Do some Tory voters now regret their decision?

Good post Ariadne

Even those who have voted this Government in may not agree with everything in their manifesto.
It's a case of swings and roundabouts.

And unexpected events may occur which may precipitate decisions with which we may not agree.

That scenario would not happen and whilst it is dead in the water , mumster or anyone else can raise it as a stick any time they want to beat the Conservatives because its a completely indefensible position that is completely and utterly typical of this morally bankrupt government that we have now who are there to govern on behalf of the rich. And it was quite clear what Labour were saying at the time but of course why would we ever expect that to be reported accurately?

I agree it is a pity that no government has had the political will to deal with non-dom status which is an anachronistic status left from British colonialism. However, I referred to those who had lived here for a number of years or who claimed non-dom status from their father, again primogeniture, another anachronism. As to how long a person could or should be allowed to reside or work here before paying tax on overseas income is concerned, is open to debate. I think more than three years was the proposal put forward recently. As to the hypothetical Japanese lecturer, I should imagine that would be something for his accountant to negotiate. Also if such anomalies do exist shouldn't the legislative process address that? I agree it is a complex process but just because something is difficult, it should not be impossible and neither should complexity be used as an excuse for not tackling something which is clearly outdated and morally questionable.

No it's not dead in the water is it, it is raised as a stick to beat the conservatives with time and again and will continue to be, hence Mumsters post and my question.

Do you think the scenario I put forward is fair Granny Twice.

People were led to believe by Labour all Non Dom status was going to be stopped and it was not true. This is what I mean by you have to look for what they don't say most of the time that gives you information.

POGS The Labour Party was proposing limiting the period of time that non-dom status could be claimed to, I think, seven years.

I think it is accepted by most people that those who come to this country to work on specific projects or who have time-limited contracts, etc., but who do not intend to make the UK their permanent home, should be granted non-dom status for a limited period.

What I think is totally unacceptable is when people who live here for many years or who even intend to live here for their entire lives are allowed to be classified as non-doms.

Apparently we are the only country in the world that has this sort of arrangement and it seems quite fair to me that it should be time-limited.

This country, unlike many other countries in the world, has a stable and democratic political system, relatively low levels of corruption in public servants, responsive and relatively well resourced emergency services, a good road and rail network, a wealth of well maintained public amenities such as museums, galleries, parks, libraries, etc., and is a relatively safe place in which to live. All this infrastructure has been paid for and maintained out of taxation.

Anyway, the Conservative Party is not in favour of applying time limits to non dom status so those benefitting from it must be quite happy.

But how many are here for just a short period? I thought Labour were thinking of exempting those here for less thsn 5 years? I have a real beef with the inherited status - I mean really? And those who are clearly living here for the long haul . And why do other countries not offer this? Anyway, this is dead in the water now isn't it and certainly not the biggest issue

Mumster

Question

A university lecturer takes a 3 year contract with a University in England but he is a Japanese citizen. He owns a home in Japan and rents it out whilst in the UK, he has a small business employing 4 Japanese people and pays relevant taxes to the government of Japan.

He takes the job and is classed as a Non Domicile, that means he is required to pay UK taxes on money earnt in the UK but his Japanese taxable affairs are not included because of the Non Dom status.

You believe that he should pay tax on his UK job, his rental fee for his home, his tax affairs with his business to both the UK Treasury and also the Japanese government? In other words paying his tax twice over.

Isn't that what stopping the Non Dom status means, you may be able to put me right!

. If you look very carefully at what Labour were saying I don't think ALL Non Dom status affairs were being stopped but quite rightly the Inherited Non Dom Status does have merit to be stopped. Pity Labour didn't do it when in government for 13 years .

I am willing to be told I have made a mistake in how I percieve the Non Dom Status rule to apply as it is quite a complicated matter.

mumster - to an extent I agree it is a strange anomaly - I believe they pay a flat fee of £90,000. I would imagine anyone who has that level of wealth might not be too dependent on our infrastructure insomuch as they would undoubtedly use the services of private doctors and hospitals and educate their offspring at fee paying schools. Again I would say if they provide employment to UK citizens then that is a good thing.

Ana

I have been known to live in it

If you are living here for a number of years or in some cases are born here then you should pay the same tax as everyone else. If you are not prepared to do that you are welcome to leave. The economic justification is highly questionable. All employers benefit from the taxes we pay in when they use our infrastructure and their employees were educated by statefunded schools. Any employers, who dodge tax are in effect on state subsidies. We would be better off without them.

Time to move on methinks - it's done

Spot on!!!

I have voted in General Elections in various constituencies since 1974. No-one I have ever voted for in GEs has ever got a seat in Parliament. S'how it rolls. Spot kn, agus. Time to wait and see just get on with life.

I think it's fair to assume that most people would want tax evaders brought to account along with bankers and anyone else who deserves the book being thrown at them.

On non doms, people such as Lakshmi Mittal, Labour donor, have brought parts of their business to this country and have employed people here. If non doms were to have disappeared under a Labour government due to being taxed on their world wide earnings then they would have gone somewhere else and we wouldn't get anything off them.

Hollande had to retract the 75% tax rate for higher earners, again they just disappeared abroad, better to get something off them than nothing at all.

Oh yea, ana! Sighs...

Here we go again...

While you are getting all fired up on the benefit theme, what about non-doms, tax avoiders and evaders? Sorry, they don't matter do they? They are Tory donors.

I think that everyone - including David Cameron! and the queen! - was surprised by the result.

My sentiments precisely Ariadne

I'm surprised by the tone of a number of GNs on all the political threads, highly intolerant of anyone not sharing their opinions.

It's done. Whatever we voted, we now have to get on with it. I don't see the point in looking back and regretting or not regretting one's vote. Lady Macbeth got a lot of things wrong, but not "What's done is done, and cannot be undone."

If we don't like the outcome, we should fight against the government at every opportunity. If we do like it, the we support them.

(BTW, as I have often said before ,on threads about religion and about politics, doesn't the effect it has on Gransnetters show just how divisive and unpleasant hard held views can be?)

I agree rosequartz - benefit recipients cover a wide spectrum most have a good reason why they need them. Unfortunately it is a fact that a few do give a bad name to the majority. I know several former female class mates of my older son late 20s who went straight from school to unsupported motherhood. We live in an affluent area and there were other options for these girls at the time they left school. One I know of had an apprenticeship at a well thought of hairdressers where after a short period admitted "she was trying for a baby because she couldn't be arsed doing this job anymore". My son has shown me her Facebook page several times, where she displays pictures of fairly expensive shoes, nights out and holidays she has been on - Europe and Mexico - third child on the way now, never worked, no supporting partner.

Can I just say I'm not lumping all benefit recipients into that category or single mothers. I just want point that some people could make better choices.

And as if it matters anyway, just a typo, what a fuss over nothing.

And I'm sure we all knew POGS meant to say 'lie'....

I would stand corrected if I were you, mumster

Funny how some benefits are fine but others are not
I don't find it funny, I find it disturbing that the few who live on benefits as a life-style choice give a bad name to all those who deserve them, along with our compassion.

Certainly in my experience you couldn't accuse them of being bleeding hearts!
Surely a bit of a generalisation petallus ?
You must know some very hard-hearted Tory voters!


And all the people I know who vote Labour are sweet, kind and lovely with generous bleeding hearts!

(I will never understand how a Labour Prime Minister got into such cahoots with such a hawkish right wing President)