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

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Isn't it 182 days or less as long as you have a home somewhere else, like, say, Monaco...

I expect that quite a lot of people will just !!!!!! off for half the year and therefore reduce the amount of tax paid as the rules for non residents are the same but without the annual non dom levy...

I cannot remember days but was pretty certain its more than 90. For some reason I think I thought 140 or 142. I guess you'd know more than me though!

TheBlueHorse

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Non-doms pay a high fee each year for their status, AND pay full UK tax on all money they have as income here. We'd be mad to give that up.

If you vote labour and are not a public sector worker or benefit scrounger, then you mus be mad.

tincans6

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Secondly, why isn't income earned overseas taxed in those countries? If it is, then why should there be double taxation on income?

It would be taxed in the overseas country.

It would not be double taxed because the UK has double taxation treaties with most countries in the world - eg with South Africa since 2003.

So it wouldn't affect most people who would in fact be able to claim non-dom if they wished and were wealthy enough - there are at least 6 million people in the UK who could theoretically claim non-dom status.

Who it really affects are those who can arrange their affairs to have some income paid in the UK and some in a low tax jurisdiction (lets say Jersey @ 20%) or can arrange it so that their income is converted to a capital gain in (lets say Jersey again) and taxed at nil rate. This is all simple tax avoidance stuff.

tincans6

Moby wrote: »

Loads of the rich and powerful live in New York and they don't have non dom status there so why should they suddenly upsticks and depart these shores if it is stopped?

Check out how onerous USA taxation is on their citizens who live and work abroad - they practically have to give up their citizenship to escape the IRS.

tincans6

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

yet polls suggest that the majority of Tories support this as well.

chewmylegoff

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 - and this doesn't include anyone who has a parent who was born overseas.

Do they have a special tax status for non - domicile ?

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.

Perhaps that's because Aussies tend not to be such gutless cowards, cringing, bowing and scraping to the rich and powerful.

What a bunch of spineless, lily-livered suckholes the British have become - where they can't see the difference between right and wrong and everything is measured by how much it costs (even when we don't know).

It's ****** risible.

They have similar non-resident status to the UK system.

Is there any evidence that the lack of a non-domiciled status in the Australian tax system is a good thing which results in more tax revenue being raised from rich people?

chewmylegoff

tincans6 wrote: »

Check out how onerous USA taxation is on their citizens who live and work abroad - they practically have to give up their citizenship to escape the IRS.

Check out the systematic tax evasion by US residents - is there any evidence that their approach is somehow "better"? Does it result in rich people paying more tax?

tincans6

chewmylegoff wrote: »

They have similar non-resident status to the UK system.

Is there any evidence that the lack of a non-domiciled status in the Australian tax system is a good thing which results in more tax revenue being raised from rich people?

Not for people born there or who make Australia their permanent home they don't.

tincans6

Here is an example for people who fail to see the difference between what is right and wrong.

Should a footballer who is born in Peckham and never lived abroad be able to arrange his affairs as thus.

1) Be paid for UK domestic matches.
2) Be paid for overseas away matches tax free in another jurisdiction
3) Be paid for image rights tax free in an overseas jurisdiction.

This is exactly what Rio Ferdinand could do if he wished (not suggesting he does) and claimed non-domicile (because of his fathers birth in St Lucia).

We will leave aside the ludicrous idea that non-dom can be inherited through only the fathers side. Comes to something when the Royal family are head of the game in the equality stakes.

chewmylegoff

tincans6 wrote: »

Not for people born there or who make Australia their permanent home they don't.

An Australian citizen can be non resident for Australian tax purposes if they are abroad for enough of the year. Their non resident rules are similar to ours.

Have you got any evidence the Australian system is better somehow - does it result in demonstrably higher rates of tax collection? I have no idea whether it does or doesn't but presumably you cite it as a good example on some basis other than you have just decided it is better because you say so.