3 ms·

Good riddance. Tax leaches, the lot of them. If you earn, you should contribute your fair share to your domicile society.

by jaggs 1y ago

unmole 1y ago
Yeah, chasing away net tax contributors is a major policy win. /s
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  If they're offshoring the money and/or living off rent instead of building productive businesses and investing in the future, their net contribution is negative.
  - unmole 1y ago
    Even in this straw man hypothetical, the exchequer is better off having more VAT paying residents.
  - agent327 1y ago
    *IF* Is there any evidence for this fine theory that you constructed in your head?
- beardyw 1y ago
  They weren't chased away, they were asked to pay tax like the rest of us. Poor darlings. /s
- westpfelia 1y ago
  Yea... except they arent net tax contributors. They are taking advantage of a tax code to not have to pay. They hurt local economies.
  - unmole 1y ago
    > Yea... except they arent net tax contributors. They almost certainly are. Even if you assume they didn't earn any UK income, they were still paying VAT.
    - jaggs 1y ago
      I'm not sure that's quite the argument you think it is? The fact is that losing a thousand well-off selfish people is not really going to put a dent in the UK's financial well-being at all is it? This is not a question of 'for the better good' at all. There are hundreds of thousands of very rich people who choose to stay and contribute to the society in which they live. Which is admirable.
      - unmole 1y ago
        A policy that results in a shrinking of the tax base is not admirable.
        jaggs 1y ago
        Not sure how much of a shrunken tax base a thousand fleeing rich people is going to be?
    - westpfelia 1y ago
      So you're saying its worth it to keep these guys because while they do cheat the system to not pay MILLIONS in taxes. Through VAT they do pay a few pense in taxes. So its ok?
      - unmole 1y ago
        The end result is a reduced tax take. Like I said, major policy win!
hankchinaski 1y ago
tax base is narrow the middle class is gonna get squeezed even more to make up the difference
etiennead 1y ago
Actually this is very ignorant. I was one of these, left April 3rd. - These people contribute a lot, they employ people, start businesses, spend a lot... Most of them don't even use the NHS. All things that stimulate and contribute the economy tremendously. - In my case my nestegg was going to be taxed a lot more since it was optimised for tax somewhere else, moving it is complicated and risked UK inheritance tax which is handled better/more fairly in my country of origin and could have been a huge burden on my siblings and family business - Tax is a delicate balance, quality of life is not that high in the UK, it was just a good place to do business - If I am going to be taxed too much I would much rather not work and live in Italy, Portugal, Spain or Switzerland
- jaggs 1y ago
  But that's my point exactly. If you're not that fond of the UK, by all means go and live somewhere else and ensure your tax burden is minimized. But it's interesting that out of the 145,000 directors in the UK, only 1000 have chosen to jump ship because of these supposedly punitive new regulations. I also find it very difficult to be sympathetic to folks who feel that their large amount of money earns them the right to minimize the payment of taxes in the country they live. It just seems a little selfish to me. Sorry about that.
  - Urahandystar 1y ago
    Surely you must see it's more nuanced than that? The old regime worked to say that if you kept your money abroad then we wouldn't tax it but we would tax it any money you generated in country. These people were often on high wages meaning we would still get some income from them but not money that we had nothing to do with. It would probably have been a better idea to require periodic investments into UK businesses to increase the tax take rather than scrap it altogether. Thats said the UK requires a wider culture shift when it comes to money so it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
    - jaggs 1y ago
      I understand completely what you're saying, but I've got a feeling this new regulation is aimed at those who don't earn any money in this country and therefore don't pay any tax in this country - even though they're living here taking advantage of the benefits and infrastructure etc. I do agree that maybe there is a more nuanced approach to this which would encourage investment into UK businesses, but nobody ever said politicians were the brightest people on the planet. :)

Good riddance. Tax leaches, the lot of them. If you earn, you should contribute your fair share to your domicile society.

by jaggs 1y ago

Good riddance. Tax leaches, the lot of them. If you earn, you should contribute your fair share to your domicile society.

unmole 1y ago

Yeah, chasing away net tax contributors is a major policy win. /s

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
If they're offshoring the money and/or living off rent instead of building productive businesses and investing in the future, their net contribution is negative.
- unmole 1y ago
  Even in this straw man hypothetical, the exchequer is better off having more VAT paying residents.
- agent327 1y ago
  *IF* Is there any evidence for this fine theory that you constructed in your head?
beardyw 1y ago
They weren't chased away, they were asked to pay tax like the rest of us. Poor darlings. /s
westpfelia 1y ago
Yea... except they arent net tax contributors. They are taking advantage of a tax code to not have to pay. They hurt local economies.
- unmole 1y ago
  > Yea... except they arent net tax contributors. They almost certainly are. Even if you assume they didn't earn any UK income, they were still paying VAT.
  - jaggs 1y ago
    I'm not sure that's quite the argument you think it is? The fact is that losing a thousand well-off selfish people is not really going to put a dent in the UK's financial well-being at all is it? This is not a question of 'for the better good' at all. There are hundreds of thousands of very rich people who choose to stay and contribute to the society in which they live. Which is admirable.
    - unmole 1y ago
      A policy that results in a shrinking of the tax base is not admirable.
      - jaggs 1y ago
        Not sure how much of a shrunken tax base a thousand fleeing rich people is going to be?
  - westpfelia 1y ago
    So you're saying its worth it to keep these guys because while they do cheat the system to not pay MILLIONS in taxes. Through VAT they do pay a few pense in taxes. So its ok?
    - unmole 1y ago
      The end result is a reduced tax take. Like I said, major policy win!

hankchinaski 1y ago

tax base is narrow the middle class is gonna get squeezed even more to make up the difference

etiennead 1y ago

Actually this is very ignorant. I was one of these, left April 3rd. - These people contribute a lot, they employ people, start businesses, spend a lot... Most of them don't even use the NHS. All things that stimulate and contribute the economy tremendously. - In my case my nestegg was going to be taxed a lot more since it was optimised for tax somewhere else, moving it is complicated and risked UK inheritance tax which is handled better/more fairly in my country of origin and could have been a huge burden on my siblings and family business - Tax is a delicate balance, quality of life is not that high in the UK, it was just a good place to do business - If I am going to be taxed too much I would much rather not work and live in Italy, Portugal, Spain or Switzerland

jaggs 1y ago
But that's my point exactly. If you're not that fond of the UK, by all means go and live somewhere else and ensure your tax burden is minimized. But it's interesting that out of the 145,000 directors in the UK, only 1000 have chosen to jump ship because of these supposedly punitive new regulations. I also find it very difficult to be sympathetic to folks who feel that their large amount of money earns them the right to minimize the payment of taxes in the country they live. It just seems a little selfish to me. Sorry about that.
- Urahandystar 1y ago
  Surely you must see it's more nuanced than that? The old regime worked to say that if you kept your money abroad then we wouldn't tax it but we would tax it any money you generated in country. These people were often on high wages meaning we would still get some income from them but not money that we had nothing to do with. It would probably have been a better idea to require periodic investments into UK businesses to increase the tax take rather than scrap it altogether. Thats said the UK requires a wider culture shift when it comes to money so it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
  - jaggs 1y ago
    I understand completely what you're saying, but I've got a feeling this new regulation is aimed at those who don't earn any money in this country and therefore don't pay any tax in this country - even though they're living here taking advantage of the benefits and infrastructure etc. I do agree that maybe there is a more nuanced approach to this which would encourage investment into UK businesses, but nobody ever said politicians were the brightest people on the planet. :)