back to article Non-doms pay 10 times more in income tax than average taxpayer group

UK-based non-domiciled taxpayers contributed £6.57 billion in income tax in 2014/15, an average of £56,589 per non-dom over the year compared to the average of £5,152 collected from the remainder of the population. This substantial tax revenue, as well as other benefits brought by wealthy non-doms based in the UK such as …

  1. Forget It
    IT Angle

    What is this

    here for?

    1. EuroAnchor

      Propaganda

    2. Chris Fox

      What price credibility?

      Let me guess, Pinsent Masons is worried it will lose some of its regular non-dom clients, and shamelessly pushes its own agenda by producing a press-release disguised as a (syndicated) news article under the Out-Law brand, with one-sided quotations from its own staff, and not even a half-hearted attempt at balanced analysis. (E.g. how about comparing pennies-in-the-pound, and the break even point for tax income, comparing number of non-dom oligarchs vs oligarchs paying regular tax rates?) It would be difficult to find a better way of undermining the credibility of Out-Law articles. I wonder whether/why The Register was obliged to take this piece.

      I guess this is "normal" behaviour for Pinsent Masons: even its WIkipedia entry looks like a self-penned puff piece.

      1. Smooth Newt Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: What price credibility?

        They pay 10 times more income tax than the average taxpayer. But isn't their income vastly more than 10 times the average? I mean, would these people even get out of bed for £250k per annum? Shall we say, 100 times to 10,000 times the average income? But they only pay 10 times the average income tax????

        1. Mark 65

          Re: What price credibility?

          @Smooth Newt: You have to get used to the fact that the uber rich don't pay tax like the rest of us. After a certain point of wealth various intricate and legal tax minimisation schemes become highly cost effective which is why they use them and we don't. Like it says in the article, they are extremely wealthy and can pick and choose where they live. Personally I would rather collect the 10 times the average from them and the potential for their lavish spending rather than nothing at all. Is it fair? No, but then neither is life in general so get used to it.

          1. organiser

            Re: What price credibility?

            Also, only a small portion of their income is PAYE. The bulk of it is interest, gains and dividends.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

          3. Smooth Newt Silver badge

            Re: What price credibility?

            Personally I would rather collect the 10 times the average from them and the potential for their lavish spending rather than nothing at all.

            Why would there be "nothing at all"? Where did that come from?

            1. Mark 65

              Re: What price credibility?

              Why would there be "nothing at all"? Where did that come from?

              Tax them too highly and they piss off completely.

              1. Smooth Newt Silver badge

                Re: What price credibility?

                Tax them too highly and they piss off completely.

                "Too highly" means "the same as everyone else". I expect for many, spending a lot of time here is a lifestyle choice rather than a financial one, plus everyone buys goods and services from countries that we don't live in, and many also have overseas investments. Why should this group be any different?

      2. Anonymous Curd
        Thumb Down

        Re: What price credibility?

        "I guess this is "normal" behaviour for Pinsent Masons"

        A little bit of work in google news will turn up a set of these articles, exclusively from Pinsent Masons and mostly in the right wing end of the press, appearing on average about every 3 months or so.

        Suspiciously closely aligned to that mad end-of-quarter period all sales people know and love...

        "They pay 10 times more tax than the average taxpayer. But isn't their income vastly more than 10 times the average?.."

        Unless you're HMRC this is almost impossible to determine, and they're effectively banned from publishing their analysis on this (see also: economic impact of immigration). However, third-party analyses are available online (the short answer is yes). The complicating factor is that many non-doms are genuinely non-domiciled. High but unremarkable incomes, genuinely based overseas. Given the inherently complex nature of these persons' affairs, decoupling not-that-dodgy non-doms from media barons and russian oligarchs who are just taking the piss is really impossible. This is what enables bastions of the establishment like Pinsent Mason's to get away with publishing this kind of twaddle without falling afoul of ethics rules. They are, of course, the best kind of correct. Technically correct.

        1. Random Handle

          Re: What price credibility?

          >A little bit of work in google news will turn up a set of these articles, exclusively from Pinsent Masons and mostly in the right wing end of the press, appearing on average about every 3 months or so.

          Yep though the headline revenue figure they invent varies by a few hundred million each time - and they seem to be using the flakey IFS non-doms figure for 2012/13.

          It's the kind of thing Pinsent Masons are paid to do - I guess El Reg are promoting it as part of their on-going drive to lose readers to SlashDot?

    3. oxfordmale78

      I think this is part of their on-going drive to lose readers. The Alexa global ranking has only gone down from 3000 to 5500 over a period of a year, so they clearly need to publish more of this kind of sponsored articles to break the 6000 mark.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So in summary....

    ...if you are a rich foreigner, despite living here for 15 years, you don't need to pay the full tax rate.

    But the poor plebs at the bottom of the rung do, from day 1.

    Got it.

    1. Gray
      Holmes

      Re: So in summary....

      Goose. Golden eggs. Hatchet & goose dinner.

      Politicians always want it all, immediately.

      Tomorrow? That's when our head is on the block.

    2. Fonant
      Unhappy

      Re: So in summary....

      You don't need to be foreign, you can be a mega-rich British person apparently living abroad.

      We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Plutocracy. With the ruling elite kept in place by our absurd First-Past-the-Post electoral system and government determined to have the country ruled by Big Business.

      1. Dazed and Confused

        @Fonant

        the ruling elite kept in place by our absurd First-Past-the-Post electoral system

        Constituency based voting isn't perfect but at least it gives the voters a choice on who is allowed to be an MP. In PR it's "The Party" which decides, the public gets to choose how many "The Party" gets but then it's up to "The Party" to fill the seats. You can't decide your MP is a crook and vote them out.

        Leaving aside the need to form coalitions and the ability of minor parties who can leverage the balance of power to get their way, PR would lead to an even more corrupt system.

        1. H in The Hague Silver badge

          Re: @Fonant

          "Constituency based voting isn't perfect but at least it gives the voters a choice on who is allowed to be an MP. In PR it's "The Party" which decides, the public gets to choose how many "The Party" gets but then it's up to "The Party" to fill the seats. "

          In theory you're right. In practice most parliamentary candidates stand as party candidates and will only be appointed as candidates if they toe the party line. So (apart from a few maverick MPs) you are still voting for "The Party" rather than a specific candidate.

          "… PR would lead to an even more corrupt system."

          Well, I don't like bandying that particular c-word around, but I might be tempted to apply it to a situation where getting just under 37% of the votes leads to a party getting 52% of the seats in Parliament.

          Personally I wouldn't mind more coalitions as I think they _can_ lead to a steadier course, with less disruption when there's a change in government. It also gives homes to more extreme elements, which relieves the more mainstream parties of the burden of having to deal with them. I quite liked the Conservative/LD coalition, but I appreciate that I might be in a minority.

          1. Dazed and Confused

            Re: @Fonant

            In theory you're right. In practice most parliamentary candidates stand as party candidates and will only be appointed as candidates if they toe the party line. So (apart from a few maverick MPs) you are still voting for "The Party" rather than a specific candidate.

            While this is true the electorate does from time to time kick out senior party appointees in "safe seats". The most obvious example is Michael Bell beating out Neil Hamilton. I think this keeps them on their toes.

            Personally I wouldn't mind more coalitions as I think they _can_ .... I quite liked the Conservative/LD coalition, but I appreciate that I might be in a minority.

            Actually I'm with you on that one. Our 1 modern example of a coalition was a good thing, even if it then wiped out the LD party at the next election since many of their voters had voted against everyone else rather than for the LDs.

            However I think we were lucky.

            Can you imagine a Tory/UKIP or Corbinite/SNP coalition?

            In many countries that routinely have coalitions extreme parties very effectively block out sensible moves they happen to be against.

            1. earl grey Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: @Fonant

              Can you imagine a Tory, UKIP, Corbinite, SNP coalition actually working for the people?

              Wait, i'll just have a little lie down and get over this.

            2. Dave 15 Silver badge

              Re: @Fonant

              In our 'democracy' a minority of votes regularly leads to an unstoppable government majority, mps that dont do their job (representing their constituents)) and governments that fail to listen or live up to promises. Part of this of course is the civil service (if I were elected I would shoot the whole lot on day 1)

              However as all the mps do what the boss says we effectively only need a single dictator. As there are only ever two parties elected we could draw straws to see which dictator has the next 5 years.

              The electorate don't help much... Conservatives have lower taxes despite all evidence that says no is a regular argument with my dad. Conservatives always win here so voting for anyone else is a waste is not even worth arguing about with my mum. Couldn't vote for him his suit doesnt fit is one I have also heard... frankly democracy needs intelligence and thought, it also needs people willing to look at each individual thing on its own merits... our people are not up to the task... either the politicians or the public.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Fonant

                "our people are not up to the task... either the politicians or the public."

                Democracy, if it is to work, needs a reasonable well educated electorate, and a much better informed electorate than our current masters permit us.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: @Fonant

            "I quite liked the Conservative/LD coalition, but I appreciate that I might be in a minority."

            I'm also with you on that one. The LibDem supporters thought they'd been hoodwinked, but as the minor partner had a lot less sway so coudn't push stuff through, but they were quite effective at reining in the more stringent Tory policies. Labour were pretty much useless at that point (were? I hear you say :-))

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Fonant

          Sadly the UK voted against the transferable vote, which keeps first-past-the-post while also allowing people to express support for actual preferred candidates, which makes it easier to for alternative parties to grow.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: @Fonant

            "Sadly the UK voted against the transferable vote"

            Of all the possible PR voting systems, we got that single version offered to us in the full knowledge that it would not be chosen because everyone knew it was not the one that was wanted.

            1. Chris Fox

              There was no referendum on PR

              "Sadly the UK voted against the transferable vote"

              "Of all the possible PR voting systems, we got that single version offered to us in the full knowledge that it would not be chosen because everyone knew it was not the one that was wanted."

              Indeed, the 2011 referendum was on the Alternative Vote (AV), which is not a proportional voting system. It seems bizarre that the referendum was about switching to a voting system that the Jenkins Commission had explicitly rejected, on the grounds that it could be even less proportional than FPTP.

              The Commission actually recommended the rather different AV+ additional member system, which is more proportional than FPTP while preserving constituencies. Of course we never got to vote on that far more sensible compromise. The "choice" we ended up being offered was then to keep the flawed status quo, or replace it with something potentially worse (... sounds strangely familiar...).

        3. strum

          Re: @Fonant

          >In PR it's "The Party" which decides

          Poppycock. With STV (MMC) - the method favoured by most proponents of PR - the voter decides. The voter even decides which of several party candidates is elected. The party can't force an unpopular candidate on their supporters.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Bigkahuna456

        Re: So in summary....

        Do you actually vote in the 2011 referendum to change the voting system?

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: So in summary....

          "Do you actually vote in the 2011 referendum to change the voting system?"

          Yes. I voted for the lesser of the two evils and "won".

    3. paulf
      Unhappy

      Re: So in summary....

      @ Lost all faith...

      "...if you are a rich foreigner, despite living here for 15 years, you don't need to pay the full tax rate.

      But the poor plebs at the bottom of the rung do, from day 1. Got it."

      Got it spot on in one, I think. Considering the hardships many have suffered over recent years I can't help thinking out-law are, at best, unreasonably sticking their neck above the parapet with a bleadin' hearts story about how the 1% may flee elsewhere with their sacks of cash if they're asked to pay 0.2% tax instead of the current 0.1%. It's amazing how much squealing these people (and companies) do (and how deafeningly loud it is!!) at the slightest hint they're not paying their fair share towards the infrastructure and society that enables them to do their thang (be it create jobs, create wealth, or just piss about in their millionaires playground).

      Re the article I also pay VAT when I buy stuff. Does that excuse me from paying the full amount of income tax and NI too? Thought not.

      1. tfewster Silver badge
        Facepalm

        @paulf re: fair share

        Define "fair".

        Pay for what you use? Absolutely, including paying employers NI for your personal housekeeping staff.

        Subsidise those who can't afford to pay for what they use? OK, no problem.

        Subside those who can afford to pay but don't want to? Fuck right off.

        The "average" person who pays 5K p.a. in income tax probably pays out about 15K p.a. in all "taxes" - income tax, VAT, council tax, road tax, energy tax, insurance premium tax. Still less than the average non-dom pays in just income tax. So what do they get for their money? How is it "fair" to them? Are they burdening the NHS? Schools? State pensions?

    4. MrXavia

      Re: So in summary....

      I think you have your neurons in a twist...

      If income is not earned in this country, and not brought into this country, why should tax be paid in this country?

      Of course they will pay tax on UK earnings, and as shown they contribute a hell of a lot more than the average domiciled earner.

      High taxation will just push money out of the country, not draw it in!

      Taxes are too high as they are, a 45% rate is idiotic and encourages money laundering and tax evasion, even the 40% is stupid... it just pushes up the higher earners/managers rates, reducing money available for the average (i.e. easily replaceable) workers

      Poor plebs? the plebs as you call them are more the problem than the rich are...

      We will never have a fair society while we have plebs.. Education is the only solution to the crisis in this country, and it will take 2 generations to fix after we fix the schools (they are so bad I will not send my kids to a state school, even if I have to keep working 14 hours a day to fund a private education)

      1. d3vy Silver badge

        Re: So in summary....

        "We will never have a fair society while we have plebs.. Education is the only solution to the crisis in this country, and it will take 2 generations to fix after we fix the schools (they are so bad I will not send my kids to a state school, even if I have to keep working 14 hours a day to fund a private education)"

        I suspect that you'd be better off moving to an area with a decent state school reducing your hours and spending more time with your kids... In the long run they will benefit more from that than the slightly better education* that they get at a private school.

        * I have friends who went to private and state schools and you wouldn't be able to tell them apart based on looking any aspect of their lives...

        * Additionally: I also have another friend who worked as an assistant at a few private schools before she started uni. She regularly created the lesson plans and took classes without the teacher present... Thats an unqualified, teenager (at the time) teaching subjects that she barely scrapped a C grade GCSE in...

        1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

          Re: So in summary....

          But of course, if you need to work 14 hours a day to pay for it, the education must be better because it costs more and has a glossy brochure ... Welcome to the world of marketing.

      2. Jonathan Richards 1
        Alien

        Re: So in summary....

        > If income is not earned in this country, and not brought into this country, why should tax be paid in this country?

        Address this question to the US tax authorities, who sent Boris Johnson a bill for capital gains tax on a house he sold in the UK. As I understand it, USians owe tax to Uncle Sam wherever they are in the world, though they can offset local taxes against their US tax liability. BJ was selling his home, so UK capital gains tax didn't apply.

        Alien, obviously -->

        1. Stork Silver badge

          Re: So in summary....

          The US is in an exclusive club of countries that taxes their citizens on worldwide income, no matter if they reside there or not. The other country in the club is Eritrea!

    5. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: So in summary....

      But the poor plebs at the bottom of the rung do, from day 1.

      No the people at the bottom earning within their personal allowance pay zero.

  3. Jonny Calcutta

    Pretty meaningless metric

    Rich people pay more tax than poor people.

    3 million people live below the personal tax threshold of £10,000, so non-doms would pay vastly more tax than them, even if they were paying an effective tax rate of 0.00001%

    1. Richard Jones 1
      FAIL

      Re: Pretty meaningless metric

      @ Jonny Calcutta: Was there a point there? Are you saying that their tax contribution which is orders of magnitude greater than many others, does not matter so send them and their money somewhere else?

      Oh great, that means I will have to pay even more tax, will you?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric

        His point was the stat was useless - mega rich people pay more tax than poor people. I understand the nuances of the argument the article is making and I still agree with Jonny Calcutta that the stat was ridiculous.

        What if we show the stat that the rich pay more tax than both the mega rich non-doms and the poor which is likely to be the case and therefore we should cut taxes and provide loopholes for the rich. Or just consider that many people visiting this site pay more tax than the poor, therefore **insert argument about helping them pay less tax here**.

      2. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric

        Their tax contribution isn't "orders of magnitude greater" at all. It's a tiny fraction of the money they make. The tax system works on percentages, those that earn more are supposed to contribute more.

        A bunch of selfish greedy people leaving the country isn't a bad thing. The idea that industry and business will stop if they leave is laughable.

        1. james 68

          Re: Pretty meaningless metric

          A bunch of selfish greedy people leaving the country isn't a bad thing. The idea that industry and business will stop if they leave is laughable.

          All well and good until they're gone and you realise that:

          • Their tax money is also gone.
          • Their industry and business's and those they support are also gone, taking jobs and further tax cash with them.
          • The cash they pumped into the country via buying lots of shit is also gone and therefor the jobs which were supported by their spending are gone.
          • All that lost cash has to be replaced from somewhere, prepare to bend over and take a thorough "tax hike".

          Yeah, that'll be wonderful then, so glad you've single-handedly solved the economy.

          1. Mark Dempster

            Re: Pretty meaningless metric

            They're not going to take their company away just because they're made to pay more personal income tax; they exist to make money, and if there's money here they will exploit it.

            And as others have said, what's unfair about them contributing a percentage of the money they earn in this country back into it? We do.

          2. EH

            Re: Pretty meaningless metric

            let the non-doms leave. what have they really contributed? rampant house-price inflation, gold tracksuits, super yachts clogging up the Isle of Dogs, John Terry being paid?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pretty meaningless metric

          So if these selfish greedy bastards leave, I assume you'll be happy to pay much, much more tax to cover the shortfall?

          I assume from the giant chip on your shoulder that you pay less tax that it costs for the state to take care of you ( the NHS alone costs £3k/year per person ).

      3. Warm Braw Silver badge

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric

        that means I will have to pay even more tax

        That doesn't follow. It's just as much a fallacy as saying that industrialisation or immigration destroys jobs.

        There is now plenty of evidence that societies that are more equal are happier and have stronger ecomonic growth. Even the FT ran a piece a couple of years ago entitled A more equal society will not hinder growth. You are ultimately worse off if a dependence on this income stream results in lower long-term, sustainable growth.

        It's also an extremely transient opportunity. Rather like reducing corporate tax rates, it's a race to the bottom to see who's willing to be bought off for the lowest price. And it leaves no actual economic legacy.

        The quickest way to increase tax revenues and economic activity is to push up the minimum wage. Offering safe haven to a bunch of dubious oligarchs is not only immoral, it's economically illiterate.

        1. earl grey Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: Pretty meaningless metric

          just as much a fallacy ...

          Ah, i remember i had one of those a long time ago before i got married. Through the dim fog of time i recall it being quite delightful.

        2. Preston Munchensonton

          Re: Pretty meaningless metric

          That doesn't follow. It's just as much a fallacy as saying that industrialisation or immigration destroys jobs.

          Not sure that it's on the same level, but there's no certainty that everyone's taxes would go up without the high-earner tax revenues. There are a lot of public policy options that could be implemented, given that there's various types of tax increases, potential spending cuts, or some measure of both. All of which provides it's own clusterfuck of political theatre for all to enjoy. Sigh.

          There is now plenty of evidence that societies that are more equal are happier and have stronger ecomonic growth.

          I think this is a chicken-or-egg problem. That research assumes that equality came first. There's competing research that shows economic growth came first. Again, it devolves into political theatre that really does make my head hurt at times.

          It's also an extremely transient opportunity. Rather like reducing corporate tax rates, it's a race to the bottom to see who's willing to be bought off for the lowest price. And it leaves no actual economic legacy.

          This really needs some context. If tax rates are too high, lower rates can induce economic growth (and tax revenue growth) on their own. Think the 90% top rate of the US until the 1960s (and their revenues leapt after JFK pushed through tax reform). But in the case of corporate taxes, the problem is more complicated since corporations don't pay taxes; only people do. So corporate taxes are really taxes on employee wages/benefits, shareholder returns, etc. Frankly, it's right there with completely, unilateral free trade in it's universal benefit to all. All capital taxation is far more economically harmful than virtually every other type of tax (excepting any sort of transaction taxation, which is the worst kind).

          The quickest way to increase tax revenues and economic activity is to push up the minimum wage.

          Virtually no research shows this to be the case. Minimum wage legislation is a net drag when above about 50% of the median wage, and virtually no impact below it. No one in their right mind would ever say that we could increase tax revenues and economic activity if we could just raise the price of things. Labor is not different in this regard.

          Offering safe haven to a bunch of dubious oligarchs is not only immoral, it's economically illiterate.

          Completely agree, but not for your stated reasons. Providing a stable and just system of law absolutely provides a direct economic benefit (as we've known since Adam Smith). Providing a method for the politically well-connected to extract economic rents from everyone doesn't really benefit anyone but to those crony-capitalist bastards who have the political connections and to the politicians that continue to get elected through the help of their crony-capitalist supporters. Indeed, fuck them both with a hot poker.

          It's just as economically illiterate to assume that all high income earners are crony capitalists, which isn't your point but it certainly seems to be the point of most taxation arguments calling for "soaking the rich", as though most income is ill-gotten at the expense of the middle and lower classes (which it isn't).

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pretty meaningless metric

          The quickest way to increase tax revenues and economic activity is to push up the minimum wage. Offering safe haven to a bunch of dubious oligarchs is not only immoral, it's economically illiterate.

          It's also the quickest way to increase the cost of living. If the dude making your loaf of bread goes from earning £9/hr and a loaf of bread costs, say, £3 do you really think the price of that loaf will not shift upwards if you now paid him £12/hr? Higher wages should be offset by productivity gains not by "just for shits and giggles" vote winning reasons.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: Pretty meaningless metric

            A rich person:

            Uses private health care instead of the NHS, minimal burden on NHS, However, private medicine is VAT exempt.

            Uses private education, no burden on states schools. Again fees are VAT exempt

            Buy expensive houses and pays shedloads of stamp duty.

            Pay their personal staff and are often business employers, therefore responsible for a great deal of income tax and NI.

            Spend a lot of money and pay a lot of VAT.

            And many other examples of indirect contribution.

            So, the effect is that despite avoiding all the tax that they can, their net contribution is going to be an order of magnitude greater than yours or mine.

            And although it may grate on some people, if taxes become what they would consider to be punitive then they will go somewhere less punitive and make that contribution there and our Inland Revenue will get zero where it was previously getting millions. So to compensate, the IR would need to increase tax on the less well off instead of letting them get away with 20%.

          2. strum

            Re: Pretty meaningless metric

            >Higher wages should be offset by productivity gains

            Funny that this doesn't apply to managers, executives or shareholders, eh?

            The evidence from many instances of raised minimum wages is of little or no inflationary effect - since the money paid to low-paid workers is quickly spent and re-circulated into the economy, giving it a boost.

            1. Naselus

              Re: Pretty meaningless metric

              "The evidence from many instances of raised minimum wages is of little or no inflationary effect - since the money paid to low-paid workers is quickly spent and re-circulated into the economy, giving it a boost."

              This. Plus, the simplistic argument you're countering should also cut both ways - productivity gains should be accompanied by higher wages - and that's not really applied to large (and growing) segments of the population for decades.

    2. Red Bren

      Re: Pretty meaningless metric

      "Rich people pay more tax than poor people."

      Rich people also earn more than poor people. What this article lacks is the context of tax paid compared with income. If non-doms are earning 100 times average income then paying 10 times average tax is not acceptable.

      "3 million people live below the personal tax threshold of £10,000, so non-doms would pay vastly more tax than them, even if they were paying an effective tax rate of 0.00001%"

      I'm happy for the poorest in society to pay a much lower income tax rate than me; they still pay VAT which is highly regressive and it recognises the fact that there's a bare minimum income needed to survive on and encourages working over claiming benefits. I'm not happy for effective tax rates to be a bell curve, where the very richest are allowed to avoid paying their fair share.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. d3vy Silver badge

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric

        "3 million people live below the personal tax threshold of £10,000"

        The personal tax threshold is 11k.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty meaningless metric

      There is a different way of looking at it:

      A non-dom pays significantly less tax per head on average than any of:

      1. A GP.

      2. A highly skilled technical professional - top bracket of software development, engineering, consultant level medical, etc. I am paying more than the number shown in this "research paper" and I am not even a manager.

      3. Highly skilled law professional

      4. ...

      5. ...

      These should the actual basis for comparison - the people who earn a comparable bracket in a (usually) honest manner by working their f*** arses off to drive the actual GDP of this country.

      I do not see why some mobster scum hiding here living off money stolen from a cleptocracy somewhere should pay less tax than me. MORE - definitely. End of the day we offer them immunity from (often well deserved) prosecution.

      Less - do not quite see the justification as their contribution to the GDP is fecking NIL - they contribute to _ANOTHER_ country's GDP. That is what makes them non-doms.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pretty meaningless metric

      This has been round the net for some time but very few people understand it.

      ------------------------

      Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,

      it would go something like this?

      The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing

      The fifth would pay $1

      The sixth would pay $3

      The seventh would pay $7

      The eighth would pay $12

      The ninth would pay $18

      The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

      So, that's what they decided to do.

      The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

      "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."

      Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

      The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But

      what about the other six men -- How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

      The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of

      the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

      And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

      The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

      The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

      The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

      The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

      The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

      Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare

      their savings.

      "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

      "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

      "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

      "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

      The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

      The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,

      they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

      And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will

      naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

      In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

      ---------------------------

      Think about how you fit in.

      1. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric

        I've not seen that before, it's an interesting explanation both of how our tax system works and how "let's tax the rich, they can afford it" can affect things.

        Let's just say for a minute that, before the bar bill reduction, the eighth person looses his job. He joins the lower 4 and pays nothing. Now there is a $12 deficit. As the 10th person "can afford it", the 9 decide that he should make up the shortfall.

        The tenth man thinks this is unfair: He is already paying 59% of the bar bill, why should he pay the extra? So he decides to stop drinking with this group, who are treating him unfairly. Instead, he joins a bunch of better off friends who split the bill equally at a swanky bar. He still pays $59, but in a nicer place, with people who aren't trying to treat him unfairly.

        The 9 remaining friends try to recalculate, leaving the 9th person paying the most. He decides this is unfair, too, and leaves. Eventually, the remaining parties can't afford to pay anymore, and rail at the others for leaving.

        Most people agree that progressive taxation is the best way. However, push the top too far, and they will leave (or try to find loopholes). These are the people who are most mobile and have the most options about where to live and work.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Pretty meaningless metric - calc error

        The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

        The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

        The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

        The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

        The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

        So who is paying the extra $ to make it up to $80?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fuck the poor then

    So in summary nom-doms are worth 10 poor people...what a BS article

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fuck the poor then

      That's an interesting interpretation, to say the least.

      The summary I got from the article ( by reading the words ) is that non-doms pay a substantial amount of tax and maybe we shouldn't go on an ideological witch hunt or we'll probably end up losing more money than if we just left the system as is.

      You know, because people can leave the country, especially rich people, and go to countries that don't punish people for doing well.

      Although you leftie twats think that we should charge exorbitant amounts of tax and ignore the Laffer curve incase anybody has the gall to make more money than you.

      1. Jonte Monkey

        Re: Fuck the poor then

        They only contribute 2% of the income tax - they also consume somewhat more of the national output. Next you'll be arguing fly tipping is good for the economy as it keeps people employed in cleaning up the mess, whilst cutting red tape for the companies dumping the rubbish and making them more competitive internationally.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Laffer curve

        Just so you know, Laffer created his curve in the 1970s, when the top tax rate in the US was 70%, much higher than the UK has now.

        While there's no way to know for sure what the revenue maximizing rate is, the fact that the people subject to the 70% (for income over $180K) still worked once they'd reached $180,000 for the year and tried to earn another dollar, even when they didn't have deductions they could use against that extra dollar, seems to indicate it is far in excess of today's tax rates. So the idea that cutting tax rates from where they are in the US and UK today would increase tax revenues is pretty ridiculous.

        The main incentive for cutting tax rates is not the fantasy of revenue increase, but to pair it with elimination of deductions to the extent politically possible, as they change behavior by favoring some investments or activities over others.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Laffer curve

          Not so I have decided that 40% is too much tax to pay so have arranged my tax affairs for the last 10 years to avoid it. Had it been lower I would have paid more tax.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Laffer curve

            @AC:

            So you have arranged your tax affairs to avoid tax when it is 40% but you wouldn't if it was "lower" like say 25%? Why wouldn't you similarly arrange your affairs to avoid taxes then? So long as your arrangement is legal, I don't know why you wouldn't arrange your affairs in that way even with a 5% tax rate, so long as the arrangement didn't have other costs associated with it, whether in terms of money or time.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Laffer curve

              @DougS

              I value society so am happy to pay a certain amount of tax: 25% - 30% seems reasonable to me. I have used various measures over the years to keep my tax down to 25% including huge pension contributions, reducing my working hours and early retirement. Without going to these lengths I would have been paying tax at 40% and even a marginal rate of 60%.

              If tax rates above 25% were abolished now I would take more income and pay more tax, but as the Laffer curve also demonstrates were the rate to fall to below 25% the Government would get less tax out of me as I wouldn't take any more additional income.

              BTW - As a generic example about the context of the Laffer curve, with a big pot of savings and very careful tax planning (and not doing anything dodgy) a couple in the UK can take a combined income of £66,200 without any tax being due.

      3. Naselus

        Re: Fuck the poor then

        "The summary I got from the article ( by reading the words ) is that non-doms pay a substantial amount of tax and maybe we shouldn't go on an ideological witch hunt or we'll probably end up losing more money than if we just left the system as is"

        Funny, the summary *I* got from it is that non-doms pay a substantial amount of Pinsent Masons' income and maybe we shouldn't kick them out or the senior partners of the firm might not be able to afford seven-figure bonuses this year.

    2. Richard Jones 1
      FAIL

      Re: Fuck the poor then

      In tax accounting terms yes the poor are worth less as tax generators, but the poor then get their revenge by absorbing more than they can ever repay from the tax streams that others pay.

      Its called society for those who did not know; so your headline was crap and your epithet shows a lack of understanding.

      No wonder you are anon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fuck the poor then

        Another anon poster here.

        So you reckon a chief exec who is paid 200x the amount of their employees is worth 200 of them?

        That the chief exec didn't employ 'creative' accounting to reduce their tax bill?

        That their pay doesn't rise way above inflation, way above the growth rate of their company's profits or share price?

        A lot of working people can hardly make ends meet, and this in a place like UK, not 3rd world country.

        I think you confuse poor working people with benefits scroungers.

        1. Fink-Nottle

          Re: Fuck the poor then

          > I think you confuse poor working people with benefits scroungers.

          I think you confuse benefits scroungers with welfare recipients, the vast majority of whom are either willing or unable to work.

      2. NinjasFTW

        Re: Fuck the poor then

        In tax accounting terms yes the poor are worth less as tax generators, but the poor then get their revenge by absorbing more than they can ever repay from the tax streams that others pay.

        The problem is that its only the middle class who end up paying the full tax rate.

        The poor get lots of 'help'/subsidisation (yes i'm aware this is debatable) and the rich have the resources to find all the loop holes.

        As someone who is likely to remain middle class and had to work hard to get there it does annoy me that changes to tax normally affect me in a negative way.

        I am grateful that I am where I am but human nature is always going to look enviously at others getting handouts or avoiding responsibilities.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Fuck the poor then

      Not quite.

      Fuck the highly skilled professional which makes a real contribution to this country's GDP and has to pay full tax all of his life (quite often more than the "average" number shown in this research paper).

      So it is not quite fuck the poor. It is fuck the upper middle class because you see there is a huge number of poor people in the country which weigh the domicile average tax contribution down so it looks less then non-domicile one.

    4. Mark 65

      Re: Fuck the poor then

      The way I read it was that if you piss off one mega rich person you need to find 10 average ones to replace them, not withstanding that the average just fell.

  5. Peter Prof Fox

    Is Paul Dacre in?

    I don't go to the Daily Mail web site and I don't want this pointless piffle.

    1. Don Dumb
      Stop

      Re: Is Paul Dacre in?

      From the article written by 'Out-Law.com' - "said tax investigation expert Fiona Fernie of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com.....

      The figures come from a recent survey by Pinsent Masons"

      Wow, from such an esteemed research organisation as a law firm. I don't know how you could possibly think to criticise the journalism.

      El Reg, this is poor - I would have thought that on a site like this we would at least get independent research referenced, even when doing comment pieces arguing a clearly pre-determined point. Not a survey by *the author* to support (in this case seemingly advertise) the author's business.

      Most people on here know how easy it is to do a survey that gets the result the surveyor wants, so please at least try and use an apparently independent one. Even though they are often just as bad, at least you're not insulting our intelligence by being quite so blatant about it.

      I'm beginning to think listening to Radio 4's 'More or Less' should be compulsory in schools. El Reg, at least credit us with being able to see through 'Think Tank Tactics'

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is Paul Dacre in?

        I would have thought that on a site like this we would at least get independent research referenced

        If you've every paid any attention to the distribution of taxes and benefits, you'd have found a similar outcome from the multiple sources that have covered this. But never mind facts, why not try an ad hominem attack on the source?

        1. Don Dumb
          Facepalm

          Re: Is Paul Dacre in?

          @Ledswinger - Do you know what an ad hominem is?

          It isn't an ad hominem attack to state that research performed by the writer of their own article isn't independent research. I didn't say that I disagreed with the results (I genuinely don't know), merely that I would prefer to see a better source of information, which might just be objective a well carried out. A tax lawyer is not a sufficiently objective researcher on the subject of tax, was the paper peer reviewed by academics?

          Seeing as you must have seen all these reports, how about linking to one, from maybe an academic in a peer reviewed publication?

  6. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Joke

    In other News ...

    Rich people pay more for food than poor people - Rich people incur restaurant bills several magnitudes greater than the cost of a burger and fries every time they eat ...

    THIS INEQUITY HAS TO STOP!

    1. John G Imrie

      THIS INEQUITY HAS TO STOP!

      You are quite right about this and the Government has taken your comment on board. In order to fix this in next April's Budget there will be a tax of 10000% levied on all fast food outlets. This will have an added benefit of reducing the obesity epidemic in the country.

      Yours,

      Sir Humphrey.

  7. Panicnow

    They won't leave

    Rich people want quality of life. Having to restrict their time in London doesn't work for them! London is the Capital of the World! Only London welcomes ALL, rich, regardless of ethnicity, politics, ethics or sexual persuasion.

    UK could tax the lot of them as UK citizens and only the "Philip Greens" would choose to live on a yacht in the mid-atlantic.

    The "we will move" is standard and should be ingnored!

    1. Dazed and Confused

      Re: They won't leave

      The "we will move" is standard and should be ingnored!

      Charge me 50% tax and I'll leave pronto

      Not that I'm very likely to ever make it into a position where I'm in the super tax bracket. Paying 40% is one thing, but I'd be seriously pissed off at more than half of what I earn going straight to the taxman.

      1. Red Bren

        Re: They won't leave

        Even if you did fall into a 50% tax bracket, that rate is only applied on earnings above that threshold, not your entire income. And 50% is not more than half, so you would never have more than half your earnings going straight to the taxman.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: They won't leave

          Before the top rate was set at 40% many business men had been used to having to pay large proportions of their earning to the texman. This rob their enthusiasm to actually earn that much. I remember talking to my uncle who had been the chairman of large successful company. He said that business lunches changed over night when the tax rate dropped to 40%, before then lots of people were happy to do big boozy lunches because there was no point in going back to the office just to earn the taxman more money. Within days of the 40% top rate they suddenly realised that they could go back to the office in the afternoon and earn themselves more money so things happened.

          1. Red Bren

            Re: They won't leave

            So your uncle and his mates were paid by the hour and worked part-time, and this was enough to do their jobs. They then unilaterally decided to work more hours and demand more pay to do what exactly?

      2. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        50%

        If you add in national insurance, VAT and council tax you are probably paying over 50% already.

      3. Downside

        Re: They won't leave

        You Danish? 50% tax there, cars are OMG taxed and... its one of the happiest places on Earth.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: They won't leave

          You Danish? 50% tax there, cars are OMG taxed and... its one of the happiest places on Earth.

          Well, better move their quick whilst you still can. I won't be missing you.

        2. Preston Munchensonton

          Re: They won't leave

          You Danish? 50% tax there, cars are OMG taxed and... its one of the happiest places on Earth.

          You would be happier too if your taxes stay mostly local and weren't sucked into the abyss known as Westminster.

  8. Steve Graham

    Pants on fire

    "Many are highly successful entrepreneurs and businesspeople meaning they establish or invest in UK-based companies, thereby creating thousands of jobs."

    Funny how there are no figures given in the article to quantify that "many".

    My perception is that the majority are not entrepreneurs; their wealth derives solely from their possessions in rent, interest etc.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Pants on fire

      You'll probably find while they may pay £500,000 in tax they pay that on income derived from a business that pays little tax and employs low paid workers who are effectively subsidised by taxpayers by far far more than the non-dom owner pays tax. Thirty years ago my next door neighbour ran a cleaning business. His staff were directly subsidised by housing benefit by far more than he paid them let alone their other cost to the taxpayer like the NHS, road to get to work,educating their kids.

      I'd imagine a true view of the business these non-doms really do would reveal similar losses to the UK exchequer.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Optional

    Or you could look at it another way since we are in the game of mixing absolute values with relative values:

    Non non-doms (doms?) paid 24 times more tax than non-doms in 2015. Based on a total income tax revenue of 163bn.

    (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/540991/Income_tax_receipts_statistics_July_2016_bulletin.pdf)

    Lies, damn lies and statistics. Choose the conclusion you want to believe in and then spin the numbers to support it. It's not rocket science, just statistics.

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Optional

      So what you're saying is that 110,000 non doms paid 4% of the total income tax received and 31,000,000 paid 96% of the total income tax received.

      1. Naselus

        Re: Optional

        "So what you're saying is that 110,000 non doms paid 4% of the total income tax received and 31,000,000 paid 96% of the total income tax received."

        Yes, he is. The entire point of his post is that comparisons like the one in the article are as pointless as the comparison he made (the one you outlined above). Which they are. Both are using bad statistics to prove stupid things; the difference is, he was doing it in order to make a point about bad statistics, while the article was doing it in order to prove a stupid thing.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The real question is how much tax would they have paid and how many austerity cuts could have been avoided?

    Why should these people be given special status to pay less tax because they only spend x amount of time in this country? Just because you are rich doesn't give you the right to own property in multiple countries, move between them and pay little tax, it's wrong and immoral.

    At the end of the day it boils down to a simple question of what sort of society do you want?

    One where you pay for what you use, which for the Non-doms would be virtually nothing (private healthcare, kids in private schools, personal security etc...)

    One where everyone pays a % of what they earn so that everyone has access to essential services for the betterment of society.

    Based on current government shenanigans it looks like were heading for the first option...

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "The real question is how much tax would they have paid and how many austerity cuts could have been avoided?"

      ?

      What do you mean "how much tax would they have paid?"? In what circumstances? If you mean in circumstances that wouldn't have attracted them here in the first place the answer is simple: none. I'll leave you to work out the effect of that on austerity.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

      I believe in capitalism. I'm not even close to being rich, and likely never will be. But in saying that, I dont want to see a system where I feel like what I earn is unfairly taken away from me.

      "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"? Sure. But you have to start somewhere. By definition, these non-doms have come from somewhere else already. Russian oligarchs, etc. If they've moved once, what makes people think they wont do it again? And with an entire globe to choose from, why do people think, out of 7 billion people on planet Earth, that the UK, with its population of around 64 million, is the *only* viable destination?

      I totally believe that rich people will move, if the rules make their lives difficult.

      But I also wanted to ask a question. Quoting from above "Just because you are rich doesn't give you the right to own property in multiple countries, move between them and pay little tax, it's wrong and immoral."

      There are quite a few Brits that own property in Spain, France, Italy, etc. For a great many of them, its a weekender, or maybe a place to spend 3 months (summer or winter - take your pick).

      What gives you the right to label these people as rich people who are trying to do something immoral?

      When you go on holidays yourself to, say, Spain, would the Spanish say the same about you? No, of course not, because you may be there for only a week or two. But what if you were there for a month? 2? 6?

      What if you spent 4 months in the UK, 4 months in Spain, 4 months in Italy? What if you had no property? What if you had one property in each?

      Very quickly, you get to a point where it becomes difficult.

      I think a pragmatic government would want to attract the wealthy, and receive whatever tax receipts they reasonably could. There may be other benefits, which I'm not in a position to quantify, but I suspect that would include non-direct taxation (thinking VAT, stamp duty, and so on). Also, the argument has been made around investment, and what benefits that makes to the economy. A simple question of, do you want this money in your economy, yes or no? I doubt very much that an oligarch will take too much from local systems like the NHS, when they can afford private medical insurance, among other things

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re: do you want this money in your economy, yes or no?

        Yes we do. That's why we don't want it sucked out of the country by non-dom tax dodgers.

  11. a pressbutton
    Pint

    ...so how much did the average non-dom earn

    Funny how the article does not say that.

    So you cannot work out the effective tax rate.

    So these numbers are meaningless

    From that information's absence it is clear that the average non-dom pays less tax than a UK resident on the same salary.

    In other words they pay less tax than they should be paying.

    So I would invite them to pay their fair share or leave.

    A beer for the person at pincent masons who compared some numbers and drew some invalid conclusions.

    But I would warn them that using truthiness in legal practice will not get you far (AFAIK...)

  12. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    I wonder how many of the critics here, at least those living convenient to cross-channel services, have made trips to France to buy booze and/or fags. It's the same thing. If it becomes possible to make international choices then tax rates become a competitive market.

    If a country decides to go the high tax route to gather as much tax as possible from those who aren't mobile there's absolutely no justification sitting and howling* about injustice if tax-payers, individual or corporate go to Hong Kong, Ireland or anywhere else. The decision should have considered these factors.

    By adopting more generous rules to high net worth individuals the government has, over the years, gained more tax than it would have done if those individuals hadn't chosen to be here. There are only two questions here:

    Does the presence of those individuals with their spending power distort the local economy to the detriment of the rest of us, e.g. in the housing market?

    Will these changes lose more from those who move away than it gains by increasing taxes on those who stay?

    *Except, of course, the justification of political theatre; shift the blame from the politicians who made the decision in the first place.

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      I wonder how many of the critics here, at least those living convenient to cross-channel services, have made trips to France to buy booze and/or fags. It's the same thing. If it becomes possible to make international choices then tax rates become a competitive market.

      You don't even have to do that. You can just buy something at a really competitive price, delivered quickly to your door ..... from Amazon. Amazon can afford to offer low prices and efficient delivery because they are "better at dealing with tax" than their competitors.

      But ultimately, the customer is benefiting from that tax position.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Non_dom tax rules state that they pay the current rate of tax in the UK for all money/ assets transferred to the UK. On top of that they also pay a charge(tax) for the privilege of being classed as non_doms. They will also pay tax to the country in which their assets are based. Would it be fair for the UK to tax assets that are held and kept in another country and thus deprive that country of revenue generated in that country? On a related note the top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of the total income tax, What percentage of the total do people believe they should pay?

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Seemingly some people think "all of it"

    2. Red Bren

      On a related note

      "the top 1% of earners in this country pay 30% of the total income tax, What percentage of the total do people believe they should pay?"

      At least the same effective rate as the 99% on their income. If the 1% are earning 30% of the total income then 30% of the total tax is fair enough. But what your post and the original article fail to consider is what their income actually is. So to turn the question around, at what rate do you think the very richest should pay tax?

      When someone earning X times more than me is paying Y times as much tax and X is many times greater than Y then I'm going to complain because I'm having to make up the shortfall and subdidise their lifestyle.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: On a related note

        The problem here is the percentage paid has skewed more towards the highest paid in the last few decades due to inequality of pay rises. If the rich think they should pay less of the total tax take how about they pay their staff fairly?

      2. Malthus

        Re: On a related note

        Yes top earners pay approximately 45% of their total income in direct income tax. Since it's proportional to income those that receive less income pay proportionally less tax. Summing the %tax paid by the total numbers in each tax percentile shows that the richest are always paying proportionally more than any other group per tax percentile irrespectively of the total earnings of each percentile. It is straightforward maths. If you doubled the top tax rate to 90% (and yes its has peaked before at 97.5% in the UK) then the top 1% would be paying approximately 60% of the total if other people paid less and the total tax remained the same.. Previous experience shows that this just doesn't work. People stop working.

        On another note the assumptions people are making are that it's the bosses at the top of large companies that are making the most. How about musicians, writers, owners of businesses that grow, i.e. people that have worked successfully and grown careers for a few years final payments, do you know who are in this top 1%. After all globally, everyone in the UK (yes everyone) is in the 1%.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: On a related note

          No good bringing your logic here. The Graun readers believe in the First Principle of Socialism, which is that "Everybody with more money than me deserves to have all of it taken off them and spent by the state for the common good. But the amount I earn is a fair and just return on my honest toil"

          After all globally, everyone in the UK (yes everyone) is in the 1%.

          Aah. That's a problem. So it's 90% tax all round, wouldn't you agree my lefty friends? Your claims that "the rich" should be soaked needs to include you at the same value as the other 1%ers, rather than any hypocritical and parochial sliding scale based on your bourgeois British history?

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: On a related note

        "When someone earning X times more than me is paying Y times as much tax and X is many times greater than Y then I'm going to complain because I'm having to make up the shortfall and subdidise their lifestyle."

        You're looking at it wrong. If that person were earning X times as much as you somewhere else they wouldn't be paying Y times as much tax here. They'd be paying none at all. And who do you think has to make up that shortfall? You and me of course.

    3. Alien8n

      That only really works if the top 1% of earners are paid 30% of the total salaries in the country. I think you'll find they earn a LOT more than that.

  14. phuzz Silver badge
    Headmaster

    Numbers

    In order to be charged £55,000 in tax, you would have to earn about £150,000 per year.

    The average salary in the UK is about £25,000 per year.

    While we're still comparing things, I'll note that I pay more tax than the average person on benefits. Clearly I should pay less tax to make things fair, right?

  15. Dave 15 Silver badge

    SICK OF THIS BULL!!!!

    If I am given 20 million pounds a year for being a totally useless piece of sloppy shouldered 'boss' at the top of an organisation I can spare the odd 50k for tax.

    It is NOT the amount that it is paid it is the grossness of seeing these people greadily take far more than they deserve, multiple hundreds of time what they earn, slope the responsibility when things go wrong while grabbing more credit than they should when it goes right (mainly through someone elses hard work and sleepless nights) and then pretend that paying 0.001% in tax is in someways better than the rest of us who get screwed for 60%

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    end of the world ^W Daily Mail

    But but if you mess with the non-doms then you'd kill off the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph, and (probably) the Guardian, and...

    Two problems with non-doms:

    1. Brits who fabricate non-dom status solely to cut their tax bills

    2. Crooks (usually non-Brit) who use non-dom status to launder their ill-gotten earnings

    3. Most inward investment from non-doms goes into property and land, increasing the spread of poverty in the rest of the UK population as people struggle to afford somewhere to live and the government go through extraordinary contortions to keep this effect out of the inflation figures.

    Three problems with non-doms...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: end of the world ^W Daily Mail

      "if you mess with the non-doms then you'd kill off the Daily Mail, and the Telegraph, and (probably) the Guardian,"

      The Guardian as people probably remember it has already been killed off, round about the time that Guardian Media Group sold off the highly profitable Auto Trader subsidiary and used the resulting dosh to build an "investment fund to support Guardian journalism" in a string of "interesting" deals with a private equity outfit called APAX Partners. Starting maybe 2007 or so:

      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1 and many others elsewhere.

      Odds of sustained serious journalistic coverage ever happening again at the Guardian? I'd say it was almost infinitely improbable.

  17. Anonymous C0ward

    It makes sense if their absolute amount is higher, but what are the effective rates?

  18. Chaswobler

    The average tax payer pays no tax. Literally, 50% of tax payers pay no tax or in fact are credited from HMRC via tax credits.

    So 10xNothing is not really helpful.

    1. Preston Munchensonton

      It's important to note that the article only concerned income taxes. The situation looks a lot different with all taxes paid.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pay up or clear off. Same for google, amazon, microsoft and the rest. Of course most won't leave. Never ceases to amaze me how many apologists there are for socialism - in this case socialism for the rich.

  20. Pat Att

    Register, you've lost it.

    Why on earth are you putting articles like this up for? They demean your reputation, and make you look like a corporate shill.

  21. Schultz Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    "Non-doms make a highly valuable contribution to the UK economy" ...

    by bringing their stolen money far far away from the (African / Asian / Russian) people that might or might not try to recover some. Let's face it, GB offers a safety for a lot of not so nice people and their suddenly acquired wealth. Only very polite questions asked. It surely doesn't make the world a better place and it stinks badly from the point of view of those whose wealth got skimmed off to London.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Why on earth are you putting articles like this up for?

    Presumably because it generates the kind of pageviews which (e.g) Devoops coverage doesn't, pageviews which can then be touted to potential advertisers.

    Is it circulation metrics time yet?

    Do adblockers affect the pageview count yet?

    We never had to put up with this kind of thing when that ex-military block was in charge. Oh hang on...

  23. JChadwick

    So that is roughly what someone earning £150,000 should pay? And these people are earning millions if not billions. Disgraceful...

  24. ragnar

    This has to be a joke comparison. How much tax do they pay compared to UK domiciled taxpayers of equivalent wealth?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020