The FT has done itself little credit over the last few weeks with a mass of letters and commentary supporting the tiny non-domiciled elite who live in this country. A great many people have commented to me at how sickening they have found this.
But it did not please the non-doms despite this. On Wednesday they published an extraordinary letter from a Mr Derek Randall, which said, amongst much else:
[O]ver recent weeks you have exhibited through your editorials, columnists, including the veteran Martin Wolf, and your correspondence column a disconcerting and surprisingly wicked and mischievous bias against the preoccupations and concerns of non-domiciled but resident people living in the UK
He went on to say:
[T]he manner of the introduction of the measures, ... and the reason for their introduction, that is, a sop to the unions, and the stoking up of resentment against predominantly foreigners, who push up restaurant prices, and order fine wines - smack of the worst excesses of 1970s socialism: Roy Jenkins' surcharge on surtax, and recall the famous words of his successor, Denis Healey, referring to "squeezing the rich till the pips squeak" as the rich were pummelled, resulting in an exodus of talent and capital.
He concluded:
It is so easy to achieve easy popularity by stoking up envy of those who are made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome and even despised and you ought to be ashamed of allowing the FT to become a vessel for such populist mischievousness and malignancy.
Thankfully such ill informed, and bluntly offensive comment has resulted in appropriate response, published today, which again I quote only in part from Jonathan Howcroft:
I am unaccustomed to rising to such tawdry bait but I feel I must publicly object to the risible comments of David A. Randall (Letters, March 12).
Not only is he misleading when claiming the FT is biased in favour of punitive measures to combat the growth of the super-rich, but his choice of language and imagery would be laughable were he clearly not so sincere.
Implying that "non-doms" are a victimised minority is absurd - worse still when he allows his allegory to slip into the semantics of "plight". If theirs is a plight, I envy their suffering.
Surely the sensible approach to this fiasco is to agree on the principle of an equitable and constructive system of redistributive taxation, which satisfies the dissenting majority of the population without isolating a fundamental element of Britain's 21st century economy.
If this debate has proven one thing it is that those who argue for privilege have no logic to support their cause. They just have fear of losing their advantage and envy of those who might approach their monetary wealth to motivate them. At the same time, those of us arguing for fair and appropriate taxation have shown we have all the arguments.
And that will remain the case. Which is a cause for considerable optimism.
It's a shame that my profession did in the process show itself to be so intellectually bankrupt, but that's a price you pay for follwoing the money.
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:
Most , if not all, of the whining I have heard on this matter has come not from non-doms themselves, but from their UK associates or servile UK professionals who charge them fees or otherwise earn a living from them. And I have heard so much of it and so much of it has been unsubstantiated or seems to me to be plain hyperbole that I have changed my mind on this issue. In contrast to you Richard, I regarded this issue as peripheral and I didn’t much care about their tax position before (apart from the out and out crooks – no names but harrods comes to mind). I have been now been persuaded (by what I regard as the completely unreasonable and untrue arguments advanced like the first letter above) that this is an important point of principle that should be dealt with fully and equitably (and £30k a year doesn’t cut the mustard). The pips of each and every UK resident should be squeezed to the same diameter.
Personally I might find your views a bit more convincing Richard if you actually understood the tax law behind them. However, hilariously it is clear you are full of the brown stuff from your amusing commentary on these issues. Let’s face it, do you actually understand how the law works? Do you? Your comments about the transfer of income abroad rules suggest that you are clueless.
Phil
Roger Rabbit (who I know to be a serious, and well qualified tax adviser) seems not to share your reservations Phil.
But why not elucidate rather than hail the abuse. Wouldn’t that be more useful if you really are in possessiuon of knowledge that I do not have?
And why not, come to that, use a real email address?
Or is it easier to hurl abuse from a position of anonymity?
Richard
I note you have not made any comment on Shire’s decision to relocate, for want of a better word, to Ireland. I have no doubt the non-dom changes are at least an important part of that decision.
Tax should be on a fair basis. Using non dom status is legal but not fair and most would agree. (Is’nt being British supposed to mean having a sense of fair play, whilst being pragmatic and not to pedantic.)
Shire may have relocated for tax reasons. I wouldnt use Ed Balls language, as we should take note of this development.
Irish tax is unlikely to stay low. Also what is good for an individual company with different time horizons and values may not be the same as a country. How long will ‘unfair’ tax competition be allowed in Europe and large EU support payments for particular countries.
Countries are not as nimble as companies and Shire may indeed move back in time!
That said a more competent and efficient government would be most welcome. Particularly one which encouraged people at lower earnings level to upskill and better themselves. Rather than trap people in a MEAN & means tested quagmire.
The comparison above may be useful to note.
I welcome all to our country who work and contribute to the UK within the law even as it stands. I would prefer to see the non dom rule go completely.
Harry
Why? Pharma is not a noted employer of non-doms.
What’s the link, apart from wishful thinking?
Richard
I am afraid you are wrong. My work brings me into close contact with such companies. The pharmaceutical industry does indeed have a huge, mobile workforce. This is particularly the case for their scientists and academics, Moreover, many of their directors fall into that category. Whichever way you look at it, this does appear to a be a response to changes in taxation, and will be a net loss to the UK. Whether you like it or not.
Harry
I have to say you are factually wrong in this case. If this case were domicile motivated then employment would be shifting to Ireland. It is not. See http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2008/0416/1208276928233.html and http://www.hemscott.com/news/comment-archive/item.do?id=47269. Nothing suggests real jobs are going to ireland at all, so domicile is not involved.
Richard