So, how do we know this is bollocks?

Scrapping the non-dom scheme and taxing this income could raise more than £3.2bn in additional annual tax revenue, the researchers claimed.

….
However, the Warwick and LSE research, which is based on HMRC filings, claims that “only 0.3% of those affected would leave the country (fewer than 100 people), most of whom are paying hardly any tax under the current regime”.

That’s a very precise estimate. So, how can we test the truth of it?

Arun Advani, associate professor at Warwick’s economics department and Cage research centre, said

Ah, there we go, it’s bollocks.

Case solved.

10 thoughts on “So, how do we know this is bollocks?”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ only 0.3% of those affected would leave the country (fewer than 100 people), most of whom are paying hardly any tax under the current regime “

    Aren’t they buying goods and services? Presumably they’re so rich they’re employing staff?

    And £3.2Bn? That’s a rounding error in Govt finances.

    Green Eyed monster bias.

  2. They are paying all of the tax due on their UK income and earnings which while unlikely to exceed the £3.2bn quoted in the article will undoubtedly make a pretty big dent in it.

    “Oh but that’s different”.

  3. It appears that the Grauniad writer is unaware that UK has double taxation agreements with the countries where most of the overseas income arises such that the tax paid in the country of origin is offset against UK tax payable (up to a limit of the top UK tax rate, we don’t refund the excess where the local tax is higher than UK).
    So the £3.2bn is utter bollocks

  4. Remember, remember the 1970s, 83% top rate plus 15% supertax on unearned income. That worked so well. Hardly any rich folk went abroad – they had all cleared off already.

  5. Don’t non-doms live outside the country? So how would they figure someone well-off enough to live comfortably outside the UK, with social and business ties to their country of residence, won’t be pretty willing to just drop UK citizenship if it becomes too inconvenient?

    Being a UK citizen already imposes burdens outside the UK – you’re not supposed to bribe the locals, to start with – that most countries don’t impose.

  6. Don’t non-doms live outside the country?

    No. Those are non-resident. Non-domiciled are those that are resident in the UK but aren’t UK citizens, typically being foreign types that have come for work or married UK citizens. They get the choice of either being taxed on their worldwide income or paying between £30,000 and £60,000 (depending on how long they’ve been resident in the UK) to exclude their foreign income.

    Worked for Rishi Sunak’s wife (for him, not so much ), but you need to have a large foreign income to justify the standing charges.

    All very Victorian, but the reason why we’ve lots of dodgy Oligarchs buying property and spunking money away in London. Without the non-domicile rules they’d probably go elsewhere with lower residential taxes.

    Personally, I dislike Non-domicile taxation because it allows more favourable treatment for foreigners than it does for those born and bred hear. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth, even though I understand the economic argument about the value that these wealthy foreigners brings is greater than just their tax take.

  7. He’s been having a right proper cry on Twitter about how nasty you are, Tim.

    If he doesn’t like his work being referred to as bollocks, why does he constantly write such unadulterated bollocks? Do incentives not matter?

  8. So I’ve been told. I’ll have to drop the dismissive attitude and actually address his specific claims in future.

Leave a Reply

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