Signatures 1256 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... 26 › »
-
51
Name: Emily Johnston on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
52
Name: Katie Jones on Jan 25, 2012Comments: 20% Vat + 4% ARR makes profit margins almost impossible to meetFlag
-
53
Name: David Brooker on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
54
Name: JohnDixon on Jan 25, 2012Comments: This new extra 70 year rule been added to the Artist's Resale Right, is going to drive the art trade out of the UK. It will also create a black market as the punitive rates of the above are added to a struggling art world in the current climate.Flag
-
55
Name: Lennox Cato on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
56
Name: Lawson Bell on Jan 25, 2012Comments: This will be ruinous to my trade and will send business out of this country to the U.S.A The cost of collecting hugely outweighs and benefit.Flag
-
57
Name: Philip Dye on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
58
Name: Anonymous on Jan 25, 2012Comments: ARR will really adversely affect small business particular those that are already struggling to make a living. It is a terrible policy that won't help struggling artists at all. ARR will just help to line the pockets of already wealthy people. ARR will also be incredibly cumbersome to administer for small business too.Flag
-
59
Name: Peter Chapman on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
60
Name: Robert Ian Emmerson on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
61
Name: Anick Purmessur on Jan 25, 2012Comments: Small businesses are a key driver for the economy and should be supportedFlag
-
62
Name: Steve Swallow on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
63
Name: Iain Marr on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
64
Name: Mike Emeny on Jan 25, 2012Comments: I agree with this petition that the ARR threshold should be rasied to E3000. I actually think it should be a £ value. I do not even have a euro symbol on my keyboard let alone know what the exchange rate is this very minute. We live in the UK not Europe!Flag
-
65
Name: Ron Hodgson on Jan 25, 2012Comments: As a predominantly traditional dealer my response has been to boycott the works involved. When will the Government actually stop Europe imposing these spurious laws on us?Flag
-
66
Name: Terry Horsnell on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
67
Name: Jonathan Roberts on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
68
Name: Mr Alex Puddy on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
69
Name: Dr Linda Read on Jan 25, 2012Comments: I can tell you that they don't follow these rules in France!! We are mugs in the UKFlag
-
70
Name: Lucy Johnson on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
71
Name: Stephen Jarrett on Jan 25, 2012Comments: This legislation is not in the interests of the artists, their families, art dealers and auctioneers.Flag
-
72
Name: Simon Shore on Jan 25, 2012Comments: The UK fine art trade is one of the most sophisticated and dynamic in the world, generating a substantial tax haul for the ecconomy. The art market needs dealers both large nd small to sustain itself effectively. the prospect of this predjucial European Law will benefit no-one other than perhaps New York. I urge the Government to seriously consider the full ramifications of this laws implementation.Flag
-
73
Name: Elizabeth Walder on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
74
Name: Walker Galleries Ltd on Jan 25, 2012Comments: I would also like the petition to lobby for the fact that auction houses should not charge automatically the buyer 4%, but the seller as in France.Flag
-
75
Name: Anonymous on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
76
Name: Didier Haspeslagh on Jan 25, 2012Comments: unfair burden being charged twice if buying at auction and administration costs borne by us yet again, the collecting agency gets a percentage for dealing with it so why not us?Flag
-
77
Name: Ivan Macquisten on Jan 25, 2012Comments: As we at ATG have reported for many years, this levy is neither fair nor logical. It is not a profit share since it applies to the entire price, even when the sale is made at a loss, nor does it have anything to do with copyright, which remains an entirely separate right. Galleries are already refusing to buy up work in bulk from struggling young artists - the very people ARR is designed to help - selling on commission only instead in order to avoid the risk of the levy. There is still no comprehensive database for artists and the collecting agencies bear no responsibility for their mistakes nor any obligation to track down an artist or their heirs by any reasonable deadline. Unpaid money can sit in their account for years gathering interest. Where does that interest go? If to the collecting agencies, then they have a vested interest in not finding the beneficiaries concerned. You can talk all you like about being a not-for-profit organisation, but a surplus is a profit in everything but name. There are an awful lot of questions still unanswered, a distinct lack of transparency despite all the noise made to the contrary and an increasing anger that far from greedy rich dealers exploiting poor artists, what is actually happening is that extremely wealthy artists - the top 100 share about 80 per cent of all monies between them - find themselves on another EU gravy train at the expense of struggling artists and small time dealers who may be forced to find new ways of making a living.Flag
-
78
Name: Lindy on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
79
Name: Claire Owen on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
80
Name: Daniel Bexfield on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
81
Name: Ellis Kelleher on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
82
Name: Stephen Paisnel on Jan 25, 2012Comments: A ridiculous surcharge on all gallery transactions which clients will not pay. In general 4% of our turnover equates to 20% of our profit. The collection of this charge is shrouded in uncertainty and beaurocratic indecision and should be stopped immediately before it damages a great British industry.Flag
-
83
Name: Marcus Adams on Jan 25, 2012Comments: This is an unfair and troublesome dictact from Europe which will be highly damaging to the art market in the UK and other European countries which have a buoyant 20th centruy art market serviced by professionals.Flag
-
84
Name: Rosamund Jordan on Jan 25, 2012Comments: I also feel that pressure should be put on auctioneers to withdraw the clause in their conditions of sale making the BUYER liable to pay droit de suite. It is a duty payable by the SELLER or AGENT of the SELLER i.e. the auction house (Section 13 and the related explanatory note of Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346).Flag
-
85
Name: Robbie Timms on Jan 25, 2012Comments: I thought our Government was supposed to be making life easier for small businesses in these difficult times, not harder, as seems the case lately!Flag
-
86
Name: Frank Wilson on Jan 25, 2012Comments: It is extra unpaid work for the galleriesFlag
-
87
Name: Wendy Grellman on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
88
Name: Jackie Simonini on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
89
Name:
Vesna Gmeiner on Jan 25, 2012
Comments:Flag -
90
Name: Maja Bertok on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
91
Name: Steven on Jan 25, 2012Comments: Enough barriers are placed in the pay of small business without further "taxation" and paperwork. Should I be entitled to money from a house sold that I once owned ?Flag
-
92
Name: Tim Bowen on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
93
Name: Marjan on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
94
Name:
Santa Bozicek on Jan 25, 2012
Comments:Flag -
95
Name: Metka Jamar on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
96
Name: Juliet Moller T/A Milne And Moller on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
97
Name: David Rjazancev on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
98
Name: Nives Regeis on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag
-
99
Name: Peter Petrou on Jan 25, 2012Comments: Its another tax with more unpaid administration costs on small businessesFlag
-
100
Name: Charlotte Morris Roper on Jan 25, 2012Comments:Flag