- My Posts
- Chat to Authors
Home
Home
Member since 2017-07-15T03:50:57Z. Last seen 2025-08-21T09:12:55Z.
2756 blog posts. 128 comments.
見到最近好多人都考慮緊移民到英國，希望幫到大家。頭先開錯咗喺world台，宜家開多次。
英國有多種不同類別的稅項。就移民而言，收入稅（income tax）、資本利得稅（capital gains tax）、遺產稅（inheritance tax）最為相關。在深入了解每種稅項之前，本文首先討論英國稅法下最重要的幾個概念。
稅務居民身份（residence）
收入稅及資本利得稅取決於納稅人的稅務居民身份（tax residence），而稅務居民身份與國籍無關。世界各國對如何界定稅務居民身份都有不同的規則。英國在2013年之前沒有明文既定如何界定的法則，反而是根據包括案例、稅局（女王陛下稅務及海關總署；即HMRC）指引、少量不太貼題的法例在內的不成文法來定奪。所幸的是，在2013年後，英國政府引入了明文法則（即「法定居民身份測試」（statutory residence test））以定奪稅務居民身份（https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rdr3-statutory-residence-test-srt/guidance-note-for-statutory-residence-test-srt-rdr3 ）。
在默認的情況下（例外請見下文所述的匯款原則（remittance basis）），英國稅務居民須就其於全球的收入及資本利得納稅。
法定居民身份測試包括不同的測試。如在某個英國稅務年度內在英國逗留超過183日，則會在該年度被視為英國稅務居民。
英國稅務年度（UK tax year）
需要注意的是英國稅務年度與日曆年度不同，英國稅務年度是每年的4月5日至下年的4月6日（而這是中古世紀時遺留下來的安排；可參考：https://www.independent.co.uk/money/why-the-uk-tax-year-begins-on-april-6-it-s-a-very-strange-tale-a6970801.html ）。
居籍（domicile）
簡括而言，居籍是指某人視為永久居所的地方（https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1#how-does-domicile-affect-your-uk-income-tax-and-capital-gains-tax-liability ）。英國有四種不同的居籍，包括出身居籍（domicile of origin）、從屬居籍（domicile of dependence）、選擇居籍（domicile of choice）、被視為具有英國居籍（deemed domicile）。對於移民英國的人來說，最相關的一種是被視為具有英國居籍（deemed domicile）。如某人在20年內有15年都是英國稅務居民，英國稅局會將其視為具有英國居籍的人。當然，如果移民的人根本不會在英國逗留15年，則可以忽略居籍的相關考慮。
匯款原則（remittance basis）
任何人都可在成為英國稅務居民之後且在沒有獲取英國居籍之前申請按照匯款原則納稅（https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1#the-remittance-basis-of-taxation ）。在匯款原則下，除非將有關資金匯入英國，任何非英國收入及資本利得皆不須繳納英國稅。如匯入英國，則須就非英國收入繳納最高45%的收入稅及就非英國資本利得繳納最多20%的資本利得稅。但匯款原則僅限於非英國的收入及資本利得，而納稅人仍須就英國收入及資本利得繳稅。
遺產稅（inheritance tax）
不論國籍，在某人離世之後，其所有位於英國的財產，譬如英國房地產、英國銀行賬戶結餘，均需繳納40%的英國遺產稅（https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax ）。而假若死者離世時的居籍為英國，則須就其全球的所有資產繳納遺產稅。目前英國的遺產稅免稅額（nil rate band）是32萬5千英鎊。換句話說，如死者的遺產價值高於32萬5千英鎊，則須就超額部分繳納40%的遺產稅。當然，似乎情況，在好好規劃的前提下，是可以（合法地）延遲繳納遺產稅，甚至可以完全避免繳納遺產稅。
得閒時會繼續寫唔同題目嘅文。 https://glorytohk.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/uktaxconcepts/
全世界皆受新冠疫情打擊，經濟不景，失業人數大增，但對地球來說，卻有一項好消息，就是整個地球的碳排放大減！在空氣污染的重災區，如印度新德里一帶，中國京津冀地區，歐洲西部等等，衛星圖片皆顯示排放情況有大改善，懸浮粒子大減。換句話說，在不同地域實施封關封城停工舉措後，地球環境得以喘息，「巴黎協定」訂下的氣候目標並不是遙不可及。
之不過，地球繼續受「病死還是餓死」的選擇困擾，地球人不要餓死的話，便要開城開關復工，恢復社會往來及商業旅遊。目前西歐疫情紓緩，人民便要求經濟重開，美國疫情不見有大改善，特朗普便急不及待到處鼓吹重開經濟，巴西總統為了經濟目標，根本懶理封城停工之舉，導致肺炎確診人數大增。地球人畢竟是經濟動物，情願病死，不願餓死。沒有工作便沒有收入，遲早破產，國家動用儲備或印銀紙來救濟失業人士，國庫也遲早破產，封關封城停工已是坐以待斃，倒不如冒險開工，中招確診的或然率不能忽視，但開工賺錢而同時無病患的或然率同樣存在，權衡之下，倒不如放手一搏。
無論科學家是否可以研製出神仙特效藥或神仙疫苗，幾個月後全世界必定陸續恢復疫情發生前的經濟活動，但以前的工作和寫字樓、工廠模式，必然進入新常態，例如亞洲區僱員常戴口罩（西方仍有口罩文化戰），每人所佔的工作空間擴大，合乎社交距離。美國的兩米距離，在亞洲城市未免太奢侈，即以香港的1.5米距離為標準，如員工人數不變，寫字樓面積必須大增，租金負荷不了。現時一些辦公室設計顧問及大集團已提議，
於是辦公室面積不用增加甚或可以因應上班員工減少而縮減，市郊的租金較便宜，可減輕總租金負擔，在家工作的人員更不須公司付租（按：在這層面，公司是剝削員工的居住空間）。美國花旗集團、Twitter、fb、Mastercard等等已陸續將在家工作常態化，便是一例。至於在公司工作，員工如何保持距離？有設計顧問提議，寫字樓內行路方向是單行道，只准順時鐘方向行走，避免員工迎頭碰口碰面。這當然又是以美國地方大，租金較便宜為假設的。香港寸金尺土，實在難以實行。有一點可以肯定，世界大城市以後不再追求CBD，現有CBD的寫字樓需求長遠向淡，在香港中環、曼哈頓華爾街或中城區、倫敦金融區上班，到了21世紀三十年代，將成為集體回憶。
245 mariuz 15 hrs 66
Unable to load the content https://obedparla.com/code/a-visual-guide-to-react-mental-models-part-2-use-state-use-effect-and-lifecycles/
311 a7b3fa 7 hrs 341
https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/05/29/why-kubernetes-getting-so-popular
Unable to load the content https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/05/29/why-kubernetes-getting-so-popular/
MIT Technology Review Expand menu Blockchain/Cryptocurrency
A proposal for a new kind of government-run payment platform didn’t make it into the US Congress’s coronavirus relief plan. But it won’t be the last we hear of the idea.
by Mike Orcutt archive page March 26, 2020
MS TECH / GETTY IMAGES Amid the chaos and uncertainty stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, at least one thing became clear this week: at least a few powerful American policymakers are seriously considering the idea that the Federal Reserve should issue “digital dollars.”
You can read all our coverage of the coronavirus/Covid-19 outbreak for free, and also sign up for our coronavirus newsletter. But please consider subscribing to support our nonprofit journalism.
How are these two things related? Many people need cash in their hands as soon as possible to make up for income lost to the pandemic and related shutdowns. On Wednesday, leaders in Congress struck a deal to make that happen. Under a bill that passed the Senate yesterday and is expected to quickly pass in the House, eligible Americans will be able to receive cash payments of up to $1,200 from the government.
In the end, policymakers decided to dole out that money using existing methods, like direct bank account deposits and mailed paper checks. But at one point late in the debate, powerful Democrats in the House appeared to back the creation of a brand-new, government-run payment platform that would run on a digital version of the dollar.
Even though the proposed system didn’t make the final cut for the coronavirus response bill, it appears the digital dollar got closer than ever to becoming a reality. And the pandemic-fueled crisis may just end up being an important turning point in the discussion.
In some ways, the dollar is already digital. The digits in your bank account stand for dollars, and you can pay with dollars by swiping your credit card. But those digits in your bank account are debts that your bank owes you. A true digital dollar would be a debt the US government owes you. That’s also what physical cash represents. In most countries, a government IOU is less risky than an IOU from a commercial bank, particularly during a panic. Hence the popular reference to stockpiling cash under a mattress.
Sign up for Chain Letter - Blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and why they matter
Sign up Stay updated on MIT Technology Review initiatives and events? Yes No But outside China, which appears to be on the verge of issuing a digital yuan, the discussion of so-called central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) has thus far been mostly theoretical. That’s certainly been true in the US, where the officials from the Federal Reserve have said repeatedly that the central bank has no plans to issue a digital dollar. Now the conversation may be getting more practical.
The best evidence is a passage that appeared in an early draft of the House Democrats’ proposed economic relief plan. Like the bill Congress appears poised to pass, the older draft also called on the Department of the Treasury to make cash payments to US residents. But it also called on the Fed to create a digital currency system to dole out such payments. It charged the central bank with making “digital dollar wallets” available to all citizens and legal permanent residents of the US as well as “business entities for which the principal place of business is located in the United States.”
The draft bill outlined a concept called “FedAccounts.” Today, the Fed offers accounts only to banks. Under FedAccounts, it would offer them to all Americans. Since the US doesn’t require commercial banks to offer an account to anyone who wants one, “the banking system finds a way to exclude people who aren’t profitable,” says Morgan Ricks, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who coauthored the academic paper that coined the term “FedAccounts” and introduced the idea in 2018. The government could solve that problem by turning retail banking into a public service, he argues.
The FedAccounts language was eventually scrubbed. But the fact that it appeared in a draft of such an important bill suggests that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes the idea seriously. Plus, a similarly worded proposal has already appeared in a new draft Senate banking bill that is unrelated to the pandemic.
It’s no surprise that the digital dollar was removed from the relief package. Setting up the FedAccounts system would be “really complicated,” says Jai Massari, a partner at the Washington, DC, law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, who represents clients ranging from big banks to financial technology companies. “That is a big tech build, it raises lots of legal questions of all sorts, and it is not practical as a way to get immediate stimulus payments out to individuals.”
Nonetheless, now that the idea has made it this far, it would not be surprising to see it reemerge down the road and be considered more seriously then, she says.
Ricks agrees that launching FedAccounts should be nowhere near the top of Congress’s priority list right now. But in theory, it could work better than the tools the government has now for distributing cash payments during economic crises like this one, he says.
Democratic aides in the Senate told the New York Times that under the deal congressional leaders have agreed on, eligible Americans will be able to get their cash payments via direct bank deposit, provided the Internal Revenue Service has their account information on file. In that case, it would arrive just a few weeks after the president signs the bill into law, according to that report. But if the IRS does not have that information for you, the money would come as a check, and you would have to wait up to four months for it.
That’s not ideal, says Ricks, because it puts those without bank accounts at a severe disadvantage. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation estimated in 2017 that 6.5% of American households are “unbanked,” meaning that no one has a checking or savings account. People without bank accounts can use check cashing services, but those services charge fees. Another option would be to use the Treasury Department’s Direct Express Mastercard, a prepaid card the government already uses to distribute benefits. But these cards are not a great solution either, because they aren’t reloadable, says Ricks.
Ultimately, however, even if it’s true the system could be improved with FedAccounts, such a change would cause significant disruption to the banking system in the US. And some of the potential implications are hard to predict, says Massari. The Fed doesn’t have experience providing retail services to millions of people. Would people be inclined to use these services? If so, how would that change what the Fed is? How would it change what commercial banks are? “This would be really big,” Massari says.
我比兩個cases大家參考：中國高精密同標準水務
2009年上市的中國高精密（591）係一間民企，帳目非常混亂，當時證監會以證券及期貨條例要求呢一間公司交出佢嘅數簿同帳目。
結果公司以國家安全為理由，拒絕交出任何數簿
之後呢間公司做咗啲嘢，例如聘請新核數師天健及獨立專業顧問中磊完成審核，並獲福建省國家保密局確認，業務涉及國家機密，於2012年8月3日獲批復牌。當日股價一度跌逾七成，收市跌54.6%，收報1.22元。
外國勢力KPMG作為一間會計師樓有啲骨氣，佢睇唔過眼港交所俾佢復牌，所以篤灰證監，結果證監又再次將佢停牌。
標準水務係關上市事，同樣又係用國家安全做理由唔交自己啲會計數簿。Byron Tsang 曾國平跟我提及了這個case
2009年11月9日，標準水務向香港聯合交易所（聯交所）申請上市。2010年3月，安永突然通知聯交所，表示因發現標準水務所提供的文件內容前後矛盾，故已辭任該公司的申報會計師及核數師。
後來原訟法庭頒令，安永必須向證監會交出與其擔任標準水務申報會計師及核數師的工作相關的指明會計紀錄。
因安永在證監會調查標準水務上市計劃期間未有交出上述文件，證監會隨後在2012年提起法律程序迫使安永交出相關文件。安永聲稱其並未持有該等文件，又表示礙於中國法律的限制，無法交出文件
判決書中原訟法庭不接納安永的辯解，指安永“蓄意不向證監會交出其獲悉的資料”，並命令其向證監會交出所需材料。
吳嘉輝法官又指，安永以國家機密為由拒絕交出審計工作底稿“完全混淆視聽”。
兩個案例講完，我淨係想問幾條問題
第一，到底基本法大，定係證券及期貨條例大？我理解就應該係前者。
如果每一間公司都以國家安全為理由唔配合調查，唔好話金融中心玩撚完，證監都可以摺埋收檔。
第二，好多專業團體例如會計師同律師係用自己嘅專業資格做保證，好似標準水務案例咁，安永用自己個牌去同你承擔風險
國家安全咁霸道，最尾個法律後果又要專業人士同專業團體硬食，咁邊個接得起呢啲生意
有啲技術性，睇得明就算，睇唔明嘅話就自己訂閱我啲專欄
—-
逢一、三、四出刊登文章，另設特別環節：每週解答觀眾問題、100萬模擬倉投資部署
訂閱《金融經濟精神食糧》：https://prime.fortuneinsight.com/web/muddydirtywater
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/muddywaterfinance 357 2
共產黨行動比想像中快，香港問題還是要從錢的角度看。王岐山曾推薦《舊制度與大革命》一書，說明中共有亡黨危機意識。放在中共面前三個教訓，其一，蘇聯倒台。俄羅斯前副總里沙赫賴嘗言，蘇聯倒台好大程度因權貴要將國有資產分身家，名正言順躍升為一方富豪；其二，日本經濟迷失三十年。當日本人相信土地價值不滅神話時，頂級富豪已不斷將資產轉移國外，但債留國內；其三，華盛頓共識。拉丁美洲循華盛頓共識改革開放，本國落後企業唔夠爭，部份經濟命脈為跨國集團掌控。
這三個教訓會左右中共的行為，香港只是其中一環。蘇聯，讓中共警惕抵制民主及資本主義私有化制度；日本，使中共面對經濟衰退時決意要一個都不能走；拉美，令中共拒絕新自由主義與全面開放市場。
中國官場生態決定了有時東風壓倒西風，或反之。得勢者，都想方設法將資產轉移出國。香港長期作為中國一個資金缺口，在經濟好景時，財貨進出，有錢齊齊搵。經濟大鑊時，缺口就想閂。請循其本，由去年反送中開始，問題之根本在此。
去年中美貿易戰尾段中共突然反口，拉長戰事爭取時間，所用者係戰略，而美方當時依仗者仍只是談判技巧。現下中共已經有超過半年時間準備，雙方再較勁，就有大半年時間差距。蔣介石在《蘇俄在中國》講出佢用血換來的最重要教訓，就係共產黨每一次談判都只係爭取時間，為下一次攻擊做準備。美方顯然冇醒起蔣氏所言。
拉長戰事係為尋找奇襲點，有何動作難料，原以為會在7月後。因特朗普中東和平計劃約7月開始，最好等美國周身唔得閒先出手。由於中共今次有相當時間準備，國際制裁等後果已在其評估之中。危險之處在，去年尚可推諉林鄭自把自為，今次無甚轉圜地，可見執意要過，但其動作亦反映了中國經濟嚴峻程度。
香港作為世界金融中心之一，如果冇十大投行，金乜嘢融中心。所以反過來講，外資在香港投入不少，投入程度係基於鄧小平當年承諾有50年安心搵錢保證。
待續
Mr. Tregunter
美團點評(03690)宣布，截至3月底止首季業績，虧損15.79億元(人民幣‧下同)，上年同期虧損14.33億元。
期內，收入167.54億元，按年下跌12.62%。
按非國際財務報告準則，首季經調整虧損淨額2.16億元，較去年同期經調整虧損淨額10.49億元收窄。
該公司表示，自今年1月下旬以來，疫情對公司包括餐飲、酒店及其他本地生活服務等商家的日常營運造成嚴重影響，繼而對其第一季度的業務造成下行壓力。餐飲外賣以及到店、酒店及旅遊等業務，在需求端以及供給端方面均面臨重大挑戰。
第一季度，餐飲外賣業務的交易金額按年減少5.4%至715億元。餐飲外賣日均交易筆數按年減少18.2%至1510萬筆。每筆餐飲外賣業務訂單的平均價值按年增長14.4%。收入按年減少11.4%至95億元，經營虧損7090萬元。
到店、酒店及旅遊業務收入按年下降31.1%至31億元，經營溢利按年下降57.3%至6.8億元。新業務及其他分部的收入按年增長4.9%至42億元，經營虧損14億元。
美團稱，展望今年餘下時間，預計包括持續的疫情預防措施、消費者對線下消費活動的信心不足，以及商家關閉的風險等因素，將繼續對其業務表現產生潛在影響。
SpectrumSpectrum15 hours ago
I just want to remind everyone the INO phase 1 US clinical trial schedules:
Next a couple weeks will be good weeks for INO. I will expect a beginning of climbing up of PPS, and a skyrocket at the end of 2 next weeks.
Tardip : https://youtu.be/vbCeKfMfI64
Rameen : https://youtu.be/JSJ5PITm16w
唔好意思 ，Ms fa 告知她有其他全職工作，不能在學校繼續上課
// ... 我要再次重申「和平、對等、民主、對話」這八個字。我們不會接受北京當局，以「一國兩制」矮化台灣，破壞台海的現狀，這是我們堅定不移的原則。
... 過去七十年來，中華民國台灣，在一次又一次的挑戰中，越發堅韌團結。我們抵抗過侵略併吞的壓力、走出獨裁體制的幽谷，也一度走在被世界孤立的曠野之中，但無論什麼樣的挑戰，民主自由的價值，一直是我們的堅持。「自助助人、自助人助」的共同體意識，也始終是我們的信念。
今天我們的現場，有很多防疫英雄：口罩國家隊上中下游產業成員、疫情指揮中心的公衛團隊、以及蘇貞昌院長帶領的政府團隊。
還有更多沒有在現場的各行各業防疫英雄們，醫護人員、郵務人員、藥師、便利商店店員、以及運將朋友等等。
容我無法一一叫出各位的名字，但我想要告訴大家，七十年來，台灣可以度過一次又一次的挑戰，依靠的從來不是一兩個英雄；而是像各位一樣，一起轉動歷史巨輪的無名英雄。是因為有你們，台灣世世代代的幸福、安定、繁榮，才得以延續。
我要向你們所有人致敬。所有的台灣人都是英雄。蔡英文跟賴清德，很榮幸能在此，接受各位的託付。
能在這樣艱鉅的時刻，承擔中華民國總統的重責大任，我心中的壓力多過喜悅。不過，我不會退縮，因為我有你們 ... //
May 19, 2020 3:33 AM ETHealth Care Select Sect SPDR ETF (XLV)ABT, ANTM, GILD...
Summary
Healthcare stocks are among the top performers this year due to higher revenue expectations stemming from COVID-19. Despite strong performance, the virus is likely to have negative long-term impacts due to a decrease in employer-sponsored healthcare and an increase in operating costs. Few companies with potential treatments/vaccines for COVID-19 are likely to profit off of their research. Many providers are gaining from a decline in elective procedures, but deferred treatments will still lead to a spike later. With total U.S. healthcare spending at an extreme high and incomes falling, investors should not expect continued growth over the coming years.