Not good enough Im afraid. Most people think its disgraceful that some class of persons can be somehow granted tax exemptions. I might move off shore and refuse to pay income tax - why the hell not? It certainly makes me determined to get away with everything I can in tax returns...

Asking them to pay 30,000 pounds a year wasn't the problem - it was Darling's proposal to force them to provide details of all their foreign earnings in addition to paying tax on income and capital gained from offshore trusts.

Darling doesn`t seemto be able to make his mind up about anything Letters From is right about the real problem and it is just so typical of New Labour to misunderstand dither wobble and finally flop into a heap

Makes you proud to vote Labour doesn't it!?!

Why would they be exempt for the first seven years in the UK anyway!?!

The aim of tax raising is to pluck the geese. There's no point in doing it if the geece fly away and refuse to be plucked.
All the indications were that the ideas would have lowered the total tax take.
Difficult to see any manner in which that is sensible.

No, Bob, that's not Utopianism, that's reasoning. To tax a Billionaire a few quid and spend it on poor kids in Sandwell, well,..er...socialism.

To jump up and down, banging on about Osama Bin Laden's 'rights' or the unsympathetic lack of diplomacy to the beheading Hamas organisation is that of someone who is barking!
To condem 'the lads' as they roll over the Gaza strip, is a tad TRAITOUROUS, for those of us on the moral high ground.

So its nice to see you take a step back into reality land and re-establish the difference between right and WRONG!

So if you want to be mentioned into the Paople's Republic hall of fame, then remember that THEIR rockets are bad and OUR rockets are good!(bonus points if theirs oil underneath) Capiche?

Gary

Gary, when it comes to barking, I think you quite adequately demonstrate for me that you are an expert.

Tim, unusually for you, you rather miss Mark Steel's point. The chances of the Abramovich's of this world leaving over this pittance are just short of, well... nil. These sort of threats are the equivalent to Phil Collins threatening to leave England if Labour was elected in 1997, a threat so attractive to the British public it almost guaranteed Blair a landslide on its own.

The greedy bastards never think they have enough - I'm beginning to think that international socialism is the only way to deal with them. Certainly it seems that small fry get done for a few quid on the social whilst the filthy rich get an audience in No 10 and the other centres of power! Pass the sick bag!

Umm, Bob, Phil did leave the UK. It was from Switzerland that he faxed his wife to say he was bonking the baby sitter, wasn't it?

Do I think that Roman A will leave? No probably not...but more importantly, do I think that these changes will increase tax revenue: well, the only bloke who thinks it will is Richard Murphy and I don't, as you might note, have a great deal of time for him.

There's, to be very slightly serious for a moment, two things here. 1 is that the rich bastards who enjoy our country must pay, 'coz they're rich bastards. 2 is is how to maximise the tax take. Excessive attention to 1 can reduce 2.

As a personal matter (entirely open to people thinking differently about it, those would be moral points, something I cannot, even conceptually, decide for others) 1 is arguable. But if we pay too much attention to 1 so that tax take declines (ie, rich bastards stop paying us any tax at all), well, this sounds very silly to me.

I do understand Steel's point, and it's obviously true for some. The real question is, is it true, marginally? Will we get more money by higher tax rates, over time?

Because it's obviously also not true for some: Phil, Mick, Rod....

Why should Dithering Darling and Bruiser Brown really care about this when they can continue to rip off pensioners and attack out of work council tenants. Your blog speaks up for good old fashioned socialism Bob. Under Brown the rich have got richer and are continuing to do so. No probs with that if the nations wealth is shared equitably all he has managed to do is destroy pension funds introduce a despised means tested benefit but worst of all treated pensioners with disdain when he gave a 200 pound bribe (to help with council tax increase) at the last election and took it away at the first budget of his new term. He will never be trusted again. How he can make a distinction between bailing out a bank and not fully supporting failed pension funds. They act more like the Thatcher government every day.

I think Tim is wrong.

The question of raising the take on tax is legitimate. This is what Chancellors glory in their dreams.

But the question of raising tax in 1.'The rich' to raise the tax in 2. 'overall take', does not neccessarily compute to socialism.

It is an act stupidity to counter one with a minus, granted,but this must have a moral stance.

Therefore, fair taxation, that is seen as fair by the overburdened taxpayers of the United Kingdom, must include a tax on Non-Doms.

It is reasonably acceptable to accept a negative if everyone pays a fair share of the burden.

The staus quo of running, if taxed is not the British way and certainly not the socialist way.

I therefore conclude, and demand, that Non-Doms are taxed come what may.

If my children pay into the NHS and social welfare, then so should those who abuse my home as a port of convienience.

So speaks the People's Republic.

Gary