>This is on account of concerns over how much money will be raised, should wealthy foreigners simply leave the UK.
No dude, we’re leaving because the ambulance doesn’t show up if you’re having a heart attack.
denyer-no1-fan on
I don’t see Rachel Reeves approving this. Labour has been banging the non-dom drum for 2 years, and has promised a bunch of stuff that requires them to remove non-dom tax status. They have already spent considerable political capital by refusing to scrap the two-child benefit cap and cutting Winter Fuel Payment. To stop implementing a manifesto promise, a centre-piece of their tax policy, is to invite all Labour backbenchers to rebel against the government. Even if this policy loses the Treasury money, Rachel Reeves will look incredibly weak by watering this down. I just don’t see it.
Tartan_Samurai on
*While no specific policy has been put to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) as part of the Budget process, Treasury officials acknowledge that scrapping two concessions made by the previous government might not raise the £1bn they thought it would, or indeed any money at all.*
*The issue is that the concessions made when Jeremy Hunt unexpectedly scrapped the non-dom scheme, were designed to reduce the incentive for wealthy foreigners with a permanent home abroad to emigrate.*
*The revenue raised was assessed by the OBR in March to be highly uncertain.*
*The Treasury is adamant that any further changes to the regime should be shown to raise money, and that non-dom status in general will still be scrapped.*
EwokSuperPig___ on
I don’t understand why they would reconsider this. It’s a very popular piece among the people. It’s a great for the government to raise some significant funds. It a piece of very obvious left wing politics. Lobbyist are the only reason I could imagine but even then why not lobby for its removal during the election/ before the election. Also in the article there is no meantion of anyone at Labour considering it being scrapped but more the OBR giving an analysis.
JimJonesdrinkkoolaid on
Could you imagine how this would go down in combination with the winter fuel allowance cuts and other cuts expected in the budget. Would go down like a lead balloon.
WynterRayne on
The party of change (our minds about changing anything else)
BrawDev on
Non Dom is the brexit of the Labour Party. If they go back on it they might aswell leave office just now because in 5 years they absolutely won’t be there.
Some things are just worth the ideological drive. It’s financially beneficial for us to sell a random UK citizen so Donald Trump can shoot them every year for 1 trillion dollars, but it’s probably not ethically viable.
7 Comments
>This is on account of concerns over how much money will be raised, should wealthy foreigners simply leave the UK.
No dude, we’re leaving because the ambulance doesn’t show up if you’re having a heart attack.
I don’t see Rachel Reeves approving this. Labour has been banging the non-dom drum for 2 years, and has promised a bunch of stuff that requires them to remove non-dom tax status. They have already spent considerable political capital by refusing to scrap the two-child benefit cap and cutting Winter Fuel Payment. To stop implementing a manifesto promise, a centre-piece of their tax policy, is to invite all Labour backbenchers to rebel against the government. Even if this policy loses the Treasury money, Rachel Reeves will look incredibly weak by watering this down. I just don’t see it.
*While no specific policy has been put to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) as part of the Budget process, Treasury officials acknowledge that scrapping two concessions made by the previous government might not raise the £1bn they thought it would, or indeed any money at all.*
*The issue is that the concessions made when Jeremy Hunt unexpectedly scrapped the non-dom scheme, were designed to reduce the incentive for wealthy foreigners with a permanent home abroad to emigrate.*
*The revenue raised was assessed by the OBR in March to be highly uncertain.*
*The Treasury is adamant that any further changes to the regime should be shown to raise money, and that non-dom status in general will still be scrapped.*
I don’t understand why they would reconsider this. It’s a very popular piece among the people. It’s a great for the government to raise some significant funds. It a piece of very obvious left wing politics. Lobbyist are the only reason I could imagine but even then why not lobby for its removal during the election/ before the election. Also in the article there is no meantion of anyone at Labour considering it being scrapped but more the OBR giving an analysis.
Could you imagine how this would go down in combination with the winter fuel allowance cuts and other cuts expected in the budget. Would go down like a lead balloon.
The party of change (our minds about changing anything else)
Non Dom is the brexit of the Labour Party. If they go back on it they might aswell leave office just now because in 5 years they absolutely won’t be there.
Some things are just worth the ideological drive. It’s financially beneficial for us to sell a random UK citizen so Donald Trump can shoot them every year for 1 trillion dollars, but it’s probably not ethically viable.