[HN Gopher] The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, ...
___________________________________________________________________
The U.K. closed a tax loophole for the global rich, now they're
fleeing
Author : fortran77
Score : 30 points
Date : 2025-07-19 22:26 UTC (33 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.md/8ndug
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| That is probably a good thing.
| graeme wrote:
| A lot of magical thinking in policy these days. Global rich
| people went to London BECAUSE of the tax treatment.
|
| There was no magical property of London that attracts people
| DESPITE higher taxes.
|
| Very difficult to have any policy discussion when a second order
| effect is involved.
| foobarchu wrote:
| Why does it have to be assumed that having the ultra wealthy
| living in your country and not paying taxes is a net positive?
| It seems close minded to just ignore the possibility that those
| people are causing more harm than good.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I'd presume they are spending a lot of money locally and
| probably employing a staff locally and driving other economic
| activity locally but I guess I could be wrong.
| comrade1234 wrote:
| > The exemption was restricted over time to largely benefit
| foreigners who don't expect to live in the U.K. permanently.
|
| Sounds like it worked out as planned, since they're leaving now.
|
| Plus, 40% inheritance tax is crazy. You'd have to sell off half
| of what you inherit to pay the tax. Sucks if you're a farmer or a
| multigenerational family business
| lapphi wrote:
| Very unmeritocratic society if you can just win by inheriting
| half of 20 billion dollars.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The other side of the coin is that inheritance is allowed at
| all. We could tax at 100% above a certain threshold, wealth
| only exists because it is permitted through the recognition of
| property rights. 40% is arguably more than reasonable when
| you're desiring to transfer generational power the beneficiary
| did not earn, but simply was lucky to be in the right lineage.
| janice1999 wrote:
| 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 PS3 million without tax for
| example). See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-are-the-
| changes-to-a...
| The_suffocated wrote:
| > a centuries-old tax loophole, abolished in April, that catered
| to the global rich. The nondomiciled--or non-dom status, as it is
| known--allowed foreigners living in the U.K. to pay tax only on
| what they earned domestically. Profits made abroad were ignored
| unless brought into the U.K.
|
| I don't understand. Why is this a loophole? Why is money earned
| abroad and kept abroad taxable not by a foreign government but by
| the UK government?
| danielheath wrote:
| For virtually every other jurisdiction, natural persons pay tax
| where they live, not where they source their income.
|
| If I happen to work for a foreign corporation, I don't get to
| skip paying tax.
| macleginn wrote:
| It's standard in Europe and many other countries to tax their
| "tax residents" on their worldwide income. The tricky part is
| that sometimes that external income is also taxed at source,
| but this is usually taken care of by tax treaties, which means
| that you pay the higher of the tax rates, but only once.
| mickgardner wrote:
| Does London need the Global Rich hanging around if they're not
| willing to pay taxes? Is it necessary to have the tax bring in 30
| Billion in order for it to be considered a success? If nothing
| else, this tax demonstrates to those who DO pay tax, that the
| Government is willing to treat earners equally and fairly,
| regardless of how much tax it brings in.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| If they're here they tend to spend money, and employ people.
| That all ends up as tax slightly more indirectly.
| laweijfmvo wrote:
| _good_. the average person is struggling to feed and shelter
| themselves and we're worried that if we don't coddle the rich the
| economy will collapse. let them leave and we can rebuild a
| society that supports everyone.
| comrade1234 wrote:
| Yeah, give your family's money to trump so that he can
| redistribute it to the poor.
| packetdust wrote:
| On behalf of the US and long suffering Commanders fans, we don't
| want Dan Snyder back.
| elil17 wrote:
| Is this a bad thing? You'd only leave if you weren't contributing
| to the local economy. People who, for example, run a small
| business in the UK aren't impacted at all.
| janice1999 wrote:
| The irony of a superrich claiming to feel 'unwelcome' in a
| country while claiming non-domiciled status in it cannot be lost
| on the author. Also, for all the talk of scaring away "job
| creators" I doubt the guy running a "Dubai-based venture capital
| firm" was creating many jobs in the UK.
| byefruit wrote:
| 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...
| zipy124 wrote:
| Yes, of non Dom's only 400 have left out of just over 70,000
| spwa4 wrote:
| I wonder what people actually think of this result. "tax-the-
| rich" makes very limited sense unless applied internationally.
| Many of the super rich are super rich because they have serious
| influence over, or outright control of foreign states (US rich
| are a large exception worldwide). Nobody in the US is even 1% as
| rich as Putin, or Xi, or frankly even just as rich as the grand
| duke of Luxembourg is.
|
| You cannot tax these people directly, because they'll leave.
|
| You cannot have international cooperation on tax treaties because
| these people control states.
|
| In other words: you can only tax them either through war, or by
| totally blowing up trade relationships.
| bashtoni wrote:
| The British government closed this loophole because it's
| politically easier than the strategy which is actually needed:
| properly taxing assets.
|
| This is much harder to evade - if you own most of Mayfair, you
| can't just move your assets elsewhere - they are very clearly
| tied to the location.
|
| Of course, this would mean taxing powerful aristocrats, including
| the royal family. With their large majority, the British
| government had the opportunity to do this, but decided to take an
| easier path. The reason why this path was easier is now becoming
| clear to them.
| zipy124 wrote:
| 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 PS100m. I
| do not consider 400 out of 74,100 as them fleeing....
|
| [1]: Non-dom tax take jumped PS100mn in 2023-24 despite falling
| numbers - https://on.ft.com/3Gx1MXU via @FT
| robk wrote:
| Yeah except that's the 300 richest which changes the math of
| the tax take.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-19 23:00 UTC)