BN66 - Off the fence

[DonkeyRhubarb]

The principle of changing anything retrospectively is wrong. Simple as.

If, anything, including legislation is unclear or not fulfilling the essence of what it was meant to do, then, that is the fault of the original creators. It can only be right to correct something from a date when everyone everyone is aware there is no ambiguity ie current or future date.

It can be retrospective but it has to be announced on or prior to the date when it takes effect.

For example, it's ok for a measure to be enacted in a finance act in July, and take effect prior to this on say 1st Jan, as long as it is announced on or before 1st Jan.

[BrilloPad]

Some MPs acted within the letter of the law and some broke the law. The ones who broke the law should be prosecuted.

IMO expenses should be stopped. Give them a salary.

But going back to change the past is just wrong.

[BolshieBastard]

The principle of changing anything retrospectively is wrong. Simple as.

If, anything, including legislation is unclear or not fulfilling the essence of what it was meant to do, then, that is the fault of the original creators. It can only be right to correct something from a date when everyone everyone is aware there is no ambiguity ie current or future date.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In particular I didn't agree with the fact that retrospective legislation (at least the principle of it) is wrong - and have got into a number of discussions about this.

I feel that retrospective legislation is legitimate in extreme circumstances to correct clear imbalances.

There is nothing wrong with retrospective legislation in principle. For example, it could be used to benefit people who lost out because of an anomoly in the law.

However, it is different when it is used to levy a punitive tax, particularly when people were given no advance warning, so had no opportunity to change their behaviour.

In the case of BN66, they are using it to levy a 7-year retrospective tax and, because the tax is deemed to have been due in the past, they are also charging interest for late payment. 6 year's backdated interest increases the debt by approx 50%.

If asked, most members of the public would probably say that we deserve it and I can understand that. The thing is there was no need for this to have ever been retrospective.

HMRC knew about it right from the start in 2001, and it was fully disclosed on tax returns. So why did they allow people to keep doing it for 7 years when they could have closed it down in any number of finance acts?

If anyone is interested I have created a PDF summary of the case. I have tried to make it fairly balanced but you can judge for yourself.

If you want a copy email me at bn66_letter@hotmail.co.uk

[SantaClaus]

Having read a lot of the BN66 threads, I haven't been wholeheartedly supporting "the cause".

In particular I didn't agree with the fact that retrospective legislation (at least the principle of it) is wrong - and have got into a number of discussions about this.

I feel that retrospective legislation is legitimate in extreme circumstances to correct clear imbalances. That isn't to say that I thought retrospective legislation should be used for BN66, just that the argument against BN66 shouldn't be solely based on the fact that retrospective legislation was being used.

Instead the argument should be that retropsective legislation is wrong to use in this case, because those "exploiting" the loophole could justifiably argue that what they were doing was within the rules.

However, this was still a tricky sell, particularly to the general public and our lawmakers, who willl still see this as tax evasion.

Now seeing the scandalous behaviour of our MP's, if I had a pound for every time I've heard "it was in the rules" over the past few weeks, I'd have enough money to fund an MP's expense account.


Given that our elected leaders seem to believe that as long as you comply with the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit, I see the argument for applying retrospective legislation to BN66 to be completely shot to pieces.


Where do I sign?

Thanks Centaurian for your support. It does make me angry that our MPs are claiming they are within the rules whereas they are persecuting us for playing by the rules too! A public flogging is too good for all of them

Join us on the official BN66 thread:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...r-3-a-293.html

If you feel strongly enough, you could get your MP to write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights as many of us have done, to force a review of the legislation.

This is the link to Donkey Rhubarb's thread where he has provided a template letter:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...an-rights.html

[centurian]

Having read a lot of the BN66 threads, I haven't been wholeheartedly supporting "the cause".

In particular I didn't agree with the fact that retrospective legislation (at least the principle of it) is wrong - and have got into a number of discussions about this.

I feel that retrospective legislation is legitimate in extreme circumstances to correct clear imbalances. That isn't to say that I thought retrospective legislation should be used for BN66, just that the argument against BN66 shouldn't be solely based on the fact that retrospective legislation was being used.

Instead the argument should be that retropsective legislation is wrong to use in this case, because those "exploiting" the loophole could justifiably argue that what they were doing was within the rules.

However, this was still a tricky sell, particularly to the general public and our lawmakers, who willl still see this as tax evasion.

Now seeing the scandalous behaviour of our MP's, if I had a pound for every time I've heard "it was in the rules" over the past few weeks, I'd have enough money to fund an MP's expense account.


Given that our elected leaders seem to believe that as long as you comply with the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit, I see the argument for applying retrospective legislation to BN66 to be completely shot to pieces.


Where do I sign?