Petition against retrospective legislation

[centurian]

The issue is that it is retrospective legislation. Do you agree with retrospective legislation?

Well in the interests of offering a different opinion and stimulating some debate... (putting on flak jacket).

A lot of people are calling for retrospective legislation for the likes of Fred Goodwin and other senior bankers.

Your main issue is trying to convince people that the specific legislation itself is unfair - not the concept of it.

A lot of people will look at this and simply think that the legislation merely re-enforces something which was always believed to be the case anyway and those that were caught by it were simply taking the p*** in the first place.

Now it doesn't matter if this is true or not. That's how the masses will view it.

Although I am sure that if there was retrospective legislation affecting all public sector workers, there would be riots in the streets

[BrilloPad]

Well in the interests of offering a different opinion and stimulating some debate... (putting on flak jacket).

A lot of people are calling for retrospective legislation for the likes of Fred Goodwin and other senior bankers.

Your main issue is trying to convince people that the specific legislation itself is unfair - not the concept of it.

A lot of people will look at this and simply think that the legislation merely re-enforces something which was always believed to be the case anyway and those that were caught by it were simply taking the p*** in the first place.

Now it doesn't matter if this is true or not. That's how the masses will view it.

Although I am sure that if there was retrospective legislation affecting all public sector workers, there would be riots in the streets

So are you suggesting that it is the spirit of the law that is important rather than the letter? Makes you sound like a politician!

Would you like it if retrospective legislation was applied to you? Suppose IR35 was clarified retrospectively : would you be happy?

If this legislation goes through it will open the door to all sorts of stuff. Its the thin end of the wedge.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A lot of people will look at this and simply think that the legislation merely re-enforces something which was always believed to be the case anyway and those that were caught by it were simply taking the p*** in the first place.

This is a fair point.

Of course, the same could be said about the Cabinet Ministers Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty with their "second home" expenses. They followed the letter of the rules but many people would also think they were taking the p***.

If it's OK for them then why not for the rest of us?

[poppy01]

Well in the interests of offering a different opinion and stimulating some debate... (putting on flak jacket).

A lot of people are calling for retrospective legislation for the likes of Fred Goodwin and other senior bankers.

Your main issue is trying to convince people that the specific legislation itself is unfair - not the concept of it.

A lot of people will look at this and simply think that the legislation merely re-enforces something which was always believed to be the case anyway and those that were caught by it were simply taking the p*** in the first place.

Now it doesn't matter if this is true or not. That's how the masses will view it.

Although I am sure that if there was retrospective legislation affecting all public sector workers, there would be riots in the streets

Welcome to the forum, no problem with a debate as long as it's intelligent.
There was some discussion re Freds pension on the bn66 forum, (after Harriet's rant), most people seemed to think Fred has every right to his pension, if that was what was stated in legally binding agreements, not his fault the negotiators had sh*t for brains.

re taking the p**, point taken, but as others have said, the point is was it legal, if you read the BN66 thread you'll see that HMRC have done their utmost for many years to avoid arguing their case in a court of law. We don't have to persuade the masses of our case, only the European courts, Judicial Review and/or the incoming conservative government.. The petition wil achieve none of this but is a focus of our efforts.

[BrilloPad]

181 signatures now : rank=453

Only 1 more signature and we will be above "re-open Aquasplash, Minehead's only swimming pool."

[Emigre]

So why have YOU not signed?

Now I know that many don't wake up every morning and tune into CUK for dose of "Retrospection Update" but...

There are, according to the Treasury, "over 2000" people on this scheme. So where are the signatures? There is nothing to lose and absolutely everything to gain. If you stand to lose £10k through acceptance of this pernicious and vindictive legislation isn't that enough to make you want to help yourself? What about helping others? Personally, my bill is now over £200k. That's not because I earn alot, more that I was in the Scheme for a long time, coupled with a very serious bill for interest for not paying tax that I did not know was due!!!

All the people I know who entered this scheme did so because they did not know where they were wrt IR35. In essence the drafting of IR35 was so poor that the tax laws suddenly lacked certainty. This scheme had certainty; it was legal; we had extremely strong Counsel opinion supporting that view. As of Finance Act 2008 it was made illegal but not from the date of the Act... No! We don't have a problem with that. What they did was they dated it from 1987 or even earlier!!!!.

Tell me. Would you be upset if they disallowed all your expenses for the last 20+ years? Changed the tax rate for IT Contractors only for the last 20+ years? This is the effect of what they are trying. If they get away with Section 58 these are where they may go next. It could be you. There's a Budget in 4 weeks time - as I said, IT COULD BE YOU. If you have a good reason NOT to sign then please explain. I'm listening, they're not.

[hugebrain]

The issue is that it is retrospective legislation. Do you agree with retrospective legislation?

If it's about the witches I think they should be pardoned, even if what they did was illegal at the time. So, yes, in some circumstances I agree with retrospective legislation.

Is that what it's about? The petition wasn't very clear.

[BrilloPad]

If it's about the witches I think they should be pardoned, even if what they did was illegal at the time. So, yes, in some circumstances I agree with retrospective legislation.

Is that what it's about? The petition wasn't very clear.

So you are happy if IR35 is retrospectively clarified?

[BrilloPad]

212 signatures : rank=417

[dezze]

The petition didn't go down too well...

...on another well known contractor website forum.

Seems like a number of people are quite happy for retrospective taxation to be applied as and when the Govt likes. I can't quite believe the spite that some individuals put into their replies.