zlacker

The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now they're fleeing

submitted by fortra+(OP) on 2025-07-19 22:26:32 | 89 points 204 comments
[view article] [source] [go to bottom]

NOTE: showing posts with links only show all posts
1. neonat+Y[view] [source] 2025-07-19 22:36:29
>>fortra+(OP)
https://archive.md/8ndug
12. byefru+z2[view] [source] 2025-07-19 22:49:26
>>fortra+(OP)
Before just accepting this at face value, New Statesman claim this is not the case:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/07/the-british-we...

18. zipy12+e3[view] [source] 2025-07-19 22:54:23
>>fortra+(OP)
The number of non-doms fell from 74,100 to 73,700 in the year up to April 2024, whilst tax intake from them increased by £100m. I do not consider 400 out of 74,100 as them fleeing....

[1]: Non-dom tax take jumped £100mn in 2023-24 despite falling numbers - https://on.ft.com/3Gx1MXU via @FT

◧◩
25. janice+L3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-19 22:58:44
>>comrad+T1
Farmers with active farms have not been paying inheritance tax and won't until 2026, and even then there are ways to avoid most of it (couples can pass on £3 million without tax for example). See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-are-the-changes-to-a...
29. bhoust+14[view] [source] 2025-07-19 23:00:34
>>fortra+(OP)
Everybody else should close these loopholes as well for both individuals and corporations.

The minimum corporate tax of 15% is one place to start:

https://taxfoundation.org/blog/global-tax-agreement/

◧◩◪
60. silver+36[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-19 23:18:09
>>monero+m5
> The UK needs to radically reduce its social safety net and simultaneously cut taxes, at least for new companies and small businesses. The only way out is real, sustained, long term growth and innovation. Stealing ever more of a shrinking pie is already running out of steam.

I was under the impression they had done that already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_aust...

Though one can't help but think it wont be radical enough for conservatives until we simply dispose of those unable to work through some dystopic mechanism or other.

◧◩◪◨
64. aosaig+o6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-19 23:19:54
>>shivas+E5
You may be breaking the law. It’s common to owe taxes on world wide income in your country of tax residence. I imagine this is the same across the EU but open to be corrected

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/ireland/individual/taxes-on-per...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
77. aosaig+Q8[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-19 23:47:09
>>shivas+y6
It’s not just Ireland, almost all (if not all?) EU counties do it:

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/taxes/income-taxe...

You mentioned Estonia in another comment - it might be the case that Estonia is a special case or has a scheme for attracting talent that doesn’t include worldwide tax

◧◩◪◨⬒
93. jemmyw+Hh[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-20 01:31:54
>>gruez+id
Yes, and London is a case point for it: the affordability of housing. Anyway, I don't even need to trawl for links, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_economic_inequali... has plenty.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
100. gruez+ap[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-20 02:51:36
>>ujkhsj+io
>This worked because China had very strong regulatory frameworks and made sure the wealth was redistributed.

Source? Aside from some lip service paid about "common prosperity", China definitely does not have a strong wealth redistribution system. I can't find good metrics on size of welfare systems specifically, but using the crude metric of government revenue as % of GDP, it's clear that China isn't some sort of global leader in redistribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Government_revenues_as_a_...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
143. shivas+Fb1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-20 12:32:39
>>andrep+PY
> To your point: stakes in your _own_ company are not taxed as assets, but as income, precisely to avoid the ridiculous situation you point out.

Enlightening, so you mean this policy isn't for the so called "1%"? Only for middle class folks and their stock portfolios? That's not what the GP was proposing.

> Another point: have you considered that the authorities and people of the Netherlands, a very rich country with several valuable companies, may have possibly thought of this absolutely trivial argument when designing their tax code? Do you really think nobody thought of it?

Yes, because I can point to an even richer country, with even more valuable companies where the left proposed same destructive policy only a few months ago and almost came close to winning.

Lastly, you did make me look it up and it seems Netherlands and other European countries really didn't think it through.

https://www.leideninternationalcentre.nl/get-advice/blogs/su...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jasoncalacanis_norways-wealth...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
161. ujkhsj+4t1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-20 14:43:10
>>teitok+JV
So? Quality of life has improved and they have virtually eliminated extreme poverty by focusing on this redistribution[0]. Ask those people how they feel about GDP growth slowing down. They don't care.

[0] https://msadvisory.com/quality-of-life-in-china/

165. stuaxo+5H1[view] [source] 2025-07-20 16:07:50
>>fortra+(OP)
This didn't happen, the only evidence is PR from one company

https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occu...

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
192. johnis+pj3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-07-21 07:54:38
>>ujkhsj+wU1
It is OK, I suspected it was not you.

By the way, I was just reading this: >>44630810 .

[go to top]