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

TheBlueHorse

but many of these non-doms have houses all over the world and live all over the place throughout the tax year.

look, we've been here before, when labour idiotically put income tax up to 70% or was it 90%??? What happened? The rich left. So they got nothing.

Labour are just as greedy as any billionaire - more so. they want to take everything from everyone, to give to their benefit brigade of voters.

A sickening jealous lot. Cameron is a toff is he - because he went to Eton and Oxbridge, whereas Blair was a man of the people, having been to Fettes College and Oxford. Clegg is a man of the people having been to Westminster and Cambridge. Milipede is a man of the people in his £2.5m home in luvvie Primrose Hill having been to Oxford.
The biggest "man of the people" is david davis, who grew up on a council estate and went to the army.

They need a rule that no one - NO ONE - can go into politics until they are over 40 and have done at least 15 years in a real job first. That will do away with this "political class" who know very little of the real world.

TheBlueHorse

Moby wrote: »

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

probably because the average labour supporter sees this as more free money for them. Take from the non-dom, give to the benefit brigade.

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Encouraging smoking leads to people dying early and painful deaths.

Decreasing taxation by removing non-dom status leads to less tax to spend on welfare, schools, the national debt.

There is literally no comparison at all, and it's ridiculous to even imagine there was. When it comes to taxing the rich, it really is moronic to prioritise how much you take off them (each) over how much tax it raises in total.

princeofpounds

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

It's an interesting contention, but the practical evidence is not quite so clear cut.


Higher income people tend to be Conservative. Higher income people are net contributors to the welfare of the state.


Lower income people tend to be Labour. Lower income people are net recipients from the welfare of the state.


Yes, these are statistical generalities. But one has to question how selfless these voters actually are when the net effect of their voting is to redistribute money into their own pockets.


It is very easy to be charitable with other people's money, if one wishes to make a provocative statement.


Furthermore, it is often the case that the Conservative mindset is simply more aware of the constraints that reality poses on government spending, where and how the value that can be spent is actually created. In such respects, they are often advocates of making spending sustainable over time, and are looking out for the long-term financial health of the country, which is in itself actually a rather selfless endeavour.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Tobacco tax is, as with any other tax, just a way of raising tax revenue. The fact that they govt can jack up tobacco taxes whilst claiming that they are doing it to help smokers is just a bonus to the government as the tax is seen as a good thing by non smokers. However if the government really wanted to stop people from smoking surely it would just ban smoking rather than taxing cigarettes by an amount which makes smoking expensive but still affordable to most people.

If abolishing non dom tax status isn't to raise revenue for the government then what is the point of it? Any tax change in the name of "fairness" (which in this context means redistributing income from rich to poor, I presume) needs to actually achieve that redistributive effect, surely. Otherwise the government might as well just declare it is going to tax all rich people who own the moon £1 billion in order to ensure that society is fairer for all those non-moon owners amongst us.

purch

michaels wrote: »

I think there you have fallen into the Labour trap

I don't think I have.

It's clearly preposterous for a British born citizen who lives in the UK to be able to claim this status due to a loophole.

Removing it from these people is unlikely to cause any loss at all.

It's not the status that needs to be looked at, just the actual status of a tiny number of those who claim it.

tincans6

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

but many of these non-doms have houses all over the world and live all over the place throughout the tax year.

Not sure if you are being deliberately thick but in those cases they are unlikely to spend 183 days per year in the UK and would be counted as non-resident.

We are talking about people who live here all year, have their home & family here and are often born here.

Yet people think they should be non-domicile

michaels

tincans6 wrote: »

Not sure if you are being deliberately thick but in those cases they are unlikely to spend 183 days per year in the UK and would be counted as non-resident.

We are talking about people who live here all year, have their home & family here and are often born here.

Yet people think they should be non-domicile

Or people think that although it is unfair they would rather hang on to the doctors, nurses and teachers that it pays for rather than do without in the name of fairness.

Thrugelmir

tincans6 wrote: »

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

As per my earlier post the Labour spin doctors know how to hook their core support.

Thrugelmir

tincans6 wrote: »

We are talking about people who live here all year, have their home & family here and are often born here.

That's assumption not fact.