Signatures 1259 total
Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... 26 › »
-
151
Name: Anonymous on Jan 27, 2012Comments:Flag
-
152
Name: Andrew Fisher on Jan 27, 2012Comments: This is not right. It is one thing for the artist to recieve benifits but to tie the hands of reputable dealers for 70 years is extreme and unwarrented and can cause more harm to dealers than imagined. Every dollar reduces profit and 2 out of every 3 art dealers in America have gone out of business in the last three years. The business climate is dreadful and the business is more difficult than ever!Flag
-
153
Name: Glenn Dranoff on Jan 27, 2012Comments: The resale royalty is patently unfair, in my opinion. I would be willing to give a percentage of my profit on a resale under one condition, that the artist pay me a percentage of any losses I occur when I sell something! Which happens with most purchases of art. This seems fair to me. Otherwise, if the artist doesn't want to take a chance that others will profit from their work eventually, they should keep it and not sell it.Flag
-
154
Name: Michael Kam on Jan 27, 2012Comments:Flag
-
155
Name: Tony Roberts on Jan 27, 2012Comments: This is a poorly rated piece of legislation. Will we see house builders getting a percentage of what a property sells for years after they have sold it, whether it is sold for more or less than was originally paid ? I think not.Flag
-
156
Name: Luc Mulier on Jan 27, 2012Comments: Indeed , it is very bad for the art gallery's . Bureaucraty , paperwork , that money or 90%goes to paperwork and people who have nothing to do with artFlag
-
157
Name: Myrette Paul-Chowdhury on Jan 28, 2012Comments: It's not totally unreasonable that the children of artists benefit from the sale of their parents' work, but MORE than 70 years! Not even businesses usually last that long! Ridiculous!Flag
-
158
Name: Susanna Strem on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
159
Name: Sarah Gordon on Jan 28, 2012Comments: The interference of the state in business is taking on monstrous proportions and is preventing small operators from free trade.Flag
-
160
Name: John Dupree on Jan 28, 2012Comments: This is ridiculous and the paperwork processing alone costs more than the value rebated at lower levels of pricing.Flag
-
161
Name: Alan Uria on Jan 28, 2012Comments: most dealers i speak to are refusing to buy or deal with auction houses as the commissions with the artists rights,make retail prices outrageous, i why should the end user have to bear these costs.Flag
-
162
Name: Chris Ewbank FRICS ASFAV on Jan 28, 2012Comments: In addition to what has been said above the imposition of what is effectively a tax will damage the UK's position in the international market place as no other major art markets in the world have such a charge. It is a beureaucratic nightmare for auctioneers and dealers alike and the extension does nothing to "help young artists" which was the original reason for its introduction. The Government have the opportunity to alleviate the problem but have done nothing to help. The vast majority of those adversely affected are running small businesses. I have considerable experience in this field having been Chairman of the Society of Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers and of the Arts and Antiques Group of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and also on the British Art Market Federation for some years. I am also currently on RICS Governing CouncilFlag
-
163
Name: Art World Limited on Jan 28, 2012Comments: The Government needs to take action immediately!Flag
-
164
Name: Alan Wheatley Art on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Absolutley disgusting why should the estate receive payment for a work of art that they had nothing to do with. Why should any one other then the artist that created the work benefit.Flag
-
165
Name: Alan Wheatley Art on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Absolutley disgusting why should the estate receive payment for a work of art that they had nothing to do with. Why should any one other then the artist that created the work benefit.Flag
-
166
Name: Roy Quek on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
167
Name: Judith Stewart on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
168
Name: Amanda Terry on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Disgraceful and pointlessFlag
-
169
Name: Martin Tinney on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
170
Name: Lee Benson on Jan 28, 2012Comments: i wish to register my complaint and get removed the art tax and remove the increaseFlag
-
171
Name: James Corless on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Yet another tax.. another strain on small businesses without any real justification. Let's get rid of this ill-conceived levy.Flag
-
172
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
173
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
174
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments: It is important to sign this petition as we are crushed by this issue.Flag
-
175
Name: Carole Innocent on Jan 28, 2012Comments: You have our full support at Innocent Fine ArtFlag
-
176
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
177
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Yet another stealth tax damaging both to the mainstream art market and artists. The threshold should be increased to £6000 in line with CGT.Flag
-
178
Name: Fiona Peischl on Jan 28, 2012Comments: This has to be one of the most poorly thought-out pieces of legislation...Flag
-
179
Name: Dominic Du Plooy on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Has the potential to close many small galleries like ourselvesFlag
-
180
Name: Sebastiaan Meijer on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Where can I get my profit when I loose on my investment? A small art dealer.Flag
-
181
Name: John Robbins on Jan 28, 2012Comments:Flag
-
182
Name: Stanley J Allen on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Will the Heir , Foundation Living Artist Honour the reverse of the coin and reimburse the dealer or Gallery when his sale value drops ?Flag
-
183
Name: Frank Partridge on Jan 28, 2012Comments: This will kill the modern art trade in London and cause it to move out of the EUFlag
-
184
Name: Kaye Michie on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Another way of attacking small businesses. I predict this will close many small galleries putting a lot of artists out of work. So who wins ????Flag
-
185
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments: ARR is a counter-productive, and a grab to extend the wealth of rich men.Flag
-
186
Name: Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012Comments: Unless ARR is enforced in every country, it is an attack on British commerce and must be stopped.Flag
-
187
Name: Blaž on Jan 29, 2012Comments: gl with thatFlag
-
188
Name: =David Ive on Jan 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
189
Name: John James on Jan 29, 2012Comments: This pernicious tax will destroy many small businesses. Why someone should benefit financially from a work by their great-grandfather I have no idea.Flag
-
190
Name: Simon Brand on Jan 29, 2012Comments: Artist resale rights should ber scrapped completely. Artist receive income from their work when they are originally sold. A car manufacturer does not receive a 'royalty' every time their cars are traded in the future.Flag
-
191
Name: Anonymous on Jan 29, 2012Comments: An ill-concieved, un-wieldly, unnecessarily burdensome and punitive charge on market professionals that will cause more damage to the art market than it will ultimately and meaningfully benefit the vast majority of artists.Flag
-
192
Name: Alec Fraser on Jan 29, 2012Comments: ARR is an unnecessary piece of legislation created by people who have no idea of the negative effect on SMEsFlag
-
193
Name: Kassie on Jan 29, 2012Comments: This could not posislby have been more helpful!Flag
-
194
Name: Goodman Fine Art on Jan 29, 2012Comments: Extraordinary non-statutory tax threatening a key service industry which will lose highest price auction items to their markets; imagine what would happen if banks were threatened with a tenth of this!Flag
-
195
Name: John Baguley on Jan 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
196
Name: Bojan Grujić on Jan 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
197
Name: Anonymous on Jan 29, 2012Comments:Flag
-
198
Name: Janaya on Jan 29, 2012Comments: Time to face the music armed with this great infroamtion.Flag
-
199
Name: COLIN NEVILLE on Jan 29, 2012Comments: Another example of interference from the ECFlag
-
200
Name: SARA NEVILLE on Jan 29, 2012Comments:Flag