Spin Time

[Stevo 666]

Sorry, we can't accept a publication that publishes paid content as news and which lurks behind a paywall. You'll need to find a real news source.

I quoted the relevant part to cover that eventuality. Just because you don't want to belive it doesn't mean it's not real.

But here are few others, there are plenty more. Feel free to comment.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exodus-millionaires-london-decade-analysis-b1223113.html

https://www.cityam.com/not-just-non...considering-leaving-the-uk-to-beat-tax-hikes/

https://moneyweek.com/personal-finance/tax/where-rich-relocate-to

 

[Stevo 666]

You didn't include a link to your source and, rather like the boy who cried wolf, we cannot trust your uncited sources due to the vast amount of guff you post.

 

[Ian H]

View attachment 8273

Not the best way of looking for the source material.

 

[Stevo 666]

Not the best way of looking for the source material.

Feel free to post any counter evidence. I'd be particularly interested in articles that show wealthy taxpayers flocking to the UK 😄

 

[icowden]

Feel free to post any counter evidence. I'd be particularly interested in articles that show wealthy taxpayers flocking to the UK 😄

An interesting factoid about the non-doms leaving the UK. Quite a lot of them are aged 60+. The sort of age when people retire to enjoy their wealth...

The younger ones tend not to be the ones leaving as they have jobs to do, families, social links etc.

 

[CXRAndy]

UK=>capital flight

If the UK cannot keep the wealthy, there will be further borrowing adding to more debt, less services

 

[Stevo 666]

An interesting factoid about the non-doms leaving the UK. Quite a lot of them are aged 60+. The sort of age when people retire to enjoy their wealth...

The younger ones tend not to be the ones leaving as they have jobs to do, families, social links etc.

That a weak claim. Why are the numbers increasing then as the tax environment becomes less friendly towards this set of taxpayers?

 

[Psamathe]

Re: Non-DOMs and taxation
I think our tax policy should be more about fairness and less about pandering to the already wealthy who don't want to contribute. If those with the broadest shoulders, those with high disposable income don't like the idea of paying tax then maybe theb UK is not the country for them.

When we are cutting disability payments, Winter Fuel Allowance putting many into fuel poverty, etc. when people already struggling are making further sacrifices I consider fairness maybe more important than maximising tax income.

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

Countries need wealth creators. They take risk, not afraid to fail, get up go again. This reaps get great rewards when successful.

You penalise them too much for being successful, they will take their skills and money elsewhere.

Broadest shoulders is bullshīt for pay the laziest of the country to do very little to nothing at all.

Graft, dedication and risk, rewards will likely come you way.

With rampant out of control social security in this country, I'm surprised that any rich 1% are actually left in the UK

 

[AndyRM]

 

[Psamathe]

Countries need wealth creators. They take risk, not afraid to fail, get up go again. This reaps get great rewards when successful.

You penalise them too much for being successful, they will take their skills and money elsewhere.

Broadest shoulders is bullshīt for pay the laziest of the country to do very little to nothing at all.

Graft, dedication and risk, rewards will likely come you way.

With rampant out of control social security in this country, I'm surprised that any rich 1% are actually left in the UK

Point is in relation to non-DOMs not broad general risk takers/investors many of whom will already be resident (and living) outside the UK and not subject to any UK taxation. eg a fair %age of my own savings/investments are overseas eg some of that is invested in the US and I pay no tax to US.

It's about paying tax in the country you are resident in.

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

Not all wealth creators are non dom.

Some non dom's have made their fortune elsewhere, decided UK was a nice place to live.

They usually either bring or create new ventures whilst in the UK, they buy expensive property, cars, jewellery all of which creates tax revenue for the UK.

You overtax them and they leave or relocate their business to save on wasted tax

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Well here is their website, so they do have DIE staff.https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/jobs-careers/equality-diversity-inclusion

There was a job posted I think for west Yorkshire police, starting salary was like £50k

Certainly savings to be made

Thanks for the link
it says
We are committed to promoting equality of opportunity, eliminating unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and promoting good relations for both employee and for the people of Lincolnshire

so - presumably - they are going to change this
or at least sacking (making redundant) anyone employed to help people achieve this aim

so - presumably they are no longer aiming to ensure equal opportunities for groups such as
woman
men
black people
asian people
white people
gay people
etc etc


in my experience the people who enforce these policies are focussed on making sure that the organisation employed the best person for the job
not making sure the black person gets the job
just making sure that that they find the best person and employ that person rather than someone else

not sure that the people of Lincolnshire want to change that??

and in any case - not doing it leave them open to discrimination cases
which cost money to fight and pay for

really doesn;t seem like a financially effective policy

but it does stick to the dog whistle shouty things that they can use in the future

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Oh no, not more Laffer's curve bollocks.

That curve always suggest to me that the taxation regime is not working properly

and if you made it properly then the people at the top might leave
maybe
BUT your tax revenue from the people from the middle upwards would increase greatly

and it would be seen as being much fairer

which is at least morally the right thing to do

 

[Stevo 666]

That curve always suggest to me that the taxation regime is not working properly

and if you made it properly then the people at the top might leave
maybe
BUT your tax revenue from the people from the middle upwards would increase greatly

and it would be seen as being much fairer

which is at least morally the right thing to do

As I asked someone else a little while ago and didn't get a reply: who gets to decide what is morally right in this case?