Forum menu
Are Labour making policy based on facts and with the principle of doing the best thing for the economy – or playing silly political games?
Depends on whether you consider making everyone who lives here pay their taxes here as a "silly political game". There will be a loss for the treasury if/when some current life long non-doms decide to move out of the UK, yes. Should they be bribed to stay here with a big open tax loophole for them to exploit in plain sight...? I'm sure the owner of the Daily Mail would say that it's absolutely fine and correct that we do.
Depends on whether you consider making everyone who lives here pay their taxes here as a “silly political game”. There will be a loss for the treasury if/when some current life long non-doms decide to move out of the UK, yes. Should they be bribed to stay here with a big open tax loophole for them to exploit in plain sight…? I’m sure the owner of the Daily Mail would say that it’s absolutely fine and correct that we do.
Non-Doms do pay taxes here, it's on their earnings outside of the UK that they are not paying taxes, if they wish too.
What Ed Balls, and others know is that these Non-Doms can just funnel their earnings outside the UK to tax havens, and no need to worry about paying any tax on it, that was one of the fundamental reasons that the UK government came up with the Non-Dom annual payments, to try and get them to pay something into the treasury pot.
their earnings outside of the UK
And I refer you again to the Daily Mail... the owner of which ensures that he owns it via offshore companies... so as a non-dom he doesn't pay UK taxes on his earnings from it, even when he onshores it... despite, arguably, its main business being very much based in the UK... being a UK newspaper publisher. So, lives here, does his business here, most of his customers are here... doesn't pay his tax here.
Allowing people to keep life long non-dom status is itself a "silly political game", and reform is needed to stop long term British residents avoiding paying UK tax that they would otherwise have to pay without non-dom status.
Some non-doms will suck it up and pay more to the UK treasury, some will move away from the UK. Would the end result be a net gain or loss for the UK treasury? No one really knows for sure. Is that a good enough reason to let people keep life long non-dom status to avoid paying tax here? I'd say no. You and the owner of the Daily Mail think otherwise.
try and get them to pay something into the treasury pot
It was an interesting attempt to reduce the use of non-dom status... that just raises the bar for how rich you need to be for non-dom status to make financial sense. The idea that Lord Rothermere paying a £30k annual fee is in anyway meaningful compared to the loss of tax to the treasury due to his non-dom status is laughable.
Some non-doms will suck it up and pay more to the UK treasury, some will move away from the UK. Would the end result be a net gain or loss for the UK treasury? No one really knows for sure. Is that a good enough reason to let people keep life long non-dom status to avoid paying tax here? I’d say no. You and the owner of the Daily Mail think otherwise.
I believe HMRC did a review a few years back after the changes in the remittance basis and the charge being applied to Non-Dom's, i think the outcome was that there was a reduction in taxation from Non-Dom's due to this, but again there are many metrics involved in this, as not all Non-Doms are multi-millionaires who can afford to pay 30 or 60k a year to offset tax from outside the UK.
It would be good to have an actual report released on the benefits of removing, or keeping the Non-Dom status, but again, there are many tax avoidance routes that can easily map over any removal of this, just look at the big 4 accountancy firms, they are constantly assessing how to reduce their customers tax liability, they make profit from people paying them lots of money to avoid paying HMRC their fair share.
It will still be a prediction, the reality after a rule change is unknown.
Ultimately, if you think it's okay for people to be permanently UK resident and keep life long non-dom status... I don't agree with you, even if removing their status did decrease the UK tax take (and I don't think it would, but no one can be sure either way).
I'd personally bin most of the tax confusion in the UK tomorrow if it were possible, but there are so many that are interlinked, not just within the UK, but outside with tax treaties, law, etc.
I think tax is something that has been a nightmare for every government, some come in with good intentions, see the mess and give up, others just ignore it from the start!
but there are so many that are interlinked, not just within the UK, but outside with tax treaties, law, etc
It is all interlinked, and putting a time limit on non-dom status (or at least doing away with life long non-dom status) is the start, not the end, of a massive change to tax rules, with international complications. Lots of hard work, for sure. But what do we have a government for…?
But what do we have a government for…?
To protect the wealth and power of those who already possess it? You want to make tax fairer and simpler? The solution is fairly obvious, abolish income taxes and tax wealth and consumption instead.
How does that make it simpler, if you’re taxing consumption against wealth how exactly does that work across all assets being bought, and against what, actual wealth, perceived wealth,etc, etc?
Some examples would be good?
Tax on consumption is regressive as consumption constitutes a greater proportion of lower incomes.
Dazh loves to make the difficult sound so simple it's obvious... but yes, shift the tax burden from income to wealth... much easier said then done, wealth is even easier to hide and/or offshore... but done it must be. But back to the matter in hand... a special life long tax status for the people who live here but inherited non-dom status from their father is the lowest of low hanging fruit in our "one rule for us, another for the richest" tax system, that protecting it is a big obvious two fingers up to everyone else. Labour should do away with it. As should the Conservatives.
Tax on consumption is regressive as consumption constitutes a greater proportion of lower incomes.
Current taxes on consumption, yes.
But, for example, having a tax on flights that increases with every flight you take... that could be a more progressive tax on consumption. Same for paying VAT on all household energy use above a threshold, but not below. All sorts of ways to make taxes on consumption more progressive. We tend not to do so though, because, well... 🤷🏻
You're right though, in most cases, taxes on wealth and income are easier to make progressive than taxes on consumption. Well, until it gets to the super rich, and then they find ways of paying proportionally less and less. Which brings us back to long term non-dom tax status... there's no excuse for keeping it.
At last the line of attack makes so much more sense in this context.
https://twitter.com/ITVNewsPolitics/status/1518948829583839232?t=Si1wYZYFvY_NWF0oTPjFyw&s=19
Was bloody obvious to me ages ago.
I just see a loophole for every attempt, the reason i ask for examples is simple, such as:
Two people buy a rolex, one has saved for a decade, it's his dream watch, £1000 a year in an ISA has got him one which costs half his annual salary. An EPL footballer buys the same watch that costs him 1 days salary, how do you get a different level of taxes to match the wealth if you're aiming it at consumption?
It's the same with aiming it at wealth, as stated above, the rich make an art out of appearing poor, they have companies owning their assets, family owning their assets, etc, i think on that last assessment of some of the Unexplained Wealth Orders in the UK, there were some 12 year olds who appear to own expensive London apartments and sports cars!
By the time a new government has set up a structure to tax consumption, the accountancy firms have packages and models available to minimise any tax exposure yet again. It takes governments years to get changes to tax, it takes the tax avoidance specialists days to find any ways to reduce tax payments for their customers.
wealth is even easier to hide and/or offshore
The majority of wealth in this country is in the form of property. You can't offshore that. Financial assets are also easily dealt with by passing a law to ban off-shoring. As for taxing consumption, well we already do that through VAT, fuel duty, duty on cigarettes and alchohol etc.
None of this is difficult for a government with the will to do it. If a political party can't sell the abolition of income tax to a population which mostly relies on selling their labour then they need to get better PR people.
Yes, we tax consumption, lots of different levels, luxury taxes were brought in for this, but again, this is at the product, not the person so hard to understand the framework you would have to differentiate from someone buying a rolex who earns 20k a year, and someone buying one who earns 20 million a year.
You can buy and sell property offshore easily enough, Tony Blair showed us that, as have many more people, have a look at the most expensive building in London, 1 Hyde Park and the ownership framework for all those flats!
you would have to differentiate from someone buying a rolex who earns 20k a year, and someone buying one who earns 20 million a year.
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year? Those sort of goods are the ones you tax more, and use the money to remove tax on every day goods that normal people buy. The point is that you can use fiscal policy to reduce inequality and mitigate externalities.
As for wealth taxes, they’re massively more progressive than income tax. Why should someone with no savings on an average income pay more tax as a proportion of their entire estate than a millionaire?
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year?
Don’t be daft, who buys a Rolex if they earn 20k a year?
I gave the example earlier, someone who may have wanted one through life or whatever, saved up for a decade to buy it. It was just an example against one person saving a long time to buy something that is a luxury, against a sports star, or banker who might see it as a days salary. All you'd do by taxing anything that's deemed a luxury more, is make it even more inaccessible to those on lower wages, truly making them only available to the rich.
Again, just the flip side to the argument, same with wealth taxes, not sure about the statement about wealth and entire estates, we already have things like council tax bandings and so on, not sure how you could swap out income tax and aim it at someones estate value, as you're going to get into the whole perceived wealth, rather than actual wealth argument.
the guardian: labour on ‘thin ice’ at local elections despite poll lead, warn party chiefs.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/26/labour-on-thin-ice-at-local-elections-despite-poll-lead-warn-party-chiefs
WTAF?!?
Labour chiefs have warned the party it is unlikely to be able to spin a compelling story of victory after next week’s local elections, calling Tory claims of 750 losses “ludicrous” and suggesting Labour may even lose “red wall” seats.
All you’d do by taxing anything that’s deemed a luxury more, is make it even more inaccessible to those on lower wages
Yes because the poor and the working class all aspire to own a Rolex. Do you actually believe this shit you’re spouting or do I have to call troll?
A banker or footballer might buy a Rolex with one days wages and then he might buy one next year and year after. They will pay more tax than someone who buys one every 20 years.
Tax property, tax wealth, & tax land instead of bloody subsidising it!
the guardian: labour on ‘thin ice’ at local elections despite poll lead, warn party chiefs.
It's going to be an interesting one.
Any outcome will not likely see the back of Johnson or Starmer though so expect this miserable trudge all over again until economic collapse; coming soon to a red wall near you.
When we do finally get to recession expect the Tories to make a better run of it. Whereas Labour will be going on about paying for it.
You absolutely can't make it up.
Any government has a chance to now to fix the economy. It should be solid Labour territory.
Yes because the poor and the working class all aspire to own a Rolex. Do you actually believe this shit you’re spouting or do I have to call troll?
As stated earlier, it’s an example that can be replaced with anything at that price.
As for spouting, it’s no worse than stating you’d change the entire tax structure without much thought of all the dodges, a few posts ago you were stating you couldn’t buy or own property offshore, now you want consumption tax where the rich could use a plethora of tax dodges, from company ownership offsetting tax, buying ‘secondhand’, etc, etc
It’s going to be an interesting one.
It will be particularly interesting if, as "Labour chiefs" fear, Labour even lose “red wall” seats.
Councillors are elected for 4 years, 4 years ago when those seats were last up for grabs the "bearded allotment dweller" was party leader - which as we all know was an absolute election disaster for Labour, something which he was personally responsible for and no one else was.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
Or will this awkward fact be simply ignored?
tax wealth and consumption instead.
It's interesting that the French have tried to do this, the creation of the IGF and the IFI (paid by people with world wide net assets of over 1.3 Million euros) pretty much do what you suggest. They were only bought in a couple of years before COVID so it's difficult to analyse the really, but so far have contributed 0.17% of the total tax revenue. They admit that it's an ideological tax, as it actually contributes little to the revenue. As BillMc suggests; consumption taxes badly tilt against the poorer in society
Personally I'm in favour of reforming inheritance tax rules. i.e. no passing houses onto the next generation broadly. The house is just back on the open market. But it'll never get past the public I'd suspect.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
If Labour lose more councillors than they gain (ie do worse than they did in 2018), then Starmer will be replaced this year (you would hope). People are expecting a huge improvement on the 2018 results. Labour doing "just as badly" or "even worse" (or even only slightly better) will be seen as a disaster. What's really odd is that the 2018 results weren't seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
How is Labour doing just as badly, or possibly even worse, under Starmer going to be explained?
Every poll I've read seems to suggest Labour will gain overall.
I think a lot of that talk is about managing expectations/ getting people out to vote.
What’s really odd is that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
Not really. Thats what happens when the bar is set 12 months earlier where 'not losing as disastrously as expected' is celebrated as some marvellous victory by the faithful...
I've been out delivering letters to postal voters this morning. Does that count as virtue signalling? Or do I need to tweet my solidarity with the people of Palestine? 😉
Every poll I’ve read seems to suggest Labour will gain overall.
Haven't the Tories set the bar where losing less than 1,000 council seats will be seen as a 'good' result? So, they're where labour were post 2017 with Grandad? If this isn't as bad as predicted, then thats a result!
What’s really odd is that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader back then.
Four years ago there was a 8% swing to Labour in the local elections, which was 4 times greater than the swing achieved four years earlier under Ed Miliband.
But you think it's really odd that the 2018 results weren't seen as a reason to change the leader?
What I find really odd is how you have apparently forgotten that during the entire time he was leader of the party the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn.
Almost as odd as binners constant rewriting of history.
But you think it’s really odd that the 2018 results weren’t seen as a reason to change the leader?
Well, if they weren't... then Labour doing better in these elections isn't going to lead to a change of leader, is it.
If 2018 was a good result, then doing better, even if only slightly better, would also be a good result. No? I think everyone is expecting much more than that. Matching 2018 would be seen as failure for Labour this May, I think. I suspect most people see it the same way.
the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn
They didn't do enough, in my opinion. There was no good reason to fight a second general election with the same leader. They all (including Starmer) should have stepped back and refused to be in his shadow cabinet. It would have caused a crisis in the party, but the alternative is where we are now, a crisis in the country.
What I find really odd is how you have apparently forgotten that during the entire time he was leader of the party the PLP did their damn hardest to replace Corbyn.
I can't remember any time that the PLP nominated a challenger, Corbyn had shored up all those routes to pushing him out, from the exec committee and labour membership, the whole momentum thing came in at that time as well to back him, so those old 'new' labour MPs might have wanted him replaced, but they weren't trying their hardest to get rid of him, they just sat back and did nothing, even after the debacle of the last election, he stayed on as the leader for another 4 months as the PLP just waited for him to step down.
If 2018 was a good result
No 2018 wasn't a particularly good result for Labour, it was however the best local election result since 2012.
If bearded allotment-dwelling grandad was such an electoral disaster then Labour should be celebrating a spectacular result under binners political messiah next week.
they weren’t trying their hardest to get rid of him, they just sat back and did nothing,
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
If bearded allotment-dwelling grandad was such an electoral disaster then Labour should be celebrating a spectacular result under binners political messiah next week.
It all depends on the metrics, around here Labour don't really compete the locals, so what are the hypothetical gains that can be made, and how hard are they being fought.
As for Starmer being a political messiah, he's pretty much unknown in terms of his political abilities so far, but i just see him as being way more sellable to the masses than Corbyn was.
, but they weren’t trying their hardest to get rid of him
Serious? I think you need to have a look again at that?
but i just see him as being way more sellable to the masses than Corbyn was
I think you could claim that he's less "divisive" than Corbyn. I don't do house to house canvassing any more, but friends that still do are telling me that he's (Starmer) doesn't provoke the love him or loathe him reaction, but then lots of folks don't seem have an opinion of him either way, which brings it's own set of issues, I suspect.
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
They had one leadership contest, and look what happened, the NEC allowed Corbyn to be automatically included on the ballot, removing the route for the PLP to not vote him on, and then the influx of voters for the contest through campaigns from momentum, trade unions and so on.
Trying their hardest to get rid of Corbyn may have been their aim, but with only one route available, and that heavily in Corbyn's favour, i'm not seeing how it was much of a threat!
Okay this is just getting silly now. Probably time to do something else.
Slow learner, I worked out what a waste of time this thread was a long time ago. And now it is discussing Corbyn again, for the 100th time...
for the 100th time…
I'm currently making my way through Who Dares Wins, by Dominic Sandbrook I'm up to the chapter where he looks at the Labour party in 1980, and the struggles between the Bennite and Callaghan factions. The echos from then to now are startling It's remarkably similar to the events of just a few years ago.
Starmer has no excuse to not be doing well currently.
Especially given Epstein 'chum' Mandleson thinks he's completely rewired the Labour Party.
Someone should ask Starmer if he thinks the Cerne Abbas Giant is potentially female and actually has a cervix.
Of course, the dick was added. The figure originally didn't have one. Makes you think.