Treasury officials are warning that a Labour tax rise on ‘non-doms’, far from raising more cash, will actually cost money instead. The Government is on a very steep learning curve that punishing taxes don’t work, says Matthew Lynn in the Telegraph.
It was going to pay for universal breakfast clubs in schools, for better hospitals, and more dental treatment on the NHS.
In the run-up to the election campaign, we heard a great deal from the Labour Party about all the extra services that would be paid for with its clampdown on “non-doms”, the small group of wealthy foreigners who pay less tax than the rest of us.
And yet, we have now learnt that Treasury officials are warning that the extra tax, far from raising more cash, will actually cost money instead. In reality, the Government is on a very steep learning curve, and it is about to discover that class war, and punishing taxes, don’t work.
Its non-dom policy may appear a small tweak, but it’s turning into a catastrophe for the British economy – and one that will leave us all worse off.
It would be hard to think of a more spectacular own-goal, so early into the life of a new Government. A clampdown on non-doms was a centrepiece of Labour’s campaign for power, with every shadow minister promising an endless series of freebies that would be seemingly paid for with extra taxes on U.K. residents whose permanent homes are overseas.
The former chancellor Jeremy Hunt was nudged into tougher non-dom rules, at which point Rachel Reeves immediately doubled down, pledging even higher taxes on foreigners who choose to live and work in Britain. One way or another, she was determined to get her hands on their money.
And yet, according to reports this week, officials are already warning that it will not work out as planned. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) originally forecast that scrapping the tax break for wealthy foreigners could raise about £3.2bn a year, although the fiscal watchdog also warned that figure was “highly uncertain”.
It now appears likely that the OBR will update its predictions to say that the clampdown might actually cost £1bn or more in lost revenues.
Well, gosh. That’s a surprise. It turns out that wealthy Indians, Chinese or Americans don’t actually want to pay higher taxes in the U.K. We have plenty of anecdotal evidence from accountants and lawyers that they are already moving elsewhere. After all, by definition these are some of the most mobile people in the world.

Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
High minded ideals, perhaps, but not at the expense of others.
Exactly. There is no obstruction to the freedom of people to explore their sexual orientation etc. Whatever happened to not trampling over others?
But then we now have minorities ruling of everyone else,
Common Law principle: A’s Right to swing his fist stops where B’s nose starts.
I f I recall they promised not to raise N.I., taxes those promises have gone down the Lav, along with “smashing the gangs”
They are Liars, and frankly haters of the Family, this Country and its indigenous people and they especially, especially hate the Working class.
They can “explore their sexual orientation and gender identity” in a cupboard, on their own.
That doesn’t mean they can inflict their delusions on the rest of society and actively threaten the 50% of society which is female.
Are people honestly supporting and defending this kind of lunacy? If you do then you’re guilty by association and a fully paid up member of this demented and dangerous cult;
”Psychotic man threatens to wee everywhere. Schools across the country teach children to aspire to this kind of behaviour. They call it ‘authentic self’ activism. I call it child abuse.
Serious question:
When will we start prosecuting?”
https://x.com/KiszelyPhilip/status/1913856631458177445
https://x.com/LelJoyce/status/1913683315300749793
“Dame Angela added that “we have to get on with doing the stuff we said we’d do in the manifesto”
That will be a novelty.
Certainly make a change from doing all the things they said they would not do. And remind me again why Eagle is a ‘dame’?
Assigned “female” at birth?
On the one hand I can’t help thinking that the people in the establishment that push trans ideology are just a bunch of disturbed, semi-repressed people who want to create a world where they can live out their sexual perversions without shame
On the other hand, I have to give them that they are consistent in a way that many don’t appreciate. If the idea of gender equality is taken to its full logical conclusion, then you end up with trans ideology. If there is no difference between men and women so that there is total equality between the two sexes, then that is equivalent to not having sexes. So why shouldn’t people be able to flip gender like they change clothes? It’s all the same right?
On the other hand, if you believe that there are undeniable differences between the two sexes, then the pursuit of equality between men and women is an unrealistic fantasy.
It seems to me that the likes of JK Rowling want to have it both ways. They want men and women to be equal, but at the same time want women to be recognised as different to men and treated differently to men (in certain instances).
From my perspective it looks like a fight between to sets of delusional people, wanting to impose their delusion on each other and everyone else.
And their social/political campaign is waged at our expense from within and against institutions we pay for to serve us.
There is rather a difference between equal treatment under the law and ideology imposed on reality.
I think you’re misrepresenting this: The demand is usually that men and women are to be treated equally, that is, shall have equal rights. This doesn’t imply the claim that they’re equal in all aspects, just that they’re supposed to be equals.
I know what people generally mean when they say things like we are all equal or should be treated equally.
But we aren’t all equal, we shouldn’t all be treated equally and in fact nobody does and nobody believes we should when you really get into it.
Women don’t believe really in equal treatment of men and women. Not in a million years.
If they did they wouldn’t, for example, make such a fuss about ensuring men and women compete separately in sport (while pushing on the other hand for “equal” pay).
(For the avoidance of doubt I.dont think men and women should compete together in sport. But I don’t think we are all equal nor should be treated equally.)
I could literally give dozens and dozens of examples in which we don’t treat each other equally nor believe we should, or more specifically can give very reasonable justifications for not doing so.
Much of what are claimed as rights are really privileges. For example, women want special private spaces that only women can use. That’s not a claim for equal rights. That’s a claim for a special privilege. And one that I personally have no problem with. Some trans people want use those special privileged spaces and women don’t want to let them. Again, I don’t disagree
But none of this has anything to do with equality. On the contrary. It has to do with protecting special privileges.
But you’re nevertheless conflating two different things: Equal rights under the law and equality of all people. You’re also misinterpreting my equal treatment statement. For instance, women obviously don’t need prostrate cancer screening and men no help with menstrual bleeding. Hence, treating men and women equally with regards to prostate cancer or menstruation obviously doesn’t any sense and since this doesn’t make any sense, I didn’t intend to equal treatement to be interpreted in this way.
Special private spaces only woman are supposed to use are a social convention in our society. They’re also equivalent to special private spaces only men are supposed to use. Both get them. Hence, this is equal treatement.
https://x.com/ChrisW5129/status/1913973999744299389
Does she really refer to herself as ‘Dame’ on a WhatsApp group? It hilarious.
Having looked at the photo I maybe shouldn’t have used ‘herself’
A pantomime dame perhaps
“..but the exchanges reveal the private fury on Sir Keir Starmer’s frontbench..”. As always the true story is buried inside a group generalisation. It is chiefly Starmer’s private fury. He fears that the ruling will expose what is hiding under the carpet at his No 10 residence.
It is funny they can’t even see a problem with MPs seeking to undermine a judicial decision. These are real throwaway trash people. I would find it hard to be around such people the energy they give off is like cheap nasty toxic perfume.
Is anyone surprised by any of this? As ever, the establishment only likes legal rulings when they provide their preferred results. We are surely going to see political interference on a grand scale in relation to the supreme court ruling.
Oh dear. When it’s convenient, Two-Tier treats “The Law” as though it is Holy Writ.
No wonder he’s gone so quiet on the issue of Trans-women. He, and his Ministers, disagree with Holy Writ.
Does not compute; does not compute …… and is desperately trying to work out whether he can change the Holy Writ …… without appalling electoral consequences.
What fools those who voted for these clowns and more fool all who still follow in the indoctrinated cult belief in the utility and legitimacy of ‘the state’ whatever political strip they supposedly represent. It will never be mended because it is broken by design to hold us all endlessly in its spell. The state is the tool of the ruling class, a self-sustaining but endlessly usurped system. Nothing happens by accident.
Trans women or more clearly men who want to dress, behave and act as women, can have the right to do that, but it does not make them women. It’s about time everybody accepted that. For example, men claiming to be women cannot fairly compete in women’s sport, and I understand, why actual women say men claiming to be women should not be permitted to use women’s toilets. It seems the Labour Party supports these things which are wrong. I agree people can call themselves what they want and act how they like, but that does not change what they are to the rest of us.
I am really pleased to see judges not being influenced by the government’s weird political opinions, unlike when they decide to imprison people for what they say in legal discussion.