Labour to scrap non-dom tax status

Excellent.

I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

The Todal

2015-04-08 08:37:29 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Big Les Wade

2015-04-08 08:54:10 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

--
Les

The Todal

2015-04-08 09:09:17 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

You are however mistaken.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour

Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of inequity in the
tax system by announcing that, if he wins the election, he will abolish
the non-domicile rule that allows many of Britain’s richest permanent
residents to avoid paying tax in the UK on their worldwide income.
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral
basis of taxation. Everyone who has made the UK their permanent home
should pay full UK tax on all their income and gains, he will argue.

George Osborne has tinkered with the non-dom system by increasing the
annual fees on those who are granted non-dom status, but Labour claims
the rules are shot through with anomalies. Labour says those who have
lived abroad and return to the UK can claim non-dom status simply on the
basis of nothing more than a burial plot, a foreign bank account, or a
father born abroad – and even an overseas newspaper subscription.

The anomaly was recently highlighted by the case of HSBC’s chief
executive Stuart Gulliver – first reported in the Guardian – who is able
to claim non-dom status because he previously worked in Hong Kong, even
though he was born and raised in Britain, has worked in the UK for past
12 years and sends his children to school in the country.

Anger at the non-dom rule has spread to other parties including the
Liberal Democrat business secretary Vince Cable, a long-term advocate of
its abolition.

There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with
hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons
spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.

Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the
non-dom system to the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and and Customs,
Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments “you can
easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident
here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.

“No wonder people are pissed off. It’s extraordinary, frankly, in all
honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules
for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have
just told us exactly that is what there is.”

Basil Jet

2015-04-08 10:08:04 UTC

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.

The usual justification for taxation, as quoted by Barack Obama is "You
didn't build that", i.e. you might have built your factory on your land,
but the government built the roads that get your goods in and out, the
government built the schools that educated your workers and the
government built the police station that stops the Mafia from taking all
your money. However, if you are earning your money in a factory on the
other side of the world, how exactly is the British government helping
you do that? What are you supposed to be paying the British government
for? "Protection... you payer Labour deeser money, we maker sure you no
ender up being rapered in da prison shower."

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

That *never* gets old!

Ri©ardo

2015-04-08 10:30:42 UTC

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.
The usual justification for taxation, as quoted by Barack Obama is "You
didn't build that", i.e. you might have built your factory on your land,
but the government built the roads that get your goods in and out, the
government built the schools that educated your workers and the
government built the police station that stops the Mafia from taking all
your money. However, if you are earning your money in a factory on the
other side of the world, how exactly is the British government helping
you do that? What are you supposed to be paying the British government
for? "Protection... you payer Labour deeser money, we maker sure you no
ender up being rapered in da prison shower."

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

That *never* gets old!

I wonder what caused this light on the road to Damascus? After all it's
never bothered them before. Another populist policy which will achieve
very little, if anything, apart from pleasing the baying mindless mob.

It does, however, demonstrate Labour's complete lack of coherent
policies when it comes to managing the economy.

Sad bastards with their sound bite specials made up on the back of
Balls's fag packet. It'll be another Balls up more like:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11411593/Caught-on-camera-the-day-smoking-Ed-Balls-triumphed-over-the-Bank-of-England.html

--
Remember Lenin’s words:
"We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate,
revulsion, scorn and the like towards those that disagree with us.”
The Left's useful idiots in action.

abelard

2015-04-08 10:38:37 UTC

On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 11:30:42 +0100, Ri©ardo

Post by RiÂ©ardo

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.
The usual justification for taxation, as quoted by Barack Obama is "You
didn't build that", i.e. you might have built your factory on your land,
but the government built the roads that get your goods in and out, the
government built the schools that educated your workers and the
government built the police station that stops the Mafia from taking all
your money. However, if you are earning your money in a factory on the
other side of the world, how exactly is the British government helping
you do that? What are you supposed to be paying the British government
for? "Protection... you payer Labour deeser money, we maker sure you no
ender up being rapered in da prison shower."

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

That *never* gets old!

he has only one policy...class warfare...
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

tim.....

2015-04-08 12:33:46 UTC

Post by RiÂ©ardo

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.
The usual justification for taxation, as quoted by Barack Obama is "You
didn't build that", i.e. you might have built your factory on your land,
but the government built the roads that get your goods in and out, the
government built the schools that educated your workers and the
government built the police station that stops the Mafia from taking all
your money. However, if you are earning your money in a factory on the
other side of the world, how exactly is the British government helping
you do that? What are you supposed to be paying the British government
for? "Protection... you payer Labour deeser money, we maker sure you no
ender up being rapered in da prison shower."

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

That *never* gets old!

I wonder what caused this light on the road to Damascus? After all it's
never bothered them before.

It has actually

It was in their manifestos in the Blair years,

but they decided not to bother when they got in

Ri©ardo

2015-04-08 19:27:27 UTC

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.
The usual justification for taxation, as quoted by Barack Obama is "You
didn't build that", i.e. you might have built your factory on your land,
but the government built the roads that get your goods in and out, the
government built the schools that educated your workers and the
government built the police station that stops the Mafia from taking all
your money. However, if you are earning your money in a factory on the
other side of the world, how exactly is the British government helping
you do that? What are you supposed to be paying the British government
for? "Protection... you payer Labour deeser money, we maker sure you no
ender up being rapered in da prison shower."

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL.

Post by The Todal
offends the moral basis of taxation.

That *never* gets old!

I wonder what caused this light on the road to Damascus? After all
it's never bothered them before.

It has actually
It was in their manifestos in the Blair years,
but they decided not to bother when they got in

Thanks for the tip!

Blue

2015-04-09 09:19:29 UTC

Post by The Todal
Labour will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the
late 18th century, has been wide open to abuse

... like a white orphan in a Labour borough ...

Post by The Todal
and offends the moral basis of taxation.

LOL. That has to be a deliberate joke. They must have been high-fiving
each other at Millbank Tower when they came up with that one.

This is something UKIP should consider.

Are those here stating they don't like tax
willing to give up their state pensions?

JNugent

2015-04-08 10:42:52 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

tim.....

2015-04-08 12:34:14 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

tim

JNugent

2015-04-08 14:40:20 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

tim.....

2015-04-08 16:28:45 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed overseas
and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

tim,

JNugent

2015-04-08 18:19:03 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.

I asked a question.

tim.....

2015-04-09 11:39:14 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then

the answer to your question is No

(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

tim

JNugent

2015-04-09 12:37:44 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then
the answer to your question is No
(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

I am often told that I have asked the wrong question by people who would
prefer to answer a question of their own choosing and not to answer mine.

tim.....

2015-04-09 12:46:29 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then
the answer to your question is No
(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

I am often told that I have asked the wrong question by people who would
prefer to answer a question of their own choosing and not to answer mine.

But your question was obviously stupid (and I suspect, meant to be
provocative)

No UK government of any colour can make rules about how much tax foreign
jurisdictions make on income derived within their own country, so asking if
Labour are going to try is just silly

tim

JNugent

2015-04-09 12:57:33 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then
the answer to your question is No
(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

I am often told that I have asked the wrong question by people who
would prefer to answer a question of their own choosing and not to
answer mine.

But your question was obviously stupid (and I suspect, meant to be
provocative)

You say you "think" my question was stupid because you couldn't think up
a dismissive response to it.

Post by tim.....
No UK government of any colour can make rules about how much tax foreign
jurisdictions make on income derived within their own country,

Ah...

Post by tim.....
so asking if Labour are going to try is just silly

So Labour is perfectly prepared to tax earnings in another jurisdiction
that have already been taxed in the jurisdiction where they were earned
and even if they thought it a good thing to do (but hey... this Labour
and we're talking about extra taxes on earnings, one of their
shibboleths), they know they can do nothing about it - except to tax
taxed money even more.

Well, it fits in with their central beliefs, which are that the
individual has no rights the government cannot over-ride and that the
right to tax is paramount.

tim.....

2015-04-09 13:16:31 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will
support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then
the answer to your question is No
(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

I am often told that I have asked the wrong question by people who
would prefer to answer a question of their own choosing and not to
answer mine.

But your question was obviously stupid (and I suspect, meant to be
provocative)

You say you "think" my question was stupid because you couldn't think up a
dismissive response to it.

Post by tim.....
No UK government of any colour can make rules about how much tax foreign
jurisdictions make on income derived within their own country,

Ah...

Post by tim.....
so asking if Labour are going to try is just silly

So Labour is perfectly prepared to tax earnings in another jurisdiction
that have already been taxed in the jurisdiction where they were earned

That's why I say you asked the wrong questions

No, they won't. There are already rules that avoid this happening

but you didn't asked about those rules

you left it open so that you could spring a trap

but unfortunately there is no trap here

tim

Judith

2015-04-09 19:40:51 UTC

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:57:33 +0100, JNugent <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:

<snip>

Post by JNugent
So Labour is perfectly prepared to tax earnings in another jurisdiction
that have already been taxed in the jurisdiction where they were earned
and even if they thought it a good thing to do (but hey... this Labour
and we're talking about extra taxes on earnings, one of their
shibboleths), they know they can do nothing about it - except to tax
taxed money even more.

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

Did the daily Mail claim that? There was a very comprehensive report of the
danger of Miliband getting rid of nom-doms. Very thorough.

Except for the fact that it omitted to state that Lord Rothermere, the
proprietor of the Daily Mail enjoyed non-dom status. Most odd.

He has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex
structure of offshore holdings and trusts which entail him paying almost no UK
tax on his income, investments or wealth. (Wikipedia)

Have you not heard of 'double-taxation agreements'

Here's a list of those countries with which the UK has agreements:

A,B,C

Albania: tax treaties
1 December 2013
International treaty
Algeria: tax treaties
22 August 2007
International treaty
Anguilla: tax treaties
21 February 2014
International treaty
Antigua and Barbuda: tax treaties
6 January 2014
International treaty
Argentina: tax treaties
2 March 2014
International treaty
Armenia: tax treaties
27 February 2014
International treaty
Australia: tax treaties
1 February 2012
International treaty
Austria: tax treaties
1 January 2007
International treaty
Azerbaijan: tax treaties
27 February 1990
International treaty
Bahrain: tax treaties
27 October 1990
International treaty
Bangladesh: tax treaties
27 February 1961
International treaty
Barbados: tax treaties
26 August 1998
International treaty
Belarus: tax treaties
23 December 2007
International treaty
Belgium: tax treaties
27 April 2007
International treaty
Belize: tax treaties
27 February 2006
International treaty
Bolivia: tax treaties
29 March 2005
International treaty
Bosnia-Herzegovina: tax treaties
25 August 1996
International treaty
Botswana: tax treaties
3 February 2014
International treaty
Brazil: tax treaties
8 January 1999
International treaty
British Virgin Islands: tax treaties
21 April 1999
International treaty
Brunei: tax treaties
23 March 1995
International treaty
Bulgaria: tax treaties
17 October 2007
International treaty
Burma: tax treaties
16 December 2013
International treaty
Cameroon: tax treaties
14 April 2008
International treaty
Canada: tax treaties
25 January 2015
International treaty
Cayman Islands: tax treaties
20 January 2011
International treaty
Chile: tax treaties
1 July 2005
International treaty
China: tax treaties
17 December 2013
International treaty
Croatia: tax treaties
4 April 2008
International treaty
Cyprus: tax treaties
27 March 2012
International treaty
Czech Republic: tax treaties
29 October 2007
International treaty

D,E,F

Denmark: tax treaties
1 March 2011
International treaty
Egypt: tax treaties
19 October 2007
International treaty
Estonia: tax treaties
22 February 2007
International treaty
Ethiopia: tax treaties
8 March 2013
International treaty
Falkland Islands: tax treaties
5 February 2007
International treaty
Faroes: tax treaties
3 March 2010
International treaty
Fiji: tax treaties
19 October 2007
International treaty
Finland: tax treaties
16 December 2013
International treaty
France: tax treaties
7 January 2010
International treaty

G,H,I

Gambia: tax treaties
11 August 2008
International treaty
Georgia: tax treaties
24 January 2011
International treaty
Germany: tax treaties
25 May 2013
International treaty
Ghana: tax treaties
6 October 2006
International treaty
Greece: tax treaties
15 August 2008
International treaty
Grenada: tax treaties
16 December 2012
International treaty
Guernsey: tax treaties
17 December 2013
International treaty
Guyana: tax treaties
14 February 2007
International treaty
Hong Kong: tax treaties
23 December 2010
International treaty
Hungary: tax treaties
5 March 2012
International treaty
Iceland: tax treaties
12 December 2012
International treaty
India: tax treaties
8 January 2014
International treaty
Indonesia: tax treaties
17 August 2007
International treaty
Iran: tax treaties
19 December 2013
International treaty
Ireland: tax treaties
25 January 2011
International treaty
Isle of Man: tax treaties
19 December 2013
International treaty
Israel: tax treaties
23 February 2011
International treaty
Italy: tax treaties
6 August 2006
International treaty
Ivory Coast: tax treaties
16 December 2012
International treaty

J,K,L

Japan: tax treaties
16 February 2015
International treaty
Jersey: tax treaties
17 December 2012
International treaty
Jordan: tax treaties
5 July 2005
International treaty
Kazakhstan: tax treaties
6 January 2014
International treaty
Kenya: tax treaties
27 December 2013
International treaty
Kiribati: tax treaties
27 December 2013
International treaty
Korea: tax treaties
6 October 2006
International treaty
Kuwait: tax treaties
1 June 2005
International treaty
Latvia: tax treaties
22 February 2007
International treaty
Lebanon: tax treaties
27 December 2013
International treaty
Lesotho: tax treaties
27 February 2007
International treaty
Libya: tax treaties
26 April 2010
International treaty
Lithuania: tax treaties
1 July 2005
International treaty
Luxembourg: tax treaties
27 December 2013
International treaty

M,N,O

Macedonia: tax treaties
13 August 2007
International treaty
Malawi: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Malaysia: tax treaties
13 January 2011
International treaty
Malta: tax treaties
11 August 2006
International treaty
Mauritius: tax treaties
20 October 2011
International treaty
Mexico: tax treaties
7 June 2011
International treaty
Moldova: tax treaties
6 January 2009
International treaty
Mongolia: tax treaties
27 March 2009
International treaty
Montenegro: tax treaties
1 March 1989
International treaty
Montserrat: tax treaties
27 December 2013
International treaty
Morocco: tax treaties
20 August 2007
International treaty
Namibia: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Netherlands: tax treaties
1 September 2014
International treaty
New Zealand: tax treaties
18 September 2008
International treaty
Nigeria: tax treaties
5 February 2007
International treaty
Norway: tax treaties
13 February 2014
International treaty
Oman: tax treaties
4 March 2011
International treaty

P,Q,R

Pakistan: tax treaties
15 August 2006
International treaty
Panama: tax treaties
17 December 2013
International treaty
Papua New Guinea: tax treaties
22 February 2007
International treaty
Philippines: tax treaties
15 November 2013
International treaty
Poland: tax treaties
29 December 2006
International treaty
Portugal: tax treaties
8 April 2013
International treaty
Qatar: tax treaties
9 August 2011
International treaty
Romania: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Russia: tax treaties
6 September 2006
International treaty

S,T,U

Saint Christopher (Saint Kitts) and Nevis: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Saudi Arabia: tax treaties
23 December 2009
International treaty
Senegal: tax treaties
27 February 2015
International treaty
Serbia: tax treaties
2 March 2014
International treaty
Sierra Leone: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Singapore: tax treaties
15 August 2006
International treaty
Slovak Republic: tax treaties
2 February 2012
International treaty
Slovenia: tax treaties
26 September 2008
International treaty
Solomon Islands: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
South Africa: tax treaties
1 July 2005
International treaty
Spain: tax treaties
24 May 2006
International treaty
Sri Lanka: tax treaties
30 December 2013
International treaty
Sudan: tax treaties
4 February 2013
International treaty
Swaziland: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Sweden: tax treaties
17 December 2013
International treaty
Switzerland: tax treaties
9 February 2011
International treaty
Taiwan: tax treaties
1 July 2005
International treaty
Tajikistan: tax treaties
1 July 2014
International treaty
Thailand: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Trinidad and Tobago: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Tunisia: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Turkey: tax treaties
18 August 2006
International treaty
Turkmenistan: tax treaties
28 February 1997
International treaty
Tuvalu: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Uganda: tax treaties
2 March 2007
International treaty
Ukraine: tax treaties
14 February 2007
International treaty
USA: tax treaties
1 July 2005
International treaty
USSR: tax treaties
28 March 1999
International treaty
Uzbekistan: tax treaties
28 February 2007
International treaty

V,W,X,Y,Z

Venezuela: tax treaties
21 February 2007
International treaty
Vietnam: tax treaties
22 February 2007
International treaty
Zaire: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Zambia: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty
Zimbabwe: tax treaties
2 January 2014
International treaty

JNugent

2015-04-09 19:49:08 UTC

Post by Judith
<snip>

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

You have snipped way too much of the context for an answer to that to be
provided efficiently or economically.

All is revealed within the snipped context and the previous posts in the
thread.

I suggest an examination of the thread so far.

Judith

2015-04-10 05:33:29 UTC

Post by Judith
<snip>

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

You have snipped way too much of the context for an answer to that to be
provided efficiently or economically.

Let me simplify it for you:

Do you think that Labour intend to tax people on the same income or Capital
gains which they are already paying tax on in another country?

Norman Wells

2015-04-10 07:35:30 UTC

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

You have snipped way too much of the context for an answer to that to be
provided efficiently or economically.

Do you think that Labour intend to tax people on the same income or Capital
gains which they are already paying tax on in another country?

I'm sure they'll try. They won't know, you see, what earnings these people have
made abroad, nor what tax they have paid abroad. HMRC is not the world's tax
collector. It can't demand every scrap of information from everyone. Labour's
only option would be to try to tax those people on what it assumes are their
earnings abroad, not having any means to verify them or even calculate them, and
use that inadequate and unfair assessment to pass the onus back to the accused
in order for them to disprove it.

It's wholly oppressive, intrinsically unfair, and very unlikely to work.

tim.....

2015-04-10 11:21:23 UTC

Post by JNugent
So Labour is perfectly prepared to tax earnings in another
jurisdiction
that have already been taxed in the jurisdiction where they were earned
and even if they thought it a good thing to do (but hey... this Labour
and we're talking about extra taxes on earnings, one of their
shibboleths), they know they can do nothing about it - except to tax
taxed money even more.

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

You have snipped way too much of the context for an answer to that to be
provided efficiently or economically.

Do you think that Labour intend to tax people on the same income or Capital
gains which they are already paying tax on in another country?

Norman, it's all done on trust

Just like they trust the taxpayer when he tells them how much foreign income
has been received, they also trust the taxpayer when he tells them how much
tax was deducted by the host country.

tim

Norman Wells

2015-04-10 12:59:39 UTC

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

You have snipped way too much of the context for an answer to that to be
provided efficiently or economically.

Do you think that Labour intend to tax people on the same income or Capital
gains which they are already paying tax on in another country?

Norman, it's all done on trust

How very reassuring.

n***@gmail.com

2015-04-10 10:08:13 UTC

Post by Judith
<snip>

What makes you think that Labour intend to tax people twice?

It's easy, it the bit where he says that he will "abolish" non-dom status. So, say, a consultant comes over to the UK for a few years to hone up their skills in heart transplants, s/he will pay PAYE on their NHS salary, but also tax on the rent of their house back home in their own country and topped up to 40% in the UK.

Post by Judith
Did the daily Mail claim that? There was a very comprehensive report of the
danger of Miliband getting rid of nom-doms. Very thorough.
Except for the fact that it omitted to state that Lord Rothermere, the
proprietor of the Daily Mail enjoyed non-dom status. Most odd.
He has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex
structure of offshore holdings and trusts which entail him paying almost no UK
tax on his income, investments or wealth. (Wikipedia)
Have you not heard of 'double-taxation agreements'
A,B,C

SNIP

Post by Judith
Belgium: tax treaties
27 April 2007
International treaty

SNIP

Post by Judith
France: tax treaties
7 January 2010
International treaty

SNIP

These are not new, when I was working in Europe the relevant tax treaties were 1987 for Belgium and 1968 for France. The Belgians of course sought to repudiate the treaty and tax me anyway even though I never spent more than 183 days in Belgium in my whole life and declared and paid tax on all my worldwide income in the UK.

Of course if "non-dom" is abolished, there is a third option (as opposed to coughing up, or going home*), which is to manipulate the residency rules by not spending more than 183 days a year in the UK. This is much easier for foreigners, because they don't have to spend a whole year (or very nearly) out of the UK to establish non-residency in the first place, simply not spent more than half the year in the UK for tax purposes.

* bankers threatening to leave was risible - their work and homes were here. OTOH for non-doms it is easy - they must have a home elsewhere to claim the status, be very rich (to pay the £90k fee) and normally are business owners, so they can retire to Necker, Monaco or somewhere similar and control their business from afar. These days international phone calls are a penny a minute...

RobertL

2015-04-09 13:08:53 UTC

Post by tim.....
No UK government of any colour can make rules about how much tax foreign
jurisdictions make on income derived within their own country, so asking if
Labour are going to try is just silly.

Is that not what the numerous joint taxation agreements achieve?

Robert

tim.....

2015-04-09 13:17:29 UTC

Post by RobertL

Is that not what the numerous joint taxation agreements achieve?

No

they stop the second country adding on more tax

they can never stop the first country expecting its share

tim

n***@gmail.com

2015-04-09 13:56:22 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will
support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

No, that's not what you originally said, not what I answered

I *said* nothing.
I asked a question.

OK then
the answer to your question is No
(but that's because you asked the wrong question)

I am often told that I have asked the wrong question by people who would
prefer to answer a question of their own choosing and not to answer mine.

But your question was obviously stupid (and I suspect, meant to be
provocative)
No UK government of any colour can make rules about how much tax foreign
jurisdictions make on income derived within their own country, so asking if
Labour are going to try is just silly
tim

"I think all foreigners living abroad should be ... taxed!" St. John Gumby* ~1971

"I think all foreigners working in the UK should be taxed on any income in their home country" Ed' "internecine" Milliband** 2015

* played by John Cleese.

** played by Wallace (c) Aardman Animations

steve robinson

2015-04-08 16:37:14 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation
will support. Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It
isn't obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets
that never come anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the
UK.

You are however mistaken.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour

Post by The Todal
Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of
inequity in the tax system by announcing that, if he wins the
election, he will abolish the non-domicile rule that allows
many of Britains richest permanent residents to avoid paying
tax in the UK on their worldwide income. Labour will say the
rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the late 18th
century, has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral
basis of taxation. Everyone who has made the UK their permanent
home should pay full UK tax on all their income and gains, he
will argue.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be
dignified with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being
taxed overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

Or watch them leave, taking thier skills, money and business with them

tim.....

2015-04-08 17:07:41 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation
will support. Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It
isn't obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets
that never come anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the
UK.

You are however mistaken.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour

Post by The Todal
Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of
inequity in the tax system by announcing that, if he wins the
election, he will abolish the non-domicile rule that allows
many of Britain's richest permanent residents to avoid paying
tax in the UK on their worldwide income. Labour will say the
rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the late 18th
century, has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral
basis of taxation. Everyone who has made the UK their permanent
home should pay full UK tax on all their income and gains, he
will argue.

Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be
dignified with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being
taxed overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

Or watch them leave, taking thier skills, money and business with them

quite apart from:

They probably won't leave (there really is nowhere else for them to go that
enables them to "avoid" tax in such a big way)

why on earth would they take their business with them?

The UK is one of the most benign jurisdiction in the EU for starting a
business, having started it here why would you want to move it to a location
with more draconian labour laws just because you have decided to move
yourself?

It's perfectly possible to "manage" a business remotely, many do.

As for them taking their money, most of its already not here, that's how
they get the benefit of them being a non-dom. If they brought it onshore
there wouldn't be any benefit

tim

steve robinson

2015-04-08 17:40:02 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation
will support. Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It
isn't obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets
that never come anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the
UK.

You are however mistaken.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour

Post by The Todal
Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of
inequity in the tax system by announcing that, if he wins the
election, he will abolish the non-domicile rule that allows
many of Britain's richest permanent residents to avoid paying
tax in the UK on their worldwide income. Labour will say the
rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the late 18th
century, has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral
basis of taxation. Everyone who has made the UK their

permanent >>> > > home should pay full UK tax on all their income and
gains, he >>> > > will argue.

Post by JNugent
Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Um, no

Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be
dignified with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings
being taxed overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

Or watch them leave, taking thier skills, money and business with them

They probably won't leave (there really is nowhere else for them to
go that enables them to "avoid" tax in such a big way)

Monti carlo, Gersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Ireland, Switerland, ,
burmuda, british virgin islands, cayman islands perto rico , dalware
(Luxumburg netherlands facilitator states)

why on earth would they take their business with them?

Business are far more mobile than they ever used to be and governments
more flexable to inward investment

The UK is one of the most benign jurisdiction in the EU for starting
a business, having started it here why would you want to move it to a
location with more draconian labour laws just because you have
decided to move yourself?

There are many places where labour laws are far more lax, no sick pay
no maternity pay no redundancy no unions

It's perfectly possible to "manage" a business remotely, many do.
As for them taking their money, most of its already not here, that's
how they get the benefit of them being a non-dom. If they brought it
onshore there wouldn't be any benefit

Thats the whole point though isnt it, something the governments are
screaming from the rooftops that business must pay taxes in the
countries they make the profits in.

Non doms pay tax in the uk on any uk earned income, they pay a non dom
fee of £30k for income earned overseas, plus they have to comply with
tax arrangements within the other countries.

Why on earth do the the two Eds think they shoould deprive other
nations of the tax revenue, dont they realise we start crippling them
they repay the favour

Charles Bryant

2015-04-09 00:04:57 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
JNugent <***@fastmail.fm> wrote:
.. non-domicile ...
}Is there a proposed provision in Labour's plan (if it can be dignified
}with that term) which will prevent overseas earnings being taxed
}overseas and allow them to be taxed only here?

Presumably the earnings would be covered under existing tax treaties,
greatly reducing the actual tax collected.

John

2015-04-08 19:11:54 UTC

Post by JNugent
Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Isn't that the case in for US residents?

John.

steve robinson

2015-04-08 19:18:26 UTC

Post by JNugent
Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Isn't that the case in for US residents?
John.

Yes, however they have tax treaties in place with many countries so
overseas income tax is drastically reduced or sometimes iliminated.

In the US they are required to file tax return if income is over circa
9300 dollars

Judith

2015-04-08 22:37:00 UTC

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:18:26 +0000 (UTC), "steve robinson"

Post by JNugent
Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Isn't that the case in for US residents?
John.

Yes, however they have tax treaties in place with many countries so
overseas income tax is drastically reduced or sometimes iliminated.
In the US they are required to file tax return if income is over circa
9300 dollars

Can you tell us of any other country which has the equivalent of non-dom tax
avoidance mechanisms?

Big Les Wade

2015-04-09 06:59:32 UTC

Post by Judith
Can you tell us of any other country which has the equivalent of non-dom tax
avoidance mechanisms?

As Charles has pointed out, many countries do not tax residents on their
overseas earnings. Even the USA has an exemption for income earned and
retained by an overseas affiliate of a US company. This is much used by
wealthy people, who tend to be business owners and thus accumulate
income in the form of corporate profits and capital gains.

--
Les

Blue

2015-04-09 09:22:55 UTC

Post by Judith
Can you tell us of any other country which has the equivalent of non-dom tax
avoidance mechanisms?

America is taxing Boris Johnson.

Blue

2015-04-09 09:42:53 UTC

Post by Judith
Can you tell us of any other country which has the equivalent of non-dom tax
avoidance mechanisms?

America is taxing Boris Johnson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11361816/Boris-Johnson-to-pay-six-figure-American-tax-bill.html

Judith

2015-04-09 22:20:44 UTC

Post by Judith
Can you tell us of any other country which has the equivalent of non-dom tax
avoidance mechanisms?

Sorry : I should have perhaps said - are there any other countries which has
equivalent of non-dom tax avoidance mechanisms where an individual can claim
non-dom status - and then pass it down the male hereditary line to his male
heirs - but not to his daughters. Are there other countries which allow people
living in the UK, being born here - going to school here - going to University
here - living here on a permanent basis - to state that their real home is
elsewhere because that was perhaps where their father lived or where they want
to be buried and they've already bought a plot.

(I see that in a FirstVerdict poll, 77% of people support removing the non-dom
tax break on wealthy UK residents, with just 20% opposing it. More votes for
Labour there then.)

JNugent

2015-04-08 19:49:54 UTC

Post by JNugent
Even if it's already been taxed elsewhere?

Isn't that the case in for US residents?
John.

No.

Did you mean American citizens?

True Blue

2015-04-08 12:40:44 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

You are however mistaken.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour
Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of inequity in the
tax system by announcing that, if he wins the election, he will abolish
the non-domicile rule that allows many of Britains richest permanent
residents to avoid paying tax in the UK on their worldwide income. Labour
will say the rule, introduced by William Pitt the Younger in the late 18th
century, has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral basis of
taxation. Everyone who has made the UK their permanent home should pay
full UK tax on all their income and gains, he will argue.
George Osborne has tinkered with the non-dom system by increasing the
annual fees on those who are granted non-dom status, but Labour claims the
rules are shot through with anomalies. Labour says those who have lived
abroad and return to the UK can claim non-dom status simply on the basis
of nothing more than a burial plot, a foreign bank account, or a father
born abroad and even an overseas newspaper subscription.
The anomaly was recently highlighted by the case of HSBCs chief executive
Stuart Gulliver first reported in the Guardian who is able to claim
non-dom status because he previously worked in Hong Kong, even though he
was born and raised in Britain, has worked in the UK for past 12 years and
sends his children to school in the country.
Anger at the non-dom rule has spread to other parties including the
Liberal Democrat business secretary Vince Cable, a long-term advocate of
its abolition.
There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with
hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons
spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the
non-dom system to the head of Her Majestys Revenue and and Customs,
Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments you can
easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident
here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
No wonder people are pissed off. Its extraordinary, frankly, in all
honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules for
rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have just
told us exactly that is what there is.

None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000 in the
UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

Norman Wells

2015-04-08 12:36:52 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000 in the
UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

The Todal

2015-04-08 12:41:45 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Because, obviously, you reside in the UK, rely on our health system and
roads and have a duty to contribute to public services, the defence of
the realm etc.

If you want to live in the UAE and abandon your UK citizenship and all
the privileges that go with it, then that's fine by me.

abelard

2015-04-08 13:00:11 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Because, obviously, you reside in the UK, rely on our health system and
roads and have a duty to contribute to public services, the defence of
the realm etc.

don't be ridiculous...labour voters pay negative tax...

people like non-doms pay for the nhs and pay real tax...

Post by The Todal
If you want to live in the UAE and abandon your UK citizenship and all
the privileges that go with it, then that's fine by me.

until you want your 'free' services
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Big Les Wade

2015-04-08 18:08:54 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Because, obviously, you reside in the UK, rely on our health system and
roads and have a duty to contribute to public services, the defence of
the realm etc.

And, as UK tax residents, non-doms pay tax on their UK income, including
the income remitted to them from overseas. Plus the remittance basis
charge, typically GBP50,000 a year. In other words, they pay shitloads
more tax than you do.

Post by The Todal
If you want to live in the UAE and abandon your UK citizenship and all
the privileges that go with it, then that's fine by me.

This just shows how little you know about the subject. UK tax residency
and domicile status have got *nothing* to do with citizenship. An
enormous number of non-doms are not UK citizens.

--
Les

Blue

2015-04-09 09:25:41 UTC

Post by Big Les Wade
This just shows how little you know about the subject. UK tax residency
and domicile status have got *nothing* to do with citizenship. An
enormous number of non-doms are not UK citizens.

They're locusts dodging tax world wide, and need to
pay some where or clear off.

White Spirit

2015-04-09 10:25:01 UTC

They're locusts dodging tax world wide, and need to
pay some where or clear off.

The 'locusts' are those who consume taxpayers' money and don't
contribute themselves. How can you complain about others and say they
need to pay when you don't pay tax yourself as a net contribution?

(You can claim that paying VAT counts as being taxed but when someone's
money comes from state benefits, that does not make someone a taxpayer.)

The Todal

2015-04-09 10:54:23 UTC

They're locusts dodging tax world wide, and need to
pay some where or clear off.

The 'locusts' are those who consume taxpayers' money and don't
contribute themselves. How can you complain about others and say they
need to pay when you don't pay tax yourself as a net contribution?
(You can claim that paying VAT counts as being taxed but when someone's
money comes from state benefits, that does not make someone a taxpayer.)

On that basis would you say that all those who are retired and living on
a state pension are locusts too? And that we shouldn't listen to any
ideas they might have?

Blue

2015-04-09 11:44:42 UTC

They're locusts dodging tax world wide, and need to
pay some where or clear off.

The 'locusts' are those who consume taxpayers' money and don't
contribute themselves. How can you complain about others and say they
need to pay when you don't pay tax yourself as a net contribution?
(You can claim that paying VAT counts as being taxed but when someone's
money comes from state benefits, that does not make someone a taxpayer.)

On that basis would you say that all those who are retired and living on
a state pension are locusts too? And that we shouldn't listen to any
ideas they might have?

With all the booze and drugs Danny shoves in his body
he won't be around to collect his pension.
https://www.facebook.com/devotedtodeath?fref=ts

RIP Danny Price.

He claimed him yelling down a pub on odd nights
amounted to a job.

The rest of the time and at the same time
he was on state rehab money.

Just say D'oh.

White Spirit

2015-04-09 11:56:51 UTC

Post by Blue
With all the booze and drugs Danny shoves in his body
he won't be around to collect his pension.

As a matter of fact, I don't drink at present and the only drug I take
is prescription methadone. Given that I am in very good health, your
obsession where my life expectancy is concerned is very much
unwarranted. You should be concerned about your own life expectancy
given your obesity and bad diet, but that's a concern for you.

Post by Blue
https://www.facebook.com/devotedtodeath?fref=ts
RIP Danny Price.

And you still think that's me. You should give up net-stalking because
you really aren't very good at it.

Post by Blue
He claimed him yelling down a pub on odd nights
amounted to a job.

That's a lie. I don't 'yell' in pubs and have never claimed that being
in a band was my source of income.

Post by Blue
The rest of the time and at the same time
he was on state rehab money.

Unlike you, I have a full-time job. Obviously, you are desperate to
divert attention away from the fact that you complain about people not
paying taxes despite not contributing as a taxpayer yourself. If you're
really that ashamed then why not turn your life around and get a job?
Telling lies about people isn't going to make you feel better about
yourself.

Blue

2015-04-09 13:03:54 UTC

Post by Blue
With all the booze and drugs Danny shoves in his body
he won't be around to collect his pension.

As a matter of fact, I don't drink at present

But in the next two minutes and for the
rest of the day huh.

Post by White Spirit
and the only drug I take
is prescription methadone.

Yeah you just keep telling yourself that.

Post by White Spirit
Given that I am in very good health,

I'll give you about a week.

Post by White Spirit
your
obsession where my life expectancy is concerned is very much
unwarranted.

I only want to know when to order the flags.

Post by White Spirit
You should be concerned about your own life expectancy
given your obesity and bad diet, but that's a concern for you.

Only because psychos like you are stalking the streets.

Post by Blue
https://www.facebook.com/devotedtodeath?fref=ts
RIP Danny Price.

And you still think that's me. You should give up net-stalking because
you really aren't very good at it.

Can't all be as professional as you...

Post by Blue
He claimed him yelling down a pub on odd nights
amounted to a job.

That's a lie. I don't 'yell' in pubs

You prefer Sing loudly like a drunken nutter then.

Post by White Spirit
and have never claimed that being
in a band was my source of income.

Well I did say it was your, 'bonus state income', son.

Post by Blue
The rest of the time and at the same time
he was on state rehab money.

Unlike you, I have a full-time job.

..Standing up and lying isn't a job.
Nor is sponging off your parents.
How much do you owe them now. Ten Grand?

Post by White Spirit
Obviously, you are desperate to
divert attention away from the fact that you complain about people not
paying taxes despite not contributing as a taxpayer yourself. If you're
really that ashamed then why not turn your life around and get a job?
Telling lies about people isn't going to make you feel better about
yourself.

Yeah, you're back to your bio again, I've already
told you people are sick and tired of your cunt face past.

They want to see your shit future.
Loading Image...

White Spirit

2015-04-09 13:17:20 UTC

Post by Blue
With all the booze and drugs Danny shoves in his body
he won't be around to collect his pension.

As a matter of fact, I don't drink at present

But in the next two minutes and for the
rest of the day huh.

Post by White Spirit
and the only drug I take
is prescription methadone.

Yeah you just keep telling yourself that.

Post by White Spirit
Given that I am in very good health,

I'll give you about a week.

Post by White Spirit
your
obsession where my life expectancy is concerned is very much
unwarranted.

I only want to know when to order the flags.

Post by White Spirit
You should be concerned about your own life expectancy
given your obesity and bad diet, but that's a concern for you.

Only because psychos like you are stalking the streets.

Post by Blue
https://www.facebook.com/devotedtodeath?fref=ts
RIP Danny Price.

And you still think that's me. You should give up net-stalking because
you really aren't very good at it.

Can't all be as professional as you...

Post by Blue
He claimed him yelling down a pub on odd nights
amounted to a job.

That's a lie. I don't 'yell' in pubs

You prefer Sing loudly like a drunken nutter then.

Post by White Spirit
and have never claimed that being
in a band was my source of income.

Well I did say it was your, 'bonus state income', son.

Post by Blue
The rest of the time and at the same time
he was on state rehab money.

Unlike you, I have a full-time job.

..Standing up and lying isn't a job.
Nor is sponging off your parents.
How much do you owe them now. Ten Grand?

Yeah, you're back to your bio again, I've already
told you people are sick and tired of your cunt face past.
They want to see your shit future.
http://jammytoast.com/grafix/2008/08/Jacko.jpg

Grow up, you pathetic little man. Start earning some money and perhaps
then you can earn some self-respect and stop being a perpetual man-child.

JNugent

2015-04-08 14:44:53 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Balls doesn't seem certain of any of this:

tim.....

2015-04-08 16:29:14 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Balls is a liability to Labour

tim

Norman Wells

2015-04-08 16:34:03 UTC

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Balls is a liability to Labour

He's a liability to himself.

abelard

2015-04-08 18:37:14 UTC

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 17:29:14 +0100, "tim....."

Post by True Blue
None of this shows he "is mistaken". Explain why, if I earn £300,000
in the UAE, that should be taxed in the UK?

It's your patriotic duty.

Balls is a liability to Labour

the labour party is the liability to the uk
--
www.abelard.org

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Charles Bryant

2015-04-09 00:34:42 UTC

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
The Todal <***@beeb.net> quotes:
<URL: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour >
}There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with
}hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons
}spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
}
}Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the
}non-dom system to the head of Her Majestys Revenue and and Customs,
}Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments "You can
}easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident
}here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
}
}No wonder people are pissed off. It's extraordinary, frankly, in all
}honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules
}for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have
}just told us exactly that is what there is."

The whole basis of taxation is different rules for different people.
With income tax there are various tax bands. There are all sorts of
allowances and exemptions. For Council tax there are different bands
and different charges in different parts of the country. There has
even been a proposal for a "mansion tax" which is quite deliberately
aimed at being only a rule for the rich. Why would anyone claim there
is anything wrong with different rules for the rich unless they then
also say that we should have only one rate of income tax and no
allowances?

JNugent

2015-04-09 01:26:37 UTC

Post by Charles Bryant
<URL: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour >
}There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with
}hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons
}spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
}
}Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the
}non-dom system to the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and and Customs,
}Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments "You can
}easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident
}here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
}
}No wonder people are pissed off. It's extraordinary, frankly, in all
}honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules
}for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have
}just told us exactly that is what there is."
The whole basis of taxation is different rules for different people.
With income tax there are various tax bands. There are all sorts of
allowances and exemptions. For Council tax there are different bands
and different charges in different parts of the country. There has
even been a proposal for a "mansion tax" which is quite deliberately
aimed at being only a rule for the rich. Why would anyone claim there
is anything wrong with different rules for the rich unless they then
also say that we should have only one rate of income tax and no
allowances?

You don't have to be rich to be able to appreciate that any "rule for
the rich" is aimed squarely at confiscating some of their wealth and
does not apply farther down the scale.

A few months ago on a TV programme, some celebrity or other berated
Miliband face to face for "pointing at something and taxing it". That
does seem to be what he intends to do: identify "out-groups" in terms of
his target voters (those out-groups essentially being anyone who works
for a living) and taxing them more heavily.

Judith

2015-04-09 19:53:39 UTC

Post by Charles Bryant
<URL: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour >
}There has also been some opposition in Conservative circles, with
}hostility from Richard Bacon, the senior Conservative on the Commons
}spending watchdog, the public accounts committee.
}
}Bacon, at a hearing of the committee last month, complained abut the
}non-dom system to the head of Her Majestys Revenue and and Customs,
}Edward Troup, saying under both Tory and Labour governments "You can
}easily spend 80% to 100% of your time in the UK because you are resident
}here, and be a non-dom for tax purposes.
}
}No wonder people are pissed off. It's extraordinary, frankly, in all
}honesty. You are surprised that people think there is one set of rules
}for rich people and another set of rules for other people, when you have
}just told us exactly that is what there is."
The whole basis of taxation is different rules for different people.
With income tax there are various tax bands. There are all sorts of
allowances and exemptions. For Council tax there are different bands
and different charges in different parts of the country. There has
even been a proposal for a "mansion tax" which is quite deliberately
aimed at being only a rule for the rich. Why would anyone claim there
is anything wrong with different rules for the rich unless they then
also say that we should have only one rate of income tax and no
allowances?

You don't have to be rich to be able to appreciate that any "rule for
the rich" is aimed squarely at confiscating some of their wealth and
does not apply farther down the scale.
A few months ago on a TV programme, some celebrity or other berated
Miliband face to face for "pointing at something and taxing it". That
does seem to be what he intends to do: identify "out-groups" in terms of
his target voters (those out-groups essentially being anyone who works
for a living) and taxing them more heavily.

A simple question for you:

Do you think it acceptable that different tax rules (eg non-dom) apply to
different people?

Any comments on Lord Ashcrofts non-dom status?

You know, the former Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and the 37th
richest person in the UK, as ranked by the Sunday Times Rich List 2009, with an
estimated fortune of £1.1 billion. He holds dual British and Belizean
nationality, and is a belonger of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

JNugent

2015-04-09 23:26:41 UTC

You don't have to be rich to be able to appreciate that any "rule for
the rich" is aimed squarely at confiscating some of their wealth and
does not apply farther down the scale.
A few months ago on a TV programme, some celebrity or other berated
Miliband face to face for "pointing at something and taxing it". That
does seem to be what he intends to do: identify "out-groups" in terms of
his target voters (those out-groups essentially being anyone who works
for a living) and taxing them more heavily.

Do you think it acceptable that different tax rules (eg non-dom) apply to
different people?

It is certainly acceptable that British tax rules do not apply to people
who do not live in Britain.

Post by Judith
Any comments on Lord Ashcrofts non-dom status?

See above.

Big Les Wade

2015-04-09 06:51:56 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

You are however mistaken.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-
status-labour

All that contains is a description of some other people's opinions, to
which they are fully entitled.

--
Les

Blue

2015-04-09 08:55:19 UTC

Post by The Todal
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/07/ed-miliband-non-dom-tax-status-labour
Ed Miliband will promise to end a colonial-era symbol of inequity in the
tax system by announcing that, if he wins the election, he will abolish
the non-domicile rule that allows many of Britain’s richest permanent
residents to avoid paying tax in the UK on their worldwide income.

Excellent.

Judith

2015-04-09 20:07:53 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

You are however mistaken.

And so are you.
Any money earned in this country by whatever means be whsoever, is subject to UK tax.

Oh really.

There was me thinking that there was money which was "earned" in this country
which was just paid in to bank accounts abroad and no tax paid in the UK - and
probably no tax paid *anywhere*.

Does that not happen then?

Tell us: do you think that Stuart Gulliver, the HSBC chief executive paid UK
tax on all the money he has "earned" in the UK?.

tim.....

2015-04-08 10:17:24 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

because a lot of it has been deliberately channelled offshore specifically
to avoid being taxed. See footballer's image rights etc

(I accept that's not always the case).

tim

Judith

2015-04-09 20:09:11 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

because a lot of it has been deliberately channelled offshore specifically
to avoid being taxed. See footballer's image rights etc
(I accept that's not always the case).

If it has been channeled off shore that is after it has been earned and taxed here.

You really are a fool if you believe that.

tim.....

2015-04-10 11:19:20 UTC

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

because a lot of it has been deliberately channelled offshore specifically
to avoid being taxed. See footballer's image rights etc
(I accept that's not always the case).

If it has been channeled off shore that is after it has been earned and taxed here.

Hm, I don't have this reply on my server

But that its not the case

Foreigners playing in the PL deliberately have their image rights etc paid
offshore, untaxed. Most of them refuse to come at all if it isn't done that
way - and I for one say they wouldn't be missed if they didn't

tim

Blue

2015-04-09 09:15:55 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

At last, a good policy initiative that the entire nation will support.
Even a good many Tories.

Seems to me to be just another minority-bashing exercise. It isn't
obviously fair that a foreigner's income and assets that never come
anywhere near the UK should be taxed in the UK.

Oh boo hoo, these mega rich business people shove all
their cash into swiss bank accounts and live anywhere
they like, paying no tax anywhere.

If they land on our pond we should swat them hard.

They only difference it will make if they don't like it,
is they don't live here, no change for our collected tax.

n***@gmail.com

2015-04-08 09:30:43 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Whilst there is undoubtedly abuse of 'non-dom' status the idea that a non-Brit who comes to the UK for a while should have pay tax on income in other jurisdictions is unfair.

The main losers in this are likely to be Americans seconded to the UK. US citizens have to declare and pay tax on their worldwide income no matter where they live in the world (as Boris found out in US tit for tat over the congestion tax). Some countries (like Belgium) have different rules for US citizens than other foreigners, but Yanks will be faced with the awkward choice of either leaving the UK or giving up US citizenship (assuming they are entitled to another one).

What about the tax yield? Well in the short term there might be a small boost while the 'victims' (able to pay the £90k non-dom charge) rearrange their affairs. Some will simply leave the UK, rotate where they live or stay on their yachts (Abramovich). Others will relinquish non-dom status. Most will be paying tax in other jurisdictions and will be able to avail themselves of the double taxation treaties that the UK has with most developed (and AFAIK all EU) states. It will be twice as much paperwork [for their accountants] but in most cases the extra tax in the Uk will be minimal.

tim.....

2015-04-08 10:15:09 UTC

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Whilst there is undoubtedly abuse of 'non-dom' status the idea that a
non-Brit who comes to the UK for a while should have pay tax on income in
other jurisdictions is unfair.

perhaps it is, but it is the rule that every other country in the world
(except Ireland) operates

Post by n***@gmail.com
The main losers in this are likely to be Americans seconded to the UK. US
citizens have to declare and pay tax on their worldwide income no matter
where they live in the world (as Boris found out in US tit for tat over
the congestion tax). Some countries (like Belgium) have different rules
for US citizens than other foreigners, but Yanks will be faced with the
awkward choice of either leaving the UK or giving up US citizenship
(assuming they are entitled to another one).

No they won't Double taxations rules allow for all of this

Post by n***@gmail.com
What about the tax yield? Well in the short term there might be a small
boost while the 'victims' (able to pay the £90k non-dom charge) rearrange
their affairs. Some will simply leave the UK, rotate where they live or
stay on their yachts (Abramovich). Others will relinquish non-dom status.
Most will be paying tax in other jurisdictions and will be able to avail
themselves of the double taxation treaties that the UK has with most
developed (and AFAIK all EU) states. It will be twice as much paperwork
[for their accountants] but in most cases the extra tax in the Uk will be
minimal.

I don't see the problem with them leaving

1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them to go
and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living, as a wealthy
person, in London are huge.

2) Those that do go aren't actually paying any (very much) tax, so what will
be lost?

tim

Mel Rowing

2015-04-08 18:45:20 UTC

Post by tim.....
I don't see the problem with them leaving

Then you should! These are the most enterprising workers on earth. They've made it! Compare their contribution with the thousands who do no work from the cradle to the grave it is those who are the real burden.

Post by tim.....
1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them to go
and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living, as a wealthy
person, in London are huge.

So the UK is the only place on earth where economic opportunities exist Why don't you compare the UK with places like the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Switzerland in terms of per capita GDP.

There are plenty of opportunities all over the world for those with the talents to take advantage of them. I wonder whether these countries hold such an antipathy towards personal wealth?

The UK does have some advantages as being at the centre of world business markets, having an almost universal language of commerce (English), sable government, an established system of law particularly commercial law etc.

On the downside living here is expensive especially in the fields of housing disproportionate and out of balance in the field of taxation.

For instance less than 200000 non doms pay about the same amount of tax on income earned in this country as do 10m basic rate tax payers. In addition they will be paying an extra £30000 to £50000 per annum fee in order to preserve their non dom status. Anyone who says that those figures are fair and not disproportionate or even punitive, does not know the meaning of the words.

2) Those that do go aren't actually paying any (very much) tax, so what will be lost?

Look and the figures above and check them.

White Spirit

2015-04-09 08:16:05 UTC

Post by tim.....
1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them
to go and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living,
as a wealthy person, in London are huge.

The housing costs arise from our position at the centre of world
business markets &c. Other countries that occupy this position will
have the same problem.

Nick

2015-04-08 20:29:02 UTC

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Whilst there is undoubtedly abuse of 'non-dom' status the idea that a
non-Brit who comes to the UK for a while should have pay tax on income
in other jurisdictions is unfair.

perhaps it is, but it is the rule that every other country in the world
(except Ireland) operates

Post by n***@gmail.com
The main losers in this are likely to be Americans seconded to the
UK. US citizens have to declare and pay tax on their worldwide income
no matter where they live in the world (as Boris found out in US tit
for tat over the congestion tax). Some countries (like Belgium) have
different rules for US citizens than other foreigners, but Yanks will
be faced with the awkward choice of either leaving the UK or giving up
US citizenship (assuming they are entitled to another one).

No they won't Double taxations rules allow for all of this

Post by n***@gmail.com
What about the tax yield? Well in the short term there might be a
small boost while the 'victims' (able to pay the £90k non-dom charge)
rearrange their affairs. Some will simply leave the UK, rotate where
they live or stay on their yachts (Abramovich). Others will
relinquish non-dom status. Most will be paying tax in other
jurisdictions and will be able to avail themselves of the double
taxation treaties that the UK has with most developed (and AFAIK all
EU) states. It will be twice as much paperwork [for their
accountants] but in most cases the extra tax in the Uk will be minimal.

I don't see the problem with them leaving
1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them to
go and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living, as a
wealthy person, in London are huge.
2) Those that do go aren't actually paying any (very much) tax, so what
will be lost?

They will be paying multiples of average taxation. They also boost the
local economy with their spending and the business they attract.

It is hard to say what will happen. I suspect the risk of damage to
London is greater by enacting the rule than not. I suspect the treasury
will lose money because of it. All I can see is the political advantage.

It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the wealthiest
can avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed less.

Norman Wells

2015-04-08 21:18:24 UTC

They will be paying multiples of average taxation. They also boost the local
economy with their spending and the business they attract.
It is hard to say what will happen. I suspect the risk of damage to London is
greater by enacting the rule than not. I suspect the treasury will lose money
because of it. All I can see is the political advantage.

Yes. Tax the rich more, even though it doesn't bring in much in the way of
cash, always goes down well with the great unwashed proletariat.

It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the wealthiest can
avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed less.

Which of course they can and might. Certainly, their money will be.

What Miliband doesn't seem to realise is that these guys are not employees on
PAYE dutifully paying tax at source, but run business empires in countries that
may not be too enthusiastic about spilling personal information to HMRC, and
have holding companies in tax havens that respect total confidentiality because
their very existence depends on it.

How he thinks it might be made to work is quite beyond me.

Hey, but what does that matter if it chimes with the ignorant?

tim.....

2015-04-09 11:44:11 UTC

Post by Nick
They will be paying multiples of average taxation. They also boost the
local economy with their spending and the business they attract.
It is hard to say what will happen. I suspect the risk of damage to
London is greater by enacting the rule than not. I suspect the treasury
will lose money because of it. All I can see is the political advantage.

Yes. Tax the rich more, even though it doesn't bring in much in the way
of cash, always goes down well with the great unwashed proletariat.

Post by Nick
It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the wealthiest
can avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed less.

Which of course they can and might. Certainly, their money will be.
What Miliband doesn't seem to realise is that these guys are not employees
on PAYE dutifully paying tax at source, but run business empires in
countries that may not be too enthusiastic about spilling personal
information to HMRC, and have holding companies in tax havens that respect
total confidentiality because their very existence depends on it.
How he thinks it might be made to work is quite beyond me.

The same way other countries make it work

There's nothing "new" to the concept of revenue collectors asking people to
declare their overseas income. Most countries expect it

tim

Norman Wells

2015-04-09 13:18:24 UTC

They will be paying multiples of average taxation. They also boost the local
economy with their spending and the business they attract.
It is hard to say what will happen. I suspect the risk of damage to London
is greater by enacting the rule than not. I suspect the treasury will lose
money because of it. All I can see is the political advantage.

Yes. Tax the rich more, even though it doesn't bring in much in the way of
cash, always goes down well with the great unwashed proletariat.

It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the wealthiest can
avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed less.

Which of course they can and might. Certainly, their money will be.
What Miliband doesn't seem to realise is that these guys are not employees on
PAYE dutifully paying tax at source, but run business empires in countries
that may not be too enthusiastic about spilling personal information to HMRC,
and have holding companies in tax havens that respect total confidentiality
because their very existence depends on it.
How he thinks it might be made to work is quite beyond me.

The same way other countries make it work
There's nothing "new" to the concept of revenue collectors asking people to
declare their overseas income. Most countries expect it

And most who do, I suspect, don't get any useful or honest information in
return. After all, there's no way HMRC can possibly discover how much a Russian
oligarch has made from his diamond mines in the Congo, or how much interest he's
earned on his numbered account in the Cayman Islands, is there? So, they're on
a hiding to nothing.

Mel Rowing

2015-04-08 21:51:14 UTC

Post by Nick
It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the wealthiest
can avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed less.

Wrong? I'll tell you what is wrong.

It is wrong to take from someone's earnings not only more than than the value of what he as taken from the state but tens, hundreds and possibly even thousands of times more.

When those earnings are generated outside the state then it becomes even less justifiable.

Don't talk to me about morality. Where is the proptionality in such an action.Where is the justice. Should these proposals come to fruit then one cannot blame those possessing serious wealth from disinvesting in this country and moving their wealth elsewhere. As Ken Clark has just said on TV, not only are they at liberty to do so but if they have any sense they would do so.

People who have generated multi-million pound fortunes are not short on sense.

Fredxxx

2015-04-08 23:11:34 UTC

Post by Nick
It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the
wealthiest can avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed
less.

It's a consequence of inequality, live with it. However I might agree
that disproportionately high tax rates for high incomes are unnecessary
and counter-productive, just as they are for effective tax rates for the
low to middle income households.

Post by Mel Rowing
When those earnings are generated outside the state then it becomes even less justifiable.

I don't see why not, it's not as if anyone gets taxed twice.

Post by Mel Rowing
Don't talk to me about morality.

Why not when you get on your high horse?

Post by Mel Rowing
Where is the proptionality in such an action.Where is the justice.
Should these proposals come to fruit then one cannot blame those
possessing serious wealth from disinvesting in this country and
moving their wealth elsewhere. As Ken Clark has just said on TV, not
only are they at liberty to do so but if they have any sense they
would do so.

A number of UK entrepreneurs have cited the way there isn't a level
playing field, where non-doms can afford to take higher risks.

Post by Mel Rowing
People who have generated multi-million pound fortunes are not short on sense.

Generally - yes, though their offspring might not be so smart.

Phi

2015-04-09 07:09:42 UTC

Post by Nick
It may be morally wrong but fair taxation is difficult if the
wealthiest can avoid it by moving to places where they are taxed
less.

Post by Mel Rowing
When those earnings are generated outside the state then it becomes
even less justifiable.

I don't see why not, it's not as if anyone gets taxed twice.

Post by Mel Rowing
Don't talk to me about morality.

Why not when you get on your high horse?

A number of UK entrepreneurs have cited the way there isn't a level
playing field, where non-doms can afford to take higher risks.

Post by Mel Rowing
People who have generated multi-million pound fortunes are not short on sense.

Generally - yes, though their offspring might not be so smart.

Get rid of PAYE and let all trade under the same banner.

Mel Rowing

2015-04-09 19:09:12 UTC

Post by Mel Rowing
It is wrong to take from someone's earnings not only more than than
the value of what he as taken from the state but tens, hundreds and
possibly even thousands of times more.

Consequence? How does it follow that one man is entitled to live just as well as another who makes a greater contribution to the common good?

Why this high emphasis on equality. Does nature make us all equal? We are born unequal. Some are born strong and athletic, others weak and cumbsy. Some are born talented in some way, some talentless. Some industrious, some feckless, some brave, some timid and so on. Why should someone who is gifted in some way be required to place a lower value on his talents than someone who has little to offer at all.

Is Jack really as good as his master? If someone with talent sees that someone without talent is granted the same recognition and reward then why should the former bother? If the former can earn in one hour what the latter would take a month to earn, then why can't he work just an hour a month.

That is the true consequence of equality. It's just an illusion.

Post by Mel Rowing
When those earnings are generated outside the state then it becomes
even less justifiable.

I don't see why not, it's not as if anyone gets taxed twice.

It's not a question of being taxed twice it's more a question of where the benefit attributable to that tax goes. Surely primarily it should go to he who earns and so deserves it. Otherwise the link between reward and effort is broken. There is no point in paying wages except to reward contribution and effort and so by inference, money becomes purposeless and simply a means of redistribution of other people's efforts

How long are those of talent ging to be supportive of such a community?

Post by Mel Rowing
Don't talk to me about morality.

Why not when you get on your high horse?

A number of UK entrepreneurs have cited the way there isn't a level
playing field, where non-doms can afford to take higher risks.

Gibbledigook!

Post by Mel Rowing
People who have generated multi-million pound fortunes are not short on sense.

Generally - yes, though their offspring might not be so smart. And indeed by the same token may be smarter. After all, it's common that parents seek to maximise opportunity for their offspring However, if they fail in that respect then competition will slowly but inexorably drive them down the rungs of the ladder.

Fredxxx

2015-04-09 20:45:22 UTC

Post by Mel Rowing
It is wrong to take from someone's earnings not only more than
than the value of what he as taken from the state but tens,
hundreds and possibly even thousands of times more.

It's a consequence of inequality, live with it. However I might
agree that disproportionately high tax rates for high incomes are
unnecessary and counter-productive, just as they are for effective
tax rates for the low to middle income households.

Consequence? How does it follow that one man is entitled to live just
as well as another who makes a greater contribution to the common
good?

This is where you feel the "greater contribution to the common good" is
based on wealth.

Post by Mel Rowing
Why this high emphasis on equality. Does nature make us all equal? We
are born unequal. Some are born strong and athletic, others weak and
cumbsy. Some are born talented in some way, some talentless. Some
industrious, some feckless, some brave, some timid and so on. Why
should someone who is gifted in some way be required to place a lower
value on his talents than someone who has little to offer at all.

You're the one who is against a tax that proportional of income, where
affordability is inherent in a system where you pay a % of your income
as an income tax.

Post by Mel Rowing
Is Jack really as good as his master? If someone with talent sees
that someone without talent is granted the same recognition and
reward then why should the former bother? If the former can earn in
one hour what the latter would take a month to earn, then why can't
he work just an hour a month.

He can if he chooses to. I don't see your argument, where an individual
chooses how hard they work.

Post by Mel Rowing
That is the true consequence of equality. It's just an illusion.

Inequality is an illusion?

Post by Mel Rowing
When those earnings are generated outside the state then it
becomes even less justifiable.

I don't see why not, it's not as if anyone gets taxed twice.

It's not a question of being taxed twice it's more a question of
where the benefit attributable to that tax goes. Surely primarily it
should go to he who earns and so deserves it. Otherwise the link
between reward and effort is broken. There is no point in paying
wages except to reward contribution and effort and so by inference,
money becomes purposeless and simply a means of redistribution of
other people's efforts

Agreed, but I don't understand why you seem so keen on a poll tax form
of taxation.

Agree in part about wages, then perhaps you can explain workers are
taxed more heavily than others?

Post by Mel Rowing
How long are those of talent ging to be supportive of such a
community?

Post by Mel Rowing
Don't talk to me about morality.

Why not when you get on your high horse?

Post by Mel Rowing
Where is the proptionality in such an action.Where is the
justice. Should these proposals come to fruit then one cannot
blame those possessing serious wealth from disinvesting in this
country and moving their wealth elsewhere. As Ken Clark has just
said on TV, not only are they at liberty to do so but if they
have any sense they would do so.

A number of UK entrepreneurs have cited the way there isn't a
level playing field, where non-doms can afford to take higher
risks.

Gibbledigook!

You mean denial on your part. At least Duncan Bannatyne can see the
bigger picture more than you.

Mel Rowing

2015-04-10 09:15:45 UTC

Post by Fredxxx
I don't see why not, it's not as if anyone gets taxed twice.

It's not a question of being taxed twice it's more a question of
where the benefit attributable to that tax goes. Surely primarily it
should go to he who earns and so deserves it. Otherwise the link
between reward and effort is broken. There is no point in paying
wages except to reward contribution and effort and so by inference,
money becomes purposeless and simply a means of redistribution of
other people's efforts

Agreed, but I don't understand why you seem so keen on a poll tax form
of taxation.

Who has mentioned a poll tax?

However, in your unobtainable equal society, a poll tax would be the fairest system but society is not equal and neither are the individuals in it in any way.

My ideas as I have expressed here several times is a society where everyone's contribution in tax terms is capped. A progressive system wher each pays according to his ability to pay but capped so that nobody makes totally disproportionate contributions.

This would mean in practice that the lowest income earners would pay nothing as now. However, those on the very highest incomes would pay no more than a sum capped by the regular finance acts that pass through parliament.

As a mere basis for discussion shall we say:

Below median 2/3 median income level - nothing.

above that 20% TO 40% in steps.

Nobody to pay more than say £30000 or even £100000 p.a. cap.

Then tax avoidance starts to get unprofitible.

Post by Fredxxx
A number of UK entrepreneurs have cited the way there isn't a
level playing field, where non-doms can afford to take higher
risks.

Gibbledigook!

You mean denial on your part. At least Duncan Bannatyne can see the
bigger picture more than you.

I mean I can't understand a single word you think you have said!

Charles Bryant

2015-04-09 01:12:50 UTC

In article <mg2v1n$2k7$***@dont-email.me>,
tim..... <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
}
}<***@gmail.com> wrote in message
}news:e7054da1-0bf6-4f07-aeaa-***@googlegroups.com...
}> On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 07:51:28 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
}>> Excellent.
}>>
}>> I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.
}>
}> Whilst there is undoubtedly abuse of 'non-dom' status the idea that a
}> non-Brit who comes to the UK for a while should have pay tax on income in
}> other jurisdictions is unfair.
}
}perhaps it is, but it is the rule that every other country in the world
}(except Ireland) operates

No it isn't, and that is a very rash statement to make unless you're
some sort of international tax specialist. Hong Kong taxes even less
in that even resident citizens do not have to pay tax on money earned
abroad (e.g. if someone goes abroad and gets a job in a pub for
amonth). See <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_tax >

}> What about the tax yield? Well in the short term there might be a small
}> boost while the 'victims' (able to pay the £90k non-dom charge) rearrange
}> their affairs. Some will simply leave the UK, rotate where they live or
}> stay on their yachts (Abramovich). Others will relinquish non-dom status.
}> Most will be paying tax in other jurisdictions and will be able to avail
}> themselves of the double taxation treaties that the UK has with most
}> developed (and AFAIK all EU) states. It will be twice as much paperwork
}> [for their accountants] but in most cases the extra tax in the Uk will be
}> minimal.
}
}I don't see the problem with them leaving
}
}1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them to go
}and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living, as a wealthy
}person, in London are huge.

But note that wealth and income are not the same. It's quite possible
to be very wealthy and have no income. Indeed, if you're a billionaire
there is no monetary incentive to work, so if you do work it's for
your own entertainment and why bother getting a salary at all?

}2) Those that do go aren't actually paying any (very much) tax, so what will
}be lost?

You could equally ask what will be gained by this change.

But I don't think this sort of change will make people leave. That's
not generally how things work. People react slowly. While this sort of
change may not cause anyone to leave, it is very likely to discourage
others from coming in future. It might take a decade or two, but the
effect would be felt in the end as those currently here retire abroad
or die.

Ri©ardo

2015-04-09 10:36:40 UTC

Post by Charles Bryant
}
}>> Excellent.
}>>
}>> I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.
}>
}> Whilst there is undoubtedly abuse of 'non-dom' status the idea that a
}> non-Brit who comes to the UK for a while should have pay tax on income in
}> other jurisdictions is unfair.
}
}perhaps it is, but it is the rule that every other country in the world
}(except Ireland) operates
No it isn't, and that is a very rash statement to make unless you're
some sort of international tax specialist. Hong Kong taxes even less
in that even resident citizens do not have to pay tax on money earned
abroad (e.g. if someone goes abroad and gets a job in a pub for
amonth). See <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_tax >
}> What about the tax yield? Well in the short term there might be a small
}> boost while the 'victims' (able to pay the £90k non-dom charge) rearrange
}> their affairs. Some will simply leave the UK, rotate where they live or
}> stay on their yachts (Abramovich). Others will relinquish non-dom status.
}> Most will be paying tax in other jurisdictions and will be able to avail
}> themselves of the double taxation treaties that the UK has with most
}> developed (and AFAIK all EU) states. It will be twice as much paperwork
}> [for their accountants] but in most cases the extra tax in the Uk will be
}> minimal.
}
}I don't see the problem with them leaving
}
}1) Most wont go because there is no place )except Ireland) for them to go
}and get the same benefit, and the other benefits of living, as a wealthy
}person, in London are huge.
But note that wealth and income are not the same. It's quite possible
to be very wealthy and have no income. Indeed, if you're a billionaire
there is no monetary incentive to work, so if you do work it's for
your own entertainment and why bother getting a salary at all?
}2) Those that do go aren't actually paying any (very much) tax, so what will
}be lost?
You could equally ask what will be gained by this change.
But I don't think this sort of change will make people leave. That's
not generally how things work. People react slowly. While this sort of
change may not cause anyone to leave, it is very likely to discourage
others from coming in future. It might take a decade or two, but the
effect would be felt in the end as those currently here retire abroad
or die.

So people who through their own efforts have become multi-national
multi-millionaires and can afford to live any where in the world will
just shrug their shoulders and accept this?

Many of them DO make a considerable contribution to the UK, as Ed Balls
recognised when dismissing such plans some months ago. When there are
many other places that they can go, without becoming the scapegoats for
the hysterical non-achievers and greed and envy merchants, what would be
the obvious thing to do?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11522877/General-election-2015-sketch-Ed-Ballss-non-dom-nightmare.html

John

2015-04-08 19:11:07 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Why not? The Americans manage quite well without such a sop to the wealthy.

John.

Mel Rowing

2015-04-08 19:41:49 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Why not? The Americans manage quite well without such a sop to the wealthy.
John.

No?

Of the first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 are from the US

#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States

The US is a land of opportunity where opportunities are taken. Here achievements are penalised.

Try to fin a British name on the above list.

Our loss. Someone else's gain.

John

2015-04-08 22:39:01 UTC

Post by Mel Rowing
The US is a land of opportunity where opportunities are taken.

And duly taxed.

John.

Judith

2015-04-08 22:43:28 UTC

Post by Judith
Excellent.
I bet Ashcroft changes his mind about giving up being a Lord.

Why not? The Americans manage quite well without such a sop to the wealthy.
John.

No?
Of the first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 are from the US
#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States
The US is a land of opportunity where opportunities are taken. Here achievements are penalised.
Try to fin a British name on the above list.
Our loss. Someone else's gain.

Now tell us how much tax is paid *in the US* by those people who live in the
US.

Or is all their income channeled through tax havens so they don't pay any US
tax?

(PS - the answer to the question if NO)

Charles Bryant

2015-04-09 00:25:38 UTC

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Judith <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
}On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing <***@btinternet.com>
}wrote:
}>... first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 ...
}>
}>#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
}>#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
}>#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
}>#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
}>#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
}>#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
}>#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
}>#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
}>#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
}>#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
}>#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
}>#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
}>#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
}>#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
}>#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
}>#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
}>#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
}>#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
}>#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
}>#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States
}
}Now tell us how much tax is paid *in the US* by those people who live in the
}US.
}
}Or is all their income channeled through tax havens so they don't pay any US
}tax?

I think you're confusing wealth and income. Several of those people draw
salaries of $1 per year, the tax on which obviously is irrelevant:
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary >

Judith

2015-04-09 19:56:57 UTC

Post by Charles Bryant
}>... first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 ...
}>
}>#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
}>#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
}>#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
}>#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
}>#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
}>#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
}>#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
}>#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
}>#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
}>#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
}>#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
}>#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
}>#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
}>#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
}>#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
}>#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
}>#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
}>#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
}>#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
}>#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States
}
}Now tell us how much tax is paid *in the US* by those people who live in the
}US.
}
}Or is all their income channeled through tax havens so they don't pay any US
}tax?
I think you're confusing wealth and income. Several of those people draw
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary >

Crikey - how on earth do they live on just $1 a year - fantastic.

tim.....

2015-04-10 11:22:20 UTC

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 00:25:38 +0000, Charles Bryant

Post by Charles Bryant
}On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 12:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
}>... first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 ...
}>
}>#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
}>#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
}>#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
}>#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
}>#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
}>#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
}>#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
}>#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
}>#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
}>#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
}>#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
}>#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
}>#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
}>#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
}>#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
}>#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
}>#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
}>#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
}>#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
}>#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States
}
}Now tell us how much tax is paid *in the US* by those people who live in the
}US.
}
}Or is all their income channeled through tax havens so they don't pay any US
}tax?
I think you're confusing wealth and income. Several of those people draw
<URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary >

Crikey - how on earth do they live on just $1 a year - fantastic.

Oh don't be silly - the drawdown wealth

tim

Judith

2015-04-09 20:17:11 UTC

I'm making no such confusion the above is a table showing the *wealth* of individuals. You will notice the amounts are denominated in $Bn. It is part of the reputed Forbes Rich List available on line.
Incidentally have you ever had the luxury of trying to spend even $1m in a single year. You can throw it away f ourse but that is not the question I'm asking.

I wonder if they get any interest on their wealth?

I wonder if they pay tax in the US on that? Or do they have non-dom status?

What do you think?

We model ourselves on the US - I assume that they also allow non-doms.
Do they?

n***@gmail.com

2015-04-10 10:17:34 UTC

I wonder if they get any interest on their wealth?
I wonder if they pay tax in the US on that? Or do they have non-dom status?
What do you think?
We model ourselves on the US - I assume that they also allow non-doms.
Do they?

The USA has a different model. If you are a US citizen then you pay US tax on your worldwide income. Some countries have special tax agreements with the USA recognising this (e.g. Belgium). In any event it is only [modest] federal taxes that one is liable for as state and local taxes depend on residency. In addition tax paid in other jurisdictions is set off against US tax.

Where the USA is having a problem is corporate tax. US corporation tax rates are high, so companies with large sales abroad (e.g. Apple, Google etc.) arrange for profits to appear in low tax countries and do not remit cash back to the USA.

tim.....

2015-04-10 11:23:16 UTC

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 01:14:25 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing

I'm making no such confusion the above is a table showing the *wealth* of
individuals. You will notice the amounts are denominated in $Bn. It is
part of the reputed Forbes Rich List available on line.
Incidentally have you ever had the luxury of trying to spend even $1m in a
single year. You can throw it away f ourse but that is not the question
I'm asking.

I wonder if they get any interest on their wealth?
I wonder if they pay tax in the US on that? Or do they have non-dom status?
What do you think?
We model ourselves on the US - I assume that they also allow non-doms.
Do they?

simple answer

No

tim

Blue

2015-04-09 20:27:02 UTC

Judith

2015-04-10 05:39:37 UTC

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 21:27:02 +0100, Blue <***@there.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Blue
http://youtu.be/ar0ri9NLArs

Thanks:

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says he does not think he pays enough tax, and
says wealthy Americans should contribute more in order to solve the deficit
problem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16714480

Norman Wells

2015-04-10 07:37:41 UTC

Post by Judith
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates says he does not think he pays enough tax, and
says wealthy Americans should contribute more in order to solve the deficit
problem.

I doubt very much if he'd be saying the same if he'd lived here through his
working life. We have much higher rates of tax here than in the USA.

White Spirit

2015-04-09 08:39:12 UTC

Post by John
Why not? The Americans manage quite well without such a sop to the wealthy.
John.

No?
Of the first 20 names of the Forbes rich list 15 are from the US
#1 Bill Gates $79.2 Bn 59 United States
#2 Carlos Slim Helu $77.1 Bn 75 Mexico
#3 Warren Buffett $72.7 Bn 84 United States
#4 Amancio Ortega $64.5 Bn 79 Spain
#5 Larry Ellison $54.3 Bn 70 United States
#6 Charles Koch $42.9 Bn 79 United States
#6 David Koch $42.9 Bn 74 United States
#8 Christy Walton $41.7 Bn 60 United States
#9 Jim Walton $40.6 Bn 67 United States
#10 Liliane Bettencourt$40.1 Bn 92 France
#11 Alice Walton $39.4 Bn 65 United States
#12 S. Robson Walton $39.1 Bn 71 United States
#13 Bernard Arnault $37.2 Bn 66 France
#14 Michael Bloomberg $35.5 Bn 73 United States
#15 Jeff Bezos $34.8 Bn 51 United States
#16 Mark Zuckerberg $33.4 Bn 30 United States
#17 Li Ka-shing $33.3 Bn 86 Hong Kong
#18 Sheldon Adelson $31.4 Bn 81 United States
#19 Larry Page $29.7 Bn 42 United States
#20 Sergey Brin $29.2 Bn 41 United States
The US is a land of opportunity where opportunities are taken. Here achievements are penalised.
Try to fin a British name on the above list.
Our loss. Someone else's gain.

Warren Buffett says he pays less tax than his secretary.

Ri©ardo

2015-04-09 10:36:34 UTC