Non Dom, or not Non Dom, that is the question

vivatifosi

I mentioned non doms in Gen's thread earlier, and it sparked a debate being a hit news topic today. Thought I should start a thread so his isn't threadjacked. Should they stay or should they go?

My view is that they are anachronistic and have no place in modern tax law. However I also see that people who are temporary residents will need different arrangements in place, much the same as they would in other EU states or the USA.

I can also see the argument that it may cost more to abandon... however as HMRC doesn't collate data it is hard to know either way. So if there is an argument for them staying, is there not also an argument for recording the relevant data, in order to ascertain whether £90k is too low? Either way, I can't see an argument for maintaining the status quo without trying to find out the facts.

What do you think?

Cyberman60

Let's just concentrate on re-electing the party that will be best for low interest rates, highest employment, lowest taxes and that wants to further reduce Labour's deficit than the party that wants to take us back to 2008 and bust.

Nikkster

Don't Get Done Get Dom?


I agree with your last point viva - unless scrapping (or keeping for that matter) the Non-Dom legislation purely to appeal to popular opinion, then the numbers should be crunched. Someone in a governmental department somewhere must have some insightful numbers tucked away on a spreadsheet... surely?

Edit: here is some kind of consultation document I think regarding the last/ ongoing changes to the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/81510/consult_condoc_non_domicile_individuals.pdf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

What do you think?

I think it is generally in the UK's best interests to appeal to the rich as a place of residence.

The more time they spend here, the more money they spend here.

Non-dom status is effectively someone paying a very large fee to enable them to stay here more than the limited (90 days a year or so???) they could otherwise while staying below the residency requirements for tax purposes.

The global rich don't have to live here...

Many have no connections here, they just like it, and would otherwise live elsewhere (often in countries like Dubai with no income tax whatsoever) if the price to stay here was too high.

vivatifosi

Nikkster wrote: »

Don't Get Done Get Dom?


I agree with your last point viva - unless scrapping (or keeping for that matter) the Non-Dom legislation purely to appeal to popular opinion, then the numbers should be crunched. Someone in a governmental department somewhere must have some insightful numbers tucked away on a spreadsheet... surely?

Edit: here is some kind of consultation document I think regarding the last/ ongoing changes to the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/81510/consult_condoc_non_domicile_individuals.pdf

Thanks Nikks... Have scanned doc rather than reading. First thing that struck me was that there are a lot of words and not many numbers. I had heard that this is an issue on R4 earlier.. that the actual facts and figs are very opaque. I also tried clicking on links but got error loading, not sure whether it's a broken link or my tablet having an incompatibility issues. Either way, I'd be happier with a table or two. Otherwise how do we know that £90k is the sweet spot?

Could always try raising it in 10k increments until you find the point at which people start to withdraw from the scheme I suppose.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

News reporting that Ed Balls admitted ditching the scheme would cost the Treasury more money than keeping it today.

Nikkster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

News reporting that Ed Balls admitted ditching the scheme would cost the Treasury more money than keeping it today.

I think it was mentioned that the footage was 3 months (weeks?) old. And I'm sure I heard someone on the news (Ch4?) backpeddling and saying that the way they'd structured the policy for today's announcement had ironed out niggles like that. Or something along those lines.

Sorry - the tv was on in the background and all this pre-election posturing kinda merges into one

tincans6

vivatifosi wrote: »

Thanks Nikks... Have scanned doc rather than reading. First thing that struck me was that there are a lot of words and not many numbers. I had heard that this is an issue on R4 earlier.. that the actual facts and figs are very opaque. I also tried clicking on links but got error loading, not sure whether it's a broken link or my tablet having an incompatibility issues. Either way, I'd be happier with a table or two. Otherwise how do we know that £90k is the sweet spot?

Could always try raising it in 10k increments until you find the point at which people start to withdraw from the scheme I suppose.

No-one really knows how much it might cost in tax revenue. As the UK has double taxation treaties with most countries - the people who are really affected are those not paying tax at all. So Britain is effectively conniving in tax evasion just to take a small portion of tax.

How about we just say that it's wrong that one group of people can buy favourable tax legislation (not advice).

If people can't see that is wrong, god help this country.

Marktheshark

Pay your tax like the working class have to or begger off and do not come back.

Thats my ten pence.

tincans6

Marktheshark wrote: »

Pay your tax like the working class have to or begger off and do not come back.

Thats my ten pence.

Oh Mark, but what happens when the Russian kleptomaniacs who have looted their countries assets under corrupt regimes move from London to Dubai. What will become of us then ?

michaels

Sure it is not fair but we are almost certainly better off for it - I am a great one for not cutting my nose of to spite my face, but as with the hounding of the investment bankers, the general sentiment seems to be we would rather all be poor together than all be a little bit richer but have too see that some are very rich.