If you are rich ...

WL you say that "foreign investors who put their money into the UK and use the UK financial system generate a huge proportion of the UK's total income" but that only benefits us in Britain if it is taxed. I hope you are not implying that you believe in the trickle down effect!

The rich in this country pay very little tax unless they choose to do so. They always threaten to leave the country when crack downs on avoidance, non domicile or higher rates are mooted but they never do.

The fact that "Currently 13% of private properties in our capital are foreign owned plus a further 36,000 central London properties belong to offshore investors" is only because we are a tax haven for foreign millionaires and crooks. It is not a good thing. It generates no benefit whatsoever to ordinary people and makes it even harder for people on ordinary incomes to buy a home. Some other countries don't allow non residents to buy property for this reason.

I find it very surprising that you think trying to make the rich pay a fairer share would be counter productive, but then under the Tories it's never going to happen anyway.

And more:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41893764

xmiles wrote:WL you say that "foreign investors who put their money into the UK and use the UK financial system generate a huge proportion of the UK's total income" but that only benefits us in Britain if it is taxed. I hope you are not implying that you believe in the trickle down effect!

The rich in this country pay very little tax unless they choose to do so. They always threaten to leave the country when crack downs on avoidance, non domicile or higher rates are mooted but they never do.  

The fact that "Currently 13% of private properties in our capital are foreign owned plus a further 36,000  central London properties belong to offshore investors" is only because we are a tax haven for foreign millionaires and crooks. It is not a good thing. It generates no benefit whatsoever to ordinary people and makes it even harder for people on ordinary incomes to buy a home. Some other countries don't allow non residents to buy property for this reason.

I find it very surprising that you think trying to make the rich pay a fairer share would be counter productive, but then under the Tories it's never going to happen anyway.

There are 2 questions that seem to be thrown together here - is it legal and is it a good thing.
As to the first, tax avoidance is legal and nearly everybody does it in some way or other (especially small businesses  ) but all the foreign money that funnels through the British financial and insurance sector is taxed and generated a massive £176 billion last year. Financial services are Britain's biggest export by a mile - although that is now under considerable threat thanks to Brexit with some financial institutions already relocating to the EU. Brits using foreign financial services and banking to reduce the tax they pay is simply the other side of the same coin. In that respect the rich are paying their fair share. In fact they pay far more than "ordinary people" as a rule - it's just that they are rich and have more to be taxed and often at a higher rate.
Whether it's a good thing or not is a different question and goes to the heart of capitalism and what kind of society we want. In brief, we historically promote the concept of personal wealth acquisition and "bettering ourselves financially" and in order to do so we set our tax laws so that whilst some people can get rich they are required to give more back to society (for providing a vehicle to get rich in the first place) However successive Governments have adopted a policy of not overtaxing the rich as they'd simply take their money (and resultant tax revenue) elsewhere. There's a balance to be struck and how we determine tax legislation is down to the Chancellor we elect. Personally I'm not sure if we'd be better off as a nation if we increased taxation on the rich - I genuinely don't know what the impact would be, but right now the UK depends on the rich to prop up our post-industrial economy. 

The third element is whether or not they break the laws we create - and if they do they are criminals in my mind and should suffer the consequences. But at the end of the day, we, the British people set and enforce the laws so it's up to us to make sure nobody cheats the nation out of the taxes we are due.

wanderlust wrote:

xmiles wrote:WL you say that "foreign investors who put their money into the UK and use the UK financial system generate a huge proportion of the UK's total income" but that only benefits us in Britain if it is taxed. I hope you are not implying that you believe in the trickle down effect!

The rich in this country pay very little tax unless they choose to do so. They always threaten to leave the country when crack downs on avoidance, non domicile or higher rates are mooted but they never do.  

The fact that "Currently 13% of private properties in our capital are foreign owned plus a further 36,000  central London properties belong to offshore investors" is only because we are a tax haven for foreign millionaires and crooks. It is not a good thing. It generates no benefit whatsoever to ordinary people and makes it even harder for people on ordinary incomes to buy a home. Some other countries don't allow non residents to buy property for this reason.

I find it very surprising that you think trying to make the rich pay a fairer share would be counter productive, but then under the Tories it's never going to happen anyway.

There are 2 questions that seem to be thrown together here - is it legal and is it a good thing.
As to the first, tax avoidance is legal and nearly everybody does it in some way or other (especially small businesses  ) but all the foreign money that funnels through the British financial and insurance sector is taxed and generated a massive £176 billion last year. Financial services are Britain's biggest export by a mile - although that is now under considerable threat thanks to Brexit with some financial institutions already relocating to the EU. Brits using foreign financial services and banking to reduce the tax they pay is simply the other side of the same coin. In that respect the rich are paying their fair share. In fact they pay far more than "ordinary people" as a rule - it's just that they are rich and have more to be taxed and often at a higher rate.
Whether it's a good thing or not is a different question and goes to the heart of capitalism and what kind of society we want. In brief, we historically promote the concept of personal wealth acquisition and "bettering ourselves financially" and in order to do so we set our tax laws so that whilst some people can get rich they are required to give more back to society (for providing a vehicle to get rich in the first place) However successive Governments have adopted a policy of not overtaxing the rich as they'd simply take their money (and resultant tax revenue) elsewhere. There's a balance to be struck and how we determine tax legislation is down to the Chancellor we elect. Personally I'm not sure if we'd be better off as a nation if we increased taxation on the rich - I genuinely don't know what the impact would be, but right now the UK depends on the rich to prop up our post-industrial economy. 

The third element is whether or not they break the laws we create - and if they do they are criminals in my mind and should suffer the consequences. But at the end of the day, we, the British people set and enforce the laws so it's up to us to make sure nobody cheats the nation out of the taxes we are due.

I don't dispute the importance of the financial sector to the British economy (or the irony that brexit is going to severely damage it) but I do disagree with you about whether the rich generally are paying their fair share of tax.

Using legal tax avoidance vehicles like overseas trusts and tax havens makes it easy for them to hide what they are doing. Most of the rich, by which I mean millionaires not people paying higher rate income tax, pay little or no tax. The most obscene example of this is the exploitation of the non domicile rules by people like Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere. He claims to be non domiciled yet was born in England, lives here with his wife and children and owns businesses here. He inherited his non domicile status from his father (like his money) and he effectively pays no tax on his income. Is this fair?

xmiles wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

xmiles wrote:WL you say that "foreign investors who put their money into the UK and use the UK financial system generate a huge proportion of the UK's total income" but that only benefits us in Britain if it is taxed. I hope you are not implying that you believe in the trickle down effect!

The rich in this country pay very little tax unless they choose to do so. They always threaten to leave the country when crack downs on avoidance, non domicile or higher rates are mooted but they never do.  

The fact that "Currently 13% of private properties in our capital are foreign owned plus a further 36,000  central London properties belong to offshore investors" is only because we are a tax haven for foreign millionaires and crooks. It is not a good thing. It generates no benefit whatsoever to ordinary people and makes it even harder for people on ordinary incomes to buy a home. Some other countries don't allow non residents to buy property for this reason.

I find it very surprising that you think trying to make the rich pay a fairer share would be counter productive, but then under the Tories it's never going to happen anyway.

There are 2 questions that seem to be thrown together here - is it legal and is it a good thing.
As to the first, tax avoidance is legal and nearly everybody does it in some way or other (especially small businesses  ) but all the foreign money that funnels through the British financial and insurance sector is taxed and generated a massive £176 billion last year. Financial services are Britain's biggest export by a mile - although that is now under considerable threat thanks to Brexit with some financial institutions already relocating to the EU. Brits using foreign financial services and banking to reduce the tax they pay is simply the other side of the same coin. In that respect the rich are paying their fair share. In fact they pay far more than "ordinary people" as a rule - it's just that they are rich and have more to be taxed and often at a higher rate.
Whether it's a good thing or not is a different question and goes to the heart of capitalism and what kind of society we want. In brief, we historically promote the concept of personal wealth acquisition and "bettering ourselves financially" and in order to do so we set our tax laws so that whilst some people can get rich they are required to give more back to society (for providing a vehicle to get rich in the first place) However successive Governments have adopted a policy of not overtaxing the rich as they'd simply take their money (and resultant tax revenue) elsewhere. There's a balance to be struck and how we determine tax legislation is down to the Chancellor we elect. Personally I'm not sure if we'd be better off as a nation if we increased taxation on the rich - I genuinely don't know what the impact would be, but right now the UK depends on the rich to prop up our post-industrial economy. 

The third element is whether or not they break the laws we create - and if they do they are criminals in my mind and should suffer the consequences. But at the end of the day, we, the British people set and enforce the laws so it's up to us to make sure nobody cheats the nation out of the taxes we are due.

I don't dispute the importance of the financial sector to the British economy (or the irony that brexit is going to severely damage it) but I do disagree with you about whether the rich generally are paying their fair share of tax.

Using legal tax avoidance vehicles like overseas trusts and tax havens makes it easy for them to hide what they are doing. Most of the rich, by which I mean millionaires not people paying higher rate income tax, pay little or no tax. The most obscene example of this is the exploitation of the non domicile rules by people like Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere. He claims to be non domiciled yet was born in England, lives here with his wife and children and owns businesses here. He inherited his non domicile status from his father (like his money) and he effectively pays no tax on his income. Is this fair?

I don't know much about this particular case other than he is loathed by the media (apart from his own?) but nondom means he doesn't live permanently in the UK and it only affects tax payable on income earned abroad in the first place. 
His UK profits from e.g. Daily Mail (Leave)/Mail on Sunday (Remain) are taxed as are the people he has created jobs for.
So unless he is breaking any laws - and it appears he isn't - I don't see the problem with him personally - but I do see a problem with the "inheritance of nondom status" aspect of the law itself as around 5 million Brits rich and poor alike qualify for nondom status either by birth or inheritance.
IMO if you are born abroad it's fair enough not to get taxed on foreign earnings, but I have serious doubts about allowing folk who are born in the UK to get the exemption if they are still living and trading in the UK based on "the intention" of not staying here permanently. For me there should be a direct link between using services paid for by the taxpayer and contributing to the society that provides them. More specifically there should be more rigorous criteria applied to defining what UK residency actually is - but that would require changes to the law and any such changes would have a knock on effect for other tax regimes - so again I can't be sure whether the overall effect on the economy would be a good or detrimental thing on balance.

We allow foreigners to set up businesses in the UK (some countries still don't) because it creates jobs in the UK and generates tax income from those businesses so overall it benefits the economy and for personal taxation purposes nondoms are treated in the same way we treat foreigners e.g. the Nissan executives who invest in car plants in the North East - we actively encourage them now that we have bugger all industry of our own.

Just to clarify the non domiciled point WL, "someone with non-domiciled status is a person living in the United Kingdom who is considered under British law to be domiciled (resident) in another country". So as Rothermere lives in the UK he should not be treated as non domiciled except that bizarrely HMRC allow people to inherit non domiciled status. Here is a link (which also lists some examples):
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0_Z6lrrTXAhWF2RoKHX1mCREQFgg7MAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_people_with_non-domiciled_status_in_the_UK&usg=AOvVaw0Ec51GSgNzjsi9ZUxhZFHv

As for the Daily Mail paying tax that seems very unlikely as the Daily Mail and General Trust is owned through a Bermudan company and a series of offshore trusts so that the principal beneficiary, the non-domiciled Lord Rothermere, can avoid tax on his income.

And it just keeps getting worse (but not for Tory party donors of course):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42096806

xmiles wrote:And it just keeps getting worse (but not for Tory party donors of course):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42096806

Incredibly depressing. Lets just hope that, as has often happened in the past, they are way off the mark.