3 ms·

Isn't the defining characteristic of the wealthiest demographic their ability to pay for things that they want (like living in London) without any concern over

Isn't the defining characteristic of the wealthiest demographic their ability to pay for things that they want (like living in London) without any concern over the cost of doing it?

earnesti 1y ago
I don't think these people would be superrich if they wouldn't be optimizing their taxes, at least at some level. I would guess taxes are the typically the biggest single expense the really rich people pay.
- tristramb 1y ago
  I would have thought that being superrich would free you from worrying about 'optimizing your taxes'.
  - grues-dinner 1y ago
    I would think so, but perhaps for the people who are self-defined by the magnitude of their wealth they become more and more obsessed by it as their expenditures on "real" things dwindles in comparison.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> without any concern over the cost of doing it? indeed thats why to have accountants and lawyers, the issue here is that non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax on stuff you earnt outside of the UK. for example if you have a lot of income being generated in the USA, then being a non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax here in the UK at the same time. For US citizens its a bit harder, as you're liable for tax on all income, regardless of source. I'm not sure how they get round that, debt financing or something similar I imagine
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  What’s the problem with that? Why should the UK or any country have a claim to money people are making elsewhere?
  - KaiserPro 1y ago
    I think its an issue of fairness. I, as a rich techbro, but not an Uber rich techbro, have to pay ~46% of my income in tax. (even though the majority comes from the US in USD) Don't get me wrong, I earn a fucking kings ransom, and I don't mind paying that amount of tax. but. If I was earning maybe 4x that amount, I could probably avoid a whole bunch of tax. It doesn't seem correct that the richer you get, the more optional tax is.
    - maccard 1y ago
      The thing is it’s not even 4x that amount, it’s more like 20x that amount.
      - KaiserPro 1y ago
        Having listened to my more senior colleagues, it wasn't that much more. If you own your own company, or have the ability to change your contract, its probably a lot less.
  - itsmek 1y ago
    Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation? In the US many people falsely believe illegal immigrants do exactly that, and that lie has contributed to a lot of outrage, so obviously people perceive the system you're proposing as unjust.
    - u8080 1y ago
      But illegal immigrants indeed does not pay taxes in the place of residence, why "falsely"?
throwmeaway222 1y ago
I imagine the exodus was where the corporation is incorporated. And on paper someone with billions of dollars now has a mere 500k. Or whatever loophole their lawyers decided to figure out.
hermitcrab 1y ago
Yes, but if they have to pay a fair amount of tax they will only be able to afford a 40 metre yacht, rather than the 50 metre yachts that all their frenemies have and that just won't do.
roncesvalles 1y ago
That's exactly what I don't get. If you're a billionaire and your whole lifestyle goes topsy-turvy because of some new legislation, what's the point of being a billionaire? E.g. Lakshmi Mittal, one of the richest persons in the UK, was rumored to consider moving to the UAE because of the non-dom rule changes.[1] To me it's ridiculous that a person this rich feels such weak control over where they should live. And it's not like moving from the UK to the UAE is like moving from Switzerland to Austria. It's a humongous upset by most measures. [1] https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-ditch-uk-after-non-dom-crackdown/ https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-d...
anywhichway 1y ago
No, just the opposite. In general, the things wealthy people buy (luxuries) experience much larger swings in demand due to price changes like added taxes (in economic terms, "the elasticity of demand"). It's because they are only wants and not needs. They are also usually easily swapped. Instead of buying your wife those diamond earrings, you could get her a painting or a trip to Spain. And rich people are often very money savvy. It's the necessities that people will continue to buy (or at least replace with close substitutes), regardless of what happens to the price. Obviously, in this case it worked out much differently, but no, in general you can't say the wealthy people don't respond to price changes due to their wealth.

Isn't the defining characteristic of the wealthiest demographic their ability to pay for things that they want (like living in London) without any concern over the cost of doing it?

earnesti 1y ago

I don't think these people would be superrich if they wouldn't be optimizing their taxes, at least at some level. I would guess taxes are the typically the biggest single expense the really rich people pay.

tristramb 1y ago
I would have thought that being superrich would free you from worrying about 'optimizing your taxes'.
- grues-dinner 1y ago
  I would think so, but perhaps for the people who are self-defined by the magnitude of their wealth they become more and more obsessed by it as their expenditures on "real" things dwindles in comparison.

KaiserPro 1y ago

> without any concern over the cost of doing it? indeed thats why to have accountants and lawyers, the issue here is that non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax on stuff you earnt outside of the UK. for example if you have a lot of income being generated in the USA, then being a non-dom meant that you could avoid paying tax here in the UK at the same time. For US citizens its a bit harder, as you're liable for tax on all income, regardless of source. I'm not sure how they get round that, debt financing or something similar I imagine

SilverElfin 1y ago
What’s the problem with that? Why should the UK or any country have a claim to money people are making elsewhere?
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  I think its an issue of fairness. I, as a rich techbro, but not an Uber rich techbro, have to pay ~46% of my income in tax. (even though the majority comes from the US in USD) Don't get me wrong, I earn a fucking kings ransom, and I don't mind paying that amount of tax. but. If I was earning maybe 4x that amount, I could probably avoid a whole bunch of tax. It doesn't seem correct that the richer you get, the more optional tax is.
  - maccard 1y ago
    The thing is it’s not even 4x that amount, it’s more like 20x that amount.
    - KaiserPro 1y ago
      Having listened to my more senior colleagues, it wasn't that much more. If you own your own company, or have the ability to change your contract, its probably a lot less.
- itsmek 1y ago
  Because physical presence incurs costs to taxpayer funded infrastructure? Why should I be able to dodge taxes by working remotely abroad? Are you saying independently wealthy people should be able to roam around and freeload without paying tax to their resident nation? In the US many people falsely believe illegal immigrants do exactly that, and that lie has contributed to a lot of outrage, so obviously people perceive the system you're proposing as unjust.
  - u8080 1y ago
    But illegal immigrants indeed does not pay taxes in the place of residence, why "falsely"?

throwmeaway222 1y ago

I imagine the exodus was where the corporation is incorporated. And on paper someone with billions of dollars now has a mere 500k. Or whatever loophole their lawyers decided to figure out.

hermitcrab 1y ago

Yes, but if they have to pay a fair amount of tax they will only be able to afford a 40 metre yacht, rather than the 50 metre yachts that all their frenemies have and that just won't do.

roncesvalles 1y ago

That's exactly what I don't get. If you're a billionaire and your whole lifestyle goes topsy-turvy because of some new legislation, what's the point of being a billionaire? E.g. Lakshmi Mittal, one of the richest persons in the UK, was rumored to consider moving to the UAE because of the non-dom rule changes.[1] To me it's ridiculous that a person this rich feels such weak control over where they should live. And it's not like moving from the UK to the UAE is like moving from Switzerland to Austria. It's a humongous upset by most measures. [1] https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-ditch-uk-after-non-dom-crackdown/ https://www.cityam.com/steel-billionaire-lakshmi-mittal-to-d...

anywhichway 1y ago

No, just the opposite. In general, the things wealthy people buy (luxuries) experience much larger swings in demand due to price changes like added taxes (in economic terms, "the elasticity of demand"). It's because they are only wants and not needs. They are also usually easily swapped. Instead of buying your wife those diamond earrings, you could get her a painting or a trip to Spain. And rich people are often very money savvy. It's the necessities that people will continue to buy (or at least replace with close substitutes), regardless of what happens to the price. Obviously, in this case it worked out much differently, but no, in general you can't say the wealthy people don't respond to price changes due to their wealth.