The sheer cheek...

[TopBadger]

Billionaire who is himself an immigrant to another country, complains immigrants are spongers, whilst his company sponges off the UK tax payer.

The sheer f.cking cheek of the man.

Not sure much he knows much about football given he doesn't seem to know what an own goal is.

[jimbob]

Billionaire who is himself an immigrant to another country, complains immigrants are spongers, whilst his company sponges off the UK tax payer.

The sheer f.cking cheek of the man.

Not sure much he knows much about football given he doesn't seem to know what an own goal is.

Exactly.

And of course he's got a knighthood.

I did notice that he apologised if people were offended - but not for what he said.

[FlammableFlower]

That old chestnut.

[nekomatic]

Here’s the best commentary I’ve read on this story, and it’s by a sport writer not a political journalist.

[TopBadger]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

[Grumble]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

I’d agree, and add that companies registered in the UK need UK citizen directors, if that’s not already a requirement

[TopBadger]

I’d agree, and add that companies registered in the UK need UK citizen directors, if that’s not already a requirement

There is no requirement for a UK company to have a UK director... I agree this also needs changing.

[Lew Dolby]

Or cancel their citizenship. If it was a good enough way to treat a misguided teen, then it's good enough for others who've turn their backs on the uk.

[TopBadger]

Not a fan of cancelling citizenship. Would rather take the standard route of throwing tax evaders in jail and seizing their assets.

[Lew Dolby]

Not a fan of cancelling citizenship. Would rather take the standard route of throwing tax evaders in jail and seizing their assets.

I actually agree with both statements. It just upsets me that the misguided teen (as was) sits in a refugee camp where she lost her children. The UK needs to find some humanity and allow her back (imo).

[TopBadger]

The UK needs to find some humanity and allow her back (imo).

Agree. Ideally she would be allowed back, serve the punishment as required (although I'm not sure any jail time would be as bad as where she is now), and perhaps then try to educate others against radicalization.

[snoozeofreason]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

[TopBadger]

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

Interesting article...

But the main example of the horrors of being a UK/US citizen in particular seem to stem from the US rules being applied. (e.g. USA doesn't view ISA gains as tax free).

A UK citizen tax need not do it exactly the same way...

To target the ultra wealthy you could just set generous thresholds... >£250k income.
Sidestep the issue of differing reporting periods by allowing overseas citizens to file a year later, meaning their local tax affairs are known and complete before having to work out the UK side.
CGT on home sales based on the local sale price gain converted to GBP using historical OANDA rates.

Lets not also forget that no-one is forced to be a dual national. Don't like the rules, then pick one and renounce the other.

[shpalman]

... pick one and renounce the other.

Isn't that what "domicile" is already supposed to be?

[snoozeofreason]

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

<snip>
Lets not also forget that no-one is forced to be a dual national. Don't like the rules, then pick one and renounce the other.

The problem isn't limited to dual nationals. If you live in a country that taxes based on residence, but are a citizen of one that taxes based on citizenship, then you can be subject to dual taxation, even if you aren't a citizen of the country you reside in.

[TopBadger]

... pick one and renounce the other.

Isn't that what "domicile" is already supposed to be?

Is it??

Those F1 drivers and others domiciled in Monaco... none have renounced citizenship. They've just opted out of paying UK tax, whilst still eligible for all the benefits provided (they may not use them, but that's not the point - young healthy people pay for the NHS via taxes even though they may not use it, ditto folks who aren't victims of crime still end up paying for a police service, etc).

[TopBadger]

The problem isn't limited to dual nationals. If you live in a country that taxes based on residence, but are a citizen of one that taxes based on citizenship, then you can be subject to dual taxation, even if you aren't a citizen of the country you reside in.

But as the article says, the UK already has treaties to avoid double taxation with virtually every other country.

UK nationals in say, Germany or Sweden, would be paying a higher % of tax in those countries than they would in the UK... therefore they would not have any income tax liability in the UK under such a citizenship based scheme. It's already been taxed.

The only folks affected would be those ultra wealthy living in places with lower tax than the UK... e.g. 0% income tax Monaco.

[snoozeofreason]

The article does point out the existence of double tax treaties, but then explains why they wouldn't really fix the problems that would arise from citizenship based taxation. There might be sensible ways around the issues that Neidle raises, but I would imagine that, in order to know whether they would work you would need a fairly detailed knowledge both of UK tax, and of those of the various countries with whom we have such treaties (and of their willingness to renogiate those treaties). I'd imagine that Dan Neidle would have that sort of knowledge, but I doubt that any of us do.

[noggins]

The fact that the USA is the only* country in the world that has citizenship based taxation should be more than enough to show that its a f.cking stupid idea.

* ok,Eritrea as well.

[noggins]

Lets not also forget that no-one is forced to be a dual national. Don't like the rules, then pick one and renounce the other.

Racist nonsense

Also, some states won't let you renounce, and some will let you renounce renouncing.

[TopBadger]

The article does point out the existence of double tax treaties, but then explains why they wouldn't really fix the problems that would arise from citizenship based taxation.

Right - but the examples are for UK/US nationals where the bad is introduced from the US side. UK has no control over that. Anyone who is a US/SomewhereElse National will have these issues.

With a different rule set there is no reason for a UK/SomethingElse national to have it so bad under UK citzenship taxation.

E.g. You could make it super simple... only apply to income > £250K and exclude foreign residential property asset sales > £2m. I expect that would exempt all of the non-ultra wealthy UK expat population from it. The remainder would have the financial wherewithal to appoint an accountant to deal with it.

There is another piece of tax law I read somewhere going through the US, where IIRC the proposal is that where ultra rich people put up shares as collateral when investing in something (rather than selling shares to generate a real gain that can be taxed) they will just tax the share value put up at some %. That seems reasonable to me.

My central point is that there are too many ways for hyper mobile hyper rich people to hoard their wealth to the detriment of everyone else and the gap between the top 1% and everyone else is widening year on year. It seems obvious to me that the gap needs to be reduced and I figure citizenship taxes are one way to consider.

[noggins]

Considered, and found stupid.

The billionaires will just renounce.

Citizenship based tax just f.cks over genuine wage slave emigrants .
US tax is an symptom of their legal system's jurisdictional megalomania. US law applies everywhere, motherf.ckers.

[TopBadger]

Racist nonsense

Also, some states won't let you renounce, and some will let you renounce renouncing.

Eh?

In the context of a UK citizenship tax the UK does allow you to renounce citizenship (so long as you have another, which dual nationals do, of course). I think so long as the countries that try to enforce citizenship taxation allow you to renounce then there isn't an issue here.

In my own circle of Friends I know a UK couple that have lived in the USA for over 20 years, have green cards, and have retired having earned millions. Both maintain their UK passports... why? So in the event of declining serious health that isn't covered by their US insurer, they can hot-foot it back to the UK for treatment on the NHS. They can get UK consular assistance if needed. They will benefit from systems they haven't paid into for over 20 years. Is that fair? I don't think it is.

[TopBadger]

The billionaires will just renounce.

And I'm fine with that. In fact I'd prefer that... then Ratcliffe, Dyson, et al can properly do one and it will be clear to everyone that these greedy tw.ts don't care about the rest of us.

Whatever % of the billionaire class that don't renounce would still be additional money for the country.

[Gfamily]

... In my own circle of Friends I know a UK couple that have lived in the USA for over 20 years, have green cards, and have retired having earned millions. Both maintain their UK passports... why? So in the event of declining serious health that isn't covered by their US insurer, they can hot-foot it back to the UK for treatment on the NHS. They can get UK consular assistance if needed. They will benefit from systems they haven't paid into for over 20 years....

Not in principle they won't

Accessing Free State Healthcare
The National Health Service only provides free hospital treatment for people who lawfully live on a settled basis in the United Kingdom. People who do not normally live on a settled basis in this country are not automatically entitled to NHS hospital treatment free of charge – regardless of their nationality or whether they hold a British Passport or have lived and paid National Insurance contributions and taxes in this country in the past.

Source: https://www.essexlmc.org.uk/wp-content/ ... tizens.pdf
This is a concise summary, wordier expressions elsewhere say the same.