I've written a lot on domicile in the last couple of days. More could be written on the domicile debate than I have. But the message is clear. There is no ethical justification for keeping the domicile rule in UK taxation.
There is no economic justification for doing so either. Worse than that, it's current effect may well be harmful.
The arguments for retention of the rule are based on self interest, mistaken or blatantly misleading analysis, and assumptions that cannot be sustained if it is assumed that those making use of the rule are either law abiding tax payers in the other states in which they are resident or are economically rational beings.
So what we come down to is that the domicile rule is a nasty, tawdry little racist rule used to preserve privilege for a few who hold democracy and society in contempt and are willing to pay what is in effect a bribe to be exempted from its demands. It does not make for an attractive scenario.
Is it surprising that I'm adamant that the domicile law has to go? Is it any surprise that I also think it will go, if not now then within years? In that case why not embrace the day and get rid of it it now?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I fear the only person coming up with misleading statements and analysis is you Richard. You are sounding like you have an axe to grind. The government has handled this shamefully. I don’t think anyone has a problem with the idea of a levy for the remittance basis or for taxing remittances of gains and income as gains and income, but the process has been an utter shambles and for that the Chancellor should resign. Quite how anyone thought this proposed system of taxing UK assets but not offshore assets is a good idea is a mystery. As Robin Cock found out with his “ethical foreign policy”, ethics don’t get you far. It is as plain as a pikestaff that there are strong economic reasons to retain the non-domiciled rules in some fashion and it is a belated recognition of the economic reasons which is seeing Darling and his inept team at HMT backslide faster than the Devil in a cathedral! Personally I doubt we will see the abolition of domicile in the UK in our lifetimes.
Phil
I think you have written ten comments on my site. I do have an axe to grind. So too do you.
Yours is a sad, negative message though. It’s also patently wrong. As is abundantly clear from much comment many people do have considerable difficulties with the creation of a levy for securing preferntial tax treatment. That’s why you are wrong.
But it’s sad because you clearly have no respect for ethics. You might as well say you’re on the side of corruption, against democracy and have no respect for the concept of all being equal before the law.
Actually, that’s what you are saying in my opinion. And that’s what I think so sad. When intelligent people hold such opinion society is at peril, from people like you.
Richard
Do the words “constructive debate” mean anything to you or are you always right? There is clearly no point in debating against someone as prejudiced as you. As you can probably see I do actually know a lot about the UK tax system and the domicile rule. Unlike you, I can see this has two sides to the story and as I believe I have said I think the idea of 30,000 pounds is OK and I think the idea of taxing income and gains as income and gains is fine too. So don’t bother to paint me into a corner as my attitude is far more flexible than you give me credit for. Instead of getting into a debate, you just slag me off. Fine, I won’t bother debating, your deeply flawed and predjuiced attitude is just too plain. At least I had the experience of dealing with the one person who will be left in Britain, no need to turn off the lights unless you need them to illuminate your computer and your chip shops on your shoulders.
Phil
Respectfully:
1) You have not argued. The above shows that: you have simpy hurled abuse. That’s not the same thing;
2) You have demonstrated little knowledge;
3) You have offered no evidence that I have identified as such to support your claims.
Saying that your position is ‘obvious’ is not an argument.
Saying that you think ethics do not matter disqualifies you from professional status, in my opinion.
That’s not bias. That’s argument based upon reasoned statement.
I always fiund it saddening that those who claim I am biased are those unable to defend their position, or to argue.
You appear to be one of them.
Richard