Labour's Non Dom strategy - A good move ???

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 08 Apr 2015, 2:10 pm

Mansion Tax and now this Non Dom move.............Certainly is opening up dividing lines...................Obviously the opposition to it will play the card of these 1% guys will leave the Country etc etc..........Fat chance..

Duncan Bannatyne of Dragon's Den has already commended Miliband......Saying "it's got my vote".......I remember he had a spat with James Caan another Dragon over his status !!! Not so long back...I think it was a major reason Caan left the show...

Putting aside the crap that this will cost jobs............

I think it's a smart move !!...As Blair said yesterday If anything will cost jobs it will be coming out of Europe..

Labour is playing the populist card.............."We are on your side...."..

Let's see what happens..

by **seanmichaels** Wed 08 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm

Haven't the SNP said they'll get in to bed with Labour? I think I need to start looking at flights to Australia. This country will become a joke with those 2 in charge.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 08 Apr 2015, 2:17 pm

My neighbor has probably said she'd get into bed with me..........

But it isn't gonna happen anytime soon..

by Mike Selig Wed 08 Apr 2015, 2:21 pm

I think it's pretty smart. I don't think the Conservatives can really oppose it without looking like exactly what they're trying to avoid (in that context I don't think the famous 100 signed letter to the telegraph did them much good at all) so instead they will call the plans sketchy, muddled and/or unachievable (and they may be all of those things, but that's hardly going to resonate with the public).

I think it's a continuation of their strategy of "yes the economy may be improving, but how's that working for you?" which has done well to blunt what should have been the Conservative's main argument (worth noting that the Conservatives haven't focused nearly enough on this argument and are still allowing themselves to get far too distracted by UKIP topics).

Doubt much will happen if Labour do get into power though. Worth noting that Osborne pledged similar stuff back in 2007.

On its own I don't think it's not a game-changer either way, but if we're honest everything which isn't a game changer right now is probably no bad thing for Labour.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 08 Apr 2015, 2:26 pm

I expected the Tories to be way ahead by now..............With the economy and unemployment rate.....

The old saying "It's the economy stupid"..............Isn't taking hold at the moment and there isn't long left !!

by Guest Wed 08 Apr 2015, 3:07 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:My neighbor has said he'd get into bed with me..........

Hopefully gonna happen real soon..

by Duty281 Wed 08 Apr 2015, 3:48 pm

Duncan Bannatyne? The fellow that supported the Conservatives last week?

Dear oh dear.

Anyway, this election is a bloody mess. Labour short of a majority, but polling better than the Conservatives = Conservative minority likely.

UKIP polling at 15% support in the country = 2-5 projected seats
SNP polling, overall, less than the Greens total of 5% = 40 projected seats

All a total shambles.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 08 Apr 2015, 3:59 pm

Did you vote for PR ??

by Marco_Marky - Stuffington Wed 08 Apr 2015, 10:50 pm

It's a move to try and satisfy the lefty brigade which only 3 months ago was a bad idea according this colleague. I personally think it is a bad idea too. I've not personally decided which way to vote yet, but this constant attack on the rich is starting to annoy me. Yes those with the broadest shoulders need to put the most in, but lets not take the urine here, Ed.

by **ShahenshahG** Wed 08 Apr 2015, 10:54 pm

They won't be able to do it Marco - they'll simply put the fee up and to the people who pay the fee is laughably small. So non doms stay non doms and Labour gets to say they stuck it to the rich. Both parties are happy.

by Marco_Marky - Stuffington Wed 08 Apr 2015, 11:10 pm

Agree that is probably the course of action that will be taken (should Labour get elected), but then it just makes them look like a bunch of liars when they do that.

by **ShahenshahG** Wed 08 Apr 2015, 11:23 pm

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 9:41 am

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:It's a move to try and satisfy the lefty brigade which only 3 months ago was a bad idea according this colleague. I personally think it is a bad idea too. I've not personally decided which way to vote yet, but this constant attack on the rich is starting to annoy me. Yes those with the broadest shoulders need to put the most in, but lets not take the urine here, Ed.

If Brown had kept the core vote in 2010 he probably would still be PM....He polled 27%........

You have to understand the 35% firewall is enough to get Ed Miliband into Downing street...........

Firewall = 30% core vote + 5% disgruntled Liberals...................No way will the Tories get 40%............and with the current boundaries they need a 4/5 point lead to be the largest party...

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 10:52 am

Like Mike says this is not a game changer but ties in to where I feel Labour should be arguing. There is a perception that whilst we keep hearing the economy is booming and recovering great swathes of the population are not seeing or feeling any real tangible changes in their pocket every month. The perception is whatever economic recovery is happening is very much a London centric one and the people feeling the benefits the most are the most well off. I should add I make no comments on how correct these claims are, as it does not really matter.

Being seen to make the top few percent contribute their fair share be it by this or by aggressively attacking tax avoidance is for me the correct strategy for Labour this time round, whatever the benefits of this policy it suggests Labour plan to fight the battle with the right tactics. I appreciate some may consider these attacks on the rich excessive, but the rich ain’t voting for Labour anyway, picking up the disgruntled lib dems and getting the apathetic off their arses is where Labour will win things.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:06 am

As someone on the national average wage, I feel comfortable in saying that I have no problems with non doms or higher rate tax players. Labour are just appealing to poorer people by depicting the rich in a way to make them look bad. They haven't mentioned that a lot of these nom doms have busted their balls for years to get where they are. As with higher rate tax payers.

My missus pays 2 or 3 times more tax than I do every year. She also gives a decent amount to charity every month - as do a few non doms if you google it. She works phucking hard though - more than your dustman who clocks off at 3.30 and heads straight to the pub to get pi55ed.

I love the London debate. Yes people there do get paid a lot more but they earn it, and have to put up with ridiculous costs of transport, housing and lager.

Labour WILL phuck it up again, they always do. Their governments breed a person in this country that is weak.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:09 am

You're pretty much where I'm at.........Which is unfortunately not where the rest of my family is at so we don't talk politics as a rule.......

With UKIP polishing up a few % of Tory votes..................Core + Lib deserters should be enough..

Big question is how many Labour voters have actually re-registered to vote ????...The Tories are better at this sort of thing !!...

That could be the elephant in the room.........

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:10 am

Having worked hard and succeeded does not give you an exemption from paying your fair share of tax Sean, neither does what you choose to give to charity.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:10 am

Sorry Sean that's bollox mate..

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:29 am

seanmichaels wrote: more than your dustman who clocks off at 3.30 and heads straight to the pub to get pi55ed.

Generalising much Sean?

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:38 am

It is true. Generally if you study hard, work hard, you get paid well. The opportunities have always been there. The list of working class kids done good is endless. Most non doms will have already paid more tax than I ever will both corporate and income.

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:41 am

So what you're saying is the minute you, as an individual, make an arbitrary decision as to when you have paid your share you can for all intents opt out?

by Duty281 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:41 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:With UKIP polishing up a few % of Tory votes

Not forgetting, I hope, that ex-Labour voters account for nearly one in four UKIP votes (the last time I checked).

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:45 am

Rowley wrote:
seanmichaels wrote: more than your dustman who clocks off at 3.30 and heads straight to the pub to get pi55ed.

Generalising much Sean?

Slightly tongue in cheek but there is an element of truth there. I worked in a factory for most my time at Uni then for 18 months or so once I'd graduated. A lot of people are happy to do low paid and low pressure jobs just so they have enough cash to get peed after work or at the weekend.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:51 am

Rowley wrote:So what you're saying is the minute you, as an individual, make an arbitrary decision as to when you have paid your share you can for all intents opt out?

No but I would caution as to whether it is a reason to get rid of a party that has dragged us out of labours mess. The economy is the all important factor in welfare. If there is no money there can't be new hospitals.

Like with most things Labour had a chance to deal with non doms when they ran the show for 15 years (with Balls and Miliband advising the treasury).

Same with zero hour contracts. Labour run town halls are responsible for 21,798 zero hour contracts! That is GOSPEL.

I just can't see how any informed and reasoned individual would vote for those 2.

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 11:58 am

Well I think the argument is two fold, firstly it depends if you blame Labour for the financial crisis. Plenty blame it on the sub prime mortgage crisis in the states and the knock on effect. Labour deregulated the banks, but no less than any other party would have. They were even criticised for not deregulating far enough in plenty of quarters.

Similarly, as I said earlier, the question remains as to whether they have really dragged us out of the mess. As I said earlier there are countless swathes of the population not really feeling the benefits of the apparent economic recovery. None of which is really relevant though as to whether the super rich shoud be allowed to avoid paying their share of tax, or should be allowed to make individual determinations as to when they have paid what they feel is appropriate.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 12:05 pm

Rowley wrote:Well I think the argument is two fold, firstly it depends if you blame Labour for the financial crisis. Plenty blame it on the sub prime mortgage crisis in the states and the knock on effect. Labour deregulated the banks, but no less than any other party would have. They were even criticised for not deregulating far enough in plenty of quarters.

Similarly, as I said earlier, the question remains as to whether they have really dragged us out of the mess. As I said earlier there are countless swathes of the population not really feeling the benefits of the apparent economic recovery. None of which is really relevant though as to whether the super rich should be allowed to avoid paying their share of tax, or should be allowed to make individual determinations as to when they have paid what they feel is appropriate.

I believe the minimum tax payment is £30k every year for non doms. That is more than I earn. Likewise in 2012-13 the total non dom income was £6.2 billion. Labour didn't get rid of it for a reason.

Regarding whether or not it was labour's fault, they borrowed the money with full access to the figures. Austerity is sh1t but sometimes necessary. Let's get to a place where future generations don't have to worry about it.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 12:23 pm

The problem there is slightly different sean

The problem is benefits have thresholds...and I don't mean an upper threshold as in a cap. I mean thresholds if you earn a certain amount then you get deducted a certain amount of benefits and that puts you right in the Poopie financially in the immediate term so there's no incentive to work hard and rise through the ranks. If the government dropped the threshold and only deducted what the people earned from the cap on maximum benefits then it wouldn't incentivise people to stay on low incomes And those problems you've stated re people just earning enough to for a weekend on the tiles would be eliminated. Frankly, if you were earning 200 quid a week and your family was just getting by then you decided to take a supervisor job which paid you 30 quid more a week but cost you 100 quid a week in benefits I'd think you were a F*cking idiot. I don't need benefits as I get paid quite well in relation to other people in security but Ive met plenty of people who won't work more than 16 hours Because of tax credits.

I think this is the biggest block to people trying to climb their way up and should the tories put this in I'd vote for them. But they won't because they tend to eschew the carrot for the stick when it comes to the vulnerable.

As for the the non doms I'm gonna look a bit deeper in it to see if I can work it out myself rather than entrenching myself in a position without knowing all the facts.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 12:37 pm

seanmichaels wrote:It is true. Generally if you study hard, work hard, you get paid well. The opportunities have always been there. The list of working class kids done good is endless. Most non doms will have already paid more tax than I ever will both corporate and income.

If every working class kid did good.............There would be no one to serve in shops, deliver post, milk and supply essential services......

Everyone forgets that blue collar workers are essential to our way of life....Without them everything crumbles....

Why should they pay the brunt..

by **Pal Joey** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:00 pm

seanmichaels wrote:Haven't the SNP said they'll get in to bed with Labour? I think I need to start looking at flights to Australia. This country will become a joke with those 2 in charge.

Thanks mate... but we wouldn't want them here either! This place is a political circus too and I think we have enough players already.

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:05 pm

seanmichaels wrote:

I believe the minimum tax payment is £30k every year for non doms. That is more than I earn.

Not sure how the amount a non dom may pay in relation to what you earn is relevant. What is relevant though is how it relates to what they are earning. Now lets say for sake of argument that the average non dom income is £1m per annum, which in reality we know is lowballing it. £30k represents 3%, which is disgracefully low and a damned sight lower as a percentage than you or I can get away with.

Numbers only give half a story with things like this. £30k sounds impressive, but isn't if it is barely 1% of their income, similarly £6bn in total sounds a lot but isn't if the figure should be 20bn. I dare say Amazon pay more in corporation tax than the firm I work for do, still does not make the amount they pay acceptable or that it represents their share.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:12 pm

The Loaded Dog wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:Haven't the SNP said they'll get in to bed with Labour? I think I need to start looking at flights to Australia. This country will become a joke with those 2 in charge.

Thanks mate... but we wouldn't want them here either! This place is a political circus too and I think we have enough players already.

Is Bronwyn Bishop still your speaker ????

British politics ain't so bad........

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:19 pm

Totally agree but main point is that non doms are incorrectly being used as a stick to beat the conservatives with (as our most higher rate tax payers / successful individuals). Labour didn't get rid of them for a reason. It brings money in and the risk (as is also with amazon / google etc) is that if you take away the incentives for them being here you will lose them elsewhere (usually Dublin). Life isn't fair in that respect but we are bloody lucky in this country that you can make something out of yourself if you put the hard work in early doors.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:25 pm

I have only ever in the past voted once and I spoilt that paper (drew a hampton on it). I have no political affiliations coming from a working class family yet having the opportunity to a private education at a couple of fairly decent schools. I am however going to vote this time solely for the fear of Labour getting back in. Conservatives are doing ok and I feel the country needs stability of financial security.

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:27 pm

There is a risk they will leave, but that does not give them carte blanche to take the pi55. You may well be right that Labour are only using it as a stick to beat the cons with, but they are in the business of winning an election at the minute and the idea that some guy on £5m a year paying less in tax as a percentage than some poor guy busting his balls in a factory is one that sticks in many a persons craw. Promising actual action to stop this will sit well with a lot of voters, myself included.

by **Pal Joey** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:29 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
The Loaded Dog wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:Haven't the SNP said they'll get in to bed with Labour? I think I need to start looking at flights to Australia. This country will become a joke with those 2 in charge.

Thanks mate... but we wouldn't want them here either! This place is a political circus too and I think we have enough players already.

Is Bronwyn Bishop still your speaker ????

British politics ain't so bad........

Yes... she's still dishing out plenty of section 94 standing orders (order to leave the chamber for an hour) to certain ALP members who seem to continually test her patience. It seems so blatantly one-sided but it's entertaining to watch in an embarrassing sort of way.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:33 pm

Rowley wrote:There is a risk they will leave, but that does not give them carte blanche to take the pi55. You may well be right that Labour are only using it as a stick to beat the cons with, but they are in the business of winning an election at the minute and the idea that some guy on £5m a year paying less in tax as a percentage than some poor guy busting his balls in a factory is one that sticks in many a persons craw. Promising actual action to stop this will sit well with a lot of voters, myself included.

The promise is to have a look at it, not stop it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:39 pm

Not a single Non dom will leave the Country..............

Settled family life and their work is here for the majority...

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:46 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not a single Non dom will leave the Country..............

Settled family life and their work is here for the majority...

If that is the case why didn't Labour get rid of it? Non dom policy has been in place since 1799. Thre rules haven't been changed by any government in that period for a reason.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:48 pm

They didn't get rid of it because Blair's government was just as right wing as this one..

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:57 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They didn't get rid of it because Blair's government was just as right wing as this one..

And the ones before that?

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 1:58 pm

Also the economic climate has changed, when everyone is in work and with a quid in their pocket they are less likely to worry about whether everyone else is paying their share. However when people are skint and having their benefits/pension pots cut whether the extremely rich are avoiding paying their fair share becomes far more of a concern.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:02 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:They didn't get rid of it because Blair's government was just as right wing as this one..

And the ones before that?

Probably wasn't as big an issue back then.................I imagine the affluent Non Dom population was a fraction of the size it is now

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:06 pm

Rowley wrote:Also the economic climate has changed, when everyone is in work and with a quid in their pocket they are less likely to worry about whether everyone else is paying their share. However when people are skint and having their benefits/pension pots cut whether the extremely rich are avoiding paying their fair share becomes far more of a concern.

The demographic climate has chnged as well. People living longer. The country cannot afford to continue so cuts are probably necessary. Particularly the civil service pensions that were extraordinarily beneficial. The conservatives have also hit those high earners hard by cutting the life time allowance and tax free pension contributions. This barely receives any air time.

The annual allowance for the 2006/07 to 2010/11 tax years was always greater than £200,000, and unlikely to restrict planned pension saving for the majority of individuals.
However, with effect from 6 April 2011, the annual allowance was reduced - to £50,000 for the 2011/12 to 2013/14 tax year, and was further reduced to £40,000 for the 2014/15 tax year.

by **Pal Joey** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:07 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not a single Non dom will leave the Country..............

Settled family life and their work is here for the majority...

If that is the case why didn't Labour get rid of it? Non dom policy has been in place since 1799. Thre rules haven't been changed by any government in that period for a reason.

That's what I was thinking. So they let it ride for the 11 years or however long they were in power and have only decided to promise to have a look at it now? Does this Non Dom strategy use instruments already available under your current tax laws or is this something completely new which will have to be enacted through Parliament? (I see you've already answered this question above)

Uncanny how we are also in the midst of a Senate Enquiry into corporate tax avoidance.
Big news here... the country is hemorrhaging money, the dollar is down, the massive minerals boom has nose dived (iron ore from $170/t to $40/t now... we need to stockpile for the next mini-boom if there ever is one)... and people and corporations are not paying enough tax to generate better revenue for the Gvt. We have even sold millions of acres of prime grazing farmland to Chinese-backed shelf companies to frack for oil and gas.... Phuck!!! I fear we are on the way to becoming a Banana Republic.

They've already tried to grill Apple, Microsoft, News Ltd, Google, BHP Billiton, Fortesque, Rio Tinto and several other big organisations who use unique and highly complex models of shifting billions (some say up to 40 trillion over the years) to offshore jurisdictions as "consulting services revenues" when the actual transactions occur in Australia. They are calling it a "double Irish sandwich with Dutch associations" but it seems Singapore, China, Luxembourg, Cayman Is and Bermuda also play an important part in these creative tax structures.

Maybe we will pursue the individuals more rigorously next - as you are/will be, and GB will go after the corporations if you haven't already done so.

by Rowley Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:11 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
Rowley wrote:Also the economic climate has changed, when everyone is in work and with a quid in their pocket they are less likely to worry about whether everyone else is paying their share. However when people are skint and having their benefits/pension pots cut whether the extremely rich are avoiding paying their fair share becomes far more of a concern.

The demographic climate has chnged as well. People living longer. The country cannot afford to continue so cuts are probably necessary. Particularly the civil service pensions that were extraordinarily beneficial. The conservatives have also hit those high earners hard by cutting the life time allowance and tax free pension contributions. This barely receives any air time.

As a former civil servant I have to defend them to some degree, whilst there are a lot of useless feckers in the civil service, in my experience there are also a number of highly skilled, qualified and hard working sorts who don't earn anywhere near what they could earn in the private sector, many of whom have had the opportunity to pursue such opportunities. The generous pension is one of the major reasons they stay and endure the lower wage. Not arguing the pension scheme in place was sustainable long term, but plenty in their have earned it and then some.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:15 pm

Ed Miliband wasn't leader in 2007...........

America didn't bring medicare in till 1966...........During the reign of the great LBJ.......(Great leader)..

Truman was President between 45-53 he was more left wing than Johnson and didn't bring a bill in !!

What happens is what happens now !!

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:22 pm

No in 2007 Ed Miliband was with Ed Balls advising Gordon Brown on the best interests for our economy.

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:24 pm

Chairman of HM Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers to be more specific.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:28 pm

seanmichaels wrote:No in 2007 Ed Miliband was with Ed Balls advising Gordon Brown on the best interests for our economy.

He was advising Brown...............

Brown had his own administration with Darling as chancellor...

It is possible to work for someone and have your own ideas..

by **seanmichaels** Thu 09 Apr 2015, 2:44 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:No in 2007 Ed Miliband was with Ed Balls advising Gordon Brown on the best interests for our economy.

He was advising Brown...............

Brown had his own administration with Darling as chancellor...

It is possible to work for someone and have your own ideas..

As I said he was Chairman of Econonmic Advisers. Not the tea boy....

by Sponsored content