The non-domicile rule was established by William Pitt the Younger in the late 18th century and allowed many of Britain’s richest permanent residents to avoid paying tax in the UK on their worldwide income. Non-domiciles pay UK income tax and capital gains tax on their UK sources of income and gains, and whatever income generated overseas they choose to remit to the UK. By contrast, UK domiciles have to pay tax on all of their income and gains, wherever in the world they are made – Britain or overseas. Proponents of overturning the rule argue that it has been wide open to abuse and offends the moral basis of taxation. Opponents argue that ending the rule will discourage foreign investment and that some non-doms pay as much as £132,000 per year in taxes.
54% Yes |
46% No |
54% Yes |
33% No |
13% No, this would discourage foreign investment in the UK |
See how support for each position on “Non-Domicile Rule” has changed over time for 195k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Non-Domicile Rule” has changed over time for 195k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from UK users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9L4VP4X1mo1MO
Yes, I think people should only earn money where they currently reside and work - and thus only pay taxes where they live.
@8YXW28Y2yrs2Y
The government should stay out of this, and the tax payer should have nothing to do with this either.
@8YV2VLS2yrs2Y
If somone has a business that operates overseas then they should have to pay whatever the tax rate is in that country.
@8YGGHN72yrs2Y
No, but crack down on it and bring in stricter qualifications.
@8XX66FJ2yrs2Y
I dont have a opinion on this
@8SH633D3yrs3Y
It should be abolished and replaced by a fairer system for all.
Explore other topics that are important to UK voters.