Latest news with #Telegraph
New Statesman
an hour ago
- Business
- New Statesman
Let the non-doms leave
Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering changes to the rules around 'non-doms' – people who declare themselves to be 'non-domiciled' in the UK in order to pay less tax – in response to a protracted media campaign against the policy. On a daily basis, newspapers from the Telegraph to the Independent are warning that the abolition of the non-dom regime is causing an exodus of millionaires. This week, estate agents have protested that the top end of the London property market is now in freefall. The mansions stand empty! Questions to ask about these reports include: are they bullshit? And why should I care? Does it matter if the non-doms are leaving? New research suggests a surprising answer. Firstly, these claims have at least a whiff of the farmyard in that they are being made by people who have a clear financial interest in the matter. If I was selling prime central London property, I would definitely use the media to push the narrative that the wildly overpriced houses I was pushing were in fact going for a song. That's not to say they're lies, but they are claims made in the absence of the actual data on non-doms (which will be released by HMRC next month). Fortunately, there is other data that does tell us a verifiable story about what happens when you change the non-dom rules, because these rules have been changed before – by George Osborne, in 2017. The changes Osborne announced in his 2015 Budget amounted to a £1.5bn tax hike on non-doms. Last month, a study was published which shows what happened next. Immediately after the 2015 Budget, the emigration rate of non-doms rose, peaking in 2018 – but by 2019, it was lower than it had been before the change was announced. So the policy was announced and an 'exodus' appeared to follow, but it wasn't an exodus. It was people bringing forward a change they had been planning to make anyway. The second conclusion was even more important: the people who paid the least tax were the most likely to leave. The millionaires who left were the fiscally useless, the do-nothing rich. A common misconception is that rich people are economically similar. But there are two very different species: people who earn loads of money and people who have loads of money. People who earn lots of money typically pay a lot of tax. A banker in London on £600,000 a year should pay about £245,000 in income tax and National Insurance (assuming maximum pension contributions), contributing as much to the state in three years as the average Brit contributes over their whole working life. This makes them very important from a fiscal point of view. But it also means they're less likely to leave when there's a tax change, because they have a great job that it would be hard to get elsewhere, and because they demonstrably already tolerate a high level of taxation. And after the 2015 Budget, this is what they did: they stayed. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The other species are different. They are simply parking their wealth here, paying little tax, and leaving when the rules change. Arun Advani, the economist who led this research, told me that under the non-dom regime, the UK had effectively been a tax haven for people who had money here but didn't earn money here: 'Everyone thinks, because they're very wealthy, that means they must be paying a lot of tax,' he said, but the people who left after 2015 were recognisable as being 'not very well connected' to the economy by income – 'but that's also why they weren't paying very much tax. So the cost of losing them is much lower.' It's very possible that this is what's happening now: we are losing people whose connection to the economy was fleeting and low in value. The stateless rich will be missed in some parts of London. Showrooms for ugly, dangerous cars will fall quiet; gaudy clothes with someone else's name written all over them will go unsold; bad Mayfair restaurants and galleries for gaudy, laughable art will have to reconsider their value propositions. But the rest of us might benefit, thanks to the property market. Expensive London property drags the rest of the housing market upward, imposing trickle-down inflation on homeowners. It also eats into our housebuilding capacity. When I walked through London's wealthiest constituency with its MP, Joe Powell, recently we had to raise our voices over the sound of drills: every other property was a building site, an investment being serviced. The UK currently spends around £3bn a month on repair and maintenance of existing housing, more than six times what it spends on building new public housing. If the non-doms leave, housing might become both more affordable, and easier to build, for people who want to live here for reasons beyond their tax bill. It's also worth noting that leaving the country – any country – is something the stateless rich do constantly. In a normal year, with no tax changes announced, around a quarter of non-doms who have arrived recently (within the last two years) will leave anyway, and even among long-stayers (up to 15 years), one in 25 will leave each year. Maybe shopping in Harrods and driving a Lamborghini leaves you feeling empty and bored, and forces you to roam the planet seeking a fulfilment money can never buy? Who cares. They're off to Dubai. Before the government performs another U-turn, it should ask whether anyone will miss them. [See also: Has Rachel Reeves given in to the non-doms?] Related
NDTV
2 hours ago
- Sport
- NDTV
Virat Kohli To Attend Games During India-England Series? Report Makes 'Absent' Claim
A major absence during the India-England Test series will be star batter Virat Kohli who announced his retirement from the longest format of the sport. However, speculations have been rife about whether he will be attending matches during the series considering the fact that Virat lives in the vicinity with his wife Anushka Sharma and kids. Virat has chosen a life in England which is devoid of the fanfare and according to a report by Telegraph, he may not attend many games because he has distanced himself from the game. Despite being in the country, Kohli recently skipped both the World Test Championship final and the MCC's 'World Cricket Connects' symposium. Coming to the first Test match, India's new Test captain Shubman Gill faces a stern challenge leading the side in testing English conditions, and he has to show patience and composure to succeed on the demanding tour, feels former head coach Ravi Shastri. With India going through a transition phase following the retirements of Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma and R Ashwin, the BCCI has entrusted Gill to lead the Indian Test team. Gill's first assignment as skipper is the five-Test series in England that starts with the opening match in Leeds on Friday. "I think, take your time," Shastri said on 'The ICC Review', offering his initial guidance to the 25-year-old Gill. "It's not going to be easy. He's (Gill) been asked to do a tough job, that is to captain India on a tour of England." It is still early days in Gill's Test career, with the youngster amassing 1893 runs at an average of 35.05 in 32 matches, since making his debut in December 2020. Besides his batting, Gill's leadership skills will be put to test in England, where India last won a Test series in 2007.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Health
- Telegraph
‘I'm living proof why assisted dying Bill is wrong'
On Thursday, Ailidh Musgrave, 28, was discharged from mental health services. Just six years ago, the picture was very different. In 2019, Ms Musgrave was so sick with anorexia that she is sure she would have not only met the criteria for assisted dying, as set out in the Bill MPs are debating on Friday, but she would have jumped at the chance for medical assistance to end her life. 'If I'd known that there was a Bill out there like this, I would have done my absolute best to access it in order to take my life, because I couldn't see a way out,' she told The Telegraph. The potential impact of Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying Bill on people with severe eating disorders is one of the key concerns that could see MPs reject the plans. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, under which terminally ill adults expected to die within six months would be able to seek medical assistance to end their lives, initially passed by 55 votes in November. It could become law if enough MPs back it in an historic vote on Friday. However, the vote is said to be on a 'knife edge' after a series of controversies, including on issues relating to conditions like anorexia. Ms Leadbeater has claimed the so-called 'anorexia loophole' – a gap in safeguards that means sufferers could qualify for assisted dying on the basis of life-threatening malnutrition – has been closed. At a press conference on Thursday, the MP for Spen Valley told The Telegraph she believed her support for an amendment from MP Naz Shah, which would ban eligibility based solely on a voluntary refusal to eat or drink, addressed the concerns. 'In terms of amendment 14, my understanding was that that was why it was tabled, so that's why I supported it,' she said. But in the final 24 hours before the vote, experts said this claim was incorrect. Dr Annabel Price, the lead for assisted dying in England and Wales at the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), told The Telegraph: 'If the Bill were to proceed, it is essential that it excludes the physical effects of mental disorder as the basis for eligibility. 'Malnutrition caused by anorexia nervosa, for example, has been deemed as a terminal illness under similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions.' The RCPsych, along with eating disorder charity Beat, has for months urged Ms Leadbeater to back an amendment that would prevent patients from qualifying on the basis of life-threatening physical complications stemming from a mental illness. But she has refused to do so. On Thursday night, Tom Quinn, director of external affairs at Beat, told The Telegraph: 'Eating disorders should never be treated as terminal – without changes to this Bill, there's a danger that they will be. 'While we acknowledge that the Bill is not intended for the use of patients with eating disorders, there is a risk that some patients with eating disorders may qualify as being terminally ill based on physical symptoms of malnutrition such as kidney and heart failure.' Mr Quinn said that unless a clear amendment was passed to exclude eligibility based on the physical consequences of mental illness, 'the anorexia loophole is not closed', and the charity remained 'very concerned about the risks the Bill would present to those with eating disorders and urge MPs to oppose it.' Ms Musgrave, who is autistic, began suffering from a severe eating disorder aged 13. In 2019, she had also just been diagnosed with a connective tissue disorder, which made it harder for her body to digest food, and had given up hope of recovering. By this point, she had been in and out of hospital for years and was now struggling to access further treatment. 'I think 26 hospital placements rejected me in the 20 weeks that my team was looking for a bed because my needs were 'too complicated'. I think that the interaction of physical health, the eating disorder and the autistic diagnosis, it's a lot of people to untangle and manage. I think with what I was living off, I would not have, I would certainly not have lasted six months to live,' she said. Ms Musgrave, from Birmingham, was finally admitted to a general psychiatric unit which could not provide specialist eating disorder treatment, and in May of that year moved to a general hospital ward where she continued to lose weight. 'I'll be honest, I think it's down to my mother coming in every day to try and encourage me to eat what little that I would, that actually kept me alive, but barely kept me alive. I had a very low BMI,' she said. 'My mum knew I was desperate to die' The combination of her physical condition – Ehlers-Danlos syndrome – and over a decade of suffering from anorexia, left her feeling hopeless, and she is sure that if Ms Leadbeater's bill had been an option, she would have gone for it. 'It was my ninth admission. I didn't have any qualifications, I had no friends, I was fully dependent on my mum, and I was very, very high risk to myself, and just did not see the purpose of life, if it was this torturous,' she said. Ms Musgrave added: 'My mum said to me later in recovery, that she actually could understand why I was desperate to die, seeing me in the condition I was in, the state that I was, she understood that it would have been kinder and less painful than living every day as I was, and that must have been so hard for my mum to say after having fought for my life and my care for so many years.' She is speaking out now in the hope of reaching undecided MPs who may not be aware that the Bill could make it legal for people suffering from severe anorexia, as she was, to be given lethal drugs by doctors to end their lives. In June 2019, Ms Musgrave was eventually transferred to a London specialist unit where she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, meaning her treatment was mandated by doctors. She stayed there until May 2023. 'I think the only reason I'm alive is because, actually, they never gave up. I didn't always get the right support,' she said. 'Reasonable adjustments weren't made, but the fact is that they obviously saw something in me that showed them there was hope, and so they didn't let me go. They weren't going to give up, they weren't going to discharge me. They weren't going to say: 'You're hopeless, you're too complicated'. They stuck by me until I walked out of those doors two years and two months ago, and today [Thursday], actually, it's a very emotional day. I've just been discharged from my psychiatric team.' Tearfully, she added: 'I'm proof that you don't need to give up on someone, and that if you sit with them, that they can have a life that they never imagined that they could have. And I have that, I have a life I never thought possible. 'I never could believe it, but it's real and it's true and it's happening, and it's so sad that people may never get that chance because they are so under the control of anorexia that they feel the only option is to legally access assisted suicide.' 'The law was our daughter's only protection' Lesley and Neal Davison, from Cheshunt, Waltham Cross, can be more sure than most parents of eating disorder patients that their child would have tried to make use of Ms Leadbeater's Bill. The couple lost their daughter Megan to suicide in August 2017. She suffered from a dangerous combination of Type 1 diabetes and a serious eating disorder. This condition, previously referred to as diabulimia, and now known as T1DE, sees sufferers intentionally restrict the insulin they have to self-administer in order to control their weight. Just days before she took her own life, their 27-year-old daughter asked her care team for help getting a referral to Dignitas, the euthanasia clinic in Switzerland. The response she got back, her parents claim, was not that it was wrong because her condition was treatable, but that her care team would not be able to do it because they would be breaking the law. Her parents are adamant that the only thing protecting their daughter from accessing assisted dying was healthcare providers' fear that they could face prosecution, and are speaking out now to warn MPs of the dangers inherent in this law change. 'There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that if she had had the option of taking assisted dying, she would have taken it,' Mrs Davsion told The Telegraph. 'In fact, when she was asking her therapist: 'Can you put me together a dossier so I can go to Dignitas?' The answer was, 'You know I can't Megan, it's illegal'.' She added: 'That was her only protection – no exploring why she felt the need to make such a request. So if this Bill is passed would that request be granted, with the same lack of investigation?' Ms Davison was an articulate, intelligent woman who obtained a degree in psychology and wanted to be a teacher. Her father told The Telegraph: 'Megan asked us, in a suicide letter, to help the people that were dealing with this condition she was leaving behind, and in our retirement, that's become our job.' Ms Leadbeater argued during Thursday's press conference that other safeguards in her Bill would make it 'virtually impossible' for eating disorder patients to qualify for an assisted death – or if they did, that they would die before the process was complete. 'I just think that is not going to happen. There is no world where that is going to happen. And tragically that person will also die before she goes through that process [of approval for an assisted death],' she told reporters. That assurance will not be a comfort for families like the Davisons – and it may not be enough to persuade MPs.
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves and the Bank of England cannot change the long course of history
Questor is The Telegraph's stock-picking column, helping you decode the markets and offering insights on where to invest. The economy's near-term outlook remains highly uncertain. Although GDP growth surged to 0.7pc in the first quarter, which was up from an expansion of 0.1pc in the prior period, recent interest rate cuts are likely to take many months to have their full impact on the economy due to the existence of time lags. When combined with the potential for sticky inflation over the coming months, as well as the possible ill effects of higher costs for businesses caused by changes to employer National Insurance contributions, investors may naturally seek to avoid UK-focused stocks. However, in Questor's view, the long-term return prospects for UK-listed companies are highly appealing. Crucially, an uncertain near-term economic outlook means they trade on low valuations which in many cases are significantly below their intrinsic value. This provides scope for significant capital gains, both from upward re-ratings as investor sentiment gradually improves, and as a result of a faster pace of earnings growth as the full impact of monetary policy easing becomes apparent. Indeed, history shows that GDP growth and the stock market's performance are cyclical. Even though various chancellors and investors have previously claimed otherwise, often during periods of economic expansion and bull markets, the economy and equity markets are inherently boom-and-bust entities that simply refuse to go in one particular direction ad infinitum. Just as interest rate rises between 2021 and 2023 led to a stifling of economic activity, and acted as a drag on company profits, thereby prompting relatively downbeat stock market performance, the current period of sustained monetary policy easing is highly likely to do the opposite. Investors who are able to look beyond short-term economic uncertainty to a period of relatively fast-paced growth and buy shares that are grossly undervalued, are therefore likely to generate high returns over the long run. Of course, stocks purchased amid the current challenging economic climate must be able to ride out short-term difficulties in order to produce high capital returns in the long run. Companies with solid financial positions are well placed to do so, with modest levels of debt as a proportion of net assets and generous headroom when making interest payments from operating profits likely to be key considerations for investors. Sound finances also provide scope for a business to reinvest in its operations in order to strengthen its market position for the long run. A solid balance sheet may further allow it to make acquisitions that bolster its financial prospects as the economy's performance gradually improves. Companies that benefit from having a competitive advantage may also be in a relatively strong position to overcome prospective near-term economic difficulties. A solid competitive position may, for instance, be derived from having a significant amount of brand loyalty that means customers are more likely to reduce spending elsewhere before cutting back on their consumption of a specific company's products. Lower costs vis-à-vis rival firms also equates to a competitive advantage. It allows for price cuts that enhance the appeal of a company's products amid a challenging financial period for consumers. A strong competitive position further bodes well for a firm's long-term financial and share price performance. For example, it may enable a company to build its market share during an economic downturn, thereby allowing it to occupy a stronger position through which to capitalise on rising demand as the rate of GDP growth improves. Clearly, it is impossible to state exactly when the economy and stock market will deliver consistently strong performance. Indeed, it may only become clear after the event, when multiple quarters of strong GDP growth and attractive share price gains have already been posted. Therefore, it may be logical for long-term investors to seek to move ahead of the curve in terms of buying shares in high-quality companies at attractive prices while their peers continue to do the opposite. While this may entail paper losses in the short run, a willingness to go against the investment herd has proved to be a highly worthwhile approach in the past. In Questor's view, it is likely to remain so over the coming years.
Daily Mail
11 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Passport prices could rise AGAIN in another blow for British holidaymakers
The cost of a new passport could rise by a whopping £32 in the latest blow for millions of British holidaymakers. Ministers have been urged to increase the current £95 renewal fee to address a growing black hole in the Passport Office's budget. The department recorded a budget shortfall of £223million last year and a £916million deficit over the past five years. The National Audit Office, which scrutinises public spending, has recommended that the Passport Office increase the cost of its services to address the issue. It did not, however, give a figure for how much the passport renewal fees should increase by. According to The Telegraph, the Passport Office, would need to charge each applicant £32 more to overcome last year's shortfall. The cost of renewing passports has already risen significantly in recent years. The department drastically hiked prices for adult passports in February 2023 - from £75.50 to £82.50. Fees then rose again by 7 per cent last year - before an inflation busting increase of 6.7 per cent in April. The Home Office previously said the new fees were necessary to ensure the cost of passport operations is met without relying on taxpayer funding. It added that fees help cover passport processing, consular services for lost or stolen passports, and border operations. Adults must currently pay £94.50 for a new passport, while a one-day renewal costs £222. Nearly seven million new passports were issued last year. Adult passports are valid for ten years, while passports for children are valid for just five. A Home Office spokesperson said there were no 'immediate plans' to increase fees. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office declined to comment on the estimated price hike. The call for higher passport renewal fees came in a wider report by the National Audit Office into government services. A total £340million shortfall was found across all the services looked at - including UK Visas and Immigration, the Court and Tribunals Service and the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency. The National Audit Office's report concluded: 'Many government departments rely on charging fees to recover the costs of providing services to people and businesses. 'But none of the services we looked at recovered costs consistently, and the charges for the services may not accurately reflect the costs.' 'The government is missing opportunities to deliver efficiencies and share good practice,' it added. 'This poses risks to the financial resilience of public services, the costs of which are likely to be borne by future fee payers.' Gareth Davies, head of the National Audit Office said: 'Government bodies provide important services for the public and businesses, including issuing passports and driving licences, and filing company information. 'But many are not consistently recovering their costs - posing risks to the financial resilience of these services and fairness between users. 'HM Treasury should strengthen how it oversees cost recovery processes and provide more comprehensive guidance to charging bodies.'
