Wes Tender

Markus Liebherr gave up his shares in the Liebherr company in order to start his own business from scratch. That business was Mali and was so successful that ML was worth about £2.75 billion or so. HTH.

Don't be silly. MLG is surely an Ovaltiney

Although the outward appearance is that nothing is happening, they are currently between a rock and a hard place. It is effectively a Mexican standoff between Chainrai, the Skate Trust and Birch. Whichever way that the situation is resolved, it will involve the club with so much pain further down the road and so much continuing fun for us, that it would be better for them to give up on Portsmouth Football Club and start again at the lowest level. The downside is that many like Westwood would have to make alterations to their name or their tattoos, but for the hardcore fans, they will have their club back, unencumbered by the leeches and parasites who have bled it dry. In my opinion, instead of paying their hard-earned cash into pledges to keep the club afloat in the extremely unlikely event that the Trust could gain control, they would be far better off organising mass boycotts of the home matches until they have forced Chinny out of the reckoning.

According to the article, the Opta stats consider anything longer than 25 yards to be a long ball. That's not a great distance to kick a ball in a match in my opinion. A decent distance to score a goal from, but just a pass? As our Nigel would say, it is all about winning games of football. You play to your strengths and the opponent's weaknesses and if their midfield presses you back and you have a striker with devastating pace, the long ball over the top is a potent weapon in your armoury. I suspect that Newcastle use it to great effect because of Ba and Cisse. A canny manager will not play just one style of football lest it makes his team predictable. A mixture of good passing movement together with the odd long ball to catch a team out makes sense.

Could it be because when you are in the Itchen centre, the away fans are adjacent to you and therefore closer to you than our fans in the Northam? Just a thought.

But you know and I know that the Death Tax was originally set at a level to catch the very wealthy. And I'm sure you also know that the current rate does in fact catch out many middle class people because the starting level is commensurate with property prices in many parts of the country.

And therefore when their parents died, inheritance tax will have been levied on their estates, unless they managed to get the burden down by gifting it to their offspring in stages over a 7 year period, or however it works. So they tax you on everything they can when you're alive and then they tax you when you die, if you've been clever enough or lucky enough to amass what is considered by the Government to be a fortune. Of course, the inheritance tax was originally devised as a tax for the "super rich", but the Exchequer has not raised the threshold in line with inflation for many years, so that middle income taxpayers living in expensive property areas have been caught in the net. Was this what was intended? I don't think so. There's all this angst about certain wealthy individuals avoiding paying what they ought to, because they have exploited loopholes. Tax avoidance or tax mitigation is legally generally OK, but evasion isn't. So why don't the Government close up these loopholes? Otherwise what has not been acknowledged is that many of these people avoid paying tax because they have to forfeit living in the UK for a large portion of the year, when as a result, they might well be paying taxes elsewhere, albeit at a lower rate. But even if resident over here for most of the year, if they are big spenders as a result of their wealth, then they still end up paying copious amounts of tax on what they buy with their money, in the form of VAT or Capital Gains tax.

As you say, it seems that nothing has materialised in all this time. So is the investigation finalised, but we have missed the reporting of the conclusions reached, or is it still continuing? If so, shouldn't inquiries be made as to why it is taking so long and questions asked about how much longer it will take? I cannot recall correctly who were appointed to carry out this forensic examination at the behest of HMRC as a condition of them allowing the liquidation of Oldco. Whover it was, could somebody among us make enquiries of those administrators asking for an update on how that forensic examination is progressing?

I realise that you were talking £2m to £3m, which was why I was careful afterwards to put in a - instead of the /. And if you care to look at the link I posted regarding property prices in central London, then they illustrate my point that very many of the properties are above the £2m - £3m bracket. That also applies to several other high property price areas of England. Where did I put words into your mouth again? I asked perfectly reasonable questions asking you to explain in more detail the criteria that you used to define these "super wealthy" people, and whether they had to satisfy only one, or both of your benchmarks, but you have not answered them. But anyway, you consider that the top rate of tax should be 40%, yes? which is lower than it is currently. Let's be clear about this; are you saying that 40% is the most anybody should pay, or that those "super rich" people who satisfy your critiria that defines them as such, should pay a higher percentage? If so, what would that rate be? If however you do mean that the top rate should be 40% and that is what the "super rich" should pay, then it rather infers logically that anybody below your threshold should pay a lower percentage, yes?

And morally too, it is not fair that people pay their taxes, part of which goes towards the benefits received by feckless people who although capable of work, will not work, or who receive benefits fraudulently and work at the same time. As WG points out, life's not fair.

I chose to point out that many people with property in London (or Sandbanks and other high property price areas) would find themselves falling into your bracket classifying them as being wealthy and taxed accordingly at a higher rate. But you define wealthy people as those earning several hundred thousand and with assets of £2/3 million. So does somebody with assets (which is in the main going to be property) over £2-3 million (because they live in central London) but income below the hundreds of thousands still have to pay the higher rate which you set at 40%? Or do you propose that they are deemed to be wealthy only if they satisfy both criteria? You see, it is looking as if it will be difficult and therefore costly to administer, the tax-caning of this 1% of the population, in order to obtain tax at a rate 5% lower than it is currently and 10% less than it was under Labour.

Like you, I believe 40% to be fair, as they are also paying taxes on many other things too, like VAT of 20% The trouble is, the last government hadn't learned the lessons and decided that 50% was fairer. It wouldn't surprise me if the tax take gets progressively less the higher the rate. I was talking about London and my post stated £2/3 million as a figure for the assets, which will mainly be the property owned. You have decided somehow that I was talking about £3 million and then you have also decided to put an income level on too, which I had not mentioned. Any more words that you wish to put into my mouth? But as the wealth tax proposal made is based on assets as well as income, it is still a fair point that it will adversely affect people in London, Sandbanks and the other high-price property market areas. But it doesn't take much research to find that property prices in central London would easily account for £2/3 million values, which would be average for just a terraced property. http://www.home.co.uk/guides/asking_prices_report.htm?county=londonc&lastyear=1

The assets of £2/3 million aren't going to be difficult to achieve in London, are they? So come on, accept the challenge I made and tell us what rate of tax you deem to be appropriate for those on or above that level of wealth.

I've also asked the "squeeze them until the pips squeak" brigade for the percentage figure that they reckon the wealthy should pay. I'm still wating for a response. I suspect that the answer will be such and such a level for incomes up to x and this level for incomes up to y and so on. And then of course, there will be no incentive for anybody to earn more than the next level above them, as most of it will go into the pockets of the Taxman and naturally the more compicated the system is, the more costly it will be to administer in terms of bureacracy and also more open to abuse. But for the high tax lobby, it will be as easy to pluck percentage tax rates out of the air as it will be to put a figure on what constitutes serious wealth in their opinion. But naturally they will have absolutely no idea at all about the resultant income to the exchequer against the cost of administration, or what the level will be that is considered fair and equitable by those who will be affected by it.

Typical knee-jerk reaction early on in a season, based on us playing four of the top teams in the country and conceding goals to them. Before reaching any concrete conclusion, don't you think that we ought to see how other teams fare against these top teams and how we do against the lesser lights? Or don't you think that these top clubs will be capable of putting a similar number of goals past our immediate rivals in the division? Or perhaps it must be a given that those immediate rivals have better defences and goalkeepers than us. In any event, we will have to wait and see, won't we?

I think that it ought to be pointed out that this forum is actually an appendage to the main forum, which is concerned with matters regarding our football club, just to put some perspective on this thread in the "Lounge". It isn't an Oxbridge debating society for Undergraduates studying for degrees in Politics. Just as posters on the main forum express their opinions on the players, the team, the manager, the owners, etc, it does not become a necessity for anybody saying that a player is crap to indulge in some deep-rooted analysis of his social background, some psycho-analysis, or discussion about his career development in order to validate their opinions. They are entitled to say that they have seen him play and don't rate his abilities. The main football forum is all about opinions and people should be entitled to express them freely without being insulted by those who do not agree. But if on this subject you are to make personal remarks about other posters for what you consider to be 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes, then it seems a bit odd that you yourself are content to respond with one-liner platitudes without giving us simpletons the benefit of your intellectual prowess and telling us exactly at which level the wealth creators and wealthy should be taxed, the rate which they will consider fair and which will not become a disincentive to them to remain in the UK, or to avoid paying it. And what is your opinion about the electorate? How knowledgeable do you believe them to be about such matters? When it comes to vote at an election, most have only these 'black and white'/'common-sense'/simpleton explanations/platitudes to guide them, as that is what they are fed by the media and the political parties. They realise that the majority of the electorate would have their eyes glaze over were they to be confronted with intellectual diatribes based on one set of statistics after another. But on the other hand, they obviously have to be careful not to be too simplistic, lest they be seen as complacent, smug little t*ts. So enlighten us then; what should be the top rate of taxation in this country?

The Corporation tax is a tax on the business, not on the wealth of the individual who started it and made it a global brand, making him a multi-millionaire/billionaire. OK. So tell me what percentage of a person's wealth is reasonable? A third, a half, two-thirds, everything above a certain level? And what would that level be? Please also accept that as well as taxation on income, there is also taxation on expenditure too. And then tell me what level percentage of your income you'd expect to pay. Then explain why those on higher incomes should pay a higher percentage than you? Don't tell me; it's because they can afford it, eh? Nothing to do with what is fair and equitable, just jealousy. And if they therefore decide to take themselves and their businesses elsewhere, then who can blame them?

Typical of the jealous know-nothing dogmatic response I referred to above. I am talking about the entrepreneurs who start businesses from scratch either because they have a very inventive mind and set about manufacturing a successful new product, or they see a gap in the market and start a thriving business that creates employment for thousands of people. But lets tax these people at punitive levels so that they take themselves and their businesses abroad, eh?

It is easy for the so-called pundits to bracket Holt and Lambert together, just as it is inevitable that the two clubs are bracketed together because we both achieved back to back promotions to get to the Premiership. Holt surprised the pundits because they didn't believe that a striker from the lower divisions could score in the Premiership. Lambert is also making them sit up and take notice, even after so few games, where he is joint top striker. But when we were at the same level as Norwich and played them, we more often than not beat them and Lambert will produce more goals this season than Holt too, as he is the better player and we will finish above Norwich.

My opinion is that there is a level at which this so-called wealth taxation becomes deemed to be unfair by those targeted by it. They then find ways of avoiding paying it, either by creative accounting/exploitation of loopholes, or they just leave the country for destinations where the tax regime is less stringent. Either way, the Exchequer is deprived on that revenue. Anybody old enough to think not that far back to the Thatcher era, will recall that there was a wailing and gnashing of teeth when her Government reduced the highest tax band to 40% and at the same time abolished several other incremental bands. All the lefties naturally concluded that the Exchequer would suffer a huge loss of tax revenue in order that the rich could keep more of their money. As it turned out, the revenue received by the Exchequer actually increased quite significantly, as the level of taxation was deemed to be fair and many wealthy people who had left the country because of high taxation actually returned to the UK. But people have short memories, or their opinions are set by party dogma or petty jealousy, or else they are just not bright enough to realise that there is an upper level at which it becomes self-defeating to chase additional revenue from the wealthy, many of whom are also the wealth creators.

Are Ramirez, Lallana and Yoshida all injured? He didn't mention it. He doesn't mention subs, so he must think that these three will come on as impact subs. Prat.

Three. It's my opinion too.

I got my toast related name onto the petition.

Ah, so no Mike Hancock factor there then either? It seems that currently the South's Lib Dem MPs haven't exactly covered themselves with glory.

It might have escaped your attention, Andy, but none of the candidates in the local election here in Eastleigh were Chris Huhne. He will be campaigning again as the local family man, the one that everybody in Eastleigh knows has helped one of their mates. Labour, of course don't stand a chance in Eastleigh according to the Lib Dems, it's a straight race between him and the Tory. The one that doesn't cheat on her husband and wouldn't expect him to take the rap for her if she got caught speeding.