Comment by foobarchu
18 days ago
Why does it have to be assumed that having the ultra wealthy living in your country and not paying taxes is a net positive? It seems close minded to just ignore the possibility that those people are causing more harm than good.
I think the consensus view is that they are massive net positive contributors (they still pay a lot in taxes in terms of things stamp duty or VAT, they spend lots of money in the country supporting business and employing people, and they don’t consume much in the way of resources like using the NHS or publicly funded schools).
I think the optics are clearly bad but the question I think people really have to ask is what they rather these people paying something in the country, or nothing at all (because there’s nothing keeping them there if it’s viewed as too expensive to stay)
Most of the luxury and high end restaurants are closing down precisely because they are leaving. Many with a lot of spending, including their employees, which do get VAT taxed as part of their consumption. They also hire a lot of people and stayed after Brexit for one reason or another, Football, Culture, Kid's Education, Use of English, Comparatively high living standard in London compared to other European Cities. They stayed even after Brexit, but I think with a lot of things happening a lot are moving. And within their circle knowing others are moving elsewhere has an effect on others planning to move as well.
Very unfortunate. Brexit didn't bring as much damage as some might expect. But this new government, or may be even previous government as well all compounded to the decision happening now.
It's not an assumption. The article stated that non domiciled residents DO pay a lot of taxes. That's why the UK is concerned that they are leaving and modelled against that risk.
I did a quick check and it seems like non dom's are about 0.11% of UK residents and pay about 1.24% of UK taxes. And this doesn't account for indirect benefits such as taxes paid on wages they generate.
if i understood the article, these people (1) didn’t make their money in your country, and (2) are not making money in your country. they just happen to reside there. it seems nonsensical to me to tax revenue that was made in foreign land. but people who love and swear by taxes think that more tax revenue can solve world hunger.
if the uk wants tax money on revenue maybe they should incentivize these so-called super-rich to run their affairs from within the uk?
I’d presume they are spending a lot of money locally and probably employing a staff locally and driving other economic activity locally but I guess I could be wrong.
A rich eats three meals a day, just like everyone else. They may eat nicer food, but they do t consume that much more than the average person. Indeed, the rich tend to hoard their wealth, removing it from the economy while the average person spends most of the money they earn.
Taxing the billionaires is a net plus for any economy.
What do you mean by hoard their wealth? I assume like everyone else they have their wealth in banks/stocks etc and not matreses.
How is it a net plus though?
Is there's a serious hike in taxes the billionaires will just leave and open companies elsewhere
2 replies →
If only there was some historical data, maybe even 30 years of it, that could tell us whether or not putting money in the hands of the ultra wealthy had a sort of “trickle down” effect that benefited everyone else too!
Fine, but is there any data that having ultra wealthy residents in your country(like Sunak's wife) harms everyone else?
4 replies →
> putting money in the hands of the ultra wealthy
that’s a very sinister way to describe the reward for their extraordinary efforts. who’s putting money in their hands? where did this ‘who’ get the money from?
3 replies →
That is the theory, but unlike taxes there is neither an obligation to spend nor a required threshold to spend.
So basically just hoping that billionaires spend and trickle down.