I wonder how the 90 or so backbench Tories who voted against scraping the House of Lords and having an elected 2nd chamber causing Nick Clegg to vote against the redrawing of constituency boundaries and reducing the number of MPs feel now? If the boundaries had been redrawn the Tories would be odds on to get a majority in this election.
The non-dom move is a smart move by Miliband, the sort of move that only a guy with nothing to lose can afford to make - and that makes it dangerous for Cameron because it forces him to act.
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Well, his chancellor-in-waiting for one who was recently interviewed saying it would reduce the tax take. That lot couldn't organise a shag in a brothel it seems. So the conservatives have to do nothing in response except chuckle a little.
That would be a strange tactic. Labour are allowed to change their policies, just like the Conservatives are allowed to move the goalposts on debt reduction and UKIP are allowed to flip-flop on every policy that isn't "get out of the EU".
For clarity, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with changing policies, just that this isn't unique to Labour.
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes
I agree that it is always sensible to review your policies and change them within reason.
However, change them for good reason is the point.
Balls says getting rid of non dom status will lose revenue. Miliband seems to think it will raise revenue.
If their top 2 can't even agree on something like this ........
I wonder how the 90 or so backbench Tories who voted against scraping the House of Lords and having an elected 2nd chamber causing Nick Clegg to vote against the redrawing of constituency boundaries and reducing the number of MPs feel now? If the boundaries had been redrawn the Tories would be odds on to get a majority in this election.</blockquo An interesting question and a series of events that calls into question the LibDems oft stated "fairer society" claim. Presumably being fairer doesn't include equitably sized constituencies?
The non-dom move is a smart move by Miliband, the sort of move that only a guy with nothing to lose can afford to make - and that makes it dangerous for Cameron because it forces him to act.
Who can seriously be opposed to this apart from those who would hate Miliband regardless?
Well, his chancellor-in-waiting for one who was recently interviewed saying it would reduce the tax take. That lot couldn't organise a shag in a brothel it seems. So the conservatives have to do nothing in response except chuckle a little.
That would be a strange tactic. Labour are allowed to change their policies, just like the Conservatives are allowed to move the goalposts on debt reduction and UKIP are allowed to flip-flop on every policy that isn't "get out of the EU".
For clarity, I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with changing policies, just that this isn't unique to Labour.
"When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - JM Keynes
I agree that it is always sensible to review your policies and change them within reason.
However, change them for good reason is the point.
Balls says getting rid of non dom status will lose revenue. Miliband seems to think it will raise revenue.
If their top 2 can't even agree on something like this ........
Is there anything to say they don't agree on this today? Fair enough, Balls thought it would reduce tax revenue a few months ago, but what's to say they haven't got new information in the past few months suggesting it would increase revenue?
If they actually don't agree on this, that would be a far deeper issue than just embarrassing for Labour. It would suggest the leader ignores the advice of his proposed minister and announces new policy without consultation.
An interesting question and a series of events that calls into question the LibDems oft stated "fairer society" claim. Presumably being fairer doesn't include equitably sized constituencies?
I think they would say, and I agree, having an elected 2nd chamber is a step towards a 'fairer society'.
If tax evasion/avoidance is rife now wait until NonDoms have to declare earnings that are not visible to any department or arm of the authorities or bank in the UK. They just have to put stuff in the name of their spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend/child/dog.
Wonder how many will end up chuckling as they arrange affairs to pay less than the £30k long term NonDoms pay as a fixed charge under the current system.
No one wants to see the likes of Abramovic getting away with paying naff all in tax, but just like Labour to propose a law that's unenforceable, not costed and risks making us worse off overall. Just another bang on the drum making noises to excite and rally the "it's not fair" brigade. We must support it regardless, because anyone who doesn't support it, even on logical financial grounds, will be accused of supporting inequality.
In the interests of starting a argument debate, how about looking at how much money they bring into the UK subject to UK tax and work out a threshold above which they pay a lower rate of tax for money they bring into the UK. How about encouraging more NonDoms, more UK tax revenue and more money into our economy that would have stayed offshore. Just a thought, but far too unfair for many I guess. Better off perhaps with a proper fair system that only lets people in who prove they don't have any money, have no job skills and will not be liable to pay tax.
If you want a fair system you give everybody a vote and count them all up and deal with the result. The reason the major parties don’t like this is that a lot of people vote against a party rather than for one. But if they knew their vote would count, they might be more likely to vote Green or UKIP. The argument against this has always been in two parts. Firstly, our current system makes it more likely for a clear winner and stronger government, and secondly, it prevents racist/fascist parties getting representatives. The fact is, we are very likely not to have a party with a clear majority for the second election running based on our current system where if you vote for somebody who doesn’t get a majority, your vote is effectively in the bin. I think, if we got more fascist representatives they would still have no power and if their vote increased, they would be a good warning and barometer for the rest of us. The voting system does not change the views and beliefs of those voting and it has to be good in a democracy if the government reflected the views of the people.
Well if I'm reading this correctly (http://www.edballs.co.uk/blog/?p=5908), Ed Balls was arguing that if you abolish non-dom status completely, then you deter rich overseas students and people becoming temporarily resident for business purposes, which would lose the country money they'd otherwise get. Doesn't necessarily mean they'd lose money overall, as it depends on numbers of individuals and the sums involved.
So basically they want to recategorise some people as temporarily resident, but if you're permanently resident you can't call yourself a non-dom to get out of paying all your tax here. Sounds reasonably sensible, as long as the thresholds for permanent residency are set in a workable way.
If non dom status was such a good idea, then I'm sure that the rest of Northern Europe and the USA would offer a similar concession. They don't. Doesn't stop the MLS from recruiting the likes of Henry or Lampard.
I think anybody who is being sensible – and that includes other parties, agree that the non-dom status needs reform. What they say they wish to ensure is that any changes do not result in a loss in revenue when the people being asked to pay more tax leave. Not sure you can know how many people would do this but Labour say they have worked out a way to ensure more revenue. I think it is a good bet there will be more revenue. My view has always been that people will choose to live here for a number of reasons, not just financial and I don’t think Labour are proposing to make these people poor, so their lives will not change much and they will still benefit from sending their children to public schools here, owning a football club etc…
How much money would ending non-dom tax status raise for Britain? looks like a fair stab at answering the question to me. some of you will look askance because it's in the Guardian, but as usual with the Guardian the sources are all clearly shown, so do what you will with it. It is also up to the other parties to propose something better, if they wish to claim the Labour policy is unworkable. Turns out that no other country in the world has it, it's not even clearly written into statute, therefore nobody voted for it. If they would all exit, to where exactly?
How much money would ending non-dom tax status raise for Britain? looks like a fair stab at answering the question to me. some of you will look askance because it's in the Guardian, but as usual with the Guardian the sources are all clearly shown, so do what you will with it. It is also up to the other parties to propose something better, if they wish to claim the Labour policy is unworkable. Turns out that no other country in the world has it, it's not even clearly written into statute, therefore nobody voted for it. If they would all exit, to where exactly?
I think the main issue for me is the thought of a chancellor running the nations economy who, back in January, claimed this idea would not raise money for the economy (in fact would lose revenue). Then 4 months later changes his tune. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
NonDoms was a concession for the wealthy colonialists in the days when Parliament was made up of MPs elected by those who could vote i.e the rich property owning classes. Taxes were set by the rich and applied to themselves so would have been scrupulously fair. Presumably it seen as unfair to tax foreign property to pay for domestic projects. We lost America trying to tax colonialists, might have had an influence, but pure speculation on my part.
Other countries had a different history and fewer residents owning foreign property so would not have been an issue.
Not saying it is good, just that it is there for a reason. If we still raised taxes just to pay for stuff and social engineering wasn't part of tax policy, it would probably not seem odd that foreign assets are not taxed to pay for domestic services.
No one is going to object to it unless it definitely is going to reduce tax revenue. I would be happier if they just said it is anachronistic and will modernise the tax law, not we are doing it hoping to get more money from the rich bastards because it makes us feel better (perhaps £1bn out of current tax receipts of £600bn+).
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
So you would respect the Tories if they did the same?
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
So you would respect the Tories if they did the same?
Perhaps. Grudgingly. But then I'll be honest enough to admit my prejudice against all things Tory runs deep. I just can't help it.
We lost America trying to tax colonialists, might have had an influence, but pure speculation on my part.
Are you saying if the British did not decide to levy a tax on colonialists the population of America would still be happy to be ruled by a foreign power?
When you say 'We lost' does this mean you believe the British had a right/entitlement to rule over America or any other foreign country?
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
So you would respect the Tories if they did the same?
Perhaps. Grudgingly. But then I'll be honest enough to admit my prejudice against all things Tory runs deep. I just can't help it.
I'd respect a party who have the courage to put their hands up and say 'you know what, what we thought was going to work, patently isn't so here's a new approach', rather than have them plough on regardless despite the fact the course they're on is not working because they're too proud/arrogant to admit they're wrong. Surely it's human to admit you're wrong. I know I have in the past.
So you would respect the Tories if they did the same?
Perhaps. Grudgingly. But then I'll be honest enough to admit my prejudice against all things Tory runs deep. I just can't help it.
Fair enough. Ditto me for all things Labour!
but guys, don't you see this approach plays into the hands of our politicians. I've tried to argue that tax loopholes and incompetence of HMRC are issues that ought to unite people from all sides of the spectrum. Robert Peston just pointed out that the UK is remarkably lax in extracting tax from the rich (and from companies, I believe he also meant). The US - as he pointed out, the cradle of capitalism - is far tougher.
It means that politicians from both the main parties in the last 20 years are complicit in this failure. The question is why. Was it just the voters' disinterest? Or was it, as Lord Paul suggested this morning, something worse? A matter of corruption in fact, related to Party contributions. If this move finally ignites the debate then Milliband at least deserves credit for that.
I think the main issue for me is the thought of a chancellor running the nations economy who, back in January, claimed this idea would not raise money for the economy (in fact would lose revenue). Then 4 months later changes his tune. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence.
£226M earned from non doms in 2013. So we have to ensure that we can top that.
Don't know where they got their figures from but C4 news tonite said there were circa 114k non-doms paying 8bn+ in UK tax but avoiding 1bn tax. If that's anywhere near correct, gambling £8 to win £1 doesn't sound like a sensible bet.
Comments
However, change them for good reason is the point.
Balls says getting rid of non dom status will lose revenue. Miliband seems to think it will raise revenue.
If their top 2 can't even agree on something like this ........
If they actually don't agree on this, that would be a far deeper issue than just embarrassing for Labour. It would suggest the leader ignores the advice of his proposed minister and announces new policy without consultation.
Wonder how many will end up chuckling as they arrange affairs to pay less than the £30k long term NonDoms pay as a fixed charge under the current system.
No one wants to see the likes of Abramovic getting away with paying naff all in tax, but just like Labour to propose a law that's unenforceable, not costed and risks making us worse off overall. Just another bang on the drum making noises to excite and rally the "it's not fair" brigade. We must support it regardless, because anyone who doesn't support it, even on logical financial grounds, will be accused of supporting inequality.
In the interests of starting a
argumentdebate, how about looking at how much money they bring into the UK subject to UK tax and work out a threshold above which they pay a lower rate of tax for money they bring into the UK. How about encouraging more NonDoms, more UK tax revenue and more money into our economy that would have stayed offshore. Just a thought, but far too unfair for many I guess. Better off perhaps with a proper fair system that only lets people in who prove they don't have any money, have no job skills and will not be liable to pay tax.the house of lords is the only place where expert and decent debate happen in this country.
So basically they want to recategorise some people as temporarily resident, but if you're permanently resident you can't call yourself a non-dom to get out of paying all your tax here. Sounds reasonably sensible, as long as the thresholds for permanent residency are set in a workable way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11522432/Green-Party-releases-boyband-video.html
I'm all for collecting a bit more from the wealthy, as long as it actually collects more and not less.
Other countries had a different history and fewer residents owning foreign property so would not have been an issue.
Not saying it is good, just that it is there for a reason. If we still raised taxes just to pay for stuff and social engineering wasn't part of tax policy, it would probably not seem odd that foreign assets are not taxed to pay for domestic services.
No one is going to object to it unless it definitely is going to reduce tax revenue. I would be happier if they just said it is anachronistic and will modernise the tax law, not we are doing it hoping to get more money from the rich bastards because it makes us feel better (perhaps £1bn out of current tax receipts of £600bn+).
Perhaps. Grudgingly. But then I'll be honest enough to admit my prejudice against all things Tory runs deep. I just can't help it.
When you say 'We lost' does this mean you believe the British had a right/entitlement to rule over America or any other foreign country?
It means that politicians from both the main parties in the last 20 years are complicit in this failure. The question is why. Was it just the voters' disinterest? Or was it, as Lord Paul suggested this morning, something worse? A matter of corruption in fact, related to Party contributions. If this move finally ignites the debate then Milliband at least deserves credit for that.