[Closed] Should I forgive the Labour Party?

I wonder what percentage of the cabinet/shadow cabinet are privately educated oxbridge graduates. I am sure your right Ernie about the numbers but what about the numbers where the real power is, the heart of government so to speak.

Well the Leader of the Labour Party isn't privately educated, but yes, the Shadow Cabinet of this recently dissolved Parliament had a higher percentage of privately educated politicians than the average for Labour.

The average of Labour MPs privately educated was 10% while the Shadow Cabinet was 22%. That's still less though than 36% of the Coalition Cabinet.

Interestingly 52% of all Conservative MPs and 41% of all LibDem MPs received private education which suggests that the Cabinet was less "elitist" than the majority of both Conservative and LibDem MPs, the reverse of Labour. Very Strange 😕

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/28/elitism-in-britain-breakdown-by-profession

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31140623

Not surprising that the numbers are so low. Why waste a good education? 😉

And no sign of football on the list - Eton should never have introduced rugby!

Labour, Tories, LibDem and UKIP are all the same party.

In case you didn't hear that properly:
Labour, Tories, LibDem and UKIP are all the same party.

All controlled by the EU and elite networks, and whoever gets 'elected' just does what they're told by their bankrollers.

I can't believe it's 2015 and people talk about these parties like there's a ****ing difference

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the JiveHoneyJive Party

Vote human remove the lizards

... whoever gets 'elected' just does what they're told by their bankrollers.

Whilst I don't disagree that there aren't sufficient and significant differences between the Conservatives Labour and the Liberal Democrats to give people a meaningful and worthwhile choice between them, how does your claim that they do "what they're told by their bankrollers" fit in with your theory when the Labour Party is bankrolled by the affiliated trade unions?

Are you seriously suggesting that the affiliated trade unions are telling the Labour Party to behave like Tories?

Are you seriously suggesting that the aims of the affiliated trade unions are the same as the aims of wealthy tax dodging Tory donors?

Today's Labour Party completely ignores the wishes of the Trade Unions which founded it to represent them in Parliament, and which today still keeps it from bankruptcy by pouring millions into their coffers every year. It's time everyone, including trade union members, woke up to that fact.

Today's Labour Party completely ignores the wishes of the Trade Unions which founded it to represent them in Parliament, and still today keeps it from bankruptcy by pouring millions into their coffers every year. It's time everyone, including trade union members, woke up to that fact.

It is strange that basically the trade union doesn't really represent the political views of it's members. Many people are "obliged" to join for any number of reasons but not actively participate. The Union leadership then push their views onto the Labour party who then chooses to ignore them, perhaps because they are not the views of society as a whole.

Blaming Labour for a shift to the right or a shift to electability is also an interesting idea. Would it please you more to have had no labour government but a labour party in opposition who's ideas were not in line with a majority of the country.

While I agree that protection of workers rights and standing up for what is right is important, in many ways the trade unions have disappeared up their own arses and left common sense a long way off. The last one I was asked to join I had to decline as they were a bunch of mad fantasists with no idea how the rest of the UK was doing while demanding a 6% pay rise and unconditional bonuses of about another 6% while the rest of the publicly funded UK was getting 2%. The worst bit is they thought they were worth it.

If these threads remind me of anything it's that people don't vote for policy, they don't look forward and it's to the detriment to the future. Blame politicians all you want but then ask what you did to change it.

Many people are "obliged" to join for any number of reasons ...

I didn't bother reading beyond that. No one is "obliged" to join a trade union.

No one is "obliged" to join a trade union.

Most of the people I knew joined for self serving reasons with no interest in influencing the policy of the Labour party.

Most of the people I knew joined for self serving reasons

So they were not obliged to join then.

Not something which I necessarily agree with but that's the law. Your claim was false.

Well done ernie, add another gold star to your Pedantry badge. I guess that makes my entire argument invalid then...(if you had bothered to read it)

EDIT as ernie spotted it as well: its not pedantry you have given two different reasons for why they joined oh and said you were asked to but declined - shall we call that three reasons?

woo hoo I made a mistake with my language, may the gods of STW punish me....

The link between unions and labour is there but it might be time for it to be broken for both their sakes. Political parties need to exist in the context of the current world. If enough people supported a real socialist government you would probably get one. Problem is not enough do.

Junkyard - lazarus
Vote human remove the lizards

ernie_lynch - Member
Whilst I don't disagree that there aren't sufficient and significant differences between the Conservatives Labour and the Liberal Democrats to give people a meaningful and worthwhile choice between them, how does your claim that they do "what they're told by their bankrollers" fit in with your theory when the Labour Party is bankrolled by the affiliated trade unions?

Are you seriously suggesting that the affiliated trade unions are telling the Labour Party to behave like Tories?

Are you seriously suggesting that the aims of the affiliated trade unions are the same as the aims of wealthy tax dodging Tory donors?

If I was a statist and wanted to vote for a government I would want to know what secret societies anyone I'm supposed to vote for belongs to. And also who goes to Bilderberg meetings.
But we're not told these things and yet people still put faith into a bunch of sick, occult-obsessed, paedo-ring apologist psychopath to$$ers.
No thanks, my conscience couldn't let me.

I voted for Labour once - 1997.
I really thought they would do some good - the smoking advertising ban was a big thing.
Then,the ban was discarded, as Bernie Ecclestone had donated £1m to the Labour party.
Of course, they said the 2 things weren't related.
They are all back stabbing s**ites who would sell their Mother rather than do the right thing.

Blair has got to be the worst PM in my lifetime - he did the job for himself, not the Country, and made sure he would be a multi-millionaire when he left office.
Thatcher gets most of the diatribe about poor PMs, but she had principals, as did John Major, who was not a great PM, yet he is respected still as he didnt sell us out, unlike Blair and Brown (who sold our gold off for a ridiculously low sum).

I keep hearing 'gold'.... What use was it being put to? I would rather have £5 for a tyre I've never used in my shed today than the uncertain promise it will be worth £20 tomorrow. Especially if I really need that £5.

If tomorrow it was worth £20 i would get on with my life.

And if you feel like saying "it was a lot more than that", how much was it per person?

Anyway, shit happens. Doesn't mean it will happen again. Do you really think it was a deliberate move?

How is you ability to predict the price of gold anyway? I assume you're making a mint on the international metals market?

OK, sorry, this sounds a little rude, but it's what I think when I hear than line again!

Just a vent in general really.

woo hoo I made a mistake with my language, may the gods of STW punish me

I'm not a statist because I don't believe I need a government to tell/force me how to live my life. Do you?

IMHO there are some pretty obvious areas where it is best that we all agree the rules and behave in a certain manner for the greatest benefit of us all. Say the roads for example. I dont think having no rules or enforcement of the rules would lead to better driving conditions/standards for or by all users.

Government was a response to lawlessness. look what happens in governless countries still today. Whatever you want to describe it is as it not an outbreak of brotherly love and mutual respect for human rights.

Government is not perfect the alternative is far worse.
I agree its usually OTT and I remain a libertarian where the role of the state is largely to protect you from harm [ physical, financial, health and well being not just an enemy]

Apropos of politics in general, I quite enjoyed this BBC piece this morning on What's Gone Wrong With Party Politics - "the campaign consists of insults thrown with passionate force across the distance of a pinhead." I like that. 🙂

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32121502 ]Linky[/url]

Fear not Tony Blair is here!

The snivelling little hypocrit has arrived to help / destroy Eds chances of success.

Hang on a minute Tony, didn't you promise a referendum for the people on the EU in 2004 and 2005? Thought so.

Maybe with his reappearance we can at least slap a war crimes charge against him?

LHS - Member
Fear not Tony Blair is here!

The snivelling little hypocrit has arrived to help / destroy Eds chances of success.

Wallace needs more help to look unelectable - who knew?

Bliar is a self-serving liar. The EU issue ought to be very simple, were it not deliberately obfuscated by those with a stake.
1. In general are governments and politicians honest, efficient, hard-working and self-less, or are they self-serving, manipulative, corrupt and deaf to the concerns of voters?
2. Given your thoughts on the above, do you want more or less layers of government and tax-takers?

FFS! Just don't vote for Labour for 3 to 4 terms to let others have their fill coz Labour had theirs already. Put it this way they are all the same especially those large parties ...

Chill man chill! Have fun and turn the politics up side down for once as nothing much will change because the equilibrium is there. i.e. the British society will eventually balanced thing out in the following election.

Wake them ZM up and don't let them take you for a ride. None of them can guarantee you a better life but they will definitely guarantee themselves a better one if you do not stir things up. Power gets to their heads and if they are not taught a lesson to behave.

I mean stick to/vote the same party? Are you over 60s? 🙄

Trust the politicians? You might as well jump off London Bridge.

I would love an ID card - bloody useful to have instead of lugging a passport around.

And more convenient than having to check if you have a recent electricity bill.

I would love an ID card - bloody useful to have instead of lugging a passport around.

And more convenient than having to check if you have a recent electricity bill.

Until you lose it (or it's stolen) and suddenly you're denied all sorts of essential services and find yourself having to defend your right to be in the UK...

and find yourself having to defend your right to be in the UK...

Surely that's only really a problem for non-whites and those who speak English with a foreign accent ?

mikewsmith - Member

Blaming Labour for a shift to the right or a shift to electability is also an interesting idea. Would it please you more to have had no labour government but a labour party in opposition who's ideas were not in line with a majority of the country.

Abso-****in-lutely. That's what you do- you stay true to yourself and to your beliefs and if temporarily the country doesn't support that, you do whatever you can to change their minds. Otherwise you might as well not bother. If you change everything you hold precious in order to win, or you turn into your opposition to "beat" them, you already lost. Winning at any cost is futile.

Arguably though, they didn't have to make the swing to the right, that's the real tragedy of it.

Don't be silly, singling out people like that for scrutiny would be racist

It's like Police searches, every search of a ninety year old war veteran on his way to a remembrance parade or a great grandma toddling back from the shops with her tartan wheely cart is another box ticked and another potential terror attack foiled!

ernie_lynch - Member
Surely that's only really a problem for non-whites and those who speak English with a foreign accent ?

When my Geordie colleagues speak I tend to ask them to speak English, same goes to Liverpudlian, Brummy, Scots, Welsh or Irish etc ... 😆

With my strong North Borneo accent I speak to them in such a way slowly "Could ... you ... speak ... English ... please ... I ... don't ... understand ... you" Bang! All hell break loose ... 😆

Until you lose it (or it's stolen) and suddenly you're denied all sorts of essential services and find yourself having to defend your right to be in the UK...

FWIW the lack of ID cards is one of the reasons cited by illegal immigrants for coming to the UK

With my strong North Borneo accent .......

Have you actually got a right to be in the UK, North Borneo doesn't sound like part of the EU ?

You should forgive the Labour Party, but Tony "Iraq" Blair killed it, Gordy "Vow" Brown danced on its grave and Jim Murphy is pissing on it.

ernie_lynch - Member

With my strong North Borneo accent .......

Have you actually got a right to be in the UK, North Borneo doesn't sound like part of the EU ?

The Queen, Tony Blair and the Geordie say yes because they like me so I did not have to jump out from the back of a lorry.

FWIW the lack of ID cards is one of the reasons cited by illegal immigrants for coming to the UK

Is it true for the other 4 areas in the EU without EU ID cards?

The Queen, Tony Blair and the Geordie say yes because they like me so I did not have to jump out from the back of a lorry.

I bet Nigel Farage wouldn't like you.

I'm not convinced that you didn't jump out from the back of a lorry anyway. Got any proof?

[img] [/img]

Source?

Non-Dom

What Labour cannot say is how much this will actually riase or indeed if it will cost money. Seems odd they did nothing about the status for 13 years when in power when the number of non-doms increased dramatically.

I do think the rules should be reformed, eg non-dom payment due immediately (not after 7 or 17 years) and can be claimed for a max of say 5 or 10 years and never again. Upfront payment of £50,000 or £100,000 due immediately status is claimed. That would see upfront payments of £5.5bn to £11bn plus the taxes due on UK income. Surely a better solution.

I don't think as proposed this will raise money, Abramovich isn't going to suddenly start paying hundreds of millions in taxes. He will move abroad and spend 30 days a year here. There is a very real risk this move would reduce the tax take.

From what I read non-doms currently pay around £130,000 on average in UK taxes - that would implies a total tax take of £14bn from the 110,000 non-doms plus of course all the VAT they would pay and money they put into the economy not least by running a UK business/office as many do (and on which they pay UK taxes of course).

opps - seem's there is a recording of Balls on BBC Radio Leeds saying in January that abolishing non-dom status would probably cost the treasury money in lost taxes.

[img] http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/585737195249655808/photo/1 [/img]

[url= http://amp.twimg.com/v/7cb7f0ad-0fbc-4481-9837-987c3dc593fb ]Video: Reforming rules raises extra taxes, abolishing them probably costs money[/url]

I don't think as proposed this will raise money, Abramovich isn't going to suddenly start paying hundreds of millions in taxes. He will move abroad and spend 30 days a year here. There is a very real risk this move would reduce the tax take.

I couldn't care less if it reduces the tax take. It's a moral question, and some things are above money, like everyone living by the same rules, irregardless of how rich they are.

Is it true for the other 4 areas in the EU without EU ID cards?

Which are they, AAMOI ?

Got off my lazy ass and Google'd - from Wikipedia:

"National identity cards are issued to citizens of all European Union member states except Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom".

Denmark does not have a national identity card, but it does have a yellow health card which serves essentially the same purpose, and has an efficient system of identity numbers (CPR-nummer) which are used for keeping track of more or less everything.

JY, French TV interviewing immigrants camped out at Calais waiting to jump onto Lorries. Its easier to work illegally in the the UK than in France.

Employment legislation might well be poorly implemented in the UK compared to other European countries but that is not because the UK lacks ID cards. To employ someone legally requires information such as NI number and tax reference. If someone can manage to find work without providing that information then I'm fairly confident that they would be able to find work without an ID card.

French TV interviewing immigrants camped out at Calais waiting to jump onto Lorries. Its easier to work illegally in the the UK than in France.

the lack of ID cards is one of the reasons cited by illegal immigrants for coming to the UK

FWIW I heard them same the same thing this am when they interviewed some in the new camp in Calais this am on Radio 4.

neither they nor you mentioned ID cards

What Labour cannot say is how much this will actually riase or indeed if it will cost money.

Seems odd they did nothing about the status for 13 years when in power when the number of non-doms increased dramatically.

Abramovich isn't going to suddenly start paying hundreds of millions in taxes. He will move abroad and spend 30 days a year here

this
[b]Wont pay cant stay
[/b]

JY he can go to 20 games a year (that's most home games) and all the Champions League away matches, still have 10 days left over. He recently bought two large houses in New York to knock into one place. Rich people in the US pay 15%-20% as there are so many offsets.

The interviews I heard where in French (translated by the wife) last week not the R4 ones I think. Also the mayor of Calais also said the UK should be forced to adopt open EU borders so we cannot stop these people at all.

@ernie, yes I take your point about finding work illegally anyway but in France the police can stop you and ask for your ID which you are obliged to carry at all times. So the police could turn up at a place of work and ask for everyone's ID. I am always surprised at how the wife carries her ID card or passport all the time and takes the rule very seriously, I have to confess I generally carry only my UK drivers licence there which isn't formally sufficient. We have today thankfully re-introduced exit checks so at least we have an idea about how many people are overstaying their visas

non-doms - well isn't tax policy about raising money ? As soon as it becomes a moral argument and we don't care if tax take is less then we have lost our way IMO. i think we should have a policy which encourages foreigners to come here and live/run their businesses but one which doesn't allow abuse by British passport holders and which has a finite eligibility period.

non-doms - well isn't tax policy about raising money ? As soon as it becomes a moral argument and we don't care if tax take is less then we have lost our way IMO.

It's about basic fairness, and that fairness underpins the entire system. If one group of people are allowed to buy themselves out of the rules which the rest adhere to, then confidence in the system is damaged and the rest will think it's fair game to avoid/evade tax, and we all know how much you're opposed to that from the Greece thread. As with any law, it only works if the population at large supports and obeys it.

By the way the 30 day rule is the most restrictive one. He might be able (probably as he has good advice / lawyers and can re-organise easily) to spend 90 days a year here without being tax resident.

Then we could say only UK residents can own a football team etc. If he wont play ball * then why should we ?

As daz keeps saying its about fairness not money
FWIW I am perfectly comfortable with the knowledge that principles and doing the right thing cost me/ the country financially. Others choose to count the pennies first then worry about morals afterwards.
This approach is not the right one and if I have to explain why it still wont be understood.

* get it eh.

@dazh - I think we agree, its just my proposal is we change the rules. For example 50k or 100k payment minimum when you declare non dom (currently it's nothing for first 7 years then 30k) and tax on all you UK earnings (as now). Max period you can claim status is 5 or 10 years and you can only claim it if you do not hold a British passport.

Plenty of countries have tax rules/payment holidays to try and encourage people to relocate themselves or their businesses. Ireland (not sure if they still do this) you pay no tax if you are a writer or musician and they give very big tax breaks to aircraft leasing for example. Germans have something similar for shipping. Portugal has tax breaks for people retiring there (trying to encourage Brits and Germans to retire there instead of Spain)

@ernie, yes I take your point about finding work illegally anyway but in France the police can stop you and ask for your ID which you are obliged to carry at all times

Don't think that's true, actually, and certainly not true for foreigners, since they ditched the "carte de sejour".

EDIT ... hmmm ... maybe I'm thinking of Holland ...

Where as here our police have no stop and search powers at all and if you just say I wont tell you when asked your name and address and refuse to provide any ID they just shrug and let you walk off.

FWIW it seems they can do it bit they dont do it as a routine matter. ie it seems more restricted than stop and search

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F1036.xhtml

So the police could turn up at a place of work and ask for everyone's ID. I am always surprised at how the wife carries her ID card or passport all the time and takes the rule very seriously

If your wife is French it won't be because she needs to prove a legal right to work that she has got into the habit of carrying her ID, ID checks can be carried out for all manner of things unrelated to employment.

And I would be interested in knowing how the amount of occasions in which "the police could turn up at a place of work and ask for everyone's ID" in France compares with the amount of occasions in the UK that the authorities turn up at a place of work checking people's legal status. I doubt that it is much more common in France or that the UK authorities are a serious disadvantage when they raid a workplace.

jambalaya - Member

in France the police can stop you and ask for your ID which you are obliged to carry at all times. So the police could turn up at a place of work and ask for everyone's ID.

Jamba, with respect, don't believe everything you think. The french id card is voluntary, and there's no legal requirement to carry it even if you have one. They also don't have a general right to challenge for ID (IIRC they can only do so within 20km of an entry point, as part of another investigation, or to prevent a breach of order)

JY, UK only would be against EU law. So it would have to be only EU residents/entities. Then you'd have to get UEFA to agree and deal with the existing foreigner owners (and deal with litigation ?), then you'd have to legislate for people setting up EU holding companies (Lux or Ireland) or getting an EU lawyer to be the nominal owner. Abramovich doesn't love Chelsea enough to pay the UK £10's millions in tax. He stood for election as provincial mayor in Russia, then passed a law to say there was zero tax on commodity profits, then channeled all his profits via that province before sending them to Cyprus (?). the thought a change in non-dom is going to impact him is naive. Dogs breakfast and just for one person ?

I strongly believe the non-dom status needs further reform but abolishing it is counterproductive.

@Northwind - Really ? I will check with the Mrs, but my understanding is you must have either your passport or an ID card at all times as I said she carries hers everywhere. The French love bureaucracy, compulsory to carry car registration, insurance and drivers licence.

but my understanding is you must have either your passport or an ID card at all times as I said she carries hers everywhere.

When I lived in France I never bothered, I knew others that did though - it can make life easier if you are young and likely to be stopped by the police. The law might have changed since then to make the carrying of ID compulsory, but I very much doubt it.

Abramovich doesn't love Chelsea enough to pay the UK £10's millions in tax. He stood for election as provincial mayor in Russia, then passed a law to say there was zero tax on commodity profits, then channeled all his profits via that province before sending them to Cyprus (?). the thought a change in non-dom is going to impact him is naive. Dogs breakfast and just for one person ?

Again, it's not about the money. What you and others who defend the indefensible fail to understand is that to most people, money is a means to and end, rather than an end in itself. Some things are more important, like fairness, integrity, equality under the law etc. What you describe is the UK effectively whoring itself out to the highest bidder(s) in exchange for a tiny bit of GDP.

@Jamba - I gather it's a total pain in the arse if you can't identify yourself (by any means- not just ID card or passport) when challenged- they have the right to hold you for several hours to try to identify you. Which seems like a licence to harass, really.

I think I'd probably carry the card, just to avoid that- enforcement by hassle rather than mandate 😉

Jambalaya - Member
opps - seem's there is a recording of Balls on BBC Radio Leeds saying in January that abolishing non-dom status would probably cost the treasury money in lost taxes.

Video: Reforming rules raises extra taxes, abolishing them probably costs money

This is a classic Ed Balls moment and yet more proof that Labour should not even be left to run a bath, let alone an economy.

Pretty daft to think about tax policy and design without considering how this relates to total tax income. Fiscal policy 101.

Still some think raising the MRP to 50% or higher is a good idea/good political trap!! Actually in the case if the latter is was good as history shows us.

As usual, all the right wingers see is the bottom line. Nothing else is worthy of consideration. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

Its about living in a decent, fair society. And funnily enough, most people are more concerned about this the more the unfairness is tipped aginst them! Those nearer the top don't seem to care too much. Funny, that.

Non dom status is an archaic anomoly deliberately set up to be exploited by the rich, and is frankly morally indefensible. Don't take my word for it though, take it from a Tory....

There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.

Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained about the non-dom system to the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and and Customs, Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments “you can easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.

“No wonder people are pissed off. It’s extraordinary, frankly, in all honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have just told us exactly that is what there is.”

If this is Millibeans idea of the de-Blairification of the labour party, then about time too! Lets see if Dave will come out and mount a stirring defence of the 'moral' case for his mates (and donors) rights to pay no tax.

Can't help wondering if the govt made it a bit tougher for the big tax avoiders, if this wouldn't sort out all the budget problems and even allow a lower tax rate.

“No wonder people are pissed off. It’s extraordinary, frankly, in all honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have just told us exactly that is what there is.”

This seems to be the understood state of affairs for many, certainly I agree with that assertion.

Right now the right-wing media propaganda seems to demand that we kick the poor, or at the very least humiliate them until they suddenly decide to simply stop being poor.

Meanwhile, central government wants to ladle additional cost onto the aspirational classes (eg Student Loans, the ever-escalating cost of owning a home, season ticket prices etc) while we're told that we actually want a low tax economy and that "freedom of choice" means paying extra for things like a health insurance, dentistry, travel, etc to the point that we seem to be creating a two-tier system dividing the population into the haves and the have-nots.

I'm rapidly becoming more and more disillusioned with it.

[quote=epicyclo said]Can't help wondering if the govt made it a bit tougher for the big tax avoiders, if this wouldn't sort out all the budget problems and even allow a lower tax rate.

Drop in the ocean.

In 2012-13 Non-doms paid £8.2 billion in UK taxes (source HMRC via Telegragph)

That's a material amount "at risk". Milliband suggested abolishing the status would raise a few hundred million - lets assume £500m - that's just 6% more than the current take. It would seem very possible the tax change will lead to a few high earners leaving meaning we are much worse off.

@epic if it was a simple as that prior governments would have addressed that issue more vigorously. IMO the biggest issue we face is corporate tax structuring which abuses the EU treaties as encouraged by Ireland and Luxembourg in particular. However even that is quite small beer, our deficit is £90bn per year.

As usual, all the right wingers see is the bottom line. Nothing else is worthy of consideration. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

Or perhaps (leaving inaccurate labels aside), understand how it works in practice. You can't spend money on good causes if you don't have it in the first place. Govs don't have money. They have to raise it either though taxing people or borrowing. The ability to spend on good causes and also redistribute income/wealth is in part a function on how well the policy works - one reason why Labour only raised the MRT to 50% as a stunt.

Given that the folk you are targeting (possibly) Binners have made careers based on knowing the different between value and price, your accusation seems a little off target, mate! Funny though....

As usual, all the right wingers see is the bottom line. Nothing else is worthy of consideration. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

and you can always take the governments word on this (!?!)

Three features of taxation are especially important.

First, so long as taxation affects incentives it may alter economic behaviour of consumers, producers or workers in ways that reduce economic efficiency. These effects should be taken into account
when the costs and benefits of public expenditure to be funded are being assessed.

Second, the distribution of taxation’s impact across the population raises issues of equity, or fairness, which must be given substantial weight even if it entails costs in terms of economic efficiency.

Third, [b]the practical enforceability of tax rules[/b] and the costs arising from compliance are important considerations, the more so since [b]these are both affected by, and have implications for, the efficiency and public perceptions of the fairness of tax systems[/b].

HoC Treasury Ctte, Principles of tax policy

You can't pay the bills at the NHS with "morals" - see my post above non-doms pay £8.2 billion in tax

Wheres that figure from then? And you're assuming that we'd lose all that, are you? If they actually had to pay the tax they would have to pay in any other country in the world. No other country has non-dom status. So you assume they'll all just up and leave London? Yeah, right!

To me it just sounds like more of [url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/katie-hopkins-please-please-please-5408687 ]this kind of twoddle[/url]

The bankers were all meant to have decamped abroad by now, weren't they? I note we're still lumbered with the ****s though! They're not all in Frankfurt, after all! Mores the pity!

And Jim Davidson? What about him? And Mylene 'you can't buy a garage for under £2 million Klass? I thought they were off too? It'll be no different with the non doms. They'll whine and moan, because they want to have their cake, and eat it, but its all just bluster. When it atually comes down to it, they'll all stay exactly where they are.

the thought a change in non-dom is going to impact him is naive

So he is above the law and no one should care?
As a govt, and given he is a Non EU citizen we have some sway over how we treat him.Jam FWIW non dom can be passed down within families and many non doms have only ever lived here as have their parents- Surprised me that tbh They will not all up sticks as you seem to suggest.
As for Roman you seem to be both arguing he will both leave and not pay any more tax.

Pretty daft to think about tax policy and design without considering how this relates to total tax income.

The ability to spend on good causes and also redistribute income/wealth is in part a function on how well the policy works

Again I am perfectly happy with the risk [ overstated by those who oppose this, no doubt a small number will leave] that making tax fair runs the risk of some of them leaving.

ernie_lynch - Member

The Queen, Tony Blair and the Geordie say yes because they like me so I did not have to jump out from the back of a lorry.

I bet Nigel Farage wouldn't like you.

I'm not convinced that you didn't jump out from the back of a lorry anyway. Got any proof?

Yes, he might not like me but that is his problem.

😆 Now you want proof? 🙄 What sort of question is that? Are you secretly trying to be a vigilante? Anyway, if you are a left wing thinker you will not ask that question so I assume you are secretly a right wing thinker like many others, either way legal not I can vote as I have the rights to do so. 😈

Ernie are you a secret right wing thinker/militia/supporter? 😯

scotroutes - Member

No, it's not turkey voting for Xmas. It's more like creating political chaos. Many of you who keep voting for the same party is exactly like the turkey voting for Xmas IMO because you give too much power to one party believing that they can better your life. Do they or do they just look after themselves first?

Binns. the same report goes on

50. Poorly targeted policies can also create uncertainty for the tax payer. Our witnesses gave the rules for taxing non-domiciles as an example of such difficulties. Previously, non-UK domiciled individuals were taxed only on income which was generated in, or remitted to, the UK. In 2008, this was changed so that non-UK domiciled individuals were taxed on their world-wide income whether it was remitted to the UK or not. The remittance basis for non-UK income could be retained only if they made a payment of £30,000. John Dickie of London First said ‘The Government have estimated that they have raised, I think, £162 million in tax from non-domiciles paying the levy, which is 5,400 people paying it in its first year, which is below the original estimate [...].’

51. Andrew Hubbard, of RSM Tenon, and the past President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, told us:

I think that there are 500,000 non-domiciles, probably more than that, but the vast majority of those people who are non-domiciled have no overseas income; they’re your cliché Polish plumber, all those sorts of people. People that are second generation or third generation people who are non-domiciled who may not even know it. Their tax status under the old rules wasn’t affected by the fact they were non-domiciles, because all their income was in the UK. One of the issues that comes out of this is that if you’re going to tax non-domiciles then you have to have in your mind an entire picture of what you mean by non-domiciles because the rules as they were drafted, I think, have been drafted very much in the target of high-earning international-type non-domiciles, rather than those in the UK who may have very small amounts of income abroad, or go abroad for a few weeks to help on the familyfarm over the summer.

Those people are non-domiciles and I think one of the issues around trying to define policy in all of this is to say, “Okay, when we talk about non-domiciles or a group of people, what do we mean? Who do we have in the target?” And I think that that has been potentially why we’ve had so many difficulties in that, because the mindset of
who we’re dealing with is not necessarily rooted in reality.38

52. One of the difficulties is that there is no authoritative figure for the number of nondomiciles resident in the UK nor for the sources of their income. [b]The policy may be proportionate to the high earning wealthy individuals who are often highlighted in the media (or MTB forums), but it is not simple in relation to the modest circumstances of the vast majority of non-domiciled residents in the UK who may be unaware that their small amounts of overseas income should be declared, and should be taxed—or dealt with under double taxation relief provisions.[/b] That there are exemptions for some cases does not help when individuals are not even aware that they may be caught by the rules…. [b]The charge on non-domiciled individuals is only one example of a tax whose imposition may have had unforeseen consequences. [/b]

Did anyone mention "perspective"?

Still makes good headlines....

I think that there are 500,000 non-domiciles, probably more than that, but the vast majority of those people who are non-domiciled have no overseas income; they’re your cliché Polish plumber, all those sorts of people.

So it won't effect them any way then?

But it might effect this [s]tax dodging parasite[/s] clichéd Polish plumber

[img] [/img]

or this one...

[img] [/img]

No this was more helpful

And I think that that has been potentially why we’ve had so many difficulties in that, because the mindset of who we’re dealing with is not necessarily rooted in reality

Still makes good headlines....

[quote=binners said]I think that there are 500,000 non-domiciles, probably more than that, but the vast majority of those people who are non-domiciled have no overseas income; they’re your cliché Polish plumber, all those sorts of people.
So it won't effect them any way then?
But it might effect this tax dodging parasite clichéd Polish plumber

Doubt it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10535852

http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/zac-answers-lib-dem-smears/

losing some of the £8.2Bn from non-doms is the thin end of a much bigger wedge as pretty much anyone apart from Ed Balls has likely already worked out.

If we drive some / many non-doms away, we won't just lose the annual charge for being a non-dom, we will also lose:

- the VAT on the significant discretionary spending that oligarchs and the like do in the uk. The VAT on a single £300K car purchase pays for 20 hip replacements.

- loss of employment taxes on the many staff they employ

- the loss of stamp duty on properties they will buy - remembering that properties bought through company structures now attract 15% stamp duty and an annual charge

It's very likely that even if 1/2 the non doms leave the UK for good the "loss" won't be £4Bn but will actually be many times that.

will it be retrospective?

this was in 2010

By becoming non-dom after accepting his life peerage, Ashcroft may have saved an estimated £100m in taxes.

how many hip replacements is that?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/06/non-dom-refugees-ashcroft

[quote=kimbers said]will it be retrospective?
this was in 2010

The year Ashcroft gave up his non-dom status.

Firstly I will repeat I think the non-dom rules need to be further reformed, like I said no tax holidays (even Labour are proposing a 3 year tax holiday - not sure why accounting for students is such an issue as they reference) and a much higher upfront payment.

@binners no we are not going to lose it all far from it but I think we could lose more than the "few hundred million" Labour think it will raise.

JY we are discussing Abramovich as he's a high profile individual clearly very wealthy.

Mylene Klass / Jim Davidson all these performers have a lot of flexibility in how they are paid, they don't pay much via PAYE so can legally avoid a lot of different taxes. The Labour donor I posted about (Wind Farm owner) who used a company loan technique to pay £60k in tax instead of £1.5m-£2m, at some stage the tax will be due but he can push it back into the future and/or repay the loan at which point no further tax is due yet he's had the use of that money. Addressing these sorts of abuses would have a far greater impact.

I have posted before about how the traders at hedge fund Brevan Howard relocated to Switzerland when tax went to 50%, all the back-office / admin staff stayed in London - so minimum disruption to businesses but big loss in tax for the UK. There are plenty of examples.

I am not advocating not taxing the rich, the 1% pay 30% of the income taxes and do so at much higher rates. The non-doms pay £8.2bn (avg roughly £70k a head) and that does not include stamp duty and VAT which I would guess are substantial. I think its far more rational to keep the non-dom status but make it more expensive and only for non UK passport holders.

Romour has it he has left the lords to reclaim it

@just 5 minutes we can all play the lets use made up figures to prove my argument but its pointless as its all supposition mixed with your own personal bias.

Have you considered a career in economics?

JY we are discussing Abramovich as he's a high profile individual clearly very wealthy.

😀 😀 (ironic)

digga - Member
Jambalaya - Member
opps - seem's there is a recording of Balls on BBC Radio Leeds saying in January that abolishing non-dom status would probably cost the treasury money in lost taxes.
Video: Reforming rules raises extra taxes, abolishing them probably costs money

Ha ha.
This is a classic Ed Balls moment and yet more proof that Labour should not even be left to run a bath, let alone an economy.

/p>

so it now turns out the torries edited out a crucial final sentence in which Balls told BBC Radio Leeds “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/labour-accuses-tories-of-editing-ed-balls-non-dom-video-to-mislead-voters