£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.
But surely that cannot be right. The whole point is that they are paying no tax other than the recently introduced levy, no? @Covered End put the take at 262m
£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.
But surely that cannot be right. The whole point is that they are paying no tax other than the recently introduced levy, no? @Covered End put the take at 262m
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.
You could make the same argument about Cameron saying he would not raise VAT before the last election - and then raising it from 17.5% to 20% - or the fact that neither immigration or the deficit have been cut by anything like what Cameron promised.
This could be a very nice 'cut through' policy and certainly something that nobody with an ounce of political nous would be caught laughing about.
'Wow, you suffer from a serious paranoia, or too much caffeine on your diet!
It's good that you agree that the British empire was a better institution than it's Chinesse equivalent. Instead of reading that book you kindly recommended, just look at that recent tread on CL 'ten data maps of London' You will see that people from the old empire didn't just come to England after the days of empire, they positively swarmed here! I guess you would agree a better endorsement of the British Empire is hard to imagine!
The only people that will be upset by you continuing to pay your broadband and spout nonsense on here rather than donate that money to the third world, be those people in the third world. It's easier to talk than it is to take action isn't it Seth, my old china.'
Well you've taken a while to revive this. Your judgement about my supposed paranoia is mistaken, and you have no means of justifying that judgement. As I said, I am defending myself against your attack, not a paranoid reaction on my part. There was no Chinese Empire in the same way as the British Empire, there is no equivalence and to judge one thing as 'better' than another seems to me to be the same as saying something like strawberries are 'better' than raspberries. People 'swarming' to London is firstly not exclusive to the old colonies, nor is it an endorsement of the British Empire, mainly because they didn't 'swarm' at all, and secondly how does that square with the arrival of so many from Europe in recent years? Sorry, I am afraid I don't agree with your premise. It is possible to both pay for broadband and donate, they are not mutually exclusive behaviours. Incidentally I also regularly donate to Demelza, because they are other people, I don't understand what you mean by the 'third world'. Your opinion that I spout nonsense on here, remains simply that, your opinion (which has validity as an opinion), but is not a universally established fact. As for talk verses action, well you and I don't know each other, and I can't judge your talk to action ratio any more than you can judge mine. I doubt if I am your 'old China', not particularly subtle or funny, and I am aware it is cockney rhyming slang for 'china plate', but your constant references to my association with China, and China itself is troubling because it is beginning to reveal an underlying racism on your part. See you next Tuesday?
smudge writes:
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, work gets in the way! Still it means I can pay tax and contribute to foreign aid. Better I do so than those with bog opinions and short pockets!
I fully accept you don't understand they term 'third world.' Very simply you are educationally sub normal.
This is further shown when I drive a preverbal coach and horses over your foreign aid argument, you resort to disgusting insinuations of racism. You have previous for this in UKIP discussions. A couple of days have passed now, do you have the common decency to apologise?
You're at it again. Are you a stalker by any chance?
' Third World' is a term used by you and others to demean other countries arrogantly assumed to be the bronze medallists, against the gold standard I assume you and others use to describe countries such as those in the G8. I believe it is an arrogant assumption used to justify actions which are not welcomed by other countries, as if those who see themselves as superior are somehow doing the 'Third World' a favour. I repeat, my contributions to overseas aid is intended for other people, not ones I would describe as a couple of rungs down.
Indeed it is all resonant of your use of the term 'educationally sub-normal', which is laughably often applied by those who want to take ownership of he term 'normal' and apply it, arrogantly, to themselves.
Incidentally it is 'proverbial' not 'preverbial', and if you don't believe me, ask a teacher next time you are anywhere near some place that might educate you.
As for racist insinuations, your own previous repeated references to China and the Chinese I see as fuelled by a racist intent, which if you are aware of my 'previous' you would know starts to get pretty personal with me.
I have absolutely nothing to apologise for. You are the person churning this matter long after the moment has passed, and I can only guess as to your motives, which right now appear to me to by driven by your inbred antipathy towards foreigners, in particular the Chinese, and most especially your antipathy towards me personally.
My advice (which I imagine you will ignore) is to let this matter rest now because it does seem to me rather creepy and pervy, much like the actions of a stalker as I alluded to above.
I'm guessing these super rich non Dom's contribute to the economy beyond just their income tax (and bribes to political parties). They must buy a ton of stuff and pay tax on that, or create wealth and opportunities for other people? There must be some incentive to have them here (unless I'm being naive)
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.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
The economy was in rude health before the GLOBAL crash. Not sure how people ignore that fact. And it is a fact. A policy involving getting the ridiculously rich to pay their way has to be a good one as long as revenue is not lost. Labour has said it has found a way to do this. Why don't their opponents find out what that way is and pick that apart rather than just attack it on a basic level?
£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.
But surely that cannot be right. The whole point is that they are paying no tax other than the recently introduced levy, no? @Covered End put the take at 262m
As I understand it, (but I could easily be wrong) the charge which in total brings in a quarter of a billion gets them a free pass on tax on income earned overseas NOT on UK-earned money: hence the difference between the 8bn tax they are paying and the 1bn they aren't. But I don't know how those figures are guestimated. In a way, you could argue that it is reasonable. Let's say a UK-based non-dom holds stock in a USA company, the yanks will have deducted withholding tax before that money is paid away. So would it be equitable for the UK to tax that money as well? No one is going to put up with paying 30% tax in the USA and a further 40% in the UK. That would be madness. You'd move somewhere else wouldn't you and then the UK would lose all tax income for that individual.
I thought laws already existed regarding double taxation.
I pay my taxes in China, which I thought meant I wouldn't have to pay tax on the same earnings back in the UK.
I don't know but that's different isn't it? We're talking about foreign income not income earned in the country where you pay the tax. This suggests the US takes tax anyway. http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/938
The UK's biggest problem, in my eyes, is that it's no longer essential to be in the UK to do a lot of business there, so if it will suddenly save someone a ton of money to stay, many will probably leave.
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.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
That's a silly statement Arthur, used by too many people who see it as an easy excuse for making unpopular policy decisions and trying to deflect criticism. The figures aren't hidden away and only shown to the government once they get elected, they are readily available for everyone. If you have to break manifesto pledges when you get into government because "things weren't as bad as you suspected" then it's an example of weak governance and poor planning. The Lib Dems backtracked on tuition fees because it simply wasn't affordable. They knew that, however they also didn't expect to get into government so they could make such promises.
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.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
The reason they were ignored and people felt betrayed was that Clegg gave a firm pledge / promise on the issue during the campaign . The student vote was very influential in some of their gains . A high profile example would be the toppling of Charles Clarke in Norwich. The University vote in Sheffield is a major factor in Clegg being vulnerable in his own seat . Like Farage I have a feeling he will not be even a MP in the next parliament .
For most of the Blair years the L/D's positioned themselves as to the left of Labour .It is pretty ironic that they then supported a government that had George Osborne as Chancellor . If they keep 30 plus seats the Tories will probably need them again and Labour would prefer to call on them than Sturgeon .
Ironically on the stump many of their MP's like Norman Baker in Lewes ,Vince Cable in Twickenham and some guy I have never heard of in Surbiton will be relying on tactical Labour voters to hold their seats . I suspect the likes of the Spanner supporting Simon Hughes in Bermondsey might find it more difficult.
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.
Didnt turn out well for the Lib Dems who made promises about tuition fees on the basis that the last administration had left the economy in some reasonable order, but on finding out we were skint had to change their tune. They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
That's a silly statement Arthur, used by too many people who see it as an easy excuse for making unpopular policy decisions and trying to deflect criticism. The figures aren't hidden away and only shown to the government once they get elected, they are readily available for everyone. If you have to break manifesto pledges when you get into government because "things weren't as bad as you suspected" then it's an example of weak governance and poor planning. The Lib Dems backtracked on tuition fees because it simply wasn't affordable. They knew that, however they also didn't expect to get into government so they could make such promises.
Not fair to say his statement is "silly". I'll leave others closer to the facts than I to say more, but the full budgetary details by department are not known by opposition parties, and the excuse has been made by every party, including the current Tories. The other unknowable is the revenue side. Tax take varies with the actual performance of the economy, as well as the (in)ability of HMRC to collect the taxes. That said I accept @RichardJ 's criticism of Clegg. But then again. The British do not understand coalition politics well, and that goes for the politicians and the journalists as well as the citizens. (and of course I only know more about it because of where I have lived for 22 years)
US citizens pay tax on worldwide income. Under the US/UK double taxation arrangements a UK business operating in the US and paying US tax is not liable for non US income as would a normal US taxpayer. Presumably this concession reflects our NonDom rules and would end if we taxed on the same basis as the US.
Shock horror a really good idea dreamed up by politicians to appeal to voters has unintended consequences.
The economy was in rude health before the GLOBAL crash. Not sure how people ignore that fact. And it is a fact. A policy involving getting the ridiculously rich to pay their way has to be a good one as long as revenue is not lost. Labour has said it has found a way to do this. Why don't their opponents find out what that way is and pick that apart rather than just attack it on a basic level?
but this was inflated in this country because companies were encouraged to borrow well beyond their means after being told "boom and bust was over". There are other countries that hardly dipped into a recession after the crash, canada being one of them.
but the issue is whether labour are correct, it's a delicate balancing act and there is good evidence to suggest lowering taxes on the super rich actually brings more money into hmrc. If you increase taxes too much, money can quite easily be moved abroad these days.
£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.
But surely that cannot be right. The whole point is that they are paying no tax other than the recently introduced levy, no? @Covered End put the take at 262m
£8bn for 114k people is about £70k per person.
A PAYE employee who earns £200k in a year would pay about £78.5k in income tax, before adding NI.
The £262m figure would work out at about £2300 per person.
The Graun said if all the nondoms paid UK income tax on foreign earnings and nobody left, that would bring in an extra £4bn, so about £35k per person. If you assume that this would be paid at 45% additional rate, that means their foreign earnings average out at about £78k.
Are there reasons other than tax avoidance why people would want to be classed as "non-dom", or reasons why using the income tax thresholds is not appropriate? Or maybe the 114k figure (which looks high to me) is not the right one to use as it counts people who would legitimately not be liable for UK tax under Labour plans? These figures all seem quite small to me.
All a bit complicated for me to understand beyond Britain being the only place that has the present Non-Domicile (?) arrangements, and it apparently goes back 200 odd years when there was colonialisation and all the things that go with that. If the thing is so great why doesn't everybody do it? It can't all hinge on the cost benefit analysis, there is a significant element of dealing with an anachronism.
not sure if this has already been posted, but an interesting article in The Spectator (which i have no idea whether it has any political bias) on the non-dom issue
not sure if this has already been posted, but an interesting article in The Spectator (which i have no idea whether it has any political bias) on the non-dom issue
ed. for fairness, just read this is seen as a traditionally conservative favouring publication
to be honest as long as it's good journalism, it shouldn't matter. The guardian is a good newspaper, even though i don't agree with most of what the columnists and editor has to say, much like the daily mail is a horrible paper with shit journalism.
If the thing is so great why doesn't everybody do it? It can't all hinge on the cost benefit analysis, there is a significant element of dealing with an anachronism.
Not sure anyone thinks it's great, but it's one of many anachronisms we have in this country.
Morris Dancers are an anachronism, dancing around in public places in funny clothes with offensive weapons and disturbing the peace should't be allowed. Ought to be arrested like anyone else would.
We should be the same as Sweden, it's illegal to move your feet to music in public without license. All these countries having different laws, it's not fair.
From the Lib Dem website - hardly unbiased I warrant, but at least we can see their take
Why did Liberal Democrats allow tuition fees to increase? Neither the Conservatives nor Labour agreed with our policy to end tuition fees. They both supported the Browne Review, which actually recommended unlimited fees. Given the state of the public finances Labour left us with, we therefore had to compromise with the Conservatives.
Have you apologised for breaking your pledge? Yes. Nick Clegg made a public apology in a video. As a party, we have learned from our mistake and will never again make a promise to the British people unless we are absolutely sure we can keep it.
Did you consider a graduate tax instead? The new system is effectively a 30-year graduate tax, in that graduates repay 9 per cent of their income over £21,000. If they lose their job or their income falls below £21,000, they will not pay anything. We did look at a full graduate tax, but we discovered foreign students or people who move abroad after university would be able to avoid repaying the cost of their tuition.
Liberal Democrats cutting your taxes by £825 Liberal Democrats have unveiled a new poster highlighting how the party is delivering an £825 tax cut for millions of workers.
not sure if this has already been posted, but an interesting article in The Spectator (which i have no idea whether it has any political bias) on the non-dom issue
ed. for fairness, just read this is seen as a traditionally conservative favouring publication, shows how little i know
Boris Johnson used to be it's editor. Although I do not agree with the politics of the Spectator it is well written and can have good articles. I have even purchased it from time to time . The left of centre equivalent is the New Statesman .
Part of the fun of following diverse political journalists on Twitter is that you get instant reaction from all viewpoints to big political events . For me the TV debates on Twitter was a bit like following @Redmidland 's Charlton away match thread when another poster takes on the opposition's commentaries giving the different perspectives.
That is also what I like about this thread. Charlton Life at it's best.
Comments
This could be a very nice 'cut through' policy and certainly something that nobody with an ounce of political nous would be caught laughing about.
Well you've taken a while to revive this.
Your judgement about my supposed paranoia is mistaken, and you have no means of justifying that judgement. As I said, I am defending myself against your attack, not a paranoid reaction on my part.
There was no Chinese Empire in the same way as the British Empire, there is no equivalence and to judge one thing as 'better' than another seems to me to be the same as saying something like strawberries are 'better' than raspberries.
People 'swarming' to London is firstly not exclusive to the old colonies, nor is it an endorsement of the British Empire, mainly because they didn't 'swarm' at all, and secondly how does that square with the arrival of so many from Europe in recent years? Sorry, I am afraid I don't agree with your premise.
It is possible to both pay for broadband and donate, they are not mutually exclusive behaviours. Incidentally I also regularly donate to Demelza, because they are other people, I don't understand what you mean by the 'third world'.
Your opinion that I spout nonsense on here, remains simply that, your opinion (which has validity as an opinion), but is not a universally established fact.
As for talk verses action, well you and I don't know each other, and I can't judge your talk to action ratio any more than you can judge mine. I doubt if I am your 'old China', not particularly subtle or funny, and I am aware it is cockney rhyming slang for 'china plate', but your constant references to my association with China, and China itself is troubling because it is beginning to reveal an underlying racism on your part.
See you next Tuesday?
smudge writes:
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, work gets in the way! Still it means I can pay tax and contribute to foreign aid. Better I do so than those with bog opinions and short pockets!
I fully accept you don't understand they term 'third world.' Very simply you are educationally sub normal.
This is further shown when I drive a preverbal coach and horses over your foreign aid argument, you resort to disgusting insinuations of racism. You have previous for this in UKIP discussions.
A couple of days have passed now, do you have the common decency to apologise?
You're at it again. Are you a stalker by any chance?
' Third World' is a term used by you and others to demean other countries arrogantly assumed to be the bronze medallists, against the gold standard I assume you and others use to describe countries such as those in the G8.
I believe it is an arrogant assumption used to justify actions which are not welcomed by other countries, as if those who see themselves as superior are somehow doing the 'Third World' a favour. I repeat, my contributions to overseas aid is intended for other people, not ones I would describe as a couple of rungs down.
Indeed it is all resonant of your use of the term 'educationally sub-normal', which is laughably often applied by those who want to take ownership of he term 'normal' and apply it, arrogantly, to themselves.
Incidentally it is 'proverbial' not 'preverbial', and if you don't believe me, ask a teacher next time you are anywhere near some place that might educate you.
As for racist insinuations, your own previous repeated references to China and the Chinese I see as fuelled by a racist intent, which if you are aware of my 'previous' you would know starts to get pretty personal with me.
I have absolutely nothing to apologise for. You are the person churning this matter long after the moment has passed, and I can only guess as to your motives, which right now appear to me to by driven by your inbred antipathy towards foreigners, in particular the Chinese, and most especially your antipathy towards me personally.
My advice (which I imagine you will ignore) is to let this matter rest now because it does seem to me rather creepy and pervy, much like the actions of a stalker as I alluded to above.
They have been pilloried for this for 5 years and all the good initiatives they have influenced, such as raising the tax threshold benefitting the poorest in this country, are ignored
I pay my taxes in China, which I thought meant I wouldn't have to pay tax on the same earnings back in the UK.
This suggests the US takes tax anyway. http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/938
The UK's biggest problem, in my eyes, is that it's no longer essential to be in the UK to do a lot of business there, so if it will suddenly save someone a ton of money to stay, many will probably leave.
The reason they were ignored and people felt betrayed was that Clegg gave a firm pledge / promise on the issue during the campaign . The student vote was very influential in some of their gains . A high profile example would be the toppling of Charles Clarke in Norwich. The University vote in Sheffield is a major factor in Clegg being vulnerable in his own seat . Like Farage I have a feeling he will not be even a MP in the next parliament .
For most of the Blair years the L/D's positioned themselves as to the left of Labour .It is pretty ironic that they then supported a government that had George Osborne as Chancellor . If they keep 30 plus seats the Tories will probably need them again and Labour would prefer to call on them than Sturgeon .
Ironically on the stump many of their MP's like Norman Baker in Lewes ,Vince Cable in Twickenham and some guy I have never heard of in Surbiton will be relying on tactical Labour voters to hold their seats . I suspect the likes of the Spanner supporting Simon Hughes in Bermondsey might find it more difficult.
Shock horror a really good idea dreamed up by politicians to appeal to voters has unintended consequences.
but the issue is whether labour are correct, it's a delicate balancing act and there is good evidence to suggest lowering taxes on the super rich actually brings more money into hmrc. If you increase taxes too much, money can quite easily be moved abroad these days.
A PAYE employee who earns £200k in a year would pay about £78.5k in income tax, before adding NI.
The £262m figure would work out at about £2300 per person.
The Graun said if all the nondoms paid UK income tax on foreign earnings and nobody left, that would bring in an extra £4bn, so about £35k per person. If you assume that this would be paid at 45% additional rate, that means their foreign earnings average out at about £78k.
Are there reasons other than tax avoidance why people would want to be classed as "non-dom", or reasons why using the income tax thresholds is not appropriate? Or maybe the 114k figure (which looks high to me) is not the right one to use as it counts people who would legitimately not be liable for UK tax under Labour plans? These figures all seem quite small to me.
If the thing is so great why doesn't everybody do it? It can't all hinge on the cost benefit analysis, there is a significant element of dealing with an anachronism.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/ed-miliband-is-deliberately-misleading-you-and-me-on-the-nom-dom-rules/
ed. for fairness, just read this is seen as a traditionally conservative favouring publication, shows how little i know
The spectator is owned by the daily telegraph.
Morris Dancers are an anachronism, dancing around in public places in funny clothes with offensive weapons and disturbing the peace should't be allowed. Ought to be arrested like anyone else would.
We should be the same as Sweden, it's illegal to move your feet to music in public without license. All these countries having different laws, it's not fair.
Why did Liberal Democrats allow tuition fees to increase?
Neither the Conservatives nor Labour agreed with our policy to end tuition fees. They both supported the Browne Review, which actually recommended unlimited fees. Given the state of the public finances Labour left us with, we therefore had to compromise with the Conservatives.
Have you apologised for breaking your pledge?
Yes. Nick Clegg made a public apology in a video. As a party, we have learned from our mistake and will never again make a promise to the British people unless we are absolutely sure we can keep it.
Did you consider a graduate tax instead?
The new system is effectively a 30-year graduate tax, in that graduates repay 9 per cent of their income over £21,000. If they lose their job or their income falls below £21,000, they will not pay anything. We did look at a full graduate tax, but we discovered foreign students or people who move abroad after university would be able to avoid repaying the cost of their tuition.
Liberal Democrats cutting your taxes by £825
Liberal Democrats have unveiled a new poster highlighting how the party is delivering an £825 tax cut for millions of workers.
Boris Johnson used to be it's editor. Although I do not agree with the politics of the Spectator it is well written and can have good articles. I have even purchased it from time to time . The left of centre equivalent is the New Statesman .
Part of the fun of following diverse political journalists on Twitter is that you get instant reaction from all viewpoints to big political events . For me the TV debates on Twitter was a bit like following @Redmidland 's Charlton away match thread when another poster takes on the opposition's commentaries giving the different perspectives.
That is also what I like about this thread. Charlton Life at it's best.