Scrapping non dom status

[Oliver Hardy]

.:ian:. said:

Bassim Haidar in the link on the first page employed 20 people in his multiple houses and was going list one of his companies on the LSE.

So, 20 people out of a job and no £B IPO.

That's just one non dom.

Lots of minimum wage jobs in UK.

What has non dome status to do with where companies are listed?

[Skeptisk]

Mr Penguin said:

Also other countries have similar policies where high earners can reduce their income tax if they move there

https://www.government.nl/topics/income-tax/shorte...

https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2023/11/flash...

Did you read that before posting it? The Italian relief is on employment income so nothing like the non dom status. That is aimed at attracting globally mobile senior employees. They have something similar here in Denmark where you get taxed at a flat rate of 32% on Danish employment income. However you are still subject to Danish tax on your global investment income.

Switzerland has a similar tax regime to the non doms but not every canton offers it. Some cantons eg Zurich stopped doing it. I think they figured that they were attractive enough and didn’t need to bribe rich foreigners to live there.

I despair at the attitude of some on here. Just because something is tax positive does not make it right and acceptable. Should we have a free for all regarding drugs? I am sure that if you taxed the drug trade or money laundering or prostitution or human trafficking it would bring in lots of money but that isn’t a good reason to do so.

As others have said, to be acceptable to the population as a whole, tax systems have to be seen to be fair and equitable. Allowing rich foreigners to legally avoid taxes that they should pay does not sit right with most people and undermines support for the tax system (which will encourage tax avoidance and evasion on the basis of “well if the rich don’t pay their share why should I?”).

[Newc]

Still waiting for the 'good riddance' crowd to offer to reach into their own pockets and make up the tax revenue shortfall.

[Murph7355]

Rufus Stone said:

So do wealthy people resident here for tax purposes. Should we let them off some tax for the same reason and be grateful for what little we get?...

Out of interest, what little do we get from people at this end of the spectrum?

[Skeptisk]

Newc said:

Still waiting for the 'good riddance' crowd to offer to reach into their own pockets and make up the tax revenue shortfall.

If it costs me some extra tax, so be it.

[Gecko1978]

Skeptisk said:

Newc said:

Still waiting for the 'good riddance' crowd to offer to reach into their own pockets and make up the tax revenue shortfall.

If it costs me some extra tax, so be it.

That is nuts. Money goes into the economy either via tax or personal or busiess spending. Even if Mr or Mrs Non Dom pays zero income tax they spend millions in the UK all of which creates jobs and likely has VAT attached. Drive them away and it's gone and we aren't going to make it up by you paying a few £ it adds % to income tax

[Mr Penguin]

Skeptisk said:

Did you read that before posting it? The Italian relief is on employment income so nothing like the non dom status. That is aimed at attracting globally mobile senior employees. They have something similar here in Denmark where you get taxed at a flat rate of 32% on Danish employment income. However you are still subject to Danish tax on your global investment income.

Switzerland has a similar tax regime to the non doms but not every canton offers it. Some cantons eg Zurich stopped doing it. I think they figured that they were attractive enough and didn’t need to bribe rich foreigners to live there.

I despair at the attitude of some on here. Just because something is tax positive does not make it right and acceptable. Should we have a free for all regarding drugs? I am sure that if you taxed the drug trade or money laundering or prostitution or human trafficking it would bring in lots of money but that isn’t a good reason to do so.

As others have said, to be acceptable to the population as a whole, tax systems have to be seen to be fair and equitable. Allowing rich foreigners to legally avoid taxes that they should pay does not sit right with most people and undermines support for the tax system (which will encourage tax avoidance and evasion on the basis of “well if the rich don’t pay their share why should I?”).

The point is that they are tax breaks designed to attract well off foreigners (or I think in the Italian case, mostly bringing back Italian ex-pats).
Either we get a little money from them or they go elsewhere as we are now seeing. I agree that having this break was unpopular with the electorate.

[Killboy]

Gecko1978 said:

That is nuts. Money goes into the economy either via tax or personal or busiess spending. Even if Mr or Mrs Non Dom pays zero income tax they spend millions in the UK all of which creates jobs and likely has VAT attached. Drive them away and it's gone and we aren't going to make it up by you paying a few £ it adds % to income tax

Why tax anyone then?

[Rufus Stone]

Newc said:

Still waiting for the 'good riddance' crowd to offer to reach into their own pockets and make up the tax revenue shortfall.

Why don't you tell us how much it's going to cost us first?

[.:ian:.]

Skeptisk said:

Allowing rich foreigners to legally avoid taxes that they should pay does not sit right with most people and undermines support for the tax system (which will encourage tax avoidance and evasion on the basis of “well if the rich don’t pay their share why should I?”).

They already pay income tax on UK income, this is about taxing foreign income and gains, which is presumably already taxed in that country and bringing worldwide assets into Inheritance Tax, potentially for 10 years after leaving the UK.

hmrc said:

It is envisaged that the new rules will involve charging IHT on worldwide assets owned outright when a person has been resident in the UK for 10 years (the “residence criteria”), with a provision to keep a person in scope for 10 years after leaving the UK (the “tail” provision).

[Gecko1978]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

That is nuts. Money goes into the economy either via tax or personal or busiess spending. Even if Mr or Mrs Non Dom pays zero income tax they spend millions in the UK all of which creates jobs and likely has VAT attached. Drive them away and it's gone and we aren't going to make it up by you paying a few £ it adds % to income tax

Why tax anyone then?

Three groups in society

Poor
Middle
Rich

Poor pay nothing receive the most directly and same indirectly
Middle pay most tax directly recieve little directly same indirectly
Rich little direct tax large indirect no direct benefits same indirect.

So you have to have money going in to pay for the indirect stuff example kids or not you benefit from people being educated and able to read.

So charge rich more they leave an the middle has to pay even more and gets less

[Skeptisk]

.:ian:. said:

Skeptisk said:

Allowing rich foreigners to legally avoid taxes that they should pay does not sit right with most people and undermines support for the tax system (which will encourage tax avoidance and evasion on the basis of “well if the rich don’t pay their share why should I?”).

They already pay income tax on UK income, this is about taxing foreign income and gains, which is presumably already taxed in that country and bringing worldwide assets into Inheritance Tax, potentially for 10 years after leaving the UK.

hmrc said:

It is envisaged that the new rules will involve charging IHT on worldwide assets owned outright when a person has been resident in the UK for 10 years (the “residence criteria”), with a provision to keep a person in scope for 10 years after leaving the UK (the “tail” provision).

What U.K. source income do you think a non dom has that will be taxed?

Generally you can only get taxed (at least in full) in a country if you are resident there. So how do the countries in which the non doms make their money tax them, if they are resident in the UK? I fully expect that their tax advisers ensure that they don’t realise gains or receive dividends or other income where they are likely to be taxed significantly.

[Skeptisk]

Gecko1978 said:

Skeptisk said:

Newc said:

Still waiting for the 'good riddance' crowd to offer to reach into their own pockets and make up the tax revenue shortfall.

If it costs me some extra tax, so be it.

That is nuts. Money goes into the economy either via tax or personal or busiess spending. Even if Mr or Mrs Non Dom pays zero income tax they spend millions in the UK all of which creates jobs and likely has VAT attached. Drive them away and it's gone and we aren't going to make it up by you paying a few £ it adds % to income tax

What is nuts is your complete inability to see that there are other issues involved beyond pounds and pence.

[Killboy]

Gecko1978 said:

Three groups in society

Poor
Middle
Rich

Poor pay nothing receive the most directly and same indirectly
Middle pay most tax directly recieve little directly same indirectly
Rich little direct tax large indirect no direct benefits same indirect.

So you have to have money going in to pay for the indirect stuff example kids or not you benefit from people being educated and able to read.

So charge rich more they leave an the middle has to pay even more and gets less

What's the tip over point to be on the "rich" scale?

[dvs_dave]

Gecko1978 said:

That is nuts. Money goes into the economy either via tax or personal or busiess spending. Even if Mr or Mrs Non Dom pays zero income tax they spend millions in the UK all of which creates jobs and likely has VAT attached. Drive them away and it's gone and we aren't going to make it up by you paying a few £ it adds % to income tax

Trickle down economics has for the most part been shown to be ineffective. The rich just get richer and don’t increase their spending commensurately because they just don’t need to. They already have and consume the best of everything. More of the same isn’t of any additional value to them.

[GT03ROB]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

Three groups in society

Poor
Middle
Rich

Poor pay nothing receive the most directly and same indirectly
Middle pay most tax directly recieve little directly same indirectly
Rich little direct tax large indirect no direct benefits same indirect.

So you have to have money going in to pay for the indirect stuff example kids or not you benefit from people being educated and able to read.

So charge rich more they leave an the middle has to pay even more and gets less

What's the tip over point to be on the "rich" scale?

You know the answer to that £1 more than you earn or have

[Wombat3]

Skeptisk said:

What is nuts is your complete inability to see that there are other issues involved beyond pounds and pence.

Not many on this issue and indeed much else to do with the state of the economy and public services

[Gecko1978]

Killboy said:

Gecko1978 said:

Three groups in society

Poor
Middle
Rich

Poor pay nothing receive the most directly and same indirectly
Middle pay most tax directly recieve little directly same indirectly
Rich little direct tax large indirect no direct benefits same indirect.

So you have to have money going in to pay for the indirect stuff example kids or not you benefit from people being educated and able to read.

So charge rich more they leave an the middle has to pay even more and gets less

What's the tip over point to be on the "rich" scale?

Rich is hard to define by a number but in this context majority of income is incurred overseas an all sources of income you control i.e. investments or own the business etc

[Gecko1978]

Wombat3 said:

Skeptisk said:

What is nuts is your complete inability to see that there are other issues involved beyond pounds and pence.

Not many on this issue and indeed much else to do with the state of the economy and public services

Tax is supposed to be for a common good. If we change tax sich that we get less then we devalue that common good. There is no upside to this. So you make 1 in 100 pay more but the rest leave so we all pay more in tax but dont have the money to do so so class sizes rise waiting lists get longer etc.

You have to incentivise people to stay in return they spend an invest here or elsewhere.

[oddman]

I'm currently spending a very pleasant holiday in the only habitable building on what was the Poltalloch estate.

The Malcolm family (descendents of the dude who killed Macbeth) made vast amounts of money in the Caribbean owning sugar plantations and built a beautiful Mansion in the Jacobean style around 1850. Afro-Caribbeans called Malcolm are likely descendents of their slaves.

In the '50s facing ruinous death duties and failing to sell the house, they took the roof off and now it's a skeleton with mature trees growing through it.

I'm inclined to be a bit of a lefty but I can't think of anything as idiotic and immoral as the needless destruction of wealth in pursuit of a political agenda. It seems to me that the pursuit of non doms is similar to the ruinous death duties imposed by the 1945 Labour Government.