Domicile: Pragmatic question 3: Why do we want to give a tax subsidy to the City?

Posted on

If all the claims made are to be accepted as true (and that's a massive 'if' - since most of them are not) then most UK non-doms work in the City.

Actually, I can say for certain that's not true. The idea that there are about 7 million non-doms in the UK (which I first introduced) now seems pretty generally accepted in press comment. The ones talked about, and who might work in the City, are the ones who have claimed that status for tax. That's 112,000 of them, or thereabouts. It's rumoured that 40% of Goldman Sachs is non-dom. But even that is not extraordinary. I am sure there are whole fields of workers in East Anglia who are non-dom, and not claiming it.

The point is, this tax benefit is going to the City. It may be successful. But let's be clear, it's also the most profitable sector in the UK economy. The non-dom rule reduces its cost of employing foreign workers. Why do we a) want to subsidise the City when it is so profitable already b) want to put barriers in the way of the City employing domestically trained and resident staff c) wish to attract people into a sector at time when, to be candid unemployment in that activity looks likely and we should be favouring our domestic people if jobs are to be retained for anyone?

The domicile rule makes no sense against any of these criteria. It has to go.