I knew I’d seen something on non-domicile tax before. Can you guess where I found this Tory research department document, suggesting that ending the tax status of non-domiciled workers would cost the economy between £5 and £10 billion a year?
“City of London tax: Liberal Democrats would ‘end the practice of giving non-domicile tax status’ (Liberal Democrats, Alternative Budget, Invest to Innovate, 8 March 2002, p.6).
Yet as the Evening Standard has warned, ‘a change in the tax status of non-domiciled resident individuals will devastate the London shipping business centred on the Baltic Exchange, cost thousands of City jobs, destroy London’s position as the international centre for shipping, undermine its ability to attract key foreign personnel in all its other areas of activity and result in a lower, not a higher, tax take for the Exchequer… When people talk about the competitiveness of the City, they usually refer to the number of foreign bankers and brokers who are happy to come here to work. These create the pool of talent that cements London’s position as the leading international financial centre. A change in the rules will make them want to leave London. There is nothing the Government could do that would give a bigger boost to Paris, Frankfurt and Zurich, the rival Continental financial centres’ (Evening Standard, 26 March 2002).
A study by economists at Numerica has observed that abolishing non-domicile tax status would knock between £5 billion and £10 billion off Britain’s GDP (cited in Sunday Telegraph, 3 August 2003).”
Where did I find it? On the Conservative party web site of course.
8 comments ↓
Tom, can you help me. Are you suggesting that certain rich people should not be taxed as much as you and me because otherwise they won’t play ball.
I am not disputing that you might be right but where does that leave tax justice? And is there not a moral problem when we are encouarged to dob benefit cheats who whilst there conduct is wrong, may actually have a terribly difficult time in meeting their needs for basic living purposes whilst a moral blackmail can be used by the super rich to keep their bills down and ostentatious living standards up? I have to say that your argument is fast converting me to revolutionary socialism. I might just have to join Mr Galloway.
I think Tom is suggesting that the Tories have slammed their tax plans into reverse. In 2002, they cited evidence that taxing non-domiciles was a bad thing. In 2007, they tell us that it is a good idea.
What are you on about? The Tories aren’t proposing a change in the tax status of non-domiciled workers – such people just need to pay a flat fee of £25k to retain their non-dom status. Sounds like an improvement on the current situation.
Mind you if you’re so keen on the non-dom situation which your party promised to overturn in 1997, maybe I’ll change my status to non-dom if you guys get another term – or I would if I trusted you as far as I can throw you.
You’ve already left the country Dominic. I’m sure I speak for many when I say that I hope you remain committed to your endeavours in Prague.
Rank hypocrisy from the sleazy Conservatives and a tax plan that doesn’t add up!
Total freedom of movement within the EU, so in some ways I haven’t left at all. When you resort to using my real name I know you’re rattled. I presume it’s because you can’t actually answer my comment which completely rebutted your assertions – or are you simply in election mode?
Fee or flat-rate tax – that’s just semantics. It will be administered by HMRC and will be regarded by the non-doms as a tax bill. If it looks like a tax bill and comes out of the tax office, I’d make a case for it being a tax. Non-progressive, obviously.
“A change in the rules will make them want to leave London.”
Who cares if they won’t pay tax here?
The logic of ‘don’t tax them or they’ll move away’ is a poor one. Firstly it accedes to the argument for the minimal state. If you tax people, they will move. Thus the primary social goal becomes to get people to stay here, rather than to get them to contribute; in which case you have to swallow the trickle down theory to believe that having them here is of any worth at all…
But secondly, and rather more seriously… well, surely if we tax the poor, they too will move. Right? Except they can’t.
Allowing the poor to pay more tax than the rich on the basis that the rich can afford to move away and the poor can’t is little more than an admission to state sanctioned discrimination (it’s OK to hold the poor to comparative ransom while the rich wallowing and enjoying freedom of movement to evade remains a key policy goal) and therefore manifest injustice… which might be occurring at the moment (I’m convinced that it is). But the goal in terms of the future should be to erase it.
So let’s start making some pragmatic steps towards that end.
Leave a Comment