If you could start from scratch, what philosophical principles would you want to underpin our taxation system?

Does it work in reverse then?
British go abraod and be Non Dom in a different country, and same rules apply?

and what absent says is wrong?

No, the rules vary from country to country. Some of our French Gransnetters could probably confirm/deny this but in France I think a British resident pays tax on foreign and domestic income in France, whether they are domiciled there or not.

In some cases the foreign country will take into account any tax you have already paid elsewhere before taxing you. In other countries you get taxed twice on the same income.

Andsoontobe you are right, absent is wrong. Non Doms do may tax, but only on their UK earnings. And, to be fair, since most of those claiming Non Dom status are high flyers (that means they can afford to pay £30,000 each year to the treasury for their Non Dom status) they actually make a significant contribution to our state coffers. It is estimated that they contribute £8.2 billion to the treasury compared with the £2.7bn paid by the bottom 25% of UK taxpayers
pay.

Under those circumstances I see no reason why they should not benefit from the NHS, schools etc etc.

Socialism seems to be equated with communism in some posts. The socialist gov at the end of the 2nd WW made massive changes in all areas to give all British people as equal opportunities as possible. I would like to see that kind of government return. I understood Orwell to be attacking capitalists. My philosophical approach would be equal opportunities for all.Good forum GT !

Good posts Flickety B.

The Non Dom status is believed by some to be a way of avoiding paying tax. Thank the politics of 'spin' for that and so few media interviewers knowing their remit or having the intelligence to ask the right questions and give people informed understanding of matters.

I agree too with your 5 year policy and the fact that far from being tax avoiders they actually contribute to the tax intake of the country. The Grosvenor of the Bank of England would be a good case to think of.

POGS You suggest that "media interviewers" do not have the knowledge or intelligence to ask the right questions regarding non dom status. My feeling is that "the right questions" have been asked and have revealed that:

A British citizen living in Britain must pay tax on all income earned in the UK and abroad. A non dom living in Britain - maybe having done so for most of his/her life - is only obliged to pay tax on income earned in the UK. How can it possibly be justified that out of two people who have lived in this country all their lives and had the benefit of a relatively stable society with reasonably good infrastructure, only one (the non dom) benefits from a preferential tax regime?

On the proposal of abolition of non-dom status for anyone who chooses to reside in the UK after a 5 year period has elapsed, the Economist says:

"Some non-doms would doubtless leave, but probably only a small number—London has many attractions other than low taxes—and it’s not clear that non-doms generate much investment anyway (other than in high-end residential property). As Richard Murphy, a tax expert, points out, they may feel there is nowhere else to go, as no other rich country has a non-dom scheme."

And POGS if non-dom status is not a way of avoiding tax, why else would a person who was born and educated here and who lives here permanently (but because of some archaic rule is able to opt for non-dom status because his/her father was born abroad) decide to retain such status?

I think the proportion of those with Non Dom status that were actually born in the UK is very, very small. The majority are foreign nationals who have come to this country as adults and who come to take high salary posts. Some may stay for the rest of their lives, but most eventually move to work elsewhere or return to their home countries.

The idea that thousands of non-doms were born here and have lived here all their lives, makes good publicity and attracts interest in the same way that the story of the unemployed man with 40 something children collected it. But no-one in their right mind would suggest that he was typical of all benefit recipients.

I am not defending non dom status but I think we should base any change of policy on the circumstances of the majority and not get too worked up over the particular circumstances of a small handful.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/08/non-dom-donors-who-has-given-money-to-which-parties

Zac Goldsmith was a non-dom for years despite being born in London. Before he became a Tory MP he gave millions to the Tory party.

Sorry, thousands, not millions.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/04/08/labours-non-dom-press-release/

A British citizen living in Britain must pay tax on all income earned in the UK and abroad. A non dom living in Britain - maybe having done so for most of his/her life - is only obliged to pay tax on income earned in the UK. How can it possibly be justified that out of two people who have lived in this country all their lives and had the benefit of a relatively stable society with reasonably good infrastructure, only one (the non dom) benefits from a preferential tax regime

Because the non dom is not a British citizen? Apples and pears? The two are just not the same.

I understood that they can be British and claim don-dom status through their parent - but only the male!!!

You are right white wave- Zac Goldsmith was one until he stood for Parliament

Just heard that there are 300 people in this country who are richer than the Queen.

I don't see why that's newsworthy. The Queen's position isn't dependent upon how much money she's worth.

Isn't it funny all 3 main parties are happy to take donations from Non Dom donors.

It was on the news, though, so some people think it's newsworthy.

What's it got to do with the OP though?

I imagine all the other parties would take money from non-doms if they were offered it. However, when Labour stops it, it will be interesting to see how many of these donors leave the UK.
Ashcroft might. Lord Noon gave up non-dom when he was made a lord, as did Ashcroft. Some of them say they are keeping non-dom status for tax purposes, so it must save them some money.

It would be intersting to see how many of the 300 are non-doms.

"The richest 1,000 families have more money than the poorest 40% of British households combined, according to the Equality Trust. Last year they saw their wealth increase by £28bn, the equivalent of £77m a day.

The annual increase is enough to foot the nation’s council tax bills for a year, provide nearly 2m living-wage jobs for a year or 1m jobs paid at the average full-time wage of £27,195, said the trust."

Or to fill the NHS gap.

"While homegrown fortunes are faring well, the Rich List remains dominated by entrepreneurs from outside the UK – just five of the top 20 fortunes are in the hands of British-born individuals. Attracted by ever increasing property prices and the non-dom laws which allow UK residents with foreign passports to shelter their offshore assets from tax, the world’s super-rich are still flocking to London. Of the 117 billionaires who feature in the list, only 62 are British, and the Queen herself has now dropped out of the richest 300 for the first time."

Non-doms use our laws to shelter their offshore assets from tax.

If they are non dom, that is to do with someone else's country?

I think I am happy to take their money to help our own finances!

durhamjen You are beginning to confuse me. Non Doms use their status to protect their offshore UK assets from UK tax. They pay tax on the offshore asset in another low tax country.

How can they at the same time be using our laws to shelter their off shore assets from tax. They pay tax either in the UK or elsewhere. But as the article I linked to showed, the total amount of tax they pay in the UK is substantial.

I find it outrageous that an MP should be a Non Dom, although I understand Zac Goldsmith has now given up this status, but he is one of a very small minority in his situation. Most Non Doms are foreign born and came here for business reasons. Many of those on the rich list and, indeed many wealthy foreigners with homes here are not actually domiciled in this country. They move around constantly and I do not think are liable either for taxation, or to receive benefits.

Well Dj is right in so far as their assets are sheltered from UK tax in places where they pay little or no tax. I find it hard to accept that because we get some money from them, we should therefore just accept the situation. Going back to basic principles, as in the op, that is a pragmatic not princiipled approach. We are one of the few or maybe only countries in the world that offer this. At the very least we should abolish the hereditary aspect