Forum | Starmer's principled positioning .... by BanksterDebtSlave

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Starmer's principled positioning .... 09:15 - May 12 with 5966 views

How many highly principled, yet varying, positions on the same subjects is it OK to have?
Asking for a friend.

	"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Poll:	Do you wipe after having a piss?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 06:29 - May 13 with 833 views

nrb1985

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 23:00 - May 12 by StokieBlue

A few points:

- You've cited non-dom tax intake that could be lost as 8bn GBP, that's less then 1% of the total UK tax intake so whilst significant, it's not the death of the country that you're implying.

- By definition, someone with non-dom status is already disincentivised to pay tax otherwise they wouldn't claim that status. How do you propose we incentivise them and other earners to pay more tax given they clearly don't want to?

- Conceptually many people don't see non-dom tax rates as fair. Sure, the total amount of tax they pay is greater than the vast majority but it's at a substantially lower rate and politically many see that as an issue.

SB

Hi - if I cover or off your points in turn:

1. I don’t think I have implied that, I think I’ve given a robust defence of why I think the numbers are flawed in the OBR forecast based on what I hear and see everyday. And what I know to be true. All I would simply say though is, wouldnt you rather have them spending that money and paying their 8bn of taxes here rather than in Italy or Dubai?! Stupid thing is - they will still be here up to 183 days a year just not paying any tax now at all.

2. I don’t agree they are disincentivized to pay tax otherwise they wouldn't live somewhere with a ~45% top rate or tax. They would be much better off elsewhere tax wise.

3. That’s just wrong. They pay exactly the same rate of tax in the UK as you. They don’t pay tax on overseas assets as long as they don’t bring them into the country. And, as you may not know, for that privellige they pay up to 60k a year to HMRC on top of regular uk tax on all money earned here. If I take the example of one of my footballer or financial professional clients - they probably pay between them 500k PAYE each month…they don’t pay tax on their rental income from properties overseas or their investment portfolios in the Channel Islands for example.

I consider you one of the very well informed posters on here and enjoy much of what you post but the fact you have that last point so wrong probably shows what a good job certain parties have done at muddying the waters on this and turning that particular cohort into the bogeymen.

To the point about fairness though, and the whole reason I entered this thread. Is it fair? Maybe not. Will not having them here leave our country in a better or worse position? I strongly believe the latter and would like to see more pragmatism from our politicians.

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:18 - May 13 with 774 views

DJR

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 06:29 - May 13 by nrb1985

The Treasury have said that the non-dom reforms are expected to raise the £33.8 billion of tax revenue forecast by the OBR with the easing of the rules in January taken into account.

Maybe it won't be quite as much as that but it is very difficult to see, with a forecast like that, the policy ending up costing more than it brings in.

But we shall see.

[Post edited 13 May 7:22]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:31 - May 13 with 726 views

SuperKieranMcKenna

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:18 - May 13 by DJR
The Treasury have said that the non-dom reforms are expected to raise the £33.8 billion of tax revenue forecast by the OBR with the easing of the rules in January taken into account. Maybe it won't be quite as much as that but it is very difficult to see, with a forecast like that, the policy ending up costing more than it brings in. But we shall see. [Post edited 13 May 7:22]

Always interesting that people put scorn on economists until they want to make a point. In fairness to poster above, both the FT and Bloomberg reported that since the changes were made only Russia has lost more millionaires globally than the UK. So it certainly seems an optimistic forecast, and perhaps didn’t foresee pull factors also (I.e. other domiciles opening their arms to them).

I don’t have any skin in the game, but this isn’t the 70’s now and it’s fairly easy to move assets to other legislations, and there’s always other countries looking to continue the race to the bottom. Labour could look at an exit tax as some deterrent, and LSE did put this forward to Govenment.

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 13 with 715 views

DJR

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:31 - May 13 by SuperKieranMcKenna

I have acknowledged that the forecast might not be correct, although I suppose I could be said to have skin in the game because I have worked on Finance Bills before, and feel a sort of loyalty to HMRC and the Treasury

As it is, it was New Wealth World who said that 10,000 millionaires left the country last year but they gave a number of reasons.

"Taxes, the growing dominance of the US and Asia in the global hi-tech sector, the “dwindling” importance of the London Stock Exchange and the “deteriorating” state of the health system are some of the potential drivers of the exodus, according to the New World Wealth (NWW) global analytics firm."

[Post edited 13 May 7:43]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 13 with 714 views

Swansea_Blue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:41 - May 12 by J2BLUE
Rightly or wrongly, it's a big issue. If he doesn't do something about it then people concerned by immigration will vote for someone who will. If this helps keep Farage out of power then I think it's a good thing.

Yet people don’t seem to be worried about real immigration. Recent polls asking whether we should continue to encourage visa applications from doctors, nurses, social workers, professionals, students, etc., are overwhelmingly positive (>65%). These are the types of immigrants who make up the vast majority of the numbers. People are worried about an idea of immigration, not what’s actually happening.

Nowhere near enough people with public reach are challenging this false narrative and asking why people are becoming so hostile about the idea of foreigners.

Poll:

Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:57 - May 13 with 664 views

DJR

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 20:48 - May 12 by BanksterDebtSlave
How has immigration made us a "nation of strangers" ? What a sad state of affairs that you find this acceptable and yet did so much to trash a chance of social change and a true social democracy when it was on offer!

I hadn't appreciated that the nation of strangers comment mirrored this passage from the Rivers of Blood speech.

"For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country."

This strikes me as being deliberate but I imagine will pass most people by.

It was however picked up by Zarah Sultana.

"Zarah Sultana wrote that Starmer had “imitated” Powell’s speech, which subsequently became a rallying cry for racists and the hard right in the UK.

The independent MP for Coventry South wrote on X: “That speech fuelled decades of racism and division. Echoing it today is a disgrace. It adds to anti-migrant rhetoric that puts lives at risk. Shame on you, Keir Starmer.”

[Post edited 13 May 7:58]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:59 - May 13 with 646 views

SuperKieranMcKenna

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 13 by DJR

[Post edited 13 May 7:43]

The London Stock Exchange has underperformed peers for years, and you don’t need to live next door to it to access it... The source you quote is looking at the period in advance of the non-dom changes - this was specific to the period following the changes and has accelerated to the point where the only country losing more is one of the most heavily Sanctioned in the world. Whether or not it’s morally correct, it does appear to have expedited the trend.

Robert Brodrick, chair of legal firm Payne Hicks Beach, sad the company was seeing an "exodus" of ultra high net worth individuals leaving the UK in favour of places like Italy.

He added: "We have a golden opportunity to replace the non-dom regime with a system like the one in Italy that charges an annual fixed amount to satisfy a person’s worldwide tax liabilities which encourages UHNWIs to base themselves and their businesses here. Instead we are driving them all away which is seriously damaging to the UK economy.”

The trouble with things like this, you only tend to get non-governmental analysis from interested parties (not typically independent). I do believe the wealthy should contribute more, but will be interesting to see if it’s a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. As ever, it’s a half-arsed policy and some exit taxes could have been a valuable deterrent as well as easing additional funds from a diminishing pot.

[Post edited 13 May 8:02]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:01 - May 13 with 638 views

StokieBlue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 06:29 - May 13 by nrb1985

Good Morning :).

"1. I don’t think I have implied that, I think I’ve given a robust defence of why I think the numbers are flawed in the OBR forecast based on what I hear and see everyday. And what I know to be true. All I would simply say though is, wouldnt you rather have them spending that money and paying their 8bn of taxes here rather than in Italy or Dubai?! Stupid thing is - they will still be here up to 183 days a year just not paying any tax now at all."

If they are enjoying the UK so much and will still be here up to 183 days a year then that implies they will still be spending money in the UK? This looks a lot like a "trickle down" stance which hasn't proven to be great over recent decades.

I do understand the point you're making but they can also move to Dubai or Italy at any time should they chose.

"2. I don’t agree they are disincentivized to pay tax otherwise they wouldn't live somewhere with a ~45% top rate or tax. They would be much better off elsewhere tax wise."

If they are happy to pay the extra tax as you imply and state they are doing then why are you convinced they will all move away? I certainly appreciate your anecdotal evidence given you are in that field but it does seem a juxtaposition to say they are happy and incentivised to pay tax but they will leave if they have to pay more tax.

"3. That’s just wrong. They pay exactly the same rate of tax in the UK as you. They don’t pay tax on overseas assets as long as they don’t bring them into the country. And, as you may not know, for that privellige they pay up to 60k a year to HMRC on top of regular uk tax on all money earned here. If I take the example of one of my footballer or financial professional clients - they probably pay between them 500k PAYE each month…they don’t pay tax on their rental income from properties overseas or their investment portfolios in the Channel Islands for example.

I consider you one of the very well informed posters on here and enjoy much of what you post but the fact you have that last point so wrong probably shows what a good job certain parties have done at muddying the waters on this and turning that particular cohort into the bogeymen.

To the point about fairness though, and the whole reason I entered this thread. Is it fair? Maybe not. Will not having them here leave our country in a better or worse position? I strongly believe the latter and would like to see more pragmatism from our politicians."

Yes, I understand that, it was late and I've worded this poorly as you've pointed out.

In your example, the footballer should pay PAYE as they do but then they must use that base income to buy the investment overseas which they don't then pay tax on within the UK. I'm actually not that worried about this, the income has been originally taxed at source but I can understand to a lot of people it doesn't look great.

In the end my final point was about fairness and you've conceded it might not be fair and I think that is the perception of many. As Reform have shown, perception in now disproportionally important in politics.

As you say it's possible many will leave but many won't, look at your example of a footballer that you've used many times. They play in best league in the world, are they likely to want to play elsewhere due to tax issues given they are already wealthy? I would posit they for many it won't just be about money, it's about what the UK has to offer to them.

SB

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:05 - May 13 with 633 views

DJR

As ever, John Crace is brilliant on this.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/12/starmer-delivers-some-home-trut

Here are a few snippets.

You know how it is. You get on the 87 at the Vauxhall depot and you suddenly realise you know no one on the bus. Time was when everyone in the queue would have been best mates. Off for pie, mash and jellied eels together before a knees-up down the Old Bull and Bush. Worse still, some people may not even be talking English. We didn’t beat the Hun in two world wars to hear German spoken on public transport."

Then there are all those Polish supermarkets. Who asked them to come over here, pay their taxes and business rates and set up on the high street? They don’t even have the grace to relabel their produce in English. And why can’t they sell something quintessentially British? Like Lurpak. What do you mean, that’s Danish? Butter was invented by the Brits."

Keir wanted you to know that Keir has also had his fill of foreigners. Enough is enough. His patience has been tested to the limit. Time to call a halt to the “squalid experiment in open borders”. A charming way of referring to people who had come to this country to work in the NHS and the care sector. But hey, it was time for Keir to deliver some home truths. He could be silent no more.

Some might have thought it quite the coincidence that Labour was choosing this moment to target immigration. Little more than a week after Reform had cleaned up at the local elections. But Keir wanted you to know that Keir had always had it in for foreigners. He wasn’t the sort of prime minister who would play politics with other people’s lives. No. He had always believed this stuff. At least he had believed it for the past three years or so. There was nothing more Labour than targeting immigrants.

[Post edited 13 May 8:07]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:17 - May 13 with 603 views

nrb1985

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:59 - May 13 by SuperKieranMcKenna

[Post edited 13 May 8:02]

“The trouble with things like this, you only tend to get non-governmental analysis from interested parties (not typically independent)”

Suspect the reason for this is that if you’re any good at your job you can earn six figures at one of the big four versus a relative pittance in government and be subjected to often less enjoyable working conditions - eg the various accusations of bullying, lack of HR function etc that were leveled at the tories.

I would push back though on the self interest - the wealth managers and advisory community will still provide advice and have them as clients regardless of where they reside. Most of the outrage in my industry comes from the fact we can see this is a bad idea and damaging to our country in real time and warned Reeves about this. She asked for “our” opinion, got it, and drove the car off the Cliff anyway for reasons I can only assume were “ideological”

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:25 - May 13 with 593 views

nrb1985

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:01 - May 13 by StokieBlue

Some fair points.

Point 1 though - trickle down economics I agree didn’t work but then look who was spending the money…and, as you know I’m sure, governments aren’t exactly famous for allocating capital efficiently…

2. They were very happy to stay here but aren’t now. Less the abolition of non dom status and more the introduction of the IHT tail. Nobody in their right mind with a degree of wealth will stick around to pay 40% IHT on their global assets. Again, this is why the likes of Mittal who were long deemed dom have now gone. Should he pay that IHT? Maybe. Was somebody as wealthy and mobile as him ever going to do that - obviously not. It was batsh1t insane to think he would…

3. Some won’t, many will and those numbers will be far greater than assumed - as I’ve exhausted myself saying now.

[Post edited 13 May 8:32]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:40 - May 13 with 571 views

DJR

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:59 - May 13 by SuperKieranMcKenna

[Post edited 13 May 8:02]

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]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:40 - May 13 with 570 views

Leaky

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:27 - May 12 by DJR

A commentator this morning said it was a return to the system in operation before Boris Johnson got involved.

The particular concern for me is social care given my mother depended on, and my mother-in-law currently depends on, care workers who are virtually all immigrants.

Of course, it might be fine with a properly funded care system that is attractive to British workers, but that has been kicked into the long grass.

My partner works n a care home, from next week she will be the only British person working there. She is now thinking of leaving, as she has to train new staff whose English language skills are very limited,.She gives them instructions they say yes ok, however, she knows they havn't got a clue what to do due.

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:49 - May 13 with 543 views

DJR

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:17 - May 13 by nrb1985

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]

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:10 - May 13 with 500 views

itfcjoe

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 13 by Swansea_Blue

Is it correct to say that is not actually happening now, reportedly 1.6m migrants [between 16-64 excluding students and asylum seekers] are currently economically inactive.

That seems a crazy figure, on the surface of things - may be more to it but that suggests to me an immigration policy that has totally failed if the equivalent of more than everyone living in Birmingham are here and not working.....when 1 in 5 UK based adults [same criteria] are also economically inactive then add that to massive pensioner population and it's an insurmountable burden on those UK born and migrants who are working and paying taxes.

Poll:	Club vs country? What would you choose
Blog:	What is Going on With the Academy at Ipswich Town?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:42 - May 13 with 463 views

lowhouseblue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 07:38 - May 13 by Swansea_Blue

in 2024 the additional (net) number of migrants coming as 'doctors, nurses, social care workers' was a little over 100,000. net immigration was around 800,000 (that excludes students who don't impact NET immigration). how does your very valid argument to justify c. 100,000 new arrivals instead justify 800,000? in terms of false narratives yours is at the very least partial. and how is a country which has accepted 3 million net new comers in 4 years 'hostile about the idea of foreigners.?

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

-1

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:49 - May 13 with 453 views

nrb1985

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 08:49 - May 13 by DJR

[Post edited 13 May 8:58]

Ok

But whatever you think of me you have to admit your telegraph comment did make you come across as a bit of a t1t.

If you don’t want somebody to take a swing back and clearly get so offended by it, maybe better not to post obviously condescending and inflammatory things?

And your remark about the banking sector too is equally as nasty as what you think you understood about mine re the treasury.

Don’t think you’ve come out of this looking great either.

[Post edited 13 May 9:57]

-1

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:58 - May 13 with 424 views

lowhouseblue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:10 - May 13 by itfcjoe

also, at the most extreme reading of the white paper we are looking at annual net immigration of at very least 250,000 going forwards. how can an extra 250,000 people each year not meet our legitimate labour market needs? that's an extra 250,000 people each year on top of all those who are already here (and those who come to replace any who then leave). the attempt by some to make this a binary - you either support all immigration without limit or you oppose all immigration - is entirely false, it's a debate about numbers.

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:31 - May 13 with 368 views

Herbivore

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:49 - May 13 by nrb1985

[Post edited 13 May 9:57]

He's coming out of it looking fine, you not so much.

Poll:	Latest TWTD opinion poll - who are you voting for?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:40 - May 13 with 334 views

DanTheMan

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 09:42 - May 13 by lowhouseblue

I still don't see how that 800,000 figure does not include students, every other statistic I've found does not have anywhere near that many people coming in on work visas or dependents.

e.g.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/inter

Section 3 specifically breaks down net migration for students.

What I guess might be happening is they come in on a student visa and then switch onto a work one so the numbers are not balancing out.

Poll:

FM Parallel Game Week 1 (Fulham) - Available Team

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:48 - May 13 with 315 views

Herbivore

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:40 - May 13 by DanTheMan

They can also stay for 2 years after graduating which means when the numbers of students coming in goes up, there will be a lag in the number of those leaving. So it's not really a straightforward case that students have zero impact on net migration.

Poll:	Latest TWTD opinion poll - who are you voting for?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:30 - May 13 with 276 views

lowhouseblue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:48 - May 13 by Herbivore
They can also stay for 2 years after graduating which means when the numbers of students coming in goes up, there will be a lag in the number of those leaving. So it's not really a straightforward case that students have zero impact on net migration.

the graduate visa is separate.

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:38 - May 13 with 255 views

Herbivore

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:30 - May 13 by lowhouseblue
the graduate visa is separate.

But if you have increased student visas and a high proportion of them then stay on for 2 years on a graduate visa you are still going to see a lag so the point stands. Student numbers clearly do impact net migration when there is a spike in international students.

Poll:	Latest TWTD opinion poll - who are you voting for?
Blog:	Where Did It All Go Wrong for Paul Hurst?

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:45 - May 13 with 248 views

lowhouseblue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 10:40 - May 13 by DanTheMan

yes you have people who cease to be students (ie they graduate and leave their university - often after a one year course) who then switch onto the graduate visa. but the stock of overseas students (ie people actually studying) is constant (new students - graduating students = zero). in fact for the last year or so that stock has actually been falling. so students, while they are here as students, aren't part of the net immigration figure - the net inflow of students is zero.

but the graduate visa scheme has encouraged people to study here - because they can then stay on via a graduate visa (hence the growth of overseas students on one year masters courses). it has also encouraged universities to expand into these courses in the search for overseas fees - and various universities are now financially dependent on it.

the shift of ex students onto the graduate visa is certainly a part of net migration. but that is separate from people who are actually studying here. while it is called a 'graduate visa' it doesn't mean they are doing graduate level jobs. we are in the dubious position of various universities being financially dependent on a scheme whereby people come for a one year course primarily as a backdoor route to migrate here.

-1

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:51 - May 13 with 234 views

lowhouseblue

Starmer's principled positioning .... on 11:38 - May 13 by Herbivore
But if you have increased student visas and a high proportion of them then stay on for 2 years on a graduate visa you are still going to see a lag so the point stands. Student numbers clearly do impact net migration when there is a spike in international students.

yes a spike up in the stock of overseas students has a one off effect on net immigration. the stock of students then stabilises and student net immigration drops back to zero. but international student numbers are currently falling. those on graduate visas are no longer students. a reason for high net immigration is definitely the decision to offer a graduate visa route, but that's still separate from people who are currently studying here.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread