According to politics.co.uk:
Reading the reaction in the press over the past 24 hours to Labour's commitment to scrap the non-dom tax status, you might have assumed it was hugely unpopular.
But in fact:
According to the snap FirstVerdict poll, 77% of people support removing the non-com tax break on wealthy UK residents, with just 20% opposing it.
And they add:
Much of the press reaction has also focused on the policy apparently being anti-enterprise, with the Telegraph pushing claims that the policy would be "cataclysmic" for business. However, far from being seen as too hostile to business, YouGov actually found that voters think Miliband has got his position about right.
According to the poll 45% thought Miliband had got his criticisms of some businesses and wealthy people "about right" with a further 19% saying he hadn't gone far enough. By contrast just 25% said he had gone too far.
As I always suspected.
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:
Firstly, does anyone outside the tax profession really, truly understand the non-dom rules, and the costs/benefits involved? I suspect not.
Secondly, 77% is extremely low considering the proposals would affect 99% should be in favour of it? The fact that they’re not probably means that some people who do not benefit from non-dom status are at least thinking wider than their own self-interest.
Two other explanations: (1) People are reading the nonsensical catastrophist headlines and being influenced by that. With better reporting the figure would therefore be higher. (2) No opinion poll ever gets anything close to 99% on any serious question. 77% is extremely high by most standards, especially considering the propaganda environment.
That’s because rich non-doms own the likes of The Telegraph so dictate the agenda. It is very bad for democracy when rich individuals can dictate the route of politics via large, influential media outlets which they own.
and the Times, the Sun and the Daily Mail.
Why, it’s almost as though the larger part of our media is owned by a rabidly self-interested elite (and most of that which isn’t is cowed thereto).
I thought neo-cons like you believed that people should always act according to their own self-interest. So the non-doms are not self-interested but are altruistically squirreling away their entrepreneurial pennies into tax havens for the overall good of the masses? I don’t think I’ll ever get the hang of neo-con economics.
Who was this aimed at?
We know the ‪#‎nondom‬ 1%-ers will probably just make up for paying more taxes by robbing more money and influencing the UK from outside, via the EU, via TTIP. Labour, along with all establishment parties, have a track record of allowing those taxed at highest rate to have biggest control in where taxes go; usually straight back into their bank accounts. They know this. For New Labour, taxes are encouraged merely as an investment for the wealthiest to profit disproportionately via later returns.
Much as I may disagree with you on many matters the non-dom rule needs to go……..as much as there is a theoretical issue over the right for off shore income being taxed when owned by non nationals……….the practical effect has been an completely overblown London residential market.
Hopefully this along with the 15% SDLT for company owned property and ATED fees will restore some common sense to the £2m+ housing market.
I think that opinion has changed about this issue and it may be because of unmet need in society for some sort of feeling of justice since the events of 2008. Justice that most politicians have failed to deliver (choosing to hit voters wih austerity instead).
May be people are less unquestioning of wealth as a result of this – may be we are beginning to ask the fundamental question about how wealth is actually created.
It seems to be me that wealth creation is not actually just through delivering innovation through excellent products or services or risk taking – in fact wealth has been created because the already wealthy are just not paying their fair share of taxes because the rules are stacked in their favour!
BTW – people who I know of who use the nom-dom rule are people who were born here, live here, but have purchased assets abroad and disappear for a number fo months to conform to the rules to avoid paying tax. These people are hardly foreigners!
What is important now is to maintain the arguments for getting rid of the nom-dom rule – we must maintain the pressure.
I am in favour of rich foreigners paying more tax. What’s not to like? Seems a no brainer to me.
I’d imagine the 20% who oppose it are neoliberals, or didn’t understand the question properly.
Congratulations, Richard, on the success of your campaign.
I feel like I am the only person who doesn’t know any non doms.
As for the poll. I have received two phone calls asking my voting intentions. I have told them both no comment. I wont discuss with strangers my voting record.
So we don’t know who they have spoken to in order to show their views. So there is an element of error.
There is only one vote that is important its not this week.
Someone above writes;
“That’s because rich non-doms own the likes of The Telegraph ”
The Barclay brothers live in the tiny island of Brecqhou, off the rather less tiny island of Sark, in the Channel islands. I could see Brecqhou out of our upstairs window, when I lived in Jersey.
I am not sure they are non-doms, they may “just” be tax exiles. I did a rough calculation as to the extent of the tax they are avoiding
They have assets worth 6 billion (Sunday times Rich list 2014)
Say they get 5% return
So their income is £300million a year
taxed at say @ 20% gives 60 million a year
is that about right? It is probably hopelessly simplistic. Better estimates anyone?
Daniel
You can’t make people live in the UK, nor can you impose some sort of ban on non-UK tax resident people owning UK based assets (if you did you’d expect other countries to retaliate).
So I’m not sure what the point is of a calculation of tax which someone might pay if only they lived in the UK. Why not calculate the tax Bill Gates or Warren Buffet might pay in the UK if only they lived in the UK? Would you say either of those are UK tax avoiders?
Abolishing non-dom rules will be an equalising measure but one without precedent. It’s not a potential 5% tax increase (as would be the reintroduction of the 50% rate) it’s a 50% tax increase. I suspect that the simple question for individuals would be, how much is it worth in extra tax to stay in the UK, rather than (say) Switzerland or Eire (which won’t be taxing their overseas income) or (say) the USA which would but at lower rates.
I just don’t see how anyone can possibly be confident of a prediction.
But Bill Gates’ company should pay tax in the UK
And it’s egregious that it does not, properly
Bill need not: he does not live here, but he sure makes money here and we must claim our share
And an equalising measure without precedent? Haven’t you noticed it’s like putting us on the same footing as other countries. Please stop talking crap
I think he is trying to say that it is an equalising measure, but that there is no precedent for what happens when overnight you move from taxing people at 0% on their income to taxing them at 50%. Most countries tax all residents on worldwide income (although 50% is rather higher), but they haven’t suddenly moved existing residents from one system to the other overnight, except where residents knew right from the start that it would happen at the end of some introductory time period.
Almost every new tax starts out at a level that is seen as not too bad and then is ratcheted up over the years, there is plenty precedent for that, but I don’t think many people would see 50% as a nominal low rate.
But this makes no sense
Almost no non dom is on zero tax – they pay tax in the UK on UK income
And those on zero tax are here short term
Those longer term are paying a fee
But even so – so what is the right question? Where else will they get such a deal where they’d want to live?
And if they pay no tax what have we to lose – they can still live here 89 days a year on that basis and keep their houses, staff, the lot – and will
It’s a no brainer that the downside is massively offset by the upside
It is perhaps worth looking at the Statutory Residence Test.
I assume that the non-dom has been resident up to date, so he would be classed as a “leaver” for tax purposes.
I am guessing he or she has a spouse or maybe a child in a UK school so he or she has family resident in the UK – a family tie (tie 1).
An accommodation tie (tie 2)
Spent more than 90 days in the UK in either of the previous 2 tax years – a 90 day tie (tie 3)
Does more than 3 hours work in the UK on 40 days in the tax year – a work tie (tie 4)
They will probably be able to make sure that they avoid the country tie by spending more time in another country.
With 4 ties the individual will be tax resident after a mere 16 days.
So which of these ties can be dropped?
[I am going to say he from now onwards because it is easier than saying he/she – I am not making any assumptions as to the sex of the non-dom here!]
The 90 day tie is a historical thing, he can’t do anything about that for the first 2 years.
I am assuming that if he really wants to be in London he keeps his family there, so that might be difficult to change and he probably wants to keep his accommodation for them to live in.
That leaves him with 3 ties and he can be non-resident as long as he spends 45 days or less in the UK and doesn’t work in the UK on 40 days or more – avoiding the 4th tie. This is probably achievable.
2 years later he could up that to 89 days as long as he still works less than 40 days in the UK – perhaps rather difficult.
A year after that he gets to the stage of being non-resident for 3 years and could work up to 90 days per year in the UK as he will be treated as an arriver and 3 ties doesn’t result in residence.
The choice in terms of other places to have a permanent home really comes down to what the individual is looking for. I am assuming that not all non-doms live in London, but it would be nice to know what their geographical spread is.
The devil is in the detail
I remember working on some of that stuff a long time ago…..
Well, 2009/10
Poor non-doms, I say
They may have to pay tax, somewhere
Richard
“And an equalising measure without precedent? Haven’t you noticed it’s like putting us on the same footing as other countries. Please stop talking crap”
Putting us on the same footing is not the same as being on the same footing.
So, please list a country or two that has withdrawn such a generous taxation regime.
That is the comparison.
That is clearly what is without precedent.
Using ‘potty mouth’ insulting words does not make your argument any stronger.
KRs
Tim
Let’s be clear – withdrawing a concession used by well under 1% of the population is hardly without precedent
Please let’s not pretend otherwise
It’s just what happens, regulalrly
This is from someone called Ian Watts commenting on a ridiculous article in the FT in which some London estate agents are prophesying doom and gloom if Labour wins. I have suggested that he is looking for someone with a ‘Final Solution’, not Cameron.
Your final para, with its tinge of smug condescension is strictly irrelevant, since I use the term “parasite” to describe net recipients in the tax/ transfer nexus.
You are wrong about the market.
Of course, dismantling socialist clientelism will need to be done progressively [I love reclaiming that word from the left] since it has taken 70 years to get us into the appalling state we find ourselves.
Moreover, your penultimate paragraph neatly demonstrates the fallacy of your argument, since if these individuals are “just as essential….etc” then the market will price them accordingly. In fact, whilst they have a price which will allow them junk food, booze and package holidays , relatively few of them are “needed” since the pace of automation is a function of the price of basic labour, wherein lies the balance.
Lets hope Cameron gets a sufficient number of seats to allow the good work to continue.