Would you sign this Petition?

[lambrini_socialist]

surely this is a waste of time and the simplest way to find out how many people would sign a petition is to just set up the damned petition and then count the number of signatures you get?

[BrilloPad]

surely this is a waste of time and the simplest way to find out how many people would sign a petition is to just set up the damned petition and then count the number of signatures you get?

It might look bad if we only got a few!

[DonkeyRhubarb]

surely this is a waste of time and the simplest way to find out how many people would sign a petition is to just set up the damned petition and then count the number of signatures you get?

Fair point but I wanted to guage whether we would get any support from people not directly affected.

If only people in the scheme signed it then it would be a hopeless cause because it would just be seen as vested interest, and there aren't enough of us to make any impact.

[Svalbaard]

I believe that these e-petitions and similar schemes have no effect whatsoever in guiding the course of ministerial and departmental thinking and that they are simply there to give the proles the illusion of inclusive government.

However, I do not support restrospective legislation so I have answered with a "oui" in response to your question.

[poppy01]

Fair point but I wanted to guage whether we would get any support from people not directly affected.

If only people in the scheme signed it then it would be a hopeless cause because it would just be seen as vested interest, and there aren't enough of us to make any impact.

We need to go way beyond readers of this forum, whether members or not.
Unfortunately many members shy away from publicity (times full page advert anyone) We need thousands of signatures not a few hundred. The responses so far would seem to indicate many people would be onside when the true nature of this 'legislation' is explained.

what have we got to lose?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

We need to go way beyond readers of this forum, whether members or not.
Unfortunately many members shy away from publicity (times full page advert anyone) We need thousands of signatures not a few hundred. The responses so far would seem to indicate many people would be onside when the true nature of this 'legislation' is explained.

what have we got to lose?

We won't get any support from joe public. In the "court of public opinion" bankruptcy would be far too lenient.

However, it looks like a good % of contractors, tax professionals, accountants might sign on principle.

What do you reckon to this rewording:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to..
Hold an independent inquiry to re-examine the retrospective legislation Section 58 Finance Act 2008

More details about your petition (1000 characters maximum):
The retrospective nature of Section 58 attracted widespread criticism right from the start.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation described it as “extreme and unjustified”, the Law Society believed it was “wrong in principle”, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said that “it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system”.

However, what these organisations did not know, and what is alleged here, is that Parliament was systematically misled into approving the legislation.

The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jane Kennedy gave testimony before the Treasury Committee on 22 May 2008 which can only be described as economical with the truth. Some statements she made were untrue, others were highly misleading, and crucial facts about the case were not disclosed at the time.

Hundreds of families are now facing financial ruin as a result of Section 58. All we are asking for is an independent inquiry to investigate these allegations.

[poppy01]

looks fine ... wonder if it might be worth mentioning the opposition parties proposed amendements which were overturned on division...

I still think the very idea of retrospective legislation is anathema to most right thinking people, and they are very open right now to criticism of this government and it's erosion of our rights and freedoms. I still say we if word the advert correctly and we'll get support. Those who dont support us, wont sign the petition, big deal....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

wonder if it might be worth mentioning the opposition parties proposed amendements which were overturned on division...

I'll try but I've only got 1000 characters to play with.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Version 2

Ok, how about this. I have toned it down a bit.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to..
Hold an independent inquiry to re-examine the retrospective legislation in Section 58 Finance Act 2008

More details about your petition (1000 characters maximum):
Section 58 attracted widespread criticism from the very start.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation thought it was “extreme and unjustified”; the Law Society believed it was “wrong in principle”; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warned, “it sends out a very damaging signal about the stability of the UK tax system”.

However, what these organisations were unaware of, and what is alleged here, is that Parliament may have been misled into passing Section 58.

The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury Jane Kennedy must have been very badly briefed by officials because the testimony she gave to the Treasury Committee on 22 May 2008 was full of incorrect and misleading statements, and crucial facts about the case were not disclosed. Although opposition MPs raised amendments, they were overturned on division.

Hundreds of families are now facing financial ruin as a result of Section 58. All we are asking for is an independent inquiry to review the legislation.

[helen7]

To all those who answered no (andyw).

I look forward to your response when Labour retrospectively clarify IR35 and ask for the last 8 years tax....with interest.

If a precedent is set now for retrospective legislation we might as well all be PAYE.

Who knows, maybe they will ask for retrospective tax on my other 'tax avoidance' schemas (ISA, pension). Yes, an ISA is tax avoidance....and so is a pension. Shame on any of your for using them and robbing all those ordinary people trying to claim there dole in peace.