Will Zac Goldsmith pay for his non-dom status

The Conservative party wish to charge non-doms £25,000 per year for living in the UK. Will Zac Goldsmith pay a flat annual fee for living in Britain?

The Conservative party wish to charge non-doms £25,000 per year for living in the UK. Now that his tax status has been revealed, will Zac Goldsmith pay a flat annual fee for each of the 16 years that he has been a non-domiciled adult?

At Conservative party conference 2007, George Osborne said:

“There are currently a number of people living in Britain who register for non-domiciled tax status offshore. It is a good thing for Britain that they live here and bring their talent and their investment to our economy.

“I make this promise: I am not going to tax all that income as Gordon Brown has persistently threatened to do. But in return for that promise and the certainty it brings, we will charge a flat annual levy of around £25,000 for those who register for non-domicile status”

Mr Goldsmith, aged 34, has already contributed £264,179 towards the costs of his election campaign in Richmond Park as well as additional donations to the Conservative party worth £14,202. He is reported to be worth £200 million so a £400,000 payment for his 16 years of adulthood would appear to be a fair price.

Goldsmith speaks tonight at an event in central London titled “Call to Action” where among other questions, he will address “How do we spend our collective wealth?”.

UPDATE 18.00

The event tonight asking how we spend our collective wealth answers another question about how to amass it: charge £10 to get in.

17 Responses to “Will Zac Goldsmith pay for his non-dom status”

  1. Will Straw

    @stephentall RT @leftfootfwd: Will Goldsmith pay £400,000 for his 16 years as a non-dom, as George Osborne proposes? //bit.ly/7vrKjh

  2. Leon Green

    RT @leftfootfwd Will Zac Goldsmith pay £400,000 for his 16 years as a non-dom, as George Osborne proposes? //bit.ly/7vrKjh

  3. Guido Fawkes

    He would of course be better off under Labour’s policy on non-doms.

    Remember how Lord Swraj Paul of Marylebone, who has funded Labour for more than 20 years, said he would no longer donate if the government introduced a bill forbidding party funding from people who do not pay tax on all income from abroad?

    Do you think that is worth commenting on?

  4. willstraw

    Sure. I support the proposals published by Compass (p.24) last week:

    “The simplest reform would be the most effective: all UK passport holders should pay UK tax on all their worldwide income whether or not they are in the UK. Their tax position would be very clear, and considerable tax avoidance by those claiming to live elsewhere, but continuing to make frequent visits to the UK, would be eliminated if this rule was adopted.

    “For those who genuinely leave to take up work or to live in a country which charges tax on an equivalent basis to the UK (which tax havens do not) there would be an exemption from UK tax – but only if proof of paying tax elsewhere was provided. This would mean that those seeking to use tax havens to avoid UK tax could no longer do so.

    “For those coming to the UK to live, a much simpler objective test than exists at present would be introduced so they knew where they stood. For example, they could be allowed to pay tax in their home country for the first four years lived in the UK, after which they would pay tax in the UK on the same basis as UK passport holders.”

  5. Guido Fawkes

    Do you think Swraj Paul should be allowed to sit in parliament whilst taking advantage of non-domiciled status?

  6. willstraw

    I don’t think anyone unelected should be allowed to sit in parliament.

    So, in my hypothetical universe, he would only be in the Lords if he was (a) elected, and (b) complying with the law which would include paying tax (unless he could prove he was paying taxes elsewhere).

    How about you? Should we have a tax on non-doms?

  7. Guido Fawkes

    Not the answer to the question asked. Incidentally, no, I don’t support taxing non-doms or even progressive taxation. I support a pay-as-you-go economy with service charges.

    Do you think non-doms should be allowed to fund political parties?

    If not, do you think the parties which have received money from non-doms should pay it back / forfeit the cash?

  8. Rory

    Leaving aside the question of his non-dom status I don’t think he should be standing for the Conservative Party because he is not a Conservative.

    Has anyone seen his recent book on the environment? I leafed through a couple of pages and wanted to curl up and die!

  9. willstraw

    I think I did answer the question actually!

    But in answer to the new question, I’d put a stop to it. Interestingly, when I was a US taxpayer, I still wasn’t able to make contributions to the Obama campaign as I wasn’t a US citizen. So I would have thought that being a citizen and a taxpayer would need to be the requirement for party funding. In my view, the parties have all failed in their grassroots funding efforts which is by far the most democratic way of doing it.

    Should they pay it back? Tricky one. Legg is demanding retrospective payments (and we are suggesting that Goldsmith might do the same) so there is clearly a precedent. But how far back would it be fair to go? And what would you do about the goods/services on which the money had been used? Perhaps you could draw the line with donations received in the current parliament.

    You may also have your facts wrong on Lord Paul

  10. Phousty

    RT @leftfootfwd Will Zac Goldsmith pay £400,000 for his 16 years as a non-dom, as George Osborne proposes? //bit.ly/7vrKjh

  11. Guido Fawkes

    Caparo Group Ltd is his Bearwood Corporate Services.

  12. StopTheRight

    RT @leftfootfwd: Will Zac Goldsmith pay £400,000 for his 16 years as a non-dom, as George Osborne proposes? //bit.ly/7vrKjh

  13. adamdustagheer

    Will Zac Goldsmith pay for his non-dom status //viigo.im/1E5m

  14. Emma Harrison

    RT @adamdustagheer: Will Zac Goldsmith pay for his non-dom status //viigo.im/1E5m <probably not in a way that helps UK taxpayers

  15. Stephen Tall

    @wdjstraw asks Will Zac Goldsmith pay £400k for his non-dom status in line with George Osborne's tax pledge? //bit.ly/7lGaeO

  16. Chris

    In what way would he be required to pay taxes of £400,000. A voluntary contribution! If you ask anyone on the street if they want to pay more taxes I think you will be hard pressed to find a volunteer.

    Not sure if you picked this up but he has confirmed today that he is already not a non-dom and the family wealth is held in trust and he pays UK taxes on it like the rest of us.

    You might as well suggest a ‘tory’ tax for people who aren’t part of the socialist brotherhood.

  17. Clarke: Won’t defend bonuses but will do nothing to curtail them | Left Foot Forward

    […] doms won’t pay it, raising once again the spectre of Zac Goldsmith and the millions in tax he’s avoided paying over the years, the line about bankers being paid more to make up for the loss – which […]

Leave a Reply