Scrapping non dom status

[NorthDave]

The only non dom I know is based in Italy and his household employ around 15 people and he spends millions every year locally. He also has a place in London but doesn't base himself there as the tax is too high.
These guys are super mobile and have the best advisers. They can live anywhere but spend vast sums.

That sounds like I don't think they should pay tax, they should but chasing them away won't help the country. Maybe we should scrap income tax and just have higher vat?

[Newc]

Double Fault said:

sugerbear said:

Where can I wave them off?

Quite.....good riddance.

It's as if you genuinely think the people in this category are incurring any kind of cost to the public purse bar some amount of tarmac wear between Northolt and Mayfair.

I'm curious - why do you think it is better if they leave? Is it not better to have them choose to be in the UK and pay some taxes here, than go to Monaco and pay none? Are you volunteering to make up the shortfall?

[Double Fault]

Newc said:

It's as if you genuinely think the people in this category are incurring any kind of cost to the public purse bar some amount of tarmac wear between Northolt and Mayfair.

I'm curious - why do you think it is better if they leave? Is it not better to have them choose to be in the UK and pay some taxes here, than go to Monaco and pay none? Are you volunteering to make up the shortfall?

Happy to see ultra-rich, greedy, offshore tax haven types clear off. I know it’s all above board but personally I find it reprehensible.

The shortfall, if any, would probably be nominal in the grand scheme of things, so unlikely to sink the UK.

[matrignano]

The only people I know who use this "loophole" are European bankers who travel a lot for work, and I don't see them moving abroad for this unless they can get transferred internally to the EU, in places like France or Italy for example where they offer decent tax breaks for immigrating there.

[Newc]

Double Fault said:

Newc said:

It's as if you genuinely think the people in this category are incurring any kind of cost to the public purse bar some amount of tarmac wear between Northolt and Mayfair.

I'm curious - why do you think it is better if they leave? Is it not better to have them choose to be in the UK and pay some taxes here, than go to Monaco and pay none? Are you volunteering to make up the shortfall?

Happy to see ultra-rich, greedy, offshore tax haven types clear off. I know it’s all above board but personally I find it reprehensible.

The shortfall, if any, would probably be nominal in the grand scheme of things, so unlikely to sink the UK.

But again, why? Why is it not better to have some tax? Any shortfall makes everyone else worse off, so your approach is directly responsible for making UK taxpayers poorer.

[abzmike]

So if this wasn’t a good idea in the past, why does the chancellor think it’s a good idea - in economic terms - now? Or does focus grouping trump fiscal policy

[S600BSB]

abzmike said:

So if this wasn’t a good idea in the past, why does the chancellor think it’s a good idea - in economic terms - now? Or does focus grouping trump fiscal policy

Politics, politics, politics…

[abzmike]

S600BSB said:

abzmike said:

So if this wasn’t a good idea in the past, why does the chancellor think it’s a good idea - in economic terms - now? Or does focus grouping trump fiscal policy

Politics, politics, politics…

Quite… opposition parties are going to have a field day as he starts flip-flopping on everything - the accusation he levels at them on tediously daily basis.

[Wombat3]

Newc said:

Double Fault said:

Newc said:

It's as if you genuinely think the people in this category are incurring any kind of cost to the public purse bar some amount of tarmac wear between Northolt and Mayfair.

I'm curious - why do you think it is better if they leave? Is it not better to have them choose to be in the UK and pay some taxes here, than go to Monaco and pay none? Are you volunteering to make up the shortfall?

Happy to see ultra-rich, greedy, offshore tax haven types clear off. I know it’s all above board but personally I find it reprehensible.

The shortfall, if any, would probably be nominal in the grand scheme of things, so unlikely to sink the UK.

But again, why? Why is it not better to have some tax? Any shortfall makes everyone else worse off, so your approach is directly responsible for making UK taxpayers poorer.

Am reminded of the 10 men in a bar......

[Gecko1978]

Double Fault said:

sugerbear said:

Where can I wave them off?

Quite.....good riddance.

sort of misses the point if you earn say £10m but pay no tax but spend £5m a year on stuff in the UK you are creating jobs etc. If we impose tax they might just up an leave then £5m of jobs go with them. It might stick in the throat but we need rich folk to buy stuff and services provided to them by us serfs

Edited by Gecko1978 on Thursday 29th February 22:25

[CoolHands]

That’s ok, it’s the principle. If they want to fk off let them. In reality the banks will just pay them a bigger bonus and pension package to offset the tax.

[Wombat3]

CoolHands said:

That’s ok, it’s the principle. If they want to fk off let them. In reality the banks will just pay them a bigger bonus and pension package to offset the tax.

There's an extraordinary number of people seemingly willing to cut their own noses off around here.

UK non domestic status is nothing that unusual by international norms. If we make it clear we don't want these people here they will happily go and spend their cash elsewhere.

[Skeptisk]

Wombat3 said:

CoolHands said:

That’s ok, it’s the principle. If they want to fk off let them. In reality the banks will just pay them a bigger bonus and pension package to offset the tax.

There's an extraordinary number of people seemingly willing to cut their own noses off around here.

UK non domestic status is nothing that unusual by international norms. If we make it clear we don't want these people here they will happily go and spend their cash elsewhere.

It is not normal by international standards. Yes some other places have similar eg some Swiss cantons but most rich industrial nations do not have it.

Is everything about money? Why don’t we twist other laws to suit billions? Should the law on rape be flexible depending upon your bank balance and how many bottles of champagne you order at the Ritz?

I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of non doms to understand who they are. Are they captains of industry or Russian oligarchs and dictators’ offspring?

We should be more confident of the UK and its ability to attract people because of its qualities as a place to live, not because of a tax dodge. Interestingly in Switzerland the cantons where you would want to live eg Zurich have abolished their equivalent with mainly those cantons in the middle of nowhere still having it.

[easytiger123]

They're obviously going to announce this at the same time (I assume) that they announce abolishing Inheritance Tax and position it as net neutral from a fiscal perspective. It's a fairly shrewd move for a number of reasons. At the margins it won't make a huge difference to non doms, but more importantly it steals Labour's thunder as this, along with VAT on school fees is one of the only two policies they've actually articulated so far. And most importantly it takes away Labour's ability to continue with (and this would inevitably have increased as GE campaigning begins in earnest) the ad hom attacks on Sunak and his family.

So, my takeaway is it's part of a bigger plan to try and win some ground back ahead of the GE. Won't help them win in my opinion as that ship has sailed, but it's a reasonably smart tactical play.

[JagLover]

S600BSB said:

abzmike said:

So if this wasn’t a good idea in the past, why does the chancellor think it’s a good idea - in economic terms - now? Or does focus grouping trump fiscal policy

Politics, politics, politics…

Yes

I doubt anyone really thinks that the change will be a net fiscal benefit. It is convenient for other things. For Labour it means if they want to make a new spending commitment they can pretend it will be paid for by this means. Similarly for the Tories, if they do go down this route, they can pretend the money will arrive to pay for some favoured cause, or tax cut.

[Wombat3]

Skeptisk said:

Wombat3 said:

CoolHands said:

That’s ok, it’s the principle. If they want to fk off let them. In reality the banks will just pay them a bigger bonus and pension package to offset the tax.

There's an extraordinary number of people seemingly willing to cut their own noses off around here.

UK non domestic status is nothing that unusual by international norms. If we make it clear we don't want these people here they will happily go and spend their cash elsewhere.

It is not normal by international standards. Yes some other places have similar eg some Swiss cantons but most rich industrial nations do not have it.

Is everything about money? Why don’t we twist other laws to suit billions? Should the law on rape be flexible depending upon your bank balance and how many bottles of champagne you order at the Ritz?

I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of non doms to understand who they are. Are they captains of industry or Russian oligarchs and dictators’ offspring?

We should be more confident of the UK and its ability to attract people because of its qualities as a place to live, not because of a tax dodge. Interestingly in Switzerland the cantons where you would want to live eg Zurich have abolished their equivalent with mainly those cantons in the middle of nowhere still having it.

OK, well, more accurately there are plenty of other places around the world (including some in Europe) where these people can go if they wish (usually with better weather!).

Being a non dom does not and never should infer any kind of criminal immunity, that's just silly.

Attracting people to the UK because its a great place to live is likely to be losing its shine at that end of the income spectrum IMO.

If you can afford to live anywhere i'd view the UK as being highly over-rated these days.

Edited by Wombat3 on Friday 1st March 08:47

[Tom8]

hidetheelephants said:

xstian said:

Tom8 said:

Like all the envy taxes the labour party proposes, this one will also generate little but sounds good to Jo public. I agree people should contribute. These people may not directly but indirectly they will probably contribute far more than the rest of us through purchasing high value goods, hospitality, accommodation etc etc.

You should probably read the news link or at least the headline in the OP.

Don't spoil his crayoning.

The point is it is a labour policy the tories are going to steal. Not hard to follow really.

[xstian]

Tom8 said:

hidetheelephants said:

xstian said:

Tom8 said:

Like all the envy taxes the labour party proposes, this one will also generate little but sounds good to Jo public. I agree people should contribute. These people may not directly but indirectly they will probably contribute far more than the rest of us through purchasing high value goods, hospitality, accommodation etc etc.

You should probably read the news link or at least the headline in the OP.

Don't spoil his crayoning.

The point is it is a labour policy the tories are going to steal. Not hard to follow really.

[Hants PHer]

JagLover said:

I doubt anyone really thinks that the change will be a net fiscal benefit. It is convenient for other things. For Labour it means if they want to make a new spending commitment they can pretend it will be paid for by this means. Similarly for the Tories, if they do go down this route, they can pretend the money will arrive to pay for some favoured cause, or tax cut.

I agree with this. Both parties have boxed themselves into a corner where they can't fund their promises. They can't, or won't, raise the major taxes - if anything the Tories want people to think they'll cut those taxes - and they say they won't borrow to fund everyday expenses. The bond markets might not allow it anyway, There are vague mumblings about GDP growth but that's not happening any time soon, if ever.

So instead we now see both parties - as you say - pretending that ideas like abolishing non-doms will fill the coffers and enable various public spending commitments. Pledging to spend money that you might not even have is optimistic, at best.

[Skeptisk]

Wombat3 said:

Skeptisk said:

Wombat3 said:

CoolHands said:

That’s ok, it’s the principle. If they want to fk off let them. In reality the banks will just pay them a bigger bonus and pension package to offset the tax.

There's an extraordinary number of people seemingly willing to cut their own noses off around here.

UK non domestic status is nothing that unusual by international norms. If we make it clear we don't want these people here they will happily go and spend their cash elsewhere.

It is not normal by international standards. Yes some other places have similar eg some Swiss cantons but most rich industrial nations do not have it.

Is everything about money? Why don’t we twist other laws to suit billions? Should the law on rape be flexible depending upon your bank balance and how many bottles of champagne you order at the Ritz?

I would be interested in seeing a breakdown of non doms to understand who they are. Are they captains of industry or Russian oligarchs and dictators’ offspring?

We should be more confident of the UK and its ability to attract people because of its qualities as a place to live, not because of a tax dodge. Interestingly in Switzerland the cantons where you would want to live eg Zurich have abolished their equivalent with mainly those cantons in the middle of nowhere still having it.

OK, well, more accurately there are plenty of other places around the world (including some in Europe) where these people can go if they wish (usually with better weather!).

Being a non dom does not and never should infer any kind of criminal immunity, that's just silly.

Attracting people to the UK because its a great place to live is likely to be losing its shine at that end of the income spectrum IMO.

If you can afford to live anywhere i'd view the UK as being highly over-rated these days.

Edited by Wombat3 on Friday 1st March 08:47

Yes there are options but it depends what you want. The UK offers a very high standard of living for the super rich. Generally very safe, great healthcare (if you can pay), stability, culture, restaurants, shops, tradition, etc.

Yes you can live on some sunny Island in the Caribbean but that probably gets old quickly.