledges S/T commitment by loading the games on, but takes into account the non S/T holder who travels to Wigan ect this season. As people have mentioned the issue has been brought to head purely because the Arsenal game was so early on. To address this the club added extra points onto the Man C game. I think that they should have done something around tonights game, but understand they didn't sell the tickets. Does seem a bit bizzare that someone could go to watch the reses tonight and not be able to get to Arsenal. Maybe it was complicated but I would have liked to have seen 5 points added to each year in the past 3 people had a S/T. Season ticket in both League 1 campaigns and Championship 15 points, that seemed fair to me. At the end of the day, had the first game been Man City at home there would have been 32,000 ish there. I doubt if there's more than a hundred people who really couldn't make the City game and couldn't get Arsenal tickets. I've been following Saints for 40 odd years and I've yet to miss a match I set my heart on going to. By hook or by crook most that really want to will get in to Arsenal somehow (although it may be in the home end, cost them a bit more).

There is one glaring unfair part of the procees that nobody seems to have mentioned. Tonights game. Surely somebody who is going to travel up and watch a reserve side against a League 1 outfit, deserves some points towards future games.

Or they could have got a City ticket and not used it. OK, so £75 maybe a bit pricey for an Arsenal ticket, but I was expecting £45-£50 anyway. I'm kicking myself now. Two of my mates are going to a wedding that day, so I didn't get them tickets. Once I was in on the system, I could have ordered them one each and then flogged them on here. Meaning that they would get the points. Am I out of order wishing I'd done that??????