The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:
	So by this logic... this would rule out those made redundant or those on long term disability benefits or potentially even those on maternity leave at the time of a GE, particularly if it fell in the gap between 39 weeks and going back to work. Getting dangerously close to voting eligibility going back to males over 21 and women over 35 who own property! Should those tax payers whose incomes put them in a higher tax bracket have a "weightier" vote than the part-time workers and/or those scraping by on 16k who therefore pay less tax?

Don't worry, when Mogg's in charge and we've gone back to a feudal system, only the Barons will be able to vote. Much simpler.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	So by this logic... this would rule out those made redundant or those on long term disability benefits or potentially even those on maternity leave at the time of a GE, particularly if it fell in the gap between 39 weeks and going back to work. Getting dangerously close to voting eligibility going back to males over 21 and women over 35 who own property! Should those tax payers whose incomes put them in a higher tax bracket have a "weightier" vote than the part-time workers and/or those scraping by on 16k who therefore pay less tax?

Yes you have got the idea. If those people were net tax payers, being made redundant or on maternity probably won't get them off the hook to the Inland Revenue.

You make a good point on property as only taxing property & not incomes would solve the issues of tax evasion.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Yes you have got the idea. If those people were net tax payers, being made redundant or on maternity probably won't get them off the hook to the Inland Revenue. You make a good point on property as only taxing property & not incomes would solve the issues of tax evasion.

It would if maternity period straddled two tax years and majority was in one of them. Voting rights would be suspended for a whack of time.

I think we are at cross-purposes: I meant wouldn't this make those groups ineligible to vote? My property point was a smidge sarcastic ... but I reckon you know that. Not trying to start an argument, trying to understand.

Most folk pay gross tax, yes? Net presupposes quite a lot of income plus alternative revenue streams, doesn't it? Or has my brain finally fried? We're getting worryingly close to StirB's baronial joke if that's the case. Only allowing net tax payers the vote would rule out millions. Why shouldn't those on low incomes get a vote? Hell, I've been paying a good whack of tax for a long time but for the next year, not so much. My net tax would be virtually nil. I always vote. What would be the justification to stop me if a referendum or GE called in 2019?

	Quote:
	It would if maternity period straddled two tax years and majority was in one of them. Voting rights would be suspended for a whack of time. I think we are at cross-purposes: I meant wouldn't this make those groups ineligible to vote? My property point was a smidge sarcastic ... but I reckon you know that. Not trying to start an argument, trying to understand. Most folk pay gross tax, yes? Net presupposes quite a lot of income plus alternative revenue streams, doesn't it? Or has my brain finally fried? We're getting worryingly close to StirB's baronial joke if that's the case. Only allowing net tax payers the vote would rule out millions. Why shouldn't those on low incomes get a vote? Hell, I've been paying a good whack of tax for a long time but for the next year, not so much. My net tax would be virtually nil. I always vote. What would be the justification to stop me if a referendum or GE called in 2019?

Or what if in my lifetime I've paid 10x more tax than Fatmanfilms, and I lose my job before the next tax year. Not really fair he gets to vote and I don't. How about people who are unable to work, perhaps disabled people or single parents - should they not get a say on disability or child policies? For many reasons, this suggestion is as outmoded as it is idiotic.

More great Brexit dividends though...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8065161.html

The good news is, we'll all be worse off, but we can kick a badger's face off consequence-free after we leave.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	It would if maternity period straddled two tax years and majority was in one of them. Voting rights would be suspended for a whack of time. I think we are at cross-purposes: I meant wouldn't this make those groups ineligible to vote? My property point was a smidge sarcastic ... but I reckon you know that. Not trying to start an argument, trying to understand. Most folk pay gross tax, yes? Net presupposes quite a lot of income plus alternative revenue streams, doesn't it? Or has my brain finally fried? We're getting worryingly close to StirB's baronial joke if that's the case. Only allowing net tax payers the vote would rule out millions. Why shouldn't those on low incomes get a vote? Hell, I've been paying a good whack of tax for a long time but for the next year, not so much. My net tax would be virtually nil. I always vote. What would be the justification to stop me if a referendum or GE called in 2019?

Evertbody in Zurich pays some tax, regardless of income the amount is 24 chf IIRC. I think it's a good idea like the poll tax in the UK that got scrapped.

Voting on spending other peoples' money, is something I find unacceptable, everybody should pay something if they want a say in how money is spent.

You will still be a net tax payer next year even if you pay zero, last years & the x years before are counted in 'net' taxpayer.

	Quote:
	Or what if in my lifetime I've paid 10x more tax than Fatmanfilms, and I lose my job before the next tax year. Not really fair he gets to vote and I don't. How about people who are unable to work, perhaps disabled people or single parents - should they not get a say on disability or child policies? For many reasons, this suggestion is as outmoded as it is idiotic.

Your still a net taxpayer, your the one that decided on this tax year which the result would not ne known until next year. Please be realistic when dissing my comments.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Evertbody in Zurich pays some tax, regardless of income the amount is 24 chf IIRC. I think it's a good idea like the poll tax in the UK that got scrapped. Voting on spending other peoples' money, is something I find unacceptable, everybody should pay something if they want a say in how money is spent. You will still be a net tax payer next year even if you pay zero, last years & the x years before are counted in 'net' taxpayer. Your still a net taxpayer, your the one that decided on this tax year which the result would not ne known until next year. Please be realistic when dissing my comments.

So we should stop paying for education then, because those kids have contributed f all. Not sure how to explain this, but your tax money is not YOURS it is OURS. We as a nation, via the medium of government decide how to spend it, you as a contributor do not get to decide this.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Your still a net taxpayer, your the one that decided on this tax year which the result would not ne known until next year. Please be realistic when dissing my comments.

I don't think timing was really the issue when dismissing your elitist nonsense.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	So we should stop paying for education then, because those kids have contributed f all. I don't think timing was really the issue when dismissing your elitist nonsense.

The parents can vote, kids don't vote.
No reason for higher education to be free, as the higher educated should earn more money, therefore should be happy to pay themselves.
I also believe that care in old age should be paid out of peoples own money first, with contributions form their children. The taxpayer should not ring-fence future inheritance against lifetime needs.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The parents can vote, kids don't vote. No reason for higher education to be free, as the higher educated should earn more money, therefore should be happy to pay themselves.

Yet another beneficiary of fee free higher education trying to pull up the drawbridge? For shame.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Yet another beneficiary of fee free higher education trying to pull up the drawbridge? For shame.

Not me comrade, I left school at 16 by choice.
Oh & I was a higher payer taxpayer by 19, paying for the further education of people my own age.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Evertbody in Zurich pays some tax, regardless of income the amount is 24 chf IIRC. I think it's a good idea like the poll tax in the UK that got scrapped. Voting on spending other peoples' money, is something I find unacceptable, everybody should pay something if they want a say in how money is spent. You will still be a net tax payer next year even if you pay zero, last years & the x years before are counted in 'net' taxpayer. .

But we're not talking about Zurich, rather a hypothetical UK situation. AFAIK, the lowest earners in UK pay no tax only NI. This is still a contribution to the state.

How can net taxation be a cumulative/ average thing when tax in the UK is sorted annually?

As for the university fee thing... hasn't been free for 20 years. I paid my own way. Thrice. Doesn't make it right.

I also , as a state teacher, have been subject to more "I pay your wages" comments than I care to remember. Often from folk whose tax contribution is likely less than mine. The amount of tax I pay, I reckon I'm almost paying my own wages.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Not me comrade, I left school at 16 by choice. Oh & I was a higher payer taxpayer by 19, paying for the further education of people my own age.

Perhaps we should go down the right wing route after all. I suggest only people with tertiary education should get a vote, the issues are too complicated for anyone else to comprehend.

That makes only slightly more sense than your suggestion FMF.

[bowlie]

But shouldn’t all consumers of U.K. goods and services have a vote? They contribute 22% of the purchase price to HMG.

In Switzerland it is only 7.7%,but still that is a lot of money.

Obviously, everyone who buys almost anything is paying tax.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Perhaps we should go down the right wing route after all. I suggest only people with tertiary education should get a vote, the issues are too complicated for anyone else to comprehend. That makes only slightly more sense than your suggestion FMF.

I would happily not vote if I did not need to pay tax for the privilege.

As it happens I can't vote in the UK but have an IHT liability at death even through I have not lived in the uk for over 25 years, will probably over 50 years at death. How can that be fair?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I would happily not vote if I did not need to pay tax for the privilege. As it happens I can't vote in the UK but have an IHT liability at death even through I have not lived in the uk for over 25 years, will probably over 50 years at death. How can that be fair?

Can't change domicile?

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	Don't worry, when Mogg's in charge and we've gone back to a feudal system, only the Barons will be able to vote. Much simpler.

Yesterday, Rees-Mogg was on 'The Jeremy Vine Show' on Channel 5. Watching him for an extended period of time, and listening to his views on a number of matters, has only reinforced my opinion that he lives in a parallel universe and has zero integrity or consistency. This is just a taster...

How does this work?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Can't change domicile?

Almost impossible & if you ever move country it reverts to UK.

HMRC doesn't seem to suggest so on their website...

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/w...de-the-uk-dies


When you will not count as living abroad

HMRC will treat you as being domiciled in the UK if you either:

• lived in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years
• had your permanent home in the UK at any time in the last 3 years of your life

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	HMRC doesn't seem to suggest so on their website... https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/w...de-the-uk-dies When you will not count as living abroad HMRC will treat you as being domiciled in the UK if you either: lived in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years had your permanent home in the UK at any time in the last 3 years of your life

Thats interesting however I suspect it's incorrect, they seem to have taken that from the new deemed domicile rule changes from April 2017.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/deemed-d...rom-april-2017 which related to non dom taxation.
From 6 April 2017 new deemed domicile rules came into force.

If you aren’t domiciled in the UK under English common law you’re treated as domiciled in the UK for all tax purposes if either Condition A or Condition B is met.

If you meet the new deemed domicile rules you will no longer be able to claim the remittance basis of taxation and will be assessed on your worldwide income and gains on the arising basis.


The deemed domicile rules for Inheritance Tax are also changing.

Condition A
To meet this condition you must:

be born in the UK
have the UK as your domicile of origin
be resident in the UK for 2017 to 2018, or later years
Condition B
Condition B is met when you’ve been UK resident for at least 15 of the 20 tax years immediately before the relevant tax year.

This is contradictory as it starts off 'If you aren’t domiciled in the UK under English common law'. Most Brits would have never lost their domicile of origin in the first place.

https://www.blevinsfranks.com/news/b...l-UK-domiciled

Anyone who retained a UK property or wishes to dispose of their wealth under UK Law will have problems.

Hopefully I am wrong........