Removing citizenship

[Agema]

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the UK's richest person, moves to Monaco

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the UK's richest person, has moved to tax-free Monaco, according to a document published by one of his companies.

www.standard.co.uk

So recently the British government has been busy removing citizenship from unfavoured people (potentially illegally in some cases). I don't personally approve, but let's just run with the fact it is done. So, Sir James Ratcliffe, UK's richest person and CEO of Ineos, has recently skipped off to Monaco residency so he doesn't have to pay tax. Why are we not stripping people like him of citizenship?

At bare minimum, take his knighthood away. If he wants to do businesses in the UK, have some properties here, pop back for theatre trips and to hob-nob with his billionaire buddies in expensive London restaurants, fine. But why the hell should we spend our time and resources on these greedy, self-absorbed tossers for whom £12.7 billion apparently just isn't enough, and don't think it's their job to contribute to the running of the state like anyone else? Just as even more context here, Twatcliffe supported Brexit. Now, Brexit done, he's promptly fucked off out of the country to a place which is de facto (if not de jure) in the EU. Honestly, if these guys don't think they owe us social responsibilities and cut us out, let us do the same in return.

As a note here, I do not extend this idea to people who get jobs abroad. I certainly do to people who want to leave their business and money-making in the UK, and then just carry out tax-evasion.

 

[dreng3]

So recently the British government has been busy removing citizenship from unfavoured people (potentially illegally in some cases). I don't personally approve, but let's just run with the fact it is done. So, Sir James Ratcliffe, UK's richest person and CEO of Ineos, has recently skipped off to Monaco residency so he doesn't have to pay tax. Why are we not stripping people like him of citizenship?

At bare minimum, take his knighthood away. If he wants to do businesses in the UK, have some properties here, pop back for theatre trips and to hob-nob with his billionaire buddies in expensive London restaurants, fine. But why the hell should we spend our time and resources on these greedy, self-absorbed tossers for whom £12.7 billion apparently just isn't enough, and don't think it's their job to contribute to the running of the state like anyone else? Just as even more context here, Twatcliffe supported Brexit. Now, Brexit done, he's promptly fucked off out of the country to a place which is de facto (if not de jure) in the EU. Honestly, if these guys don't think they owe us social responsibilities and cut us out, let us do the same in return.

As a note here, I do not extend this idea to people who get jobs abroad. I certainly do to people who want to leave their business and money-making in the UK, and then just carry out tax-evasion.

I think you're being too soft on him. If he wants to leave his business in the UK while being the citizen of another nation and not pay the taxes of the UK his assets should be seized. What he has is built within the framework provided by the state, and he has a duty to pay it back and support said state. Of course there should be options for changing citizenship and moving, but this man has shown himself to be a pure hypocrite with no regards for the contract you enter when you decide to do business somewhere.

 

[Agema]

I think you're being too soft on him. If he wants to leave his business in the UK while being the citizen of another nation and not pay the taxes of the UK his assets should be seized. What he has is built within the framework provided by the state, and he has a duty to pay it back and support said state. Of course there should be options for changing citizenship and moving, but this man has shown himself to be a pure hypocrite with no regards for the contract you enter when you decide to do business somewhere.

I'm offering some freedom there on the grounds that his company (presumably) pays tax.

But then, if corporate owners/bosses are going to skip out and not pay tax, we need to more aggressively make their companies pay tax. The logic of reducing corporation tax is that we continue taxing business owners who get the profits. If the owners evade personal taxes, then it's only right we tax their companies more heavily. Otherwise the company and owners are just parasites who use the physical and legal infrastructures of our countries without paying for them.

 

[lil devils x]

Man we all knew this was coming when the Brexit Propaganda started. Stuff like this just turns my stomach, People who have their lives, families are uprooted, all for what?

 

[stroopwafel]

Well in fairness though Ineos has exponentially contributed to the U.K.'s investment climate and espescially international trade. Already value has been created that the U.K. as a whole benefits from in the form of revenue tax, employment opportunities, aggregate necessities(administrative, finance, law etc) and increased industrial import and exports. It is not a one sided relationship. The British state profits as well from Ineon's successes and Ratcliffe's personal income is taxed really high in all honesty. Also it's not Ratcliffe having 16,7 billion on his bank account it's him owning 60 percent of shares which equals that value at current stock price. A value that is only so high because Ineos is essential chemical industry. Ineos is an important supplier in the E.U. as well and as such also contributes to the U.K.'s bargaining position in Brexit negotiations. If one person has done his share of contribution to the state it's Ratcliffe.

 

[Agema]

Man we all knew this was coming when the Brexit Propaganda started. Stuff like this just turns my stomach, People who have their lives, families are uprooted, all for what?

Ratcliffe is a classic example of one of these arrogant idiots who didn't think things through and won't admit it. He had this idea we leave the EU, keep all the easy trade links, massively regulate, etc. and it could all be easily arranged. A nice, simple, technocratic fix and done. He is evidence that being a billionaire doesn't stop a person being as massive idiot in other areas. He didn't stop to think about the forces at play, popular will, nationalism, and other stuff.

Of course it's gone wrong. But rather than take some responsibility for making a really bad misjudgement, he's done the same old trick of blaming this person and that person and the other, because people like him aren't psychologically willing to accept just how badly they messed up. And they've also got the resources to just skip out and leave everyone else to it.

Some of my real anger here is that I am pretty sure that a key reason he's going is because covid-19 has really hurt, Brexit will really hurt, and the country is up to it's eyeballs in debt. Tax rises are almost certainly coming, but he doesn't want to be all in it together with the rest of us. So I say cut him out and all the people like him, leeches that they are.

 

[Agema]

Well in fairness though Ineos has exponentially contributed to the U.K.'s investment climate and espescially international trade. Already value has been created that the U.K. as a whole benefits from in the form of revenue tax, employment opportunities, aggregate necessities(administrative, finance, law etc) and increased industrial import and exports. It is not a one sided relationship. The British state profits as well from Ineon's successes and Ratcliffe's personal income is taxed really high in all honesty. Also it's not Ratcliffe having 16,7 billion on his bank account it's him owning 60 percent of shares which equals that value at current stock price. A value that is only so high because Ineos is essential chemical industry. Ineos is an important supplier in the E.U. as well and as such also contributes to the U.K.'s bargaining position in Brexit negotiations. If one person has done his share of contribution to the state it's Ratcliffe.

He has his massive and plentiful reward for success: he's a billionaire.

Why in god's name do any of us waste our time dreaming up ways to justify why billionaires should not only be able to make billions, but not have to pay tax on it as well?

 

[stroopwafel]

He has his massive and plentiful reward for success: he's a billionaire.

Why in god's name do any of us waste our time dreaming up ways to justify why billionaires should not only be able to make billions, but not have to pay tax on it as well?

Because it's not about Ratcliffe it's about Ineos' contribution to the British economy which is massive. One that Ratcliffe happens to own 60% of shares in. Having then almost half of your income taken away by the state is rather excessive. Like that Guardian article mentioned he was already like the third highest taxpayer in the entire U.K.

 

[dreng3]

Because it's not about Ratcliffe it's about Ineos' contribution to the British economy which is massive. One that Ratcliffe happens to own 60% of shares in. Having then almost half of your income taken away by the state is rather excessive. Like that Guardian article mentioned he was already like the third highest taxpayer in the entire U.K.

Why is it excessive? I get that for a guy making minimum wage losing half his income is brutal and excessive, but when it comes to someone making several hundred million a year, pound or dollar doesn't even matter at that point? I don't give a damn, you don't need that much money and no amount of effort can truly justify it. Ratcliffe could quietly sell a bunch of shares and live out a life of luxury on some tropical island, or reinvest money in some random project, but no, we're dealing with some guy who isn't content with a net worth of 21 billion pound.

 

[lil devils x]

Ratcliffe is a classic example of one of these arrogant idiots who didn't think things through and won't admit it. He had this idea we leave the EU, keep all the easy trade links, massively regulate, etc. and it could all be easily arranged. A nice, simple, technocratic fix and done. He is evidence that being a billionaire doesn't stop a person being as massive idiot in other areas. He didn't stop to think about the forces at play, popular will, nationalism, and other stuff.

Of course it's gone wrong. But rather than take some responsibility for making a really bad misjudgement, he's done the same old trick of blaming this person and that person and the other, because people like him aren't psychologically willing to accept just how badly they messed up. And they've also got the resources to just skip out and leave everyone else to it.

Some of my real anger here is that I am pretty sure that a key reason he's going is because covid-19 has really hurt, Brexit will really hurt, and the country is up to it's eyeballs in debt. Tax rises are almost certainly coming, but he doesn't want to be all in it together with the rest of us. So I say cut him out and all the people like him, leeches that they are.

Yea, I know exactly the type with the insanely wealthy here. You just sit there and wonder how they managed to become so wealthy, when they are so completely ignorant and lacking any ability to predict cause and effect on the simplest things. Like how can they get that wealthy being so shortsighted and overlook so many extremely important details on so many things. Though from what I gathered about many of the insanely wealthy, they didn't get their money by being smart, they got their money by being lucky and risky. They took big risks and it worked for them by sheer luck rather than ingenuity. This one guy who had a yacht in the marina when I bartended at that beach club while in college, he would always come in and do or have done the stupidest things. It was like he was completely oblivious to the most common things everyone else is aware of around him. Like how can someone go through life with so little understanding of the world they live in. Sort of reminded me of Trump in that aspect, in how Trump doesn't understand basic things because no one ever corrected him when he was a kid or something. It is weird how that works.

 

[Agema]

Because it's not about Ratcliffe it's about Ineos' contribution to the British economy which is massive. One that Ratcliffe happens to own 60% of shares in. Having then almost half of your income taken away by the state is rather excessive. Like that Guardian article mentioned he was already like the third highest taxpayer in the entire U.K.

Firstly, Ratcliffe doesn't pay anything like half his income in tax. He pays 45% on his salary (actually slightly less than 45%, but let's ignore that for now), but his salary is a small fraction of his total income. In fact, overall, he will pay proportionally less tax on his total income than I will. It's even worse than that because as I have to spend proportionally more of my income on goods and services than Ratcliffe, I also pay proportionally more to the government in VAT, too.

So let's put that "highly taxed" nonsense to bed right now. What matters in taxation is liabilities, not selected taxation rates, and these guys are generally taxed less than people like me. Some have lower tax proportional tax liabilities than their cleaners, never mind a mid-ranking professional like me.

* * *

Secondly, the government has lots of things that it needs to spend money on. If I have a £250,000 house and Ratcliffe has (say) three properties worth a combined total of £25 million, then every notional pound that the government spends on defence (to stop our buildings being blown up) benefits Ratcliffe 100 times more than it benefits me. If we extend that to wider assets, cybersecurity etc. then it's going to become orders of magnitude more than 100x benefit he's getting. Likewise the functions of the police and courts and transport and so on do vastly more for Ineos and Ratcliffe than they do for me. The NHS benefits Ineos and Ratcliffe more than it does me - not perhaps on a personal level (because Ratcliffe will have health insurance), but that it keeps all his workers healthy, and the workers of his subcontractors, and so on so they can better do their job.

Sure, they contribute lots to the British economy. Their reward for this handsome contribution is to make lots of money - they contribute lots more to the economy than I do, and it's totally fine they make a lot more money than I do as a result. But then, after that, like everyone else they can damn well pay their taxes.

 

[stroopwafel]

Firstly, Ratcliffe doesn't pay anything like half his income in tax. He pays 45% on his salary (actually slightly less than 45%, but let's ignore that for now), but his salary is a small fraction of his total income. In fact, overall, he will pay proportionally less tax on his total income than I will. It's even worse than that because as I have to spend proportionally more of my income on goods and services than Ratcliffe, I also pay proportionally more to the government in VAT, too.

So let's put that "highly taxed" nonsense to bed right now. What matters in taxation is liabilities, not selected taxation rates, and these guys are generally taxed less than people like me. Some have lower tax proportional tax liabilities than their cleaners, never mind a mid-ranking professional like me.

Well no, you said Ratcliffe is a billionaire who doesn't want to pay tax when in actuality all that wealth is share value. Ie investments that contribute to the British economy. His salary is indeed taxed at income rates. But that was still high enough that he was apparently third highest tax payer in the U.K. If you want to talk about proportionality then by the same token Ratcliffe pays monumental amounts for public services he will never make use of while recipients contribute little to nothing for hugging up those same resources.

I fully agree middle incomes have to take it from behind in most countries with income redistribution but that is not the fault of the 'super rich'. They are symbolic and easy to hate I guess but taxing them higher or chasing them away does nothing to solve the structural shortages in government budget. The causes for these problems are firstly inefficiency and incompetence. Bureaucracies are very wasteful with other people's money. The other reason is the dependence on the capital markets that make it impossibe for governments to increase dividend tax that only benefit corporate shareholders. And the only solution for that is to not sell the state deficit to central banks as securities which is ofcourse what no government will ever do when they can loan at negative interest rates.

Do you think it's a coincidence the U.K. has some of the highest income tax and some of the lowest dividend tax? The ones that actually profit the most are foreign investment firms.

Secondly, the government has lots of things that it needs to spend money on. If I have a £250,000 house and Ratcliffe has (say) three properties worth a combined total of £25 million, then every notional pound that the government spends on defence (to stop our buildings being blown up) benefits Ratcliffe 100 times more than it benefits me. If we extend that to wider assets, cybersecurity etc. then it's going to become orders of magnitude more than 100x benefit he's getting. Likewise the functions of the police and courts and transport and so on do vastly more for Ineos and Ratcliffe than they do for me. The NHS benefits Ineos and Ratcliffe more than it does me - not perhaps on a personal level (because Ratcliffe will have health insurance), but that it keeps all his workers healthy, and the workers of his subcontractors, and so on so they can better do their job.

Sure, they contribute lots to the British economy. Their reward for this handsome contribution is to make lots of money - they contribute lots more to the economy than I do, and it's totally fine they make a lot more money than I do as a result. But then, after that, like everyone else they can damn well pay their taxes.

I already mentioned reciprocity and as a whole Ineos' activities is much more in favor of the British economy and it's trade relations, investment climate and export position than it is to an individual like Ratcliffe.

 

[Dreiko]

I don't think citizenship has anything to do with monetary matters. I'd be fine with just instituting some humongous fee for people over a certain amount of wealth to change where they legally live to make up the taxes the country loses but you have to actually renounce your citizenship yourself for it to not be valid any more. It's not supposed to be something you buy or you pay upkeep for.


Also countries like Monaco and other tax heavens should have sanctions placed on them. There really should be no tax heaven countries in this globalized economy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Also countries like Monaco and other tax heavens should have sanctions placed on them. There really should be no tax heaven countries in this globalized economy.

By who? You'd need a lot (maybe the majority) of developed nations to be involved for that to work, surely, and if a lot of developed nations were willing to do something about tax havens, you'd probably not have them anyway. Not to mention there's a big overlap between people who use tax havens and people who get to decide if tax havens should be a thing.

 

[Baffle]

Me, I'd hang 'em.

Edit: and not just a little bit either.

 

[happyninja42]

place which is de facto (if not de jure) in the EU.

Sounds like someone's been playing Crusader Kings 3 lately

 

[happyninja42]

I don't think citizenship has anything to do with monetary matters.

Well I think it depends on the laws but to me, if someone is going to enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship in a country, then they should pay any relevant taxes to help support that government they are enjoying. Seems fair and reasonable to me.

That being said though, since taxes are so carved up into all kinds of different ones, I don't see an issue with someone (possibly dual citizenship), say, living elsewhere to avoid residency taxes, but would still be liable for all the others. I mean, if the ONLY tax he's skipping out on is residency tax (which here in the US, there are TONS of legal ways to skip out on that tax), but he's still paying all the others? *shrugs* I don't really care. He's NOT living there, so why be taxed for living there?

Now for all I know he's not paying ANY taxes, and also not living there, which does muddy the water a bit. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of UK taxation laws, nor this one rich dudes individual taxes, so I can only speak in broad terms.

 

[Agema]

Well no, you said Ratcliffe is a billionaire who doesn't want to pay tax when in actuality all that wealth is share value. Ie investments that contribute to the British economy.

He invested in the past, and now he's just squatting on financial asset. He could sell those shares to someone else, and what would it really matter?

His salary is indeed taxed at income rates. But that was still high enough that he was apparently third highest tax payer in the U.K.

Ineos makes about £2 billion profit a year. Ratcliffe owns 60% of Ineos, which means in effect £1.2 billion of that profit is his. I'm well aware that's technically Ineos' money not his... but it kind of is the basic reality, and reflected in his net worth. So that's how much Ratcliffe is making a year (even if it's not cash in his pockets), and we can see from records that he paid about £110 million in tax... which is a rate of under 10%.

Seems like an amazing deal to me.

If you want to talk about proportionality then by the same token Ratcliffe pays monumental amounts for public services he will never make use of while recipients contribute little to nothing for hugging up those same resources.

That's the way it's supposed to work. People with stupendous quantities of money underwrite the needs of others with much less. Even if just from a pragmatic perspective that otherwise, if nothing else, those others collect pitchforks and torches and burn down their mansions. Never mind that this could be a Communism, and Ratcliffe could have literally zero opportunity to make much money at all. He can be very thankful the society he operates in allows him to, and he can pay a premium for being one of the main beneficiaries of how we have allowed society to operate.

Because no matter how you want to look at it, being a billionaire automatically, inherently means you are one of the biggest beneficiaries of societal organisation.

I fully agree middle incomes have to take it from behind in most countries with income redistribution but that is not the fault of the 'super rich'.

Well, it partly is. Because when super-rich people and corporations evade tax, they come after the people in the middle who can't to pay the bills.

Do you think it's a coincidence the U.K. has some of the highest income tax and some of the lowest dividend tax? The ones that actually profit the most are foreign investment firms.

You are dead wrong. The UK has one of the lowest top rate income tax rates in the developed world.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the UK's richest person, moves to Monaco

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the UK's richest person, has moved to tax-free Monaco, according to a document published by one of his companies.

www.standard.co.uk

So recently the British government has been busy removing citizenship from unfavoured people (potentially illegally in some cases). I don't personally approve, but let's just run with the fact it is done. So, Sir James Ratcliffe, UK's richest person and CEO of Ineos, has recently skipped off to Monaco residency so he doesn't have to pay tax. Why are we not stripping people like him of citizenship?

At bare minimum, take his knighthood away. If he wants to do businesses in the UK, have some properties here, pop back for theatre trips and to hob-nob with his billionaire buddies in expensive London restaurants, fine. But why the hell should we spend our time and resources on these greedy, self-absorbed tossers for whom £12.7 billion apparently just isn't enough, and don't think it's their job to contribute to the running of the state like anyone else? Just as even more context here, Twatcliffe supported Brexit. Now, Brexit done, he's promptly fucked off out of the country to a place which is de facto (if not de jure) in the EU. Honestly, if these guys don't think they owe us social responsibilities and cut us out, let us do the same in return.

As a note here, I do not extend this idea to people who get jobs abroad. I certainly do to people who want to leave their business and money-making in the UK, and then just carry out tax-evasion.

What are the requirements for gaining citizenship in the UK?

I think you're being too soft on him. If he wants to leave his business in the UK while being the citizen of another nation and not pay the taxes of the UK his assets should be seized. What he has is built within the framework provided by the state, and he has a duty to pay it back and support said state. Of course there should be options for changing citizenship and moving, but this man has shown himself to be a pure hypocrite with no regards for the contract you enter when you decide to do business somewhere.

Why should they be seized? Surely making it so the ownership of the business has to be given to someone else in that business would be a more just option?

Why is it excessive? I get that for a guy making minimum wage losing half his income is brutal and excessive, but when it comes to someone making several hundred million a year, pound or dollar doesn't even matter at that point? I don't give a damn, you don't need that much money and no amount of effort can truly justify it. Ratcliffe could quietly sell a bunch of shares and live out a life of luxury on some tropical island, or reinvest money in some random project, but no, we're dealing with some guy who isn't content with a net worth of 21 billion pound.

What point are laws if they can be arbitrarily handwaved on a case by case basis?

 

[Trunkage]

Man we all knew this was coming when the Brexit Propaganda started. Stuff like this just turns my stomach, People who have their lives, families are uprooted, all for what?

So they can charter flight them back over during fruit picking season