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

[OnYourBikeGB]

Supposedly the changed lower figure was accepted and agreed to by Kathryn Hudson (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) based on the evidence shown by the Standards Committee.

And so I repeat myself...

This is the joy of half baked information in our 24 hour news world. People see half the information (as the rest is explicitly hidden or misrepresented) and make value based judgments on the pieces they see. These judgements then remain the same even when people show them that they still don't have all the facts.

And its the lack of understanding in how stories migrate from all the whole facts, to just those that are most useful in attacking the subject of the story which has resulted in the mess everyone currently suffering under Section 58 and EBT follower demands was and has been subjected to.

The irony is that in your joy at someone else's misfortune you have missed the fact that the same "hide the awkward information" agenda used here is exactly what HMRC and successive Governments have and are using against you. Yet you wonder why so many people around here feel that you are getting what you deserved.

And that is all I have to saw on the matter as Mrs Miller's misfortune has nothing to do with this thread. It should however show you why your current fight is sadly (and I mean that truthfully) on a hiding to nothing....

I don't think anyone here feels joy, but if we are to be held accountable to one set of standards, then so should the people who hold us accountable. A lot of people do think we are getting what we deserve, I'd agree with you there. Reading round the other threads, the word 'dodgy' appears over and over again, both about us and the tax arrangement. At the end of the day though, EBTs and to a lesser extent DOTAS are not our fight, we just want the S58 retro element removed so that we can fight this on the basis of the law as it stood at the time, pure and simple. One thing that is common though, is that there is a sustained assault against our industry. It's a pity we couldn't have stood a bit more together to oppose it, instead of squabbling over the moral high ground. It does look like we are on our own, but thanks to DR / NTRT etc, at least we are organised. Everyone else, unfortunately, not so much. If we are on a hiding to nothing, and it's a strong possibility, at least we stood up and put up a fight, and I apologise to no-one for that.

[jbryce]

Supposedly the changed lower figure was accepted and agreed to by Kathryn Hudson (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) based on the evidence shown by the Standards Committee.

And so I repeat myself...

This is the joy of half baked information in our 24 hour news world. People see half the information (as the rest is explicitly hidden or misrepresented) and make value based judgments on the information they see. These judgments remain the same even when people show them that they still don't have all the facts.

And its the lack of understanding in how stories migrate from all the whole facts, to just those that are most useful in attacking the subject of the story which is your biggest issue. As its the hiding of awkward facts that has resulted in the mess everyone currently suffering under Section 58 and EBT follower demands is still enduring.

The irony is that in your joy at someone else's misfortune you missed the fact that the same "hide the awkward information" agenda used here is exactly what HMRC and successive Governments have and are using against you. Yet you wonder why so many people around here feel that you are getting what you deserved.

And that is all I have to saw on the matter as Miss Miller's misfortune has nothing to do with this thread. It should however show you why your current fight is sadly (and I mean that truthfully) on a hiding to nothing....

I'm not sure I expressed any joy at her sacking, I do think it reflects the lack of appropriate governance within the whole expenses furore and how out of touch the political classes are with their constituency.

Supposedly, the actual statement from the commissioner and Kevin Barron (MP) does not endorse the reduction in the payment amount and merely point out the discrepancies in the investigation.

I'm at a loss how you draw any parallels between the reporting of Maria Miller in the press and HMRC investigations/upcoming legislation.

[smalldog]

Supposedly the changed lower figure was accepted and agreed to by Kathryn Hudson (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) based on the evidence shown by the Standards Committee.

And so I repeat myself...

This is the joy of half baked information in our 24 hour news world. People see half the information (as the rest is explicitly hidden or misrepresented) and make value based judgments on the information they see. These judgments remain the same even when people show them that they still don't have all the facts.

And its the lack of understanding in how stories migrate from all the whole facts, to just those that are most useful in attacking the subject of the story which is your biggest issue. As its the hiding of awkward facts that has resulted in the mess everyone currently suffering under Section 58 and EBT follower demands is still enduring.

The irony is that in your joy at someone else's misfortune you missed the fact that the same "hide the awkward information" agenda used here is exactly what HMRC and successive Governments have and are using against you. Yet you wonder why so many people around here feel that you are getting what you deserved.

And that is all I have to saw on the matter as Miss Miller's misfortune has nothing to do with this thread. It should however show you why your current fight is sadly (and I mean that truthfully) on a hiding to nothing....

do you think people make judgements on BN66 based on all the facts, nope they dont? Ive seen some pretty daft suggestions being thrown around such as 1% tax in other threads on this forum.

But to echo other comments, these people run the country so are expected to play by, and even above the rules. They have a much more moral responsibility than joe public to set an example. This isnt a witch hunt, at least on my part, but absolutely is a comment on the double standards, what we do, also following the rules is face financial ruin. What an MP does NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES, is get away with a part repayment and an apology defended the the PM.

We certainly couldnt get away with being penalised by apologising for 32 seconds to HMRC.

[growler]

Some people say MPs should be held to a higher standard, I've not even going that far. Just hold them to the same standard, as the rules stated at the time. This is how we want to be judged. This is how I want her to be judged.

1. Was she entitled to the money? Yes, then keep all of it. No, then pay all of it back. It appears she was not entitled to the money, so she pays it all back. There isn't a discussion to be had on this point, paying back a tiny portion is meaningless.

2. Was it a mistake or deliberate? If deliberate, then she should face criminal action. If not, then fines and interest should still be levied. This is now under investigation.

The above are what us plebs have always been subject to with regard to the public purse. Nothing to do with retrospection, not similar in any way to BN66.

If you make an honest mistake on your tax return, you may well not face tax evasion? prosecution, but you still pay the amount back in full and still face interest and penalties.

Why, when an MP deals with the public purse to their own end, should the treatment be any different?

I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece

[reckless]

Comparisons

It is interesting to note that as Maria Miller's expense abuse occurred before the new expenses rules and governance were put in place in 2009, then she had to be judged under the rules 'as they stood then' - namely the final decision resting with a panel of (self-serving) fellow MPs. We would also like to be judged by the rules as they stood pre-2008.

The double-standards of this corrupt Westminster regime know no bounds.

[OnYourBikeGB]

It is interesting to note that as Maria Miller's expense abuse occurred before the new expenses rules and governance were put in place in 2009, then she had to be judged under the rules 'as they stood then' - namely the final decision resting with a panel of (self-serving) fellow MPs. We would also like to be judged by the rules as they stood pre-2008.

The double-standards of this corrupt Westminster regime know no bounds.

And let's not forget this example of supreme hypocrisy:

Tax Cheating Danny Alexander - Guy Fawkes' blog

[jlg15333]

I don't think anyone here feels joy, but if we are to be held accountable to one set of standards, then so should the people who hold us accountable. A lot of people do think we are getting what we deserve, I'd agree with you there. Reading round the other threads, the word 'dodgy' appears over and over again, both about us and the tax arrangement. At the end of the day though, EBTs and to a lesser extent DOTAS are not our fight, we just want the S58 retro element removed so that we can fight this on the basis of the law as it stood at the time, pure and simple. One thing that is common though, is that there is a sustained assault against our industry. It's a pity we couldn't have stood a bit more together to oppose it, instead of squabbling over the moral high ground. It does look like we are on our own, but thanks to DR / NTRT etc, at least we are organised. Everyone else, unfortunately, not so much. If we are on a hiding to nothing, and it's a strong possibility, at least we stood up and put up a fight, and I apologise to no-one for that.

Well said that man (or woman) ..

[helen7]

ADMIN - all this chat of MP's expenses and to some degree DOTAS really has nothing to do with s58. Can it be moved to a different thread so this one can stay on topic?

[Fireship]

Double standards

Old hat but still makes my blood boil:

Why should MPs be exempt from new law to block tax avoidance? – Telegraph Blogs

[reckless]

Comparisons

ADMIN - all this chat of MP's expenses and to some degree DOTAS really has nothing to do with s58. Can it be moved to a different thread so this one can stay on topic?

Whilst I agree we should remain on track and focussed regarding BN66, the comparison of our situation with Maria Miller's high profile case (being assessed under 'the rules as they stood' pre 2009) is very pertinent, has potential leverage and is well worth pursuing via NTRT lobbying and further letters to MPs. This is an excellent opportunity to cause further embarassment to the government in the final year before the next election.