2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[ozleicester]

The ONLY mention of the English elections in australia so far has been...

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/british-pm-david-cameron-caught-eating-hot-dog-knife-fork-n337046

 

lolz

[C-man]

Labour saying they'll get rid of the 'non-dom' tax status completely. Poor move IMO. I don't believe it will generate that much tax (double tax agreements will probably end up stopping many overseas revenue streams from being taxed in the UK in any case - just means more admin) and it will only serve to discourage talent from working here.

The rules are pretty much fine as they are. With a bit of tightening here and there it would probably optimise the tax we can get out of these individuals. Would be stupid to revamp the system.

[Guest Bilo]

So, what do we make of Miliband's announcements regarding non-doms?

 

I personally think that it desperately needs doing and it ought really to have been tackled years ago, why should the likes of Roman Abramovich and Lakshmi Mittal be able to reside in the UK and dodge tax here?

 

It's certainly one that could turn into a fiery debate, as I'm sure that this announcement will earn Miliband some powerful enemies. That being said, that's an awful lot of money to be made from taxing the super wealthy non doms in this way.

 

EDIT: C-Man one step ahead.

 

I take the point that it could be seen as a ideological move and it may discourage others from working here. It's a complex situation that could run on, with over 116,000 non-doms according to the Independent it may yet turn out to be a major issue in the election.

[Bettsj2]

Labour saying they'll get rid of the 'non-dom' tax status completely. Poor move IMO. I don't believe it will generate that much tax (double tax agreements will probably end up stopping many overseas revenue streams from being taxed in the UK in any case - just means more admin) and it will only serve to discourage talent from working here.

The rules are pretty much fine as they are. With a bit of tightening here and there it would probably optimise the tax we can get out of these individuals. Would be stupid to revamp the system.

I think its a myth that talent wouldnt want to work here.

The guys that earn the dollar that they're talking of want to work in the City for ego reasons and would do it anyway so its on their CV to boost future earnings.

[Guest Bilo]

Tax avoidance by the super wealthy is a significant issue, though. It's pointless reforming the current tax laws and introducing new ones if you aren't going to enforce the ones that are already in place.

[Jon the Hat]

So, what do we make of Miliband's announcements regarding non-doms?

 

I personally think that it desperately needs doing and it ought really to have been tackled years ago, why should the likes of Roman Abramovich and Lakshmi Mittal be able to reside in the UK and dodge tax here?

 

It's certainly one that could turn into a fiery debate, as I'm sure that this announcement will earn Miliband some powerful enemies. That being said, that's an awful lot of money to be made from taxing the super wealthy non doms in this way.

 

EDIT: C-Man one step ahead.

 

I take the point that it could be seen as a ideological move and it may discourage others from working here. It's a complex situation that could run on, with over 116,000 non-doms according to the Independent it may yet turn out to be a major issue in the election.

 

The reason no one did this before is that the tax take is likely to go down by taking Non dom status away, which makes it ideological not sensible.  Cheap political move by Milliband.

 

Honestly don't understand why you should pay tax in the UK on income which never comes here, just because you happen to spend time here.  Pay tax where money is earned.  See the new tax on Amazon and so on, same logic.

[Guest Bilo]

The reason no one did this before is that the tax take is likely to go down by taking Non dom status away, which makes it ideological not sensible.  Cheap political move by Milliband.

 

Honestly don't understand why you should pay tax in the UK on income which never comes here, just because you happen to spend time here.  Pay tax where money is earned.  See the new tax on Amazon and so on, same logic.

 

It's a multi faceted situation, and unfortunately non-dom status has been used as a means of dodging tax in the past. Any means of challenging tax dodging is surely a good thing.

 

You've only to look at the case of Stuart Gulliver (HSBC Chief Exec) to see how non-dom status can be manipulated. It's not just Labour who want it gone, I'm pretty sure I've heard Vince Cable speak out against non-doms before as well. 

 

My chief concern though is enforcing existing tax laws as well as the worry that a lot of talent may be deterred from working in the UK. 

[Jon the Hat]

It's a multi faceted situation, and unfortunately non-dom status has been used as a means of dodging tax in the past. Any means of challenging tax dodging is surely a good thing.

 

You've only to look at the case of Stuart Gulliver (HSBC Chief Exec) to see how non-dom status can be manipulated. It's not just Labour who want it gone, I'm pretty sure I've heard Vince Cable speak out against non-doms before as well. 

 

My chief concern though is enforcing existing tax laws as well as the worry that a lot of talent may be deterred from working in the UK. 

 

I don't worry too much about talent drain, that is a top rate issue.  This is about the very rich and where they base themselves and pay the most tax.  We can push them all out to Monaco, but how does that help us exactly?  Cutting of nose to spite face springs to mind.  We would earn less, but be "fairer" and I am not sure that is a good plan.  Much like banning private health and schooling, everyone on a level playing field, but would cost the state a lot of money is therefore a bad idea.

[Guest Bilo]

I don't actually have a problem with private health and schooling. I personally wouldn't want to send my kids to private school if I could avoid it, and I don't agree with a lot of them having charitable status, but parent choice must be considered. 

 

That being said, I still want to see the overwhelming majority of people choosing to use the NHS and state schools as we as a nation have had to work very hard to obtain and attain both.

 

Anyway, back to non-doms. 

 

I question how many would leave for Monaco et al - I daresay the Chief Execs of corporations in The City would be less inclined to do so than, say, oligarchs such as Abramovich and heads of multi-nationals whose base is not in The City. It's very difficult to put ourselves in a position where we can second guess them if we're honest. 

[MooseBreath]

Nothing more than cheap envy-populism. Labour going back to their roots. It will have no positive impact on anyone buy hey at least it sounds like they're tackling those evil successful people.

[leicsmac]

Nothing more than cheap envy-populism. Labour going back to their roots. It will have no positive impact on anyone buy hey at least it sounds like they're tackling those evil successful people.

 

Yup, and every single one of them earned every penny of that success. None of them came into it as an accident of birth or got lucky at all, not one of them.

 

That being said, Jon raises a good point about them fleeing in cowardice should such a measure be applied, which of course would defeat the purpose. But then such people have an army of accountants to make sure they pay as little tax as possible in the UK anyway, so it might be a 'nothing to lose' situation.

[MooseBreath]

Yup, and every single one of them earned every penny of that success. None of them came into it as an accident of birth or got lucky at all, not one of them.

That being said, Jon raises a good point about them fleeing in cowardice should such a measure be applied, which of course would defeat the purpose. But then such people have an army of accountants to make sure they pay as little tax as possible in the UK anyway, so it might be a 'nothing to lose' situation.

So you think that successful people should be rounded up and uniformly punished on the basis that some of them might not be 'deserving' of their success? Wow. Why so envious?

[Rincewind]

There were some good election poems read out at The Word last night. But I doubt not all in FT would appreciate them.

[fleckneymike]

Oh Ed

 

[Guest Bilo]

It seems everybody's getting themselves arse about face on non-doms.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/even-tory-cabinet-ministers-dont-seem-to-know-what-their-policy-on-nondoms-paying-tax-is-10161610.html

[leicsmac]

So you think that successful people should be rounded up and uniformly punished on the basis that some of them might not be 'deserving' of their success? Wow. Why so envious?

 

Is paying an agreed rate of tax and not trying to evade it now classified as punishment then? Fair enough.

 

I've no doubt that the rich does consist of a few 'made with these two hands' success stories, but I would be reasonably sure that was the exception than the rule. Money has gravity - it likes to stick to other money.

 

And envy implies that I would like to be in their situation - sorry, but no thank you. There are far more important things in life than having the latest status symbol or being able to blow a four-figure sum for dinner at a boutique London restaurant. I understand, however, that the single-minded greed-based pursuit of more and more material wealth does drive other peoples lives and make them happy, so if that's what they want to do then fair enough.

[MooseBreath]

Is paying an agreed rate of tax and not trying to evade it now classified as punishment then? Fair enough.

I've no doubt that the rich does consist of a few 'made with these two hands' success stories, but I would be reasonably sure that was the exception than the rule. Money has gravity - it likes to stick to other money.

And envy implies that I would like to be in their situation - sorry, but no thank you. There are far more important things in life than having the latest status symbol or being able to blow a four-figure sum for dinner at a boutique London restaurant. I understand, however, that the single-minded greed-based pursuit of more and more material wealth does drive other peoples lives and make them happy, so if that's what they want to do then fair enough.

They are paying the agreed rate of tax. This isn't even about tax avoidance never mind tax evasion. It's about money earned outside of the country.

You've probably barely even met more than a couple of millionaires but are prepared to sit in judgement of over a hundred thousand people purely because they're successful. Says it all about this kind of policy really.

[Guest Bilo]

Why are you so adamant that the only form of success is material, Moose? 

 

You accused teachers of rampant self-interest and greed only yesterday, a claim utterly without foundation, and have now fallen into the trap of thinking that the only motivation behind wanting to ensure the wealthiest is envy. 

 

Of course, business owners generate enormous amounts of wealth for the country. This, though, is not an altruistic act. That they generate large amounts of tax is a consequence, not an intention as their motivation (understandably) is making a profit and growing their business.

 

If we look beyond the 'politics of envy' argument, you would see it makes good sense to chase the rich. While benefit fraud costs around £1.2bn to to British economy every year, something this government has relentlessly tackled, tax avoidance schemes cost the country anywhere between £3bn and £5bn a year. It therefore makes good fiscal sense, even taking ideology out of it, to pursue wealthy tax avoiders. If we look purely at the bottom line, it makes good sense.  

[Mark_w]

So you think that successful people should be rounded up and uniformly punished on the basis that some of them might not be 'deserving' of their success? Wow. Why so envious?

 

At the risk of going all RevLeft, I think anyone who can look at people who are starving and homeless and then look at someone extremely wealthy buying alll kinds of useless shit, and not want something to be done to balance things out, must be really heartless. Maybe taking money from people who can afford to give isn't 'fair', but I'd suggest that regardless of how they earned their money, the current state of affairs is a lot more unfair. Something has to be done about the divide, I'm personally much happier with financial 'punishments' (like making people who live in this country pay UK taxes) being aimed at the people who can afford them.

 

You can question how ecenomically sensible that is and I'll listen, but suggesting you're against this for moral reasons genuinley makes me feel ill.

[Benji]

It seems everybody's getting themselves arse about face on non-doms.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/even-tory-cabinet-ministers-dont-seem-to-know-what-their-policy-on-nondoms-paying-tax-is-10161610.html

This is the part of politics I really dislike.

She basically doesn't know what she's saying and isn't sure what she is "supposed" to be saying. Clearly she's mixing up non-doms and people who generate money in the UK. She should have just washed her hands of it and said speak to big George.

That being said, this whole "toe the party line" approach is a big reason why we have politicians void of independent thought and sat in front of us in briefings, debates and interviews saying exactly what they "should" be saying and not what they want to say. I mean look at the reaction on that article. Who gives a toss if she does disagree with George? (Again, I'm talking generally because here I think it's clear she doesn't know the area she's being questioned on.) There should be an accepted difference between party policy and policy of its members, no one can truely say they're in 100% agreement with policies of a single party across all the different areas. You only have to look on this thread to see that this leads to people banging on about being a "far right/Tory" or on the "liberal looney left".

[Rincewind]

I wish they were a little more honest about what they thought about certain policies.I for one would have more respect for them. I am sure not all Tories agree with some of the harsher things that have been done and have actually seen the impact but are told they must toe the line.

[MooseBreath]

Why are you so adamant that the only form of success is material, Moose?

You accused teachers of rampant self-interest and greed only yesterday, a claim utterly without foundation, and have now fallen into the trap of thinking that the only motivation behind wanting to ensure the wealthiest is envy.

Of course, business owners generate enormous amounts of wealth for the country. This, though, is not an altruistic act. That they generate large amounts of tax is a consequence, not an intention as their motivation (understandably) is making a profit and growing their business.

If we look beyond the 'politics of envy' argument, you would see it makes good sense to chase the rich. While benefit fraud costs around £1.2bn to to British economy every year, something this government has relentlessly tackled, tax avoidance schemes cost the country anywhere between £3bn and £5bn a year. It therefore makes good fiscal sense, even taking ideology out of it, to pursue wealthy tax avoiders. If we look purely at the bottom line, it makes good sense.

Tax avoidance to me is when someone jumps through loopholes to avoid tax. This isn't like that, there just isn't any tax to pay. Let's not dress this up as something it's not. It's labour proposing a tax on the rich, rich foreigners no less, even though it makes no financial sense, purely because it will appear to a the misguided sense of injustice their core voters feel towards the rich.

I don't adamantly believe that material wealth is the only form of success. I've never said anything like that. I have said that control of the economy should be a priority for any government because without money a government can't do anything useful. But on a personal level I don't believe money is as important as other things in life.

[MooseBreath]

At the risk of going all RevLeft, I think anyone who can look at people who are starving and homeless and then look at someone extremely wealthy buying alll kinds of useless shit, and not want something to be done to balance things out, must be really heartless. Maybe taking money from people who can afford to give isn't 'fair', but I'd suggest that regardless of how they earned their money, the current state of affairs is a lot more unfair. Something has to be done about the divide, I'm personally much happier with financial 'punishments' (like making people who live in this country pay UK taxes) being aimed at the people who can afford them.

You can question how ecenomically sensible that is and I'll listen, but suggesting you're against this for moral reasons genuinley makes me feel ill.

So you think we should take all of the money from rich people and divide it out until everyone has the same amount?

[Mark_w]

So you think we should take all of the money from rich people and divide it out until everyone has the same amount?

 

Not all of their money no. But while there are people who don't have enough money to eat or live under a roof in the world, I think we should be taking money from the very richest and using it to support the very poorest.

[Benji]

At the risk of going all RevLeft, I think anyone who can look at people who are starving and homeless and then look at someone extremely wealthy buying alll kinds of useless shit, and not want something to be done to balance things out, must be really heartless. Maybe taking money from people who can afford to give isn't 'fair', but I'd suggest that regardless of how they earned their money, the current state of affairs is a lot more unfair. Something has to be done about the divide, I'm personally much happier with financial 'punishments' (like making people who live in this country pay UK taxes) being aimed at the people who can afford them.

 

You can question how ecenomically sensible that is and I'll listen, but suggesting you're against this for moral reasons genuinley makes me feel ill.

I agree in principle but I don't think you can bundle all taxes as one and say you're either in or you're out.

If someone lives in this country but generates their income in a different country, they should pay income and capital gains in that foreign country. In respect of taxes that affect their everyday enjoyment of living in this country, they should pay such relevant taxes here. So VAT, council tax, CGT on selling UK property etc. should all still be applicable. But in terms of true income, that should be taxed at jurisdiction source. I have to say I think this is the current approach for non-doms but not British citizens. It's an incredibly difficult area when you start to think about double taxation and proving where money is actually earned.

I'd agree with Moose that tax avoidance is not the above as such income is never truely "taxable" but there is a distinct line of manipulation whereby foreign jurisdictions or domestic laws are used in a way solely to make a company or individual "tax efficient". So I'm talking about corporations who do profit from this country, but through intragroup tax losses and reliefs, SPVs etc. manage to offset profits generated directly or indirectly in the UK but pay the lower tax (or no tax) of a different jurisdiction.