Junkyard – lazarus
I would rather be poorer and moral both personally and as a nation

So in order to comply with your sixth-form common room ideals, you would happily plunge others into poverty? That’s megalomania.

Being poor on a global scale is no joke. Being in currency or financial crisis is no joke; as those who had savings frozen in Cyprus, or those who’ve lived with rampant inflation in Argentina, for example.

This is what pisses me off the most about UK politics; the petty-minded, self-interest groups. It’s all “me,, me, me”, people talking about what they, or their tribal group want, rather than taking the view of what, overall, is best for the whole nation and its future.

I feel that if we, as a nation, had better principles, then we would all be better off. So my ‘me me me’ is to want less ‘me me me’. How does that work? Is that self interest or not?

Too Late

😀

digga – Member
….This is what pisses me off the most about UK politics; the petty-minded, self-interest groups. It’s all “me,, me, me”, people talking about what they, or their tribal group want, rather than taking the view of what, overall, is best for the whole nation and its future.

So presumably like our billionaire chums, you only keep enough income and wealth to sustain a modest lifestyle and donate the rest to help the poor, the vulnerable and the weak?

Northwind – my proposed back of the envelope reforms would be as follows and quite simple to implement;

NonDom status can only be claimed by non UK passport holders born outside the UK
Status can be claimed for a max of 5 [or 10] years
NonDoms pay full UK tax on UK earnings (as now) plus an annual fee of £50,000 [or £100,000] payable immediately and not after 7 years as currently
Students are exempt from the fees

JY – Balls interview says exactly what I believe ie that the system needs to be reformed/tightened up and that abolishing it is counterproductive. Its just 2 months later Labour have announced a policy which totally contradicts what the would be chancellor said, namely that abolishing non-dom status would raise money.

This reminds me of the predictions made when the account disclosure deal was signed with Switzerland, predictions where for billions to be raised in tax when the fact is it’s raised a few £100’s millions as most of the funds where legitimate and if tax was due it was only on the interest which with rates historically low was minimal.

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

.

Ain’t that how the media always deals with politics? Any Paxman interview is infused with “didn’t you say that?” Etc.

I’m not so sure that’s anything new even for this country.

But I agree with your sentiment.

epicyclo – Member
So presumably like our billionaire chums, you only keep enough income and wealth to sustain a modest lifestyle and donate the rest to help the poor, the vulnerable and the weak?

I take financial responsibility for myself and my dependents. The country would be a lot better off if others did the same instead of having kids they can’t be arsed to raise without handouts and borrowing stupid amounts of cash to buy crap to impress people they don’t like. I realise this is a very unfashionable view in consumerist, dependency Britain.

Do not take this to mean I have any chip on my shoulder about other people’s conspicuous wealth; that is, in a free society, entirely their business. The guy who regularly drives his Ferrari F12 past my office does me no harm and, rather, brightens up the day with a rare piece of automotive sculpture. Each to their own.

Even the ultra-rich, I am less concerned with the fact they have such wealth than with the means by which they gain it. There is something wrong there, but mere taxation will not solve it. The how and why are more complex and a good deal of it lies with the links between politics, government, big-business and these ultra-wealthy individuals. See Tony BLiar as just one example.

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

But that’s not what Non Dom actually means. There are c115,000 non doms of which only 5,000 have elected to pay the annual charge so that their income outside of the UK is not taxed – they still p[ay the annual charge PLUS normal income tax on income earned inside the UK.

It’s also worth mentioning that the 5,000 non noms who pay the annual charge pay the same amount of tax as the 10,000,000 lowest earners. This should caution against making stupid back of the fag packet policy decisions – for every 1 of those non doms who decides the Labour policy is enough to make them relocate we need to replace them with 2,000 new tax payers.

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on. Clearly they can do this and that is the SOLE reason why they stay as non doms, they do not do it because it costs them tax money. To be fair I could have written it clearer but by this stage i assume we all know what we are discussing

So in order to comply with your sixth-form common room ideals, you would happily plunge others into poverty? That’s megalomania.

Jesus wept that is one interesting way to spin I value my[our] morals and fairness above maximising[our] my money. Can I spin it back to you and ask you how low you would stoop just for the money ? Cigarettes to children? Slavery ? Legalised and taxed drugs? We all have a moral point at which we would not do certain things [ that would make money]therefore all we are doing is discussing where this line is drawn. The only childish sixth form thing here is that comment.

Being poor on a global scale is no joke.

Indeed but we are in the top 7 of the 200 + countries in the world. Given that what exactly is your point?

Junkyard – lazarus
…we are in the top 7 of the 200 + countries in the world. Given that what exactly is your point?

It’s a bit like being 7th in a marathon. It doesn’t take much to end up a hell of a lot further back and, once you’re there, there is no saying you can ever return or that your decline will halt there.

History is littered with spent empires and nations. Look at the demographic problems in (relatively) wealthy modern economies that are presently getting into trouble; Portugal, Greece, Spain, Japan. Once there are no opportunities for indigenous or immigrant youth, there is a very difficult to reverse spiral of agedness.

But that’s not what Non Dom actually means. There are c115,000 non doms of which only 5,000 have elected to pay the annual charge so that their income outside of the UK is not taxed – they still p[ay the annual charge PLUS normal income tax on income earned inside the UK

But J5M we abandoned perspective at the start of the week in favour of headline grabbing froth-making. A latte anyone?

So digga what you are saying is if we are not careful we will become a third world country or we will go the way of the Roman Empire? We lost /gave away our empire and we are still standing.
I disagre and think that is a bit OTT tbh. It could happen [ as almost anything could] but its so unlikely it not worth discussing – no offence not meant to read as harsh as it does.

THM you are correct that the tax avoiding mill/billionaire no dom resident is atypical for the UK and non doms but I am not sure why that fact means we should not legislate against them, could you explain?

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on.

Right, so how much tax did you pay on your foreign earnings (that had already been taxed locally) last year Junky?

Not pay tax means avoid paying tax that you or I cannot avoid paying tax on. Clearly they can do this and that is the SOLE reason why they stay as non doms, they do not do it because it costs them tax money. To be fair I could have written it clearer but by this stage i assume we all know what we are discussing

FFS. All non doms pay full UK tax on their UK income. the 5,000 or so that also pay an additional annual charge of up to £90K a year do not pay income tax on their earnings outside the UK.

Do they do this[ [pay the 90 k] to

1. Save money by avoiding tax?

2. Not save money ?

If its the former [ we all know it is] they are avoiding tax

You can get as angry as you wish writing your replies but they take* non dom. No one is arguing status to avoid tax.

Can we just debate whether it is a good or a bad idea rather than why they do it as we all know why.

* yes its a minority as discussed earlier and this is who we are discussing

meanwhile…..

1. They don’t avoid any tax on UK income.

2. 5,000 of the 115,000 pay an annual fee instead of tax on income earned outside of the UK. These people typically own substantial businesses / investments outside of the UK.

3. If we force the 5,000 to pay full tax on their investments outside of the UK the odds are most will move to another country where they don’t need to.

4. The 5,000 pay around £8.2B in tax. If Ed Millband is right we can take away non dom status and they will all stay – it’s an unknown if the income tax on offshore investments will be greater than the amount collected through the annual charge. If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

1. They don’t avoid any tax on UK income.

Which is no doubt minimised via tax havens to reduce any tax they do pay.

2. 5,000 of the 115,000 pay an annual fee instead of tax on income earned outside of the UK. These people typically own substantial businesses / investments outside of the UK.

So about 4.3% then. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

3. If we force the 5,000 to pay full tax on their investments outside of the UK the odds are most will move to another country where they don’t need to.

BINGO! Used every single time. I haven’t noticed swathes of bankers leaving the country of late. It won’t happen.

4. The 5,000 pay around £8.2B in tax. If Ed Millband is right we can take away non dom status and they will all stay – it’s an unknown if the income tax on offshore investments will be greater than the amount collected through the annual charge. If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

DOUBLE BINGO!

Lets face it, their overseas earnings will be held by company A which is owned by company B etc… which is owned by some tax haven.

If Ed Milliband is wrong, some / all will move and we will not only lose the £8.2B, we will also lose the income tax they earn on UK earnings.

I take it you didn’t read the rest of the thread then. To repeat, losing some tax would be a price worth paying to have a fairer system where everyone is treated equally and lives by the same rules. Money is not the issue here.

To repeat, losing some tax would be a price worth paying to have a fairer system where everyone is treated equally and lives by the same rules.

There we agave it ladies and gentlemen, ‘He would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich!’

Good old lefties, it never changes…

Junkyard – lazarus
So digga what you are saying is if we are not careful we will become a third world country or we will go the way of the Roman Empire? We lost /gave away our empire and we are still standing.
I disagre and think that is a bit OTT tbh. It could happen [ as almost anything could] but its so unlikely it not worth discussing – no offence not meant to read as harsh as it does

I’m sure there were plenty of Byzantine/Greek/Roman [delete as appropriate] commentators who had similar opinions.

You are correct that we have ceded a large part of empire and influence, but that is different to saying there is no further to fall. As I say, just look at the very real economic and long-term demographic problems in other developed nations around the world today.

Digga we may fall catastrophically but only if capitalism falls . We may fall a little bit but we are not going to crumble as a nation because Attila the huns empire or Alexander the greats empire eventually failed.

Can you answer the question Just 5 minutes

Do they do this[ [pay the 90 k] to

1. Save money by avoiding tax?

2. Not save money ?
We all know why they do it and you just refusing to state it makes this “debate” somewhat pointless.

the odds are most will move to another country where they don’t need to.

I thought[ genuine Q] we were the only country with non dom status so the list of countries they can move to is non existent. FWIW I think they chose here for reasons that are not JUST low tax – ie education of their children, lifestyle, arts scene whatever. The odds are we have no idea what % will stay or go as you then admit in your fourth point 😕

I do rather like the reading Ninfan and other right wingers arguing that they let very rich non doms avoid tax because they care about the poor people and taxing them means you hate the poor and want to hurt them. 😆

Now all you need to do is convince the electorate of the truth of this viewpoint. Good luck, I think you might need it

Sometimes on here its like the end of fighting talk when folk have to defend the indefensible and they say things like that but for the giggles

RE: War.

what was the bottom line kimbers?

So here is my understanding

The £8.2bn of UK taxes paid is by all non-doms, 115,000 people (approx) not just the 5,000 who pay the fee. Note this is UK tax income not just the fees

As a non-dom you pay £30,000 after 7 years of living in the UK and £90,000 after 17 years in order to not pay UK tax on your non-UK income. From above I see the figure of 5,000 people pay these amounts. The other 110,000 pay no fee.

As a non-dom you may pay non-UK tax on your non-UK income, that would depend where that income is and the tax laws in those countries

@Adam you haven’t noticed bankers leaving, do you actually follow this ? How would you notice ? As someone who’s been in Finance for nearly 30 years I can tell you many bankers have left the country post the financial crises mostly as the number of jobs has declined markedly, some have left for tax reasons after the top rate when to 50%. If you look at the number of non-doms it peaked around 2006/7, I strongly suspect the number has fallen as banking jobs have been lost.

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that’s another issue.

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that’s another issue.

and look how thats helped the greek economy helped screw the eurozone and ultimately drag everyone into the crap

Kimbers you are hurting not only the poor of the UK but of Greece with that crazy leftie talk….I wished you cared about them 😥

JY I may have posted this before .. whilst non-dom status may not exist other countries have attractive tax regimes, tax breaks etc

Switzerland – taxes vary widely by Canton and can be legitimately negotiated but if you live in Zug income tax is zero, they have a wealth tax of some 0.25% but you can offset expenses against it. You can elect in many cantons to pay tax based upon the size of your property, so if you live in an apartment for example you may pay very little
USA – wide varience in tax rates by state, some states have zero state tax like Connecticut, lots of deductions so the wealthy typically pay around 15%
Portugal – I read yesterday tax on pensions is zero, designed to encourage people to relocate and retire there
Dubai – income tax is zero
Hong Kong – top rate of tax is 15%
Singapore – top rate of tax is 20% (from equiv £175k) paid on earnings, zero tax on investment income and capital gains

Annecdotally one of the historic groups of non-doms where Greek shipping magnates, they came to the UK to live and kept their shipping business and income offshore. they paid UK tax on their UK income and money brought into the country. I suspect they may not have brought that much into the country or frankly declared much of it but that’s another issue.

On the contrary. This IS the issue. Its all part of the bigger picture of what London has become. They (Greek Shipping Magnates) are the very personification of group of pretty dubious people who feel that taxation is for the ‘little people’. I suppose you also think the Russian Oligarch being encouraged to make London their home, are also pictures of ethical probity?

The fact of the matter is that the City of London, as ethical as we all know it is, is awash with dirty money from all over the world. And the people who’ve come here to have it laundered are only paying a token tax contribution.

Its about time that we as a society stopped not just tolerating them, but indulging them. They’ll still come and have their money laundered. Where else are they going to go and find such a willing ethical vacuum?

Greece’s problems are a bit more deep rooted than shipping magnates taking non-dom status and the abolition will not help them one jot.

Greek shipping magnates have helped the UK by paying taxes here and spending money.

Once again, as long as it helps the bottom line, balances the books, then anything goes. No matter how morally dubious.

Brilliant!!!

The scary thing is, those in government think exactly the same.

They have helped themselves – “helping” us was incidental. They have also shafted their own people in the process. Few of us will feel like helping them or being so charitable in our description of them.

@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is “dodgy” ?

@binners I think those are legitimate concerns but unless someone has been convicted of a crime how do you decide if someone is “dodgy” ?

Good question. But it a lot of cases, its hardly difficult. The people who we’re talking about here, like Putins cronies, generally have reputations which precede them.

And I’d suggest that a still unreformed culture of ‘no questions asked’ espoused by the likes of HSBC, and pretty representative of The City in general, is the polar opposite of the aproach needed to actually address the issue.

If there were any will or desire whatsoever to address it. Which they’re clearly isn’t.

The scary thing is, those in government think exactly the same.

Except they don’t. Read the link I posted before, Considerable time is spent addressing tax policy including cross-party committees. They also spend more considered time debating what is and isn’t fair and recognise that this is not as simple as some make out. There is not moral superiority/absolute in the notion of equality of outcome. Having said that, there is cross party support for an element of redistribution within tax policy but that is not the be all and end all.

FWIW. HSBC employs a very large number of people to counter your accusation. Your point may suggest that they are not doing their job very well, which as a shareholder, is a point that I would accept,

@jambalaya

@Adam you haven’t noticed bankers leaving, do you actually follow this ? How would you notice ? As someone who’s been in Finance for nearly 30 years I can tell you many bankers have left the country post the financial crises mostly as the number of jobs has declined markedly, some have left for tax reasons after the top rate when to 50%. If you look at the number of non-doms it peaked around 2006/7, I strongly suspect the number has fallen as banking jobs have been lost.

To be honest, I haven’t noticed. That’s the whole point. I haven’t noticed.

Let them leave. It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

If “the richest” all clear off, how does that help the poorest BTW ?

It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

Indeed, so good job that the stats do not support that idea. Check out income inequality under this lot!

Let them leave.

You haven’t noticed a shortage of bankers ?

If we carry on losing bankers at this rate soon we won’t have any banks.

Let them leave. It is wrong that a government keeps hitting the poorest to pay for the richest.

@Adam – bit repetitive of me but some of my favourite stats

Top 1% pay 30% (close to) of the taxes
I did a calc recently posted on here which shows that someone on £250k pays 47 times more tax than someone on £17k
Non-doms pay £8.2bn which Telegraph estimated was equal to the total tax paid by the bottom 50%
Massive increases in stamp duty, Kensington and Chelsea pay something like 7% of the stamp duty collected in the whole country – that was before the last big hike by the Tories
London generates £34bn more in taxes than it receives in govt spending

My guess is banking jobs are down by 200,000 since 2008, clearly most in relatively low level positions but many many senior jobs gone in London. I personally think this is a factor in the reduction of average earnings as these are all above average paying jobs