Baptist and bootlegger spot

Baptists and bootleggers is the phrase meaning two wildly unlikely allies pursuing the same goal for their own reasons.

Baptists are in favour of prohibition because it stops peeps from consuming the demon booze: the bootleggers are in favour of prohibition for the profits to be made from supplying that now illegal demon booze.

Thus both Baptists and bootleggers support prohibition.

Duncan Bannatyne, the terror of Dragons’ Den, who has made no secret of his disdain for “non-doms” in the past, is taking his protest to the streets.

“There are too many people in this country who are non-doms, living here 365 days a year, paying no taxes,” Bannatyne tells Mandrake at a party to celebrate Piers Morgan’s leaving the country, to present Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN.

Firstly, of course, it isn\’t true that non-doms pay no taxes. They pay exactly the same domestic taxes as any other resident of the country. What they don\’t pay is tax upon their non UK earnings…..which they also keep offshore.

In this case the Baptists are such as R. Murphy: can\’t see an income without wanting to tax it. And Mr. Bannatyne here is the bootlegger.

For recall how it is that capitalists/VCs/entrepreneurs actually work. They\’re looking to put their money into that limited number of projects which offer the possibility of above market returns. And it is a limited number: and each VC is in competition with all of the others to identify and invest in them.

Some number of his fellow entrepreneurs (quite a large number actually) are non-doms. Either excluding them from the market or, in what is a roundabout manner of doing the same thing, increasing the tax burden upon them, reduces the competition that Mr. Bannatyne faces in the competition to identify and invest in those juicy situations.

Baptists and bootleggers: Murphy and Bannatyne are on the same side, arguing for the same thing, for entirely different reasons. Indeed, each would be horrified at the motivations of the other.

5 thoughts on “Baptist and bootlegger spot”

  1. Murphy and Bannatyne might well be horrified with each other’s position. As an occupant of the middle ground (or perhaps a sitter on the fence) both of them horrify me.

    If I were to meet either of them, I would like to have a small sick bag with me, just in case.

  2. “What they don’t pay is tax upon their non UK earnings…..which they also keep offshore”

    Is this strictly true? Can they not expatriate profits to a company in their low tax jurisdiction?

    Tim adds: To the same extent as anyone else, yes. But no more than anyone else.

  3. Murphy’s objection to the the non-domicile rule on the grounds of “inequality” always baffled me.

    The rule creates a powerful incentive for non-doms to keep their assets abroad rather than in the UK. So instead of bringing those gazillions onshore and, among other things, pushing up house and other asset prices even further through the roof for all of us, they do this in the South of France or Tuscany instead.

    It seems that domiciled Brits are getting the best of two worlds: the non-doms’ ingenutiy and entrepreneurial spirit without havinbg to see their success rubbed in our faces.

    Too difficult to understand for a retarded Southamton graduate?

  4. “which they also keep offshore.”

    This is a key fact conveniently forgotten by La Toynbee et al. If non-dom wants to spend his untaxed money here then he has to pay tax on it to remit it to the UK.

  5. “Is this strictly true? Can they not expatriate profits to a company in their low tax jurisdiction?”

    You missed a word out: “taxed”, as in “expatriate taxed profits”.

    We all have the freedom to take wodges of cash out of the country whenever we like. In fact, we tend to forget the horrors pre 1979 when Customs would frisk you for taking spending money on holiday.

    Are you advocating a return to capital controls?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *