The sharpest exchange was over a single question: who is actually watching whom? Yes won comfortably, but the No side's best-liked line was about the advisers, not the principle.
The most-respected Yes case called the managers “a highly efficient state compliance mechanism” and argued that recovered revenue would outweigh the staff cost. Others made it arithmetic: one voter said an error on a billionaire's return “can itself run into millions”. Another was blunt about the exit threat: “we might as well get on with it.”
The most-respected No case came from a different place, worrying that ordinary taxpayers would be “footing the bill” and that the scheme was open to bribery. Elsewhere No voters pressed the mismatch, with one saying these people already use advisers “probably much more highly skilled than the civil servant tax manager”. A second line warned of a move abroad, with one calling the policy hostile and likely to push billionaires to a jurisdiction that “celebrates success”.
The two sides did meet on the advisers. Yes voters accepted that the rich employ the best, and one conceded “it's Bob Cratchit versus Ernst & Young”, yet argued that a specialist who learns the dodges can help close loopholes. No voters answered that the fix lies in the system itself.
That is the live argument over how hard to lean on the wealthy without losing them, and here it was fought less over fairness than over whether one inspector can matter.
105 Opinions
I voted no because I'm assuming us taxpayers - the ones who can't afford fancy accountants to hide their money - are footing the bill for these "tax managers". Open to bribery & corruption because that's what this country has become - full of chancers.
Politics of envy still strong on the Left. Luckily, thanks to Labour governments , even if such policy will be introduced, HMRC will not need too many tax managers as our wealthiest will leave for less hostile environment.
Assigning dedicated tax managers to billionaires is not a luxury perk; it is a highly efficient state compliance mechanism. The financial complexity of ultra high net worth individuals requires specialized oversight. Pragmatically, the revenue recovered from closing loopholes and ensuring strict tax compliance will vastly outweigh the administrative cost of the HMRC staff. It is a necessary investment in wealth equalization.
This is just another gimmicky shake down which will lead to nothing but extra cost for the tax payer
Having that kind of money they will already have their own advisers in place. The socialist’s have an obsession with the wealthy and taking their money.
These people already use specialist tax advisers, probably much more highly skilled than the civil servant tax manager sent to check them. I suspect there will be no impact whatsoever from this.
Dedicated oversight and assistance sounds like a good deal for both sides here, everyone wins.
I doubt the tax they might recover would pay for the salary and pension of the hmrc employee. A billionaire is employing people who know the tax code in greater detail.
No, if a billionaire is filing their tax returns correctly and paying all tax legally due why waste scarce HMRC resources on an act likely to be perceived as hostile and risks billionaires moving to a jurisdiction that welcomes and celebrates success.
It's the system they need ti fix not punish & drive them out to other countries. Fix the loopholes & you'll fix the system. Stop pushing them out with the tax we collect from them.