Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Domicile again

6th Oct 2015
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

There are times when you wonder whether complications are introduced to tax out of sheer bloody-mindedness when a simpler and more equitable solution might be available. Just such a thing is the proposed change to the non-domicile rules to introduce birth in the UK as a criterion, adding yet another tarradiddle to the baroque edifice of UK taxation. And don’t start me again on IR35. Such absurdities are meat and drink to the tax scheme planners in a country where there are so often more resources in the hands of the wealthy than of the state. Private affluence, public squalor, as JK Galbraith put it.

The number of times one has to ask “why?” about the domicile rules is amazing. Why should the UK, virtually alone among the tax authorities of the world, continue to complicate the income tax system by shoehorning in the matter of domicile? Assuming it has not been maintained entirely for Lord Ashcroft’s benefit (in which case one might expect its imminent disappearance). Is it just our national modesty? I suppose we might not want to emulate the behaviour of the IRS, which makes it pretty clear that it is the fiscal arm of the imperial superpower and regards practically anyone anywhere as fair game, but we don’t have to be a tax free playground for all the new billionaires of the world and – in many cases – their very dirty money. Especially given the obvious harm done to the UK housing market.

In a country where Rupert Murdoch and the Daily Mail tell everyone what to think, and the rest of the media trail miserably along behind them, it is after all no surprise that we end up believing in impossible and pointless things, like Trident, HS2, or that all you need to do to make more money is work harder. It is no surprise then that people throw their hands up in horror at the idea that employers should pay their employees enough money to live on instead of letting the state top it up and then bewailing the benefit culture and the amounts spent on welfare. 

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Duhamel
06th Oct 2015 11:58

Nice rant
I'm always amazed that no one who complains about Murdoch or the Daily Mail mentions the massive market share of the Beeb. As if it is totally one sided or something.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carnmores
06th Oct 2015 23:27

so condesending
He has some reasonable points but obviously older but not wiser

Thanks (0)