The crucial finance team has much work still to do
Rachel Reeves is to water down plans scrapping her non-dom tax rules amid concerns about the number of wealthy individuals deserting the UK. It must be true, because it's being repeated everywhere — complete with a bland, non-denial from the Treasury: 'The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment in the UK.'
A key item under discussion is said to be the proposal to make non-doms' worldwide assets liable to inheritance tax, or IHT, including those held in foreign trusts. There is no doubt many rich people have gone. One analysis by Bloomberg puts the number of company directors who have left at 4,400 in the past year. Examination of Companies House filings shows departures were 75 per cent higher in April than in the same month last year. The worst affected sectors were finance, insurance and property, all of them popular with non-doms. In the most expensive areas of London, stories abound of shuttered mansions, and a knock-on effect across restaurants, hair and beauty salons, car firms and all the other ancillary services.
The UK, once a favoured magnet for the world's billionaires and multi-millionaires, has fallen off its perch. A recent Oxford Economics survey found that 60 per cent of tax advisers expect more than 40 per cent of their non-dom clients to leave within two years of Reeves ending their beneficial status. With them will go their families, close staff - and their money.
It was the latter that made previous governments, including Labour, seek to attract them in the first place. If they base themselves in Britain, they are more likely to spend and to invest here. That is why other nations are doing their level best to woo them. It's what the Treasury means when it refers to the new regime being 'internationally competitive'.
What is bizarre and shaming is that this administration did not see it coming. Seemingly, ministers did not realise that non-doms would quit. They did not appreciate that, in today's world, rich people can move freely and easily and work from anywhere.
Either they are guilty of extraordinary unworldliness, deluding themselves that wealthy foreigners would carry on living in the UK merely because they like it here - ignoring the effect on their finances; or they simply did not care, and allowed political ideology to prevail.
Whatever the answer, they are now engaged in the sort of reversal and damage limitation exercise which is becoming all too familiar where this government is concerned.
The question now is: will it be enough?
Already, South Africa's richest self-made woman Magda Wierzycka, the billionaire behind UK venture capital fund Braavos, has stated she will shelve plans to leave should the chancellor U-turn on IHT: 'I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man. I pay all my taxes, but South Africa has foreign exchange controls and I don't know whether [my estate] would be able to pay the IHT bill under the current rules.' Whether others are so persuaded, and if Reeves does pull back entirely on IHT, remains to be seen. The problem for her and for Keir Starmer is that the tone has been set. Even if they do climb down, the feeling persists that this iteration of Labour (as opposed to that of Tony Blair, which famously declared it was 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich') cannot abide well-off people.
The purging of the non-doms followed a pattern. It joined VAT on private schools, the removal of the winter fuel allowance, hitting farmers with their own new IHT bills, and other measures, aimed at the more advantaged end of society.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
4 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Toyota to Lift US Prices by Over $200 in July
Toyota Motor Corp has confirmed that it will increase the prices of selected Toyota and Lexus models sold in the United States by an average of US $270 and US $208 respectively, with the changes taking effect in July 2025. The pricing adjustment comes as part of Toyota's standard price‐review cycle, the company emphasised, rather than a direct response to the higher US import tariffs on vehicles and auto parts imposed by President Trump. Toyota spokesperson Nobu Sunaga stated, 'The latest price hike is part of our regular review of the prices,' reinforcing that tariffs were not the sole driver of the decision. Nonetheless, the tariff environment has posed significant pressures on automakers globally, and Toyota acknowledged that its US pricing strategy reflects a response to ongoing cost variations driven by market conditions. The average increases translate to roughly a 5–7 per cent jump in vehicle pricing, based on benchmark models such as the Camry and Corolla, according to industry analysts cited by Bloomberg. The Camry SEL, priced at around US $30,000, could see a rise of about US $1,500, while a higher-end Lexus RX could face an adjustment of around US $2,000. ADVERTISEMENT Tariffs are exerting a ripple effect across the automotive supply chain. The US government's 25 per cent tariff on imported vehicles and parts has intensified cost pressures, prompting not only Toyota but also other manufacturers—such as Mitsubishi and Honda—to consider similar price adjustments or cost‑containment measures. Ford has also announced price increases for North American‑produced models, citing uncertainty over tariff policies. Toyota's decision highlights the paradox at the heart of the tariffs debate: protectionist measures designed to encourage domestic production may instead shift the cost burden onto end consumers in the US market. Toyota has emphasised its commitment to American manufacturing, citing the economic contribution and employment generated by its US plants. The company operates several factories in states including Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama, producing high-volume models such as the RAV4 and Tundra. Analysts note the move is consistent with broader inflationary trends in the auto industry, where rising labour costs, supply‑chain disruptions and commodity price increases have required frequent price recalibrations. 'This is not price gouging,' one sector observer told Bloomberg, 'but a necessary step to safeguard margins amid escalating overheads.' Consumer responses are expected to vary by model and region. Entry‑level compact and mid‑size Toyota models—very popular among US families—are the most sensitive to small price increments, while luxury Lexus buyers may feel less immediate impact. However, consumer advocacy groups have warned that maintaining total vehicle affordability is critical, particularly as financing costs remain historically high. The US automotive landscape has already seen a rise in manufacturer price guidance and adjustments. Industry data suggest that in the first quarter of 2025, US consumers paid an average of US $2,500 more for new vehicles than a year earlier, reflecting a broader inflationary shift. Toyota's announcement coincides with this trend, signalling that pricing pressures are likely to persist amid ongoing tariff policies and global economic uncertainties. For dealers, this price increase will necessitate adjustments in inventory valuations and marketing strategies. Many dealerships rely on tight margin plays and promotional leasing rates, and the added costs may reduce flexibility in incentives or alter end‑of‑month sales targets. While Toyota maintains that the tariffs were not a definitive trigger, observers point out that cost pressures from global trade policies are converging with normal fiscal adjustments, amplifying the need for price revisions. As auto markets enter the second half of 2025, the industry will likely continue to test the elasticity of consumer demand amid elevated prices and shifting policy landscapes.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The crucial finance team has much work still to do
Rachel Reeves is to water down plans scrapping her non-dom tax rules amid concerns about the number of wealthy individuals deserting the UK. It must be true, because it's being repeated everywhere — complete with a bland, non-denial from the Treasury: 'The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment in the UK.' A key item under discussion is said to be the proposal to make non-doms' worldwide assets liable to inheritance tax, or IHT, including those held in foreign trusts. There is no doubt many rich people have gone. One analysis by Bloomberg puts the number of company directors who have left at 4,400 in the past year. Examination of Companies House filings shows departures were 75 per cent higher in April than in the same month last year. The worst affected sectors were finance, insurance and property, all of them popular with non-doms. In the most expensive areas of London, stories abound of shuttered mansions, and a knock-on effect across restaurants, hair and beauty salons, car firms and all the other ancillary services. The UK, once a favoured magnet for the world's billionaires and multi-millionaires, has fallen off its perch. A recent Oxford Economics survey found that 60 per cent of tax advisers expect more than 40 per cent of their non-dom clients to leave within two years of Reeves ending their beneficial status. With them will go their families, close staff - and their money. It was the latter that made previous governments, including Labour, seek to attract them in the first place. If they base themselves in Britain, they are more likely to spend and to invest here. That is why other nations are doing their level best to woo them. It's what the Treasury means when it refers to the new regime being 'internationally competitive'. What is bizarre and shaming is that this administration did not see it coming. Seemingly, ministers did not realise that non-doms would quit. They did not appreciate that, in today's world, rich people can move freely and easily and work from anywhere. Either they are guilty of extraordinary unworldliness, deluding themselves that wealthy foreigners would carry on living in the UK merely because they like it here - ignoring the effect on their finances; or they simply did not care, and allowed political ideology to prevail. Whatever the answer, they are now engaged in the sort of reversal and damage limitation exercise which is becoming all too familiar where this government is concerned. The question now is: will it be enough? Already, South Africa's richest self-made woman Magda Wierzycka, the billionaire behind UK venture capital fund Braavos, has stated she will shelve plans to leave should the chancellor U-turn on IHT: 'I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man. I pay all my taxes, but South Africa has foreign exchange controls and I don't know whether [my estate] would be able to pay the IHT bill under the current rules.' Whether others are so persuaded, and if Reeves does pull back entirely on IHT, remains to be seen. The problem for her and for Keir Starmer is that the tone has been set. Even if they do climb down, the feeling persists that this iteration of Labour (as opposed to that of Tony Blair, which famously declared it was 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich') cannot abide well-off people. The purging of the non-doms followed a pattern. It joined VAT on private schools, the removal of the winter fuel allowance, hitting farmers with their own new IHT bills, and other measures, aimed at the more advantaged end of society.
Gulf Today
19 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Starmer and Reeves have much work still to do
Chris Blackhurst, The Independent Rachel Reeves is to water down plans scrapping her non-dom tax rules amid concerns about the number of wealthy individuals deserting the UK. It must be true, because it's being repeated everywhere — complete with a bland, non-denial from the Treasury: "The government will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure the new regime is internationally competitive and continues to focus on attracting the best talent and investment in the UK." A key item under discussion is said to be the proposal to make non-doms' worldwide assets liable to inheritance tax, or IHT, including those held in foreign trusts. There is no doubt many rich people have gone. One analysis by Bloomberg puts the number of company directors who have left at 4,400 in the past year. Examination of Companies House filings shows departures were 75 per cent higher in April than in the same month last year. The worst affected sectors were finance, insurance and property, all of them popular with non-doms. In the most expensive areas of London, stories abound of shuttered mansions, and a knock-on effect across restaurants, hair and beauty salons, car firms and all the other ancillary services. The UK, once a favoured magnet for the world's billionaires and multi-millionaires, has fallen off its perch. A recent Oxford Economics survey found that 60 per cent of tax advisers expect more than 40 per cent of their non-dom clients to leave within two years of Reeves ending their beneficial status. With them will go their families, close staff - and their money. It was the latter that made previous governments, including Labour, seek to attract them in the first place. If they base themselves in Britain, they are more likely to spend and to invest here. That is why other nations are doing their level best to woo them. It's what the Treasury means when it refers to the new regime being "internationally competitive". What is bizarre and shaming is that this administration did not see it coming. Seemingly, ministers did not realise that non-doms would quit. They did not appreciate that, in today's world, rich people can move freely and easily and work from anywhere. Either they are guilty of extraordinary unworldliness, deluding themselves that wealthy foreigners would carry on living in the UK merely because they like it here - ignoring the effect on their finances; or they simply did not care, and allowed political ideology to prevail. Whatever the answer, they are now engaged in the sort of reversal and damage limitation exercise which is becoming all too familiar where this government is concerned. The question now is: will it be enough? Already, South Africa's richest self-made woman Magda Wierzycka, the billionaire behind UK venture capital fund Braavos, has stated she will shelve plans to leave should the chancellor U-turn on IHT: "I would absolutely stay and it's not about protecting my money from the tax man. I pay all my taxes, but South Africa has foreign exchange controls and I don't know whether [my estate] would be able to pay the IHT bill under the current rules." Whether others are so persuaded, and if Reeves does pull back entirely on IHT, remains to be seen. The problem for her and for Keir Starmer is that the tone has been set. Even if they do climb down, the feeling persists that this iteration of Labour (as opposed to that of Tony Blair, which famously declared it was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich") cannot abide well-off people. The purging of the non-doms followed a pattern. It joined VAT on private schools, the removal of the winter fuel allowance, hitting farmers with their own new IHT bills, and other measures, aimed at the more advantaged end of society. They can afford it, appeared to be Downing Street 's view. That will be hard to shake-off. The hope must be that the attractions of the UK will weigh heavily and the non-doms will not exit and some, many even, will return. Starmer and Reeves, having set their calamitous course, have much work still to do.
