> Non domiciled are roughly 0.11% of UK residents and pay about 1.24% of UK taxes
It's curious that the percentages used to defend not taxing the rich (whether they are UK citizens, or operating as "non-doms") tend to be what percentage of the tax burden they pay. But it's never what percentage of their income and capital gains they pay as tax.
I think the latter is a fairer representation, considering we have a progressive taxation system. Someone who is earning over £125k a year should be paying close to 45% of their income and capital gains.
The world has to be dealt with how it is. For example:
>The question is: are they? If not, why not?
Because they're non-domiciled and for several centuries the UK didn't tax foreign income of non domiciled residents. It's not a mystery, it was the law.
The non-dom's came to the UK because of this tax regime. The UK can either have the revenue they get from them, which is substantial. Or, it can remove the non-dom regime, hope they stay, but be prepared for total loss of their revenue if they leave.
There's no magical third choice where everyone in that non-dom category stays just cause and pays more money. So far it looks like UK tax revenues are set to diminish from this change.
It's curious that the percentages used to defend not taxing the rich (whether they are UK citizens, or operating as "non-doms") tend to be what percentage of the tax burden they pay. But it's never what percentage of their income and capital gains they pay as tax.
I think the latter is a fairer representation, considering we have a progressive taxation system. Someone who is earning over £125k a year should be paying close to 45% of their income and capital gains.
The question is: are they? If not, why not?