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

First topic message reminder :

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..

I think generalisations are unhelpful.

Some higher earners work very hard (and have worked very hard to get there), and are all too happy to give back in a variety of ways. Others undoubtedly are different.

Similarly I think it is far too easy to say "everybody can reach the top if they work hard enough". I think some people are limited in their opportunities, whether that be something simple like low aspirations, or the complexities of the social world we live in today. I think it is naive to say we have perfect equality of opportunities, clearly that is not the case and we should carry on addressing that as best we can.

How this goal relates priority-wise to "the economy" (I've always been a bit confused by that - what does it actually mean?), immigration, security, defence, climate change, etc. etc. of course depends on you, and will no doubt influence greatly how you vote (or don't, as the case may be).

Returning to the policy in question, I haven't much to add really to what I said at the start. Politically I think it is a smart move. I don't think Labour will necessarily do that much about it even if they do win, but frankly that is not really any different to the myriad of promises which will be made over the next few weeks and broken over the next few years.

seanmichaels wrote:

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....

and just as meaningless a statement..

Typically populist bottom feeding Labour policy.

Doubt it'll ever happen even if they're in power so couldn't care less.

Not as much of a joke as the mansion tax, but thankfully less likely to happen.

seanmichaels wrote:

What's funny about it? It's a perfectly legitimate opinion, but not remotely amusing. And I doubt that was Toppy's intention.

Are you really so insecure that you're ready to leap on anyone that supports your point of view and shower him with emoticons?

Why don't you go the whole hog and get his address? You can go round and lay your Tech by Tumi over any puddles he might come across.

To think, I didn't even read through the thread.....(maybe I should!!)

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.

And that they do. Top 1% of earners pay 30% of the nations income tax bill.

Again toppy that only means anything if 30% represents the proportionate amount due from them. If they receive 30% of the income then all is good, if they receive more than that they are not paying their share.

Taxation is just so complicated and you can very easily make arguments and find evidence to back your opinion/ideology.

The top 1% earn over 300k a year, no surprise they contribute a high % of the overall tax the treasury take in.

however the question is should the treasury be taking in more overall?
As rowley says the number isn't inportant it is the number relative to what they should be paying.

Rowley wrote:Again toppy that only means anything if 30% represents the proportionate amount due from them. If they receive 30% of the income then all is good, if they receive more than that they are not paying their share.

Everyone's definition of 'fair' is different though. The only consistency in opinion is that everyone's 'fair' generally means someone other than them paying more.......

Some people won't be happy until the Top 1% pay 99% of the income tax. It's a joke.

I want the amount the HMRC specify and to do so without the means of tax avoidance schemes, underhand accounting practices or questionable non dom statuses. Not really that difficult or nuanced a position to take on the issue I shouldn't imagine.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

seanmichaels wrote:

What's funny about it?  It's a perfectly legitimate opinion, but not remotely amusing.  And I doubt that was Toppy's intention.

 

Typically populist bottom feeding Labour policy.

And I am sorry but it does make me laugh, as do the labour party.

Ent wrote:
As rowley says the number isn't inportant it is the number relative to what they should be paying.

Easy statement to make when you're not the person with a 50%+ marginal tax rate getting the majority of your income taken by the Goverment but instead are the person coveting the trappings and lifestyle that person's hard work & success has earned them.

Rowley wrote:I want the amount the HMRC specify and to do so without the means of tax avoidance schemes, underhand accounting practices or questionable non dom statuses. Not really that difficult or nuanced a position to take on the issue I shouldn't imagine.

Never going to happen though is it? Those of us who pay tax and NI through PAYE don't have much opportunity to reduce our tax burden (a little through things like pension contributions and childcare vouchers, which are taken out of gross pay rather than net). Once you are in to self assessment, there are far more ways that an accountant can help without even getting close to crossing the line into dodgy practices (e.g. writing off tax against investment in necessary equipment), and the more money you make the better an accountant you can afford and the more they are likely to save you.

I'm going to say something unusual for me and say that Nigel Farage actually made a sensible comment when asked about this policy. The gist of his comment was that he wouldn't get rid of non-dom status, but would look to increase the fees that can be charged and also to remove the hereditary rights whereby non-dom status passes from parent to child even if the child would not qualify through any other means.

Mike and a few others are right though in making the point that this policy is very much a matter trying to stake out the political ground rather than being particularly about the economic effects of such a change in policy (given that the estimates range between this making £1 billion or losing several hundred million, suggests it will likely be roughly revenue neutral) - it's about the old Labour philosophy of taxing the wealthy rather than the Conservative pseudo-Thatcherite ides of trickle-down economics.

Rowley wrote:I want the amount the HMRC specify and to do so without the means of tax avoidance schemes, underhand accounting practices or questionable non dom statuses. Not really that difficult or nuanced a position to take on the issue I shouldn't imagine.

Do you pay into a pension?

That's an 'accounting pratice' that allows you to reduce your tax exposure, I suppose you think you should be paying more tax yourself then also??

Come on toppy, there is a world of difference between participating in something such as pension or ISA, both things you are actively encouraged to do by the government than registering myself as a private company registered in the Cayman Islands or some such, as you well know.

dummy_half wrote:

Never going to happen though is it? .

You may well be right. Similarly though we are never going to stop people drink driving or taking heroin, does not mean the government should throw its hands up and not try to stop it.

The way I see it is that non dom brings in £6.2bn.

How many immigrants are we paying for? At least start with the immigrants then move to non doms.

How much do immigrants bring in Sean?

Is Laksmi Mittal a non-dom or an immigrant? Or both??

Rowley wrote:How much do immigrants bring in Sean?

You can't say that if you are unwilling to acknowledge how much non doms bring in?

Net effects of immigration (bn)

1999-2000 1.9bn
2000-2001 1.7bn
2001-2002 1.8bn
2002-2003 -0.1bn
2003-2004 -0.4bn

I acknowledge how much they bring in Sean, but my point it, as it has been all along, that £6.2bn is only an impressive figure if that is the amount they are meant to bring in, in relation to their earnings.

I am not singing from the same hymnsheet as toppy but Labour are bringing nothing to the party. Just criticism of successful people. How many non doms were balls deep in northern rock? I suspect very few, it was your average working class bloke with £5-6k savings.

I am quite passionate about this because in less than 6 months I'll be starting a business. I won't risk it if labour are in power.

Rowley wrote:I acknowledge how much they bring in Sean, but my point it, as it has been all along, that £6.2bn is only an impressive figure if that is the amount they are meant to bring in, in relation to their earnings.

'meant'

I can't see where it say's in my article I want to screw non-doms over......

Like Rowley, Bannatyne and others I just want them to pay their fair share....

But living with my Father-in-law for four years taught me that those on the right always think taxes are for the working classes....

Probably why the polls are level when the Tories should be ten points ahead.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But living with my Father-in-law for four years taught me that those on the right always think taxes are for the working classes....

You were not taught incredibly well, eh Truss?

Taxes should be for everyone earning, I would say, 15,000 pounds (annually) and up. I support a flat rate across the earnings spectrum, beginning at the aforementioned figure (UKIP used to, as well); you should not be asked to pay a higher percentage just because you earn more.

Signed, someone on the right.

I'm glad I was taught poorly..........

Income taxation has to be progressive, with the better earners paying more, which is what we have.

But everyone wants (someone else) to pay more....

TopHat24/7 wrote:Income taxation has to be progressive, with the better earners paying more, which is what we have.

But everyone wants (someone else) to pay more....

Do british people who work abroad get taxed on their income here?

Some people Shah and also depending on what job you do you can claim all your tax back if your out of the country for a certain number of days.

ShahenshahG wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Income taxation has to be progressive, with the better earners paying more, which is what we have.

But everyone wants (someone else) to pay more....

Do british people who work abroad get taxed on their income here?

Not sure. I know that's what happens to Yanks (hence Boris' recent issues).

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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.

And that they do. Top 1% of earners pay 30% of the nations income tax bill.

Think we are agreeing with each other.

As someone who has operated through a Ltd Company, I paid roughly 20% tax on my earning for the year (which if salaried would be in the higher tax bracket). I think the amount of tax I paid is entirely reasonable (as was a lot of money), if people want to moan about the 'loop holes' I used, I think they need take a look at the bigger picture. People who take the most risk pay the vast majority of the tax in this country. As has been stated, we have a progressive system which I think is just about right.

Question for the lefties... what should somebody who earns 200k a year pay in tax? What should a contractor who works through a Ltd company who earns 200k pay in tax?

"People who take the most risk pay the vast majority of tax....."

Vacuous statement If ever there was one...

Tax Turnover not profits............

Simples...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:"People who take the most risk pay the vast majority of tax....."

Vacuous statement If ever there was one...

Not really. You think these people make millions by sitting in a job and getting promoted every 5 years. Do you think the current tax system is fair. If not then explain why not, instead of chucking round pathetic insults.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tax profits............

Simples...

Profits are taxed.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Ent wrote:
As rowley says the number isn't inportant it is the number relative to what they should be paying.

Easy statement to make when you're not the person with a 50%+ marginal tax rate getting the majority of your income taken by the Goverment but instead are the person coveting the trappings and lifestyle that person's hard work & success has earned them.

It is an easy statement to make because it is true, the percentage any group of tax payers pay into the treasury is meaningless - the percentage of what they should be paying in matters.

Ent wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Ent wrote:
As rowley says the number isn't inportant it is the number relative to what they should be paying.

Easy statement to make when you're not the person with a 50%+ marginal tax rate getting the majority of your income taken by the Goverment but instead are the person coveting the trappings and lifestyle that person's hard work & success has earned them.

It is an easy statement to make because it is true, the percentage any group of tax payers pay into the treasury is meaningless - the percentage of what they should be paying in matters.

How do we decide what is fair. Do we follow the French model of 75% tax? The wealthy pay more than enough.

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tax profits............

Simples...

Profits are taxed.

I meant tax turnover................You can HIDE your profits !!

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:

Ent wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Ent wrote:
As rowley says the number isn't inportant it is the number relative to what they should be paying.

Easy statement to make when you're not the person with a 50%+ marginal tax rate getting the majority of your income taken by the Goverment but instead are the person coveting the trappings and lifestyle that person's hard work & success has earned them.

It is an easy statement to make because it is true, the percentage any group of tax payers pay into the treasury is meaningless - the percentage of what they should be paying in matters.

How do we decide what is fair. Do we follow the French model of 75% tax? The wealthy pay more than enough.

Good question. We don't base it on % of the total paid to the treasury and ignore what they should be paying under current rules.

I'm not one for saying we should milk everything we can from the wealthy, I'm sure the business leaders contribute plenty of tax over all via corporation tax and indirectly via their employees.

However the fact remains you cannot just state a stat with no context (top 1% pay 30% of total income tax) and say therefore the wealthy pay enough tax and should be left alone, it just makes people look like they put no thought into things and blindly follow a set of beliefs/ideology.

Anyway guys been an excellent debate ...

Wish you are pleasurable weekend...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tax profits............

Simples...

Profits are taxed.

I meant tax turnover................You can HIDE your profits !!

Probably the worst idea I've ever read.

I'd just close proportionally unprofitable businesses like starbucks.

ShahenshahG wrote:I'd just close proportionally unprofitable businesses like starbucks.

this all the way, close starbucks et all down and give small businessmen the chance to take them over but pay proper tax.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

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.

And that they do. Top 1% of earners pay 30% of the nations income tax bill.

Income tax accounts for only 25% of Britain's total tax. Lower earners pay a higher proportion of their income in tax than higher earners do.

Shhhh....The truth hurts...

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Marco_Marky - Stuffington wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tax profits............

Simples...

Profits are taxed.

I meant tax turnover................You can HIDE your profits !!

Probably the worst idea I've ever read.

That's why it's a good one..

We all have a rough side of town. IF you were pAying 50% tax, how would you feel about some of the scenes on your average high street? Monies worth?

The roads near me are a disgrace sean. Can I opt out of paying road tax?