FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Non Dom tax status
Non Dom tax status
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why?" Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax." I'm all for entrepreneurship, but when people use historic family links and complex structures to avoid tax here in the UK I believe it is fundamentally wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax." These companies employ people but the problem is we subsidise the wages of a lot of these employee's with tax credits, all the while these companies ship out the 'profit' to another country with lower taxes. Spot the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've worked for three people in about two years who set up companies done well then "live" in Switzerland yet run their businesses here!. Personally I'd like to see a departation tax just like inheritance. When you emigrate you pay 25% to leave!" I just find it immoral. I personally couldn't do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More interested in multinationals like Starbucks and Google channeling their profits through tax havens to avoid paying any tax at all" The scale of evasion through non dom schemes is enormous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More interested in multinationals like Starbucks and Google channeling their profits through tax havens to avoid paying any tax at all The scale of evasion through non dom schemes is enormous." Ahem, avoidance. It's legal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why?" Agree with this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More interested in multinationals like Starbucks and Google channeling their profits through tax havens to avoid paying any tax at all The scale of evasion through non dom schemes is enormous. Ahem, avoidance. It's legal. " Legal yes, moral no. Knowing how some of these people operate, they spend enormous amounts on making sure they pay as little tax as possible. The whole non dom status is abused on an astronomical scale by those who feel no moral obligation to personally put back into the country that has helped them achieve enormous wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My mate works in Yemen and is a non dom...he's pretty well off but not a millionaire and he can only spend so many days in the UK so he and his wife (who lives in Arse End) have lots of holidays when he's not working...I used to work as an Agency Supplied Worker and I paid very little tax through one of these loopholes - be fucked if I was gonna go "oh yeah, pay hardly any tax cos I can or take the moral high ground and pay 40%"..I've nothing against anyone who chooses to legally avoid tax - if the loophole is there, exploit it "While the loophole is there it will be exploited, so govt should grow a pair of balls and close the loophole. New Look is going to be floated shortly, one of the shareholders will receive £500m on which zero tax will be paid. Simply wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest" The companies pay tax, it is the individuals who do everything that can to avoid it. I guess they justify it by saying their company contributes in lots of ways, but that is like an employee of British Gas saying my employer pays a lot of tax so I shouldn't have to. It would be pretty easy to address but will any politician have the balls to do it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax." ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've worked for three people in about two years who set up companies done well then "live" in Switzerland yet run their businesses here!. Personally I'd like to see a departation tax just like inheritance. When you emigrate you pay 25% to leave! I just find it immoral. I personally couldn't do it." . Unfortunately it's an immoral system pushing immoral beliefs. I don't blame people for avoiding tax I blame the system that let's them do it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest The companies pay tax, it is the individuals who do everything that can to avoid it. I guess they justify it by saying their company contributes in lots of ways, but that is like an employee of British Gas saying my employer pays a lot of tax so I shouldn't have to. It would be pretty easy to address but will any politician have the balls to do it?" One things for sure, even Labour don't have the Balls to do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in" If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest" At last someone who gets it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is." Quite right. My permanent address is in Germany and that is where I'm taxed (to death) If I could afford to live in Monaco I would because I begrudge every cent I pay in tax and would do anything to legally avoid it. All this talk of closing loopholes is nothing more than hot air. Most of them cannot be closed by one country acting alone, especially within the EU. Amazon for example channel most of their European profits through Luxembourg. Why? Because the EU rules, treaties, and agreements allow it. So short of tearing up the lot, there is sod all Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, or any other party can do about it. Funnily enough Ukip would probably come the closest. If they wanted to of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is. Quite right. My permanent address is in Germany and that is where I'm taxed (to death) If I could afford to live in Monaco I would because I begrudge every cent I pay in tax and would do anything to legally avoid it. All this talk of closing loopholes is nothing more than hot air. Most of them cannot be closed by one country acting alone, especially within the EU. Amazon for example channel most of their European profits through Luxembourg. Why? Because the EU rules, treaties, and agreements allow it. So short of tearing up the lot, there is sod all Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, or any other party can do about it. Funnily enough Ukip would probably come the closest. If they wanted to of course." Of course it could be tackled if people had the balls. Many companies are based in Luxembourg for lots of reasons, but that is no reason why they should not pay tax in the UK. If transfer pricing and internet based retailing were tackled properly the likes of Amazon would have no choice but to pay tax. Do you really believe that Amazon would exit the UK market if steps were put in place to tax their profits here? And as for non doms, too many people who create their wealth in this country and spend a huge amount of their time here, but reside in Guernsey, or Monaco or wherever employing an army of accountants and tax advisers to ensure they pay no tax in pretty much any jurisdiction is wrong, whatever way it is dressed up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is. Quite right. My permanent address is in Germany and that is where I'm taxed (to death) If I could afford to live in Monaco I would because I begrudge every cent I pay in tax and would do anything to legally avoid it. All this talk of closing loopholes is nothing more than hot air. Most of them cannot be closed by one country acting alone, especially within the EU. Amazon for example channel most of their European profits through Luxembourg. Why? Because the EU rules, treaties, and agreements allow it. So short of tearing up the lot, there is sod all Labour, Tory, Lib Dem, or any other party can do about it. Funnily enough Ukip would probably come the closest. If they wanted to of course. Of course it could be tackled if people had the balls. Many companies are based in Luxembourg for lots of reasons, but that is no reason why they should not pay tax in the UK. If transfer pricing and internet based retailing were tackled properly the likes of Amazon would have no choice but to pay tax. Do you really believe that Amazon would exit the UK market if steps were put in place to tax their profits here? " Of course they wouldn't but you are missing the most important point. Yes Amazon and others abuse the system but changing the system would have far reaching consequences for any company doing business in more than one member state. For example: Mercedes Benz sell thousands of cars in the UK but as a company pay no corporation tax in the UK. If they have a UK subsidiary then it would have to pay tax on any profits made by the subsidiary but not the parent company as it is registered and pays its tax in Germany. The same applies to thousands of company's from French wine producers and Italian Olive growers, to Scotch whisky distillers and Fisherman's Friends. Amazon and others abuse the system and it may be unpalatable but to close the so called "loophole" would cause chaos. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again?" Of course you are right. Some people just have burning green vision and an assumption that there is no rest of the world. I to envy the fact that very wealthy people have the right to make their home anywhere in the world that they choose, but I don't want to stop them... I want to be like them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your either a British citizen or your not in my book. If you are you should pay your tax here regardless of where you work!. Your either enjoying the privilege that the uk provides in which case you should pay or your not in which case return your passport!" What bloody privilege? Getting out of Blairs socialist hell hole felt like the bloody great escape. Some people think that anyone who had a day trip to Dover should pay UK tax. I wonder why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again? Of course you are right. Some people just have burning green vision and an assumption that there is no rest of the world. I to envy the fact that very wealthy people have the right to make their home anywhere in the world that they choose, but I don't want to stop them... I want to be like them!" Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What tax loop would you look to close and why?" I don't like tax. Nobody does. But paying tax serves a purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your either a British citizen or your not in my book. If you are you should pay your tax here regardless of where you work!. Your either enjoying the privilege that the uk provides in which case you should pay or your not in which case return your passport!" This is one of the most ill-thought through statements I've read all day, congratulations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again?" Just once is fine, in the appropriate country and at the appropriate level.  No one is advocating double taxation, just a closure of the abuse whereby people whoi spend the majority of their time, and generate all of their wealth in the UK contribute personally to the country rather than hiding behind a morally corrupt tax status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again? Just once is fine, in the appropriate country and at the appropriate level. No one is advocating double taxation, just a closure of the abuse whereby people whoi spend the majority of their time, and generate all of their wealth in the UK contribute personally to the country rather than hiding behind a morally corrupt tax status. "Of course any reasonable thinking person would agree with you, but, and it's a big BUT. In the new globalised economy it doesn't work like that any longer. Individual country's have no control over what happens outside their borders and company's can channel funds and make their profit in whichever jurisdiction they want, and I would emphasise (again) especially within the EU. One country having high taxes while a neighbouring country has low taxation is really what is archaic and needs to be tackled. Britain and others cannot keep their taxes high forever and eventually will have to bring them down to be competitive. The days of high tax and spend are coming to an end and the sooner people get used to the idea the better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people just have burning green vision and an assumption that there is no rest of the world. I to envy the fact that very wealthy people have the right to make their home anywhere in the world that they choose, but I don't want to stop them... I want to be like them!" its a natural aspiration for the vast majority of folks to better themselves for their family etc, regardless of their 'politics'.. i personally don't have any envy in any way shape or form of anyone and their wealth status, respect some will do so.. the same as some others look down on people they perceive to be below them for whatever reason.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the royal family from top to bottom ,as they hatch out more hangers on we pay.more chavvies to look after ...." are you on the right thread..? this one is about non doms or whatever they're called.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again?" . If you have a home here and are here for a month or so you'll pay tax here regardless of where you work, in which case you won't pay twice!. I don't mind people emigrating I don't mind people working abroad, but there needs to be time limits. If you live and work abroad for 20 years and pay no taxs here, why should you come back and use the nhs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest At last someone who gets it ". as if,all we get then is company's who thrive by being the lowest.....tax payers,wages n living standards for their workers,this and any country should be run on basis of looking after citizens not just who's the best for sweat shop economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest At last someone who gets it . as if,all we get then is company's who thrive by being the lowest.....tax payers,wages n living standards for their workers,this and any country should be run on basis of looking after citizens not just who's the best for sweat shop economy"And once again someone who doesn't get it. Since when has low taxation meant a sweat shop economy?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similar theme to OP - limited companies and being able to offset ridiculous items against their income to reduce their tax position ! And then having spouses or other family members etc as a Director to pay an income to, again offset against tax. Very frustrated to those of us who are employed and pay tax how it's designed to be paid. "PAYE is just one form of tax revenue. Companies cannot offset "ridiculous" expenses against anything - they can offset legitimate expenses that are incurred as part of their day to day operating processes. As for having a spouse as a Director - what exactly is the problem with that? If income is paid then tax and NI is paid and if no income is paid, no tax benefit is generated by the Ltd Company. It seems to me that you think there should be jobs for everyone but no employers to provide the jobs. Perhaps you should think a little more outside the box and try to figure out where jobs come from. It is the governments job to encourage the conditions in which businesses and companies can flourish and from that naturally come job opportunities. It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying that people should be taxed twice? People working abroad will be taxed in whatever country they are in. Just because they hold a UK passport you want them taxed again?. If you have a home here and are here for a month or so you'll pay tax here regardless of where you work, in which case you won't pay twice!. I don't mind people emigrating I don't mind people working abroad, but there needs to be time limits. If you live and work abroad for 20 years and pay no taxs here, why should you come back and use the nhs?" I think that you will find that you have to spend a minimum amount of time in this country in order to pay tax unless you are declared to be normally domiciled in the UK. When I was living away, I recall that if I was out of the country for more than 186 days in a year then I did not pay tax (although I can't remember the exact figure). It seems like you are wanting to change the entire global economy and stop people from travelling and working overseas? What about the highly skilled foreign scientists, technicians and others who come to this country and command high salaries - are we not to tax them in this country because their home nation is still taxing them? All the Poles and other East Europeans who have come here would still be getting taxed in their home country instead of here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the better idea is to lower the tax so these said companies have no reason to be trying to avoid it ...that way some of the money stays in the UK and its a good incentive for new companies to come and invest" Excellent point . The voice of common sense .  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Similar theme to OP - limited companies and being able to offset ridiculous items against their income to reduce their tax position ! And then having spouses or other family members etc as a Director to pay an income to, again offset against tax. Very frustrated to those of us who are employed and pay tax how it's designed to be paid. "There are rigorous guidelines as to what counts as allowable business expenses . It might be best to remember that many self employed people have had to take considerable risks and work extremely hard to be where they are . There is no government funded final salary pension scheme for them as there is for civil servants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill." Really? 
Reading this thread I would have thought so.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. Really?
Reading this thread I would have thought so. "Reading this thread it is amazing how people confuse companies with individuals, residency with tax status, and a fair contribution to society with being taxed to a standstill. Perhaps we should just all stop paying tax and see what happens?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. Really?
Reading this thread I would have thought so.
Reading this thread it is amazing how people confuse companies with individuals, residency with tax status, and a fair contribution to society with being taxed to a standstill. Perhaps we should just all stop paying tax and see what happens?? "No one appears to be more confused than the OP and those whose green eyes appear to also be blurring their vision. A supporting post of the OP's attitude raised the notion of the concept of a Ltd Company somehow being corrupt because it can claim operating expenses. The issue of personal domiciliation is perfectly clear to most. If you are wealthy enough to be permanently domiciled in Gibralter, Monaco or Switzerland and run a business in the UK - good luck to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. Really?
Reading this thread I would have thought so.
Reading this thread it is amazing how people confuse companies with individuals, residency with tax status, and a fair contribution to society with being taxed to a standstill. Perhaps we should just all stop paying tax and see what happens??
No one appears to be more confused than the OP and those whose green eyes appear to also be blurring their vision.
A supporting post of the OP's attitude raised the notion of the concept of a Ltd Company somehow being corrupt because it can claim operating expenses.
The issue of personal domiciliation is perfectly clear to most. If you are wealthy enough to be permanently domiciled in Gibralter, Monaco or Switzerland and run a business in the UK - good luck to you."I don't think there is any confusion, just a different moral code. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Denmark has a Cow flatulence tax "would they class it as F.A.T, flatulence added tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. Really?
Reading this thread I would have thought so.
Reading this thread it is amazing how people confuse companies with individuals, residency with tax status, and a fair contribution to society with being taxed to a standstill. Perhaps we should just all stop paying tax and see what happens??
No one appears to be more confused than the OP and those whose green eyes appear to also be blurring their vision.
A supporting post of the OP's attitude raised the notion of the concept of a Ltd Company somehow being corrupt because it can claim operating expenses.
The issue of personal domiciliation is perfectly clear to most. If you are wealthy enough to be permanently domiciled in Gibralter, Monaco or Switzerland and run a business in the UK - good luck to you.
I don't think there is any confusion, just a different moral code."No it isn't. You simply forget that there are others from other countries who live here and Brits who live in other countries. If I stay in my apartment in France for around 60 days this year, I don't pay personal tax in France - albeit my little business (rentals from my apartment) there does. Further, those rentals add to my global income and are taxed here in the UK. You are suggesting that in reverse, a French person with a holiday home (small business) here should also be taxed here as well as in France. Your concept is that everyone should be taxed in Britain irrespective of thew tax that they already pay where they are lawfully required to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is not a government job to simply tax everyone and everything to a standstill. Really?
Reading this thread I would have thought so.
Reading this thread it is amazing how people confuse companies with individuals, residency with tax status, and a fair contribution to society with being taxed to a standstill. Perhaps we should just all stop paying tax and see what happens??
No one appears to be more confused than the OP and those whose green eyes appear to also be blurring their vision.
A supporting post of the OP's attitude raised the notion of the concept of a Ltd Company somehow being corrupt because it can claim operating expenses.
The issue of personal domiciliation is perfectly clear to most. If you are wealthy enough to be permanently domiciled in Gibralter, Monaco or Switzerland and run a business in the UK - good luck to you.
I don't think there is any confusion, just a different moral code.
No it isn't. You simply forget that there are others from other countries who live here and Brits who live in other countries. If I stay in my apartment in France for around 60 days this year, I don't pay personal tax in France - albeit my little business (rentals from my apartment) there does. Further, those rentals add to my global income and are taxed here in the UK. You are suggesting that in reverse, a French person with a holiday home (small business) here should also be taxed here as well as in France.
Your concept is that everyone should be taxed in Britain irrespective of thew tax that they already pay where they are lawfully required to do so. "It is a moral issue. Yes there are plenty of people who genuinely live abroad etc and of course they should not be taxed twice. But there is also a small number of ultra high net worth individuals that choose to base themselves in places like Guernsey to pay 0% tax. As an example an individual is likely to make a £500m capital gain from the sale of a business based solely in the UK which he has run for many years. He is notionally based in Guernsey, and will pay 0% tax on that gain, here and there. If the gain was taxed in the jurisdiction in which it was made how many schools could be built, teachers paid for etc. People are quick to jump on those on benefits, immigrants, all those "on the take", but are happy to make excuses for tax exiles on the basis they are good for the UK. I'm afraid I disagree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It is a moral issue. Yes there are plenty of people who genuinely live abroad etc and of course they should not be taxed twice. But there is also a small number of ultra high net worth individuals that choose to base themselves in places like Guernsey to pay 0% tax. As an example an individual is likely to make a £500m capital gain from the sale of a business based solely in the UK which he has run for many years. He is notionally based in Guernsey, and will pay 0% tax on that gain, here and there. If the gain was taxed in the jurisdiction in which it was made how many schools could be built, teachers paid for etc. People are quick to jump on those on benefits, immigrants, all those "on the take", but are happy to make excuses for tax exiles on the basis they are good for the UK. I'm afraid I disagree. " tend to agree.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting that the King of envy, Ed Millliband is due to make a statement about this tomorrow. Seemingly looking to get rid of the maximum £90,000 non Dom fee in the hope of getting more votes from the great unwashed. Yes... I can just see it it now. Fuck the rich, take them for everything they have. Vive la revolution." Why shouldn't everyone pay tax on the same principles? Michael Ashcroft gets off with more than £90,000 that's for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is." this isn't how the non dom status in question works .... get your facts right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? Yes...... And no. Much as it is very unpalatable for the general public to accept, we do need very wealthy people to set up businesses in this county. Most countries in the world require you to state your domicile action for tax purposes and if some of those people are resident in Monaco but have businesses in the UK, why should we tax them if we generate tax from their business and employees? You would then open a real can of worms with people like merchant seamen who are out of the country and would then be liable for UK tax. ffs, are you really saying we accept the multi billionaire's don't need to pay their full share of tax? Sometimes people really suprise me as to their acceptance of being ripped off while also accepting that we have to basically eat shite to make sure the rich are kept in the tax evading, untouchable bubble that they seem to live in If you are not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, why should you pay tax in the UK? It is a ludicrous suggestion. You really have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect you are speaking purely from a point of envy. Being non domilciled is NOT tax evasion it is based on where you permanent address is. this isn't how the non dom status in question works .... get your facts right"
Big election point of the day, maybe senior Labour officials read the Fab Forums?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very simple our tax laws should be, you earn it here you're taxed here, live where you like. " That is how they work. The issue is about wealth generated elsewhere that is taxed elsewhere (or not). The vast majority of non doms are exactly that. A tiny percentage are utilising the old rule that is so exorcising the envy brigade. The clear message to me of this election campaign is that Labour are really playing the division card. Here is a plan let's make as many people as possible feel oppressed and downtrodden and then blame it on the rich. Let's tax their income more, let's tax their houses more let's tax them to the point that the filthy stinking rich get the hell out of our country. I mean... what did the rich ever do for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mean... what did the rich ever do for us." A very sensible question...although not for any reason that you would recognise, of course! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very simple our tax laws should be, you earn it here you're taxed here, live where you like. That is how they work. The issue is about wealth generated elsewhere that is taxed elsewhere (or not). The vast majority of non doms are exactly that. A tiny percentage are utilising the old rule that is so exorcising the envy brigade. The clear message to me of this election campaign is that Labour are really playing the division card. Here is a plan let's make as many people as possible feel oppressed and downtrodden and then blame it on the rich. Let's tax their income more, let's tax their houses more let's tax them to the point that the filthy stinking rich get the hell out of our country. I mean... what did the rich ever do for us." But it is only in this country that some archaic parentage rules mean you can do this. So stamp out the minortiy abusing the system (I suspect the abuse runs into several billions each year) and let ordinary working folk of all incomes get along with their business. I don't agree with many of Labour's tax plans, the mansion tax, an increase in the top rate, but I admire them for seeking out the worst abuses of the current system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very simple our tax laws should be, you earn it here you're taxed here, live where you like. That is how they work. The issue is about wealth generated elsewhere that is taxed elsewhere (or not). The vast majority of non doms are exactly that. A tiny percentage are utilising the old rule that is so exorcising the envy brigade. The clear message to me of this election campaign is that Labour are really playing the division card. Here is a plan let's make as many people as possible feel oppressed and downtrodden and then blame it on the rich. Let's tax their income more, let's tax their houses more let's tax them to the point that the filthy stinking rich get the hell out of our country. I mean... what did the rich ever do for us." A very simplified 'rule of thumb' is that under UK law a person is "tax resident" if that person visits the country for 183 days or more in the tax year or for 91 days or more on average in any four consecutive tax year. In other words you can have a huge income generated in this country and sun it out on a beach somewhere, yet still expect you and your property to be under the protection of the state. If a sportsman goes to USA and wins cash his tax is paid before he leaves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very simple our tax laws should be, you earn it here you're taxed here, live where you like. That is how they work. The issue is about wealth generated elsewhere that is taxed elsewhere (or not). The vast majority of non doms are exactly that. A tiny percentage are utilising the old rule that is so exorcising the envy brigade. The clear message to me of this election campaign is that Labour are really playing the division card. Here is a plan let's make as many people as possible feel oppressed and downtrodden and then blame it on the rich. Let's tax their income more, let's tax their houses more let's tax them to the point that the filthy stinking rich get the hell out of our country. I mean... what did the rich ever do for us. But it is only in this country that some archaic parentage rules mean you can do this. So stamp out the minortiy abusing the system (I suspect the abuse runs into several billions each year) and let ordinary working folk of all incomes get along with their business. I don't agree with many of Labour's tax plans, the mansion tax, an increase in the top rate, but I admire them for seeking out the worst abuses of the current system." If it runs into £billions (which I doubt) then the question has to be why it has not been dealth with before? There have been countless Labour governments that have previously had the opportunity to do something and have done nothing. Why did Milliband and Balls actually suck up to these people last time round and now they want put them in front of the firing squad? My belief is that it is a UKIP style populist stance that will have no meaningful result. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why?" Before we start Green does not own the stores his wife do and she lives in Monte Carlo, Roman Abrahomvic is Russian and taxes his earnings in Russia at 54% the others no idea...However Labour did this in the 70's and guess we got the best music from Labour Rolling Stones went to France, Beatles fucked off, Stewart went... and we had in the end 85% on income... Great Labour rehash all the stuff they fucked up years ago... How about making a new council tax band for foreigners at say £45'000 on houses above £4 million. Huh ... Labour where are your ideas ? Stone Age back again vote for Labour and get SNP in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Very simple our tax laws should be, you earn it here you're taxed here, live where you like. That is how they work. The issue is about wealth generated elsewhere that is taxed elsewhere (or not). The vast majority of non doms are exactly that. A tiny percentage are utilising the old rule that is so exorcising the envy brigade. The clear message to me of this election campaign is that Labour are really playing the division card. Here is a plan let's make as many people as possible feel oppressed and downtrodden and then blame it on the rich. Let's tax their income more, let's tax their houses more let's tax them to the point that the filthy stinking rich get the hell out of our country. I mean... what did the rich ever do for us. But it is only in this country that some archaic parentage rules mean you can do this. So stamp out the minortiy abusing the system (I suspect the abuse runs into several billions each year) and let ordinary working folk of all incomes get along with their business. I don't agree with many of Labour's tax plans, the mansion tax, an increase in the top rate, but I admire them for seeking out the worst abuses of the current system. If it runs into £billions (which I doubt) then the question has to be why it has not been dealth with before? There have been countless Labour governments that have previously had the opportunity to do something and have done nothing. Why did Milliband and Balls actually suck up to these people last time round and now they want put them in front of the firing squad? My belief is that it is a UKIP style populist stance that will have no meaningful result." . Corporations own the governments around the world, Anyone who's ever tried to get justice against these giants will tell you the judiciary is against the citizen, the law, the legislator, politician. The entire embodiment of what used to be for the people is now sadly the opposite with corporatocracy now strangling out any voice of opposition. Unfortunately no major party will do anything about them!. If you think that commodifying everything from debt to water to food to petrol to people and then depleting that commodity in and endless search for more profit is a great way forward for the human species vote in a big party because that's exactly what you'll get. If however you have concerns for your children's futures... Vote green | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i don't see how anyone can defend inherited non-dom status.... sorry but if you were born here, lived here, work here.... because your father/grandfather wasn't born here... you in theory get to pay less tax than someone else is just wrong.... the other part is a lot more pragmatic...re: the super rich who come to live here as such.... would the increase in tax cause them to leave the country, or would a rise in the non-dom charge be a better way of dealing with it.... " Milliband's bland, "Scrap it," statement would have been better expressed as, "We will better define it." Even Dead Balls has previously expressed it better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The subject is being discussed on Jeremy Vine, which is just as well, as the regulations seem to be very complex. On the simplest _iew, someone not resident in this country, should not pay tax here on foreign earnings ... But it clearly is not that simple." And what of profits that are channeled off-shore? The Daily Mail and General Trust used to siphon off a considerable amount profit to Bermuda and it's largest shareholder has non-dom status! Attack on the the wealthy my ass - asking them to pay tax the way most other people do is not an attack on anything other than unfairness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the most important things that can be done is the need to remember that not only are we there labour force but more importantly we're there market!. If you find Philip greens tax evasion disgusting!. Stop shopping in his stores, there's a multitude of other who would pay their tax willingly. The real power lies with the market and not the market stall owner" It's Tina Green who does the tax dodging - why do you think Philip hasn't traded her in yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed." That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Attack on the the wealthy my ass - asking them to pay tax the way most other people do is not an attack on anything other than unfairness. " this.. the tories will never bring it in because they would upset some of their donor's and family members.. funny how some are so blinkered that they can't see its another part of the system that is antiquated and needs reform.. far easier to pick on disabled people and those on benefits, many who work but are paid such low salaries by wealthy types and corporations that they qualify for benefits to live.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would get rid of soldiers having to pay tax when they go abroad to work for months at a time!" There should be a change for single members of the armed forces yes but those with family and dependants at home should still pay something toward that.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would get rid of soldiers having to pay tax when they go abroad to work for months at a time!" Why would we have one rule for some crown servants but not for others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed. That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting. ." i think what is disgusting is Camerons use of his late. son and often stories of his disability .its undignified and clearly done to. qualify him as a feeling person. i always feel very uncomfortable when he does it in a public arena in the context of the governments work.quite wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Attack on the the wealthy my ass - asking them to pay tax the way most other people do is not an attack on anything other than unfairness. this.. the tories will never bring it in because they would upset some of their donor's and family members.. funny how some are so blinkered that they can't see its another part of the system that is antiquated and needs reform.. far easier to pick on disabled people and those on benefits, many who work but are paid such low salaries by wealthy types and corporations that they qualify for benefits to live.. " ED Balls - Earlier this year being inter_iewed by BBC Radio Leeds: "If you abolish the whole (non dom) status it will probably end up costing Britain money." Ed Balls Earlier today BBC 5 Live: "We are going to change it, abolish it and it will raise a lot of money." Conviction politics anyone? This is really is the gutter politics of envy and it would only result in an activation of the laws of unintended consequences. This will damage far more than it will help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Attack on the the wealthy my ass - asking them to pay tax the way most other people do is not an attack on anything other than unfairness. this.. the tories will never bring it in because they would upset some of their donor's and family members.. funny how some are so blinkered that they can't see its another part of the system that is antiquated and needs reform.. far easier to pick on disabled people and those on benefits, many who work but are paid such low salaries by wealthy types and corporations that they qualify for benefits to live.. ED Balls - Earlier this year being inter_iewed by BBC Radio Leeds: "If you abolish the whole (non dom) status it will probably end up costing Britain money." Ed Balls Earlier today BBC 5 Live: "We are going to change it, abolish it and it will raise a lot of money." Conviction politics anyone? This is really is the gutter politics of envy and it would only result in an activation of the laws of unintended consequences. This will damage far more than it will help." we ate talking two seperate bits of non-dom status law..... 1) inherited non-dom status.... again... i am trying to work out who anyone can defend this.... if there are two people who were born in the uk, grew up in the uk, studied in the uk, worked and made their profits in the uk..... but because one happened to have a father/grandfather born outside the uk (the law is so old it actually doesn't apply to mothers/grandmothers who were born outside the uk... just men!) they can have non-dom status and the other cant 2) super rich non-dom status.... at the moment people can live here for us to 7years and claim non-dom status, is 7 years really not being domiciled anywhere..... cut that to 4 years for example and you still for example protect overseas students doing degrees.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" we ate talking two seperate bits of non-dom status law..... 1) inherited non-dom status.... again... i am trying to work out who anyone can defend this.... if there are two people who were born in the uk, grew up in the uk, studied in the uk, worked and made their profits in the uk..... but because one happened to have a father/grandfather born outside the uk (the law is so old it actually doesn't apply to mothers/grandmothers who were born outside the uk... just men!) they can have non-dom status and the other cant 2) super rich non-dom status.... at the moment people can live here for us to 7years and claim non-dom status, is 7 years really not being domiciled anywhere..... cut that to 4 years for example and you still for example protect overseas students doing degrees...." It is a misconception that all non doms are filthy rich and also that they avoid all tax. This is not the case. Non doms pay tax on all their UK generated income. They are not required to declare worldwide income as most of us are required to. However, this does not mean that the worldwide income is not already being taxed elsewhere - in their country of formal domicile. It is my opinion that successive governments have avoided this issue because it is not such a bad thing having very wealthy people spending their money in this country and really the problem is not such a big deal. Ed Balls possibly had it right back in January because to have a UK non dom status, you do still have to have formal domiciliation elsewhere and most will be registered in their home authority and be declaring their income there. It is just tough that some will live in Panama or Saudi Arabia or Monaco. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed. That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting." Yes, it is shameful that a man responsible for the worst crimes against our National Health Service in history should be using repeated mentions of his dead son as a way of trying to hide the facts, and encourage people to vote for him in spite of the crimes he has committed. I'm glad you agree. You normally seem like a real fan of Cameron, so it's heart-warming to find that you aren't a monster after all, and find him as disgusting as the rest of us do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed. That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting." The person that wrote the post obviously has no sense. And if they have children, then i pity them. Criticise someone's politics by all means, but to suggest that David Cameron would ever use the fact that he lost a child for political gain is quite frankly disgusting and shameful. By the way, I have never, and will never vote Tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed. That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting." all your posts are awful and torified | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The subject is being discussed on Jeremy Vine, which is just as well, as the regulations seem to be very complex. On the simplest _iew, someone not resident in this country, should not pay tax here on foreign earnings ... But it clearly is not that simple. And what of profits that are channeled off-shore? The Daily Mail and General Trust used to siphon off a considerable amount profit to Bermuda and it's largest shareholder has non-dom status! Attack on the the wealthy my ass - asking them to pay tax the way most other people do is not an attack on anything other than unfairness. " YES | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" we ate talking two seperate bits of non-dom status law..... 1) inherited non-dom status.... again... i am trying to work out who anyone can defend this.... if there are two people who were born in the uk, grew up in the uk, studied in the uk, worked and made their profits in the uk..... but because one happened to have a father/grandfather born outside the uk (the law is so old it actually doesn't apply to mothers/grandmothers who were born outside the uk... just men!) they can have non-dom status and the other cant 2) super rich non-dom status.... at the moment people can live here for us to 7years and claim non-dom status, is 7 years really not being domiciled anywhere..... cut that to 4 years for example and you still for example protect overseas students doing degrees.... It is a misconception that all non doms are filthy rich and also that they avoid all tax. This is not the case. Non doms pay tax on all their UK generated income. They are not required to declare worldwide income as most of us are required to. However, this does not mean that the worldwide income is not already being taxed elsewhere - in their country of formal domicile. It is my opinion that successive governments have avoided this issue because it is not such a bad thing having very wealthy people spending their money in this country and really the problem is not such a big deal. Ed Balls possibly had it right back in January because to have a UK non dom status, you do still have to have formal domiciliation elsewhere and most will be registered in their home authority and be declaring their income there. It is just tough that some will live in Panama or Saudi Arabia or Monaco." again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"........ At this rate Call Me Dave is going to have to mention his dead son every day until the polls open if they want to get noticed. That is quite a shameful post. I hope you feel good about yourself now. Disgusting. Yes, it is shameful that a man responsible for the worst crimes against our National Health Service in history should be using repeated mentions of his dead son as a way of trying to hide the facts, and encourage people to vote for him in spite of the crimes he has committed. I'm glad you agree. You normally seem like a real fan of Cameron, so it's heart-warming to find that you aren't a monster after all, and find him as disgusting as the rest of us do. " I like this! agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Criticise someone's politics by all means, but to suggest that David Cameron would ever use the fact that he lost a child for political gain is quite frankly disgusting and shameful. ." I'm not suggesting it, I am stating it. It's a clearly observable fact. Here you go: David Cameron, has used and continues to use his dead son for political gain. Doing so is what's disgusting. Being able to observe and recognise it is not. Hope that has cleared up your evident confusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? " If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is somewhat complex. Non-doms still pay tax on their UK-generated and imported money but their foreign money gets taxed in that country. (Although even that is a simplification. Even the definition of non-dom is not clearly defined). And please, folks, don't turn this into a hate-the-rich or love-the-working-man thing. It really is not that simple, is it?" You are broadly correct. My personal opinion is that we should be giving tax breaks to very wealthy people to come here. I don't know of many tax havens that have a failing economy. Meanwhile I await with baited breath for the measures that Labour are proposing to adopt in order to make the economy work and earn money as opposed to taking money off people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't some of the services Cameron's family had use of when their son was alive now had their funding cut or reduced? So families who now need the same services are looking to councils who have had to take a big hit in social care funding. " Don't worry, you must be mistaken, the NHS is safe in Dave's hands. He's said so quite a few times now...while mentioning his dead son, of course. The one who he would never use for political gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" to suggest that David Cameron would ever use the fact that he lost a child for political gain is quite frankly disgusting and shameful. By the way, I have never, and will never vote Tory." the thing is Cameron has on at least 3 occasions 'mentioned' that he lost a son when he is talking about how good the NHS is.. its there on the public record.. whether he is politicising the event in doing so is something only he could answer.. ditto on the not and never voting tory.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status." the OP mentioned three for example in his opening post... Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), the Goldsmith family for example (although in fairness Zac gave his up on becoming an MP), conseravtive party chairman Lord Ashcroft was in effect shamed by the press into giving up his.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the Goldsmith family for example (although in fairness Zac gave his up on becoming an MP)" Rather reluctantly as I recall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status." If I had an Irish Father rather than Mother, and despite the fact that li was born in Britain, have always lived in Britain and have only ever worked in Britain I could claim non dom status and shelter any capital gains I may make from any tax, despite those gains being made here in the UK. In my example earlier this is exactly what is being done by the individual who will make a £500m capital gain shortly which will have 0% tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status. the OP mentioned three for example in his opening post... Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), the Goldsmith family for example (although in fairness Zac gave his up on becoming an MP), conseravtive party chairman Lord Ashcroft was in effect shamed by the press into giving up his.... " Ok but they still have to have formal domicile elsewhere. You can't be non Dom in the UK for tax purposes without having a formal address elsewhere. The reality is that some may possibly have a Cayman Island, Panama or similar address, but my guess is that the vast majority will have regular addresses in regular countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status. If I had an Irish Father rather than Mother, and despite the fact that li was born in Britain, have always lived in Britain and have only ever worked in Britain I could claim non dom status and shelter any capital gains I may make from any tax, despite those gains being made here in the UK. In my example earlier this is exactly what is being done by the individual who will make a £500m capital gain shortly which will have 0% tax. " Then your formal domiciliation would be in Ireland and therefore you would not have 0% tax liability. From my own personal experience I can tell you that tax authorities across borders - particularly in Europe do talk to each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns." It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why?" They ARE taxed on any earnings/money made in this country. They do not pay tax on money earned abroad. They pay a minimum £30k fee to do this. It was set up in 1799....not sure who was in government at the time lol! But Ed Balls and Ed Millibrain are saying opposite to each other.....just look like the idiots they are now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time." Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me" ugh that didn't even make sense..you've annoyed me too much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me" While I appreciate the emotion (and may to a degree agree with it), how has this proposed policy been costed? It may well be a legitimate response to state that it does not matter and that it is simply a point of principle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy..... " Can you point us to the parts of the conservative manifesto that does this please?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I appreciate the emotion (and may to a degree agree with it), how has this proposed policy been costed? It may well be a legitimate response to state that it does not matter and that it is simply a point of principle." Robert Pestons piece on the BBC News website pretty much nails it. He says that it is not about money, but about principle. In effect, another step to the left and a step away from the New Labour of Tony Blair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" again talking about two seperate things so how about a simple yes/no answer on the first part...then we can deal with the 2nd.... fair? do you think it is fair that people can inherit non-dom status??? If a person has "inherited" a non dom status and actually has no formal domiciliation elsewhere, then clearly that is wrong. I doubt that there are very many people in this position because when I claimed non dom, the then Inland Revenue required my Spanish address and NIF number. I might be wrong about how it is today, but it used to be that you still had to have formal residency elsewhere for tax purposes in order to claim non dom status in the UK - by however means you acquired the status. the OP mentioned three for example in his opening post... Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), the Goldsmith family for example (although in fairness Zac gave his up on becoming an MP), conseravtive party chairman Lord Ashcroft was in effect shamed by the press into giving up his.... Ok but they still have to have formal domicile elsewhere. You can't be non Dom in the UK for tax purposes without having a formal address elsewhere. The reality is that some may possibly have a Cayman Island, Panama or similar address, but my guess is that the vast majority will have regular addresses in regular countries." that's incorrect as it happens .... one merely has to own a burial plot abroad to qualify for inherited non-dom status and according to hmrc records there are 110,000 people claiming this tax status in the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ED Balls - Earlier this year being inter_iewed by BBC Radio Leeds: "If you abolish the whole (non dom) status it will probably end up costing Britain money." Ed Balls Earlier today BBC 5 Live: "We are going to change it, abolish it and it will raise a lot of money." Conviction politics anyone? This is really is the gutter politics of envy and it would only result in an activation of the laws of unintended consequences. This will damage far more than it will help." What is also being conveniently forgotten by Ed balls is that the UK is a tax haven for many foreign nationals who sink their money in the UK to escape tax in their own country. Mister we are going to cost every policy Balls does not even know how much abolishing non-dom status would bring to the exchequer that alone how it would loss the exchequer by similar actions in other countries. It makes a good sound bite and it makes the naive think they are bringing equal rights to the working man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If I were running for election, this would be one of the first areas I would seek to abolish. It bugs me immensely that people who have their business here, generate their wealth here but use an archaic tax position to mean they pay little or no tax. Think Philip Green (Top Shop) Tom Singh (New Look) James Caan (Dragons Den), Roman Abrahomvic (slightly different position but same tax status). What tax loop would you look to close and why? They ARE taxed on any earnings/money made in this country. They do not pay tax on money earned abroad. They pay a minimum £30k fee to do this. It was set up in 1799....not sure who was in government at the time lol! But Ed Balls and Ed Millibrain are saying opposite to each other.....just look like the idiots they are now!" Sorry to tell you, but this is wrong. Capital gains made in this country can be fully exempt, per my example earlier. Thing is, there are numerous ways in which people seek to avoid paying tax. It is a point of principal which I think Labour will benefit from. Inherited non dom status that allows one person to pay a significantly lower rate of tax, on earnings and capital gains made in this country is pretty hard to defend. The Conservatives will say it won't pay, but the reality is there is enormous wealth that has been generated in the UK which resides offshore and on which no tax has been paid. None of us will know the amounts exactly because of the highly complex and secretive structures that are in place to preserve this wealth offshore. Politically it is a point on which I am sure Labour will win votes because as this thread has shown, few people understand the situation and the mass public will listen to the soundbites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy..... Can you point us to the parts of the conservative manifesto that does this please? "That would be the mythical Conservative manifesto that only exists in the mind of Milliband, Balls, and some of their more rabid followers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ED Balls - Earlier this year being inter_iewed by BBC Radio Leeds: "If you abolish the whole (non dom) status it will probably end up costing Britain money." Ed Balls Earlier today BBC 5 Live: "We are going to change it, abolish it and it will raise a lot of money." Conviction politics anyone? This is really is the gutter politics of envy and it would only result in an activation of the laws of unintended consequences. This will damage far more than it will help. What is also being conveniently forgotten by Ed balls is that the UK is a tax haven for many foreign nationals who sink their money in the UK to escape tax in their own country. " Conveniently forgotten? It's precisely that which has driven up property prices in London. At the very least, discouraging people from using UK property as a convenient tax dodge would have a huge benefit in terms of bringing down property prices in the capital. Of course, many people with a myopic economic _iew will assume falling property prices in London would be a bad thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy..... Can you point us to the parts of the conservative manifesto that does this please?
That would be the mythical Conservative manifesto that only exists in the mind of Milliband, Balls, and some of their more rabid followers. "As if any Tory voters have even read the party's manifesto! They get what they need from the Mail and the Sun, anything else would be a waste. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a simple fix. If you are British and you have an address here your personal income, wherever it is earned should be declared on your tax return, and subject to the lawful tax rates of the day. There should be no ambiguity its a simple issue to solve. If you don't want to pay British tax and support the country then give up the citizenship this fabulous country affords and go and live elsewhere. I live here I pay my taxes full stop. " But is it that simple? We do have many double-taxation avoidance treaties with lots of countries but tax systems are very complex and when you have to take into account the complexities of all of those systems, it no longer becomes a simple issue. And I still await a costing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perhaps they will reveal their costings at the same time that the Tories reveal how they have costed they can achieve £12Bn in cuts in the next parliament? If they've got any sense, they'll just say the same thing. 'Trust us, don't worry, it is fine!' "I was not being partisan or supporting any party. I was just asking about the economic impact of the policy. As I have said, it may be more about principle than economics. If that is so, fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a simple fix. If you are British and you have an address here your personal income, wherever it is earned should be declared on your tax return, and subject to the lawful tax rates of the day. There should be no ambiguity its a simple issue to solve. If you don't want to pay British tax and support the country then give up the citizenship this fabulous country affords and go and live elsewhere. I live here I pay my taxes full stop. But is it that simple? We do have many double-taxation avoidance treaties with lots of countries but tax systems are very complex and when you have to take into account the complexities of all of those systems, it no longer becomes a simple issue. And I still await a costing." The costings are irrelevant. If you are a British Citizen you pay British tax on all personal wealth. If you have to pay tax in another country and you live there full time and can prove it then this is netted off your tax liability here. its so simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a simple fix. If you are British and you have an address here your personal income, wherever it is earned should be declared on your tax return, and subject to the lawful tax rates of the day. There should be no ambiguity its a simple issue to solve. If you don't want to pay British tax and support the country then give up the citizenship this fabulous country affords and go and live elsewhere. I live here I pay my taxes full stop. " That's pretty much how it is now. If your money never touch's the UK it never gets taxed. Move it into the UK and it gets taxed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a simple fix. If you are British and you have an address here your personal income, wherever it is earned should be declared on your tax return, and subject to the lawful tax rates of the day. There should be no ambiguity its a simple issue to solve. If you don't want to pay British tax and support the country then give up the citizenship this fabulous country affords and go and live elsewhere. I live here I pay my taxes full stop. But is it that simple? We do have many double-taxation avoidance treaties with lots of countries but tax systems are very complex and when you have to take into account the complexities of all of those systems, it no longer becomes a simple issue. And I still await a costing.The costings are irrelevant. If you are a British Citizen you pay British tax on all personal wealth. If you have to pay tax in another country and you live there full time and can prove it then this is netted off your tax liability here. its so simple." But I was under the impression that this is (pretty much) what happens at the moment? A non-dom pays tax here on their UK money and tax abroad on their foreign income? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...... The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy..... Can you point us to the parts of the conservative manifesto that does this please?
That would be the mythical Conservative manifesto that only exists in the mind of Milliband, Balls, and some of their more rabid followers.
As if any Tory voters have even read the party's manifesto! They get what they need from the Mail and the Sun, anything else would be a waste."As if Labour voters get past Kevin McGuire's Mirror. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Why would we have one rule for some crown servants but not for others? " Because other crown servants don't have sit in a shithole of a country eating Weetabix with warm bottled water that's left in a warm iso container, sweating buckets and being shot at, mortared, rocketed or even have to worry about IED`s, Suicide Attacks or even attacks from the people you are trying to train as you are having lunch! Only to come home and still struggle to find enough money to get on the housing ladder when they are kicked to the curb after the time has been served! Lets not forget that the prisoners in the uk get more phone call time per week than a person in the armed services while on tour! Just one example, I mean this for across the armed forces in general, not just the army. Plus any civilian that goes abroad to assist the Armed forces such as journalists, doctors or nurses etc (etc, being anybody assisting the armed forces in the theatre of operations)! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me ugh that didn't even make sense..you've annoyed me too much" That is unfortunate. Getting annoyed with people that you don't agree with is the first step along the road to a society based on intolerance. We all have different points of _iew and we should be thankful of that. Let's not head towards a place where anger replaces discussion otherwise we just end up one step along the road to a place like the so called Islamic State. It is noticeable though how it always is those who hold left wing _iews who get angry and annoyed at others who dare to have a different point of _iew. I wonder why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"One of the most important things that can be done is the need to remember that not only are we there labour force but more importantly we're there market!. If you find Philip greens tax evasion disgusting!. Stop shopping in his stores, there's a multitude of other who would pay their tax willingly. The real power lies with the market and not the market stall owner It's Tina Green who does the tax dodging - why do you think Philip hasn't traded her in yet? " . What you mean liked Bennie ecclestone who gave his 4 billon away to trust because he disagreed vehemently with British tax laws!. Only it turns out he didn't as he was bribing German bankers 30 million with money from the trust, so he was either a dishonest tax evader or a dishonest businessman. Or in his case probably both. This is not green eyes I'm afraid, I just hold the opinion that these people would kill their grannies for another 10% and if you let these types of people dictate policy for profit, you'll end up where we are today!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me ugh that didn't even make sense..you've annoyed me too much That is unfortunate. Getting annoyed with people that you don't agree with is the first step along the road to a society based on intolerance. We all have different points of _iew and we should be thankful of that. Let's not head towards a place where anger replaces discussion otherwise we just end up one step along the road to a place like the so called Islamic State. It is noticeable though how it always is those who hold left wing _iews who get angry and annoyed at others who dare to have a different point of _iew. I wonder why?" No, just no. Everyone else's comments on here are fine. It's just your "it's wrong", "it's not", you are so final with everything you say. Like the way you've tried to push my anger onto all left wing _iew holders, and the way you called someone's _iews "shameful" and a "disgrace" earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shall we just chant at each other?" . Every complex civilisation in history burns out from right wing totalitarian conservatism in the end. Their own personal greed is the ignition for the start and there own demise, they extract all they can from every commodity before disappearing up their own arsehole!. It's just a pity nobody learns from history | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a simple fix. If you are British and you have an address here your personal income, wherever it is earned should be declared on your tax return, and subject to the lawful tax rates of the day. There should be no ambiguity its a simple issue to solve. If you don't want to pay British tax and support the country then give up the citizenship this fabulous country affords and go and live elsewhere. I live here I pay my taxes full stop. But is it that simple? We do have many double-taxation avoidance treaties with lots of countries but tax systems are very complex and when you have to take into account the complexities of all of those systems, it no longer becomes a simple issue. And I still await a costing.The costings are irrelevant. If you are a British Citizen you pay British tax on all personal wealth. If you have to pay tax in another country and you live there full time and can prove it then this is netted off your tax liability here. its so simple." Thing is, it doesn't. For example money is taken offshore tax free into trust. The trust then, for example buys a property for the child who remains in the Uk. Trust also lends money to that individual (probably never to be repaid), thus not being taxed as income. I have no problem with people spending their earnings here, but again, as a point of principle, most people spend their after tax earnings after contributing to society. These schemes are used regularly by ultra high net worth individuals and families who do everything in their power to avoid UK taxation, despite their wealth being generated here and those families enjoying our society. Whether you are left wing or right wing it should it really matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me ugh that didn't even make sense..you've annoyed me too much That is unfortunate. Getting annoyed with people that you don't agree with is the first step along the road to a society based on intolerance. We all have different points of _iew and we should be thankful of that. Let's not head towards a place where anger replaces discussion otherwise we just end up one step along the road to a place like the so called Islamic State. It is noticeable though how it always is those who hold left wing _iews who get angry and annoyed at others who dare to have a different point of _iew. I wonder why? No, just no. Everyone else's comments on here are fine. It's just your "it's wrong", "it's not", you are so final with everything you say. Like the way you've tried to push my anger onto all left wing _iew holders, and the way you called someone's _iews "shameful" and a "disgrace" earlier." Unfortunately I can't change my opinion about a post introduces someone's dead child into this debate - it is shameful. I also cant change the fact that the change to non dom rules has not been costed by Labour because it has not, it is an ideological policy. As for the observation that it tends to be mainly left wing posters who get angry - well that is just an observation that happens to be true. I have not seen anyone on this thread or previous ones about the economy, taxes etc who holds conservative supporting _iews get angry and annoyed at others who do not share their _iews. It is invariably left wing, ideological socialists who get angry and aggressive at people who happen to hold a different point of _iew to their own. Getting back on track however. When do you think we might hear about a Labour policy geared to making money out of a successful economy? At the moment we have only heard about taking money from one section of society - higher taxes, mansion taxes and now the non dom issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... that's incorrect as it happens .... one merely has to own a burial plot abroad to qualify for inherited non-dom status and according to hmrc records there are 110,000 people claiming this tax status in the uk...." If this is the case then quite clearly the system is manifestly wrong. I don't know if it is true or not, but I would very much doubt that 110,000 people are claiming non dom status because of a burial plot in another country. That would be wholly and absolutely wrong. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the UK being a tax haven for wealthy foreigners if they are sheltering tax from a high tax state elsewhere and spending/investing it in the UK. I struggle to understand why anyone would object to that other than through envy. I mean you don't see many (any) tax havens with failing economies do you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... that's incorrect as it happens .... one merely has to own a burial plot abroad to qualify for inherited non-dom status and according to hmrc records there are 110,000 people claiming this tax status in the uk.... If this is the case then quite clearly the system is manifestly wrong. I don't know if it is true or not, but I would very much doubt that 110,000 people are claiming non dom status because of a burial plot in another country. That would be wholly and absolutely wrong. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the UK being a tax haven for wealthy foreigners if they are sheltering tax from a high tax state elsewhere and spending/investing it in the UK. I struggle to understand why anyone would object to that other than through envy. I mean you don't see many (any) tax havens with failing economies do you." Most tax havens tend to be small in area,have very small populations and very little infrastructure, I'm not sure they are comparable to the UK with a population of nearl 65m? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to add a little more to the mix. Non Dom status also means they do not pay VAT either, this was highlighted many years ago when the members of the Tetra-pak family had large amounts of work done on their country estates and reclaimed all of the VAT back." Are you sure that they were not just VAT registered and claimed that the Estate was a business asset? I cant imagine that such a ridiculous loophole exists, it makes no sense whatsoever at any level. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately I can't change my opinion about a post introduces someone's dead child into this debate - it is shameful." Right. So it's clear for all to see where you stand now. 1) A politician who you support uses his dead son for political gain - NOT SHAMEFUL 2) Observing that a politician who you support is uses his dead son for political gain - SHAMEFUL You have a very strange _iew of things! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People living here, who are earning and here long term, should generally be paying income taxes, whilst enjoying the huge benefits that our infrastructure provides, such as security, travel - roads etc, which are only paid for from taxes. 99% of ordinary working people do this, despite struggling more than many others. It's fair for people to contribute, as well as just. People hiding behind old family tax code anomalies should fit in with the rest of us or piss off. " agreed .... it's the principle of the thing ... but ultra right wingers tend to ditch their principles for greed and then expect the whole country to ditch their principles as well ..... many of the ultra right wingers would shit on their own kids if they thought they could suck the money out of other peoples pockets and into their off shore bank accounts .... pretty disgraceful attitude really and it's that attitude which is holding this country back. when faced with the facts of the situation they choose not to believe .... ostrich mentality strikes again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think that there is anything wrong with the UK being a tax haven for wealthy foreigners if they are sheltering tax from a high tax state elsewhere and spending/investing it in the UK. I struggle to understand why anyone would object to that other than through envy. I mean you don't see many (any) tax havens with failing economies do you." And here is a person who thinks that UK citizens being priced out of the London housing market by overseas tax avoiders is just fine. Other people would no doubt find that...what's your word? Oh yes...SHAMEFUL. Here's a clue - the very second someone mentions 'politics of envy', they illustrate quite neatly that the haven't got any idea about economic realities at all, beyond what they get told to parrot by the Daily Mail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Putting aside the fairness issue, if that is the right thing to do, how is the net effect on the economy costed? There are so many unknowns. It isn't. This is a policy targeting the great unwashed and making them feel that the rich twats are personally responsible for their own poor lives. Promisung to make the poor richer by making rich poorer is a failed socialist policy that has been around since the dawn of time. Rubbish. The entire conservative manifesto is a policy targeting people like you to turn against the poor twats are personally responsible for their lives and the failing economy. Promising to make the rich richer by making the poor poorer is not the solution either. God your comments annoy me ugh that didn't even make sense..you've annoyed me too much That is unfortunate. Getting annoyed with people that you don't agree with is the first step along the road to a society based on intolerance. We all have different points of _iew and we should be thankful of that. Let's not head towards a place where anger replaces discussion otherwise we just end up one step along the road to a place like the so called Islamic State. It is noticeable though how it always is those who hold left wing _iews who get angry and annoyed at others who dare to have a different point of _iew. I wonder why? No, just no. Everyone else's comments on here are fine. It's just your "it's wrong", "it's not", you are so final with everything you say. Like the way you've tried to push my anger onto all left wing _iew holders, and the way you called someone's _iews "shameful" and a "disgrace" earlier. Unfortunately I can't change my opinion about a post introduces someone's dead child into this debate - it is shameful. I also cant change the fact that the change to non dom rules has not been costed by Labour because it has not, it is an ideological policy. As for the observation that it tends to be mainly left wing posters who get angry - well that is just an observation that happens to be true. I have not seen anyone on this thread or previous ones about the economy, taxes etc who holds conservative supporting _iews get angry and annoyed at others who do not share their _iews. It is invariably left wing, ideological socialists who get angry and aggressive at people who happen to hold a different point of _iew to their own. Getting back on track however. When do you think we might hear about a Labour policy geared to making money out of a successful economy? At the moment we have only heard about taking money from one section of society - higher taxes, mansion taxes and now the non dom issue." . It's funny you say that because... How exactly are the Tories policies aimed at wealth generation. And funnily enough all they do is take money off one section of society and give to another. It just happens to be from the lower to the upper!. I'll give the Tories that... At least their honest about wealth transfer, they don't actually say it but every policy they have is geared to the better off while punishing the worse off. As the great man once said the rich will do anything for the working class except get off their back!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People living here, who are earning and here long term, should generally be paying income taxes, whilst enjoying the huge benefits that our infrastructure provides, such as security, travel - roads etc, which are only paid for from taxes. 99% of ordinary working people do this, despite struggling more than many others. It's fair for people to contribute, as well as just. People hiding behind old family tax code anomalies should fit in with the rest of us or piss off. " They do. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is some suspicion that money earned elsewhere in the world could get taxed some more here. With Labour planning to raise the higher level tax to at least 50% again it makes sense to them to get rid of the non dom status so that the Treasury can get the top up difference between their "home" tax rate and the elevated UK tax rate. We mere Plebs are required to disclose our worldwide income to HMRC and even where a dual taxation treaty exists, they will require that a top up is made if the tax you paid overseas is less than what it would have been if all the income was earned in the UK. Non Doms are not required to disclose their worldwide earnings and instead pay from £30,000 a year up to a maximum of £90,000 (from 2016). Successive governments have argued that an upfront payment is easier to administer than putting what are going to be seriously complex tax assessments through the wringer. ED Balls himself said in January that changing it would cost the country and was not worth doing. Just three months later he has changed his mind andd know thinks it will generate hundreds of millions in revenue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately I can't change my opinion about a post introduces someone's dead child into this debate - it is shameful. Right. So it's clear for all to see where you stand now. 1) A politician who you support uses his dead son for political gain - NOT SHAMEFUL 2) Observing that a politician who you support is uses his dead son for political gain - SHAMEFUL You have a very strange _iew of things! "Talking about your own deceased child is one thing and that is your right to do so because it is your own child. For a third party to bring up your dead child as a means to score a political point is simply not an appropriate thing to do, it is disrespectful at best. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, it is a left versus right debate then. Power to the people. Crush the rich. I think I will leave this while I still have the will." . You know if this was 1780 France I believe the saying was let's get the hell out of dodge with all the loot while the goings good!. Inequality only leads to bad things throughout history!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unfortunately I can't change my opinion about a post introduces someone's dead child into this debate - it is shameful. Right. So it's clear for all to see where you stand now. 1) A politician who you support uses his dead son for political gain - NOT SHAMEFUL 2) Observing that a politician who you support is uses his dead son for political gain - SHAMEFUL You have a very strange _iew of things!
Talking about your own deceased child is one thing and that is your right to do so because it is your own child.
For a third party to bring up your dead child as a means to score a political point is simply not an appropriate thing to do, it is disrespectful at best. "Yes yes, we got it. You are saying it's totally okay to use a dead child repeatedly to try to score a political point, as long as you are David Cameron. You should be ashamed of yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, it is a left versus right debate then. Power to the people. Crush the rich. I think I will leave this while I still have the will.. You know if this was 1780 France I believe the saying was let's get the hell out of dodge with all the loot while the goings good!. Inequality only leads to bad things throughout history!." Erm, we are not in 1780 or in France. I was just asking for an economic argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah, it is a left versus right debate then. Power to the people. Crush the rich. I think I will leave this while I still have the will.. You know if this was 1780 France I believe the saying was let's get the hell out of dodge with all the loot while the goings good!. Inequality only leads to bad things throughout history!. Erm, we are not in 1780 or in France. I was just asking for an economic argument. " . My argument is learn from history or get a good neck brace!. Theres a reason why nobody ever does anything about anything until it's too late... and that's complicated but can be surmised in sloth, greed, envy, lust etc etc. If you care to glance at the seven deadly sinsometter, you'll notice a rising of greed, sloth and gluttony on the right.... Unfortunately this will be meet by envy, pride and wrath by the other side. Look for the signs of totalitarian government and you'll know it's that far away! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes yes, we got it. You are saying it's totally okay to use a dead child repeatedly to try to score a political point, as long as you are David Cameron. You should be ashamed of yourself." Where has David Cameron used the death of his own child to score political points? Point us to a legitimate news story. Thanks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well well, it's now being reported all over that the Tories purposely edited Ed Balls' comments from January that they've been crowing over, with the specific intention of misleading the electorate. 'The Tories moved to unpick the announcement by the Labour leader by releasing a video of a BBC inter_iew back in January in which the shadow chancellor said that abolishing non-dom status might lead to a fall in tax revenue. But the Tories edited out a crucial final sentence in which Balls told BBC Radio Leeds on 9 January: “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.” What fine, upstanding individuals." His exact words were that changing the status would cost the country money. That is unambiguous. Had he said that and then added... "but in any case it is about principle and we are going to get rid of it" - and that was edited out, then yes that would have been a bit naughty. "Getting tough on"... as well as "Cracking down on" are pretty normal politco phrases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument is learn from history or get a good neck brace!. Theres a reason why nobody ever does anything about anything until it's too late... and that's complicated but can be surmised in sloth, greed, envy, lust etc etc. If you care to glance at the seven deadly sinsometter, you'll notice a rising of greed, sloth and gluttony on the right.... Unfortunately this will be meet by envy, pride and wrath by the other side. Look for the signs of totalitarian government and you'll know it's that far away!" Full of the joys of Spring I see 
Britain is a mainstream, middle of the road country where the population has always been protected from extremes of disease and poverty. Nothing has changed in that respect and nothing ever will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well well, it's now being reported all over that the Tories purposely edited Ed Balls' comments from January that they've been crowing over, with the specific intention of misleading the electorate. 'The Tories moved to unpick the announcement by the Labour leader by releasing a video of a BBC inter_iew back in January in which the shadow chancellor said that abolishing non-dom status might lead to a fall in tax revenue. But the Tories edited out a crucial final sentence in which Balls told BBC Radio Leeds on 9 January: “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.” What fine, upstanding individuals. His exact words were that changing the status would cost the country money. That is unambiguous. Had he said that and then added... "but in any case it is about principle and we are going to get rid of it" - and that was edited out, then yes that would have been a bit naughty. "Getting tough on"... as well as "Cracking down on" are pretty normal politco phrases." Ultimately it goes beyond whether it makes money or not, doesn't it? Surely it becomes more an issue of what is 'fair'? How can it be fair for the ultra rich to enjoy paying little or no tax here while people on modest incomes pay higher rates? Seems indefensible to me. Perhaps the question should be reversed and ask non-doms why they wouldn't want to pay similar tax rates here as those on much lower incomes? What would their answer be? Because we are very greedy?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well well, it's now being reported all over that the Tories purposely edited Ed Balls' comments from January that they've been crowing over, with the specific intention of misleading the electorate. 'The Tories moved to unpick the announcement by the Labour leader by releasing a video of a BBC inter_iew back in January in which the shadow chancellor said that abolishing non-dom status might lead to a fall in tax revenue. But the Tories edited out a crucial final sentence in which Balls told BBC Radio Leeds on 9 January: “But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will.” What fine, upstanding individuals. His exact words were that changing the status would cost the country money. That is unambiguous. Had he said that and then added... "but in any case it is about principle and we are going to get rid of it" - and that was edited out, then yes that would have been a bit naughty. "Getting tough on"... as well as "Cracking down on" are pretty normal politco phrases. Ultimately it goes beyond whether it makes money or not, doesn't it? Surely it becomes more an issue of what is 'fair'? How can it be fair for the ultra rich to enjoy paying little or no tax here while people on modest incomes pay higher rates? Seems indefensible to me. Perhaps the question should be reversed and ask non-doms why they wouldn't want to pay similar tax rates here as those on much lower incomes? What would their answer be? Because we are very greedy??" This is why it is a vote winner, the position is pretty hard to defend for those that use the system to channel income and capital generated in the UK offshore while still benefitting here in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument is learn from history or get a good neck brace!. Theres a reason why nobody ever does anything about anything until it's too late... and that's complicated but can be surmised in sloth, greed, envy, lust etc etc. If you care to glance at the seven deadly sinsometter, you'll notice a rising of greed, sloth and gluttony on the right.... Unfortunately this will be meet by envy, pride and wrath by the other side. Look for the signs of totalitarian government and you'll know it's that far away! Full of the joys of Spring I see
Britain is a mainstream, middle of the road country where the population has always been protected from extremes of disease and poverty. Nothing has changed in that respect and nothing ever will."I would like you to say that in the 4 local food banks on the largest council estate in Europe. Food banks are a sign that poverty is alive and kicking! You seem to have a rosy _iew of life? Before you go down the bleeding heart liberal route my tax bill last fiscal year was north of £60k and I would pay more if it was spent on the things that matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes yes, we got it. You are saying it's totally okay to use a dead child repeatedly to try to score a political point, as long as you are David Cameron. You should be ashamed of yourself. Where has David Cameron used the death of his own child to score political points? Point us to a legitimate news story. Thanks." Pick any of the times he has mentioned it when lying about supporting the NHS. There are at least three on record, according to a poster above. No doubt he trots it out every time he is in a hospital too, he's completely shameless. But that's just fine with you, as we know. Still, if you wish to at least pretend to want to be edified, here is a little article for you. Links to about eight separate occasions in this article, and they don't even include ones from this year:http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/11/david-cameron-is-a-serial-exploiter-of-his-dead-son-for-political-purposes/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ultimately it goes beyond whether it makes money or not, doesn't it? Surely it becomes more an issue of what is 'fair'? How can it be fair for the ultra rich to enjoy paying little or no tax here while people on modest incomes pay higher rates? Seems indefensible to me. Perhaps the question should be reversed and ask non-doms why they wouldn't want to pay similar tax rates here as those on much lower incomes? What would their answer be? Because we are very greedy??" No it’s nothing to do with being fair if it was then everybody would be entitled to the same hourly rate no matter who they were or what work they did. Life is not fair and utopia does not exist. Practically every country in the world has non doms, which is why regulations have been agreed between countries and groups of countries how to tax these individuals. Changing one part of the equation automatically leads to changes in other parts of the system, which in turn leads to reprisals from nations affected by the new rules. That is also why the coalition government has been negotiating changes for the last few years. It is only fair that any changes are agreed between the nations who may or will be affected.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And Miliband doesn't use his background for political ends? The fact that he is the son of Jewish immigrants, who escaped from nazis? I've heard him bang on about that loads of times. People complain because politicians aren't 'in touch' with the ordinary man (or woman) in the street, and when they use personal experiences to try to show some common ground, they're still not happy! " If you think that's remotely the same thing, then the mind is truly boggled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ultimately it goes beyond whether it makes money or not, doesn't it? Surely it becomes more an issue of what is 'fair'? How can it be fair for the ultra rich to enjoy paying little or no tax here while people on modest incomes pay higher rates? Seems indefensible to me. Perhaps the question should be reversed and ask non-doms why they wouldn't want to pay similar tax rates here as those on much lower incomes? What would their answer be? Because we are very greedy?? No it’s nothing to do with being fair if it was then everybody would be entitled to the same hourly rate no matter who they were or what work they did. Life is not fair and utopia does not exist. Practically every country in the world has non doms, which is why regulations have been agreed between countries and groups of countries how to tax these individuals. Changing one part of the equation automatically leads to changes in other parts of the system, which in turn leads to reprisals from nations affected by the new rules. That is also why the coalition government has been negotiating changes for the last few years. It is only fair that any changes are agreed between the nations who may or will be affected.
"This misses the point, I have little time for places like Guernsey which through their system aid and abet tax avoidance in the Uk, another crown state, on a monumental scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"" for awhile!. Hang on did you not see my bit on 1780s France .
I'll say one last thing on taxation, the only correlation historically is that the economy works best when the highest tax rate was high!, and every time we've had low taxation for the rich it was always always followed by a recession.
Now historically were in a very low taxation period for the wealthy despite what some will tell you!.
And historically were spending much much much to much for what we're taking in.
So either were going to have to put tax's up... Alot.
Or cut alot.
And when I say alot I mean alot, if you look at the figures were talking it needs to either go up 15%-30% or down.
Although I'd go for the middle ground of hyper inflation, which means in reality they intend to rob you blind of any wealth!.
And on that bomb shell | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain is a mainstream, middle of the road country where the population has always been protected from extremes of disease and poverty. Nothing has changed in that respect and nothing ever will." only since 1948 with regards to disease, prior to that you took your chances with things like polio, diptheria, typhoid, TB etc. but since the fantastically awesome socialist principal of the national health service which means free healthcare for all championed so vociferously by Mr Bevan these killer diseases have been as good as relegated to the dustbin of history in britian .... and caMoron is hell bent on fucking it all up today ..... your claim that "the population has always been protected from extremes of disease" and that "Nothing has changed in that respect and nothing ever will" could be likened to the usual wild ultra right wing propaganda that's vomited up by swivel eyed loonies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
