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

tincans6

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

You are conflating 2 separate issues.

Non residents spend enough time out of the country - in Australia its more than 183 days, pretty similar to the UK for non-residents, although naturally in the UK it is complex. Non residents claim that the home is somewhere else - and there is no argument here - all OECD countries have similar rules.

The issue is non - domicile - and there is no such status in Australia.

I'm not claiming that any system is better - only that no other major country has a status similar to NON DOMICILE.

(Japan has a similar status for those living there less than 5 years).

chewmylegoff

tincans6 wrote: »

You are conflating 2 separate issues.

Non residents spend enough time out of the country - in Australia its more than 183 days, pretty similar to the UK for non-residents, although naturally in the UK it is complex. Non residents claim that the home is somewhere else - and there is no argument here - all OECD countries have similar rules.

The issue is non - domicile - and there is no such status in Australia.

I'm not claiming that any system is better - only that no other major country has a status similar to NON DOMICILE.

(Japan has a similar status for those living there less than 5 years).

Which other countries have a free at point of use health service? Should we scrap the NHS then?

tincans6

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Which other countries have a free at point of use health service? Should we scrap the NHS then?

I'm guessing that as you have somewhat randomly changed the subject that you accept that you were wrong and other major countries have no such status as non-domicile.

As for the NHS - I personally think that universal coverage is more important than free at the point of use (almost everyone in OECD bar USA)

To answer you question, I believe Sweden is pretty similar to the NHS but with a small charge for GP's

As the best systems seem to have some form of mutual insurance/claim back, I wouldn't be adverse to that, although it would be a mammoth and costly change.

We accept that much dentistry is charged for as are prescriptions or elderly care costs (you have to be in a fairly extreme state to qualify for nursing care), I don't have a problem with a charge to see a GP, but inevitably there will be so many exemptions (pensioners, kids, the poor, the disabled) that you wonder if there would be any point.

padington

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Rent is less than a mortgage payment in most of the UK.

If we want more owners and less moaners, we need to aggressively expand mortgage lending, so the young can once again compete with the old and wealthy for the purchase of assets.

Perhaps we need to aggressively expand social housing to help reduce rents so young people can save quicker to buy a house as well as increasing credit lines to stable first time buyers to ensure that social housing becomes a quick path to home ownership.

This could also be a wise idea because the extra credit wouldn't push prices further out of reach because of the low rent social housing tempering the market.

antrobus

As noted in the latest edition of Private Eye

- donations to the Labour Party from non-doms in the years 2001-2010 £10 million

- donations to the Labour Party from non-doms in the years 2010-2015 £0 million

Perhaps that explains the change in policy?

The New Labour 1997 manifesto was clear that there would be a review of non-domicile but once in power Labour changed its mind because of the perceived impact on the City. But—crucially—we were not told of a change in policy so nothing appeared to happen at all.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/fair-game

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

As noted in the latest edition of Private Eye

- donations to the Labour Party from non-doms in the years 2001-2010 £10 million

- donations to the Labour Party from non-doms in the years 2010-2015 £0 million

Perhaps that explains the change in policy?

The New Labour 1997 manifesto was clear that there would be a review of non-domicile but once in power Labour changed its mind because of the perceived impact on the City. But—crucially—we were not told of a change in policy so nothing appeared to happen at all.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/fair-game

Maybe, but it's worth pointing out that at least two of their non-dom donators gave up their non-dom status in 2010/11.

Another is no longer even in the country.

Not sure on the third, who is apparently Britains second richest man.