Share this content
Tags:

Labour's non-dom plan divides accountants

9th Apr 2015
Share this content
Kashflow logo

Ed Miliband’s plan to scrap non-dom tax status if he becomes 10 Downing Street’s newest tenant, has raised a few eyebrows on AccountingWEB.

Milband said this week that a Labour government would abolish the non-domicile rule that allows some UK residents to limit tax paid on earnings outside the country.

Instead, it said it would give non-doms already living in Britain a two-year transition period to "get their affairs in order". Non-doms will have to pay tax on all their earnings after around two or three years. 

Non-dom tax status originated in the 18th Century and has been characterised by its critics as a vestige of Colonial era inequity and a symbol of tax avoidance.

AccountingWEB’s members are not all convinced by Miliband’s plan, however.

Commenting on an earlier article, Old Greying Accountant said they felt scrapping the non-dom status is a slippery slope.

“I don't deny it needs work to stop contrived abuses, but for the true non-dom you have to weigh the benfits they may bring by establishing businesses here against any 'lost' tax on their assets and income held outside the UK,” he wrote. 

Duhamel concurred, “It should be revised, particularly for UK domiciled leaving to be non-dom, but as a concept it should stay. I haven't looked at numbers, I suspect that will be key.”

Some members felt Miliband’s motives for wanting the change were wrong. “Like many other arguments of this kind, there are no reliable figures showing the cost/benefit one way or the other,” wrote mwngiol“So one can only assume that arguments on both sides are being made from a political rather than economic standpoint.”

AccountingWEB contributor Philip Fisher called scrapping the non-dom status a "political hot potato". "One factor that Mr Miliband might have had in mind before dropping his bombshell is that many non-doms do not get to vote in the UK.

"However, they are often very influential and many will recall the uproar when it was announced that Lord Ashcroft, formerly chairman of another political party, was taking advantage of his non-dom status to minimise the tax that he paid to the UK Exchequer."

Member reaction was not all negative. Red Leader asked “if the non-dom law is such a good idea for the UK, why don't other major economies have something similar?"

“It does seem ridiculous that a person born here and who has lived here most of their life can be non-dom because their father was a non-dom.”

Mr. Mischief felt that scrapping the non-dom rule “would get rid of a complex chunk of UK tax law” and that “that can only be a good thing”. “I would go further,” he wrote, “any UK passport holder should have to account for all worldwide gains and income to HMRC.

“Whoever wins the election needs to get extra revenue from the wealthy people who do not pay their fair share due to these loopholes.  It's unfair on wealthy people who don't pull off these dodgy games in dubious tax havens.”

What's your take on Labour's plan?

Tags:

Replies (42)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
09th Apr 2015 12:34

.

The main issue with offshore income is finding it, that is to say its a tax largely of honesty. HMRC dont have the resources to tackle undeclared incomes in the UK.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
09th Apr 2015 13:01

It's archaic

I honestly cannot see why someone whose father was born abroad should gain a tax advantage over someone whose father was born in the UK.

The tax rules, whatever they may be, should apply to everyone. If they come to the UK purely because it's a tax haven, then why didn't they go to one of those countries that give even greater tax savings? Could it be because they prefer the UK, even though they could make greater tax savings elsewhere?

If they are not loyal to the UK or care about it's citizens, and are only interested in themselves (ie. are more interested in how little they need to contribute to their chosen country), then why should we give them tax breaks? 

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Duhamel
09th Apr 2015 13:45

So reform it

ShirleyM wrote:

I honestly cannot see why someone whose father was born abroad should gain a tax advantage over someone whose father was born in the UK.

The tax rules, whatever they may be, should apply to everyone. If they come to the UK purely because it's a tax haven, then why didn't they go to one of those countries that give even greater tax savings? Could it be because they prefer the UK, even though they could make greater tax savings elsewhere?

If they are not loyal to the UK or care about it's citizens, and are only interested in themselves (ie. are more interested in how little they need to contribute to their chosen country), then why should we give them tax breaks? 

I don't deal with non doms anymore, so my knowledge is a bit rusty. I don't see how they really gain an advantage (barring some abuse of the system). Someone comes to the UK, pays tax on UK income and RBC on overseas income. They pay tax on the overseas income in other countries probably/possibly. Someone comes to the UK, pays tax on UK income - how is this a tax break?

If they are abusing the system, as Duncan Bannatyne describes, then reform it.

People do make decisions based on tax, for example Usain Bolt won't compete in the UK (generally) due to the adverse system of taxing international athletes.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Russell Eisen
09th Apr 2015 13:38

So many headlines for so few!

Take a step back – who are we talking about?

Even according to the Treasury, only around 5,000 individuals pay the RBC each year. Of those, only 3,000 have paid the RBC in every year for which it has applied. So should such headlines be directed at a number less than the crowd attendance at Alfeton Town’s last football conference league match?

Agreed there are many more not yet a 'long-term' resident, but perhaps a bit of perspective is needed!

 

Thanks (2)
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
25th Apr 2015 10:52

(No subject)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By justsotax
09th Apr 2015 14:02

I guess

(and only guess) that the majority of the 3,000 plus individuals who 'choose' to only pay tax on their uk income (which I can imagine in some instances will be negligible) live in and around London - enjoying the security/safety and lifestyle under the cover of the UK government whilst not fully contributing to its existence.  (BTW I would suggest we are talking about in the main the super rich who can most afford but want to contribute the least)

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Accountsetc
10th Apr 2015 10:10

Combine it with the Mansion Tax

Its going to be very difficult to police this as, as has been mentioned above, its a tax on honesty.

My solution is this:

Raise the mansion tax threshold to properties over a higher threshold, say £5million. Charge a punitive Mansion tax on these properties. This tax can then be offset against any UK income tax paid by the owner of the property whether by an individual, offshore trust or company. This way those paying tax in the UK aren't punished and those who park their money in properties in London due to its perceived benefits pay for the service of a sound, stable economy and democracy that respects your rights to property etc. If you don't pay income tax you pay mansion tax. 

Somebody with a calculator would need to do the sums........

Thanks (1)
By Donald6000
10th Apr 2015 10:55

While idiots rule the HMRC

I don't see what difference this political ploy makes to anyone or anything. While you have idiots like Hartnett telling Vodafone that they need only pay £1BN of a £6.5BN Corporation Tax bill, whether or not you have non doms makes very little difference.

This is a divide and rule tactic and it won't work. It's like telling Little Johnny not to ride his bicycle on the pavement when there are murders in the next street. Clearly this country lacks a sense of proportion and common sense. Let's be quite blunt here; the whole of the UK tax system is one big anachronism, as I am sure Ed Milipede will tell you.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By redboam
10th Apr 2015 10:57

Simplify

How about nobody paying tax on the first £12,000 followed by a flat rate of tax with no exemptions or special cases for anyone resident in the UK?

Thanks (2)
avatar
By iainhunneybell
10th Apr 2015 11:10

Surely the aim should be to maximise the tax take

This seems all very like the 50/55% tax rate discussion. It ‘looks good’ for a politician to be ‘defending the poor’ by ‘making the rich pay their fair share’. That’s wonderful, just so long as the rich are here to pay any tax at all. I have no idea what the net effect of removal of non-dom status would do for total tax take, but what worries me so much about these discussions – like the 50-55% tax rate – is that are based around what sounds good and not what maximises the tax take, because if they result in driving mobile people to simply relocate outside the UK and so pay no UK tax at all, it simply leaves more for the rest of us to cover.

 

I really do wish the politicians would stop ‘trying to sound good’ and actually do the research to show that what they’re proposing will have an overall net benefit for us all. Sadly, I suspect this is asking too much :-(

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
10th Apr 2015 11:33

Ignorance is Bliss

I'm still surprised when people can come out with comments like this:

'enjoying the security/safety and lifestyle under the cover of the UK government whilst not fully contributing to its existence'

Blinded by the same rhetoric that says Labour isn't responsible for the overspending, weren't in charge of banking regulation when the banking crisis happened, etc etc ?

The top 1% of earners contribute a third of income tax, but still we hear calls for them to pay 'their fair share'.

Non-doms already contribute more than most- it's not just the annual charge (which is money in the hand rather than speculation as to how much additional tax might be due on income that has nothing to do with the UK), but also the other ways in which they contribute, be it donations to charities, businesses they fund, companies they run, people they employ.

In a competitive world (that includes tax regimes) we need every advantage we can get to attract inwards investment, and non-dom is a string in our bow.  Needs reforming, but to scrap it is stupidity based on the usual politics of envy and attempts to swing Labour voters back to the fold.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By pawncob
10th Apr 2015 11:57

I'm with Ian

I cannot see the point in hounding NonDoms until they're forced to leave.

They contribute a huge amount to the UK. They pay direct as well as indirect taxes. They probably don't use the NHS or other resources. They employ Brits, they start/finance businesses. They drive the London property market.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Stratfan
10th Apr 2015 12:26

Property

pawncob wrote:

 They drive the London property market.

 

 

You say that as if it's a good thing. Do you seriously believe that the state of the London property market, with prices driven so high it is almost impossible for ordinary people to buy a home, is something to celebrate?

Thanks (3)
avatar
By leon0001
10th Apr 2015 12:45

Sloppy reporting

The failure to properly understand the domicile rules for income tax (and don't forget IHT) demonstrated by the press and politicians is breathtaking although not surprising.

The number of current UK residents who are or possibly could be non domiciled must run into the millions. It might be relevant to all immigrant persons and their children. Domicile is either your domicile of origin - generally your father's domicile at the time you were born (or your mother if the father's identity is not known) - or a subsequently acquired domicile of choice. For IHT purposes, UK domicile is deemed to apply if the individual was UK resident for 17 of the last 20 years.

Domicile can change more than once in a lifetime, not always as the result of a particular decision. How many of the present influx of EU nationals will necessarily remain in the UK for the rest of their lives. Indeed, now that there is freedom of movement in the EU, how many can be assumed to have acquired UK domicile of choice?

The talk of 120,000 non-doms is frankly nonsense. However, for the vast majority of UK resident non-doms, there is no tax consequence to be considered because there is no overseas income. For those paying the fixed £90,000 tax charge, their overseas income would be expected to exceed £200,000. I am sure that there cannot be too many individuals in that category.

It can be a tricky area when someone who came to the UK and stayed for their entire working life decides to retire to somewhere warm or their country of origin.

Just have a look at the flowcharts in RDR1 and the guidance in RDRM20000.

As far as collecting tax is concerned, the picture is not easily ascertained. When you consider foreign tax suffered and double tax treaty conditions, the actual amount of additional UK tax which would be raised is much less than would first appear to be collectible.

Rather than consulting for other ways to reform the existing rules, time would be better spent on a complete and radical redesign of the entire UK tax system. Nowhere else has so much over complex and inexplicable legislation which is also tinkered with at every opportunity. 

 

 

Thanks (4)
avatar
By justsotax
10th Apr 2015 13:24

Ian, i think that is just a statement of

fact...I presume they don't stay in there domiciled country for a number of reasons....(perhaps because of tax...but more likely because it doesn't offer the same standard of living one with money could attain in and around London).  Presumably you are blinded by the Tory suggestion that lowering the rate of tax will increase the tax take...(I am only talking about the higher rates of course....)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By iainhunneybell
11th Apr 2015 13:52

I'm not blinded, it's simple maths

@justsotax, I’m not blinded by anything and made the point I have no idea on the net effect of this policy statement. My point though was that before going making statements that could lead to a reduction on tax take, politicians should work out whether the idea is *actually* to everyone’s benefit or simply to for their own to make then sound good.

It is a very VERY simply concept: You want to maximise the tax take so as to spread the costs for government. If you drive people away due to high taxes, then you reduce tax take and you leave a greater burden for those that remain. Most at the bottom of the tax scale have little option to move to gain tax benefit…we just sit here and pay what we’re asked to pay. But the super-rich, that this kind of policy is aimed, often *do* have the option to be mobile and so *if* we drive them away we made things *worse* for everyone left behind.

This isn’t Tory anything, it’s just simple maths. The big and usually unknown question is whether any of this *will* bring a net benefit or not…but that seems to matter not, ‘sounding good’, however, does.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Ian McTernan CTA
14th Apr 2015 13:17

Tax Yield

justsotax wrote:

fact...I presume they don't stay in there domiciled country for a number of reasons....(perhaps because of tax...but more likely because it doesn't offer the same standard of living one with money could attain in and around London).  Presumably you are blinded by the Tory suggestion that lowering the rate of tax will increase the tax take...(I am only talking about the higher rates of course....)

I seem to recall the 40% rate bringing in more under Thatcher than when the rate was 60%- in fact a study was done at the time that detemined the ideal rate for yield was 40%, anything lower or higher brings in less tax.

Labour only brought in the 50% rate in the dying days of a 13 year stint, so I can only assume you've fallen for the Labour rhetoric of a 'tax cut for the rich' and the usual soundbite politics of envy they employ to blind people into voting for them once again?

It also appears that the tax take increased when the rate was dropped from 50% to 45%.

Yes, it appears I'm blinded by such facts.  I'm also apparently blinded by the fact Labour overspent, were in charge last time, and left the country in such a mess it's taken 5 years to get it even slightly back on course and have left us with debts my gandchildren will be paying off.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
14th Apr 2015 19:35

Law of Diminishing Returns:

Ian McTernan CTA]</p> <p>[quote=justsotax wrote:

I seem to recall the 40% rate bringing in more under Thatcher than when the rate was 60%- in fact a study was done at the time that detemined the ideal rate for yield was 40%, anything lower or higher brings in less tax.

Labour only brought in the 50% rate in the dying days of a 13 year stint, so I can only assume you've fallen for the Labour rhetoric of a 'tax cut for the rich' and the usual soundbite politics of envy they employ to blind people into voting for them once again?

It also appears that the tax take increased when the rate was dropped from 50% to 45%.

Yes, it appears I'm blinded by such facts.  I'm also apparently blinded by the fact Labour overspent, were in charge last time, and left the country in such a mess it's taken 5 years to get it even slightly back on course and have left us with debts my grandchildren will be paying off.

The concept here, Ian is the Law of Diminishing Returns, examined and postulated by Prof Arthur Laffer: and thereafter known as Laffer's Curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

I had the pleasure of working for an afternoon, with his then boss, Russell B Clarke (Wainwrights of Boston), in my then London office in 1979.

The core precept is that above a certain delicate threshold of tax, returns decrease and the graph accelerates the higher the tax rate becomes.

Similar to a Market Price Sensitivity graph: plotted price against sales volume. As acquisition price increases, volume decreases above the Price Sensitivity point.

This is the fundamental reality of holistic taxation idiot politicians cannot grasp!

They see tax only myopically, as a way to fund their increasing profligacy.

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By paddyb
10th Apr 2015 15:33

Merry Little England

Note: I am not an accountant, I am a business owner, I am a member to keep a breast of tax matters.

I am Irish and believe it or not, all Uk based Irish born nationals here are non-dom, (assuming their father was born and raised of an Irish father in Ireland) However, the vast majority of the UK population doesn't regard us as immigrants let alone bestow the mantle of being 'non doms' upon us. Even Sir Bob the saver of the planet and a fellow Dublin man is a non dom. The difference is I am not wealthy or world wide prosperous enough to use the status to any tax advantage and my entire income is made in the UK where I pay my taxes.

But......

I'm one of those people that Milibrand wants to put the higher rate tax up for, levy a mansion tax on and now scare all of my clients away. One of these very people has kept my business running now for about 3 years. He has kept hundreds of other people employed. This has raised millions in taxes and NI. That's before we count the VAT that all of these businesses has collected, processed and paid over to HMRC. It runs to 100s of millions.

Step forward all of the lower rate tax payers wherever you are who will ever ever contribute a fraction of that to this great country.

Millibrand.....Stop bashing people because they are successful. They are successful because they have applied the gifts nature gave them to the conditions they find themselves in a more effective way than others. Stop using the word 'fair' I'll tell you what's not fair, I wake up at 5am every morning with a thirst to go and find another opportunity, I work until at least 8 or 9pm and my mind is buzzing all day....that's what's not fair, he should try being an entrepreneur... it's a form of living hell but I can't help it. Maybe if through 'fairness' I could wake at 8am, go to work until 5pm, switch off go home and watch him telling me that the wealth creators have it all there own way I would have a different opinion, but I will never know.

Collectively these people are the wealth creators. I agree with the redistribution of wealth and the maintenance of the health service for the good of all but I think it's time access to certain services be means tested. Where possible I pay for as much as I can, I don't claim child benefit and I have never ever claimed unemployment benefit. This move however is a blunt instrument.

Scrapping non dom is populist nonsense because most people haven't got a sophisticated enough understanding of the tax system or for that matter economics to understand what that statement actually means. 

Oh and before I go here's a little tax or as the Irish call it a 'levy' that might be worth him considering. The levy on credit cards, everyone in Ireland pays thirty euro a year on each card they hold. Come on Milli.....think outside the box!!

Yours, the proudest plastic Paddy non....'non dom' on the block.

xx

Thanks (9)
avatar
By mickeyparish
10th Apr 2015 13:27

non-dom and non-resident

It would be quite fair to require all UK residents to pay tax, but then it would equally be totally fair to excuse all UK non-residents from paying tax.  It's because of the government's greed in trying to hang onto the taxation of British citizens living abroad that we got into this silly distinction between non domiciled not resident and not ordinarily resident in the first place.  Keep it simple - live here - pay tax here.  Don't live here - don't pay tax here.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By moneymanager
10th Apr 2015 13:58

Ashcroft et al

A large part of the furore was caused by this politician's status. Perhaps it would be reasonable for non-doms (of choice and origin but especially the former) to be be prohibited from making political donations and both voting in and standing for elections? "No representation without taxation"?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By tonyhawley1941
10th Apr 2015 15:14

Labour and other election hopefuls
Oh boy. The tangled web we wieve when politicians seek to deceive. Why oh why don't they get down to the really vital job of simplification of the entire tax system?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
10th Apr 2015 17:25

Distinguish Between.......

........honest intent to reform and political posturing on the stump!

As is always the way, the Devil is in the DETAIL!

Millipede and his duplicitous cronies, are simply trying to seduce more people of real Left Wing inclination, since BLiar and his pretence of " New" labour, gained a large swathe of votes on serial broken promises and outright lies: who then turned away from Labour.

What's new? He's a politician.

Led by their tax avoidance cheerleader, the millionaires Hodge (Whose family fortune was inherited from an ultimate tax dodging father!), some politicians are simply trying to sooth a majority of Schedule E taxpayers, by trying to brainwash them into believing the core reason they pay far too many high taxes , is only and purely due to the dastardly tax avoiders, Non-Doms and multinational corporations.

Which, of course is sheer unadulterated nonsense!

The reason our taxes are far too high is only due to Government's own profligacy, shambling incompetence and massive waste.

 

Thanks (4)
By ShirleyM
10th Apr 2015 17:59

Inflammatory post

Michael C Feltham wrote:

........honest intent to reform and political posturing on the stump!

As is always the way, the Devil is in the DETAIL!

Millipede and his duplicitous cronies, are simply trying to seduce more people of real Left Wing inclination, since BLiar and his pretence of " New" labour, gained a large swathe of votes on serial broken promises and outright lies: who then turned away from Labour.

What's new? He's a politician.

Led by their tax avoidance cheerleader, the millionaires Hodge (Whose family fortune was inherited from an ultimate tax dodging father!), some politicians are simply trying to sooth a majority of Schedule E taxpayers, by trying to brainwash them into believing the core reason they pay far too many high taxes , is only and purely due to the dastardly tax avoiders, Non-Doms and multinational corporations.

Which, of course is sheer unadulterated nonsense!

The reason our taxes are far too high is only due to Government's own profligacy, shambling incompetence and massive waste.

 

I'm no fan of Miliband's (or Cameron come to that), but your language, and name calling, is very inflammatory, I can understand why threads on politics become quite heated when comments such as yours are made! Would you be happy for others to call DC a liar?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
10th Apr 2015 19:30

Rather, it is factual!

ShirleyM wrote:

I'm no fan of Miliband's (or Cameron come to that), but your language, and name calling, is very inflammatory, I can understand why threads on politics become quite heated when comments such as yours are made! Would you be happy for others to call DC a liar?

"Inflammatory", Shirley?

I fear not, Shirley. Simply pragmatic.

Quote:
Would you be happy for others to call DC a liar?

Happy? Delighted, more like!

Personally, Shirley, I deal only in fact. Facts of tax law; facts of banking and finance; facts of commercial and contract law.

Let me provide a small example: do you remember one Norman Lamont? And his famous saying that he had been "Economical with the actuality"?

Which means, in simple plain English; didn't tell the truth!

Anyway, this thread isn't about politics: it is about a desperate politician, trying to become the next PM. And using every weapon at his disposal to seduce the great voting and myopic British public to foolishly elect his party.

 

 

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
10th Apr 2015 19:41

Ok, you made it clear

It is possible to voice your opinion in a non inflammatory way, but I guess that doesn't appeal to you.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rdstreet
11th Apr 2015 03:11

Shirley, who is getting personal here. I think Michael makes a fair point. It would be better to vent your ire at the impending election.

Thanks (1)
By paddy55
11th Apr 2015 03:27

Non-dom's

I have had experience of a number of tax jurisdictions around the world.

The invariable rule is that tax-residents are taxed on their world-wide income, subject to double taxation relief, while non tax-residents are taxed only on income received from within the jurisdiction.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
11th Apr 2015 20:59

Hammer - Nail - Head - Bang!

paddy55 wrote:

I have had experience of a number of tax jurisdictions around the world.

The invariable rule is that tax-residents are taxed on their world-wide income, subject to double taxation relief, while non tax-residents are taxed only on income received from within the jurisdiction.

Absolutely correct, Paddy.

This is the nub: at present, the UK is a signatory of circa 100 Dual Taxation Treaties.

How might these be unwound, without inviting hostile reciprocal action?

If an entity (Person or Corporation: which is invariably ignored, or glossed over by politicians on the stump, scattering sound bites to woo electors), is fiscally based in one jurisdiction, it does not mean all their wealth is fiscally based in the same jurisdiction: it might well be based (and usually is) in numerous jurisdictions and held in trusts, companies and even (often!) companies owned by way of bearer shares.

The way ex-pats normally cause themselves problems is to continue to own, personally, real property in e.g. UK, and abuse the temporary visit rules.

For example, see Gaines-Cooper.

Case Determination (Supreme Court: here): http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/47.html

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JC
11th Apr 2015 09:36

ISIS members – non-dom …

Personally don’t have an issue with non-dom provided it is not abused (HSBC latest con)

Although, making unquantified knee-jerk election promises without quantifying what is involved as to whether the country would be better off with/without is never a good approach to anything – after all we could be shooting ourselves in the foot!

(and don't forget that it is not all about money but also opportunity & wealth in other ways that is being introduced into the UK)

Frankly I would fare more p*** off with those with business in the UK who syphon off all the profits off-shore (fake licence fees etc.), having collected revenue from the UK payer - especially as this type of exercise deprives the revenue of far more tax than a few very wealthy foreign nationals

Nevertheless, it must be heartening to know that a great many members of ISIS can be non-dom – after all the status can be acquired from ones father (or one’s own) place of birth. Which brings us a full circle to unfettered immigration

When they return to the UK they will not be taxable on the proceeds of any looted artefacts, which presumambly would be deemed Wordwide income provided it was left of shore!

Although we have yet to hear that anyone returning intends to make their ultimate permanent abode in Iraq/Syria (aka Stuart Gulliver - HSBC)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AndrewV12
11th Apr 2015 09:52

Relax

For some reason the UK is the centre for world business  and trade, I dont think changes to the dom rules will make any difference whatsoever.   

 

But it is time to make it harder for tax dodgers.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
11th Apr 2015 21:08

Reason:

AndrewV12 wrote:

For some reason the UK is the centre for world business  and trade,

Primary reason is simply because Britain and London, were the centres of trade and import/export since the 1700s: and later, thanks to the commonwealth.

The Navigation Acts determined only British ships were allowed to carry British (and Commonwealth goods).

Post Big Bang in the 1980s, UK was far less regulated for banking and international financial activities than other major global centres. London stockbrokers and trading houses were acquired by US, Canadian, Swiss, French, German, Dutch, Japanese etc banks, who supplied the essential liquidity and took over, in particular, the London bond market. Only one market maker/stock broker assembled sufficient capital base: Barclays-De Zoote. And after an early disastrous period (they lost circa £1 billion) imported a CEO from J P Morgan to show them how to run it properly!

Interesting to note that circa 80% of the FTSE 100 now comprises foreign corporations..........

 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By AndrewV12
12th Apr 2015 08:33

80% of the FT are owned overseas

I cannot work out if this is a good thing or not, but if overseas investors are keeping the UK going during tough times, it has to be good, but then again I have heard overseas hedge funds are buying homes in the UK and pushing up prices for the rest of us, thus sowing the seeds for the next downturn. 

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
12th Apr 2015 10:31

Measure the "Benefit"!

AndrewV12 wrote:

I cannot work out if this is a good thing or not, but if overseas investors are keeping the UK going during tough times, it has to be good, but then again I have heard overseas hedge funds are buying homes in the UK and pushing up prices for the rest of us, thus sowing the seeds for the next downturn. 

I don't believe "overseas investors are keeping the UK going during tough times", Andrew.

What must be remembered, is equity (Stock and Bond) markets are mainly involved in buying and selling what already exists: not creating anything "New".

Excepting, rare IPOs; and few IPOs of any weight occur in UK since there are too few newish enterprises large enough to matter. (AIM excepted however these are small).

Rights Issues suck in new funds, obviously; however since they are foreign companies, such new funding would invariably finish up overseas.

It is very clear, UK plc lacks capital: so much so that in order to fund the last insane house price bubble, foreign capital had to be "imported" via the global capital markets - mainly short term - and then when the supposed "Credit Crunch" hit, repatriated.

By 2003/04 in their annual "Wealth of Great Britain" report, ONS stated, residential house prices represented over 60% of TOTAL capital wealth!

 

 

Thanks (1)
Francois
By Francois Badenhorst
13th Apr 2015 14:34

Thanks for all the feedback, chaps

It's really great to see an active, healthy debate in the comments. It's why we do what we do. Cheers. 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mickeyparish
14th Apr 2015 11:10

circa 80% of the FTSE 100 now comprises foreign corporations

...and the statement

"80% of the FTSE are owned overseas" are 2 different statements, and it would be interesting to know which is right.  It would be a strange coincidence if both were right.

On such transpositions of ideas, policies are then devised by politicians !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
14th Apr 2015 19:25

Actually.........

mickeyparish wrote:

...and the statement

"80% of the FTSE are owned overseas" are 2 different statements, and it would be interesting to know which is right.  It would be a strange coincidence if both were right.

On such transpositions of ideas, policies are then devised by politicians !

What I actually wrote, Mickey, was:

[Interesting to note that circa 80% of the FTSE 100 now comprises foreign corporations..........]

Important, also, to drill down into the total capitalisation (i.e. of issued stock).

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
16th Apr 2015 09:37

Oh Dear!

"Ed Miliband's US adviser David Axelrod pays no tax in Britain David Axelrod, the former adviser to Barack Obama, tells The Telegraph that he is resident for tax purposes in the US"
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11540373/Ed-Milibands-US...

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Stratfan
17th Apr 2015 15:33

Ed Miliband

Michael C Feltham wrote:

"Ed Miliband's US adviser David Axelrod pays no tax in Britain David Axelrod, the former adviser to Barack Obama, tells The Telegraph that he is resident for tax purposes in the US"
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11540373/Ed-Milibands-US...

 

 

Person resident outside UK supplies services to person in UK shocker? Sounds a rather desperate attempt at a tax smear to be honest.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By mickeyparish
16th Apr 2015 14:56

No disagreement, Michael.  Someone else wrote the second statement ( AndrewV12 ) and I was just pointing out that the two statements are not the same.  I doubt many politicians however would have a clue what the difference was.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
17th Apr 2015 14:23

statistics....

they always tell you the truth (I presume the laugher curve takes account of the economy at the time....and presumably people were interviewed to confirm why they 'decided' to pay more tax than in previous years...due to the 'slash' in tax rates'....it couldn't possibly be for any other reason....because that's what the stats say!!!)

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Michael C Feltham
17th Apr 2015 17:04

@Stratfan:

Not quite.........

Since the man concerned is actually working in the UK!

It would be wholly different if he supplied his consulting services from the USA, only.

e.g. https://www.gov.uk/pay-tax-on-payments-to-foreign-performers

 

Thanks (0)