Fewer people claimed non-dom tax status in UK ahead of Government crackdown
This was 400 fewer than the 2022-23 tax year, or a dip of about 0.5%.
The number of non-doms, according to self-assessment tax returns, stood 3,900 below that in the tax year ending 2020.
It indicates a slowdown in the number of people claiming the tax status following a post-pandemic resurgence.
Non-domiciled means UK residents whose permanent home, or their 'domicile' for tax purposes, is outside the UK.
The regime meant that so-called non-doms paid tax in the UK only on income generated in the UK – meaning any income earned overseas was exempt from British taxation.
However, the Labour Government abolished the non-dom tax status in April following backlash that wealthy residents could enjoy the benefits of living in the UK without paying as much tax.
Previous chancellor Jeremy Hunt estimated that scrapping the regime would raise about £2.7 billion for the Treasury by 2028-29.
Recent data showed the UK saw the biggest fall in billionaires on record amid the Government non-dom clampdown.
The Sunday Times Rich List said there were fewer of the world's 'super rich' coming to live in Britain.
HMRC's data published on Thursday showed that some £9 billion was raised from non-doms paying income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance last year.
This was a £107 million increase on the prior year, despite the dip in the number of individuals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Superinjunctions must never be used to shroud mistakes
British forces in Helmand province SUNDAY TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER RICHARD POHLE I n September 2023 a High Court judge granted the British government its first superinjunction. The order by Mr Justice Knowles prevented not only reporting of a terrible data breach but any reference even to the existence of restrictions. The unprecedented measure, extended several times at the request of Conservative and Labour governments, finally lapsed last week, allowing the public to learn that the details of 19,000 Afghans who had worked with the UK before the Taliban retook power had been released on Facebook, putting them and others at risk of torture or death. The mistake by an official in the UK special forces headquarters led the government to launch a secret refugee scheme that relocated to the UK more than 16,000 people compromised by the leak, at a cost of £850 million. The incompetence of the original act, which involved a spreadsheet containing hidden data being shared via email, should not cloud the argument over whether the superinjunction was reasonable. It would have been worse had the individuals affected suffered reprisals from the Taliban. Ben Wallace, then the Tory defence secretary, was undoubtedly terrified of costing lives when he first requested an injunction in August 2023. But as the injunction became a superinjunction, its very existence became a secret. Its lifespan then stretched into two years. Government officials warned the Commons and Lords Speakers not to allow any parliamentary questions hinting at it. The Labour opposition was not informed; nor was the intelligence and security committee or the defence committee. There came an indeterminate point when the interests of the Afghan breach victims faded and the interests of Whitehall officials grew stronger. Mr Justice Chamberlain, who took over the case and ruled in favour of maintaining the restrictions in November 2023, said the superinjunction was 'likely to give rise to the understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. It fell away at midday on Tuesday after a retired deputy chief of defence intelligence, Paul Rimmer, completed a review that concluded the leaked data had not spread as widely as feared and its value to the Taliban, and risk to those named in it, had diminished. Media organisations were allowed to reveal that the resettlement scheme had been hidden even from councils responsible for providing housing at considerable cost to the taxpayer, and that the Ministry of Defence's annual report had been massaged to avoid mentioning that a data incident had been reported to the Information Commissioner's Office. All this is a disgraceful abuse of the original argument over national security and the safety of the Afghans affected. The 2022 breach was a blunder rather than a systemic problem such as the infected blood or Post Office scandal. In those cases elaborate and long-running institutional cover-ups were exposed only thanks to media scrutiny, which eventually forced the government to take responsibility. As Heather Brooke brilliantly argues today, UK officialdom nearly always tends towards obfuscation and non-disclosure. Ministers and civil servants dodge embarrassment wherever they can. We must ensure that the original decision to grant the government a superinjunction is a one-off, not a precedent — and that those who rule us cannot again abuse such a powerful tool.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Middle class families could be hit with soaring water bills under Labour's new plan to subside the costs for Britain's poorest households
Middle class families could be hit with soaring water bills under Labour plans to lower the costs for Britain's poorest households. Ministers are being urged to approve a new nationwide scheme that would subsidise bills for low income families. The proposed national social tariff is due to be presented to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in a review of the water industry on Monday. However, there are fears that middle class families could end up bearing the brunt of the charges and see their water bills increase. Shadow housing secretary Kevin Hollinrake told The Telegraph: 'Family homes across middle England face soaring water bills under the Labour Government, thanks to the triple whammy of above-inflation hikes, higher tariffs on multi-person households, and robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund tariffs for those on welfare benefits.' 'We can't just keep increasing taxes and charges – record taxes are already making life too hard for people,' he added. 'The Government should be standing up for the makers, not the takers.' There is currently no nationwide scheme to help poorer customers - with a patchwork of subsidy programmes in place across different suppliers. Consumer groups have suggested that a national social tariff could unify the level of support received and help an extra two million people get money off their bills. However, such a scheme was rejected by the previous Conservative government due to concerns about the impact it would have on wealthier households. On Monday, a landmark review of the water industry led by Sir John Cunliffe is due to be published. He announced his interim findings last month, when he revealed he would bring forward proposals to 'strengthen' the system of social tariffs. Sir John wrote: 'The commission is looking at how to more effectively support customers who are struggling to pay their bills. 'This includes looking at options to strengthen social tariffs and to tailor water bills to better reflect household consumption.' Currently, water firms can only raise money from their own areas and consult their customers on how much they would be willing to pay. However, more and more households are being placed on social tariffs as they struggle to keep up with the soaring costs of living. Statistics from water regulator Ofwat show that across Britain one in ten customers are now receiving support with their bills. But the data varies wildly per region with South West Water having the lowest number of customers on social tariffs. Meanwhile, United Utilities, which covers the North West of England, has the highest at 15 per cent. It comes after it was revealed that household water bills would rise by an average of £123 from April 1, equating to an increase of around £10 a month. The rise, confirmed by industry body Water UK, will take the average water and wastewater bill from £480 to £603 for the next year alone. Water firms are facing huge problems with their drains, reservoirs and sewers, leading to vast amounts of pollution spilling into rivers and waterways. That means firms are needing to spend billions on upgrading their systems. Because they are privatised, they also want to turn a profit so they can keep getting more investment from shareholders. To make matters worse, many face huge debt piles. The 10 biggest water companies have about £60 billion of combined debt. Regulator Ofwat has 'failed' and 'run up the white flag' by announcing rises in household water bills, the chairman of an environmental campaign group said. Charles Watson, from River Action, said: 'The shareholders in these companies are just laughing all the way to the bank.'
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
How to get a nation of savers investing
A string of policy reforms that the government described as the 'widest-ranging' changes to the financial world in more than a decade are on their way. In a bid to create a wave of new investors, banks and other financial firms will be allowed to push savers towards the stock market; risk warnings on investment products could be watered down; and there will be an advertising campaign spelling out the benefits of investing. The changes have the potential to encourage the millions of savers with hefty amounts of cash languishing in low interest accounts to consider the stock market as an option for their savings. A new form of 'targeted support' could help those who cannot or do not want to pay for financial advice but could use some guidance on big decisions. The City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, found that 71 per cent of us hold a savings account, but just 39 per cent hold investments. We are far more likely to save into cash Isas than investment ones — £41.6 billion was paid into cash Isas compared with £28 billion into investment Isas in 2022-23, according to HM Revenue & Customs. The Barclays Equity Gilts study, which tracks the performance of different asset classes back to 1899, found that stocks have returned an average of 4.8 per cent a year after inflation over the past 125 years, compared with 0.5 per cent a year for cash savings. In the ten years to the end of 2024, stocks returned 1.8 per cent a year while cash lost 2.9 per cent a year in real terms. But there are risks with investing that many ordinary savers may be reluctant to take on. Here are some safeguards that we think the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, should consider. • The cheap and easy way to invest (without the risk) Industry experts warned that the Leeds Reforms, revealed after Reeves shelved plans to cut the cash Isa limit to nudge more savers towards the stock market, could amount to a quiet eroding of consumer protections. To make Reeves's revolution pay off, campaigners say that the government should ensure that City firms are not allowed to cash in through excessive charges and commissions. 'There is good in Reeves's plan. There's no doubt that people have far too much money in cash accounts and that they will struggle in retirement as a result,' said Robin Powell, who runs the investment education website The Evidence-Based Investor. 'But there's a risk that we are experiencing 'regulatory amnesia' — our collective tendency to forget why rules were put in place once the immediate crisis fades. Light regulation leads to crisis, crisis leads to tighter rules, tighter rules lead to calls for 'red tape cutting', which leads to light regulation. 'This is why we need a strong set of rules that dictate how banks and other financial companies behave when it comes to putting these reforms into practice.' Investors are typically charged a fee for the investment products they use. Investment fund fees, which are usually charged as a percentage of how much money you hold, range from as little as 0.05 per cent to 1.5 per cent or higher. These fees can eat into your returns over the long term. A fund that returns 3 per cent a year and costs 0.5 per cent would be worth about £37,500 over 30 years, but the same fund with a 2 per cent fee would be worth just £24,300. James Daley from the consumer consultancy Fairer Finance said: 'One of my main concerns is that financial firms will push consumers towards investments that are high-cost. They should have an obligation to only nudge consumers towards low-cost options. There is only one certainty when it comes to investing — and that is cost.' One way to manage this risk would be to introduce a fee cap on investment products that savers are nudged towards. It could work in a similar way to the cap on default pension funds, which workers are automatically enrolled into by their employers. These pensions cannot charge fees of more than 0.75 per cent, thereby protecting savers. It works well, and in reality most schemes charge significantly less than the cap. These rules could also be extended to investment exit fees and charges for buying and selling shares. Under its consumer duty rules, the Financial Conduct Authority already requires companies to ensure that any exit fees — charged when a customer wants to move their money out of an investment product — are fair and reflect the actual cost. These exit fees could also apply to any investment products that savers are 'nudged' into, and a cap that matches the average dealing charge across the industry could be placed on such products too. The chancellor suggests that 'savers with cash sitting in low-interest accounts' would be helped by the Leeds Reforms. While it is likely that many of these savers could benefit from considering the stock market as an alternative place for their cash, it will be less suitable for others — such as those who have the money lined up for a house deposit within the next year, or who use the account for their rainy day savings. Financial companies could use pop-up warnings, similar to the fraud warnings on mobile banking apps, that flag to the end user that there are circumstances where these 'nudges' might not apply or be beneficial. Powell said pop-up warnings should be added to private equity and alternative investments, which are being pushed under the reforms. Such investing often involves putting cash behind small, illiquid companies that have the potential to grow a lot — and quickly — but also come with a higher chance of failure. He said: 'Given the government's push towards these investments, we need mandatory risk warnings that actually mean something. People need to understand that these products cost more, that they're more complex, that you cannot get your money out easily and that they are far less transparent than traditional investments. Make these warnings unavoidable.' • How to build a portfolio that keeps its value At the moment there is a limit on the amount of compensation that the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can demand for the mis-selling of financial products. The FOS is a free dispute resolution service that settles complaints between consumers and the financial firms that they use. It can demand that a business pays compensation and puts customers back in the financial position that they would have been if they had not been given bad advice, but the compensation is limited to £430,000 for complaints from April last year. The limit is £415,000 for complaints brought to the FOS the year before. Scrapping the limit would give consumers more confidence about any 'nudges' they get from investment firms over what to do with their cash. Since 2012 commission-based payments for investment advice have generally been banned in the UK. When financial advisers recommend a product, they are not allowed to take a percentage of the money you put into that product, but instead must charge you specifically for the advice — as a percentage fee or in pounds and pence terms. But the investment 'nudges' or recommendations that would be allowed under the new rules will not fall under investment advice, but instead be deemed 'targeted support'. While it is unlikely that the FCA will allow old-style commission to creep back into the selling or recommending of investment products, a strict ban on commission could be put in place to ensure that financial firms do not profit from pushing savers towards certain riskier products. Daley said: 'Just 20 years ago most of the banks were selling investment products and getting large fines for poor conduct and bad outcomes. We need to ensure we don't forget the lessons that we should have been learning from over the past couple of decades.' • Reeves is right, but she is walking a tightrope — with our cash Another risk for investors is 'consumer inertia' — where you end up paying more (or gaining less) for a financial product because you stick with a firm you already use. If your high street bank 'nudges' you towards an investment product, it might be easier to stick with the bank rather than to shop around. This could be fixed with a requirement that any firm 'nudging' a cash saver towards the stock market give information that relates to the whole of the market. For example, under rules from the Competition and Markets Authority, banks that offer current accounts have to display 'clearly and prominently' the satisfaction ratings scored by their competitors in comparison to their own scores. A similar approach could be taken under the reforms. For example, if a high street bank offers a ready-made investment portfolio with a fee of 0.7 per cent, it should be forced to flag that other companies offer a similar product for 0.3 per cent (even if both fall below the charge cap). If a financial company recommends a product, information could also be provided on alternative choices in the wider market. For example, a company that does not offer a low-cost global tracker fund should still need to explain the benefits of such a product to their customer. Tom Selby from the investment platform AJ Bell said: 'Investing is often seen as something that is only for relatively wealthy people, or something which you need a great deal of financial knowledge to get involved in. In fact, it is relatively easy, with straightforward products designed for ordinary people. And you don't need tens of thousands of pounds to get started. 'There is still a lot of work to be done to develop the plan, but this campaign could help to break some of the taboo around investing and encourage more people to get started.' How can the government protect consumers while getting us investing? Let us know in the comments
