Scrapping non dom status
Discussion
BikeBikeBIke said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
king off.Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I read a guardian op-ed yesterday that cheered the fact that 9,500 millionaires have already left the UK. That is an extraordinary number.
Over what period?I read somewhere a lot of millionaire Russians have left the UK to avoid possible sanctions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...
It was only in February that rumours were going round the conservatives were going to scrap non dom status and it doesn't come into effect until next year, so I doubt if any of the 9,500 who left over the last 12 months did so because of the announcement, although I guess some could have been looking into their crystal balls and predicting a labour victory
Although as labour are going to grow the economy it might be worh sticking round
NRS said:
Again you reply to something I never said. We need to make there be less of a difference between rich and poor where a smaller number of people earn far more than others over time. If that money was more evenly spread amongst the workforce instead of some jobs having massively increasing pay relative to the rest it will help. It will mean a lot more people earn a bit extra, so the people in the middle have more income and tax rates can be more equal. The combination of increasing equality with a smaller number of people taking more of the profits, combined with them bouncing countries to get the lower tax rates means the people in the middle have to pay more tax to make up for a) the lower tax rates paid at the top and b) less profits being spread between the people in the middle who pay the highest tax rates. So with growing equality and dropping tax rates to keep the rich in the UK results in your higher tax rates. Same goes for companies hiding/offshoring profits via stuff like paying made up prices between companies within the same groups to get rid of profits on paper etc. As they pay less tax someone else has to make it up - that’s the workers in the middle as big companies and rich people avoid a lot of the taxes, and those at the bottom don’t earn enough to contribute.
Anyone who thinks some tweaking of pay distributions will result in less tax being paid by any part of our society is dreaming. The government are spending way more than they receive right now. So any extra would maybe get them to only spend as much as they receive but doesn't even start to pay off what they owe. Then there is the growing interest on their debts too. I'd guess that if the government received more they would still spend it and more on top. The government think there is some magic money tree which keeps producing unlimited cash for them to spend. No one is balancing the books and they never will. The BoE has been continuing to buy government debt even after they announced an end to QE and them starting QT. There isn't enough buyers who want our debt without the BoE getting involved. That's very very bad. We look more like a developing nation. It's a joke that we sacked our PM after only 6 weeks in power. What a shambles. Carl_VivaEspana said:
Well, there are three families that I know from work closely just left U.K.. I think all of them are Brits but also have some family connections overseas. Reasons are, lower life standards, childcare, crime and guess what ? Weather! 
I genuinely find this recent trends of stereotyping people into some sort of evil rich lord non-sense. Non*dom status has always been clear and U.K. being massively international (lets make it London now), it always has some partial population of non*doms. It's really funny when societies can not accept hard truths eventually but start blaming their issues on minorities whether it would be EU, immigrant, refugees, expats or non-doms.
I wonder what would be the next trend? start blaming individual countries in U.K. ?
ATM said:
It's the sanctions we imposed on Russia due to the war which are scaring people. Anyone with money from a country that isn't definitely good friends with the West will see those sanctions as a sign of what could happen if we suddenly decide we don't like that country for whatever reason.
The sanctions have been in place for a few years and this seems to be an exodus in 2024. So political changes this year most likely. From the inevitable Labour government to the change in taxation of non-doms.
JagLover said:
ATM said:
It's the sanctions we imposed on Russia due to the war which are scaring people. Anyone with money from a country that isn't definitely good friends with the West will see those sanctions as a sign of what could happen if we suddenly decide we don't like that country for whatever reason.
The sanctions have been in place for a few years and this seems to be an exodus in 2024. So political changes this year most likely. From the inevitable Labour government to the change in taxation of non-doms.
JagLover said:
skwdenyer said:
Do you have data to support this idea of a sudden flight?
People are talking about the Guardian article above. If that isn't correct then there isn't one. Without data, this is just a discussion of hunches and orejudices!
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Nothing in that claiming it's 9500 non-doms that I can see.Wealthy people have always left the UK for sunnier climes. It's the retirement goal of many, and who can blame them.
I think the Guardian article is about another article which was posted by one of the wealth management companies, which didn’t show the numbers behind but stated that was where we were heading currently. I’m pretty suspicious it’s just a scare story because ‘Labour’ - just look at how many here on Ph are scared despite Labour/the Conservatives being so close in policy these days (basically there is little flexibility in the system to allow a big splurge like Labour would stereotypically do, and the Conservatives moved left on some stuff to try and win more voters).
Talksteer said:
As a sequence of statements some of them make sense, in practice everything is a lot more complicated than that.
I'm sure telling the government to "stop being stupid" or "spend less" hasn't ever been thought of in the past.....
In practice virtually every new government has tried to be more efficient or do some sort of review into spending. Most things are done for a reason typically because not doing them caused a worse outcome in the past, most departments have a day job that people are screaming at them to do 24/7 and they can't stop doing that day job.
We have had 14 years of real terms cuts across multiple departments and tiers of government. The problem with doing that is that the effects take some time to appear as stuff starts breaking down and then the cost savings are illusory as temporary and sticking plaster solutions start costing more. See people stuck in expensive hospital beds because they weren't seen soon enough or can't be sent to care places or locum doctors because we didn't train enough doctors 15 years ago.
The public realm is in a state, in terms of a fix there is a certain amount that will happen due to "animal spirt" being injected into both the civil service and the wider economy just by kicking the current shower out. There is a certain amount they can do by just approving a load investments in energy and infrastructure that are ready to go. There is whole lot that can be done by reforming planning and environmental legislation and providing enough certainty that the private sector invests. The new government can do this because of their likely massive mandate and because they aren't distracted by as much petty stuff like sending people to Rwanda or other culture wars stuff.
However beyond that a whole load of money does need to be spent to fix stuff today, given that quantitative easing and furlough resulted in direct transfers of assets to wealthy people it makes good sense to increase the amount of taxation levied on assets in such a way that predominantly the very wealthy pay for it.
Mmm yeah naah I think governments would default to "how do we get more revenue" before they think about spending less. Any actual spending reductions in one area will be more than consumed in other areas. The really inefficient bits of the government apparatus will likely be well out of the reach of any elected party who had the temerity to "spend less" during their tenure. And that'd be after the I'm sure telling the government to "stop being stupid" or "spend less" hasn't ever been thought of in the past.....
In practice virtually every new government has tried to be more efficient or do some sort of review into spending. Most things are done for a reason typically because not doing them caused a worse outcome in the past, most departments have a day job that people are screaming at them to do 24/7 and they can't stop doing that day job.
We have had 14 years of real terms cuts across multiple departments and tiers of government. The problem with doing that is that the effects take some time to appear as stuff starts breaking down and then the cost savings are illusory as temporary and sticking plaster solutions start costing more. See people stuck in expensive hospital beds because they weren't seen soon enough or can't be sent to care places or locum doctors because we didn't train enough doctors 15 years ago.
The public realm is in a state, in terms of a fix there is a certain amount that will happen due to "animal spirt" being injected into both the civil service and the wider economy just by kicking the current shower out. There is a certain amount they can do by just approving a load investments in energy and infrastructure that are ready to go. There is whole lot that can be done by reforming planning and environmental legislation and providing enough certainty that the private sector invests. The new government can do this because of their likely massive mandate and because they aren't distracted by as much petty stuff like sending people to Rwanda or other culture wars stuff.
However beyond that a whole load of money does need to be spent to fix stuff today, given that quantitative easing and furlough resulted in direct transfers of assets to wealthy people it makes good sense to increase the amount of taxation levied on assets in such a way that predominantly the very wealthy pay for it.
Talksteer said:
We have had 14 years of real terms cuts across multiple departments and tiers of government. The problem with doing that is that the effects take some time to appear as stuff starts breaking down and then the cost savings are illusory as temporary and sticking plaster solutions start costing more. See people stuck in expensive hospital beds because they weren't seen soon enough or can't be sent to care places or locum doctors because we didn't train enough doctors 15 years ago.
We have had 14 years or more of monetary policy which has been causing inflation. Now we are having to deal with this inflation.Who caused the inflation - the government.
The problem with inflation is it takes time to show up. And when it does it then takes a long time to go away or be abated IF we take steps to fight it. Which we aren't.
Inflation is now in everything and being seen everywhere. This goes for the costs to build roads and teach children. So if the government creates inflation they need to understand that everything will cost them more in the future or standards will all become poorer. Even if you don't cut spending in a department for vital services it will have less buying power because of inflation. And yes this will take time to show up - I agree. We are starting to see it now and it will get worse and worse. Does anyone in the government understand this? If they do they damn well are not telling Us about it are they?
Lets look at some of the stuff the government has done which was stupid.
Problem
House price are going up [inflation] and people can't afford to buy
Solution
Give them free money or access to more credit cheaply
Do I need to explain why this was stupid?
Problem
Energy prices are going up [inflation] and people can't afford it
Solution
Give people free money
Was about this one does it I need an explanation as to why it was stupid?
Energy companies are profiteering and over charging
Set price caps
Energy companies go out of business and the government has to pay up
Who in the government thought this one would work and do they get to keep their Job? I'd imagine a department full of people were behind this gem.
Do I need go on.
Yes a government is complicated with thousands of departments full of civil servants all getting paid to run around thinking of great stuff to do for Us all. But it all costs money. Nothing is free. Every person who works for the government has to be paid. All these salaries are a drag on us all. Government is just a big massive cost burden that the country has to pay for.
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on growing and growing?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on costing us all more and more every year?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on destroying our economy?
Do we think getting more tax revenue from some very wealthy people will fix all of this?
ATM said:
We have had 14 years or more of monetary policy which has been causing inflation. Now we are having to deal with this inflation.
Who caused the inflation - the government.
The problem with inflation is it takes time to show up. And when it does it then takes a long time to go away or be abated IF we take steps to fight it. Which we aren't.
Inflation is now in everything and being seen everywhere. This goes for the costs to build roads and teach children. So if the government creates inflation they need to understand that everything will cost them more in the future or standards will all become poorer. Even if you don't cut spending in a department for vital services it will have less buying power because of inflation. And yes this will take time to show up - I agree. We are starting to see it now and it will get worse and worse. Does anyone in the government understand this? If they do they damn well are not telling Us about it are they?
The few decades of money printing etc previously didn't cause inflation, it was covid where a combination of supply drying up, people getting free money and profiteering caused a lot of inflation. Which has already dropped a lot, so there has been a reaction from government and Central Banks to get on top of this. We have taken a bunch of steps which have had impacts, despite what you say. You must be living under a rock if you haven't seen the discussions about inflation and how to deal with it/soft landing etc.Who caused the inflation - the government.
The problem with inflation is it takes time to show up. And when it does it then takes a long time to go away or be abated IF we take steps to fight it. Which we aren't.
Inflation is now in everything and being seen everywhere. This goes for the costs to build roads and teach children. So if the government creates inflation they need to understand that everything will cost them more in the future or standards will all become poorer. Even if you don't cut spending in a department for vital services it will have less buying power because of inflation. And yes this will take time to show up - I agree. We are starting to see it now and it will get worse and worse. Does anyone in the government understand this? If they do they damn well are not telling Us about it are they?
ATM said:
Lets look at some of the stuff the government has done which was stupid.
Problem
House price are going up [inflation] and people can't afford to buy
Solution
Give them free money or access to more credit cheaply
Do I need to explain why this was stupid?
Problem
Energy prices are going up [inflation] and people can't afford it
Solution
Give people free money
Was about this one does it I need an explanation as to why it was stupid?
Energy companies are profiteering and over charging
Set price caps
Energy companies go out of business and the government has to pay up
Who in the government thought this one would work and do they get to keep their Job? I'd imagine a department full of people were behind this gem.
Do I need go on.
Yes a government is complicated with thousands of departments full of civil servants all getting paid to run around thinking of great stuff to do for Us all. But it all costs money. Nothing is free. Every person who works for the government has to be paid. All these salaries are a drag on us all. Government is just a big massive cost burden that the country has to pay for.
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on growing and growing?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on costing us all more and more every year?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on destroying our economy?
Do we think getting more tax revenue from some very wealthy people will fix all of this?
House prices and money - agree it was stupid.Problem
House price are going up [inflation] and people can't afford to buy
Solution
Give them free money or access to more credit cheaply
Do I need to explain why this was stupid?
Problem
Energy prices are going up [inflation] and people can't afford it
Solution
Give people free money
Was about this one does it I need an explanation as to why it was stupid?
Energy companies are profiteering and over charging
Set price caps
Energy companies go out of business and the government has to pay up
Who in the government thought this one would work and do they get to keep their Job? I'd imagine a department full of people were behind this gem.
Do I need go on.
Yes a government is complicated with thousands of departments full of civil servants all getting paid to run around thinking of great stuff to do for Us all. But it all costs money. Nothing is free. Every person who works for the government has to be paid. All these salaries are a drag on us all. Government is just a big massive cost burden that the country has to pay for.
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on growing and growing?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on costing us all more and more every year?
Do we want this big complicated mess to carry on destroying our economy?
Do we think getting more tax revenue from some very wealthy people will fix all of this?
Energy companies having too high profits and going bust after? Nope. The issue was a lot of pretend energy companies had set up, and were making a small profit on selling the energy too cheaply compared to the risk they took. Basically a common strategy in today's economy - make your money off charging "rent" on a service rather than providing something real. When energy prices jumped their contracts meant they couldn't charge customers the real price for the energy they were buying, and so as a group a lot of the ones lost billions paid for by their investors. The government then had to step in and help the customers who then were left without a company and create a "soft landing". It was not about stopping profiteering by the government, and shareholders/investors in the companies that went bust subsidised a lot of people.
NRS said:
ATM said:
We have had 14 years or more of monetary policy which has been causing inflation. Now we are having to deal with this inflation.
Who caused the inflation - the government.
The problem with inflation is it takes time to show up. And when it does it then takes a long time to go away or be abated IF we take steps to fight it. Which we aren't.
Inflation is now in everything and being seen everywhere. This goes for the costs to build roads and teach children. So if the government creates inflation they need to understand that everything will cost them more in the future or standards will all become poorer. Even if you don't cut spending in a department for vital services it will have less buying power because of inflation. And yes this will take time to show up - I agree. We are starting to see it now and it will get worse and worse. Does anyone in the government understand this? If they do they damn well are not telling Us about it are they?
The few decades of money printing etc previously didn't cause inflation, it was covid where a combination of supply drying up, people getting free money and profiteering caused a lot of inflation. Which has already dropped a lot, so there has been a reaction from government and Central Banks to get on top of this. We have taken a bunch of steps which have had impacts, despite what you say. You must be living under a rock if you haven't seen the discussions about inflation and how to deal with it/soft landing etc.Who caused the inflation - the government.
The problem with inflation is it takes time to show up. And when it does it then takes a long time to go away or be abated IF we take steps to fight it. Which we aren't.
Inflation is now in everything and being seen everywhere. This goes for the costs to build roads and teach children. So if the government creates inflation they need to understand that everything will cost them more in the future or standards will all become poorer. Even if you don't cut spending in a department for vital services it will have less buying power because of inflation. And yes this will take time to show up - I agree. We are starting to see it now and it will get worse and worse. Does anyone in the government understand this? If they do they damn well are not telling Us about it are they?
We import lots of stuff from China right. The prices of these items has been trending down for years and years. Yet the government says we have had no inflation. They have managed to save us from the dangers of deflation by printing more and more money. So if China makes stuff cheaper the government protects us by printing lots and lots of money, maintaining super low interest rates, getting the BoE to buy up lots of our government debt and telling us the economy is fine. And you believe all this. Perfect.
Now consider a scenario where China decides to no longer support us by maintaining cheap prices. They decide to let their currency strengthen. They stop buying lots and lots of debt from Us which was previously weakening their currency. This means all the stuff we import from China now gets more and more expensive. How will the government react to this? They could protect us from the dangers of deflation by printing money. But actual inflation in goods we buy from oversees they have no answer for. They could try to strengthen our currency as China strengthens theirs but that would mean increasing interest rates while we already have a debt to GDP ratio over 100% and we can't afford to pay the interest on this debt with higher and higher rates.
I will give you another possible scenario to consider. Let's imagine AI is amazing and helps all businesses globally save 10% per year for the next 5 years. Would we see falling prices as a result? You would expect us to right. Wrong. The government thinks Deflation or falling prices is very very bad. They want us to see nice and steady inflation of 2%. Therefore if prices do starts to fall they will come swooping in to save us from this potentially destructive situation by printing money and flooding the economy with more and more cheap debt. Because Deflation is bad.
What a load of garbage nonsense. But this is what they expect you to believe. Do you believe it?
Would falling prices really be that bad?
Do you really think the supply shocks of Covid caused the inflation we are now seeing?
Negative interest rates throughout Europe for years didn't cause any inflation?
Do you really think our government has any control of global prices?
I believe inflation is just getting started. I believe prices will rise and rise and rise for the next 10 to 15 years minimum. And as countries like China realise they have a market for their goods at home and in lots and lots of other countries around the world who are starting to get stronger and consume more stuff we will be less and less important to them. Our debt will become less attractive to the rest of the world and therefore the GBP will fall and as the price people are willing to pay for our debt falls this will means interest rates go up.
Soft landing - no chance.
All we produce is debt. If we can't export our debt what happens?
The ship is already sinking. Can you see that yet?
Rufus Stone said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Nothing in that claiming it's 9500 non-doms that I can see.Wealthy people have always left the UK for sunnier climes. It's the retirement goal of many, and who can blame them.
https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releas...
2017 to 2023 the number leaving the U.K was approx. 16,500
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Rufus Stone said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Nothing in that claiming it's 9500 non-doms that I can see.Wealthy people have always left the UK for sunnier climes. It's the retirement goal of many, and who can blame them.
https://www.henleyglobal.com/newsroom/press-releas...
2017 to 2023 the number leaving the U.K was approx. 16,500
Second, the UK trend is a decade long, and seems not to be especially "because Labour."
Third, unless you're a HNW advisory firm, not sure why the trend is especially bad for the country, TBH. The trend of *creation* of HNWIs per country is a barometer to some models of business success; it is that we should be perhaps more focussed on than whether it is easier/harder to bring your gold-plated Ferrari to London under a low-tax regime
skwdenyer said:
First, the data doesn't distinguish between people *becoming* HNWI and HNWI moving in/out.
Second, the UK trend is a decade long, and seems not to be especially "because Labour."
Third, unless you're a HNW advisory firm, not sure why the trend is especially bad for the country, TBH. The trend of *creation* of HNWIs per country is a barometer to some models of business success; it is that we should be perhaps more focussed on than whether it is easier/harder to bring your gold-plated Ferrari to London under a low-tax regime
The UK trend is probably more than a decade long?Second, the UK trend is a decade long, and seems not to be especially "because Labour."
Third, unless you're a HNW advisory firm, not sure why the trend is especially bad for the country, TBH. The trend of *creation* of HNWIs per country is a barometer to some models of business success; it is that we should be perhaps more focussed on than whether it is easier/harder to bring your gold-plated Ferrari to London under a low-tax regime
A lot of it is probably 'because Labour', i.e. Blair, Brown and Co.
OutInTheShed said:
skwdenyer said:
First, the data doesn't distinguish between people *becoming* HNWI and HNWI moving in/out.
Second, the UK trend is a decade long, and seems not to be especially "because Labour."
Third, unless you're a HNW advisory firm, not sure why the trend is especially bad for the country, TBH. The trend of *creation* of HNWIs per country is a barometer to some models of business success; it is that we should be perhaps more focussed on than whether it is easier/harder to bring your gold-plated Ferrari to London under a low-tax regime
The UK trend is probably more than a decade long?Second, the UK trend is a decade long, and seems not to be especially "because Labour."
Third, unless you're a HNW advisory firm, not sure why the trend is especially bad for the country, TBH. The trend of *creation* of HNWIs per country is a barometer to some models of business success; it is that we should be perhaps more focussed on than whether it is easier/harder to bring your gold-plated Ferrari to London under a low-tax regime
A lot of it is probably 'because Labour', i.e. Blair, Brown and Co.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff