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

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You couldn't make this up

A constituent of former Chancellor Alistair Darling went to see him about S58. Darling only vaguely recollected S58 because his main preoccupation at the time of the 2008 budget was the abolition of the 10% band. He was shocked to hear that the measure was being applied retrospectively going back 7 years.

He wrote to the current Chancellor George Osborne raising his concerns. (Remember, Osborne opposed S58 at the time.)

Osborne has now written back to Darling defending the retrospective legislation and brushing away his concerns.

No doubt when Osborne eventually leaves office he will change his view back to what it was before he became Chancellor.

[Emigre]

Are we still awaiting the decision of whether we can join the PWC submission ?

Appeals by Huitson (MontP) and Shiner (PwC) to the ECHR need to be made by 6 August, 6 months after being turned down by the Supreme Court.

KPMG on behalf of Steed lodged a direct application a few years ago. It is my understanding that the ECHR vets applications and weeds out frivolous ones within 6 months of application. KPMG/Steed are therefore still waiting for a listing.

I expect that we will know who is doing what with who in this regard later in August.

So, good question but just be patient.

[WelshRarebit]

I think the ex-government can claim the 'moral high ground' here by not realising the extent of their actions and that they made a mistake. The current government however definitely have the 'moral low ground' as they resoundingly opposed the legislation at the time, but now in power, realise they can use it to scrape a few coppers together and ignore the consequence of bankrupcy for many.

[TAF4]

Democracy - you are Joking!

So clearly our democratic processes are not working. We have two centre ground parties to choose from. When in opposition the parties are free to speak from principles and in support of their constituents. When in Government they have to abandon principles and support the status quo. Minor policy adjustments are floated and implemented, or withdrawn (U-turns), based on the levels of outrage voiced by the Sun and the Grauniad. Think Pastie tax!!


What is the point of voting for these jokers - it only encourages them.


Here is my strategy - Vote for a truly independant party that supports the best interests of the country. That would be UKIP in my view. If they don't have a candidate then turn out and spoil your ballot paper. All ballots papers issued are counted for turn-out reporting and spoilt papers are counted and declared. Imagine the national impact if there was an 80% turnout at a General Election and 60% of all papers were spoilt! Any developments in that direction would send the correct 'Democratic' message.


JM2C.

[slogger]

I think the ex-government can claim the 'moral high ground' here by not realising the extent of their actions and that they made a mistake. The current government however definitely have the 'moral low ground' as they resoundingly opposed the legislation at the time, but now in power, realise they can use it to scrape a few coppers together and ignore the consequence of bankrupcy for many.

i think the main issue isn't collecting £200m or whatever (I would bet a lot lower than this would be collected due to people being able to actually pay!) - but that its more about what's politically best for them... to revoke this they could be portrayed as helping tax evaders by the press ... I'm not sure there's any upside for them in revoking this (other than morally doing the right thing - but then they're politicians so thats not an advantage for them either!).
And yes I know we're not evaders but thats how the press could portray it..

[the great escape]

A constituent of former Chancellor Alistair Darling went to see him about S58. Darling only vaguely recollected S58 because his main preoccupation at the time of the 2008 budget was the abolition of the 10% band. He was shocked to hear that the measure was being applied retrospectively going back 7 years.

He wrote to the current Chancellor George Osborne raising his concerns. (Remember, Osborne opposed S58 at the time.)

Osborne has now written back to Darling defending the retrospective legislation and brushing away his concerns.

No doubt when Osborne eventually leaves office he will change his view back to what it was before he became Chancellor.

DR...is it really a problem if Gauke and Ozi don't support the amendment? Surely, if the amendment is tabelled, the house could out vote them.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

DR...is it really a problem if Gauke and Ozi don't support the amendment? Surely, if the amendment is tabelled, the house could out vote them.

Conservative and LibDem MPs would not allow the Government to be defeated over something as "trivial" as this.

When push came to shove, they would all fall into line. And any that dissented, especially Tory MPs, would be whipped to buggery.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

Light is both a wave AND a particle...

...it just depends on which day of the week it is. I remember hearing that from my Physics teacher a long time ago when schools actually taught Physics rather than how to pass the exam! I digress.

The Parliamentarians being referred to are either an MP or a Minister when they speak - not both. Odd I know, but when Darling was a Minister he spoke as the Minister. Now as he has returned from planet Gaga, and regained his senses, he is speaking as an MP. The same is true of Mr. Gauke, Osborne and the likes except the other way around. The Minister is NOT a person and this may sound like I have taken up residence on Gaga street, but there's little point referring to Mr. Gauke when you are rightly lambasting what is being said by "him". The Minister is a function and a service. An MP is a person. It takes some getting your head around but I'm afraid that explains why when the Opposition say Black and the Government say Blue, then after the roles are reversed the Government still say Blue.

It may sound that all is lost. But that's not the case. You see, when my Physics teacher used the above explanation for the confounding way light can change form and back again whenever it suits, much to the annoyance of the "observer", he also said this:

"It behaves like a wave on Mon, Tue & Wed, then like a particle on Thu, Fri & Sat". When someone asked "what about Sunday", he said "it is both. Because on God's Day it cannot lie or cheat".

There's a moral in that when you consider an MP who becomes a Minister. Maybe they will start reading our "Book of Revelation, Section 58"...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

i think the main issue isn't collecting £200m or whatever (I would bet a lot lower than this would be collected due to people being able to actually pay!) - but that its more about what's politically best for them... to revoke this they could be portrayed as helping tax evaders by the press ... I'm not sure there's any upside for them in revoking this (other than morally doing the right thing - but then they're politicians so thats not an advantage for them either!).
And yes I know we're not evaders but thats how the press could portray it..

You are right, there is no upside.

But there is a potential downside in doing nothing.

They will be fully aware of what HMRC will do if left to their own devices, and a Tory Minister would therefore have sanctioned widescale bankruptcies.

[moira under the stairs]

You are right, there is no upside.

But there is a potential downside in doing nothing.

They will be fully aware of what HMRC will do if left to their own devices, and a Tory Minister would therefore have sanctioned widescale bankruptcies.

Thinking aloud.... Couldn't that be an upside... To send a message out to all...

'Be warned you plebs you cannot do what the big boys do, and we will stop you any way we can, fall in line and pay what we demand, you don't have a say in our world'