Won’t this piss Ritchie off?

Labour’s latest policy was further undermined when when Jolyon Maugham, a tax barrister who helped Labour develop the policy, admitted that it may result in an “enormous flight” of wealthy taxpayers from Britain.

He said he believed the policy could raise up to £1billion, but admitted that there was a risk of a “negative tax yield”.

Because, of course, Ritchie is already claiming that it wsa ‘im what done it.

40 thoughts on “Won’t this piss Ritchie off?”

  1. Shouldn’t a party have some idea of the effect of a policy before proposing it?

    Or is that just crazy talk?

  2. Morning:. “It will raise hundreds of millions, maybe billions.”

    Afternoon: “That isn’t really me a couple of months back saying it would cost us money. You doctored the tape.”

    Evening: “it doesn’t matter whether it does or doesn’t, that’s not why I ‘m doing it.”

    Yep the pattern speaks for itself, it’s Ritchie.

  3. If one goes to a conference with HMRC and tax advisors and one says one has some emperical evidence of sorts about the effect of the non-dom rules and one is then swamped both by HMRC and the advisors…well, one is entitled to conclude that NOBODY knows the effect of the rule changes.
    So yes, the two Eds are talking rat’s-shit. Jolyon Maughem most definitely has not been btw.

  4. La Farage said he wants a poorer country with fewer immigrants, so by analogy, what exactly is wrong with wanting a lower tax take from a system that treats people (in this case British billionaires vs non-dom billionaires) more equally?

    Also, I thought ‘tarians were in favour of lowering the tax take.

  5. Maybe it’ll raise more tax, maybe less – but on the grounds of simplicity and equity I think that Richie and Ed are on the right side of this.

    The only sensible alternative (which can be argued, but isn’t being, is that *none* of us should be taxed in the UK on our overseas income.

    Even a mentally ill clock might be right once a year.

  6. In a breathtakingly self-laudatory and smug post, the ‘Downham Market Dimwit’ proclaims:

    ‘The City may not like this but up and down the country the 99% will. And in a democracy they count.’

    Who elected Murphy and craven lickspittles like Andrew Dickie and Howard Reed (No Mark Crown – must be on vacation) or even mass murderer Carol Willcox as ‘the voice of the 99%’ – the arrogance of these people is breathtaking. I do think that the non-Dom rules might need better enforcement and some minor changes but the idea that anyone can state with any certainty what will happen in terms of revenue (especially people so ignorant of basic facts like disincentives) is quite comical. The sooner we can start ‘voluntarily’ repatriating these people under pain of a Socialist tax to North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba the better. Absolute morons and insufferably humourless blowhards.

  7. BinG/TTG

    Only a certain type of arsehole thinks you don’t need a tax base (I have a feeling the arseholes in question are about to start screaming).
    Another type of arsehole believe stax isn;t primarily about raising revenue for government spending (see MMT).
    I am not either of these types of arsehole (yeah, yeah, whatever).
    So:
    1. Of course the non-dom rules are unfair – that really isn’t worth saying, move on.
    2. They are a bribe to people to come in to the UK..and bring their investments AND pay some tax (oh yes they do!).
    3. These bribes work – Ed Balls recognises that.
    4. The Eds AREN’T offering a new, simpler, fairer system. They are now proposing a ‘tax holiday’..to students and footballers and stuff – oh how very fair.
    2. But they a

  8. @Ironman

    When we talk of the NHS here we, rightly, mention that if it was such a good idea them someone else would be doing it.

    So why doesn’t anyone else think it’s a good idea to bribe billionaires in this fashion?

    That’s a genuine question.

    We do, I think, bat well above our average when it comes to having super-rich foreigners hanging about. And we can’t attract them the Monaco way. And it only works for us because we have London.. a place these people would live in.. few other countries have an equivalent ‘location bait’ to make a tax bribe effective. So, I guess, I can see why we might think that *if* we want a bribe, non-dom status is a good one.

    But the default position should be that we shouldn’t use the tax system to bribe people… it’s just a shame that no politician seems quite so keen to apply the same reasoning elsewhere in the tax code. Whilst the result of this might be good and proper, the motives are not.

    But, on principle, I can only agree with it.

  9. TTG

    Others do bribe them. A stock answer (Jolyon Maughem) is that new York has more millionaires than London without the bribe, proof we don’t need the non-dom rule. Ye Joyon has also noted that Zurich has many more per head of population that New or London, as does Dubai. so tax really DOES play a big role.
    To be fair, an attractive tax environment has a much bigger role in initially attracting inward movement than an unattractive evirnment has in driving it away, people put down roots etc.

  10. So Much for Subtlety

    Why is anyone surprised? Obama said he would support higher capital gains tax, even if it reduced revenue, because it would create a fairer America.

    Immigration brings in next to no benefits to Britain – in economic terms it is more or less a zero net benefit. But how do you put a price on a 12 year old girl being gang raped? Immigration has made us poorer. Much poorer. Just look on what we have to pay for crime – much of it related to immigrants, or their children.

  11. SMFS – spot on.

    The immigration debate has been couched in econmoinc terms as the numbers are hihg;ly subjective, and poeple get bored by the arguments.

    However the cost to the country in social terms has been enormous. And the left simply don’t care. It’s about “rubbing the right’s nose in diversity”, harvesting votes and smashing the institutions to bits.

  12. Jesus this blog has become pitiful.

    There cannot be any discussion here, on any subject it seems, without Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS coming on a spouting his racist bollocks.

    And yes, immigration has indeed produced great benefits to the UK. Lots of problems as well, obviously, but a clear net gain.

  13. Christie

    This time I think you might be. Different tax rates flowing from different uses of capital will undoubtedly affect investment decisions. Why we should actively encourage people to take their money offshore is unclear to me to day the least.

  14. This time I think you might be. Different tax rates flowing from different uses of capital will undoubtedly affect investment decisions. Why we should actively encourage people to take their money offshore is unclear to me to day the least.

    I just don’t think they will. Not when there are other ways of sheltering your money (pensions, ISAs). Why forego the cast-iron savings protections afforded by the UK in favour of the shaky protection of some dodgy foreign regulator? And, in any case, you’d still have to pay UK tax when you repatriate the money so it wouldn’t save you any tax. But it would save you a lot of hassle.

  15. TTG,

    > So why doesn’t anyone else think it’s a good idea to bribe billionaires in this fashion?

    Fair point, but it cuts both ways. Why hasn’t any previous British government of any flavour thought it was a good idea to stop bribing billionaires in this fashion? Even the bastards who introduced a 95% top rate of income tax apparently thought non-dom should stay.

  16. Paul Staines is trumpeting the benefits of residence in southern Ireland if the tax-dodging Millionaireband wins the election with even fewer votes than Blair.
    The point of non-dom rules is that the person should be paying tax on income in each country on income in that country and on on miscellaneous income in the country where he/she is domiciled. This is why it was invented and it could be explained to all MPs at the time, because they had a basic education. Modern residence rules allow one to be resident in three countries at once so only a moron or a left-wing politician would expect someone to pay top-rate tax on world-wide income in every country of residence.

  17. Ironman: while it’s plausible that the totality of immigration yields a net economic benefit, it doesn’t follow that this applies to all immigrant groups. Specifically, US studies show low skilled immigration yields a net cost.
    And, so far as I know, no immigration cost/benefit study has factored in the costs of increased crime levels.

  18. @ JeremyT
    There was massive condemnation of the immigrant Russian Jews like Michael Marks a bit over a century ago.
    Forty-odd years ago I was denouncing one particular immigrant group comprising foreign-born newspaper proprietors with names starting with ‘M’, but at least my condemnation was based upon some scientific analysis.
    Any sensible immigration policy will exclude those guilty of acts which are defined as crimes in *this* country.

  19. JeremyT

    As the imbecilic immigrant comment did not offer any differentiation between immigrant groups and was introduced into a post on domicile rules, I think it fair to point out that the non-dom rules have absolutely no impact whatsoever on low skilled immigrants.

  20. If SMFS’s remarks make any sense at all, he was saying that we should abolish non-dom status so as to deter rapist immigrants.

    The Telegraph’s story seems to be that people who make money advising non-doms think that non-doms are a good thing. And it’s got a few words it claims to be quoting from Jolyon Maugham, without giving a source. If he did say those things, it’s a fair bet that the Telegraph has taken them wildly out of context, because his actual views are on his blog.

  21. PaulB

    Jolyon has a couple of posts on his blog over the past few month. His earlier opinions are stronger as he was more inclined to acknowledge fully the impact on decisions that tax can have. He has become more partizan, certainly on Twitter, the closer we have got to the election.
    The truth is though he really has no idea of the actual fiscal impact of any change- and neither does anyone else really. What we can do though is consider from first principles and logic the ECOMOMIC impact of particular changes. For example, scrapping the hereditary element would not have much negative impact at all. These people are’British ‘ in the sense of raised – probably born here; they are less likely to up and leave. Limiting the number of times nom-dom status can be claimed on a return would have a reduced impact the higher the number of goes one can have. A limit of twenty returns would have no negative impact at all; the 4 year tax holiday will keep any serious money well away from the UK. And the remittance basis – we will tax your overseas income and gains if you remit them to the UK – is plain bonkers, having exactly the opposite effect to the one intended.
    Domicile is ready for reform; but the first reform must be to banish Ed Miliband to that academic career he deserves.

  22. Well, at least Ireland has non-dom-like rules, as do certain Swiss cantons (Pauschalbesteuerung).

    The idea being that rich people being here and paying some taxes and spending lots of money into the local economy is better than them being elsewhere.

    And the Swiss left just lost a referendum to abolish it, partly on the basis of stats relating to how much taxes would have to go up in certain cantons like VD if all the people in Pauschalbesteurerung buggered off elsewhere – for VD it was equivalent to a rather ungodly number of average taxpayers that those in the special regime contributed – can’t remember the figure, but in a canton of 750k souls it was a significant number..

  23. abacab

    Yes indeed. And this is my big problem with Jolyon Maughem’s latest apparent position.(as of today). The certainty with which the cheerleaders are saying “They won’t leave” just isn’t supported by any real world empiricals. I repeat, Jolyon’s own position a few weeks ago was that the non-dom rules DO impact.

  24. Ironman,

    The CH situation, given the principle of internal tax competition, is more complicated – there’s not only buggering off outside the borders, there’s also moving to low-tax cantons like ZG, SZ and ZH.

    Which is why people voted not to abolish it at federal level (some cantons already had abolished it, and people did move).

  25. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “And yes, immigration has indeed produced great benefits to the UK. Lots of problems as well, obviously, but a clear net gain.”

    Immigration has brought no clear benefits to Britain at all. Again, in economic terms the gains, if any, are small. The social problems are enormous and obvious. Not a clear net gain. In fact I doubt if you put it to most British people they would agree that immigration policy has been anything other than a disaster for the UK. Again how do you put a price on a raped 12 year old?

    My point did not make a distinction between different types of immigrant. And that is precisely why it is not racist. Of course you’re a bit slow and used to the norms of CiF where shouting “racist” wins arguments. But here it doesn’t.

  26. Mr Interested-Ecks-SMFS

    A valuable contribution as always; up to your usual standards. I think PaulB summed you up best earlier.

  27. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “If SMFS’s remarks make any sense at all, he was saying that we should abolish non-dom status so as to deter rapist immigrants.”

    Not at all. I am merely pointing out that stupidly simplistic comments about immigration are problematic. We need a more nuanced discussion of the benefits and costs. This is especially true as not all costs are down on the balance sheet. Raped girls, for instance, do not count to calculating our GDP and hence do not count as a cost of immigration. The bars and alarms virtually all of us have to have in our homes these days may even be a positive good as far as an economist is concerned – all those broken windows may contribute to the GDP but they do not count towards what matters which is quality of life. A quality of life that has consistently gone down in proportion to the number of immigrants, especially those that are poor and non-European, living near by.

  28. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “A valuable contribution as always; up to your usual standards. I think PaulB summed you up best earlier.”

    Thank you my little Guardianista. This is better than your usual response.

  29. So Much for Subtlety

    john77 – “There was massive condemnation of the immigrant Russian Jews like Michael Marks a bit over a century ago.”

    Not without cause either. After all, those Jews and their children went on to give Britain virtually all the Communist Parties we had. A reasonable number of them spent their whole lives working to make sure the Soviet Army would have a friendly reception when it finally landed in East Anglia. Eric Hobsbawm for instance. We had a very narrow escape from the Gulag.

    “Any sensible immigration policy will exclude those guilty of acts which are defined as crimes in *this* country.”

    And yet our asylum policy works almost exactly the opposite way. This is why we end up with Islamist extremists. Their behaviour might have been illegal in this country, but in their own countries it might get them tortured.

  30. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “I wonder if there’s a topic Tim could blog about that SMFS wouldn’t drag race into.”

    Don’t know. Let’s see. But we can probably agree that a thread on immigrants is going to be a thread about immigration.

    Not that I have dragged race in to it. Not mentioned it once.

  31. You said that non-European immigrants are worse than European ones and you complained that Jews are traitors. Are you so stupid you can’t read your own comments?

  32. So Much for Subtlety

    Squander Two – “You said that non-European immigrants are worse than European ones and you complained that Jews are traitors. Are you so stupid you can’t read your own comments?”

    I definitely can read my own comments and I said neither of those things. I did say that Jews were disproportionately represented in Britain’s Communist Parties. This is neither untrue or exactly a secret. That is not the same as saying all Jews are traitors. I think Eric Hobsbawm was, but that still don’t make all Jews responsible for his actions.

    You are following the usual Guardian script of insisting bad people say the sort of bad things you want them to say. Which justifies your self-righteousness. Rather than, you know, dealing with what they do say.

  33. @ SMFS
    Karl Marx was a German “Jew” not a Russian one. Michael Marks, a Russian Jew, was a self-made millionnaire philanthropist. Most Russian Jews who came here to evade the pogroms were believers: the Communist “Jews” were non-believers.

Leave a Reply

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