"Labour: Tough on inward investment, tough on the causes of inward investment."
Tories: super soft on tax avoidance and the peddlers of tax avoidance.
Good luck opposing this if that is what the Right is going to attempt to do.
So when the 1% leave, who is paying for your beloved NHS, since they contribute 30% of the overall tax take ? What makes you think this policy will stop anyone avoiding tax, all those non-doms will just go and live somewhere else, and buy things in someone else's economy, and pay VAT into someone else's economy. Good stuff for the class hate, terrible for the country.
Ah that old chestnut.
The work will still be here in the UK. If the 1pc earn a dime here it will be taxed here.
A classic example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Worried at the closing of a commercial opportunity antifrank?
Good.
Not worried about the death of the NHS Ben?
Not so good.
Tories in government after 7th May - looking less and less likely thank God - is a much greater threat to the NHS.
Bullshit. The health of the NHS is directly proportional to the health of the UK economy.
Under Labour - monumentally shite economy.
Under the Coalition - strongest growing economy in the western world.
You think the economy is strong? How touchingly unquestioning of you.
Growing faster than almost anywhere else in the EU, and creating more jobs than the rest of the EU combined. I guess for someone's definition of strong that's not a bad effort.
Ireland and Luxembourg are waking up with delight this morning at the prospect of someone so spiteful and wealth-hating as Miliband being in charge in less than a month though.
The second part certainly applies for some. Always a good move to imply that we could all be richer if it wasn't for those pesky tax avoiders.
We could all better off in all ways if life wasn't so unfair sometimes. We could be a captain of industry, a Nobel prize winner, or just a little more successful if we'd had the same chances as others.
In my case, a liking for alcohol when young and a lack of ambition might have helped too but it's easier to blame others. If I were Scottish, those pesky English making me die earlier could have been partially responsible.
Of course, we'll acknowledge a few minor failings but in life were fair, we'd could all have been a contender if only life were equal.
And the argument against is difficult. It may cement some of the Labour votes anyway.
"This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. "
Sounds like a good idea. It's more interesting to have an accurate picture of how opinions are changing that to have a precise result this far out
"Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?"
But more important is a cohesive society which requires equality under the law and under the tax regime
Roger, if the tax system is equal why do most people pay 20% in income tax, yet the richest 15% have to pay 40% and the richest 1%, 45%.
Would an 'equal' tax as you describe not have everyone paying the same rate of tax, with the richest of course paying more cash in tax due to their being richer...?
Hopefully most will leave. They provide little economic benefit whilst raising living costs, lowering living standards, poisoning our society and corrupting our political system.
What I confess I have found very irritating is UK citizens living here who have contrived to achieve non dom status. If that is the extent of Miliband's target then the policy is being vastly overstated as are any possible results but it is hard to disagree.
Foreigners who chose to live here do pay tax on their UK income. They are merely exempted from the tax they would pay on their income from abroad chunks of which are brought onshore and spent in our economy. As time passes they pay a charge for this dispensation which increases the longer they spend here. Such a charge is of course substantially less than they would pay if their foreign earnings were subject to UK tax but we also get income that we would not get otherwise.
Whether UK plc is a net beneficiary from these arrangements is hard to say. I have little doubt it has facilitated London's development into the world city it is today and has probably resulted in some businesses being based here that could easily be based elsewhere. I am not personally as confident as many on this thread that we are net gainers from this but I accept it is complicated.
If the economic benefits are uncertain the political ones are not. I think the way to attack this is the same method to be used with most of Ed's back of a fag packet ideas (what a generous gift plain packaging was to that party). Attack the detail. Identify the people to whom it does not apply. Make it all sound as messy as it clearly would be. No one sane trusts the Labour party on tax. It really should not be that difficult to undermine this and reinforce the incompetent chaos meme at the same time.
Given just how vital it is to the UK economy, I amazed that every other country in the world has managed without offering non-dom status.
Maybe that's part of the reason it's so successful
So successful at what? There are just over I00,000 non-doms - most of whom have a very strong connection to this country, which is how they get the status in the first place.
Come again ? Being non-domiciled is the opposite if anything.
domicile: the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with.
So a non-dom conversely does not have those substantial connections. Yes, the legal definition is a bit more complicated, but it can be summarised as the place a person was born or where they intend to make their permanent place of residence, so a non-dom doesn't have these intentions ergo they are not strongly connected to the country.
Given just how vital it is to the UK economy, I amazed that every other country in the world has managed without offering non-dom status.
Maybe that's part of the reason it's so successful
So successful at what? There are just over I00,000 non-doms - most of whom have a very strong connection to this country, which is how they get the status in the first place.
Come again ? Being non-domiciled is the opposite if anything.
domicile: the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection with.
So a non-dom conversely does not have those substantial connections. Yes, the legal definition is a bit more complicated, but it can be summarised as the place a person was born or where they intend to make their permanent place of residence, so a non-dom doesn't have these intentions ergo they are not strongly connected to the country.
Rubbish. If these people were just visitors it would not be an issue - I do not pay tax on my worldwide earnings when I travel to a foreign country.
Indigo. Thanks. I just heard a very skimpy report from a memorial site someone had put up. That's about the most detail I've seen.
The suspect was arrested shortly there after when the police set him up on Facebook. Last I heard the case was still rumbling through the courts some when last year, but that isn't exactly unexpected.
"Labour: Tough on inward investment, tough on the causes of inward investment."
Tories: super soft on tax avoidance and the peddlers of tax avoidance.
Good luck opposing this if that is what the Right is going to attempt to do.
So when the 1% leave, who is paying for your beloved NHS, since they contribute 30% of the overall tax take ? What makes you think this policy will stop anyone avoiding tax, all those non-doms will just go and live somewhere else, and buy things in someone else's economy, and pay VAT into someone else's economy. Good stuff for the class hate, terrible for the country.
Ah that old chestnut.
The work will still be here in the UK. If the 1pc earn a dime here it will be taxed here.
A classic example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Worried at the closing of a commercial opportunity antifrank?
Good.
Not worried about the death of the NHS Ben?
Not so good.
Tories in government after 7th May - looking less and less likely thank God - is a much greater threat to the NHS.
Bullshit. The health of the NHS is directly proportional to the health of the UK economy.
Under Labour - monumentally shite economy.
Under the Coalition - strongest growing economy in the western world.
You think the economy is strong? How touchingly unquestioning of you.
So record employment. Is that the sign of a weak economy?
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
It means I spend more than half a year in that country. If you do that for several years then that is clearly a close connection. As I understand it, Labour will not be saying that this will apply in year one.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
Why would the state sector want the private school to work with them if their outcomes are worse than state schools as you maintain ?
The facilities are generally much, much better. Which makes the relatively performance statistics even worse - especially when you factor in the fact that private schools choose who they take.
@faisalislam: Quick fire Con rebuttal points to this from Ed Balls when City min on difficulty calculating tax take from nondoms: http://t.co/vdG799hMH1
What I confess I have found very irritating is UK citizens living here who have contrived to achieve non dom status. If that is the extent of Miliband's target then the policy is being vastly overstated as are any possible results but it is hard to disagree.
Foreigners who chose to live here do pay tax on their UK income. They are merely exempted from the tax they would pay on their income from abroad chunks of which are brought onshore and spent in our economy. As time passes they pay a charge for this dispensation which increases the longer they spend here. Such a charge is of course substantially less than they would pay if their foreign earnings were subject to UK tax but we also get income that we would not get otherwise.
Whether UK plc is a net beneficiary from these arrangements is hard to say. I have little doubt it has facilitated London's development into the world city it is today and has probably resulted in some businesses being based here that could easily be based elsewhere. I am not personally as confident as many on this thread that we are net gainers from this but I accept it is complicated.
If the economic benefits are uncertain the political ones are not. I think the way to attack this is the same method to be used with most of Ed's back of a fag packet ideas (what a generous gift plain packaging was to that party). Attack the detail. Identify the people to whom it does not apply. Make it all sound as messy as it clearly would be. No one sane trusts the Labour party on tax. It really should not be that difficult to undermine this and reinforce the incompetent chaos meme at the same time.
Yes, you are pretty much spot on there David.
There wouldn't be many people involved and the economic consequences are unclear but the advantage probably lies with the host country (i.e. us). The rules are however archaic and are widely perceived to give an unfair advantage to a small group of individuals who benefit from nothing more than an accident of birth.
Obviously it's a good idea to remove unfairness from any system where it is practical to do so, but nobody should get the measures or the problem out of proportion. The number of people involved would, I think, be on a par with the number of lottery jackpot winners (whom they resemble in some respects.)
Many F1 drivers are resident in Monaco - presumably for tax reasons. If the 183 day rule is kept (approx 6 months), then I do not see how anyone would be seriously inconvenienced by being in the UK just under 180 days. Especially with modern communications and travel facilities.
However, if the 183 day rule is vastly reduced for the UK, then problems could arise. So has EdM reduced the 183 days?
The top 1% of taxpayers paid around £180 billion of that.
According to Al Beeb, Ed Miliband 'believes' that the exchequer could gain 'hundreds of millions of pounds'.
So the policy is based upon guesswork and appears unlikely to raise so much as a billion.
And it will immediately lose revenue from the levy HMRC imposes on non-doms.
To someone on one of Labours sink estates millions and billions are the same. A lot of money.
Now we know it will have only one effect which is too drive investment elsewhere but that's not the point. The point is to get him and Labour elected and He is playing to his audience .
The fact that the UK will turn back into the basket case that Labour always create when in charge of the finances matters not a jot particularly to this guy. Oh ......and forget any thought of a referendum because come 2020 we will be integrated so deeply with the EU that referendums will be irrelevant and a socialist utopia will be established.
I feel sorry for all the unemployed that Labour will create.
"Labour: Tough on inward investment, tough on the causes of inward investment."
Tories: super soft on tax avoidance and the peddlers of tax avoidance.
Good luck opposing this if that is what the Right is going to attempt to do.
So when the 1% leave, who is paying for your beloved NHS, since they contribute 30% of the overall tax take ? What makes you think this policy will stop anyone avoiding tax, all those non-doms will just go and live somewhere else, and buy things in someone else's economy, and pay VAT into someone else's economy. Good stuff for the class hate, terrible for the country.
Ah that old chestnut.
The work will still be here in the UK. If the 1pc earn a dime here it will be taxed here.
A classic example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Worried at the closing of a commercial opportunity antifrank?
Good.
Not worried about the death of the NHS Ben?
Not so good.
Tories in government after 7th May - looking less and less likely thank God - is a much greater threat to the NHS.
Bullshit. The health of the NHS is directly proportional to the health of the UK economy.
Under Labour - monumentally shite economy.
Under the Coalition - strongest growing economy in the western world.
You think the economy is strong? How touchingly unquestioning of you.
Growing faster than almost anywhere else in the EU, and creating more jobs than the rest of the EU combined. I guess for someone's definition of strong that's not a bad effort.
Ireland and Luxembourg are waking up with delight this morning at the prospect of someone so spiteful and wealth-hating as Miliband being in charge in less than a month though.
Any idiot can raise employment by zillions by getting people to declare themselves self employed or force them into flipping burgers for a living.
It does not reflect a strong economy at all.
Canaries in the Tory mine are:
Record trade deficit Record stagnation in productivity weakest recovery in GDP per capita on record Weakest overall recovery on record
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
It means I spend more than half a year in that country. If you do that for several years then that is clearly a close connection. As I understand it, Labour will not be saying that this will apply in year one.
Labour are not saying it applies to any sort of foreign citizen at all, Balls was explicit that it only applied to British Citizens, so in fact, almost no one, certainly not the sort of Russian oligarchs and Chinese party chiefs children that Labour point to as the bogeymen. Roman Abramovich won't pay an extra dime.
I am totally baffled by this whole thing. It's a meaningless soundbite as 99% of voters will have no idea what a NonDom is. But like Banksters is some bogeyman class of people to blame for spending their money here. Like SNPers blaming the English for the Scots getting more money but not enough more money.
Well done Ed. You may yet achieve the impossible. By expelling the wealth creators, you may yet kill the NHS.
Rich people may be annoying and unpleasant and brash and flaunt their wealth. But every time they buy another supercar or a yacht, the VAT they hand over employs a few more doctors and nurses.
The top 1% - retained here or brought here by an attractive tax regime - pay for the NHS. I want the Tories to rip Ed Miliband's bollocks off and wave them in his face over this.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
Why would the state sector want the private school to work with them if their outcomes are worse than state schools as you maintain ?
The facilities are generally much, much better. Which makes the relatively performance statistics even worse - especially when you factor in the fact that private schools choose who they take.
Yes, indeed, so why does Labour want these under performing schools (even with their nice facilities) to help state school children, do they have a urge to bring down state school standards to the same level ?
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
It means I spend more than half a year in that country. If you do that for several years then that is clearly a close connection. As I understand it, Labour will not be saying that this will apply in year one.
Labour are not saying it applies to any sort of foreign citizen at all, Balls was explicit that it only applied to British Citizens, so in fact, almost no one, certainly not the sort of Russian oligarchs and Chinese party chiefs children that Labour point to as the bogeymen. Roman Abramovich won't pay an extra dime.
The examples of abuse I have seen are all focused on UK citizens:
@rosschawkins: Labour non dom policy is deffo a change - gets rid of non dom rule which means your tax status can depend on where your dad lived at birth
@rosschawkins: But wonder if making a temp tax status easier to get (ie doesn't depend on your dad etc) could more people end up getting it & paying less?
The top 1% of taxpayers paid around £180 billion of that.
The NHS Budget for 2015 is around £115 billion.
Just to inform the debate with some real numbers. The political campaigning yesterday was about an extra £8 billion for the NHS. Less than 5% of the amount the top one hundredth of taxpayers meet.
Or to put it another way, say there are 30m taxpayers in the UK (HMRC says 29m in 2013). 1% of that is 300,000. That 8 billion we need to find represents the amount paid by say 13,000 people.
If 13,000 out of 30m choose to leave the UK, that NHS black hole of £8 billlion just doubled to £16 billion....
The top 1% of taxpayers paid around £180 billion of that.
According to Al Beeb, Ed Miliband 'believes' that the exchequer could gain 'hundreds of millions of pounds'.
So the policy is based upon guesswork and appears unlikely to raise so much as a billion.
And it will immediately lose revenue from the levy HMRC imposes on non-doms.
To someone on one of Labours sink estates millions and billions are the same. A lot of money.
Now we know it will have only one effect which is too drive investment elsewhere but that's not the point. The point is to get him and Labour elected and He is playing to his audience .
The fact that the UK will turn back into the basket case that Labour always create when in charge of the finances matters not a jot particularly to this guy. Oh ......and forget any thought of a referendum because come 2020 we will be integrated so deeply with the EU that referendums will be irrelevant and a socialist utopia will be established.
I feel sorry for all the unemployed that Labour will create.
In fact EdM is really the same as T Bliar - only interested in the pursuit of power and money for self-aggrandisement - he does not worry one bit about the (short and longer term) consequences of his policies on his constituents in Doncaster (has he been there recently?) or the people of the UK. So he will try to spin and lie (give false promises) to gain the PMship.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
SO we have had this debate on here before. I pay for 2 of my kids to attend a private school. I do so out of my taxed income and it costs about £20K a year (private schools are cheaper in Scotland). If there were no private school my kids would get taught by the State. This would, on a per capita basis cost the State about £14k a year. The tax benefit that the School gets from its charitable status is actually extremely modest, certainly much, much less than the money saved.
So as a matter of economics the State does very well out of the tax breaks. There are counterarguments about social cohesion, the importance of having pushy parents in the State system and the risk of developing an elite class who disproportionately dominate our Society. But the tax break of Charitable status is a complete red herring.
Why do far more MPs go to private schools and study PPE? Why do national journalists predominantly come from private schools? And why do Guardian editors always come from there?
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
SO we have had this debate on here before. I pay for 2 of my kids to attend a private school. I do so out of my taxed income and it costs about £20K a year (private schools are cheaper in Scotland). If there were no private school my kids would get taught by the State. This would, on a per capita basis cost the State about £14k a year. The tax benefit that the School gets from its charitable status is actually extremely modest, certainly much, much less than the money saved.
So as a matter of economics the State does very well out of the tax breaks. There are counterarguments about social cohesion, the importance of having pushy parents in the State system and the risk of developing an elite class who disproportionately dominate our Society. But the tax break of Charitable status is a complete red herring.
Not if threatening to take it away means state school pupils gain more access to the top class facilities enjoyed by private school pupils. Which it will.
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
It means I spend more than half a year in that country. If you do that for several years then that is clearly a close connection. As I understand it, Labour will not be saying that this will apply in year one.
Labour are not saying it applies to any sort of foreign citizen at all, Balls was explicit that it only applied to British Citizens, so in fact, almost no one, certainly not the sort of Russian oligarchs and Chinese party chiefs children that Labour point to as the bogeymen. Roman Abramovich won't pay an extra dime.
The examples of abuse I have seen are all focused on UK citizens:
So if I gain a non-UK citizenship and renounce my UK one, I would not pay extra tax. So what will apply to the UK citizen who spends quite a long time outside the UK (e.g Middle East)?
You would do if you stayed for more than 183 days. However staying for 183 days doesn't mean you have "a substantial connection with the country" which was your contention, and it certainly doesn't make you domiciled.
It means I spend more than half a year in that country. If you do that for several years then that is clearly a close connection. As I understand it, Labour will not be saying that this will apply in year one.
Labour are not saying it applies to any sort of foreign citizen at all, Balls was explicit that it only applied to British Citizens, so in fact, almost no one, certainly not the sort of Russian oligarchs and Chinese party chiefs children that Labour point to as the bogeymen. Roman Abramovich won't pay an extra dime.
The examples of abuse I have seen are all focused on UK citizens:
Quite. but it's going to follow the mansion tax and banker's levy into the category of politically smart tax wheezes that raise feck all. None of those are going to make any more than a few hundred million quid, which is a rounding error of a rounding error in national budget terms, the ideas that it is going to make any different to the NHS or anything else is fanciful. What they may well do is deter people from investing, which could easily cost us an order of magnitude more than the pathetic amount they might raise on a good day, assuming a general business hostile atmosphere doesn't start another brain drain, and I think it will.
@rosschawkins: Labour non dom policy is deffo a change - gets rid of non dom rule which means your tax status can depend on where your dad lived at birth
@rosschawkins: But wonder if making a temp tax status easier to get (ie doesn't depend on your dad etc) could more people end up getting it & paying less?
Another Ed special?
The new Labour wheeze appears to be a tax cut for immigrants.
There's nothing to stop anyone with enough money living in Monaco and not having to pay UK tax. The difference between the dom and the non dom is that the non dom can live in London and do the same.
If anyone can compain about unfair treatment it's the super rich Brit
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
SO we have had this debate on here before. I pay for 2 of my kids to attend a private school. I do so out of my taxed income and it costs about £20K a year (private schools are cheaper in Scotland). If there were no private school my kids would get taught by the State. This would, on a per capita basis cost the State about £14k a year. The tax benefit that the School gets from its charitable status is actually extremely modest, certainly much, much less than the money saved.
So as a matter of economics the State does very well out of the tax breaks. There are counterarguments about social cohesion, the importance of having pushy parents in the State system and the risk of developing an elite class who disproportionately dominate our Society. But the tax break of Charitable status is a complete red herring.
Not if threatening to take it away means state school pupils gain more access to the top class facilities enjoyed by private school pupils. Which it will.
And why should I pay for that out of my taxed income as well?
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better.
It's just a coincidence that so many Labour MPs send their kids to private school...
Nope, that's all about elitism and buying your kids a place at a top table dominated by other people who went to private school. Any Labour MPs who send their kids to private schools are hypocrites who deserve all the flak they get.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better. You are. The evidence does not support your contention. Sorry.
If they are not better, why do they want them to help the state sector, and dilute the quality of state provision. If they are not better why do we have people like that well know right-winger Diane Abbot getting all embarrassed about sending her son to a private school, does she prefer inferior education ?
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
To look carefully at the charitable status given to private schools that do not work with the state sector? No, I don't think so.
SO we have had this debate on here before. I pay for 2 of my kids to attend a private school. I do so out of my taxed income and it costs about £20K a year (private schools are cheaper in Scotland). If there were no private school my kids would get taught by the State. This would, on a per capita basis cost the State about £14k a year. The tax benefit that the School gets from its charitable status is actually extremely modest, certainly much, much less than the money saved.
So as a matter of economics the State does very well out of the tax breaks. There are counterarguments about social cohesion, the importance of having pushy parents in the State system and the risk of developing an elite class who disproportionately dominate our Society. But the tax break of Charitable status is a complete red herring.
Not if threatening to take it away means state school pupils gain more access to the top class facilities enjoyed by private school pupils. Which it will.
And why should I pay for that out of my taxed income as well?
No-one is forcing you to David. You make the choice.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better.
It's just a coincidence that so many Labour MPs send their kids to private school...
Nope, that's all about elitism and buying your kids a place at a top table dominated by other people who went to private school. Any Labour MPs who send their kids to private schools are hypocrites who deserve all the flak they get.
it's got bugger all to do with schools and everything to do with Universities. But you know this.
There's nothing to stop anyone with enough money living in Monaco and not having to pay UK tax. The difference between the dom and the non dom is that the non dom can live in London and do the same.
If anyone can compain about unfair treatment it's the super rich Brit
As Duncan Bannantyne has already. The question is will the Conservatives be more concerned about their donors or the British people?
Well that's an interesting message and dilemma for UKIP
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
By the way I want a referendum whatever the outcome just as much as UKIP. I just want to be asked on such an important issue.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better.
It's just a coincidence that so many Labour MPs send their kids to private school...
Nope, that's all about elitism and buying your kids a place at a top table dominated by other people who went to private school. Any Labour MPs who send their kids to private schools are hypocrites who deserve all the flak they get.
it's got bugger all to do with schools and everything to do with Universities. But you know this.
The schools get you to the universities. And, as we know, state school pupils outperform private school pupils once they are all in the same place and assessed in the same way.
Thrashing about seems more accurate. What campaign plan is Labour following? I can't see one.
Dan Hodges was spot on in his article a day or so ago - start being pro-business, then it all goes wrong, then go all anti-business when the Tories do the same stunt? And that's after spending most of the last 4yrs being anti-business?
What on Earth is EdM trying to get us to think about Labour? It certainly isn't convincing me or anyone else I know yet.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
So here we are week two of the campaign and the narrative is all about dicking around at the edges. The kind of marketing crap that moves a few 10s of millions around but doesn't actually create a blueprint of what a party would do, nor say how they will create wealth.
Well that's an interesting message and dilemma for UKIP
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
That seems a trifle incoherent.
Any kippers elected will I am sure vote in favour of a referendum, whoever brings it forward.
Voting for UKIP in the South of England might displace a Conservative candidate, possibly with a kipper, possible with a Labour or Liberal candidate, you may or may not be worse off
Voting UKIP in the Midlands or the North of England and you might well replace a Labour candidate with a Kipper, thereby reducing the Labour majority, and increasing the number of people who would vote in favour of a referendum.
It depends where you vote for your kipper as to whether it makes a referendum more or less likely.
Southam - What this idiotic policy fails to understand, just like many others proposed by with the express intention of bleeding the rich, is that the UK social compact is a fragile coalition.
In order to fund very expensive and generous public services there needs to be some quid pro quo.
The rich pay higher taxes. Not just more tax, but higher rates of tax too. This means the rich are already paying not only their 'fare share', but the fare shares of 10s or 100s of other people.
In general, they will also be less of drain on the public services that they're paying for many times over. My parents paid for me to attend a small private prep school as well as paying taxes and freeing up a space at local state schools, which allowed less fortunate children to be educated. And probably better educated, too, as the class size in that state school was smaller because of schools like mine.
For this reason alone the state education sector deserves charitable status - it is charitable to pay for a service that you're entitled to use but instead let someone else have use of it.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better. You are. The evidence does not support your contention. Sorry.
If they are not better, why do they want them to help the state sector, and dilute the quality of state provision. If they are not better why do we have people like that well know right-winger Diane Abbot getting all embarrassed about sending her son to a private school, does she prefer inferior education ?
As you have previously observed, it's not about results it's about all the other stuff. Sending your kid to private school puts them in an environment in which they do not come face to face with disruptive classmates, have the very best facilities, make great social connections and, generally, secures them access to a gilded world that will help them throughout their lives. Diane Abbott is a hypocrite of the first order. Her position is indefensible.
"Labour: Tough on inward investment, tough on the causes of inward investment."
Tories: super soft on tax avoidance and the peddlers of tax avoidance.
Good luck opposing this if that is what the Right is going to attempt to do.
So when the 1% leave, who is paying for your beloved NHS, since they contribute 30% of the overall tax take ? What makes you think this policy will stop anyone avoiding tax, all those non-doms will just go and live somewhere else, and buy things in someone else's economy, and pay VAT into someone else's economy. Good stuff for the class hate, terrible for the country.
Ah that old chestnut.
The work will still be here in the UK. If the 1pc earn a dime here it will be taxed here.
A classic example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Worried at the closing of a commercial opportunity antifrank?
Good.
Not worried about the death of the NHS Ben?
Not so good.
Tories in government after 7th May - looking less and less likely thank God - is a much greater threat to the NHS.
Bullshit. The health of the NHS is directly proportional to the health of the UK economy.
Under Labour - monumentally shite economy.
Under the Coalition - strongest growing economy in the western world.
You think the economy is strong? How touchingly unquestioning of you.
Would I rather have the have the economy we inherited - or the economy we leave at the end of this term? Only a perverse dickhead would suggest 2010 was a better place for the UK to be....
Well that's an interesting message and dilemma for UKIP
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
That seems a trifle incoherent.
Any kippers elected will I am sure vote in favour of a referendum, whoever brings it forward.
Voting for UKIP in the South of England might displace a Conservative candidate, possibly with a kipper, possible with a Labour or Liberal candidate, you may or may not be worse off
Voting UKIP in the Midlands or the North of England and you might well replace a Labour candidate with a Kipper, thereby reducing the Labour majority, and increasing the number of people who would vote in favour of a referendum.
It depends where you vote for your kipper as to whether it makes a referendum more or less likely.
Mr. Observer, that may be true for the upper echelon of private schools, but it's worth pointing out not every private school is an Eton. Some are 'just' good schools.
@rosschawkins: Labour non dom policy is deffo a change - gets rid of non dom rule which means your tax status can depend on where your dad lived at birth
@rosschawkins: But wonder if making a temp tax status easier to get (ie doesn't depend on your dad etc) could more people end up getting it & paying less?
Another Ed special?
The new Labour wheeze appears to be a tax cut for immigrants.
Of course it will - you know that Labour loves immigrants -the more of them the better - will enable them in the future to regionalise the UK by ethnicity (and so have regional parliaments which they have promoted) and so have special laws for each ethnic group - will enable lawyers like Mrs Blair to make even more of a fortune.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better.
It's just a coincidence that so many Labour MPs send their kids to private school...
Nope, that's all about elitism and buying your kids a place at a top table dominated by other people who went to private school. Any Labour MPs who send their kids to private schools are hypocrites who deserve all the flak they get.
it's got bugger all to do with schools and everything to do with Universities. But you know this.
The schools get you to the universities. And, as we know, state school pupils outperform private school pupils once they are all in the same place and assessed in the same way.
If private schools were worse people wouldn't send their kids there, they'd happily save the 6 figure sum it costs to send them there for 7 years.
The biggest threat to private schools is a decent state system.
As for Universities perhaps you don't see the inherent nonsense in people going to out elite Universities lecturing everyone else about the ills of elitism.
Mr. Observer, that may be true for the upper echelon of private schools, but it's worth pointing out not every private school is an Eton. Some are 'just' good schools.
Chatter being the operative word there, and depressingly true.
Looking forward to Monday and at least one manifesto published - Tories IIRC. I don't expect *serious* campaigning until next week as this is a holiday week for many post-Easter and a waste of Big Announcements.
@Indigo - Labour is not arguing that private schools are better. You are. The evidence does not support your contention. Sorry.
If they are not better, why do they want them to help the state sector, and dilute the quality of state provision. If they are not better why do we have people like that well know right-winger Diane Abbot getting all embarrassed about sending her son to a private school, does she prefer inferior education ?
As you have previously observed, it's not about results it's about all the other stuff. Sending your kid to private school puts them in an environment in which they do not come face to face with disruptive classmates, have the very best facilities, make great social connections and, generally, secures them access to a gilded world that will help them throughout their lives. Diane Abbott is a hypocrite of the first order. Her position is indefensible.
Exactly.
So you should stop pretending that it all about academic outcomes, it isn't and never was.
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
"Fair" includes the social and environmental considerations and that is why Labour are trying to claw private schools down to the state school level, because it too hard to increase state schools to the private school level, a shameful paucity of ambition.
David Smith @dsmitheconomics 10m10 minutes ago Whether non-dom status right or wrong, debate is being conducted as if the annual levy is all they pay in the UK - it is a tiny fraction.
Not if threatening to take it away means state school pupils gain more access to the top class facilities enjoyed by private school pupils. Which it will.
Actually, I think that this is unlikely. When charities have to fold then I believe their assets are distributed to similar nearby charities.
Bad regulation often drives worse results. So, legislation that will force smaller private schools (who are perhaps less able to demonstrate public good, but just as likely actually performing a public good - e.g. we used to invite local schools to play sports against us on our pitches, swim in galas against us using our pool) to close would likely redistribute assets to larger organisations (who are perhaps more able to demonstrate public good, but possibly not actually any more of a public good) in the same industry. Take this to its final analysis and the most expensive private schools (best able to cope with the legislative burden) would control most of the currently relatively well distributed assets of charitable private schools.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
I'm so looking forward to Labour supporters defending the cuts to public services and healthcare, and massive tax rises for ordinary people to make up shortfalls, in a years time.
Southam - What this idiotic policy fails to understand, just like many others proposed by with the express intention of bleeding the rich, is that the UK social compact is a fragile coalition.
In order to fund very expensive and generous public services there needs to be some quid pro quo.
The rich pay higher taxes. Not just more tax, but higher rates of tax too. This means the rich are already paying not only their 'fare share', but the fare shares of 10s or 100s of other people.
In general, they will also be less of drain on the public services that they're paying for many times over. My parents paid for me to attend a small private prep school as well as paying taxes and freeing up a space at local state schools, which allowed less fortunate children to be educated. And probably better educated, too, as the class size in that state school was smaller because of schools like mine.
For this reason alone the state education sector deserves charitable status - it is charitable to pay for a service that you're entitled to use but instead let someone else have use of it.
Well that's an interesting message and dilemma for UKIP
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
That seems a trifle incoherent.
Any kippers elected will I am sure vote in favour of a referendum, whoever brings it forward.
Voting for UKIP in the South of England might displace a Conservative candidate, possibly with a kipper, possible with a Labour or Liberal candidate, you may or may not be worse off
Voting UKIP in the Midlands or the North of England and you might well replace a Labour candidate with a Kipper, thereby reducing the Labour majority, and increasing the number of people who would vote in favour of a referendum.
It depends where you vote for your kipper as to whether it makes a referendum more or less likely.
Perhaps, Lots of "mights" in your post though
Would Kippers voting Conservative in Heywood & Middleton and similar seats ever elect a Conservative candidate ? No chance. If you want to reduce the likelihood of a Labour government and inter alia increase the chances of an EU referendum, the smart choice is to vote kipper in those seats. The Conservative party is too consumed with hatred for the kippers to see the electoral wood for the trees.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
"Labour: Tough on inward investment, tough on the causes of inward investment."
A classic example of the lump of labour fallacy.
Worried at the closing of a commercial opportunity antifrank?
Good.
Not worried about the death of the NHS Ben?
Not so good.
Tories in government after 7th May - looking less and less likely thank God - is a much greater threat to the NHS.
Bullshit. The health of the NHS is directly proportional to the health of the UK economy.
Under Labour - monumentally shite economy.
Under the Coalition - strongest growing economy in the western world.
You think the economy is strong? How touchingly unquestioning of you.
Growing faster than almost anywhere else in the EU, and creating more jobs than the rest of the EU combined. I guess for someone's definition of strong that's not a bad effort.
Ireland and Luxembourg are waking up with delight this morning at the prospect of someone so spiteful and wealth-hating as Miliband being in charge in less than a month though.
Any idiot can raise employment by zillions by getting people to declare themselves self employed or force them into flipping burgers for a living.
It does not reflect a strong economy at all.
Canaries in the Tory mine are:
Record trade deficit Record stagnation in productivity weakest recovery in GDP per capita on record Weakest overall recovery on record
I see that Labour are going for the trade deficit this morning - reducing it by squeezing inward investment.
Productivity lagging GDP and jobs growth is normal where a dynamic labour market is extant - we prefer to give people a job than leave them on the dole waiting for a job-for-life. cf. France.
GDP per capita is as weak as it is due to unskilled immigration. Do you think that we should restrict unskilled immigration to boost the earnings of those on lower wages?
Real Terms GDP is now higher than before the recession. Surely we should all applaud the recovery, or do we have the wrong type of growth?
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
@rosschawkins: Labour non dom policy is deffo a change - gets rid of non dom rule which means your tax status can depend on where your dad lived at birth
@rosschawkins: But wonder if making a temp tax status easier to get (ie doesn't depend on your dad etc) could more people end up getting it & paying less?
Another Ed special?
Looks like a blinder, crack down on a few, but make it much easier for many to "dodge" tax.
Well that's an interesting message and dilemma for UKIP
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
That seems a trifle incoherent.
Any kippers elected will I am sure vote in favour of a referendum, whoever brings it forward.
Voting for UKIP in the South of England might displace a Conservative candidate, possibly with a kipper, possible with a Labour or Liberal candidate, you may or may not be worse off
Voting UKIP in the Midlands or the North of England and you might well replace a Labour candidate with a Kipper, thereby reducing the Labour majority, and increasing the number of people who would vote in favour of a referendum.
It depends where you vote for your kipper as to whether it makes a referendum more or less likely.
Perhaps, Lots of "mights" in your post though
Would Kippers voting Conservative in Heywood & Middleton and similar seats ever elect a Conservative candidate ? No chance. If you want to reduce the likelihood of a Labour government and inter alia increase the chances of an EU referendum, the smart choice is to vote kipper in those seats. The Conservative party is too consumed with hatred for the kippers to see the electoral wood for the trees.
Where UKIP have a better chance of winning Conservatives should vote accordingly.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
I'm afraid Charles your now stuck with banker bashing for the rest of your working life. Osborne needed to put some blood on the carpet early on to kill the issue. He didn't and now it will hang around like a bad smell and get dragged out at every election.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
Ridiculous comparison to the Nazi treatment of Jews prior to the holocaust. Can't you see that it weakens an already weak argument?
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
I think bankers should decamp to Singapore or Hong Kong, take their money and their investments with them, and let Labour drown. The only way people will learn from stupid mistakes (like voting Labour) is if it teaches them a hard lesson, we shouldn't be in the business of protecting people from the outcomes of those sort of mistakes, or they will make them again and again.
I heard Michael Gove on Newsnight last night answering this. He said the first question that has to be asked is whether this will increase or reduce the tax take.
A poor response in my opinion. It gave the impression that the Tories had no problem with inequality for the super rich as long as the treasury made a few quid out of it. This thinking is the achilles heel of the Tory party.
Surely the whole point of a tax is to raise money?
Don't be silly, if you are a leftie that's a marginal consideration, its all about being "fair" (unless your are claiming parliamentary expenses anyway). Its the same as their education policy, its too much effort to make all the state schools good, so we have to claw all the private schools down to the state school level so that its "fair".
The one huge flaw with that argument is that, as we know, on a like for like basis the state education system outperforms the private one.
That must be why Labour was expending so much effort in trying to blackmail private schools to take in more disadvantaged children if they wanted to hold on to their charitable status, because clearly they wanted to send them to a school that would be worse for them than going to a state school... oh wait!
It is an inescapable fact that the PISA ratings which people like you hold up as the evidence the UK state system is not fit for purpose show that these very same schools outperform the private sector. I am sorry if you do not like that, but there you go.
Of all the stuff in that Pisa report that shows our schools are underperforming, you obsess with one rather arbitrary, small section of the report. It's like you're saying: "It's sh*t, but look: look, there: squirrel!" What's worse, I'm not sure it says exactly what you say it's saying. Still, after your stupidity with the BBC report the other day, that's only to be expected.
Perhaps your fevered defence of the state system is because you had a producer interest in that failing system?
It's exactly what I expect from someone who accepted plaudits for saying he wouldn't vote Labour as long as Balls was near the top over the McBride scandal.
Sadly this Black Spot type of demonisation set in a long time ago - I'm still annoyed about what happened to the RBS chappy who took on the job of fixing the mess and was denied his performance bonus.
That was just appalling. St Vince piled onto that feeding frenzy IIRC. Shameful. Who would take on a poison chalice like that again.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
I'm so looking forward to Labour supporters defending the cuts to public services and healthcare, and massive tax rises for ordinary people to make up shortfalls, in a years time.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
You're right.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
How is this demonisation? Do you know who gets the exemption? Non-doms status is a tax anomaly left over from days of Empire. No other country has it. Both Labour and Tory governments in recent years have sort to deal with it by introducing a flat tax of up to £90K.
I would be eligible, even though I was born in UK and lived here all my life, as have my parents, if my grandfather, rather than my grandmother, had been born aboard. She was born abroad whilst her N Irish father worked as a missionary. That's right - it only functions via the male line. It's out of date nonsense.
"Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure."
I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
And of course no one can afford to buy in London or even rent because the influx of the non tax paying super rich have skewed property prices.
America has attractions for the rich that we don't. Like hot summers, and decent skiing, and a sense of space. Ditto France.
Nah, I'm sorry that's just wrong. London is a magnificent city, perhaps the closest thing to the capital of the world. It shits all over Paris. The idea that it requires massive tax loopholes in order to keep them here is drawing a long bow.
Same rules should apply as for everyone else, 183 days and you pay the tax.
As for the property thing, frankly a market correction is well over due and it'll allow more local people onto the property ladder
Drivel. London was a dowdy ex imperial city with a fast declining population when I arrived there in 1981. It was the Thatcher reforms which turned it around - it's population started to grow again in the mid 80s, around the time the City was deregulated. No coincidence. It has never looked back since.
The enormous taxes generated by the City paid for all the public spending of the Blair Brown years, which is why they sensibly never touched the delicate array of incentives and inducements which kept London attractive.
Miliband seems determined to f*ck London for the sake of it (taking all his anti-business measures as a whole). This will mean that London property will become cheaper, but only because the city will be poorer, less attractive to outsiders, and the capital of a more impoverished country.
As I say, if all you care about is equality, you'll be happy. But if you're a home-owner anywhere in the UK you should be concerned. London leads the UK property market up - but it can and will drag it down, likewise.
I think you're spot on with Miliband. In the words of David Laws, from his book on the negotiations that led to the coalition '22 Days in May'; "Ed Miliband is just an old lefty".
The Tories are doddery, arrogant, pompous and complacent. They've done an excellent job on pensions, the economy, infrastructure, welfare reform and education. But people are minded to support parties that share their values. And the marketing of the Tory brand, messaging on values, and taking the argument out to the electorate, to fight and win it from first principles, has been utterly woeful.
So we now face the prospect of an Ed Miliband led minority Labour government. Just because the Tories are a bit posh, look like they take office for granted, and seem to be enjoying it a bit too much.
it's an area I know very little about, and I find it hard to get worked up about. There are some obvious (and perhaps fallacious) dangers, as outlined below, and my instinct says it'll raise very little money. But do I care: nah.
For that reason, it'll be a vote winner. But a game changer? Nah.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
I don't think it'll change a single vote myself. It's out of naked eye reach and frankly I don't care that a fraction of a percent of people change their tax status or not. Provided they can't influence elections [as they used to do] - I'm not bothered. They pay more in various taxes than I do.
it's an area I know very little about, and I find it hard to get worked up about. There are some obvious (and perhaps fallacious) dangers, as outlined below, and my instinct says it'll raise very little money. But do I care: nah.
For that reason, it'll be a vote winner. But a game changer? Nah.
I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
So the nett effect is those people move to a different tax haven and we end up with a smaller pie to share around, other people who might have considered coming decide there are better offers on the table all things considered, an the pie doesn't grow so fast any more. Labour is obsessed with everyone getting the same slice of pie, even if everyone gets less pie as a result.
Are there really people still out there thinking "I don't think Labour have shown us that they hate rich people enough"? I'm not so sure.
I think this just further re-enforces that they don't understand wealth creation and that they're determined to make Britain a worse place for business. If you're looking to locate yourself or relocate a company here and you're in a decision making capacity you are either earning the proposed 50% tax or a non-dom and with such tax rates Britain now compares really poorly with others in Europe. What is the opportunity cost of this? No doubt it will go down great with the core vote.
Maybe this is like the Farage AIDS comment : designed to inspire the base rather than make new converts.
It's more about the response of the Conservatives, so far it's working. Shame really, tackling Labour's non doms would have been a great detox policy as well as the right thing to do. Until the Conservatives become the party of the middle class again they will continue to struggle.
It depends. If abolishing Non Dom status would raise a fortune then yes it'd be a great thing to do, if it would be a counter-productive move that reduces tax takes then its nothing more than a foolish clash war - and is not good for the middle class. The middle class benefit when we run the economy sensibly, not by engaging in class war.
Comments
Ireland and Luxembourg are waking up with delight this morning at the prospect of someone so spiteful and wealth-hating as Miliband being in charge in less than a month though.
MrT,
"Stupid economics, smart politics."
The second part certainly applies for some. Always a good move to imply that we could all be richer if it wasn't for those pesky tax avoiders.
We could all better off in all ways if life wasn't so unfair sometimes. We could be a captain of industry, a Nobel prize winner, or just a little more successful if we'd had the same chances as others.
In my case, a liking for alcohol when young and a lack of ambition might have helped too but it's easier to blame others. If I were Scottish, those pesky English making me die earlier could have been partially responsible.
Of course, we'll acknowledge a few minor failings but in life were fair, we'd could all have been a contender if only life were equal.
And the argument against is difficult. It may cement some of the Labour votes anyway.
"This means that we can be confident that any material change in the polls from that position reflects a genuine shift in public opinion since January & February. "
Sounds like a good idea. It's more interesting to have an accurate picture of how opinions are changing that to have a precise result this far out
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9545f01c-be78-11e4-8036-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WhN814re
But a letter written in response is also worth noting:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/648441b0-c29f-11e4-a59c-00144feab7de.html#axzz3TqAfDZha
Would an 'equal' tax as you describe not have everyone paying the same rate of tax, with the richest of course paying more cash in tax due to their being richer...?
@BethRigby
tweets this vivid description:
"Like a chocolate truffle wrapped in gold leaf, non-dom status is nice to have, hard to justify"
Foreigners who chose to live here do pay tax on their UK income. They are merely exempted from the tax they would pay on their income from abroad chunks of which are brought onshore and spent in our economy. As time passes they pay a charge for this dispensation which increases the longer they spend here. Such a charge is of course substantially less than they would pay if their foreign earnings were subject to UK tax but we also get income that we would not get otherwise.
Whether UK plc is a net beneficiary from these arrangements is hard to say. I have little doubt it has facilitated London's development into the world city it is today and has probably resulted in some businesses being based here that could easily be based elsewhere. I am not personally as confident as many on this thread that we are net gainers from this but I accept it is complicated.
If the economic benefits are uncertain the political ones are not. I think the way to attack this is the same method to be used with most of Ed's back of a fag packet ideas (what a generous gift plain packaging was to that party). Attack the detail. Identify the people to whom it does not apply. Make it all sound as messy as it clearly would be. No one sane trusts the Labour party on tax. It really should not be that difficult to undermine this and reinforce the incompetent chaos meme at the same time.
Rubbish. If these people were just visitors it would not be an issue - I do not pay tax on my worldwide earnings when I travel to a foreign country.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/apr/07/non-dom-tax-status-living-working-paying-tax-uk
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100729-283751/Facebook-tags-serial-killer-suspect-NPA-ruse-leads-to-arrest
No, but markedly poorer GDP per head is.
I agree with Mr. Antifrank and Mr. T. This is idiotic economically and will prove popular.
64,000 paid tax on their worldwide income
46,700 chose to pay tax on a non-dom basis.
Non-dom taxpayers paid approximately £8.27 which averaged £132,762 per person.
Source: HMRC
Dave will stop at no gaming of debates, and Ed at no policy announcement to achieve this no matter how it may affect the economy or 'fair play'.
There wouldn't be many people involved and the economic consequences are unclear but the advantage probably lies with the host country (i.e. us). The rules are however archaic and are widely perceived to give an unfair advantage to a small group of individuals who benefit from nothing more than an accident of birth.
Obviously it's a good idea to remove unfairness from any system where it is practical to do so, but nobody should get the measures or the problem out of proportion. The number of people involved would, I think, be on a par with the number of lottery jackpot winners (whom they resemble in some respects.)
However, if the 183 day rule is vastly reduced for the UK, then problems could arise. So has EdM reduced the 183 days?
Now we know it will have only one effect which is too drive investment elsewhere but that's not the point. The point is to get him and Labour elected and He is playing to his audience .
The fact that the UK will turn back into the basket case that Labour always create when in charge of the finances matters not a jot particularly to this guy. Oh ......and forget any thought of a referendum because come 2020 we will be integrated so deeply with the EU that referendums will be irrelevant and a socialist utopia will be established.
I feel sorry for all the unemployed that Labour will create.
It does not reflect a strong economy at all.
Canaries in the Tory mine are:
Record trade deficit
Record stagnation in productivity
weakest recovery in GDP per capita on record
Weakest overall recovery on record
183 days is long enough. After that people should pay UK tax on all their earnings, with tax paid elsewhere deducted.
First Labour policy that I have agreed with in a long while.
It's upsidedown.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/22/swiss-account-secret-of-hsbc-chief-stuart-gulliver-revealed
@rosschawkins: But wonder if making a temp tax status easier to get (ie doesn't depend on your dad etc) could more people end up getting it & paying less?
Another Ed special?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360002/disag-stats.pdf
HMRC tax take was only 489 billion, income tax was only 156 billion of that, NICS another 107 billion
So as a matter of economics the State does very well out of the tax breaks. There are counterarguments about social cohesion, the importance of having pushy parents in the State system and the risk of developing an elite class who disproportionately dominate our Society. But the tax break of Charitable status is a complete red herring.
Why do far more MPs go to private schools and study PPE? Why do national journalists predominantly come from private schools? And why do Guardian editors always come from there?
And how about the BBC? Show your cojones, Ed?
If anyone can compain about unfair treatment it's the super rich Brit
Just look at the reaction of say @Roger or @BenM - they love it but would be voting Labour/ABTT anyway.
Really clever policy on so many levels.
SNP Will put Labour in No 10 and Labour say the people cannot be trusted with a vote on the EU.
Seems to be up to UKIP then ...... Vote UKIP for your "Once in a lifetime" opportunity NOT to get a referendum. The outcome would be hilarious if not so serious and it seems UKIP will be voting themselves out of existence as well as a referendum.
Oh the irony........... I am sure that's not what Nigel quite intended.
By the way I want a referendum whatever the outcome just as much as UKIP. I just want to be asked on such an important issue.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/universities-urged-lower-entry-grades-comprehensive-school-pupils
Another less than one-percent policy.
Dan Hodges was spot on in his article a day or so ago - start being pro-business, then it all goes wrong, then go all anti-business when the Tories do the same stunt? And that's after spending most of the last 4yrs being anti-business?
What on Earth is EdM trying to get us to think about Labour? It certainly isn't convincing me or anyone else I know yet.
So EdM sticks to the NHS instead and reverts to class war and non-doms? It's so lacking in coherence and grown-up economics - it'd be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Fairly depressing all round.
And the poll cards arrived this morning.
Any kippers elected will I am sure vote in favour of a referendum, whoever brings it forward.
Voting for UKIP in the South of England might displace a Conservative candidate, possibly with a kipper, possible with a Labour or Liberal candidate, you may or may not be worse off
Voting UKIP in the Midlands or the North of England and you might well replace a Labour candidate with a Kipper, thereby reducing the Labour majority, and increasing the number of people who would vote in favour of a referendum.
It depends where you vote for your kipper as to whether it makes a referendum more or less likely.
In order to fund very expensive and generous public services there needs to be some quid pro quo.
The rich pay higher taxes. Not just more tax, but higher rates of tax too. This means the rich are already paying not only their 'fare share', but the fare shares of 10s or 100s of other people.
In general, they will also be less of drain on the public services that they're paying for many times over. My parents paid for me to attend a small private prep school as well as paying taxes and freeing up a space at local state schools, which allowed less fortunate children to be educated. And probably better educated, too, as the class size in that state school was smaller because of schools like mine.
For this reason alone the state education sector deserves charitable status - it is charitable to pay for a service that you're entitled to use but instead let someone else have use of it.
If private schools were worse people wouldn't send their kids there, they'd happily save the 6 figure sum it costs to send them there for 7 years.
The biggest threat to private schools is a decent state system.
As for Universities perhaps you don't see the inherent nonsense in people going to out elite Universities lecturing everyone else about the ills of elitism.
Looking forward to Monday and at least one manifesto published - Tories IIRC. I don't expect *serious* campaigning until next week as this is a holiday week for many post-Easter and a waste of Big Announcements.
So you should stop pretending that it all about academic outcomes, it isn't and never was. "Fair" includes the social and environmental considerations and that is why Labour are trying to claw private schools down to the state school level, because it too hard to increase state schools to the private school level, a shameful paucity of ambition.
David Smith @dsmitheconomics 10m10 minutes ago
Whether non-dom status right or wrong, debate is being conducted as if the annual levy is all they pay in the UK - it is a tiny fraction.
Bad regulation often drives worse results. So, legislation that will force smaller private schools (who are perhaps less able to demonstrate public good, but just as likely actually performing a public good - e.g. we used to invite local schools to play sports against us on our pitches, swim in galas against us using our pool) to close would likely redistribute assets to larger organisations (who are perhaps more able to demonstrate public good, but possibly not actually any more of a public good) in the same industry. Take this to its final analysis and the most expensive private schools (best able to cope with the legislative burden) would control most of the currently relatively well distributed assets of charitable private schools.
But it will be popular - it's a new variety on "evil bankers will pay for good stuff for me"
But it send a very clear, very unpleasant message.
The demonisation of a specific group of individuals - which seems at the heart of Labour's approach - is very worrying. What next: should all bankers be forced to wear little yellow strips of cloth on their arms to indicate their wealth?
Productivity lagging GDP and jobs growth is normal where a dynamic labour market is extant - we prefer to give people a job than leave them on the dole waiting for a job-for-life. cf. France.
GDP per capita is as weak as it is due to unskilled immigration. Do you think that we should restrict unskilled immigration to boost the earnings of those on lower wages?
Real Terms GDP is now higher than before the recession. Surely we should all applaud the recovery, or do we have the wrong type of growth?
Perhaps your fevered defence of the state system is because you had a producer interest in that failing system?
It's exactly what I expect from someone who accepted plaudits for saying he wouldn't vote Labour as long as Balls was near the top over the McBride scandal.
Now the election is near, it's all class war!
That was just appalling. St Vince piled onto that feeding frenzy IIRC. Shameful. Who would take on a poison chalice like that again.
I would be eligible, even though I was born in UK and lived here all my life, as have my parents, if my grandfather, rather than my grandmother, had been born aboard. She was born abroad whilst her N Irish father worked as a missionary. That's right - it only functions via the male line. It's out of date nonsense.
I don't think it's to do with kicking the rich. It's about fairness. Most people don't like the idea of people living in Britain and using it as a tax haven. Particularly when we have a government who are beating up the poor like they've never been beaten up before.
And of course no one can afford to buy in London or even rent because the influx of the non tax paying super rich have skewed property prices.
The Tories are doddery, arrogant, pompous and complacent. They've done an excellent job on pensions, the economy, infrastructure, welfare reform and education. But people are minded to support parties that share their values. And the marketing of the Tory brand, messaging on values, and taking the argument out to the electorate, to fight and win it from first principles, has been utterly woeful.
So we now face the prospect of an Ed Miliband led minority Labour government. Just because the Tories are a bit posh, look like they take office for granted, and seem to be enjoying it a bit too much.
it's an area I know very little about, and I find it hard to get worked up about. There are some obvious (and perhaps fallacious) dangers, as outlined below, and my instinct says it'll raise very little money. But do I care: nah.
For that reason, it'll be a vote winner. But a game changer? Nah.
I reckon Ed can put that down as a direct hit.