3 ms·

> The removal of this non-domiciled status is clearly far more significant than a normal tax increase. The UK was a uniquely attractive destination for the supe

> The removal of this non-domiciled status is clearly far more significant than a normal tax increase. The UK was a uniquely attractive destination for the super-rich, because they could enjoy all the amenities of living in London with no real concerns about the tax implications. It is plausible that many of those people will decide to pay UK tax rather than move abroad, but we are talking about an exceptionally highly-mobile group who have already made the decision to move country, many primarily or solely for tax reasons. Boo hoo, let them move to some remote tax haven then, and live there next to their money and incorporation documents.

brainwad 1y ago
If that would have been the actual response, it wouldn't have made sense to proceed with the reform. The goal of treasury should be to maximise social welfare, not lose tax money just to dunk on the ultrarich.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  But a lot of them are paying little or no tax anyway, due to trusts, shell companies and other financial engineering.
  - bluecalm 1y ago
    If they come and live in 10M house it's 300k/year right there if you tax properties/land (you can use progressive rate so it's higher on most valuable properties). Add consumption taxes and every rich Chinese/Arab kid is sponsoring welfare for few dozens people per year.
    - hermitcrab 1y ago
      The yearly council tax of a £10M house in central London is the same as a £320K house: https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands-and-charges https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands... So where did you get £300K/year from? Or are you saying that is what it should be?
      - bluecalm 1y ago
        Yes, I am saying tax land/real estate instead of complaining rich people want to live in it.
  - brainwad 1y ago
    They still had to pay at least the basis charge, which was 30 or 60k per head depending on how long they were here for. That alone should have more than covered the cost of providing civic services to them.

brainwad 1y ago

If that would have been the actual response, it wouldn't have made sense to proceed with the reform. The goal of treasury should be to maximise social welfare, not lose tax money just to dunk on the ultrarich.

hermitcrab 1y ago
But a lot of them are paying little or no tax anyway, due to trusts, shell companies and other financial engineering.
- bluecalm 1y ago
  If they come and live in 10M house it's 300k/year right there if you tax properties/land (you can use progressive rate so it's higher on most valuable properties). Add consumption taxes and every rich Chinese/Arab kid is sponsoring welfare for few dozens people per year.
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    The yearly council tax of a £10M house in central London is the same as a £320K house: https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands-and-charges https://www.westminster.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-bands... So where did you get £300K/year from? Or are you saying that is what it should be?
    - bluecalm 1y ago
      Yes, I am saying tax land/real estate instead of complaining rich people want to live in it.
- brainwad 1y ago
  They still had to pay at least the basis charge, which was 30 or 60k per head depending on how long they were here for. That alone should have more than covered the cost of providing civic services to them.