| Starmer's principled positioning .... 09:15 - May 12 with 8524 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
How many highly principled, yet varying, positions on the same subjects is it OK to have?
Asking for a friend. |  |
| |  |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:12 - May 13 with 881 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 21:58 - May 13 by lowhouseblue |
jeez, we've covered this, and you really need to actually read what you quote and what you then post.
your quote is explicitly about "those initially arriving on a study-related visa". INITIALLY!!. they have then ceased to be students. this is the point i've been making all along. INITIALLY they come on study visas, but at the end of their one year course, they cease to be students and they get a graduate visa. the issue here, as i have patiently been trying to explain all along, is the availability of graduate visas since 2021.
the population of overseas students has NOT grown by the numbers you quote - if it had then that would have been positive net immigration of students. but that didn't happen. what has happened is that the government in 2021 started to allow people who had been students to have a graduate visa. the net migration here is solely because the government is now since 2021 issuing graduate visas, not because of current student numbers. if we had the exact same number of students but abolished graduate visas there would then be no net migration amongst that group. how many times do i need to explain it? and even your own quote should make it clear to you - "INITIALLY arriving on a study-related visa". INITIALLY. they aren't now still studying. they came as students - they then ceased to be students, but still stayed on a different visa which is the whole issue here.
jeez. [Post edited 13 May 22:05]
|
Okay mate, write to the ONS and tell them they're getting their net migration figures wrong. I'm sure they'll value your input as much as we all do. I think it's you who isn't really understanding, but there we go. We've seen a spike in numbers of students arriving at the same time we've seen more students staying rather than going back home, that has contributed to the spike in net migration. I mean, surely the key thing with measuring net student migration is looking at the number of people entering as students versus the number of people who entered as students leaving?
You could just admit you're wrong, you know, rather than trying to pivot to a pointless position that narrowly focuses on bits of paper and what they're called rather than the actual people who are coming into and leaving the country. [Post edited 13 May 22:22]
|  |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:12 - May 13 with 881 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:03 - May 13 by BanksterDebtSlave |
OK so I've got used to no capitals but heer!!
Oh and it's Jezza (capitals optional) |
Their rage typing is atrocious. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:29 - May 13 with 821 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:12 - May 13 by Herbivore |
Okay mate, write to the ONS and tell them they're getting their net migration figures wrong. I'm sure they'll value your input as much as we all do. I think it's you who isn't really understanding, but there we go. We've seen a spike in numbers of students arriving at the same time we've seen more students staying rather than going back home, that has contributed to the spike in net migration. I mean, surely the key thing with measuring net student migration is looking at the number of people entering as students versus the number of people who entered as students leaving?
You could just admit you're wrong, you know, rather than trying to pivot to a pointless position that narrowly focuses on bits of paper and what they're called rather than the actual people who are coming into and leaving the country. [Post edited 13 May 22:22]
|
last time I'll try to get this across to you.
1. between 2017 and 2023 the total overseas student population rose by 300,000. that equates to net immigration of students of about 50,000 a year over that period. relative to total net immigration to the uk that's a small proportion.
2. the number of new student visas issued is not net migration because almost exactly the same number, allowing for 1. above, cease being students and come off their student visa. other than 1. above there are not more study visa holders in the uk.
3. the total annual number of new student visas issued rose because of 1. above AND because in 2021 there was an increase in overseas students taking one year courses (as i've tried to explain even with a fixed number of students, if students come for shorter courses you then need more of them arriving each year to keep the total number constant). you can have more study visas issued annually without the number of study visas existing at any one time rising.
4. what changed in 2021 is that the government introduced the graduate visa. so ex students who had graduated and come off their study visa rather than returning home as they had done before could get a NEW visa. so their study visa ended but they got a different visa. the net immigration here then is the number of graduate visas issued to people who would otherwise have left the country.
5. if the graduate visa had not been invented net migration here would have been limited to 1. above - ie a very small number relative to total net immigration. the issue then is not the number of overseas students in the uk, it's the creation, as a policy chosen by the government, of the new graduate visa route. that net immigration is not a necessary consequence of welcoming overseas students - it's a separate policy enacted by the government.
i don't know how to make it any clearer for you. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:32 - May 13 with 806 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:29 - May 13 by lowhouseblue |
last time I'll try to get this across to you.
1. between 2017 and 2023 the total overseas student population rose by 300,000. that equates to net immigration of students of about 50,000 a year over that period. relative to total net immigration to the uk that's a small proportion.
2. the number of new student visas issued is not net migration because almost exactly the same number, allowing for 1. above, cease being students and come off their student visa. other than 1. above there are not more study visa holders in the uk.
3. the total annual number of new student visas issued rose because of 1. above AND because in 2021 there was an increase in overseas students taking one year courses (as i've tried to explain even with a fixed number of students, if students come for shorter courses you then need more of them arriving each year to keep the total number constant). you can have more study visas issued annually without the number of study visas existing at any one time rising.
4. what changed in 2021 is that the government introduced the graduate visa. so ex students who had graduated and come off their study visa rather than returning home as they had done before could get a NEW visa. so their study visa ended but they got a different visa. the net immigration here then is the number of graduate visas issued to people who would otherwise have left the country.
5. if the graduate visa had not been invented net migration here would have been limited to 1. above - ie a very small number relative to total net immigration. the issue then is not the number of overseas students in the uk, it's the creation, as a policy chosen by the government, of the new graduate visa route. that net immigration is not a necessary consequence of welcoming overseas students - it's a separate policy enacted by the government.
i don't know how to make it any clearer for you. |
I'm not the one not understanding basic net migration figures from the ONS, mate. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:34 - May 13 with 794 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:32 - May 13 by Herbivore |
I'm not the one not understanding basic net migration figures from the ONS, mate. |
clearly since you didn't even understand what the quote you posted meant, you are. it's really not rocket science you know. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:37 - May 13 with 786 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:34 - May 13 by lowhouseblue |
clearly since you didn't even understand what the quote you posted meant, you are. it's really not rocket science you know. |
No, I understood it fine thanks. You're right, it's quite straightforward: in recent years, we've had lots more people arriving as students and fewer people who have arrived as students leaving. Frankly I'm staggered a man such as yourself who has such a high opinion of themselves is struggling with this. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:43 - May 13 with 774 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 20:32 - May 13 by Herbivore |
It's not that I'm not listening, it's that I don't agree with you. Your position has been that student migration doesn't have a significant impact on overall net migration because the number of students coming in and out, bar the odd spike, is largely static.
It's not just me that disagrees with you, the ONS also disagrees with you. This is from them: "Net migration for those initially arriving on a study-related visa for year ending (YE) June 2024 is estimated at 262,000. This is lower than YE June 2023 and YE June 2022 for which our revised estimates are 326,000 and 269,000. However, this is still over nine times higher than YE June 2019 when net migration was estimated at 24,000".
So your view that net migration of students is negligible is about 6 years out of date. Full link below, the data and analysis are in section 3.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/inter |
You’re wasting your time |  |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:44 - May 13 with 773 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:43 - May 13 by Swansea_Blue |
You’re wasting your time |
Very true. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:49 - May 13 with 771 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:37 - May 13 by Herbivore |
No, I understood it fine thanks. You're right, it's quite straightforward: in recent years, we've had lots more people arriving as students and fewer people who have arrived as students leaving. Frankly I'm staggered a man such as yourself who has such a high opinion of themselves is struggling with this. |
once they graduate and come off the study visa they are no longer students. they aren't paying university fees, they have no connection to any university, they are not studying, they have nothing to do with HE, they are not part of the uk student population. they are not increasing uk student numbers and uk student numbers don't therefore explain this rise in net immigration.
they are only still in the uk because in 2021 the government invented a new visa route. that doesn't mean they're still students. they do represent a net addition to immigration but it has absolutely nothing to do with being a student - it's a new category of migrant the government invented in 2021.
i know you're being intentionally obtuse, but really. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 23:06 - May 13 with 755 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 22:49 - May 13 by lowhouseblue |
once they graduate and come off the study visa they are no longer students. they aren't paying university fees, they have no connection to any university, they are not studying, they have nothing to do with HE, they are not part of the uk student population. they are not increasing uk student numbers and uk student numbers don't therefore explain this rise in net immigration.
they are only still in the uk because in 2021 the government invented a new visa route. that doesn't mean they're still students. they do represent a net addition to immigration but it has absolutely nothing to do with being a student - it's a new category of migrant the government invented in 2021.
i know you're being intentionally obtuse, but really. |
I'm being obtuse? Take a look in the mirror, mate. You're the one trying to argue the ONS is wrong about net student migration when their evidence clearly shows a huge difference in numbers of people arriving on student visas versus people leaving who arrived on student visas in recent years.
YeS bUt tHeRe oN a DifFrENt vIsA!!! It's not the gotcha you think it is, some of us are looking at headcount of people and routes of arrival and numbers of departures. Those some of us include the ONS. It's not that people don't understand your argument, it's that they reject it. It's clear a big contributor to net migration has been more people arriving on student visas in recent years versus fewer of those arrivals leaving each year. The data on this is pretty clear. [Post edited 13 May 23:33]
| |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:03 - May 14 with 636 views | DJR |
As the baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "It's deja vu all over again." |  | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:14 - May 14 with 621 views | Churchman |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:49 - May 13 by DJR |
To suggest that the Treasury and OBR employ second-rate people is nonsense.
With your often rude and intemperate remarks, it is just as well that you are not in charge of PR for those opposing the changes to non-dom taxation.
Indeed, many of your comments (including your opening salvo accusing me of ignorance and the comment that you are 99% sure you are correct) indicate an arrogance that is reputedly a feature of the upper echelons of banking.
And none of your comments indicate to me a person who is left of centre. [Post edited 13 May 8:58]
|
I agree with you DJR. I have worked with and in the Treasury on stuff and know (out of date now) how policy/government processes work.
Treasury and OBR not only employ first rate people, but those with differing skills and experience. Specialists and ‘generalists’. If they cannot find expertise in house on a particular proposal, they’ll go outside for it. Often a proposed measure will require that anyway.
That’s how it is from somebody who has seen it first hand. |  | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:44 - May 14 with 587 views | DJR |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:14 - May 14 by Churchman |
I agree with you DJR. I have worked with and in the Treasury on stuff and know (out of date now) how policy/government processes work.
Treasury and OBR not only employ first rate people, but those with differing skills and experience. Specialists and ‘generalists’. If they cannot find expertise in house on a particular proposal, they’ll go outside for it. Often a proposed measure will require that anyway.
That’s how it is from somebody who has seen it first hand. |
Sadly, those in the private sector are very quick to denigrate the public sector.
Interestingly, a Tory chancellor under the Major government (I can't remember now who) tried an experiment with getting City law firms to draft some fairly simple Finance Bill provisions that our small team of legal specialists normally drafted.
What was produced was hopeless and cost something like ten times the cost of what it would have cost had our office produced it.
Not surprisingly, the experiment was abandoned and was never subsequently repeated. [Post edited 14 May 7:45]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:49 - May 14 with 571 views | bluelagos |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:44 - May 14 by DJR |
Sadly, those in the private sector are very quick to denigrate the public sector.
Interestingly, a Tory chancellor under the Major government (I can't remember now who) tried an experiment with getting City law firms to draft some fairly simple Finance Bill provisions that our small team of legal specialists normally drafted.
What was produced was hopeless and cost something like ten times the cost of what it would have cost had our office produced it.
Not surprisingly, the experiment was abandoned and was never subsequently repeated. [Post edited 14 May 7:45]
|
You obviously know far more than me (as an outsider) about the quality of work...
What frustrates the hell out of me is the time take to actually get anything done. Legislation seems to be produced at glacial pace.
Any insights? |  |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:02 - May 14 with 538 views | DJR |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:49 - May 14 by bluelagos |
You obviously know far more than me (as an outsider) about the quality of work...
What frustrates the hell out of me is the time take to actually get anything done. Legislation seems to be produced at glacial pace.
Any insights? |
Legislation depends on the political decisions and priorities of governments but once they have decided to act, it can happen very quickly.
Our office only gets involved once the decision to legislate has been made and the instructions for a Bill are received, but a two or three hundred page Bill can be drafted and introduced in a matter of two or three months. And recently a short Bill was produced at very short notice that went through both Houses in one day.
I think the issue is with the political decisions and priorities of government, and it can certainly be argued that it is that that is the problem, with political priorities trumping everything including properly thought out policy. The Health and Social Cate Act 2012 is a case in point because the policy it gave effect to (the Lansley reforms) was a disaster which many people (including myself) pointed out at the time. I had by that time left the civil service.
Putting it another way, governments are always looking ahead to the next election, and will in the main not be interested in things which in their view don't improve their prospects of success at the next election.
[Post edited 14 May 8:11]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:19 - May 14 with 516 views | DJR |
More from John Crace.
It wasn’t so much the content of the government’s immigration bill as the language. That was what really got to people. Even Nigel Farage said he would have dialled it down a bit. We were at risk of becoming an island of strangers, said Keir Starmer. Going out of the front door had become a high-risk endeavour. Too many foreigners you might meet on the street. Them and their funny languages. Coming over here, working for the NHS, paying their taxes. Whatever next?
Incalculable. That was the damage immigrants had caused. And Keir should know. Because he had spent days – make that weeks – trying to calculate it. And he had had to give up, because the foreigners had made it far too difficult for him to reach a figure. That’s the thing with foreigners. Always trying to shift the goalposts. But if Starmer knew one thing, it was that this country was going to the dogs. And he knew precisely who was to blame. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:19 - May 14 with 512 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 23:06 - May 13 by Herbivore |
I'm being obtuse? Take a look in the mirror, mate. You're the one trying to argue the ONS is wrong about net student migration when their evidence clearly shows a huge difference in numbers of people arriving on student visas versus people leaving who arrived on student visas in recent years.
YeS bUt tHeRe oN a DifFrENt vIsA!!! It's not the gotcha you think it is, some of us are looking at headcount of people and routes of arrival and numbers of departures. Those some of us include the ONS. It's not that people don't understand your argument, it's that they reject it. It's clear a big contributor to net migration has been more people arriving on student visas in recent years versus fewer of those arrivals leaving each year. The data on this is pretty clear. [Post edited 13 May 23:33]
|
you're continuing to spout absolute nonsense and you know it. you are determined to define student migration to include people who are not students, are not on student visas, who are not at an HE institution, and who in fact are doing anything other than study. the reason these people are here is not because they are studying but solely because the government introduced a new and additional, non-educational, visa in 2021.
how does it possibly help us to understand immigration policy, the purposes of immigration, and what immigrants actually do, if we pretend that non-students who are not here to study are imaginary students? they drive amazon vans, they deliver pizzas - they are no more students than you.
imagine the government invents a new visa under which tourists who visited stone henge can then stay for 3 additional years. this new visa is explicitly not available to people who intend to continue to visit stone henge. would you say that the people who are then here for 3 more years are visiting stone henge? or would you say that they're here because the government has invented a new visa which allows them to stay and do anything but visit stone henge?
jeez. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:23 - May 14 with 496 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:19 - May 14 by lowhouseblue |
you're continuing to spout absolute nonsense and you know it. you are determined to define student migration to include people who are not students, are not on student visas, who are not at an HE institution, and who in fact are doing anything other than study. the reason these people are here is not because they are studying but solely because the government introduced a new and additional, non-educational, visa in 2021.
how does it possibly help us to understand immigration policy, the purposes of immigration, and what immigrants actually do, if we pretend that non-students who are not here to study are imaginary students? they drive amazon vans, they deliver pizzas - they are no more students than you.
imagine the government invents a new visa under which tourists who visited stone henge can then stay for 3 additional years. this new visa is explicitly not available to people who intend to continue to visit stone henge. would you say that the people who are then here for 3 more years are visiting stone henge? or would you say that they're here because the government has invented a new visa which allows them to stay and do anything but visit stone henge?
jeez. |
You're still talking at cross purposes and I'm not sure what the point is to be honest, other than you trying to save face. I understand but reject the way you're framing this. Stop wasting your poor fingers typing essays that aren't going to convince anyone. And maybe take it up with the ONS and the Migration Observatory, they think you're wrong about students and net migration too.
Jeez. [Post edited 14 May 8:41]
| |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:48 - May 14 with 466 views | lowhouseblue |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:23 - May 14 by Herbivore |
You're still talking at cross purposes and I'm not sure what the point is to be honest, other than you trying to save face. I understand but reject the way you're framing this. Stop wasting your poor fingers typing essays that aren't going to convince anyone. And maybe take it up with the ONS and the Migration Observatory, they think you're wrong about students and net migration too.
Jeez. [Post edited 14 May 8:41]
|
as ever, no answers to anything. just the constant claim that you are right. net migration into the uk is not significantly explained by the number of overseas people actively studying here. that's an important point to understand. your attempts to deny that simple fact by saying black is white is, as ever, bizarre. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:56 - May 14 with 461 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:48 - May 14 by lowhouseblue |
as ever, no answers to anything. just the constant claim that you are right. net migration into the uk is not significantly explained by the number of overseas people actively studying here. that's an important point to understand. your attempts to deny that simple fact by saying black is white is, as ever, bizarre. |
Disingenuous and dishonest to the end. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:29 - May 14 with 431 views | Churchman |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:44 - May 14 by DJR |
Sadly, those in the private sector are very quick to denigrate the public sector.
Interestingly, a Tory chancellor under the Major government (I can't remember now who) tried an experiment with getting City law firms to draft some fairly simple Finance Bill provisions that our small team of legal specialists normally drafted.
What was produced was hopeless and cost something like ten times the cost of what it would have cost had our office produced it.
Not surprisingly, the experiment was abandoned and was never subsequently repeated. [Post edited 14 May 7:45]
|
With the last stuff I worked on, our team numbered about 150. Half were from PwC, Capgemini etc. I also worked with these people on several occasions before that. Some were excellent, others a complete waste of taxpayer money given they were no more skilled or qualified (sometimes less so) than some in house people.
It’s easy to forget that plenty of people in the CS have had careers outside and understand both. | | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:33 - May 14 with 341 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:40 - May 13 by DJR |
I don't know this area of tax law well enough to say if it is a half-arsed policy but the changes were welcomed by Chartered Institute of Taxation, an independent body.
I also came across this from an article in the FT last year.
"Modernising the non-dom rules is disruptive but overdue
Jeremy Hunt’s move is blatantly political but there are good arguments for reform
It is a century since the curious concept of domicile was embedded in the UK tax code. Chancellors stretching back to Nigel Lawson in 1988 have considered overhauling this relic of empire.
So Jeremy Hunt’s move to scrap domicile-based reliefs, benefiting those whose permanent home is abroad, is genuinely radical. It risks making the UK less attractive to wealthy foreigners. But this is an opportunity to create a cheaper, better-targeted relief.
Hunt’s move is blatantly political. Still, there are good arguments for reform. Firstly, domicile is a concept — that transcends nationality, residence and ethnicity — which few people understand. Secondly, the mechanics of the non-dom system have perverse implications. It relies on the remittance basis, a concept dating back to the introduction of income tax in 1799, to keep foreign income and gains out of the tax net unless they are brought into the UK.
One awkward consequence is that qualifying as a non-dom requires people to keep a connection with another country. That makes their eventual departure from Britain more likely. Another perverse aspect is that it encourages rich individuals to set up home in Britain but leave their wealth outside it. A business investment relief introduced in 2012 is not much used.
Hunt’s reforms are an improvement in this regard. New arrivals will be exempt for four years from paying UK tax on foreign income and gains — including those remitted to the UK. There is also an incentive for current non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime to bring assets onshore.
Keeping some form of tax concession for newcomers makes sense, not least because other countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have similar incentives. But the regime outlined by Hunt is a lot less generous than the scheme it replaces. An estimated 5,500 people are set to pay UK tax on their foreign income and gains from 2025.
Transition arrangements ease the pain. And the chancellor is likely to have drawn reassurance from research showing a minor impact from 2017 reforms that increased taxes for those who had been in the UK for more than 15 years. But some backlash is inevitable: there is a risk that the reforms drive away a greater number of high earners than expected.
A lot of guesswork is involved here. The Office for Budget Responsibility reckons that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of current non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime will leave the UK. There is a high degree of uncertainty about whether the initiative will raise the mooted £2.7bn a year.
There is also a risk of alienating workers, investors and entrepreneurs that the UK wants to attract and keep. The City of London may be wary. More than one in five high-earning bankers — those in the top 1 per cent of earners nationally — have benefited from non-dom status at some point, according to research by the LSE and University of Warwick.
Change was coming anyway. The Labour party, which has a huge poll lead, had pledged to introduce a less generous system. It would be good if some cross-party consensus could be achieved on the reforms. After years of political turmoil, attracting the best and brightest also requires the UK to regain its reputation for stability." [Post edited 13 May 8:42]
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-14/italy-s-plan-to-lure-london-s
From Bloomberg this morning.
I'm certain the people cited in the article are also wrong though and the OBR can see what everybody who lives and breathes this day to day can't. 10-20% leaving is absolutely fanciful.
All hail the Warwick paper and the OBR.
[Post edited 14 May 11:36]
|  | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:45 - May 14 with 316 views | nrb1985 |
Full aritcle here in case in anyone wants to read without a subscription.
Mentions the IHT tail which most certainly wasn't included in the Wawrick paper among other key omissions.
Milan’s ‘Empty London’ Tax Bet Pays Off as UK Wealth Exits Soar
Summary by Bloomberg AI
• Italy is attracting wealthy foreigners from the UK, particularly from London, with its flat tax rate of €200,000 and proximity to London, offering an alternative foothold in Europe.
• Many well-heeled residents have left the UK in the past six weeks, including hedge fund managers, ex-CEOs, and Middle Eastern billionaires, following the UK's decision to scrap the preferential tax regime for non-domiciled taxpayers.
• Milan, Italy's commercial capital, is emerging as a winner, offering a tax-friendly home to former non-doms and other monied UK residents, with its urban environment, cultural attractions, and greater connectivity.
By Meg Short and Benjamin Stupples
(Bloomberg) -- Italy’s plan to lure rich foreigners from the UK is known in private wealth circles as “svuota Londra” or “empty London.” Judging by the recent wave of departures, it’s working.
In just the past six weeks, a slew of well-heeled residents have left the UK in the fallout from Britain’s main political parties moving to scrap the preferential tax regime for non-domiciled taxpayers, or “non-doms.” Italy, and especially finance hub Milan, is emerging as an early winner after the favored status formally ended last month, attracting a range of wealthy emigrants from hedge fund managers to ex-CEOs and Middle Eastern billionaires.
Italy’s commercial capital — once seen as a second-tier financial center — is building on its success as a post-Brexit banking hub to offer a tax-friendly home to former non-doms and other monied UK residents seeking an alternative foothold in Europe. They can opt to pay a flat tax rate of €200,000 ($223,000) to avoid Italian levies on overseas earnings under a system similar to what the UK had offered for more than two centuries. That fiscal perk, along with proximity to London and a sunnier, easier-going family lifestyle, are all adding to Milan’s allure.
Read more: Mega-Rich Baby Boomers Quit UK in Wealth Exodus Over Tax
“Italy is proving extremely popular,” said Marc Acheson, a global wealth specialist at Utmost Wealth Solutions in London. “It’s never tax alone that drives these changes but also whether the spouse and children are happy too.”
Italy introduced its own non-dom regime in 2017 and had already attracted partners at private equity and investment firms and other wealthy individuals. Now, there’s fresh impetus after the recent UK tax changes.
The nation is seeing a wave of both returning expatriates and foreign exiles from London. Elio Leoni-Sceti, 59, former chief executive officer of EMI Music and co-founder of an early stage investment firm based in London and San Francisco, has returned to his native Italy, a filing this month shows. Bart Becht, the 68-year-old former CEO of Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc and a former money manager for the billionaire Reimann dynasty, has also moved after previously living in the UK. Brazilian entrepreneur Fersen Lambranho, 63, has departed as well, according to a May 9 filing.
Nassef Sawiris, Egypt’s richest person, is relocating to Abu Dhabi and Italy, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. veteran Richard Gnodde, 65, is also moving to the Mediterranean nation.
Nassef Sawiris
Sawiris, 64, the co-owner of Premier League football club Aston Villa, has a net worth of about $8.9 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
“There’s a snowball effect,” added Acheson on the exit of wealthy UK residents. “This is going to have seismic repercussions.”
Read More: Milan Push to Lure World’s Wealthy Stokes Boom and Backlash
Many who previously claimed UK non-dom status are relocating or planning to do so after Keir Starmer’s Labour government removed inheritance tax breaks on assets held in overseas trusts, going further than plans outlined in March 2024 by the then-ruling Conservative Party. Long-term residents are especially vulnerable to higher levies from those changes, which the UK Treasury expects will bring in more than £4 billion during the coming years.
Italy, by contrast, allows inheritance tax breaks on overseas assets for those claiming its flat-tax regime. Even if a wealthy foreigner eventually becomes a full tax resident in Italy, they and their families usually then only face charges of as much as 8% for inheritance levies — far below the UK’s standard 40% rate, one of the highest among developed nations.
Italy is also benefiting as some rival wealth centers in Europe, such as Switzerland, weigh changes to gift and inheritance taxes that may deter potential emigrants, even if they’re seen as unlikely to pass into law. Taxation demands also vary greatly by canton.
Urban Environment
Milan’s nineteenth-century shopping arcade Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II.
Milan also offers more of an urban environment and cultural attractions, as well as greater connectivity, compared to some well-established havens such as Monaco, where British real estate billionaires Ian and Richard Livingstone recently surfaced as residents. Oft-cited downsides include Italian bureaucracy, which can overwhelm newcomers.
Read More: Non-Dom Change Risks Costing UK Taxpayers, Study Warns
Italy is drawing more than just wealthy individuals too. Gary Landesberg, who previously owned Mayfair’s storied the Arts Club, opened the Wilde club in Milan late last year. Located just a stone’s throw from the upscale Via Monte Napoleone, it offers membership starting at €4,000 a year for those over 40.
“It’s this really vibrant city and you’re just two hours from everywhere,” he said in an interview. “You can be at the beach in two hours or skiing in St. Moritz. I think London as a whole will suffer.”
By his estimate, three quarters of the club’s newly added members from abroad came from the UK. And, while professing no desire to move himself, says that most of his non-dom friends have left London.
Read More: UK’s Super-Rich Are Facing a Charm Offensive to Quit Britain
Landesberg isn’t alone in expanding in Italy. The Rocco Forte group, which operates five star hotels around Europe, plans another location in Milan just one year after establishing its first spot. The operators of London’s Rosewood Hotel plan to open next year. And professional services firms are also seeing the opportunity: City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys started up in Milan late last year.
Landesberg's Wilde Milano.
Dominic Lawrance, a partner in private client law at the firm, estimates that 60% of his clients that are leaving the UK are heading to the Mediterranean nation.
“We should be following Italy’s lead,” he said.
In the eyes of some, Italy took the best parts of the UK non-dom system and simplified it through the flat-rate levy based on residency instead of the more complex legal concept of domicile.
Still, it did raise eyebrows among the wealth community when it doubled the flat tax rate to €200,000 last year. The UK has since introduced a system which lasts four years, weakening its ability to compete with Italy and other European nations including Greece, which also now has a 15-year non-dom regime styled on Britain’s former system.
The UK has around 75,000 non-doms who contribute more than £8 billion in taxes a year, according to the latest official data. If the outpouring continues, the UK economy could take a potential hit of £111 billion over the next decade and see more than 40,000 jobs lost, according to the Adam Smith Institute.
One former UK non-dom — who asked to remain anonymous discussing their personal finances — tore up plans to continue living in London due to the British tax exposure on the source of their wealth in their home nation of the US. They’re now renting an apartment in Milan — and have already put their north London home up for sale.
“We might be a small pool of people,” said Ann Kaplan Mulholland, a 64-year-old Canadian native and UK non-dom for about the past three years, who is now preparing to relocate to Italy. “But we’re a very large dollar amount that’s going.”
To contact the authors of this story:
Meg Short in London at mshort32@bloomberg.net
Benjamin Stupples in London at bstupples@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Dale Crofts at dcrofts@bloomberg.net [Post edited 14 May 12:04]
| | | |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:33 - May 14 with 278 views | Herbivore |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:45 - May 14 by nrb1985 |
Full aritcle here in case in anyone wants to read without a subscription.
Mentions the IHT tail which most certainly wasn't included in the Wawrick paper among other key omissions.
Milan’s ‘Empty London’ Tax Bet Pays Off as UK Wealth Exits Soar
Summary by Bloomberg AI
• Italy is attracting wealthy foreigners from the UK, particularly from London, with its flat tax rate of €200,000 and proximity to London, offering an alternative foothold in Europe.
• Many well-heeled residents have left the UK in the past six weeks, including hedge fund managers, ex-CEOs, and Middle Eastern billionaires, following the UK's decision to scrap the preferential tax regime for non-domiciled taxpayers.
• Milan, Italy's commercial capital, is emerging as a winner, offering a tax-friendly home to former non-doms and other monied UK residents, with its urban environment, cultural attractions, and greater connectivity.
By Meg Short and Benjamin Stupples
(Bloomberg) -- Italy’s plan to lure rich foreigners from the UK is known in private wealth circles as “svuota Londra” or “empty London.” Judging by the recent wave of departures, it’s working.
In just the past six weeks, a slew of well-heeled residents have left the UK in the fallout from Britain’s main political parties moving to scrap the preferential tax regime for non-domiciled taxpayers, or “non-doms.” Italy, and especially finance hub Milan, is emerging as an early winner after the favored status formally ended last month, attracting a range of wealthy emigrants from hedge fund managers to ex-CEOs and Middle Eastern billionaires.
Italy’s commercial capital — once seen as a second-tier financial center — is building on its success as a post-Brexit banking hub to offer a tax-friendly home to former non-doms and other monied UK residents seeking an alternative foothold in Europe. They can opt to pay a flat tax rate of €200,000 ($223,000) to avoid Italian levies on overseas earnings under a system similar to what the UK had offered for more than two centuries. That fiscal perk, along with proximity to London and a sunnier, easier-going family lifestyle, are all adding to Milan’s allure.
Read more: Mega-Rich Baby Boomers Quit UK in Wealth Exodus Over Tax
“Italy is proving extremely popular,” said Marc Acheson, a global wealth specialist at Utmost Wealth Solutions in London. “It’s never tax alone that drives these changes but also whether the spouse and children are happy too.”
Italy introduced its own non-dom regime in 2017 and had already attracted partners at private equity and investment firms and other wealthy individuals. Now, there’s fresh impetus after the recent UK tax changes.
The nation is seeing a wave of both returning expatriates and foreign exiles from London. Elio Leoni-Sceti, 59, former chief executive officer of EMI Music and co-founder of an early stage investment firm based in London and San Francisco, has returned to his native Italy, a filing this month shows. Bart Becht, the 68-year-old former CEO of Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc and a former money manager for the billionaire Reimann dynasty, has also moved after previously living in the UK. Brazilian entrepreneur Fersen Lambranho, 63, has departed as well, according to a May 9 filing.
Nassef Sawiris, Egypt’s richest person, is relocating to Abu Dhabi and Italy, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. veteran Richard Gnodde, 65, is also moving to the Mediterranean nation.
Nassef Sawiris
Sawiris, 64, the co-owner of Premier League football club Aston Villa, has a net worth of about $8.9 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
“There’s a snowball effect,” added Acheson on the exit of wealthy UK residents. “This is going to have seismic repercussions.”
Read More: Milan Push to Lure World’s Wealthy Stokes Boom and Backlash
Many who previously claimed UK non-dom status are relocating or planning to do so after Keir Starmer’s Labour government removed inheritance tax breaks on assets held in overseas trusts, going further than plans outlined in March 2024 by the then-ruling Conservative Party. Long-term residents are especially vulnerable to higher levies from those changes, which the UK Treasury expects will bring in more than £4 billion during the coming years.
Italy, by contrast, allows inheritance tax breaks on overseas assets for those claiming its flat-tax regime. Even if a wealthy foreigner eventually becomes a full tax resident in Italy, they and their families usually then only face charges of as much as 8% for inheritance levies — far below the UK’s standard 40% rate, one of the highest among developed nations.
Italy is also benefiting as some rival wealth centers in Europe, such as Switzerland, weigh changes to gift and inheritance taxes that may deter potential emigrants, even if they’re seen as unlikely to pass into law. Taxation demands also vary greatly by canton.
Urban Environment
Milan’s nineteenth-century shopping arcade Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II.
Milan also offers more of an urban environment and cultural attractions, as well as greater connectivity, compared to some well-established havens such as Monaco, where British real estate billionaires Ian and Richard Livingstone recently surfaced as residents. Oft-cited downsides include Italian bureaucracy, which can overwhelm newcomers.
Read More: Non-Dom Change Risks Costing UK Taxpayers, Study Warns
Italy is drawing more than just wealthy individuals too. Gary Landesberg, who previously owned Mayfair’s storied the Arts Club, opened the Wilde club in Milan late last year. Located just a stone’s throw from the upscale Via Monte Napoleone, it offers membership starting at €4,000 a year for those over 40.
“It’s this really vibrant city and you’re just two hours from everywhere,” he said in an interview. “You can be at the beach in two hours or skiing in St. Moritz. I think London as a whole will suffer.”
By his estimate, three quarters of the club’s newly added members from abroad came from the UK. And, while professing no desire to move himself, says that most of his non-dom friends have left London.
Read More: UK’s Super-Rich Are Facing a Charm Offensive to Quit Britain
Landesberg isn’t alone in expanding in Italy. The Rocco Forte group, which operates five star hotels around Europe, plans another location in Milan just one year after establishing its first spot. The operators of London’s Rosewood Hotel plan to open next year. And professional services firms are also seeing the opportunity: City law firm Charles Russell Speechlys started up in Milan late last year.
Landesberg's Wilde Milano.
Dominic Lawrance, a partner in private client law at the firm, estimates that 60% of his clients that are leaving the UK are heading to the Mediterranean nation.
“We should be following Italy’s lead,” he said.
In the eyes of some, Italy took the best parts of the UK non-dom system and simplified it through the flat-rate levy based on residency instead of the more complex legal concept of domicile.
Still, it did raise eyebrows among the wealth community when it doubled the flat tax rate to €200,000 last year. The UK has since introduced a system which lasts four years, weakening its ability to compete with Italy and other European nations including Greece, which also now has a 15-year non-dom regime styled on Britain’s former system.
The UK has around 75,000 non-doms who contribute more than £8 billion in taxes a year, according to the latest official data. If the outpouring continues, the UK economy could take a potential hit of £111 billion over the next decade and see more than 40,000 jobs lost, according to the Adam Smith Institute.
One former UK non-dom — who asked to remain anonymous discussing their personal finances — tore up plans to continue living in London due to the British tax exposure on the source of their wealth in their home nation of the US. They’re now renting an apartment in Milan — and have already put their north London home up for sale.
“We might be a small pool of people,” said Ann Kaplan Mulholland, a 64-year-old Canadian native and UK non-dom for about the past three years, who is now preparing to relocate to Italy. “But we’re a very large dollar amount that’s going.”
To contact the authors of this story:
Meg Short in London at mshort32@bloomberg.net
Benjamin Stupples in London at bstupples@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Dale Crofts at dcrofts@bloomberg.net [Post edited 14 May 12:04]
|
There's very little data in there and the only research they cite is from a right-wing think tank, so not exactly impartial analysis. This reads like a puff piece that's been written for the Milanese chamber of commerce. | |
| |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:49 - May 14 with 251 views | nrb1985 |
| Starmer's principled positioning .... on 12:33 - May 14 by Herbivore |
There's very little data in there and the only research they cite is from a right-wing think tank, so not exactly impartial analysis. This reads like a puff piece that's been written for the Milanese chamber of commerce. |
Wasn't really aimed at you , given I think I could tell you the sky is blue but because of my profession or who my clients are you'd argue until your last breathe that wasn't the case.
Problem is, there won't be official figures for 2 years - so until then you can maintain whatever position you want.
However, the naivety in your response is there for all to see - because there's a lawyer from Charles Russell quoted as saying ~60% of his clients have or are leaving. I would say mine are there or there abouts too and the chap from Mischcon on the youtube clip I sent you said he would say at least 40% of his clients are off too. Are we all lying? If so, to what end? So I can one up somebody on a football message board perhaps?
Just to re iterate, myself, the lawyers and the advisors, have no vested interest here as we will manage their wealth and assist them wherever they reside.
Also in the article, as well as me countless times yesterday, they reference the glaring deficiencies in the Warwick paper (upon which the Govt policy and OBR forecasts are based to some extent) re the IHT issue - I wonder what self interest you think the journalist has in bringing that forward? Paid off by the Milan tourist board perhaps? Promised a year's supply of limoncello and panettone? Or like Liz Truss do you believe that Bloomberg and the FT are part of some shadowy cabal designed to undermine the government?
I don't think there can be much debate that, at present and among sensible people, it looks utterly fanciful to think that 10-20% only will go.
Regardless, this isn't really meant for your consumption and more for the slightly less swivelled eyed among the forum. [Post edited 14 May 12:56]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
