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

[d000hg]

Hi all

I don't want to start a discussion about it on this thread...

But could I respectfully ask that members and supporters of NTRT don't engage in debates regarding BN66 on the "General" forum.

The perpetrator of these threads thrives on people replying to him, with the ultimate aim of getting these threads ranking high up in the search engines, by repeating certain keywords and getting lots of comments/views.

So lets just cut off the oxygen that feeds him and (and a few others) by not replying to anything they say. Add them to your ignore list and don't even bother viewing the threads.

Thanks for your support.

Santa

You want to suppress an open discussion of the subject in case people disagree with you? Isn't that exactly what Gauke/HMRC are trying to do? If you want to raise awareness - as you do - then you have to accept people will use that to vocally disagree with you.

I support your position (I'm the perpetrator of the one right now actually) but on a contracting forum it is not on to try and strong-arm people into not discussing the issue with scare stories. I specifically started the thread in General for that purpose rather than to pollute this one, if you'll accept this response to your statement we can let everyone make up their own minds whether to engage in discussion.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

You want to suppress an open discussion of the subject in case people disagree with you?

I'm not sure that's what Santa intended.

Opinions are very entrenched and there's nothing much any of us can say to persuade these folks that our case has any merit whatsoever. Our presence on the General thread only serves to antagonize people, and personally I'm not interested in getting into a fight with fellow contractors.

[d000hg]

I dunno, I think many lack the basic facts on which to make a sensible decision - just look at how MPs swung from an opening "you're scummy chancers" to "this is not right" when the facts were presented them.

Anyway, my point is made, carry on...

[DonkeyRhubarb]

just look at how MPs swung from an opening "you're scummy chancers" to "this is not right"

Actually we've never really had any problem persuading MPs. Most oppose retrospective legislation as a matter of principle.

However, turning this into action is the hard part, which is where Whitehouse came in.

[SantaClaus]

You want to suppress an open discussion of the subject in case people disagree with you? Isn't that exactly what Gauke/HMRC are trying to do? If you want to raise awareness - as you do - then you have to accept people will use that to vocally disagree with you.

I support your position (I'm the perpetrator of the one right now actually) but on a contracting forum it is not on to try and strong-arm people into not discussing the issue with scare stories. I specifically started the thread in General for that purpose rather than to pollute this one, if you'll accept this response to your statement we can let everyone make up their own minds whether to engage in discussion.

OK, I will make one comment on this...

There is absolutely no point in having a serious discussion in General. Anyone who has been around here for more than a few days can tell you that. You will just get egos who's favourite past-time is a rant and a bit of winding up.

Very soon, that thread will have enough mentions of certain keywords to figure highly in the search engines and overtake our legitimate website, which is what the perpetrator wants, and funnily enough, search engine optimisation is what his company does.

By continually posting in there, he has you right where he wants you. That is exactly what he wants you to do, so his thread can have thousands of posts/views.

So I stand by what I posted earlier. The only person I am suppressing is the perpetrator who is against us. And he is diverting our attention from the more important task of lobbying our MPs.

Lets leave it at that please.

[the great escape]

Outstanding effort by Wihtehouse and the NTRT campaign to get the amendment in play.

Given the scale of this thing ie. overturning the will of parliament, I see now why this long evolved build up in parliamentary circles has been necessary. It’s not an overnight affair despite my fleeting desire for it to be so.

As for the vote, at least this time round we’re in with a chance since DG’s only got one vote against the rest. And there are others in the voting that are already on board with the campaign. Jeziz, when you compare this to the 3-0 in the COA and the unheard objections in last year’s debate due to extended tulip about ‘chip fat’ – things have come a long way.

As for DG, he can still be glorious in defeat –“ Well, that’s my vote so you know where I stand”. For me, that’s the get out clause if he’s having 2nd thoughts about HMRC’s actions and the implications of the cross-party letter.

Despite the distance, I’ve done another mail shot to Mr Afriyie and asked for a face-2-face. No retreat, no surrender.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

David Gauke

Twenty MPs pocket up to £180,000 each on taxpayer-funded second homes - Telegraph

[SantaClaus]

Twenty MPs pocket up to £180,000 each on taxpayer-funded second homes - Telegraph

The paper referring to Gauke....

He sold the flat in August last year for £352,000. A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times.

That just makes me feel sick!

[swede]

The paper referring to Gauke....

He sold the flat in August last year for £352,000. A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times.

That just makes me feel sick!

This is just hideous.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

A spokesman said he had "abided by the rules" at all times.

Maybe this partly explains his change in attitude since 2008.

It is clearly not enough these days to just abide by the rules.