Gerard Lyons
Dubai rescue scramble shows we need to consider a citizenship tax
Passport taxation makes you a helot of the State by accident of borth.
It will also increase taxes upon everyone. For it will be more difficult to escape high taxation, this shifts the Laffer Peak to the right, therefore taxes will rise to that level.
I am surprised he is thick enough to fall for the claims that hundreds of thousands of expats are trying to flee the Middle East at the Treasury’s expense. Most expats are staying put, because they have jobs and lives to get on with. However there were many British tourists and holidaymakers stranded due to cancelled flights and British media scum have been deliberately conflating these people with “tax dodging expats” in dishonest ragebait stories.
The Hate Mail has gone a step further and is claiming that fleeing Dubai expats are causing rents to rise dramatically in posh neighbourhoods all over the country. Which is obvious bollocks, but has done its job and got many of the denser and less happy inhabitants of Airstrip One upset,
By dedicating 2 hours daily to this online job, I brought in $16,453 last month. It’s incredibly simple to start and doesn’t require any specific skills, making it perfect for anyone. For a student like me, this has been the ultimate solution to balancing my studies and finances…
.
For More………………. Rb.gy/axcdam
Suggest you read the title of this post.
I asked the InterTube…..
“Do UK citizens extracted from a conflict zone on Foreign Office advice have to pay a fee?”
And was told….
“Usually, yes — UK citizens evacuated by the government from a crisis or conflict zone are normally expected to pay for the transport (or repay it later).
How it generally works
According to UK government guidance from the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO):
If the government organises charter flights or other transport because commercial options are unavailable, British nationals may be charged an appropriate fee for their seat.
If someone cannot pay upfront, the government may allow them to travel but provide the cost as a short-term loan that must be repaid later.
In many evacuations people must sign an undertaking agreeing to repay the cost of evacuation.
In practice, the price is usually similar to the cost of a commercial flight, not the full military/charter cost.
Why the UK charges
The UK government’s policy is that citizens abroad are primarily responsible for their own travel arrangements, and the government only steps in when commercial routes are unavailable. Charging helps discourage people from waiting for a government evacuation rather than leaving earlier when advised.
What happens in real evacuations
In recent evacuations (e.g., from the Middle East), British nationals offered seats on government flights were generally required to pay for them, while vulnerable people were prioritised.
Exceptions
Sometimes costs may be reduced, waived, or covered temporarily in exceptional circumstances, but this is not guaranteed and depends on the specific crisis and government decision.
Summary:
Government evacuation help is possible but not guaranteed.
If transport is provided, citizens normally pay or repay the cost (often roughly equivalent to a commercial ticket).
If someone cannot pay immediately, the government may provide a repayable loan.
If you want, I can also explain how the UK approach compares with the US, EU countries, and others, which handle evacuation costs slightly differently.”
So the hate-mongers are actually talking bollox – which, it seems, the FCO don’t want to counter. I wonder why?
So UK citizens get help from their government but have to pay for it.
I wonder why we give non UK citizens all the free stuff, including assistance with getting from France to the UK, somewhere to live, medical care, education for their kids, pocket money, (cont. p94)…..?
It’s racism not to give your money to foreigners??
wot shiney said. I thought everybody knew this. I would tell this to European/American beggers in Hong Kong. Go to’ t’embassy and get a flight loan home.
Do you get many western beggars in honkers? Some junkies maybe, but do you actually see any other kind?
So UK nationals who have chosen to leave the UK, not pay taxes and go to live among muslims are owed anything by people who do pay taxes, can’t move to the middle east and live among muslims without choice.
(Also, do we have the means to transport even a small pproportion of the Dunkirk-sized numbers that have been bandied about? This is a made-up issue. It doesn’t need to be done and it won’t be.)
They still pay taxes on UK earnings. I don’t see what call we would have on anything they earn overseas.
Perhaps we should tax everybody who lives abroad?
Perhaps we are free to live abroad but have no expectation that the state will fix it for us if it goes wrong. Or should I say no guarantee.
As I said – they have to pay if they want a flight home. And your point is?
Only foreigners, shirley.
The one time right of centre Torygraph has gone full MTK in lying to its readers to score a political point…
How interesting. So the proposal is the Government monetise the cost to the UK of having its citizens living & working in forrin tax juristictions & charge them for it. An the piece we’ve read implies it will tax neutral because UK resident taxpayers won’t be picking up the costs. Sounds remarkably like Pigou taxation to me. Shirley, it won’t move the Laffer peak to the right because taxation on UK resident taxpayers will be reduced accordingly.
Yet Tim’s claiming Government will just use it to increase the total tax take. If that’s you’re presumption Tim, why are you always in favour of Pigou taxation? The concept should only belong in the world of Theoretical Economics along with MMT & communism.(And I’d say libertarianism) Nice idea but not what’s going to actually happen, according to you.
Agreed, BiS
USA taxes citizens wherever they reside. No evidence that I can see that this has shifted the Laffer curve.
And UK does tax ex pats, a bit. It costs £140 to renew a passport.
Yep. BUT…… they get a foreign earned income exclusion and a foreign tax credit if they pay tax in their country of res.
And obvs US tax rates are generally quite low compared to ours.
US income tax is lower, but property taxes are generally higher (which expats won’t pay, if they’ve sold their US residence). In most European countries (except for Monaco) US citizens are unlikely to have any extra income tax to pay to the IRS.
The forms are a complete pain in the arse though.
There is no transaction whereby HM Treasury is paying people to live abroad, therefore there is no cost to the Treasury and no externality… since no transaction.
Since we still trapped here have to pay our “Fair Share of Tax”™️ for all the wonderful public services like (bang pans) NHS, and since citizens who have escaped the asylum don’t enjoy those marvellous rewards, why should they pay for something they do not receive?
If they did, it would mean a transaction is taking place between Government and the asylum inmates but the full cost of which is not met by the joyous captive population, and part of the cost is external and falls on those extra-mural who do not benefit, but lose. There then would be an externality and to correct this a Pigou Tax must be applied to the asylum dwellers and paid to those who have escaped over the wall living in the sane World.
Or just don’t tax ex-pats.
“There is no transaction whereby HM Treasury is paying people to live abroad, therefore there is no cost to the Treasury and no externality… since no transaction.”
There is a cost to HMT of expats – they can come back and use UK public services at the drop of a hat, having paid nothing towards them for years. There should be a quid pro quo. If the UK government is not going to tax you when you move abroad, you should lose the right to use UK public services for the same period of time that you’ve been away when you come back. No pay, no play. The same should apply to immigrants of course. If you come here aged 25, pay in for 7 years until you get any NHS/schools/benefits/housing.
If you retire to Spain for a decade or two, and then decide when you’re getting totally decrepit to come back to the ‘free’ NHS, hard luck chum, pay up!
So if someone arrives in this country, doesn’t work for well over ten years, and uses public services for that period, they shouldn’t be allowed? Is that what you want?
Sounds fair to me. If someone arrives in this country it should be up to them to support themselves. If they can’t then they can fuck off somewhere else.
I suspected someone would say something as stupid as that. The vast majority of people do not support themselves for the first ten years that they are in this country. The only ones who do are immigrants because those born here very rarely get a job before they are 10 years old.
Charles Literalist Clown.
Most children born here are being supported by their parents, not the State. Children aren’t “people”. They’re a specific sub-category which we deem too young to work.
Sometimes “Ooh look, a squirrel” doesn’t work.
Charles’ use of the word ‘arrives’ was intended as sleight of hand to set respondents up for what he likes to think of as a pratfall. So he conflates the arrival of a baby with the arrival of a stabfugee.
Twat.
By George, I think you’ve got it!
Yes!!!!!
Do British expats come back and use public services “at the drop of a hat”? I suffered a bad ear infection while in the UK after Christmas. As I am not registered with a GP I used a private service at considerable expense.
Someone who has retired to Spain, has a working lifetime of taxation. Furthermore, the idea of people returning to the UK in order to reap the “benefits” of the NHS is increasingly unlikely.
Firstly ‘A life time of taxation’ does not pay for future use. It pays for current use. The only reason the NHS exists today is because of the taxes paid today, not your taxes paid decades ago.
Secondly, yes it is (or perhaps more accurately was, given the current state of the ‘service’) common for UK citizens who live abroad to long periods then to ‘retire’ to the UK, safe in the knowledge they can access the NHS having paid little in to it over the years. I know an elderly couple who spent most of their working lives in Africa as missionaries. Then retired back to the UK and currently are availing themselves of free medical care on a regular basis (quite a bit of which is probably covid vaccine inspired but thats another argument).
Thirdly its not just free healthcare. There’s free schools, housing and welfare. They all need paying for, so either pay, or not get the benefit in future.
The whole point of social insurance is that the fit, healthy workers pay in taxes that then fund services to be used by the unhealthy non-workers. If you disappear during the ‘paying in’ phase, why do you think you should qualify for the ‘taking out’ phase?
Going and working abroad should be seen rather like moving from paid employment to self employment – you can get more money, but you get less statutory benefits as a result.
Tim argues that the State should have no call on it citizens incomes when they leave their State of birth. The corollary of this argument should be there is no responsibility to provide anything for the prodigal son when he returns. If your birthright does not mean you have any duty to pay anything towards that birthplace, then the birthplace has no duty to look after you either.
I think my proposal would solve a lot of the problems we see today. If actually living in the UK and paying taxes for a period of time was required before you qualified for UK State benefits of all kinds then it would put off loads of immigration. Indeed you might not need an immigration policy, as the only people who could afford to come here would be highly paid ones. Similarly people who go and work abroad would face a choice – continue to pay UK taxes or lose access to UK services if/when you return. Many might choose to either stay, or pay taxes on their expat earnings, thus boosting the UK’s coffers. What is unfair about any of that?
Personally I would make UK State pension payable only in the UK. Make the money stay within the UK. If you want to retire to the sun, pay for it yourself. The UK State pension is funded by UK taxpayers today. If you aren’t one, then you don’t get one.
That the state pension is funded by today’s payments is not the deal we all sign up to: 40 years of past contributions paid for that.
The bonus for the Treasury, if the retired recipient is no longer resident, is a lower current NHS bill (for said oldie) for the younger ones to have to cover. Get a few more budding rocket scientists and specialist doctors onto those dinghies and the finances are looking good…
“That the state pension is funded by today’s payments is not the deal we all sign up to: 40 years of past contributions paid for that.”
No they didn’t, you were lied to. And you signed up to nothing. Show me the contract – there isn’t one. And the courts have already told us political manifestos are not legally binding. The State pension is a welfare benefit, not a legal entitlement. It could be deferred, reduced, or even removed entirely (it already has been the first of those, and almost certainly will be at least one of the others in due course) and you’d have no recourse whatsoever in law. Just as we would (or should) not allow someone to claim other welfare payments if they weren’t living in the UK, the State pension should be likewise geographically limited.
That is indeed where I start grinding my teeth. It’s still better than giving MadEd the keys to the kingdom but…..
So you gave the keys to the kingdom to the thieving Paki. That’s s’posed to be better?
And I’m still waiting for you to give an example of a Pigou tax does what it says on the tin.
Very much OT but relevant to recent discussions about energy pricing.
https://euroweeklynews.com/2026/03/14/why-your-spanish-electricity-bill-just-jumped-58-to-pay-for-an-anti-blackout-shield/?utm_source=auto-newsletter-1602&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AutoNewsAlert
What happens in a country with a high proportion of renewables in its energy mix. 58% surcharge on electricity bills
Incidentally. The solution; “allowing renewable plants to provide voltage control” sounds like a recipe for another countrywide blackout to me.
They can’t help themselves, it’s a Pavolian reaction: every time someone criticises wind and/or solar respond with gas is more expensive.
And as for the solutions:
Anyone wanting to bet these will priced correctly?
Locally, we’ve got a darkly humorous battle between those greenies who want to turn the old Catholic school into a battery plant, and those who have suddenly become NIMBYs.
If the mains supply voltage goes down, my constant voltage transformers will just draw more current!
And that is where you run into the iron fist of Ohm’s Law. Dissipated power goes up as the square of the current. This is why brownouts are so damaging. Motors and transformers continue to try to do their job, drawing more current and quickly start heating up and burning out. Your switching power supply may be able to handle it, but many electrical appliances will not.
If you get into the cost calculations and the various cost-shifting I think you will find that running 100% gas and not building the solar plants in the first place would have been cheaper for the ratepayers.
Solar in the UK is a complete scam, it always was.
Solar used for running office air-conditioning plants works in the UK as everywhere else because output is closely correlated with need.
Any idea of the m2 of solar panels required to provide 1 m2 floor space of AC? (in the UK, fag-packet numbers. Assume standard office at 21C, English peak summer)
I’m genuinely interested, & guess the ratio will be large,
It’s improved a lot since I originally did the calculations so I googled and it appears that 1 sq.m of solar panel will supply enough power for the air conditioning of 8 sq.m of office space.
It’s one of those “leave it to the market” wossnames. Solar panels have improved watt per price of square metre of wossname more than 200 fold since the 1980s. No need to make anything illegal, just let people be greedy little basterds.
“… solar and wind are cheaper but less controllable when stabilising voltage in real time.”
I see the “cheaper” fallacy has been dealt with by another commentator.
However there is a clear misunderstanding. It is not about voltage regulation – the tolerance for voltage variation is quite high 220V to 240V, the main factor is frequency regulation. The grid MUST run at 50Hz +/- less than 1Hz. That 50Hz is set by spinning generators (steam and/or gas turbines) spinning at 3 000rpm.
These machines not only set grid frequency, but because of their kinetic energy and the fact the have speed governors controlling them, they provide robust inertia and resistance to change in frequency caused either by increased or reduced demand on the grid.
Wind/solar/batteries cannot do this. Their frequency is set by the grid, they do not set frequency for the grid. Lacking inertia, they are very sensitive to frequency change and will leave the grid if frequency falls out of the +/- 1Hz tolerance.
This is what happened in Spain when 73% of grid supply was “unreliables” most of it solar. A fault at one solar array caused a frequency blip, which affected other arrays which dropped out causing another frequency blip which then had a cascade effect across the whole Iberian Peninsula and South West France via the interconnector.
What shocked (grin) everybody was that it took less than half a second to shut down the grid, and in fact the frequency variation was only about 0.3Hz, well within the normal tolerance.
What it shows is what those paying attention have been saying for some time, build as many windmills, sunbeam traps and batteries as you like, but we shall still need a parallel gas-fired generating capability to match capacity for back-up and to provide grid, frequency stability = Cost x 2 plus. This is why electricity prices will keep going up, and the aim of reducing CO2 cannot be achieved.
The latest bright idea is massive flywheels. It might even work.
What will that do with a sudden load change? Perhaps they need sensitive off switches too.
Wind and solar are very sensitive to frequency because the govt, via the regulator, says they should. They are also sensitive to rate of change of voltage. That is all there for safety reasons – to ensure not damaging wind & solar by trying to work into a short circuit. Of course this promotes the Spanish Disease, which we will also suffer in the not too distant future if Mad Ed is not stopped
Yes: “allowing renewable plants to provide voltage control” is along the same lines as “allowing dcardno to pick up and move a city bus to reduce traffic congestion.”
At the moment inverter-based resources cannot provide voltage and frequency control (and it may be a good long -and expensive- while before they can); allowing them to provide a service they cannot perform is unlikely to have much effect, is it?
But – lack of understanding is endemic in the ‘green energy’ space, I suppose.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. (1878–1968)
We want easy migration for the highly skilled so we get the network effects and the innovations they come up with. Joel Mokyr who co-won the sverigebank Nobel said it was how the west got rich, said it better too
Yeah cos look at the benefits Sweden gets from immigration. That ain’t how the west got rich.
Bongo did say “highly skilled”. I’m not sure that’s what Sweden has been importing.
I’d also add that you need a reasonable degree of integration to get network effects.
The best way to get integration is to keep the numbers low. People will remain in their group if there is one, but shift if there isn’t.
It’s the same as if you move from London to a village in Somerset. You might have to switch from football to cricket because that’s what everyone else does. Or join in with the wassailing.
I moved from London to a village in Somerset, now I’m a bell-ringer, hedgelayer and croquet player..
A more constructive idea is that they should lose their vote while they are resident abroad.
The reason that that idea is constructive is that it opens up the question of who else should lose the vote e.g. Commonwealth citizens, Oirish, dole bludgers, women under thirty (don’t tell me you can’t turn the clock back), men under twenty-one (ditto), British residents who haven’t made at least ten years of National Insurance contributions, school teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, architects, trade union members, fly-tippers, career criminals, very ugly people, …
That would rule out many MPs getting the vote. Hurray!
They do. After 15 years ex-pats can no longer vote in UK elections.
Then I advocate we should consider whether they lose it sooner.
P.S. Do you know of a rationale for the cut-off being 15 years?
Not true. It used to be so – I couldn’t vote in the 2017 election. However the rule was changed & I’m registered to vote gain.
Ah, I wondered about that. When did it change?
Adult Citizen Franchise! I’ve been banging on for decades, but the consensus is to hand out voting rights to everybody with a pulse.
Interesting to see citizens of the Republic of Ireland can vote in UK elections!!
“… and the welfare bill is more than five times higher and rising quickly.”
Quickly rising in step with quickly rising immigration.
Right. So how about an entry tax and a 10% annual across the board tax on all those immigrants who have windrushed in since the 1950s abd expulsion of those who have nothing to tax?
Sort of a contribution to the capital stock of the country? All those sewers, schools, railways, roads, parks, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, power stations and all the other infrastructure they are getting for ‘free’ once they arrive and earn a pittance? That’s quite a good idea (as a non-resident I’d pay an infrastructure levy – as long as it was a fixed price not a % of my income which is larger than the locals)
Even if we don’t get as far as charging such a levy, a robust way of calculating it would be a good input to the debates around earnings thresholds for settlement.
If they can play a decent game of cricket, I don’t have a problem with immigrants.
I wanted to give an uptick but the code monkey won’t let me.
Ranji and the Nawab of Pataudi and … are all welcome, bur we shouldn’t limit our welcome to cricketers. The first immigrant I met was a Polish Battle of Britain RAF pilot who helped save our country after Chamberlain failed to save his.
The current lot of immigrants would almost certainly choose to fight for the UK’s enemies against us, so good luck with that argument.
Treat every person as an individual. We are not indistinguishable “proles” or “blood-sucking capitalists”.
(Also you are wrong because a lot of immigrants are running away from our enemies which is why they’ve come here.)
And are you going to do the other side of it too? Find all those people who have paid far more in tax than they consumed in public services and give them huge refunds?
Why not? If John B’s plan was imposed, I would be happy to see it paired with generous tax credits for immigrants who had paid personal income tax above a certain amount over the previous decade.
The nation would be hugely better off overall.
I would suggest there are quite a few of those living in the UK Charles.
Outnumbered by those who have been a drain on the taxpayer most / all of their lives obviously…..
‘an accident of Borth’. I presume that was in the sand-dunes, and a failure to pull out in time.
I’m still wondering what a helot is.
More specifically, a slave of the state.
Dual citizenship?
This is just wording, but I don’t need a passport to live in the UK. Only to travel to another country. If Bongo doesn’t require a passport for me to enter and live there (and I can manage my UK exit), my only practical concern is proving my identity on re-entering the UK.
[Oh for the days of Empire when an Englishman didn’t need a passport…]