No To Retro Tax – Campaign Against Section 58 Finance Act 2008

[TalkingCheese]

It isn't just a question of money.

We want as big an army as we can muster.

Also, there are a lot of people lurking here who are writing to their MPs but Whitehouse have no visibility of this or control over the content of letters.

I'm getting the sense that the £200 is an issue.

How would existing members feel if we reduced this?

I would be fine if reduced/what people can afford. Suggested minimum of £200 sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps having some absolute minimum is still a good idea so all and sundry don't just join for the sake of it. Maybe £50? Whatever, I have no beef with having paid what I have paid so far. Money well spent.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Tuesday's debate

Transcript now available:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../120626s01.pdf

We are New Clause 4 on page 682, right at the end.

[Boycie]

My favourite line

Transcript now available:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../120626s01.pdf

We are New Clause 4 on page 682, right at the end.

JacobRees-Mogg:Retrospection is wrong. It undermines the rule of law and if this House does not stand for the rule of law it stands for nothing.

[swede]

It isn't just a question of money.

We want as big an army as we can muster.

Also, there are a lot of people lurking here who are writing to their MPs but Whitehouse have no visibility of this or control over the content of letters.

I'm getting the sense that the £200 is an issue.

How would existing members feel if we reduced this?

Only downside I can see is that anyone would then have access to the members documents.....

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Did everyone catch Gauke's dig at Nigel Mills (Amber Valley).

"Serving on a Finance Bill Committee is sometimes seen as a rather unappealing prospect, but I suppose it is better than being on the library committee, although my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley may have that opportunity before long."

[ContractIn]

We now have a lot of members but there are many who haven't joined.

The question I keep asking myself is why?

Is it the minimum £200 which is putting people off? Or something else?

Can anyone shed any light on this?

I think a lot of people, as someone else mentioned, have still got their heads in the sand. Possibly set a minimum of £50 but recommend £200, imho.

Why can't Montp financially support this?

[nevergiveup]

Did everyone catch Gauke's dig at Nigel Mills (Amber Valley).

"Serving on a Finance Bill Committee is sometimes seen as a rather unappealing prospect, but I suppose it is better than being on the library committee, although my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley may have that opportunity before long."

Yep. Gauke is just like a school bully. I've seen a few of those fall in my time too!

[ASB]

Did everyone catch Gauke's dig at Nigel Mills (Amber Valley).

"Serving on a Finance Bill Committee is sometimes seen as a rather unappealing prospect, but I suppose it is better than being on the library committee, although my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley may have that opportunity before long."

A direct (and public) threat to his prospects then. Somebody earlier (Emigre I think?) made the point that anybody is, in effect ,potentially jeopardising their future governmental prospects.

Whitehouse know this and exactly the way to deal with it. Individuals will find it very difficult to go out on a limb. An awful lot will be happening behind closed doors in order to try and garner enough support to present a case which will actually allow a volte-face.

[DavidVsGoliath]

Keep it up ...

I think a lot of people, as someone else mentioned, have still got their heads in the sand. Possibly set a minimum of £50 but recommend £200, imho.

Why can't Montp financially support this?

I have only recently been made aware of the NTRT campaign. I have joined you just now and made the £200 donation. I think most people would not have an issue with paying £200, but for many especialy in these times it might be a substantial sum to fork out for an unknown outcome. On the other hand what's to be lost if the prospect for doing nothing at all is a liability of dozens of thousands? .. we can only win.

Personally, I think you should be giving people the possibility to donate as little as they might be willing to - they can always donate more later. Even I would be happy to send over additonal funds as the campaign proceeds. Having paid £200 I would have no issue with people paying less as I personally think I have paid for a good cause. We have been treated like criminals - but all we have done is obeyed the law. Nobody else can tell me otherwise.

Personally I would like to thank the NTRT team for their work so far - and please keep up your passion and enthusiasm.

[reckless]

Transcript now available:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../120626s01.pdf

We are New Clause 4 on page 682, right at the end.

From reading the transcript I think those MPs that went in to bat for us did remarkably well in putting over the germane points of the case in a very limited time. Moving on, I think two new strategies are necessary;

1) Elevate the debate above the current focus on tax avoidance and gains made by those 'who only paid 5% tax'; to a higher level addressing what MP Rees-Mogg argued - that retrospection undermines all law and hence Parliament itself

2) Find some form of escape route for those who are digging themselves into a hole. Something that allows them to change their mind (or more likely bring their personal opinion into line with their public ministerial opinion) without a loss of face or damage to their future political prospects within their party.

Regarding the contributions to NTRT, I agree that a minimum level should be set, to dissuade every Tom, Dick and Harry joining, but pitched at a level that genuine supporters can afford. Then qualify that with a suggested donation level of £200 or whatever.