Farmer Saint

Genuinely perplexed by this - why? We're significantly poorer, with higher costs, higher unemployment and much higher illegal migration. What trumps those cons?

I thought you said you voted Remain? Sounds like you're lying. Again. Or do you count yourself as a wokie?

Not a good attempt. D Minus.

Sorry, who's debunked it? When talking about the economy I trust independent economic think-tanks over some random on a forum. You know you can't just compare us to those in the EU, as Brexit cost both those inside and us, outside, the EU - especially the German's as the biggest economy. There is a contributory loss between the countries. BOE data: BBC News - Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o Brexit has been, and was always going to be, a disaster for both us and the EU.

Correct.

6-8% of our counterfactual GDP as estimated by BOE, IMF, NBER etc.

But we wouldn't have lost the initial 6-8% or so. There is no doubt amongst all the independent economic think tanks that we'd be significantly better off if we were still in the EU, to the tune of around £100bn per annum and a drop of 15% in Business Investment.

Yes, because we dropped so far post Brexit - and have a guess?

Straight bananas - fucking woke.

We're all poorer because of Farage and the Tories anyway. Not sure what the alternative is?

Well, of course you'd say that, because it goes against the data. We are far worse off being out of the EU. That's been called out by all independent economic think tanks. That's as close to fact as you'll ever find, and no amount of head in sand denials makes that untrue.

I think he's drunk or high. He's even more ridiculous than normal.

Hang on, so you're saying we're missing tax revenue from taxation imposed by the Labour government, because of the same taxation imposed by the Labour government. That is awesome, well done you 😂 Perhaps we could impose a wealth tax to fill the gap? Or increase the higher rate of tax back to 50%? Or re-join the EU? Or charge those that leave a "leaving tax" of 20% of their wealth? Your argument was originally about billionaires, and now it's about non-doms, so what are you actually arguing here? Why are you constantly changing your argument?

What were those tax receipts prior to the non-dom tax rules though?

Again, where is the billions in tax revenue? I've asked but you've given nothing apart from something about non-doms (and that's for non-dom tax which was introduced by Labour) - and not all of them are billionaires (very few looking at the average tax bill). For this to be a loss, you have to compare pre-non-dom tax to what is lost when they leave, so nothing to nothing.

You carry on buddy - everybody is sat back, reading your posts, grimacing.

You are clearly way out of your depth here. If I were you I'd go away, do some actual research, and come back with a better formed argument so we can debate this properly. You're embarrassing yourself.

The issue is the example he gave had people who's businesses were overseas, so it could only be income that they were taxed on.

No, it doesn't, as wealth is very difficult to just "move". These aren't salaried individuals.

But they don't have businesses here, that was the point of the above list. Income tax at £120k per non-dom. That is an average salary of about £300k per year. To have £1bn, they would have to work for 5500 years. These billionaires are very hard workers. Look, I think you realise as well as we do how poorly you've done over this last couple of pages. If you delete your above post then we can forget about this clusterfuck of a debate and I won't remind you of it again.

That's indirect tax, come on, keep up. If that's what your argument is then that's very, very poor. I will ask for the third time:

Why the insult - I haven't insulted you? In general, yes, out of that list above - that's why they're all moving to 0% tax countries. The Mittels weren't paying any tax. The fact 70% on that list weren't from the UK, and with businesses abroad, means they were using non-dom status. So, as I asked above:

Not sure you understand the definition of the word "fact".

No, my argument is they pay no or very little tax here, so the tax receipts that you were losing your mind on above is very low.

You said Tax Receipts. What tax receipts?