Should I forgive the Labour Party?

will it be retrospective?

@imbers, my understanding is its illegal to make it (or any other law) retrospective. So the answer is no.

From the Guardian story link. Abolishing non-dom status would have done nothing to prevent Sir Phillip Green / Top Shop paying the £1.2bn dividend to his wife and thus avoiding £300m in UK tax.

There are 120,000 people claiming non-dom status

@kimbers the last sentence was irrelevant, the important bit was Balls said abolishing non-doms would probably be counterproductive. He knows that’s the case as the last Labour government would have looked at it closely if at no other time then just before the General Election as its a headline grabbing policy.

What he was advocating is identical to my view which is to tighten up the rules and increase the payments

From the Guardian story link. Abolishing non-dom status would have done nothing to prevent Sir Phillip Green / Top Shop paying the £1.2bn dividend to his wife and thus avoiding £300m in UK tax.

Setting an angry, armed mob of disgruntled taxpayers on him the second he set foot back in the country might though. I think Ed should try that as a policy, personally 😀

just5minutes – Member

– loss of employment taxes on the many staff they employ

– the loss of stamp duty on properties they will buy – remembering that properties bought through company structures now attract 15% stamp duty and an annual charge

Why assume they’ll suddenly employ no staff?

Why assume that they won’t buy property (as they can still return to the UK) or for that matter that nobody else will buy the property?

so it now turns out the torries edited out a crucial final sentence in which Balls told BBC Radio Leeds “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.”

Regardless of that last sentence, in January he believed that “If you abolish the whole status it will end up costing Britain money because some people will leave the country.” and now apparently it will raise a lot of money.

Which is it ?

obviously all will be revealed in the final details, allthepies, im sure 😉

its funny that the best the torries could do is try and misrepresent Balls interview, they know this will cost them votes(and in some cases money to the taxman) and are panicking

They’re pointing out that in Jan Balls believed one thing and is now saying another. Hardly misrepresenting him.

the last sentence was irrelevant

It was terrible for labour that this existed but it did the Tories no favours that they selectively edited/spun it as well*.
I agree with you that the damage is him saying it wont raise money so they had no need to spin it.

* both are examples of politicians just being politicians [ in different ways] and why none of us respect them.

binners – Member
As usual, all the right wingers see is the bottom line. Nothing else is worthy of consideration. They know the price of everything, and the value of nothing!

I see a bigger issue that arbitrarily assigning to others, or complying with oneself, to crass left/right ideals, just for the sake of it.

We’re still spending more than we earn as a nation – publicly and privately – an uncomfortable fact which even Robert Peston is sufficiently concerned to speak up about: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32203874

” in the absence of a productivity resurgence that led to a rise in the UK’s earning capacity, questions would at some point be asked about the ability of the UK to repay its debts”

We’re spending the money of future generations and we’re generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

It’s all good and well collecting ideals and morals and a good many of them we should rightly aspire to, but it is worth remembering that although we’re bigger than Greece, we’re not immune from anything that is happening there right now. A bit more rigour on spending would do no harm – so my friends in parts of the public sector tell me.

we’re generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

Dont vote labour or pint will cost a GRAND

Whilst it is a catchy slogan it is also a little OTT.

FWIW the full quote – where he fails to warn us as you have

Now in the absence of a productivity resurgence that led to a rise in the UK’s earning capacity, questions would at some point be asked about the ability of the UK to repay its debts – including government debts that rose at a rate of 5% of GDP last year and are forecast to reach a peak of 80% of GDP (the point is that when productivity is low, earnings tend to stagnate, so tax revenues are lacklustre).
At that ill-starred juncture, sterling would weaken, not because the UK economy was thought to be a little less robust than America’s, but because of rather more profound anxieties about its (our) ability to pay for the standard of living we take for granted.
And as the Bank of England acknowledged in its so-called stress tests last year of UK banks, after a fall in sterling of some unspecified magnitude, the Bank’s monetary policy committee would have to significantly increase interest rates – to ward off the seriously inflationary consequences of a collapsing currency.
At that point, house prices would plummet, as would the spending of households still shouldering debts that are very high by historic standards.
The UK would be back in the recessionary poo.
Now for the avoidance of doubt, the probability of this kind of calamity is low, though not negligible.

I see a bigger issue that arbitrarily assigning to others, or complying with oneself, to crass left/right ideals, just for the sake of it.

Really odd that – it will be class next!! Cue Ronnie Corbett & Co….

I really don’t see how it’s spin to use a quotation, you can’t even say its out of context.

@Northwind – you could assume they will move their staff/office to wherever they are located, they won’t need such a large London property. No one is suggesting they will all go but its the marginal effect which is important, tax raised vs tax lost.

There have been far bigger tax dodges, Labour putting stamp duty up a lot but neglecting to shut the stable door in allowing people to buy using offshore companies (a technique well known and widely used around the world). For years allowing non-residents to buy/sell property without paying capital gains tax. Both these have been closed by the Tories now and stamp duty raised massively but for years these would have cost billions.

I do wonder how many buy to let landlords are not declaring rental income, I wonder if HMRC do an audit of student towns to cross reference rent declared vs number of students in the city ?

I do wonder how many buy to let landlords are not declaring rental income, I wonder if HMRC do an audit of student towns to cross reference rent declared vs number of students in the city ?

I think we probably know the answer to that one. As far as HMRC are concerned, there’s probably only 2 buy-to-let landlords in the entire country.

I really don’t see how it’s spin to use a quotation, you can’t even say its out of context.

You are probably alone in the universe, in needing it explaining to you, why omitting the last sentence is spin.

its the marginal effect which is important, tax raised vs tax lost.

Its still not ONLY about the money. Principles are priceless.

Add me to the list, the last sentence is not relevant. It’s just qualifying the “removing nom-dom status will reduce government income” January statement with “but we think it’s the right thing to do”.

Now apparently, removing nom-dom status will increase government income. That’s the point which is being made, in Jan it would reduce income, now it will raise income. Which statement is the correct one ?

Junkyard – lazarus

we’re generating levels of debt that could forseably trigger a run on sterling (£1,000 notes for a pint?) if we have another profligate and ill-advised government.

Dont vote labour or pint will cost a GRAND

Whilst it is a catchy slogan it is also a little OTT.[/quote]It was not meant as either a warning or a prediction. Nor was it merely leveled at Labour. However, did you never wonder where the 1,00 Lira notes originated in Italy, or the similarly denominated Drachma in Greece?

Junkyard – lazarus
FWIW the full quote – where he fails to warn us as you have

You only provided an excerpt of the article, people need to read it themselves for the full picture. However, there is something in there that ought to worry anyone with a brain and an idea of where private sector jobs are created. Here’s a nice clue: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377934/bpe_2014_statistical_release.pdf

Peston said:
“Well, recent figures show there has already been something of a hiatus in business investment, and businesses have a habit of postponing and cancelling big investments till they are in a position to assess a government’s direction.” It’s not only elections that hinder investment.

I very doubt I am alone in the Universe with that view, quite possibly not even in the minority 🙂

From the Telegrapgh – the non-doms pay nearly the same amount of tax as do the bottom 50% of taxpayers. With increasing personal allowance i strongly suspect the non-doms will pay more.

I guess that’s one difference between you and I JY in that numbers are what matters most. As I posted you can’t pay for the NHS with morals (principals). That takes actual money. We agree that it’s not only the money which is why i want to see non-doms abolished and I am glad they did away with non-residents not paying capital gains tax on property for example.

You are not lynton crosby and I dont claim my £5

“The Tories have edited my words from January in an attempt to deliberately mislead people because they can’t defend their own refusal to act on tax avoidance.

“They have dropped the part of my interview where on non-domicile rules I say: ‘I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.’ That is exactly what we have proposed – ending a situation where people permanently living in the UK year after year can claim non-domicile status to reduce their tax bills and play by different rules to everyone else.”

Why do you think the Tories eidted it there then if not to mislead?

Overstate is probably more accurate.

jambalaya – Member

you could assume they will move their staff/office to wherever they are located, they won’t need such a large London property.

You can assume anything you like, doesn’t mean it’s true. And of course the people who contribute the most in these ways are exactly the ones with the greatest reason not to relocate.

At the end of the day, it is largely guesswork, and unsurprisingly some people’s guesses are very different from others- of course, there’s always lots of people ready to declare that every change will have a negative effect. The minimum wage will hurt business, policy X will cause everyone to leave, twas ever thus. What’s not guesswork is that paying less tax because you’re “non-domiciled” when you’re simply not, is ridiculous. Removing illogic and dishonesty from our tax system is a weird thing to cause such dissent.

Switch it around. You are a domiciled taxpayer and businessman. Your next door neighbour is a non-dom, for some mysterious reason. He pays less tax than you; why? Damn it all, it’s not fair! I’m going to move money offshore so I pay less tax too! We’re always assured that the rich will flee the country to avoid paying more tax, or employ an army of lawyers and accountants to reduce their “tax burden”… So let’s apply that logic here, what are the marginal benefits to making the system fairer and more sane?

You only provided an excerpt of the article, people need to read it themselves for the full picture

LOL the perfect retort to me adding [ what 10 x ] information from your excerpt of an article you cited ….just brilliant. To then follow this up with another excerpt was utterly priceless piece of satire

numbers are what matters most

I would rather be poorer and moral both personally and as a nation.

Northwind – I am against the non-dom rules as they stand and for reasons similar to those you quote but abolishing it all together is counterproductive in my view. Further reform is what we need.

I would rather be poorer and moral both personally and as a nation.

That’s your view but that’s not how Labour are trying to sell it are they. They are saying it’s going to rise money despite Ed Balls saying the contrary 2 months ago.

You can reduce wealth inequality in this country by asking all the rich people to leave. Doesn’t really help though does it, even if you personally feel a bit better for a while before the reality of higher taxes/inferior services start to bite?

Harrison Bergeron “might” have a different view on what defines moral jambas!!

I love the way that a Labour government taking the country to war was either “unavoidable” or “exactly what the Tories would do”

Yet at the same time Cameron seeing that Syria was not popular or uncomplicated, calls for a vote and Labour supporters, still, want to take the credit for stopping him going to war.

Labour the theory, maybe, the Labour party, not a hope. If it was between them and UKIP, i would spoil my ballot.

jambalaya – Member

Northwind – I am against the non-dom rules as they stand and for reasons similar to those you quote but abolishing it all together is counterproductive in my view. Further reform is what we need.

The thing is, the current non-dom system is so broken, it needs to be reformed beyond any recognition. IMO it just makes sense to start over from basic principles (pun intended).

Certainly, the outcome for those that the thread seems most concerned with- those flight risks whose tax avoidance we should all be grateful for- should be the same regardless of whether we reform it to be fit for purpose, or scrap it and start over with something less mad. And that kind of negates the argument IMO- if they’re going to leg it because we abolish their non-dom status, they’re equally going to leg it because we reform non-dom enough so that they can’t abuse it.

Good article in FT today

Britain’s politicians are battling to win the award for 2015 party with the silliest and most dangerous tax commitments…..

not allowed to cut and past but…

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a9a826c-dd30-11e4-a772-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WcFhbZ00

Jammy – are you seriously holding up the Daily Telegraph as an independent source of information on this subject? 😆

That’ll be the same paper that used its front page, only last week, to criticise labour, in an open letter signed by 100+ Obscenely rich Tory donors and tax dodgers?

A paper that is owned by….. erm…. oh yeah…. 2 obscenely rich, Tory donor tax avoiders ….

You’re being satirical, I asume? 😆

I’m thinking of joining this lot:

we will drive them to the airport[/url]

They can add the non-doms to that list

They are saying it’s going to rise money despite Ed Balls saying the contrary 2 months ago.

Omitted in bold

“I think that it is important that you make sure the non-dom rules work in a fair way. I think they were too lax in the past. Both the last Labour government and this Conservative government have tightened them up.

“That is something I will continue to look at. I think if you abolish the whole status then probably it ends up costing Britain money because there will be some people who will then leave the country.”
‘I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.

You probably need to work out what probably means. You then need to decide if he has been tougher like he said and made it fairer. FWIW they have done recent research that says they can make £1 billion from this
http://waitingfortax.com/2015/04/08/how-much-might-we-raise-if-we-restrict-non-dom-status/
I agree its not a great statement from him bit with the caveat added he can argue he has done this[ as they have not fully removed it] . IMHO he has changed his opinion/position a little but not radically as its clear he wants to do something about the problem. FWIW I do not know if it will raise or decrease tax all I have said is my principles cannot be bought. Your are free to act differently.

You can reduce wealth inequality in this country by asking all the rich people to leave. Doesn’t really help though does it, even if you personally feel a bit better for a while before the reality of higher taxes/inferior services start to bite?

You sure beat that straw man to death there 😕
Its really not a fact this will cost us money despite your certainty.

But he didn’t say they were going to be ‘tougher’ this morning, he said they were going to abolish it!

Balls and Miliband both independently used the word abolish, in Milibands case several times in fact

Direct mili quote: “The next labour government will abolish the non-Dom rule”

soobalias – Member
I love the way that a Labour government taking the country to war was either “unavoidable” or “exactly what the Tories would do”

Yet at the same time Cameron seeing that Syria was not popular or uncomplicated, calls for a vote and Labour supporters, still, want to take the credit for stopping him going to war.

you might want to look up what actually happened there, in both cases

1/3rd of labour MPs rebelled against the final iraq war vote , it only passed because 90% of the tories voted for war (its almost as if most MPs hadnt actually bothered to read the dodgy dossier)

Cameron had absolutely no choice but to call a vote, even Blair didnt have the temerity to try that, in the end the Tories got it spectacularly wrong on Syria, theyd already lost 1 vote on arming the rebels (or IS as we now call them) and even deployed fighters in readiness to strike by the 2nd vote

I think you have confused Ed with his leader there 😛
Clearly labour have been back pedalling all day due to the video but they can [ just] argue they have not gone against what he said. Its just about plausible.

No, Miliband was challenged with that and quite specifically overruled/contradicted Balls earlier position

Did the back pedalling comment not cover this point?

Its just you restating the same thing. Yes they said abolish and they still have but you can have it for a temporary period if its genuine but not indefinitely hence its abolished and yet not…clear? Its not a great argument but they can argue it that way and that the later statements were clarifications.
Anyway I would rather have thought you would have admired their temerity in putting fwd a point that not even they believed that was almost plausible 😛

Clearly it was not a good day for labour but they did ok in “rescuing it”

I am still not sure why the Tories editted the video as that seems like another obvious own goal…though of course we wont discuss that as openly…probably because there are not tories on here

It’s a sad reflection of the state of British politics imo that a general election campaign should be derailed into a pointless point scoring argument over an edited clip with contradictory claims about who meant exactly what.

Well done the Tories if the aim was to avoid talking about the real issues and reduce everything down to childish schoolyard taunting.

It all smacks of negative US style “politics”.

Very Very true ernie.

the need to stay on message and say exactly the same thing is why we end up with such anodyne delivery by politicians in relation to questions

Its all fuelled by the media looking for disagreement and the party machine tries to enforce a standard view on all issues…as if we really think there is not a range of opinions within parties.

who said this?

The remittance basis has existed for a long time. The hon. Gentleman said that it sat ill with the party of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, but the remittance basis in fact goes back long before their premierships to the 1800s, and both those extremely distinguished former leaders of my party saw fit to leave it in place. Businesses see it as playing an important role in ensuring that the UK attracts skilled people from abroad to work, do business and invest. We would place ourselves at a significant competitive disadvantage if we simply scrapped the remittance basis at a time when countries with low tax regimes are competing to attract talent and investment-that would be an own goal. I do not think that that was what the hon. Gentleman was calling for, but as he mentioned competitiveness, it is important to explain why the arrangements exist.

At the same time, the remittance basis continues to play a valuable role in supporting competitiveness, which is particularly important, as I have said, in the current economic climate and as the economy moves back towards growth. Of course, it should not be forgotten that non-domiciles still contribute a significant amount of tax-it is estimated at £4 billion a year-to the Exchequer.

I hope that I have made clear the importance of the current non-domicile tax regime for the UK economy.

as for this

FWIW they have done recent research that says they can make £1 billion from this

the “research” is a single blog from a labour party member

Jolyon has a predominantly litigation based practice in the fields of direct and indirect tax. He has particular expertise in avoidance, structured finance, intangible property, tax and judicial review, and employment taxation.

Its not quite JHJ levels of evidence but yes it is not robust.

TBH apart from those who think it will cost us money [ and some of those dont like it ] does anyone really think its fair folk can live here and not pay tax? Some of them really are taking the piss, head of HMRC for example

It should be ended

You seem to have proved that the labour party has altered its position on something over time. Do political parties really change policy over time with different leaders.
Well I really dont know what to say about that

As above can we at least discuss whether it is a good or a bad idea as this is pointless

I meant HSBC there not HMRC 😳

big_n_daft – Member

who said this?

You say it as if you are providing some sort of shocking new revelation big and daft. The last Labour government was well known for its extremely favourable and sympathetic attitude towards the super rich in our society, why do you think that a multibillionare like Rupert Murdoch threw his support, and that of his newspapers, behind New Labour?

Here’s another shocking revelation which presumably will be news to you. Back in 1998 New Labour Business Secretary Peter Mandelson became notorious for saying that the then New Labour government was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

And btw since leaving office the former New Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone out of his way makes himself “filthy rich”.

Using your logic you presumably think that Labour were wrong to vote against bombing Syria because Tony Blair would have. Ed Miliband should be following exactly the same policies as Tony Blair. The behaviour of the last Labour government should be the template for all future governments.

I don’t doubt that policies such as scrapping the tax advantages of non-dom status are designed to attract votes from those likely to defect to parties such as the SNP and the Greens, something which Tony Blair never had to worry about, but for me it falls well short of convincing me that there are sufficient differences between Labour and the Tories.

Besides I could never give my full support to a party with no democratic structures and whose policies were decided by one man, no matter how many “left-wing” policies they came up with.

It’s a sad reflection of the state of British politics imo that a general election campaign should be derailed into a pointless point scoring argument over an edited clip with contradictory claims about who meant exactly what. issues that are minor in the grander scheme of things (ZHC and Non Doms) instead of fundamental to addressing the UK’s economic challenges.

Well done the Tories labour if the aim was to avoid talking about the real issues and reduce everything down to childish schoolyard taunting.

But if you are going to resort to this, at least get the story straight among yourselves. Otherwise the perma-tanned one will be back to tell us what’s what. Oh, wait a minute.

There is plenty to attack the Tories on, so let’s have an oppo who understands perspective please….

I don’t know what is funnier (in a sad way) this nonsense or watching dear Nicola trying to defend her record in power. Not so convincing when she has to defend what she does instead of playing the poor beaten underdog is she!!!