Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

It will be soon and they start taxing non doms, for the abramoviches £25K per year (proposed by torries) is nothing, for less well of non-doms £25K per year is a lot. I am planning my next move out of the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will be soon and they start taxing non doms, for the abramoviches £25K per year (proposed by torries) is nothing, for less well of non-doms £25K per year is a lot. I am planning my next move out of the UK.

Don't worry, you missed the point. It's a voluntary buy out that the taxpayer can choose or not.

If you claim non-dom and don't pay it, you may have to prove it. Anyway, I presume this is designed for the Brits who choose to go non-dom for tax purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest d23
as I understand it the non domicile proposals will means that man city workers - to whom 25k is no sml amount will want to go home - to paris, to fft to madrid - this could really hurt ldn housing - or have i misunedsrtood?

there is also the small matter of the Tories being in a position to enforce any of their proposals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I understand it the non domicile proposals will means that man city workers - to whom 25k is no sml amount will want to go home - to paris, to fft to madrid - this could really hurt ldn housing - or have i misunedsrtood?

It would mean that if i) they got elected, and ii) did not perform an odd number of U-turns before getting around to implementing it. If the recent performance is anything to go by, I would not bet on either happening.

I thought it amusing how the shadow chancellor tried to explain that he would not be setting up a new department tasked with trawling through people's offshore accounts, he just wanted non-doms to pay 25k each so he would not. It sounds suspiciously like a voluntary tax then.

I think there is a third condition in addition to the two above. Given that the new levy is supposed to replace IHT, I suspect there may be unjustified optimism about how much money can be raised. IHT brings in some UKP3.5e9 pounds, so the UKP25000 seems a bit as if they expect every single targeted non-dom to pay it (dividing 3.5b by 25k gives 140000 payers, which is the same order of magnitude as was mentioned on Today). Of course, most non-doms with substantially less than 25k in avoided tax will simply declare and pay it. The rest will either not care because it is a trivial amount to them, or emigrate, or avoid paying some other way (e.g. by invoking the provisions of a double taxation agreement). So maybe I should have added: and further provided that iii) the sums make sense and all non-doms who are asked will happily pay up without the IR having to incur large costs.

I imagine there are probably a few million people in the country who qualify for non-dom status, though I doubt that most of them have even a tenner in offshore income that they do not intend to bring onshore (where it would already be subject to tax, subject to the "source of income ceased over a year ago" rule). While it is not inconceivable that the proposals could add up, I somewhat suspect the numbers are much too optimistic. I would be grateful if someone could shed more light at this and/or correct my rather superficial analysis. Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slowly but surely the concept of domicile is being replaced by habitual residence. If and when Mr Osborne is able to effect any changes he will be dealing with completely different circumstances.

My 'Birthday Party' has views on taxation and domicile. They are as irrelevant as Mr Osborne's and didn't even make the news.

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?

The other side of this tax equation was the removal of Stamp Duty for FTBs/Removal of IHT. I've not seen any analysis of what would happen to property prices if this tax did go.

As far as I can determine house price inflation is driven by the massive amounts of money in the economy.

Removing this tax seems to be only marginal in its impact - you could easily end up in a situation in which house price inflation rises just as much as it did before (because so many FTBs are already priced-out and therefore irrelevant);

The tax books don't balance (because there aren't the individual non-doms / or the collection rates are too low), and the capable individuals are smart enough to avoid it anyway.

It doesn't seem to add up.

It strikes me as populist headline-grabbing, but not practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I understand it the non domicile proposals will means that man city workers - to whom 25k is no sml amount will want to go home - to paris, to fft to madrid - this could really hurt ldn housing - or have i misunedsrtood?

I don't understand why we don't just do what just about everywhere else in the world does and tax people on their worldwide income from the day they become resident (e.g. the US) or a fixed number of years after that date (e.g. Japan where it's 5). What's so controversial about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why we don't just do what just about everywhere else in the world does and tax people on their worldwide income from the day they become resident (e.g. the US) or a fixed number of years after that date (e.g. Japan where it's 5). What's so controversial about that?

It would reduce the tax take. The billionaires would depart, whereas those who stay might not bother to pay (as evidenced by the recent amnesty that would not be needed if everyone who should have coughed up did so without being asked). Having said that, there clearly is much to be said for a simple system that does away with arbitrary rules (e.g. who you married if you are a woman, or who your father was, or who his father was, etc. ). Also, it would be popular with the electorate, so may be seen as an attractive option by a political party, no matter how much damage it might do to the economy or the top-end property prices in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the removing stamp duty for FTBs which I don't think will work. Surely the market value of a property is determined by what a customer is willing to pay, not what proportion of the price paid goes to the Exchequer in tax? Unlike goods and services which have a relatively fixed value, property prices are determined almost entirely by a combination of market sentiment and ability to pay. For example, if new cars were suddenly exempted from VAT, manufacturers wouldn't suddenly whack their list prices up so that customers were paying them the 17.5% rather than the Government. But let's say for argument's sake that a house is attracting offers at around the £150k mark from would-be FTBs. If the stamp duty suddenly disappears, the potential customers making offers won't reduce them - they'll still pay the same £150k, but the seller will pocket the difference, not the Government. In many ways this is quite a clever political trick, because it's effectively handing a windfall to people who are already OOs while making FTBs think that the Conservatives are trying to help them. But I can't see that it'll make starter homes any more 'affordable'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would reduce the tax take. The billionaires would depart, whereas those who stay might not bother to pay (as evidenced by the recent amnesty that would not be needed if everyone who should have coughed up did so without being asked). Having said that, there clearly is much to be said for a simple system that does away with arbitrary rules (e.g. who you married if you are a woman, or who your father was, or who his father was, etc. ). Also, it would be popular with the electorate, so may be seen as an attractive option by a political party, no matter how much damage it might do to the economy or the top-end property prices in London.

I'm really not convinced about the tax take bit. Sure, there are places where you could get away with paying less - e.g. Hong Kong, Monaco etc - but the difference is already large enough that, if the people at the top end cared that much, we'd already see that effect and we don't. Remember that the tax rate (federal + state + city) for someone living in New York and earning big sums is around 50% of worldwide income from day 1 and I can't say I've ever noticed a shortage of uber-rich people there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My 'Birthday Party' has views on taxation and domicile. They are as irrelevant as Mr Osborne's and didn't even make the news.

p-o-p

Perhaps your 'Birthday Party' and my newly formed 'Suprise Party' should form a coallition?

Ideally, the 'Fancy Dress Party' would join us to form the all new 'Suprise Fancy Dress Birthday Party"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I can't see that it'll make starter homes any more 'affordable'.

Quite , but then how many politicians would stand up and say , 'actually what we need is an house price correction ,as this would make housing more affordable once again'.

The words ' political and suicide come to mind.

D :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IHT brings in some UKP3.5e9 pounds.

A HPC and associated asset deflation should drop many estates out of IHT in any case, so that 'black hole' will have to be filled in one way or another no matter what. Another black hole will open up as stamp duty receipts fall off a cliff. Lucky for Gordon he's not chancellor any more, really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps your 'Birthday Party' and my newly formed 'Suprise Party' should form a coallition?

Ideally, the 'Fancy Dress Party' would join us to form the all new 'Suprise Fancy Dress Birthday Party"?

Congratulations! I am sure that the Surprise Party will be instrumental in changing the landscape of British politics. The Birthday Party is happy to cooperate with other significant parties in matters of common interest.

Presently, the Birthday Party is sceptical about the value of working with the discredited older minority parties like the Fancy Dress Party and the Liberal Democrats. :rolleyes:

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 349 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.