[Closed] Should I forgive the Labour Party?

will it be retrospective?

From the Guardian story link. Abolishing non-dom status would have done nothing to prevent Sir Phillip Green / Top Shop paying the £1.2bn dividend to his wife and thus avoiding £300m in UK tax.

There are 120,000 people claiming non-dom status

@kimbers the last sentence was irrelevant, the important bit was Balls said abolishing non-doms would probably be counterproductive. He knows that's the case as the last Labour government would have looked at it closely if at no other time then just before the General Election as its a headline grabbing policy.

What he was advocating is identical to my view which is to tighten up the rules and increase the payments

From the Guardian story link. Abolishing non-dom status would have done nothing to prevent Sir Phillip Green / Top Shop paying the £1.2bn dividend to his wife and thus avoiding £300m in UK tax.

Setting an angry, armed mob of disgruntled taxpayers on him the second he set foot back in the country might though. I think Ed should try that as a policy, personally 😀

just5minutes - Member

- 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

Why assume they'll suddenly employ no staff?

Why assume that they won't buy property (as they can still return to the UK) or for that matter that nobody else will buy the property?

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.”

Regardless of that last sentence, in January he believed that "If you abolish the whole status it will end up costing Britain money because some people will leave the country." and now apparently it will raise a lot of money.

Which is it ?

obviously all will be revealed in the final details, allthepies, im sure 😉

its funny that the best the torries could do is try and misrepresent Balls interview, they know this will cost them votes(and in some cases money to the taxman) and are panicking

[quote=kimbers said]
its funny that the best the torries could do is try and misrepresent Balls interview, they know this will cost them votes(and in some cases money to the taxman) and are panicking

They're pointing out that in Jan Balls believed one thing and is now saying another. Hardly misrepresenting him.

the last sentence was irrelevant

* both are examples of politicians just being politicians [ in different ways] and why none of us respect them.

binners - Member
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!

I see a bigger issue that arbitrarily assigning to others, or complying with oneself, to crass left/right ideals, just for the sake of it.

We're [i]still[/i] spending more than we earn as a nation - publicly and privately - an uncomfortable fact which even Robert Peston is sufficiently concerned to speak up about: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32203874
[i]
" in the absence of a productivity resurgence that led to a rise in the UK's earning capacity, questions would at some point be asked about the ability of the UK to repay its debts"[/i]

We're spending the money of future generations and we're generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

It's all good and well collecting ideals and morals and a good many of them we should rightly aspire to, but it is worth remembering that although we're bigger than Greece, we're not immune from anything that is happening there right now. A bit more rigour on spending would do no harm - so my friends in parts of the public sector tell me.

we're generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

Dont vote labour or pint will cost a GRAND

Whilst it is a catchy slogan it is also a little OTT.

FWIW the full quote - where he fails to warn us as you have

Now in the absence of a productivity resurgence that led to a rise in the UK's earning capacity, questions would at some point be asked about the ability of the UK to repay its debts - including government debts that rose at a rate of 5% of GDP last year and are forecast to reach a peak of 80% of GDP (the point is that when productivity is low, earnings tend to stagnate, so tax revenues are lacklustre).
At that ill-starred juncture, sterling would weaken, not because the UK economy was thought to be a little less robust than America's, but because of rather more profound anxieties about its (our) ability to pay for the standard of living we take for granted.
And as the Bank of England acknowledged in its so-called stress tests last year of UK banks, after a fall in sterling of some unspecified magnitude, the Bank's monetary policy committee would have to significantly increase interest rates - to ward off the seriously inflationary consequences of a collapsing currency.
At that point, house prices would plummet, as would the spending of households still shouldering debts that are very high by historic standards.
The UK would be back in the recessionary poo.
[b]Now for the avoidance of doubt, the probability of this kind of calamity is low, though not negligible.[/b]

I see a bigger issue that arbitrarily assigning to others, or complying with oneself, to crass left/right ideals, just for the sake of it.

Really odd that - it will be class next!! Cue Ronnie Corbett & Co....

I really don't see how it's spin to use a quotation, you can't even say its out of context.

@Northwind - you could assume they will move their staff/office to wherever they are located, they won't need such a large London property. No one is suggesting they will all go but its the marginal effect which is important, tax raised vs tax lost.

There have been far bigger tax dodges, Labour putting stamp duty up a lot but neglecting to shut the stable door in allowing people to buy using offshore companies (a technique well known and widely used around the world). For years allowing non-residents to buy/sell property without paying capital gains tax. Both these have been closed by the Tories now and stamp duty raised massively but for years these would have cost billions.

I do wonder how many buy to let landlords are not declaring rental income, I wonder if HMRC do an audit of student towns to cross reference rent declared vs number of students in the city ?

I do wonder how many buy to let landlords are not declaring rental income, I wonder if HMRC do an audit of student towns to cross reference rent declared vs number of students in the city ?

I think we probably know the answer to that one. As far as HMRC are concerned, there's probably only 2 buy-to-let landlords in the entire country.

I really don't see how it's spin to use a quotation, you can't even say its out of context.

You are probably alone in the universe, in needing it explaining to you, why omitting the last sentence is spin.

its the marginal effect which is important, tax raised vs tax lost.

[quote=Junkyard said]
You are probably alone in the universe, in needing it explaining to you, why omitting the last sentence is spin.

Add me to the list, the last sentence is not relevant. It's just qualifying the "removing nom-dom status will reduce government income" January statement with "but we think it's the right thing to do".

Now apparently, removing nom-dom status will increase government income. That's the point which is being made, in Jan it would reduce income, now it will raise income. Which statement is the correct one ?

Junkyard - lazarus

we're generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

Dont vote labour or pint will cost a GRAND

Whilst it is a catchy slogan it is also a little OTT.

Junkyard - lazarus
FWIW the full quote - where he fails to warn us as you have

Peston said:
[i]"Well, recent figures show there has already been something of a hiatus in business investment, and businesses have a habit of postponing and cancelling big investments till they are in a position to assess a government's direction."[/i] It's not only elections that hinder investment.

I very doubt I am alone in the Universe with that view, quite possibly not even in the minority 🙂

From the Telegrapgh - the non-doms pay nearly the same amount of tax as do the bottom 50% of taxpayers. With increasing personal allowance i strongly suspect the non-doms will pay more.

I guess that's one difference between you and I JY in that numbers are what matters most. As I posted you can't pay for the NHS with morals (principals). That takes actual money. We agree that it's not only the money which is why i want to see non-doms abolished and I am glad they did away with non-residents not paying capital gains tax on property for example.

You are not lynton crosby and I dont claim my £5

“The Tories have edited my words from January in an attempt to deliberately mislead people because they can’t defend their own refusal to act on tax avoidance.

“They have dropped the part of my interview where on non-domicile rules I say: ‘I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.’ That is exactly what we have proposed – ending a situation where people permanently living in the UK year after year can claim non-domicile status to reduce their tax bills and play by different rules to everyone else.”

Why do you think the Tories eidted it there then if not to mislead?

Overstate is probably more accurate.

jambalaya - Member

you could assume they will move their staff/office to wherever they are located, they won't need such a large London property.

You can assume anything you like, doesn't mean it's true. And of course the people who contribute the most in these ways are exactly the ones with the greatest reason not to relocate.

At the end of the day, it is largely guesswork, and unsurprisingly some people's guesses are very different from others- of course, there's always lots of people ready to declare that every change will have a negative effect. The minimum wage will hurt business, policy X will cause everyone to leave, twas ever thus. What's not guesswork is that paying less tax because you're "non-domiciled" when you're simply not, is ridiculous. Removing illogic and dishonesty from our tax system is a weird thing to cause such dissent.

Switch it around. You are a domiciled taxpayer and businessman. Your next door neighbour is a non-dom, for some mysterious reason. He pays less tax than you; why? Damn it all, it's not fair! I'm going to move money offshore so I pay less tax too! We're always assured that the rich will flee the country to avoid paying more tax, or employ an army of lawyers and accountants to reduce their "tax burden"... So let's apply that logic here, what are the marginal benefits to making the system fairer and more sane?

You only provided an excerpt of the article, people need to read it themselves for the full picture

numbers are what matters most

Northwind - I am against the non-dom rules as they stand and for reasons similar to those you quote but abolishing it all together is counterproductive in my view. Further reform is what we need.

I would rather be poorer and moral both personally and as a nation.

You can reduce wealth inequality in this country by asking all the rich people to leave. Doesn't really help though does it, even if you personally feel a bit better for a while before the reality of higher taxes/inferior services start to bite?

Harrison Bergeron "might" have a different view on what defines moral jambas!!

I love the way that a Labour government taking the country to war was either "unavoidable" or "exactly what the Tories would do"

Yet at the same time Cameron seeing that Syria was not popular or uncomplicated, calls for a vote and Labour supporters, still, want to take the credit for stopping him going to war.

Labour the theory, maybe, the Labour party, not a hope. If it was between them and UKIP, i would spoil my ballot.

jambalaya - Member

Northwind - I am against the non-dom rules as they stand and for reasons similar to those you quote but abolishing it all together is counterproductive in my view. Further reform is what we need.

The thing is, the current non-dom system is so broken, it needs to be reformed beyond any recognition. IMO it just makes sense to start over from basic principles (pun intended).

Certainly, the outcome for those that the thread seems most concerned with- those flight risks whose tax avoidance we should all be grateful for- should be the same regardless of whether we reform it to be fit for purpose, or scrap it and start over with something less mad. And that kind of negates the argument IMO- if they're going to leg it because we abolish their non-dom status, they're equally going to leg it because we reform non-dom enough so that they can't abuse it.

Good article in FT today

Britain’s politicians are battling to win the award for 2015 party with the silliest and most dangerous tax commitments.....

not allowed to cut and past but...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a9a826c-dd30-11e4-a772-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WcFhbZ00

Jammy - are you seriously holding up the Daily Telegraph as an independent source of information on this subject? 😆

That'll be the same paper that used its front page, only last week, to criticise labour, in an open letter signed by 100+ Obscenely rich Tory donors and tax dodgers?

A paper that is owned by..... erm.... oh yeah.... 2 obscenely rich, Tory donor tax avoiders ....

[img] [/img]

You're being satirical, I asume? 😆

[img] [/img]

I'm thinking of joining this lot:

[url= http://www.wewilldrivethemtotheairport.co.uk/ ]we will drive them to the airport[/url]

They can add the non-doms to that list

They are saying it's going to rise money despite Ed Balls saying the contrary 2 months ago.

“I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up.

“That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.”
[b]‘I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.[/b]

You can reduce wealth inequality in this country by asking all the rich people to leave. Doesn't really help though does it, even if you personally feel a bit better for a while before the reality of higher taxes/inferior services start to bite?

You sure beat that straw man to death there 😕
Its really not a fact this will cost us money despite your certainty.

But he didn't say they were going to be 'tougher' this morning, he said they were going to abolish it!

Balls and Miliband both independently used the word abolish, in Milibands case several times in fact

Direct mili quote: "The next labour government will abolish the non-Dom rule"

soobalias - Member
I love the way that a Labour government taking the country to war was either "unavoidable" or "exactly what the Tories would do"

Yet at the same time Cameron seeing that Syria was not popular or uncomplicated, calls for a vote and Labour supporters, still, want to take the credit for stopping him going to war.

you might want to look up what actually happened there, in both cases

1/3rd of labour MPs rebelled against the final iraq war vote , it only passed because 90% of the tories voted for war (its almost as if most MPs hadnt actually bothered to read the dodgy dossier)

Cameron had absolutely no choice but to call a vote, even Blair didnt have the temerity to try that, in the end the Tories got it spectacularly wrong on Syria, theyd already lost 1 vote on arming the rebels (or IS as we now call them) and even deployed fighters in readiness to strike by the 2nd vote

[quote=ninfan opined]But he didn't say they were going to be 'tougher' this morning, he said they were going to abolish it!

I think you have confused Ed with his leader there 😛
Clearly labour have been back pedalling all day due to the video but they can [ just] argue they have not gone against what he said. Its just about plausible.

No, Miliband was challenged with that and quite specifically overruled/contradicted Balls earlier position

Did the back pedalling comment not cover this point?

Its just you restating the same thing. Yes they said abolish and they still have but you can have it for a temporary period if its genuine but not indefinitely hence its abolished and yet not...clear? Its not a great argument but they can argue it that way and that the later statements were clarifications.
Anyway I would rather have thought you would have admired their temerity in putting fwd a point that not even they believed that was almost plausible 😛

Clearly it was not a good day for labour but they did ok in "rescuing it"

I am still not sure why the Tories editted the video as that seems like another obvious own goal...though of course we wont discuss that as openly...probably because there are not tories on here

It's a sad reflection of the state of British politics imo that a general election campaign should be derailed into a pointless point scoring argument over an edited clip with contradictory claims about who meant exactly what.

Well done the Tories if the aim was to avoid talking about the real issues and reduce everything down to childish schoolyard taunting.

It all smacks of negative US style "politics".

Very Very true ernie.

the need to stay on message and say exactly the same thing is why we end up with such anodyne delivery by politicians in relation to questions

Its all fuelled by the media looking for disagreement and the party machine tries to enforce a standard view on all issues...as if we really think there is not a range of opinions within parties.

who said this?

The remittance basis has existed for a long time. The hon. Gentleman said that it sat ill with the party of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, but the remittance basis in fact goes back long before their premierships to the 1800s, and both those extremely distinguished former leaders of my party saw fit to leave it in place. Businesses see it as playing an important role in ensuring that the UK attracts skilled people from abroad to work, do business and invest. We would place ourselves at a significant competitive disadvantage if we simply scrapped the remittance basis at a time when countries with low tax regimes are competing to attract talent and investment-that would be an own goal. I do not think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was calling for, but as he mentioned competitiveness, it is important to explain why the arrangements exist.

At the same time, the remittance basis continues to play a valuable role in supporting competitiveness, which is particularly important, as I have said, in the current economic climate and as the economy moves back towards growth. Of course, it should not be forgotten that non-domiciles still contribute a significant amount of tax-it is estimated at £4 billion a year-to the Exchequer.

I hope that I have made clear the importance of the current non-domicile tax regime for the UK economy.

as for this

FWIW they have done recent research that says they can make £1 billion from this

Jolyon has a predominantly litigation based practice in the fields of direct and indirect tax. He has particular expertise in avoidance, structured finance, intangible property, tax and judicial review, and employment taxation.

Its not quite JHJ levels of evidence but yes it is not robust.

TBH apart from those who think it will cost us money [ and some of those dont like it ] does anyone really think its fair folk can live here and not pay tax? Some of them really are taking the piss, head of HMRC for example

It should be ended

You seem to have proved that the labour party has altered its position on something over time. Do political parties really change policy over time with different leaders.
Well I really dont know what to say about that

As above can we at least discuss whether it is a good or a bad idea as this is pointless

I meant HSBC there not HMRC 😳

big_n_daft - Member

who said this?

You say it as if you are providing some sort of shocking new revelation big and daft. The last Labour government was well known for its extremely favourable and sympathetic attitude towards the super rich in our society, why do you think that a multibillionare like Rupert Murdoch threw his support, and that of his newspapers, behind New Labour?

Here's another shocking revelation which presumably will be news to you. Back in 1998 New Labour Business Secretary Peter Mandelson became notorious for saying that the then New Labour government was [i]"intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich".[/i]

And btw since leaving office the former New Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way makes himself "filthy rich".

Using your logic you presumably think that Labour were wrong to vote against bombing Syria because Tony Blair would have. Ed Miliband should be following exactly the same policies as Tony Blair. The behaviour of the last Labour government should be the template for all future governments.

I don't doubt that policies such as scrapping the tax advantages of non-dom status are designed to attract votes from those likely to defect to parties such as the SNP and the Greens, something which Tony Blair never had to worry about, but for me it falls well short of convincing me that there are sufficient differences between Labour and the Tories.

Besides I could never give my full support to a party with no democratic structures and whose policies were decided by one man, no matter how many "left-wing" policies they came up with.

It's a sad reflection of the state of British politics imo that a general election campaign should be derailed into a pointless point scoring argument over [s]an edited clip with contradictory claims about who meant exactly what.[/s] issues that are minor in the grander scheme of things (ZHC and Non Doms) instead of fundamental to addressing the UK's economic challenges.

Well done [s]the Tories [/s]labour if the aim was to avoid talking about the real issues and reduce everything down to childish schoolyard taunting.

But if you are going to resort to this, at least get the story straight among yourselves. Otherwise the perma-tanned one will be back to tell us what's what. Oh, wait a minute.

There is plenty to attack the Tories on, so let's have an oppo who understands perspective please....

I don't know what is funnier (in a sad way) this nonsense or watching dear Nicola trying to defend her record in power. Not so convincing when she has to defend what she does instead of playing the poor beaten underdog is she!!!

Junkyard - lazarus
I would rather be poorer and moral both personally and as a nation

So in order to comply with your sixth-form common room ideals, you would happily plunge others into poverty? That's megalomania.

Being poor on a global scale is no joke. Being in currency or financial crisis is no joke; as those who had savings frozen in Cyprus, or those who've lived with rampant inflation in Argentina, for example.

This is what pisses me off the most about UK politics; the petty-minded, self-interest groups. It's all "me,, me, me", people talking about what they, or their tribal group want, rather than taking the view of what, overall, is best for the whole nation and its future.

I feel that if we, as a nation, had better principles, then we would all be better off. So my 'me me me' is to want less 'me me me'. How does that work? Is that self interest or not?

[quote=teamhurtmore said]Otherwise the perma-tanned one will be back to tell us what's what. Oh, wait a minute.

[url= http://newsthump.com/2015/04/08/britain-faces-mass-destruction-within-45-minutes-unless-labour-win-warns-blair/ ]Too Late[/url]

😀

digga - Member
....This is what pisses me off the most about UK politics; the petty-minded, self-interest groups. It's all "me,, me, me", people talking about what they, or their tribal group want, rather than taking the view of what, overall, is best for the whole nation and its future.

So presumably like our billionaire chums, you only keep enough income and wealth to sustain a modest lifestyle and donate the rest to help the poor, the vulnerable and the weak?

Northwind - my proposed back of the envelope reforms would be as follows and quite simple to implement;

NonDom status can only be claimed by non UK passport holders born outside the UK
Status can be claimed for a max of 5 [or 10] years
NonDoms pay full UK tax on UK earnings (as now) plus an annual fee of £50,000 [or £100,000] payable immediately and not after 7 years as currently
Students are exempt from the fees

JY - Balls interview says exactly what I believe ie that the system needs to be reformed/tightened up and that abolishing it is counterproductive. Its just 2 months later Labour have announced a policy which totally contradicts what the would be chancellor said, namely that abolishing non-dom status would raise money.

This reminds me of the predictions made when the account disclosure deal was signed with Switzerland, predictions where for billions to be raised in tax when the fact is it's raised a few £100's millions as most of the funds where legitimate and if tax was due it was only on the interest which with rates historically low was minimal.

It's a sad reflection of the state of British politics imo that a general election campaign should be derailed into a pointless point scoring argument over an edited clip with contradictory claims about who meant exactly what

Ain't that how the media always deals with politics? Any Paxman interview is infused with "didn't you say that?" Etc.

I'm not so sure that's anything new even for this country.

But I agree with your sentiment.

epicyclo - Member
So presumably like our billionaire chums, you only keep enough income and wealth to sustain a modest lifestyle and donate the rest to help the poor, the vulnerable and the weak?

Do not take this to mean I have any chip on my shoulder about other people's conspicuous wealth; that is, in a free society, entirely their business. The guy who regularly drives his Ferrari F12 past my office does me no harm and, rather, brightens up the day with a rare piece of automotive sculpture. Each to their own.

Even the ultra-rich, I am less concerned with the fact they have such wealth than with the means by which they gain it. There is something wrong there, but mere taxation will not solve it. The how and why are more complex and a good deal of it lies with the links between politics, government, big-business and these ultra-wealthy individuals. See Tony BLiar as just one example.

TBH apart from those who think it will cost us money [ and some of those dont like it ] does anyone really think its fair folk can live here and not pay tax? Some of them really are taking the piss, head of HMRC for example

But that's not what Non Dom actually means. There are c115,000 non doms of which only 5,000 have elected to pay the annual charge so that their income outside of the UK is not taxed - they still p[ay the annual charge PLUS normal income tax on income earned inside the UK.

It's also worth mentioning that the 5,000 non noms who pay the annual charge pay the same amount of tax as the 10,000,000 lowest earners. This should caution against making stupid back of the fag packet policy decisions - for every 1 of those non doms who decides the Labour policy is enough to make them relocate we need to replace them with 2,000 new tax payers.

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on. Clearly they can do this and that is the SOLE reason why they stay as non doms, they do not do it because it costs them tax money. To be fair I could have written it clearer but by this stage i assume we all know what we are discussing

So in order to comply with your sixth-form common room ideals, you would happily plunge others into poverty? That's megalomania.

Jesus wept that is one interesting way to spin I value my[our] morals and fairness above maximising[our] my money. Can I spin it back to you and ask you how low you would stoop just for the money ? Cigarettes to children? Slavery ? Legalised and taxed drugs? We all have a moral point at which we would not do certain things [ that would make money]therefore all we are doing is discussing where this line is drawn. The only childish sixth form thing here is that comment.

Being poor on a global scale is no joke.

Junkyard - lazarus
...we are in the top 7 of the 200 + countries in the world. Given that what exactly is your point?

History is littered with spent empires and nations. Look at the demographic problems in (relatively) wealthy modern economies that are presently getting into trouble; Portugal, Greece, Spain, Japan. Once there are no opportunities for indigenous or immigrant youth, there is a very difficult to reverse spiral of agedness.

But that's not what Non Dom actually means. There are c115,000 non doms of which only 5,000 have elected to pay the annual charge so that their income outside of the UK is not taxed - they still p[ay the annual charge PLUS normal income tax on income earned inside the UK

But J5M we abandoned perspective at the start of the week in favour of headline grabbing froth-making. A latte anyone?

So digga what you are saying is if we are not careful we will become a third world country or we will go the way of the Roman Empire? We lost /gave away our empire and we are still standing.
I disagre and think that is a bit OTT tbh. It could happen [ as almost anything could] but its so unlikely it not worth discussing - no offence not meant to read as harsh as it does.

THM you are correct that the tax avoiding mill/billionaire no dom resident is atypical for the UK and non doms but I am not sure why that fact means we should not legislate against them, could you explain?

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on.

Right, so how much tax did you pay on your foreign earnings (that had already been taxed locally) last year Junky?

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on. Clearly they can do this and that is the SOLE reason why they stay as non doms, they do not do it because it costs them tax money. To be fair I could have written it clearer but by this stage i assume we all know what we are discussing

FFS. All non doms pay full UK tax on their UK income. the 5,000 or so that also pay an additional annual charge of up to £90K a year do not pay income tax on their earnings outside the UK.

Do they do this[ [pay the 90 k] to

1. Save money by avoiding tax?

2. Not save money ?

If its the former [ we all know it is] they are avoiding tax

You can get as angry as you wish writing your replies but they take* non dom. No one is arguing status to avoid tax.

Can we just debate whether it is a good or a bad idea rather than why they do it as we all know why.

* yes its a minority as discussed earlier and this is who we are discussing

meanwhile.....

1. They don't avoid any tax on UK income.

2. 5,000 of the 115,000 pay an annual fee instead of tax on income earned outside of the UK. These people typically own substantial businesses / investments outside of the UK.

3. If we force the 5,000 to pay full tax on their investments outside of the UK the odds are most will move to another country where they don't need to.

4. The 5,000 pay around £8.2B in tax. If Ed Millband is right we can take away non dom status and they will all stay - it's an unknown if the income tax on offshore investments will be greater than the amount collected through the annual charge. If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

1. They don't avoid any tax on UK income.

Which is no doubt minimised via tax havens to reduce any tax they do pay.

2. 5,000 of the 115,000 pay an annual fee instead of tax on income earned outside of the UK. These people typically own substantial businesses / investments outside of the UK.

So about 4.3% then. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

3. If we force the 5,000 to pay full tax on their investments outside of the UK the odds are most will move to another country where they don't need to.

BINGO! Used every single time. I haven't noticed swathes of bankers leaving the country of late. It won't happen.

4. The 5,000 pay around £8.2B in tax. If Ed Millband is right we can take away non dom status and they will all stay - it's an unknown if the income tax on offshore investments will be greater than the amount collected through the annual charge. If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

DOUBLE BINGO!

Lets face it, their overseas earnings will be held by company A which is owned by company B etc... which is owned by some tax haven.

If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

I take it you didn't read the rest of the thread then. To repeat, losing some tax would be a price worth paying to have a fairer system where everyone is treated equally and lives by the same rules. Money is not the issue here.

To repeat, losing some tax would be a price worth paying to have a fairer system where everyone is treated equally and lives by the same rules.

There we agave it ladies and gentlemen, 'He would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich!'

Good old lefties, it never changes...

Junkyard - lazarus
So digga what you are saying is if we are not careful we will become a third world country or we will go the way of the Roman Empire? We lost /gave away our empire and we are still standing.
I disagre and think that is a bit OTT tbh. It could happen [ as almost anything could] but its so unlikely it not worth discussing - no offence not meant to read as harsh as it does

You are correct that we have ceded a large part of empire and influence, but that is different to saying there is no further to fall. As I say, just look at the very real economic and long-term demographic problems in other developed nations around the world today.

Digga we may fall catastrophically but only if capitalism falls . We may fall a little bit but we are not going to crumble as a nation because Attila the huns empire or Alexander the greats empire eventually failed.

Can you answer the question Just 5 minutes

Do they do this[ [pay the 90 k] to

1. Save money by avoiding tax?

2. Not save money ?

the odds are most will move to another country where they don't need to.

I do rather like the reading Ninfan and other right wingers arguing that they let very rich non doms avoid tax because they care about the poor people and taxing them means you hate the poor and want to hurt them. 😆

Now all you need to do is convince the electorate of the truth of this viewpoint. Good luck, I think you might need it

Sometimes on here its like the end of fighting talk when folk have to defend the indefensible and they say things like that but for the giggles

RE: War.

what was the bottom line kimbers?

So here is my understanding

The £8.2bn of UK taxes paid is by all non-doms, 115,000 people (approx) not just the 5,000 who pay the fee. Note this is UK tax income not just the fees

As a non-dom you pay £30,000 after 7 years of living in the UK and £90,000 after 17 years in order to not pay UK tax on your non-UK income. From above I see the figure of 5,000 people pay these amounts. The other 110,000 pay no fee.

As a non-dom you may pay non-UK tax on your non-UK income, that would depend where that income is and the tax laws in those countries

@Adam you haven't noticed bankers leaving, do you actually follow this ? How would you notice ? As someone who's been in Finance for nearly 30 years I can tell you many bankers have left the country post the financial crises mostly as the number of jobs has declined markedly, some have left for tax reasons after the top rate when to 50%. If you look at the number of non-doms it peaked around 2006/7, I strongly suspect the number has fallen as banking jobs have been lost.

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that's another issue.

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that's another issue.

and look how thats helped the greek economy helped screw the eurozone and ultimately drag everyone into the crap

Kimbers you are hurting not only the poor of the UK but of Greece with that crazy leftie talk....I wished you cared about them 😥

JY I may have posted this before .. whilst non-dom status may not exist other countries have attractive tax regimes, tax breaks etc

Switzerland - taxes vary widely by Canton and can be legitimately negotiated but if you live in Zug income tax is zero, they have a wealth tax of some 0.25% but you can offset expenses against it. You can elect in many cantons to pay tax based upon the size of your property, so if you live in an apartment for example you may pay very little
USA - wide varience in tax rates by state, some states have zero state tax like Connecticut, lots of deductions so the wealthy typically pay around 15%
Portugal - I read yesterday tax on pensions is zero, designed to encourage people to relocate and retire there
Dubai - income tax is zero
Hong Kong - top rate of tax is 15%
Singapore - top rate of tax is 20% (from equiv £175k) paid on earnings, zero tax on investment income and capital gains

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that's another issue.

On the contrary. This IS the issue. Its all part of the bigger picture of what London has become. They (Greek Shipping Magnates) are the very personification of group of pretty dubious people who feel that taxation is for the 'little people'. I suppose you also think the Russian Oligarch being encouraged to make London their home, are also pictures of ethical probity?

The fact of the matter is that the City of London, as ethical as we all know it is, [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/londons-laundry-business.html?_r=0 ]is awash with dirty money from all over the world[/url]. And the people who've come here to have it laundered are only paying a token tax contribution.

Its about time that we as a society stopped not just tolerating them, but indulging them. They'll still come and have their money laundered. Where else are they going to go and find such a willing ethical vacuum?

Greece's problems are a bit more deep rooted than shipping magnates taking non-dom status and the abolition will not help them one jot.

Greek shipping magnates have helped the UK by paying taxes here and spending money.

Once again, as long as it helps the bottom line, balances the books, then anything goes. No matter how morally dubious.

Brilliant!!!

The scary thing is, those in government think exactly the same.

They have helped themselves - "helping" us was incidental. They have also shafted their own people in the process. Few of us will feel like helping them or being so charitable in our description of them.

@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is "dodgy" ?

@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is "dodgy" ?

Good question. But it a lot of cases, its hardly difficult. The people who we're talking about here, like Putins cronies, generally have reputations which precede them.

And I'd suggest that a still unreformed culture of 'no questions asked' espoused by [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/avinash-tharoor/banks-cartel-money-laundering_b_4619464.html ]the likes of HSBC[/url], and pretty representative of The City in general, is the polar opposite of the aproach needed to actually address the issue.

If there were any will or desire whatsoever to address it. Which they're clearly isn't.

The scary thing is, those in government think exactly the same.

Except they don't. Read the link I posted before, Considerable time is spent addressing tax policy including cross-party committees. They also spend more considered time debating what is and isn't fair and recognise that this is not as simple as some make out. There is not moral superiority/absolute in the notion of equality of outcome. Having said that, there is cross party support for an element of redistribution within tax policy but that is not the be all and end all.

FWIW. HSBC employs a very large number of people to counter your accusation. Your point may suggest that they are not doing their job very well, which as a shareholder, is a point that I would accept,

@jambalaya

@Adam you haven't noticed bankers leaving, do you actually follow this ? How would you notice ? As someone who's been in Finance for nearly 30 years I can tell you many bankers have left the country post the financial crises mostly as the number of jobs has declined markedly, some have left for tax reasons after the top rate when to 50%. If you look at the number of non-doms it peaked around 2006/7, I strongly suspect the number has fallen as banking jobs have been lost.

To be honest, I haven't noticed. That's the whole point. I haven't noticed.

Let them leave. It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

[quote=AdamW said]

To be honest, I haven't noticed. That's the whole point. I haven't noticed.
Let them leave. It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

If "the richest" all clear off, how does that help the poorest BTW ?

It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

Indeed, so good job that the stats do not support that idea. Check out income inequality under this lot!

Let them leave.

You haven't noticed a shortage of bankers ?

If we carry on losing bankers at this rate soon we won't have any banks.

Let them leave. It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

Top 1% pay 30% (close to) of the taxes
I did a calc recently posted on here which shows that someone on £250k pays 47 times more tax than someone on £17k
Non-doms pay £8.2bn which Telegraph estimated was equal to the total tax paid by the bottom 50%
Massive increases in stamp duty, Kensington and Chelsea pay something like 7% of the stamp duty collected in the whole country - that was before the last big hike by the Tories
London generates £34bn more in taxes than it receives in govt spending

My guess is banking jobs are down by 200,000 since 2008, clearly most in relatively low level positions but many many senior jobs gone in London. I personally think this is a factor in the reduction of average earnings as these are all above average paying jobs