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

tincans6

N1AK wrote: »

Why not, most of us buy favourable tax treatment with our votes every election after all...

/QUOTE]


It would seem like you struggle to understand the concept of democracy , imperfect as it may be.

Scraping the bottom of a deep barrel with this pathetic argument.

Laughable.

michaels

purch wrote: »

I think what Mr Balls-Up was tring to say in the hastily and badly edited clip from a few months ago, was that the rules need to be looked at and possibly changed in a way that would bring them more in line with our competitors but without causing a large loss to the exchequer.

I can't think any sensible person would disagree with that.

I think there you have fallen into the Labour trap of only looking at the potential direct cost to the exchequer and hoping that any loss of £90ks va people leavign would be more than offset by the gain in income tax greater than 90k for those who stay.

However this ignores the indirect affect of the super rich deciding not to live here and not investing and consuming here, although the super rich themselves may not be paying much income tax they may be paying a lot of VAT on their puirchases and their employees will certainly be paying a lot of income and other taxes.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

I think there you have fallen into the Labour trap of only looking at the potential direct cost to the exchequer and hoping that any loss of £90ks va people leavign would be more than offset by the gain in income tax greater than 90k for those who stay.

That's not a trap labour seem to have set out.

From everything I have seen, it's the tories talking about the cost and suggesting it's a terrible thing to do as we might lose some money.

Take Newsnight last night as an example. Ken Clarke simply answered every question with, basically "it will cost the UK". The labour MP, however, was suggesting that money should not take precedence over everything else and it was the right thing to do.

If everything is always about money and how much it brings in, we should be promoting smoking again instead of incentivising and helping people to quit. The point being, even though this sees a loss of income from tobacco tax, it's the right thing to do.

Thrugelmir

vivatifosi wrote: »

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?

The average Labour voter has no idea what a DOM even is. What it will touch though is tax the rich more to pay the bills. That's the real objective behind the headline. As there's no substance to the pledge. Last night there was even backtracking with references to Temporary status and Students. Where Students fit in is beyond me.

princeofpounds

As a tangent, it would have been interesting to see what happened with the non-dom legislation had Scotland gone its own way. There must be tens of thousands of people with Scottish paternal grandfathers knocking around who fancied moving their investments offshore.


Normally it's only the relatively small populations of the Channel Islands who are onto this.

tincans6

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The average Labour voter has no idea what a DOM even is. What it will touch though is tax the rich more to pay the bills. That's the real objective behind the headline. As there's no substance to the pledge. Last night there was even backtracking with references to Temporary status and Students. Where Students fit in is beyond me.

Its fairly simple - but who can be surprised that Tories are doing the best to muddy the waters.

The rules should allow for short term secondments and study - and ideally would follow the OECD model convention. People being posted for 1 year to work, or studying for a PhD should not be tax resident as by definition this is not their permanent home and the arrangement if temporary. I'd care not what the exact rules are but 3 years max would seem reasonable.

It seems a fairly obvious principle - people should be equal before the law.

Once you give that up in the pursuit of a few more tax dollars, what other principles do you give up ?

Are there rights and wrongs, or is there a monetary value on everything ?

The tories can't win on this issue, not because voters are thick but because they can see well enough when something stinks.

tincans6

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's not a trap labour seem to have set out.

Indeed - I think Miliband is hopeless and Labour would be a disaster but he's on a winner here.

Moby

michaels wrote: »

I think there you have fallen into the Labour trap of only looking at the potential direct cost to the exchequer and hoping that any loss of £90ks va people leavign would be more than offset by the gain in income tax greater than 90k for those who stay.

However this ignores the indirect affect of the super rich deciding not to live here and not investing and consuming here, although the super rich themselves may not be paying much income tax they may be paying a lot of VAT on their puirchases and their employees will certainly be paying a lot of income and other taxes.

Of course one thing the selfservatives don't understand is that this is a moral issue!

Moby

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The average Labour voter has no idea what a DOM even is.

Probably because the average Labour voter is not so self serving and self interested as the typical tory!

N1AK

tincans6 wrote: »

Australia is a good example - huge planned immigration over the last 4 decades, so that currently 28% of the population were born overseas...

Of course not - unless you fit into a fairly narrow category of short term residence, you will be tax resident and taxed on your world wide income.

They have the concept of non-residents in their tax system, which as I've already mentioned allows for the kind of behaviour non-dom status in the UK does, with little change of behaviour. The only people who would call the non-resident tax rules in Aus 'narrow' are people who have no clue about how they actually work.

Those immigration figures are worth less than nothing to this debate. A lot of people have migrated there, so what? Unless they're all multi-millionaires then why would they give a toss about whether Australia allows non-doms or not?

If someone would like to provide any kind of evidence that Australia is attracting similar numbers, or more, of the super-wealthy for whom non-dom status would be beneficial I'm sure plenty of people, myself included, would love to see it. If you can't then you're just throwing around unsubstantiated opinion.