3 Mar 10, 8:21 AM
tightrope35
UK(RG), 6 yrs
 |
DancesWithPussycats wrote:
Should Brits living outside of the UK pay the UK tax on money they make outside of the UK? If so, why, on what moral basis?
(This question is sparked by the Lord Ashcroft story, but is not about him. He is a special case because of his involvement in UK politics and odd residence/domicile status.)
|
The only thing that concerns me about this whole business is the way that the Revenue - with its new found powers having joined with Customs and Excise - has chosen to re-interpret the rules recently. Oh yes, they say, you have been out of the country for a whole tax year, but you retained connections inside the UK (i.e. you left your wife at home) so you weren't really out of the country at all! I presume this is an attempt to collect more tax in, but it does seem unfair to have a set of rules that is generally understood, then change them and retrospectively claim more tax. It is likely to affect anyone who works abroad for a year to make and keep a bit of money. Changing the rules and their interpretations is happening more often these days. Creeping Stalinisation anyone?
It all beats the shit out of me...
|
3 Mar 10, 11:31 AM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
 |
tightrope35 wrote:
Changing the rules and their interpretations is happening more often these days. Creeping Stalinisation anyone?
|
To be honest the more defining trait of Stalinism would be killing lots and lots of people.
But yeah, the government policy of changing and complicating existing rules to blind side ordinary people who don't have time to steep themselves in the study of law is pretty low.
As for the traditional non-dom, the super rich tax dodging sponger type of person, throw them out or make them pay up. No representation without taxation. “Some people never go crazy, What truly horrible lives they must live”
|
3 Mar 10, 2:30 PM
aardvark99
UK(E), 6 yrs
|
I was going to post on this, and then discovered that you have got there first!
In reference to tightrope35's point. The domicile question has always revolved around where someone ultimately plans to live, and where the current centre of their lives are. The Revenue has become more agressive in contesting non-dom status, but the core nature of the rules has not changed.
My guess is that the Revenue's new stance will bring in some quick money, as they get to tax the marginal cases. In the long term it will push more people offshore and thus reduce the amount that they spend in the UK. But the damage will happen after the election, while the tax take is now .....
celestialblue wrote:
I don't know if this is any help (and for some now may be the time to go an watch a gallon of paint drying) but this idea of domicile is not always the same as it is understood in other countries. In the UK, domicile means the place you regard as your ultimate home. So if you are, for example, an Australian living long term in the UK, but intending eventually to go back to Australia to retire, you can say that that you have retained your Australian domicile, even though you are a long-term resident of the UK.
The importance of this for tax purposes is that the normal rule for UK tax, is that if you are tax-resident in the UK you must pay taxes on your world-wide income. However, there is an exception made for those people who have retained a non-UK domicile. They only have to pay UK tax on that part of their world-wide income which is paid to the UK.
This beautiful little tax avoidance structure has become the envy of the world. It was because of it, that a number of wealthy Greek shipowners were prepared to come and live in London and set up offices here, because they knew their world wide income would be not be subject to UK tax provided it was paid to a bank say in Switzerland. It is also the reason why Roman Abramovich has done something similar.
In recent years people have started to obsess about the amount of UK tax which “non-doms” are not paying, but they tend to forget that they never will pay their world wide income to the UK just to incur higher taxes than in the places to which they are paying it at the moment. All that happens if this tax structure is undermined, is that they will move out of the UK altogether and a certain amount of jobs will go with them.
I hope this also explains the problem for the UK if it raises taxes above the levels of potential competitor countries. This is the tipping point at which the owners of intellectual property and international services look for more economic places in which to conduct their operations.
|
|
3 Mar 10, 4:51 PM
DancesWithPussycats
UK(TW), 7 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
To be honest the more defining trait of Stalinism would be killing lots and lots of people.
|
Isn't that the more general defining trait of Socialism?
PS, someone suggested to me that the Blairs are Non Doms. I don't know if it is true, but even with the US military industrial complex giving you a kick back it would be hard to make 30 mil in two years if you were paying UK taxes. International man of mystery
Keep calm dear, its only a web post
Edited 3 Mar 10, 4:52 PM by DancesWithPussycats
|
3 Mar 10, 10:48 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
DancesWithPussycats wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
To be honest the more defining trait of Stalinism would be killing lots and lots of people.
|
Isn't that the more general defining trait of Socialism?
PS, someone suggested to me that the Blairs are Non Doms. I don't know if it is true, but even with the US military industrial complex giving you a kick back it would be hard to make 30 mil in two years if you were paying UK taxes.
|
Nah. Once you take socialism out of the context of a despotic regime you just end up with the likes of Sweden and Norway, really rather dull. “Some people never go crazy, What truly horrible lives they must live”
|
