The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
You make it sound like it's a cross section of 5,000 average Britons...
The reality is that this band of 5,000 is the multi-billion pound media moguls, highly successful businessmen and ridiculously well-paid sportsmen.
All of whom pay little to no tax.
On their foreign income...they pay tax on their UK income.
Meanwhile they spend and invest fortunes in the UK.
Fact is I could not apply for non dom status as I was born in the UK, my family are English. So why is it fair others can claim and I can not ?
It's obvious. They are loaded with mates in high places.
If I was to set up a company in say India, which made x amount of money but then decide to come back to the UK to live. I am right in saying I would have to pay tax on the profits the Indian company made ? but the bloke who owns Chelsea would not ? Serious question.
You'd have to pay Indian tax which may or may not be offset under a UK double tax agreement.
He'd have to pay Indian tax which may or may not be offset under a Russian double tax agreement (or wherever he is domiciled).
Still fuming?
Not fuming, just asking ? but you have answered my question.
OK, I may or may not have it offset under a UK double tax agreement. However, he will definitely not be taxed by the UK on it, yet he lives in the UK like I do.
If there is no advantage to non Dom status. Why do it ?
There's an advantage if you have significant non-UK income from lower tax countries.
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
If there is no advantage to non Dom status. Why do it ?
There's an advantage if you have significant non-UK income from lower tax countries.
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
This egregious situation lets the wealthiest enjoy privileges without paying their fair dues. It was introduced by William Pitt the Younger FFS!
If there is no advantage to non Dom status. Why do it ?
There's an advantage if you have significant non-UK income from lower tax countries.
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
This egregious situation lets the wealthiest enjoy privileges without paying their fair dues. It was introduced by William Pitt the Younger FFS!
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch.
Economics of he country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
Well I thought it an excellent question, showing up an inept government for what they were. You can polish it any way you like.
The first bit of the question was fine, but the bit about the note was cheap. One bloke made a poor private joke FFS. She was telling Cameron it wasn't a joke, but we all know it was a joke. What was he supposed to say!!!Tories make sweeping statements and don't focus on detail. What in what I said was incorrect? That isn't polishing, that is explaining.
Hardly a private joke though was it? Admitting to your opponent that you have totally fecked the country over is not something to be proud of, nor is it something to joke about, be it private public or fact. Utter tosser treating the country with contempt.
If there is no advantage to non Dom status. Why do it ?
There's an advantage if you have significant non-UK income from lower tax countries.
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
This egregious situation lets the wealthiest enjoy privileges without paying their fair dues. It was introduced by William Pitt the Younger FFS!
But if it didn't exist they wouldn't be here!
who says? They would be taxed more but not stupidly. They have lots of other reasons to be here.
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact and it is criminally ignored by opponents.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch. There are lessons to be learned but the Tories wouldn't have prevented the crash.
Economics of the country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
The blond (not blonde) employer, asked a question that everyone in this country, who cares about how OUR money is spent, should be pleased with. The fact that Labour have no justification for the overspend, results in them having to play it down & joke about it. Miliband even said that Labour didn't overspend. You're right the question was meant to be debated, not dismissed.
The audience gave a large gasp, because Miliband is either deluded, if he believes Labour did not overspend, or he's a liar, if he believes they did overspend and he won't admit it.
Blonde employer asked a poor question. Churning up a bad joke - that is impossible to answer and to me wasn't the point of the debate. It was about debate not scoring cheap political points - that is for the politicians to do unfortunately, not the audience. On spending, the audience gasped a bit, but Miliband gave an honest answer and it shows. After a short period of budget surplus (due to spending restraint) after the election, the UK experienced a budget deficit of 2-3% of GDP between 2002-2007. By historical standards, this is relatively low. It still met the Maastricht criteria of keeping budget deficits to less than 3% of GDP. However, the budget situation was also improved by impressive tax revenues from the housing and financial boom. WHEN THE GLOBAL CREDIT CRUNCH HIT, tax revenues rapidly dwindled causing a marked deterioration in public finances. This is fact.
However, the 2000s, wasn’t a classical inflationary boom (like for example, the Lawson boom of the 1980s). Inflation remained low. Outwardly, the economy appeared a model of low inflation stability. The deficit acceptable at 2% of GDP, hardly a cause for concern. The boom came through asset markets. Rising house prices, and a financial bubble. Greater restraint in government spending would have done little to temper this financial bubble. The causes of the financial boom were much more than simply higher government spending. Higher spending on the NHS was not the cause of the financial boom. Even if the government had restrained spending, there would still have been an asset bubble and credit crunch.
Economics of he country is not like your household budget. Those that equate it to this are ignorant.
Well I thought it an excellent question, showing up an inept government for what they were. You can polish it any way you like.
The first bit of the question was fine, but the bit about the note was cheap. One bloke made a poor private joke FFS. She was telling Cameron it wasn't a joke, but we all know it was a joke. What was he supposed to say!!!Tories make sweeping statements and don't focus on detail. What in what I said was incorrect? That isn't polishing, that is explaining.
Hardly a private joke though was it? Admitting to your opponent that you have totally fecked the country over is not something to be proud of, nor is it something to joke about, be it private public or fact. Utter tosser treating the country with contempt.
It wasn't a good joke - I agree it was a very poor one- but you can't condemn a whole government on a misjudgement by one person. Well seemingly you can. lol I live in a different world to some evidently. It was private - it wasn't intended for Cameron to keep in his pocket quoting every five minutes! What is so weird about stating the truth. The joke was bad, the joke was meant to be private and the issues go beyond a poor joke! Detail is the enemy of the tories.
If there is no advantage to non Dom status. Why do it ?
There's an advantage if you have significant non-UK income from lower tax countries.
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
This egregious situation lets the wealthiest enjoy privileges without paying their fair dues. It was introduced by William Pitt the Younger FFS!
But if it didn't exist they wouldn't be here!
who says? They would be taxed more but not stupidly. They have lots of other reasons to be here.
Depends where their assets are - 50% on dividends is quite a lot!
There is no doubt that Cameron saved his best till tonight. There is a real sense that the Tories are gathering momentum as we approach the finish line as Milliband (with Ed Balls and the SNP round his neck and dragging him under) is falling back.
The Spanners are down - all the Millwank waiting to go on Jeremy Kyle will have a bad fortnight if the Tories can get over the line.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
They do pay their taxes, just not here.
If by "here", you mean in the UK, then *that* is why, precisely, it *is* relevant to bring it forward for debate. And I, for one, am glad that Ed Miliband is doing so.
It's not the most important thing. It won't make all the difference. But is is a thing and it will make a difference.
ok, lets see your post about the massive increase in foodbanks then - and I'll apologise
Here is mine addressing the issue, and here is a new tidbit for you, the fact that in a survey, more people in 2010 responded 'Yes' to the question 'Do you struggle to feed your household' in 2010 than they did in 2015.
well, you worry about them and I'll worry about the poor sods having to rely on foodbanks. We'll agree to different standards.
The more jobs we create, the more apprenticeships we create to build skills, then the more people can earn and support themselves. And the more tax is paid by working people to go back into the system.
What's better? Equipping people with the skills to get to work and support themselves and contribute to the economy. Or just spend more on welfare with no plan on where it has come from.
And yes - the spanners are prime examples of the kind of people I am not willing to support.
There is an important point here. People that point out a perceived injustice that affects multi millionaires and billionaires, ought to have had a balance by pointing out a perceived injustice that affects the poor. If that is the case, there is a balance and the point deserves consideration. But if they are not bothered enough about say foodbanks, to a point where a minor but moral issue like non-doms is more important, is telling where people put their priorities.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory. Of course that is not an insult, if you are one you should be proud to be one. Some are not, but that is another story. I am equally proud to support social justice.
There is no doubt that Cameron saved his best till tonight. There is a real sense that the Tories are gathering momentum as we approach the finish line as Milliband (with Ed Balls and the SNP round his neck and dragging him under) is falling back.
The Spanners are down - all the Millwank waiting to go on Jeremy Kyle will have a bad fortnight if the Tories can get over the line.
The big plus tonight for Miliband is the way he dealt with the SNP question. The message is very clear, and he has kept on saying it the whole of the election, and there can be no doubt now, he is not going to have any kind of deal with the SNP.
The many thousands of traditional Labour voters who have been indicating to the polls that they were going to vote SNP partly out of soreness about the referendum defeat and partly because they were confident they would still be effectively voting in a Labour government by voting SNP, will now have to seriously think about what result they really want in this election.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
They do pay their taxes, just not here.
If by "here", you mean in the UK, then *that* is why, precisely, it *is* relevant to bring it forward for debate. And I, for one, am glad that Ed Miliband is doing so.
It's not the most important thing. It won't make all the difference. But is is a thing and it will make a difference.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
They do pay their taxes, just not here.
If by "here", you mean in the UK, then *that* is why, precisely, it *is* relevant to bring it forward for debate. And I, for one, am glad that Ed Miliband is doing so.
It's not the most important thing. It won't make all the difference. But is is a thing and it will make a difference.
Comments
OK, I may or may not have it offset under a UK double tax agreement. However, he will definitely not be taxed by the UK on it, yet he lives in the UK like I do.
Now Im fuming
But most importantly the majority of them are simply not British - I lived in the US and was resident there but my domicile would always have been Britain (though ironically the US taxes on global income anyhow- hence so few Americans in Dubai, Hong Kong etc.).
What implicit claim does the UK have on a foreign resident's businesses built up long before they ever came to the country?
Admitting to your opponent that you have totally fecked the country over is not something to be proud of, nor is it something to joke about, be it private public or fact.
Utter tosser treating the country with contempt.
The audience gave a large gasp, because Miliband is either deluded, if he believes Labour did not overspend, or he's a liar, if he believes they did overspend and he won't admit it.
The Spanners are down - all the Millwank waiting to go on Jeremy Kyle will have a bad fortnight if the Tories can get over the line.
It's not the most important thing. It won't make all the difference. But is is a thing and it will make a difference.
What's better? Equipping people with the skills to get to work and support themselves and contribute to the economy. Or just spend more on welfare with no plan on where it has come from.
And yes - the spanners are prime examples of the kind of people I am not willing to support.
There might be a box somewhere with money in it. And when something needs to be paid, someone opens the box and pays it off.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory. Of course that is not an insult, if you are one you should be proud to be one. Some are not, but that is another story. I am equally proud to support social justice.
The many thousands of traditional Labour voters who have been indicating to the polls that they were going to vote SNP partly out of soreness about the referendum defeat and partly because they were confident they would still be effectively voting in a Labour government by voting SNP, will now have to seriously think about what result they really want in this election.