The sheer cheek...

[TopBadger]

Billionaire who is himself an immigrant to another country, complains immigrants are spongers, whilst his company sponges off the UK tax payer.

The sheer f.cking cheek of the man.

Not sure much he knows much about football given he doesn't seem to know what an own goal is.

[jimbob]

Billionaire who is himself an immigrant to another country, complains immigrants are spongers, whilst his company sponges off the UK tax payer.

The sheer f.cking cheek of the man.

Not sure much he knows much about football given he doesn't seem to know what an own goal is.

Exactly.

And of course he's got a knighthood.

I did notice that he apologised if people were offended - but not for what he said.

[FlammableFlower]

That old chestnut.

[nekomatic]

Here’s the best commentary I’ve read on this story, and it’s by a sport writer not a political journalist.

[TopBadger]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

[Grumble]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

I’d agree, and add that companies registered in the UK need UK citizen directors, if that’s not already a requirement

[TopBadger]

I’d agree, and add that companies registered in the UK need UK citizen directors, if that’s not already a requirement

There is no requirement for a UK company to have a UK director... I agree this also needs changing.

[Lew Dolby]

Or cancel their citizenship. If it was a good enough way to treat a misguided teen, then it's good enough for others who've turn their backs on the uk.

[TopBadger]

Not a fan of cancelling citizenship. Would rather take the standard route of throwing tax evaders in jail and seizing their assets.

[Lew Dolby]

Not a fan of cancelling citizenship. Would rather take the standard route of throwing tax evaders in jail and seizing their assets.

I actually agree with both statements. It just upsets me that the misguided teen (as was) sits in a refugee camp where she lost her children. The UK needs to find some humanity and allow her back (imo).

[TopBadger]

The UK needs to find some humanity and allow her back (imo).

Agree. Ideally she would be allowed back, serve the punishment as required (although I'm not sure any jail time would be as bad as where she is now), and perhaps then try to educate others against radicalization.

[snoozeofreason]

In thinking about Ratcliffe, Dyson... my mind is also drawn to the start of the F1 season...

Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Bearman... all residents of Monaco for tax purposes. All of them are UK nationals and can fall back on UK protections as UK citizens. Protections they're not contributing to.

I've yet to hear of a left wing party suggesting we adopt a US style tax on citizenship rather than residency. Why is this a bad idea?

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

[TopBadger]

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

Interesting article...

But the main example of the horrors of being a UK/US citizen in particular seem to stem from the US rules being applied. (e.g. USA doesn't view ISA gains as tax free).

A UK citizen tax need not do it exactly the same way...

To target the ultra wealthy you could just set generous thresholds... >£250k income.
Sidestep the issue of differing reporting periods by allowing overseas citizens to file a year later, meaning their local tax affairs are known and complete before having to work out the UK side.
CGT on home sales based on the local sale price gain converted to GBP using historical OANDA rates.

Lets not also forget that no-one is forced to be a dual national. Don't like the rules, then pick one and renounce the other.

[shpalman]

... pick one and renounce the other.

Isn't that what "domicile" is already supposed to be?

[snoozeofreason]

Dan Neidle wrote an article on the subject of citizenship-based taxation a couple of years ago, and was not a fan. His basic point was that the disadvantage of exposing millions of people to complex dual taxation, when they had become expats for perfectly sensible reasons, would outweigh any advantages to be gained by targetting the small minority who leave to avoid tax. I don't feel expert enough to have an opinion myself, but I generally like Dan Neidle's stuff.

<snip>
Lets not also forget that no-one is forced to be a dual national. Don't like the rules, then pick one and renounce the other.

The problem isn't limited to dual nationals. If you live in a country that taxes based on residence, but are a citizen of one that taxes based on citizenship, then you can be subject to dual taxation, even if you aren't a citizen of the country you reside in.

[TopBadger]

... pick one and renounce the other.

Isn't that what "domicile" is already supposed to be?

Is it??

Those F1 drivers and others domiciled in Monaco... none have renounced citizenship. They've just opted out of paying UK tax, whilst still eligible for all the benefits provided (they may not use them, but that's not the point - young healthy people pay for the NHS via taxes even though they may not use it, ditto folks who aren't victims of crime still end up paying for a police service, etc).

[TopBadger]

The problem isn't limited to dual nationals. If you live in a country that taxes based on residence, but are a citizen of one that taxes based on citizenship, then you can be subject to dual taxation, even if you aren't a citizen of the country you reside in.

But as the article says, the UK already has treaties to avoid double taxation with virtually every other country.

UK nationals in say, Germany or Sweden, would be paying a higher % of tax in those countries than they would in the UK... therefore they would not have any income tax liability in the UK under such a citizenship based scheme. It's already been taxed.

The only folks affected would be those ultra wealthy living in places with lower tax than the UK... e.g. 0% income tax Monaco.

[snoozeofreason]

The article does point out the existence of double tax treaties, but then explains why they wouldn't really fix the problems that would arise from citizenship based taxation. There might be sensible ways around the issues that Neidle raises, but I would imagine that, in order to know whether they would work you would need a fairly detailed knowledge both of UK tax, and of those of the various countries with whom we have such treaties (and of their willingness to renogiate those treaties). I'd imagine that Dan Neidle would have that sort of knowledge, but I doubt that any of us do.