Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Yeah, I didn't get where the proof was supposed to be.

I'm not mad about this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1we3re197po

Plans to abolish non-dom status will be amended to allow a more generous phase out of tax benefits, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has announced.

Reeves told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos that changes would be made to upcoming legislation to increase the generosity of a facility to help non-doms repatriate their funds to the UK.

Non-dom status enables people who live in the UK to avoid paying UK tax on money made abroad because their permanent home for tax purposes is outside the country.

Labour pledged to scrap the status in its election manifesto, saying this would address unfairness in the tax system and raise extra money for public services.

However, critics have raised concerns the changes could prompt wealthy people to leave the UK.

A report published earlier this week, external by global analytics firm New World Wealth and investment migration advisers Henley & Partners found more than 10,000 millionaires left the UK in 2024, a 157% increase on the previous year.

Analysts cited factors including additional taxes affecting non-doms and other wealthy individuals as well as the growing dominance of the US and Asia in the tech sector and the dwindling importance of the London Stock Exchange.

But the way some are reacting you'd think she'd junked the whole thing.

I’m not too bothered about it, it’s trying to encourage them to bring their money here that’s fine. Rather not but the way Sainsbury’s expects the working person to pay it’s profits of over 1bn it’s a little bit that May help growth.

However as you said though no one seems to even engage with the article at all. It’s a minor change in my view.

Non dom status can last for 15 years as things stand, I think. That's ridiculously long. When Miliband ran on abolishing non dom, the point was made that there should be a grace period. If you want to attract rich people who could come over and expand businesses, it might be quite the disincentive for them to pay full UK tax on worldwide income from day 1, seeing that if they came from anywhere outside Western Europe, that would probably be quite a lot of extra tax. So the idea of a grace period was accepted, and nobody seemed to have a problem with that.

Reeves suggested a grace period of 2 years. Lots of people who were otherwise supportive thought this might be too short. So I think it's going up to 3. That isn't particularly generous either. But apparently it's "watering down" and all the rest of it. Easy to get political narratives off this- how come she listens to billionaires but not ordinary people etc? Non dom billionaires would have wanted it a fair bit higher, I reckon. There was some silly stuff from The Times about all these millionaires leaving, and Reeves' very small (and sensible) concession is being connected with that. There she goes again, thicky Rachel!

In a couple of areas, I think they did back down more than they needed to in the face of lobbying. Gambling and private equity both got tax rises, but I think the rises could have been a bit higher. Same probably with capital gains tax, though that too did go up and it's long been an important part of strategy to attract overseas investment. I don't think this non dom change comes into that category of "Reeves bows before cynical lobbyists".

The Guardian, which I've noted on the other thread, doesn't seem to like Reeves very much had a not very flattering headline with perfectly fair text about how small the change was. But doubtless the headline will be shared everywhere, forever.

I’ve seen several reactions on blue sky that suggest there is little reading of the articles.

This is good on the pan-European customs area. Cautious, but good. I think Reeves and Starmer are still a bit too focused on carrying the ming vase, but if this is what’s being said in public then in private I expect we’re well on our way to signing up.

https://bsky.app/profile/peterstefanovi ... n3gj4y2s2c

Lot of reactive anger on that thread - which is kind of understandable. The one asking who the heck these "red lines" are for makes a fair point.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:11 am This is good on the pan-European customs area. Cautious, but good. I think Reeves and Starmer are still a bit too focused on carrying the ming vase, but if this is what’s being said in public then in private I expect we’re well on our way to signing up.

https://bsky.app/profile/peterstefanovi ... n3gj4y2s2c

It's apparently not really what we understand by a customs union.


https://mostfavourednation.substack.com ... toms-union

Anyone volunteer to read that?

Reeves seems to be much more prominent than she was before all the "resign Rachel from Accounts" bollocks. I like the confidence that implies, and I think it makes good political sense. If growth goes reasonably well, then Chancellors are an asset, and the Shadow Chancellor (if they're even known by the public at all) makes little impression. If it doesn't, Labour's probably in trouble anyway.

This is the sort of thing that Rayner would previously announced. Must more relaxed planning rules around commuter rail stations.

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025 ... ng-project

Some of the serial objectors, like the Lib Dems, will have to find another excuse for "houses but not those there" seeing that public transport access, by definition, won't be an issue. Maybe they'll "all be for people from London". Anyway, I'm sure they'll step up with their excuses.

Phil Moorhouse's take on the Pan- European Customs Area

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 1:10 pm

It's apparently not really what we understand by a customs union.


https://mostfavourednation.substack.com ... toms-union

Anyone volunteer to read that?

So far, so good until entering the fascinating world of diagonal cumulation. Which I think means if I was assembling in an EU country in which 60% of the components were cheap shit from China than it would attract a tarrif. Whereas these North African member states get an exemption.
This club would have been born out of the EU's desire to export its rules based institutional view of the world to it's more rowdy neighbours.
Mark Leonard is a very good writer explaining EU foreign policy strategy in plain English.

Cheers. I'll check out Mr Leonard.

Sounds like it's a good idea for the UK to join the PEM. Is there anyone who's not in it? I see even Serbia are in it.

I got as far as "diagonal cumulation", and lost the will to live.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 4:34 pm I got as far as "diagonal cumulation", and lost the will to live.

I got a bit further but my eyes were crossed...

I see Richard Murphy, about a week after his "far right traders doing a coup against Rachel Reeves" is now suggesting other members of the Cabinet are going to do the same thing.

https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/politic ... owed-time/

It's not even Daily Mail (or perhaps we should now say, Daily Telegraph) standard of evidence and argument. The evidence is something Wes Streeting said about being ashamed at some of the levels of provision in the NHS- this is Reeves' fault apparently, not Jeremy Hunt's. Reeves hasn't provided extra money- apart from the £22.6bn extra in the budget over the next 2 years.

The rest of the argument is- Reeves is doing badly, innit. And Ministers are all ambitious people so won't stand for it. Actually she's basically out already but Starmer can't do it because he'd lose face. Like the mad right, Murphy is claiming that 1.2% rise in employers NI is some sort of unprecedented catastrophe. Bozo raised it by more (and employees as well).

Also in the first paragraph, the complete lie that Reeves has promised to "balance the budget".

All good enough for the Byline Times network, apparently. Say what you like about America, but the left of centre stuff like Slate and Mother Jones is way better than this Canary stuff.

The rest of the argument is- Reeves is doing badly, innit. And Ministers are all ambitious people so won't stand for it. Actually she's basically out already but Starmer can't do it because he'd lose face. Like the mad right, Murphy is claiming that 1.2% rise in employers NI is some sort of unprecedented catastrophe. Bozo raised it by more (and employees as well).

I can't help but feel that this is linked to the employment rights bill. It's no secret that businesses are dead against it so I can't help but feel that all this talk of job losses is part of a bid to derail the bill by raising the level of unemployment and try to spook the government into doing a U-turn.

Yeah it does feel that way.

An underrated aspect of the employment rights bill is that few people on the left seem to care much for it. Not that Starmer needs much incentive to trash the left, but the absence of interest in the (good) bill makes it easier for business to dominate discussion.