Scrapping non dom status
Discussion
Gecko1978 said:
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 You have to incentivise people to stay in return they spend an invest here or elsewhere.
t about anyone else when they cut the deals they made with the Mega corps, so why should we care about doing the same?).......so we should be encouraging HNW individuals live, invest and spend as much as possible in the UK.
Anything else is just short sighted Dogma.
It has been asked here already but why not just not tax the rich at all?
When the conservatives tried quantity easing and gave lots of money to the rich they just got richer, they didn't spend their money in the local high street.
How does some billionaire living in a multi million pound apartment in London, has a Lear jet in Isle of Man, a luxury yacht in France benefit anyone in Manchester?
I also guessing there are no billionaires in the USA, Japan, France, Germany as they do not have none dome status in these countries at least I don't think they do.
If there are tax breaks/grants to be handed out they should go to businesses based here in the UK not individuals
And why are they here anyway, surely if they are looking for tax havens they should be living in Monaco, Bahamas, Luxemburg and so on...
PS Last year Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income, but he makes us all richer?.
When the conservatives tried quantity easing and gave lots of money to the rich they just got richer, they didn't spend their money in the local high street.
How does some billionaire living in a multi million pound apartment in London, has a Lear jet in Isle of Man, a luxury yacht in France benefit anyone in Manchester?
I also guessing there are no billionaires in the USA, Japan, France, Germany as they do not have none dome status in these countries at least I don't think they do.
If there are tax breaks/grants to be handed out they should go to businesses based here in the UK not individuals
And why are they here anyway, surely if they are looking for tax havens they should be living in Monaco, Bahamas, Luxemburg and so on...
PS Last year Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income, but he makes us all richer?.
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...
This isn't specifically about seriously wealthy types but I think relevant https://www.government.nl/topics/income-tax/shorte...
https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2023/11/flash...
One of my friends said his parents were considering a move to Italy as parts of the South are encouraging people to move there by offering 7% capped tax rate.
He also went on to say WFH IT Contractor types can also get the same deal, so not just pensioners. As long as your income is generated outside of Italy you can relocate there and only pay 7% tax.
I think Italy see it as a win.
1. New people arriving and paying some tax - although the focus group who decides how you define fair share is still debating this....
2. South of Italy is struggling as people have been leaving the rural village areas. Which is why they're trying alsorts of schemes like selling homes for 1 EUR. Amanda Holden and Alan Carr did a show on the telly about buying one of these. I didn't watch it but my parents were talking about it. It explained how these villages are struggling because schools are closing, shops and local businesses are closing. This forms a doom loop so that each closure forces more people to leave and so and so on.
3. Even if a new person arriving pays absolutely zero income tax - for arguments sake - they still have to eat, drink, live and they will use local businesses and services. It's like someone coming for a holiday and never going home. Every day they will spend spend spend. The money they spend is coming from abroad so its a direct injection of new money into their local economy. They are not taking jobs or competing with locals for jobs.
This is very similar to the problem we have with wealthy London types having holiday homes in places like Cornwall that are mainly unoccupied a lot of the time. Just having extra people around more of the time is good - assuming they have to spend some money locally.
I just did a search and found this link
https://www.italia.it/en/italy/things-to-do/tax-br...
Wombat3 said:
Gecko1978 said:
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 You have to incentivise people to stay in return they spend an invest here or elsewhere.
t about anyone else when they cut the deals they made with the Mega corps, so why should we care about doing the same?).......so we should be encouraging HNW individuals live, invest and spend as much as possible in the UK.
Anything else is just short sighted Dogma.
h to large US corporations by effectively agreeing to tax avoidance through their dodgy structures (Irish companies that are not tax resident in Ireland but yet not taxed in the US either). Ireland now has a very high GDP per capita but also a very high cost of living and many dissatisfied citizens, who haven’t seen the benefits trickle down. The OECD agreed to and countries are introducing the so-called Pillar II rules to introduce minimum tax rates for large corporations to make it pointless for corporations to move income to low tax jurisdictions. There have also been big efforts to rule out unfair tax practices and dodgy rulings that the Swiss/Irish/Dutch used to offer and also abusive tax structures that corporations used to implement, which tried to avoid tax through playing off differences in tax treatment between different countries eg hybrid entities, hybrid instruments.
I agree that encouraging inward investment into the U.K. is important. One of the reasons I was against Brexit was because taking the U.K. outside of the EU would make the UK less attractive. However the non dom status probably discourages investment into the UK as they only get a tax break on their foreign income and wealth if they keep it out of the UK. Rishi’s wife is worth £750 million but what has she contributed to the U.K. economy (we know what he husband and his friends have done!)?
Oliver Hardy said:
PS Last year Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income, but he makes us all richer?.
This is part of the problem, in that example he’d of paid over £500k in tax, average worker £5k so he’s paid 100x contribution to society.Yet it’s sneered at.
Whilst almost 25% of the working age population aren’t working and are living off benefits.
That needs to be fixed.
bennno said:
Oliver Hardy said:
PS Last year Rishi Sunak paid effective tax rate of 23% on £2.2m income, but he makes us all richer?.
This is part of the problem, in that example he’d of paid over £500k in tax, average worker £5k so he’s paid 100x contribution to society.Yet it’s sneered at.
Whilst almost 25% of the working age population aren’t working and are living off benefits.
That needs to be fixed.
Skeptisk said:
Ireland now has a very high GDP per capita but also a very high cost of living and many dissatisfied citizens, who haven’t seen the benefits trickle down.
How do we know these are related?High GDP per capita
High cost of living
Lots of Europe has high cost of living. Ireland could have ended up with high cost of living even without these tax benefits for corporations.
An economy has so many moving parts it is impossible to say how one thing was affected by another one thing, after the fact, when thousands of other things were also changing.
This is very interesting
https://www.tax.org.uk/non-doms-explainer-march-20...
It seems that a large number of non doms are actually employees, lots of them being bankers. I think that strengthens the arguments for changing the rules. London is super attractive for bankers, being one the leading financial centres of the world. The best bankers will come to London anyway (there is no such thing as non doms in the US and that doesn’t stop Wall Street being attractive).
London is one of the best cities on the planet (if you are rich enough to live there). We don’t need to be begging people to live there by giving away tax benefits.
It would be much better to provide incentives to get foreigners to invest outside of London and the South East.
https://www.tax.org.uk/non-doms-explainer-march-20...
It seems that a large number of non doms are actually employees, lots of them being bankers. I think that strengthens the arguments for changing the rules. London is super attractive for bankers, being one the leading financial centres of the world. The best bankers will come to London anyway (there is no such thing as non doms in the US and that doesn’t stop Wall Street being attractive).
London is one of the best cities on the planet (if you are rich enough to live there). We don’t need to be begging people to live there by giving away tax benefits.
It would be much better to provide incentives to get foreigners to invest outside of London and the South East.
For those saying it is all about the money…then you should be in favour of scrapping non dom status as it is as likely, if not more likely based on who is claiming it, that we are unnecessarily giving tax breaks to foreigners who would live here anyway ie non dom status is costing us money.
We should scrap the rules and see what happens. If there is a big exodus and a big drop in tax intake then we can introduce new, more targeted rules to bring back in those people we want. As everyone keeps pointing out, globally mobile people are mobile.
We should scrap the rules and see what happens. If there is a big exodus and a big drop in tax intake then we can introduce new, more targeted rules to bring back in those people we want. As everyone keeps pointing out, globally mobile people are mobile.
Skeptisk said:
For those saying it is all about the money…then you should be in favour of scrapping non dom status as it is as likely, if not more likely based on who is claiming it, that we are unnecessarily giving tax breaks to foreigners who would live here anyway ie non dom status is costing us money.
We should scrap the rules and see what happens. If there is a big exodus and a big drop in tax intake then we can introduce new, more targeted rules to bring back in those people we want. As everyone keeps pointing out, globally mobile people are mobile.
Except that if you keep dicking about with the rules they just stay away because it becomes too much like hard work.We should scrap the rules and see what happens. If there is a big exodus and a big drop in tax intake then we can introduce new, more targeted rules to bring back in those people we want. As everyone keeps pointing out, globally mobile people are mobile.
It's one of the things politicians seem to consistently overlook, the one thing people prize above much else is certainty / stability.
Oliver Hardy said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
Newc said:
And off they go, leaving the rest of us to pay more tax than we needed to, for absolutely no benefit. Good job everyone.
Not to worry apparently, there is a plan.Most other European countries do not have non dome schemes, I do not think?
The overarching problem is that the UK tax pyramid is top heavy, it was top heavy prior to this change i.e the UK income tax system relies on approx 250k-300k individuals to maintain the pyramid.
There is no real pull factor for the UK around tax at the minute, everything is a push factor.
That means tax increases are incoming to compensate.
I can see posts in this thread saying 'i don't mind paying more tax ' well that's good then because that's exactly what is about to happen, in the autumn.
I know people in the oil industry who own homes in the UK but spend x-days a year out of the country to avoid becoming tax resident.
I imagine many of the non-doms who don't move their business out of the UK entirely will do similar.
If taxes rise, getting some tax-free work abroad becomes even more attractive.
Also fairly ordinary people start to realise that earning extra doesn't improve their lives very much, early retirement and semi-retirement become more appealing with every tax rise.
Trouble is, we've had 14 years of Cameron-ism 'keep the plates spinning, don't rock the boat', with a brief glimpse of Aunty Liz daring to talk about changing things, which showed how fragile it all is.
From an academic perspective, we may be about to start an interesting experiment.
I imagine many of the non-doms who don't move their business out of the UK entirely will do similar.
If taxes rise, getting some tax-free work abroad becomes even more attractive.
Also fairly ordinary people start to realise that earning extra doesn't improve their lives very much, early retirement and semi-retirement become more appealing with every tax rise.
Trouble is, we've had 14 years of Cameron-ism 'keep the plates spinning, don't rock the boat', with a brief glimpse of Aunty Liz daring to talk about changing things, which showed how fragile it all is.
From an academic perspective, we may be about to start an interesting experiment.
ATM said:
How do we know these are related?
High GDP per capita
High cost of living
Lots of Europe has high cost of living. Ireland could have ended up with high cost of living even without these tax benefits for corporations.
An economy has so many moving parts it is impossible to say how one thing was affected by another one thing, after the fact, when thousands of other things were also changing.
Ireland has set itself on a path of profit washing for large global enterprise, as a result the standards of living and heath are not reflective of the GDP.High GDP per capita
High cost of living
Lots of Europe has high cost of living. Ireland could have ended up with high cost of living even without these tax benefits for corporations.
An economy has so many moving parts it is impossible to say how one thing was affected by another one thing, after the fact, when thousands of other things were also changing.
Edited by bennno on Sunday 23 June 12:12
Skeptisk said:
This is very interesting
https://www.tax.org.uk/non-doms-explainer-march-20...
It seems that a large number of non doms are actually employees, lots of them being bankers. I think that strengthens the arguments for changing the rules. London is super attractive for bankers, being one the leading financial centres of the world. The best bankers will come to London anyway (there is no such thing as non doms in the US and that doesn’t stop Wall Street being attractive).
London is one of the best cities on the planet (if you are rich enough to live there). We don’t need to be begging people to live there by giving away tax benefits.
It would be much better to provide incentives to get foreigners to invest outside of London and the South East.
They would be paying tax on their UK earnings so not sure that is a stronger argument to change the rules. As if they do decide to relocate we will lose not only the spending but the PAYE tax at higher rates as well. https://www.tax.org.uk/non-doms-explainer-march-20...
It seems that a large number of non doms are actually employees, lots of them being bankers. I think that strengthens the arguments for changing the rules. London is super attractive for bankers, being one the leading financial centres of the world. The best bankers will come to London anyway (there is no such thing as non doms in the US and that doesn’t stop Wall Street being attractive).
London is one of the best cities on the planet (if you are rich enough to live there). We don’t need to be begging people to live there by giving away tax benefits.
It would be much better to provide incentives to get foreigners to invest outside of London and the South East.
bennno said:
ATM said:
Skeptisk said:
Ireland now has a very high GDP per capita but also a very high cost of living and many dissatisfied citizens, who haven’t seen the benefits trickle down.
How do we know these are related?High GDP per capita
High cost of living
Lots of Europe has high cost of living. Ireland could have ended up with high cost of living even without these tax benefits for corporations.
An economy has so many moving parts it is impossible to say how one thing was affected by another one thing, after the fact, when thousands of other things were also changing.
Understood
But is that a problem?
Should you automatically get more satisfied citizens with better GDP?
I would say you can't simply compare only these 2 metrics, when there are thousands of other metrics at play.
In a scientific experiment you make absolutely certain that you only change one thing and keep everything else constant. It is impossible to do this when comparing an economy today to one in the past.
Just ignore negative interest rates and massive amounts of QE. These didn't affect the GDP. Attracting corporates with zero interest rates is what affected the GDP.
Citizens are dissatisfied by high cost of living. Ok understood. But was this caused by the increased GDP not trickling down or other factors like commodity prices rising globally, war with Russia and everything else going on? For all we know some benefits did trickle down and the citizens would have been even more dissatisfied if Ireland had not set itself on a path of profit washing for large global enterprise.
There is no way to know which is true.
We cannot simply pin point one single thing in a sea of thousands of other things all affecting the outcome.
It's like conducting a scientific experiment where you change absolutely every possible variable you can and even variables you can't control change too. Everything is changing. Like total chaos. But at the end of the experiment you conclude that it was this one variable which caused the outcome to change.
JagLover said:
They would be paying tax on their UK earnings so not sure that is a stronger argument to change the rules. As if they do decide to relocate we will lose not only the spending but the PAYE tax at higher rates as well.
I am not sure what company you work for but when someone resigns (from a position that is needed) in all the ones I’ve worked in they get replaced. So why would the U.K. lose out? Skeptisk said:
JagLover said:
They would be paying tax on their UK earnings so not sure that is a stronger argument to change the rules. As if they do decide to relocate we will lose not only the spending but the PAYE tax at higher rates as well.
I am not sure what company you work for but when someone resigns (from a position that is needed) in all the ones I’ve worked in they get replaced. So why would the U.K. lose out? How many people actually need to be in their UK office >183 days a year?
OutInTheShed said:
Skeptisk said:
JagLover said:
They would be paying tax on their UK earnings so not sure that is a stronger argument to change the rules. As if they do decide to relocate we will lose not only the spending but the PAYE tax at higher rates as well.
I am not sure what company you work for but when someone resigns (from a position that is needed) in all the ones I’ve worked in they get replaced. So why would the U.K. lose out? How many people actually need to be in their UK office >183 days a year?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff