Why should my MP worry about retrospective taxation on avoiders?

[minestrone]

One is allowed to act like an arse from time to time on general, doing an "I told you so" act on this subject is a sign of someone being a full time arse.

[fullyautomatix]

Do you pay at IR35 rates? No. I thought not. You are tax avoiding scum and it would not surprise me if the law was changed retrospectively to catch those like you.

You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

[speling bee]

Retrospective action is tyrannous imo.

For once, I kind of agree with you. The only argument I can see against it, is not that it is illegal (it doesn't appear to be) and not that it is immoral (morality seemed to be irrelevant to those choosing their path so they can't play the moral card now) but that it is an abuse of power by Parliament (not HMRC and not government). It is the only argument that has my mind not quite made up on this. Unless of course it really is illegal, which would be a decider for me.

I am not interested in a slippery slope argument - if they do the right thing now, they may do the wrong thing later. But I am interested in whether this particular instance of retrospective legislation is an abuse of power or not. At the moment, I think that the schemes were so egregious (even if legal) that retrospective action is justified. But it seems that in these circmstances there should be more forebearance to allow payment over many years, if those caught would prefer to do so rather than become bankrupt.

[BrilloPad]

Was I discourteous?

Yes. Firstly by posting critical stuff in the s58 thread which is a heavily moderated thread due to the sensitivities involved.

Then by ignoring a reasonable request to move your posts.

But I was far worse in my response. I do apologize.

But try being forced possibly into bankruptcy, on top of having 3 kids(2 disabled), a mad mother (living with a murderer), a litigious ex-wife. An explanation, not an excuse.

You don't think that normal 50 year olds do ironman contests do you?

[speling bee]

HMRC have behaved illegally by misleading parliament. I don't think I can say much as its sub judice. If anyone from NTRT wants to comment then fine. But they are not as stupid as me - they ignore trolls.

Why am I so stupid?

If that is shown to be the case, then you I will have no quarrel with your winning.

[BrilloPad]

You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

I also paid the correct tax rate.

HTH BIDI.

[Old Hack]

You have no idea what taxes I pay so stop jumping to conclusions. I pay the correct tax rate and I am 100% confident I will have no HMRC sword hanging over me. You on the other hand is the scum wanting to pay no tax and enjoy a life of greed and now that the law has quite correctly caught up with you, you are spouting some crap about morality etc. You deserve to go bankrupt and I hope you do.

Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

I earn £4800 a year, as does my wife, and we take the rest in dividends. Is this immoral? No, it's tax management, and legal. I have operated under the rules of the land, and paid what I have been asked to pay, according to the laws set in parliament.

But you know, when parliament coems in, say in 3 years time, and states that they have changed their position on incorporated Small businesses, and, in fact, have decided that they will be taxed at 100% of their gross, and state they will apply this retrospectively from 2002. Is that cool with you?

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

[BrilloPad]

If that is shown to be the case, then you I will have no quarrel with your winning.

It is the case and will be proven. All the docs are on the NTRT website and I have taken them to my MP who is very supportive.

But it takes so long! I remember in 2008 saying my predicted end date was 2012. I was scoffed at for being way too pessimistic. Now it looks like 2015 earliest. Huge queue even getting to first tier tribunal.

[speling bee]

Yes. Firstly by posting critical stuff in the s58 thread which is a heavily moderated thread due to the sensitivities involved.

Then by ignoring a reasonable request to move your posts.

But I was far worse in my response. I do apologize.

But try being forced possibly into bankruptcy, on top of having 3 kids(2 disabled), a mad mother (living with a murderer), a litigious ex-wife. An explanation, not an excuse.

You don't think that normal 50 year olds do ironman contests do you?

No need to apologise. But you should realise that s58 doesn't just affect the 3,000 families. It matters to all of us who contribute our fair share, have to compete (as the OP said) with those who can undercut us, those people who will lose their jobs and house because of the public deficit etc.

[BrilloPad]

One is allowed to act like an arse from time to time on general, doing an "I told you so" act on this subject is a sign of someone being a full time arse.

Thats totally uncalled for mate, totally.

It's the thin edge of the wedge for me, and as far as you bilge, your bilious post, well that just stinks of outright hostile jealousy.

Seems to be part and parcel of posting in general these days. Well to be fair - its always been a bear pit.

I wish a wife of a friend would send me some more piccies so we could all have a laugh....