I suppose you will all think I am being thick here but!.................... what does non-dom mean?...... I heard them saying it on the news tonight and I am sure I have never heard the term used before!....... These sort of things come along periodically!, all of a sudden certain words of phrases are the 'in' thing to say!......
All it means that your primary domicile for tax purposes is not the UK. You still pay UK tax on all of your UK income but any income generated outside the UK (and which remains outside the UK) is not liable to UK tax. Its a scheme that makes perfect sense for non-UK citizens, however the ability of UK citizens to make use of it probably needs tightening.
All it means that your primary domicile for tax purposes is not the UK. You still pay UK tax on all of your UK income but any income generated outside the UK (and which remains outside the UK) is not liable to UK tax. Its a scheme that makes perfect sense for non-UK citizens, however the ability of UK citizens to make use of it probably needs tightening.
This seems to make more sense than scrapping it altogether.
I think a lot of people think, non dom's pay no UK tax, which clearly isn't the case.
I also have read online some people who are actually classed as Non Resident are being lumped in as Non Dom's.
I would think another tack from any party could be tackling the various devices used to reduce the UK tax liability, and the use of shell companies etc.
Labour yet again going for populist knee jerk policy which is ill thought through. There are 114,000 non-doms who make up a massive 5% of the total income tax receipts in the UK, let alone factoring in the people they employ, the workers whose services they use and the money they spend.
It's not a problem in Labour La-La Land as they can just make up the shortfall by charging more tax to a few million poorer people to shore up the deficit. It will be a small price to pay as long as we tackle the most rich and industrious to show Labour are being fairer to hard working families.
When Newsnight interviewed people on the streets last night they could only find one person who even knew what a "non-dom" is.
So, this shows that the public are in favour of taxing a group of people who they don't know about and without knowing if it will raise any money at all. This is just another example of a policy by Labour which is designed to sound good on the doorsteps but which makes very little economic sense.
Everyone agrees that "the rich" (however you define them - the top 1%, 10% or 20%?) should pay their "fair share" but there is no agreement about what this level should be. If the top 1% paying 25% of all tax isn't fair then what level would be?
Miliband can scrap non-dom levies, and the rich can always move to say Monaco. In the past, Britain was always able to attract the rich from all over Europe and the world to come invest and live in the country, due to high standards of living, good education and healthcare and it's always been ahead of the most European countries when it comes to all mentioned above.
This is not the case anymore. As Europe has become more open and borderless over the years and many other counties have reached high standards of living too, the rich in Europe now have much more to choose from where to reside and work, and one of the main createria the rich use when choosing where to live is certainly somewhere where it's good to do business.
Now, London and the UK were always renowned (among other things) for the simplicity of doing business. If the government take that out and change regulations, no doubt the rich will gradually start fleeing the country and look into other alternatives, which would cost the county billions in the long run.
Labour party don't seem to understand that if the government has much less revenue, it automatically means less money for everything else including social welfare and the NHS. In my opinion, only a short sighted person with little or no knowledge about politics and economy could push such agenda in the wake of general election.
After all if you do have money, an awful lot of money in a country without a DTA then it might be well worth your while to move to say
I believe a gap in UK tax law on UK capital gains is one of the things the removal of Non-Dom status removes. That is tax avoidance on wealth made in the UK. Not just tax avoidance on wealth made abroad.
Belgium only a High Speed train ride away from London.
What would be the point in moving to Belgium it does not have Non-Dom status and it has higher rates of tax than the UK. The UK will be retaining favourable tax arrangements for people who are actually foreigners who are temporary for a few years at a time resident in the UK. In effect adopting a system similar to other nations.
I'm in favour in principal and the writing has been on the wall for many years for Non Doms, but it needs careful handling so as to overall not lose money just to grab a headline.
They have consulted with financial experts and what they propose is expected to result in a large net gain for the exchequer. As I mentioned above with the end of Non-Dom status they are proposing to introduce favourable tax arrangements for genuine foreign nationals who are temporarily for a few years at a time resident in the UK. While removing the tax loop hole used by wealthy UK nationals claiming that despite living permanently in the UK and even being born in the UK they should be treated as non-doms due to the UK still using tax laws that were created hundreds of years ago.
This is clearly a cast-iron promise that Labour intend to break. It's a promise that appeals to the core working class Labour voter who is totally naive about business or politics. They are putty in the hands of devious politicians.
Amount of money raised by HMRC from non-doms has increased - from £5.9 billion in 2008-09 to £8.2 billion in 2012-13.
So somehow these horrible non tax paying bludgers do pay tax after all.
The amount of tax collected has gone up in most part due to the Labour introducing an annual charge for Non-Dom status and the Coalition greatly increasing that annual charge. And the Non-Doms did not all flee the UK and the UK collected more tax as a result. The Coalition is further substantially increasing this Non-Dom charge and if the Conservatives form the next UK government they would most likely continue to substantially increase it. Yet when Labour propose to scrap Non-Dom status and create alternative favourable tax arrangements for genuine foreign nationals who are temporarily for a few years at a time resident in the UK a proposal that according to the expert financial advice they have obtained would raise the amount of tax collected and not have an adverse effect on the UK it is attacked.
What would be the point in moving to Belgium it does not have Non-Dom status and it has higher rates of tax than the UK. The UK will be retaining favourable tax arrangements for people who are actually foreigners who are temporary for a few years at a time resident in the UK. In effect adopting a system similar to other nations.
Belgium apparently can offer the super rich an advantage if the UK closes some gaps.
Belgium can be considered a low-profile jurisdiction, which, from a tax perspective, can compete with both Switzerland and the UK. It is not associated with disproportionate tax savings. Furthermore it is not too strange for captains of industry or other influential individuals to come and reside close to decision centres. Hence, such a move should arguably not trigger negative reactions with foreign tax authorities. Undoubtedly, this is because Belgium has one of the highest burdens of tax within the OECD. Surprisingly, this conclusion is incorrect with regard to affluent individuals.
They have consulted with financial experts and what they propose is expected to result in a large net gain for the exchequer.
Well the guy they consulted with forecast that if you scrapped non-dom status and made them all pay UK tax then that would bring in an extra £4bn. Now this 'financial expert' was including foreign citizens who have ND status like Roman Abramovich - so in theory the UK would tax his whole business empire around the world.
Of course even this expert doesn't expect that to happen - if you take into account behavioural effects and international tax Law he now forecasts a gain of £1bn.
So we are £1bn better off - well not quite. These 'behavioural effects' would also impact and reduce the the £6bn tax that we already get. So anyone who claims that they know that this measure is going to raise a single cent of extra revenue is lying.
Belgium apparently can offer the super rich an advantage if the UK closes some gaps.
But the UK ending Non-Dom status would still leave the UK with its advantages over Belgium. People will still choose to live in the UK because it will have far more favourable tax system than Belgium especially for genuine foreign nationals temporary for a few years residing in the UK. And the UK will still have the financial centre that is London.
This is clearly a cast-iron promise that Labour intend to break. It's a promise that appeals to the core working class Labour voter who is totally naive about business or politics. They are putty in the hands of devious politicians.
Got it in one. This has nothing to do with money (£200m - even if it is true - is a rounding error in the Treasury's finances) and everything to do with politics.
If Labour do win then you can be sure that this proposal will be quietly watered down and exceptions made following "consultations".
I'm not the least bit interested in your selective use of theory. Theory is all you and your irrational ideology have going for you. I'm interested in facts. Do you have any figures that refute what I've listed?
Look pal.
You have said that lowering the top rate of Income tax actually raises the tax take of that band.
I asked you would a top rate of 10% massively increase the take from what it is now - you said there comes a point where it no longer works. I asked you in your view what that point is, and you haven't answered.
As this relates to the famed Laffer Curve that represents maximising tax takes I linked to the fact that the cut off point varies as to who is assessing it, but that the midway point between most assessments is that it is 70% before the take starts to reduce.
(Or do you believe the Laffer Curve is "irrational" too?).
Also, I asked where your quote came from, as it was an anonymous piece.
Could you let me know so I can read the piece in full please?
Fantastic policy! About time too. No doubt we'll get all the usual nonsense scaremongering about how "the rich will leave the country!" from the usual suspects, but we hear that about Labour before every election and they always seem to stick around!
They'll never do it.
It's not as if it's a new problem; the issue has been prevalent for generations & no other government has attempted to stop it.
Somebody must have thought about this long before Miliband & they didn't stop it, so what makes Miliband think he can?
Nice idea, but he will never be 'allowed' to implement it.
The Tories are wind up merchants. It is actually government by WUM.
They had an opportunity to listen to Ed Balls considering non dom status 3 months before an announcement is made...and instead of listening to what he is saying, their gut reaction is to think up ways to edit the video. Amazing.
They waited until late evening to roll out a serious person attempting to discuss policy but it was too late. The Labour hating Dan Hodges had already told us that Labour had won the argument.
I think some of those on the left still don't get it ......it needs people paying into the system to beable to support people who work in the public sector, those on benefits etc......I think they must believe there is a big money tree that how we fund these sectors comes from.....They have to realise its from people paying their taxes that fund the country and the outgoings we have.....If Labour bring in enough policies that put people off staying here everyone (not least those of a left leaning angle) are in for a major shock and will be the first to moan about not enough money left (oh that was a Labour quote - they left us with no money to pay for these things) to fund the NHS, services and benefits......
Do you not realise that the public sector is one of the private sector's biggest customers?
When Newsnight interviewed people on the streets last night they could only find one person who even knew what a "non-dom" is.
So, this shows that the public are in favour of taxing a group of people who they don't know about and without knowing if it will raise any money at all. This is just another example of a policy by Labour which is designed to sound good on the doorsteps but which makes very little economic sense.
Everyone agrees that "the rich" (however you define them - the top 1%, 10% or 20%?) should pay their "fair share" but there is no agreement about what this level should be. If the top 1% paying 25% of all tax isn't fair then what level would be?
No they don't. You can see on here day in day out those who believe that the rich should be left with astronomical disposal incomes.
There are even some who believe in a flat rate tax, which would make the rich (and not so rich) far richer. Just what we need - an even more divided society.
This is clearly a cast-iron promise that Labour intend to break. It's a promise that appeals to the core working class Labour voter who is totally naive about business or politics. They are putty in the hands of devious politicians.
Ah! Poor things! It is only the Tory core voter who is knowledgeable on business and politics presumably!
The amount of tax collected has gone up in most part due to the Labour introducing an annual charge for Non-Dom status and the Coalition greatly increasing that annual charge. And the Non-Doms did not all flee the UK and the UK collected more tax as a result. The Coalition is further substantially increasing this Non-Dom charge and if the Conservatives form the next UK government they would most likely continue to substantially increase it. Yet when Labour propose to scrap Non-Dom status and create alternative favourable tax arrangements for genuine foreign nationals who are temporarily for a few years at a time resident in the UK a proposal that according to the expert financial advice they have obtained would raise the amount of tax collected and not have an adverse effect on the UK it is attacked.
Good points.
I believe the Tories would have loved to introduce this policy themselves, but were frightened of alienating some of their "core supporters".
Comments
A week is a long time in politics.
All it means that your primary domicile for tax purposes is not the UK. You still pay UK tax on all of your UK income but any income generated outside the UK (and which remains outside the UK) is not liable to UK tax. Its a scheme that makes perfect sense for non-UK citizens, however the ability of UK citizens to make use of it probably needs tightening.
This seems to make more sense than scrapping it altogether.
I think a lot of people think, non dom's pay no UK tax, which clearly isn't the case.
I also have read online some people who are actually classed as Non Resident are being lumped in as Non Dom's.
I would think another tack from any party could be tackling the various devices used to reduce the UK tax liability, and the use of shell companies etc.
It's not a problem in Labour La-La Land as they can just make up the shortfall by charging more tax to a few million poorer people to shore up the deficit. It will be a small price to pay as long as we tackle the most rich and industrious to show Labour are being fairer to hard working families.
So somehow these horrible non tax paying bludgers do pay tax after all.
When Newsnight interviewed people on the streets last night they could only find one person who even knew what a "non-dom" is.
So, this shows that the public are in favour of taxing a group of people who they don't know about and without knowing if it will raise any money at all. This is just another example of a policy by Labour which is designed to sound good on the doorsteps but which makes very little economic sense.
Everyone agrees that "the rich" (however you define them - the top 1%, 10% or 20%?) should pay their "fair share" but there is no agreement about what this level should be. If the top 1% paying 25% of all tax isn't fair then what level would be?
HMRC has some good stats on the distribution of income and tax: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/404153/Table_2.4.pdf
This is not the case anymore. As Europe has become more open and borderless over the years and many other counties have reached high standards of living too, the rich in Europe now have much more to choose from where to reside and work, and one of the main createria the rich use when choosing where to live is certainly somewhere where it's good to do business.
Now, London and the UK were always renowned (among other things) for the simplicity of doing business. If the government take that out and change regulations, no doubt the rich will gradually start fleeing the country and look into other alternatives, which would cost the county billions in the long run.
Labour party don't seem to understand that if the government has much less revenue, it automatically means less money for everything else including social welfare and the NHS. In my opinion, only a short sighted person with little or no knowledge about politics and economy could push such agenda in the wake of general election.
Belgium apparently can offer the super rich an advantage if the UK closes some gaps.
http://www.step.org/discreet-and-low
Pure unfounded speculation
Well the guy they consulted with forecast that if you scrapped non-dom status and made them all pay UK tax then that would bring in an extra £4bn. Now this 'financial expert' was including foreign citizens who have ND status like Roman Abramovich - so in theory the UK would tax his whole business empire around the world.
Of course even this expert doesn't expect that to happen - if you take into account behavioural effects and international tax Law he now forecasts a gain of £1bn.
So we are £1bn better off - well not quite. These 'behavioural effects' would also impact and reduce the the £6bn tax that we already get. So anyone who claims that they know that this measure is going to raise a single cent of extra revenue is lying.
Got it in one. This has nothing to do with money (£200m - even if it is true - is a rounding error in the Treasury's finances) and everything to do with politics.
If Labour do win then you can be sure that this proposal will be quietly watered down and exceptions made following "consultations".
Nooooooooooooo:o
Look pal.
You have said that lowering the top rate of Income tax actually raises the tax take of that band.
I asked you would a top rate of 10% massively increase the take from what it is now - you said there comes a point where it no longer works. I asked you in your view what that point is, and you haven't answered.
As this relates to the famed Laffer Curve that represents maximising tax takes I linked to the fact that the cut off point varies as to who is assessing it, but that the midway point between most assessments is that it is 70% before the take starts to reduce.
(Or do you believe the Laffer Curve is "irrational" too?).
Also, I asked where your quote came from, as it was an anonymous piece.
Could you let me know so I can read the piece in full please?
They'll never do it.
It's not as if it's a new problem; the issue has been prevalent for generations & no other government has attempted to stop it.
Somebody must have thought about this long before Miliband & they didn't stop it, so what makes Miliband think he can?
Nice idea, but he will never be 'allowed' to implement it.
They had an opportunity to listen to Ed Balls considering non dom status 3 months before an announcement is made...and instead of listening to what he is saying, their gut reaction is to think up ways to edit the video. Amazing.
They waited until late evening to roll out a serious person attempting to discuss policy but it was too late. The Labour hating Dan Hodges had already told us that Labour had won the argument.
Ever since I came on DS your posts defend those few that have wealth and vehemently condemn any perceived threat to the scale of that wealth.
What are we to make of that if you say you don't love the idea of wealth?
Do you not realise that the public sector is one of the private sector's biggest customers?
No they don't. You can see on here day in day out those who believe that the rich should be left with astronomical disposal incomes.
There are even some who believe in a flat rate tax, which would make the rich (and not so rich) far richer. Just what we need - an even more divided society.
Ah! Poor things! It is only the Tory core voter who is knowledgeable on business and politics presumably!
Let them eat cake!!
Good points.
I believe the Tories would have loved to introduce this policy themselves, but were frightened of alienating some of their "core supporters".
What on earth is wrong with loving the idea of wealth?
It's human nature, and what drives people to create businesses which employ millions.
I fully appreciate that you prefer a system in which everyone is equally poor, but thankfully you are in a tiny minority.