The ConDem government has launched a new web site — called Your Freedom — that is dedicated, it says, to scrapping unnecessary laws.
Well, I have a few that seriously restrict my rights, freedoms and liberties I would definitely like to get rid of.
I’ll be listing a number of suggestions over coming days. If anyone would like to submit them to the new web site, please feel free to do so.
So let’s start with law number 1 to get rid of: the domicile rule. As I showed in 2007, this law then cost the UK up to £4 billion in lost tax revenue a year. It’s been reformed slightly since then, meaning some non-doms now have to pay for the privilege of using the tax exemption it allows. But it still must cost us £3 billion a year.
That’s money we need to preserve our services and our liberties.
This is a law that has to go.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
Have you submitted your suggestion?
Hello Richard
I’ve looked at this site. I was quite honestly flabbergasted. I know you will submit senisble ideas, but honestly some of the suggestions are simply straight out of the Daily Mail e.g abolish all maternity leave, send foreigners who’ve committed crimes back, abolish income tax etc.
What I find astonishing is there was ConDem criticism of the number of government web-sites and talk of abolishing 75% of them. But they’ve come up with this. What on earth is it costing to trawl through these suggestions and select the ‘best’? Unless of course, they just intend to ignore them all but kid everyone into believing they’ve had their say. Or worse, introduce some as they got the ‘popular vote’.
This is a waste of public money. The government are going from the ridiculous to the sublime – and in this short space of time.
“abolish all maternity leave”.
Now, in the interests of playing devil’s advocate, in a society where there are many millions unemployed, shrinking demand and a private sector that is, to say the least, stretched, are we sure that maternity leave is a good thing?
I think we want to be moving to a society where at least one (preferably both) parent is not working full time during a child’s early years. I think everyone probably agrees with me, though the realities of house prices dictate it is unaffordable for many.
Does maternity leave help or hinder this process: my recollection is that maternity leave comes with the expectation of a return to work. I’m not saying it should be stopped, but I am fairly sure that the issue is much more complex that being dismissed as “straight out of the Daily Mail”.
In the end, government spending is going to drop substantially and permanently. The challenge is to find ways of cutting the spending that lead to a stronger, more coherent society.
[…] of the population of this country will have to suffer cuts in services we can ill afford. I’ve already suggested one; here’s my […]
The 2008 reforms were already quite extensive. According to HMRC there were about 112,000 non-domiciled resident taxpayers in 2009, of which a minority of about 4,300 registered to pay the £30,000 levy. This means that as a result of these reforms over 100,000 non-doms have now started paying tax like other ordinary resident taxpayers.
It remains to be seen that it will be possible to extract £3 billion of recurring incremental tax revenues from these 4,300 non-domiciled taxpayers who are paying the levy. That is about £700,000 per head every year (over $1 million), and it is a lot of money to ask from a population of non-UK nationals, many of whom have at best limited attachments to this country.
@Jason
Sorry, I don’t agree
There are 7 million at least non-doms in the UK
Those here for less than 7 years don’t need to say they are
Those for more have to pay
And 6.9 million did not do so before the rule change
It’s probably more than 6.9 million now
That’s all we can conclude
Only if the law goes can they not hide behind the shield of “we did not know”
You are confusing me.
I thought that any non-domiciled resident wishing to be taxed on the remittance basis had to file a non-domicile tax return. There were 112,000 of those in 2009 (or 2007). There may well be many more non-domiciled residents, but they do not file under the remittance basis and therefore abolishing the domicile rule will not affect them (or the tax take). It may well be that these non-domes under-report their taxable income, but it is an issue of common tax evasion unrelated to the domicile rule.
So I believe that the relevant sample of people potentially affected by the removal of the domicile ruile will be the 112,000 non-doms filing for the remittance basis.
What you may argue is that a portion of them have been in this country for less than 7 years who currently pay no tax on foreign earnings. The question then is: How many are they? and how much of the £3 billion of recurring incremental tax revenues would you hope to generate from them?
Also, would all non-doms be fully taxed on their worldwide income from the day they take residence in the UK, or would there be a transition period? Surely the latter is preferrable in order not to deter people from moving and investing in the UK.
The web site appears to be full of irrelevant suggestions from the letter pages of the Daily Mail. And the Guardian. The purpose of the consultation was to determine which of the 3000 new criminal offences could be abolished. The playing of a guitar in a pub without a licence can send you to jail for 6 months. The replacing of your windows without a certificate can send you to prison for 3 months. These are restrictions on liberty.
I totally agree with you on this one. While I am not a UK advisor, I do have some exposure to this rule. My experience is that very rich executives use this provision as a tax avoidance device with impunity. They claim non-domiciliary in the UK and non-resident everywhere else, thereby exempting large amounts of their income from any taxation. It costs your country and encourages the kind of “taxes are for little people” that has gotten many of our countries in the mess we are in to begin with. However, I seriously doubt this will go anywhere with the ConDems.