The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?
Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen
Just stupid
It's exposing a lot of hypocrisy from people who loudly proclaim they are 'citizens of the world' though.
Which people proclaim they are citizens of the world, and then complain about this?
Also, even in the event there were people who proclaimed thus, why would it be hypocrisy? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect people who live somewhere to pay taxes? I don't get to avoid the US taxman on my UK earnings, just because I plan on returning up Blighty some day.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
I'd be very surprised if that was true for onshore (offshore obviously not counting), given how Labour's very heavily weighted towards cities and towns.
So, source?
Look at the map. The wind-farms are mainly in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. Not many Tories there.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
It boils down to nothing of the kind. Those of us less inherently gammonious than you are quite capable of regarding a spouse as, gender neutrally, a spouse.
That's my point. If you believe that, it's incompatible with the idea that Sunak is somehow responsible for his spouse's financial affairs. What's he supposed to do, order her to change her status? Beat her if she refuses?
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I was hit by the curse of the new thread before but I wrote this as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
“Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.”
So it’s not altogether weird that the Chancellor’s wife doesn’t necessarily have long term settled plans to live in the UK. They might have a family plan to move to India, or do a Clegg and move to California.
They are an immensely wealthy “global” family who will have the ability and opportunity and maybe even the desire to spend their twilight years elsewhere than sunny Yorkshire. So she does really have every right to leave her future options open.
Of course she has every right to do that, and so does he
They do not have the right to ignore political reality: which is that, if you are the Chancellor raising taxes on poor people, you can’t be in a family worth seventy trillion pounds where your bazillionaire wife is literally dodging UK tax (albeit legally) via a scheme which has been infamously controversial for years, and which has caused grief to much lower profile Tory MPs already
The optics are simply appalling, and damage the party
The Sunaks should have chosen: political career leading to Number 11, or enormous, cleverly conserved private wealth? You can’t have both
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
Refugees is another. Plenty in the deprived areas of the North and very few in the Home counties.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).
Absolutely. PAYE is a huge scam on the middle classes - the ultimate stealth tax. It should be replaced by a system where people get paid, then have to give the money back to the government actively. Politicians love to trumpet the projects paid for by the huge tax burden, but love to hide where the money comes from as much as possible.
This is how it works in the US, and it's resulted in a complete mess of tax credits and filing requirements. Plus there's the problem of what to do with people who get to the end of the year and realise they've overspent and can't afford their tax bill. PAYE is much, much better than the alternatives.
QFT.
Employers NI contributions though: there’s a stealth tax on the employed classes surely?
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
Refugees is another. Plenty in the deprived areas of the North and very few in the Home counties.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
It boils down to nothing of the kind. Those of us less inherently gammonious than you are quite capable of regarding a spouse as, gender neutrally, a spouse.
That's my point. If you believe that, it's incompatible with the idea that Sunak is somehow responsible for his spouse's financial affairs. What's he supposed to do, order her to change her status? Beat her if she refuses?
Not be Chancellor. He had that choice. He should have taken it. Now his family status has inevitably caused a great Hoo-hah and it all looks terrible for the Tories. Tut
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
They don't accrue to the locals anywhere, it's landlords and Windcos everywhere. Except praps in Highland Scotland where the crofters have done a buyout.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Hmmmm
You'd have to say that the wind farms are sited predominantly where there is wind. I'm not sure that this should come as a total surprise.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
I'd be very surprised if that was true for onshore (offshore obviously not counting), given how Labour's very heavily weighted towards cities and towns.
So, source?
Look at the map. The wind-farms are mainly in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. Not many Tories there.
I took the 'in England' bit to mean you were referring to England. But you could make the same point about Labour, for the reasons I have said above.
I could say the same about solar farms. Look at how many are in Conservative constituencies in England, and how few are in Scotland!
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?
That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
Surely you would prefer local workers to have somewhere to work or would you prefer there to be no local work and for everyone to be forced to leave the area to get work?
After construction, tell me how many local workers are actually needed?
Remember the land had a use before wind-farms -- usually farming. So there is the loss of agricultural land/jobs (& possibly also tourism jobs).
The employment benefit for locals for wind-farms is marginal, maybe even negative.
Neither @rcs1000 nor I are asking about a windfarm we are both asking about a factory.
Windfarms are simple, the owner of the land makes the profit...
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q
Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
Leaving aside all the controversy....
Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK? What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money? By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.
Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%. Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend. So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%. It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.
There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.
I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government. Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.
Yes I loathe the fuckers. All politics to me is the politics of envy.
Your point is a bad one, though. It's not mainly about "fair in the grand scheme of things," it's about adhering to the rules, as in lockdown parties. Also, it makes it worse not better if she's prepared to stiff us for a measly 4.35% less the 60k non dom fee.
If I am right, she isn't stuffing us for 4.35%. It is 19.35%, because the company pay the 15% dividend distribution tax. But if she lost her non domicile status, then the total tax paid on the dividend, between her and the company, would be 54.35%, as opposed to 39.35% that would be paid by a British citizen on income derived in Britain.
East Coast, Southern, Northern, ScotRail and Northern Ireland Railways are also nationalised, to be pedantic/accurate.
There are a few 'privatised' operators still.
But many of them have had to be bailed out by the public and renationalised.
Funny old world.
It's a pattern. Not a single building society that became a bank survives as an independent bank. Whereas, for example, the Cumberland BS not only survives on the old pattern but has branches in a number of towns where every single bank has closed.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I was hit by the curse of the new thread before but I wrote this as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
“Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.”
So it’s not altogether weird that the Chancellor’s wife doesn’t necessarily have long term settled plans to live in the UK. They might have a family plan to move to India, or do a Clegg and move to California.
They are an immensely wealthy “global” family who will have the ability and opportunity and maybe even the desire to spend their twilight years elsewhere than sunny Yorkshire. So she does really have every right to leave her future options open.
Of course she has every right to do that, and so does he
They do not have the right to ignore political reality: which is that, if you are the Chancellor raising taxes on poor people, you can’t be in a family worth seventy trillion pounds where your bazillionaire wife is literally dodging UK tax (albeit legally) via a scheme which has been infamously controversial for years, and which has caused grief to much lower profile Tory MPs already
The optics are simply appalling, and damage the party
The Sunaks should have chosen: political career leading to Number 11, or enormous, cleverly conserved private wealth? You can’t have both
Well you can, if you settle for a 10% discount on the still utterly enormous wealth, and some self-discipline about how you spend it. 3 UK homes and 1 Californian bad, 2 UK homes (never mind how flash) and just discreetly renting abroad, fine. That's what is so stupid about it.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Hmmmm
Is there a similar map for solar farms. Round here we have very few turbines because of the AONBs all along the coast - and Dartmoor. But we have very extensive areas of solar farms doing their bit.
Of course, the big battle is still to come: why the hell are we going for 8 nuclear plants when we could have 8 tidal lagoons that are W-A-Y cheaper to build and operate for the electricity consumer. Just why is Boris going for very expensive lecky, that won't be adding to the Grid for many, many years (if at all)? It is genuinely bizarre.
About the only thing that makes any sense requires you to ascribe very base motives to the players involved.
@MacaesBruno Talking to German officials in 2015: if we build connectors between Iberian peninsula and rest of Europe, renewables together with Algerian gas and then LNG into 7 terminals we have, enough to replace all Russian gas German officials: no need, we know Russia better than you
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q
Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
Leaving aside all the controversy....
Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK? What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money? By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.
Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%. Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend. So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%. It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.
There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.
I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government. Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.
Yes I loathe the fuckers. All politics to me is the politics of envy.
Your point is a bad one, though. It's not mainly about "fair in the grand scheme of things," it's about adhering to the rules, as in lockdown parties. Also, it makes it worse not better if she's prepared to stiff us for a measly 4.35% less the 60k non dom fee.
If I am right, she isn't stuffing us for 4.35%. It is 19.35%, because the company pay the 15% dividend distribution tax. But if she lost her non domicile status, then the total tax paid on the dividend, between her and the company, would be 54.35%, as opposed to 39.35% that would be paid by a British citizen on income derived in Britain.
Paris vaut bien une messe, and 10 Downing Street vaut 19.35% on the tax bill.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I was hit by the curse of the new thread before but I wrote this as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
“Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.”
So it’s not altogether weird that the Chancellor’s wife doesn’t necessarily have long term settled plans to live in the UK. They might have a family plan to move to India, or do a Clegg and move to California.
They are an immensely wealthy “global” family who will have the ability and opportunity and maybe even the desire to spend their twilight years elsewhere than sunny Yorkshire. So she does really have every right to leave her future options open.
Of course she has every right to do that, and so does he
They do not have the right to ignore political reality: which is that, if you are the Chancellor raising taxes on poor people, you can’t be in a family worth seventy trillion pounds where your bazillionaire wife is literally dodging UK tax (albeit legally) via a scheme which has been infamously controversial for years, and which has caused grief to much lower profile Tory MPs already
The optics are simply appalling, and damage the party
The Sunaks should have chosen: political career leading to Number 11, or enormous, cleverly conserved private wealth? You can’t have both
Well you can, if you settle for a 10% discount on the still utterly enormous wealth, and some self-discipline about how you spend it. 3 UK homes and 1 Californian bad, 2 UK homes (never mind how flash) and just discreetly renting abroad, fine. That's what is so stupid about it.
Yes, agreed. It reeks of foolish arrogance
They could have enjoyed their money without being quite so obviously vulgar in maximizing it
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I was hit by the curse of the new thread before but I wrote this as it’s all a bit of a grey area.
“Domicile is a weird one. For example if you are claiming non-Dom and the tax bods find that you’ve bought yourself a nice burial plot in say, Richmond Yorkshire, then they can say “hang on - you really do see this as your home”.
It’s not just about where you live and educate kids etc. it’s possible that Mr and Mrs Sunak could say that Mrs S is keeping her Indian situation as is because they made a deal that he gets to have his political career and when it’s over (maybe this year…..) they will be moving the family to India so that their children benefit from absorbing that side of the family culture - very hard to prove otherwise until after it doesn’t happen.”
So it’s not altogether weird that the Chancellor’s wife doesn’t necessarily have long term settled plans to live in the UK. They might have a family plan to move to India, or do a Clegg and move to California.
They are an immensely wealthy “global” family who will have the ability and opportunity and maybe even the desire to spend their twilight years elsewhere than sunny Yorkshire. So she does really have every right to leave her future options open.
Of course she has every right to do that, and so does he
They do not have the right to ignore political reality: which is that, if you are the Chancellor raising taxes on poor people, you can’t be in a family worth seventy trillion pounds where your bazillionaire wife is literally dodging UK tax (albeit legally) via a scheme which has been infamously controversial for years, and which has caused grief to much lower profile Tory MPs already
The optics are simply appalling, and damage the party
The Sunaks should have chosen: political career leading to Number 11, or enormous, cleverly conserved private wealth? You can’t have both
You are absolutely correct re the optics being terrible.
It’s also quite amusing that not long ago when Boris couldn’t pay for his wallpaper everyone was pillorying him for being absolutely shit with his finances and then we have the guy who’s responsible for the country’s finances showing that he’s actually really clever with his family finances and he’s pilloried.
If I were Sunak I would probably walk away at next GE and spend time with my money as it’s really not worth the hassle being in politics.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
It boils down to nothing of the kind. Those of us less inherently gammonious than you are quite capable of regarding a spouse as, gender neutrally, a spouse.
That's my point. If you believe that, it's incompatible with the idea that Sunak is somehow responsible for his spouse's financial affairs. What's he supposed to do, order her to change her status? Beat her if she refuses?
Not be Chancellor. He had that choice. He should have taken it. Now his family status has inevitably caused a great Hoo-hah and it all looks terrible for the Tories. Tut
There are plenty of types of public service that don't involve power over the nation's taxation which Rishi could have worked in. Just not this one.
It's as if he believed his boss when he blathered on about having your cake and eating it.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
Think about it from the accountant's perspective. What's the risk to him that you (or possibly your heirs) later change your mind, and sue him for not managing your affairs and reducing tax liabilities to the absolute best of his abilities? Is it worth him getting sued for doing what many would consider a "worse" job, while pocketing less in fees from you into the bargain?
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
They don't accrue to the locals anywhere, it's landlords and Windcos everywhere. Except praps in Highland Scotland where the crofters have done a buyout.
Bit more than that - some schemes in the Isles of Scotland (Gigha in the ref below, and in practice also Eigg I believe), and elsewhere.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
I think the response would have been the same if the Chancellor had been a woman and her husband had been non domiciled. If anything your response that this is a 'silly thing to do' is a rather sexist take on what was clearly not a silly thing to do, it was a hardheaded decision to save millions of pounds rather than pay it in tax.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Hmmmm
Is there a similar map for solar farms. Round here we have very few turbines because of the AONBs all along the coast - and Dartmoor. But we have very extensive areas of solar farms doing their bit.
(Snip)
Look at the excellent link YBarddCwsc gave above, then select 'operational' and 'Solar voltaics'
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
They don't accrue to the locals anywhere, it's landlords and Windcos everywhere. Except praps in Highland Scotland where the crofters have done a buyout.
@MacaesBruno Talking to German officials in 2015: if we build connectors between Iberian peninsula and rest of Europe, renewables together with Algerian gas and then LNG into 7 terminals we have, enough to replace all Russian gas German officials: no need, we know Russia better than you
What many of the accounts of the reasoning behind the German gas policy fail to notice is that Germany was to be a big hub for "landing" Russian gas in Europe. Bigger than they are now.
Algerian gas and LNG ports around Europe wouldn't mean any profits. For certain German interests.
Note that there was even an attempt to prevent LNG ships transiting German waters, and efforts to stop LNG ports in Poland.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
Confirming what I was sort-of conjecturing on PT, non domicile status looks open to Q
Seems like a lot of speculation and not many hard facts. Or do we keep tracks on how often she visits India?
Leaving aside all the controversy....
Why should she pay UK tax on income derived from India - that never goes in to the UK? What moral or practical claim does the UK government actually have on that money? By all means pry in to her affairs on the basis that she is a public figure, but her situation should be treated on its merits.
Having looked in to this a bit myself just now.... in India it seems that a company paying out a dividend needs to pay a 'dividend distribution tax' of 15%. Then, a high earner, pays tax at 20%, on the actual dividend. So the actual exposure to tax on money distributed by dividend, is effectively 35%. It is not that different to the tax rate on dividends for higher rate tax payers in the Uk, at 39.35%.
There are other variables as well... corporation tax (which has to be paid before any dividends are paid) is higher in India, than the UK.
I don't think anyone could look in to this situation, and honestly conclude that - in the grand scheme of things - it is fair that she should be paying yet more tax to the UK government. Much of the criticism is based on spite and jealously, and just pure hatred of the wealthy.
Yes I loathe the fuckers. All politics to me is the politics of envy.
Your point is a bad one, though. It's not mainly about "fair in the grand scheme of things," it's about adhering to the rules, as in lockdown parties. Also, it makes it worse not better if she's prepared to stiff us for a measly 4.35% less the 60k non dom fee.
If I am right, she isn't stuffing us for 4.35%. It is 19.35%, because the company pay the 15% dividend distribution tax. But if she lost her non domicile status, then the total tax paid on the dividend, between her and the company, would be 54.35%, as opposed to 39.35% that would be paid by a British citizen on income derived in Britain.
Paris vaut bien une messe, and 10 Downing Street vaut 19.35% on the tax bill.
Only temporarily, too. He's not had the issue arise before. Mind, he didn't become a challenger before, and the temporal coincidence is curious, as already noted.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
I've just finished re-watching David Attenborough's 1995 BBC Private Life of Plants.
These were his closing words:
"But one thing plants can't withstand and that's the determined onslaught of humans. Ever since we arrived on this planet as a species we've cut them down and dug them up, burnt them and poisoned them. Today we're doing so on a greater scale than ever. We destroy plants at our peril. Neither we nor any other animal can survive without them. The time has now come for us to cherish our green inheritance not to pillage it. For without it, we shall surely perish."
It's 30 years since they filmed the series. Some of you will doubtless seek to run down those words, for there are many humans who put profit before the planet but what he said back then was so prophetic.
In fact, wasn't he reporting massive winds recently.
Mendip and Cotswolds too look good. Not to mention the Oxfordshire and Berkshire Downs (looks like White Horse/Ridgeway, and the crest over the VAle of Pewsey). Just the job.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
I think the response would have been the same if the Chancellor had been a woman and her husband had been non domiciled. If anything your response that this is a 'silly thing to do' is a rather sexist take on what was clearly not a silly thing to do, it was a hardheaded decision to save millions of pounds rather than pay it in tax.
Yes, the reaction would be precisely the same. It’s got fuck all to do with gender
It’s got everything to do with a very rich politician taxing all the poor people in Britain, even as he enjoys the fruits of extremely lavish tax avoidance. That’s it. It ain’t quantum hermeneutics.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
One of the issues though is that most of these huge assets of these sort of people are in trusts - now it’s all great for the current beneficiary to say “don’t worry, just reduce my taxes a bit” - the problem is that the future beneficiaries are able to sue the trustees if the trustees can be shown to have damaged the wealth of the trust by bad investments, not applying best tax advice etc.
A lot of friends who are trustees had to deal with a big shake up a while ago where previously the settlor of the trust would want x and y done and the grandchildren didn’t matter now the grandchildren can turn round and sue the trustee (because they are greedy little shits despite not doing anything to create the money) because they didn’t maximise returns, protect the wealth fully etc.
So ultimately it’s fine if you aren’t using a trust or foundation etc but the chances are with that sort of wealth you would be.
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
I think the response would have been the same if the Chancellor had been a woman and her husband had been non domiciled. If anything your response that this is a 'silly thing to do' is a rather sexist take on what was clearly not a silly thing to do, it was a hardheaded decision to save millions of pounds rather than pay it in tax.
Yes, the reaction would be precisely the same. It’s got fuck all to do with gender
It’s got everything to do with a very rich politician taxing all the poor people in Britain, even as he enjoys the fruits of extremely lavish tax avoidance. That’s it. It ain’t quantum hermeneutics.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
They're unique to about 95% of the population. And it shouldn't be a dilemma anyway — you pay tax in the country where you spend most of your time.
As an aside, can one tanker really hold £250k's worth of fuel? According to (1), a large tanker can hold 38,000 litres. At £1.70 per litre, that makes around £65k. So is the MODs fuel more expensive for some reason, was the fuel taken in more than one tanker (not what the article implies)? Or have I made a holiday-inspired mistake?
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).
Absolutely. PAYE is a huge scam on the middle classes - the ultimate stealth tax. It should be replaced by a system where people get paid, then have to give the money back to the government actively. Politicians love to trumpet the projects paid for by the huge tax burden, but love to hide where the money comes from as much as possible.
This is how it works in the US, and it's resulted in a complete mess of tax credits and filing requirements. Plus there's the problem of what to do with people who get to the end of the year and realise they've overspent and can't afford their tax bill. PAYE is much, much better than the alternatives.
QFT.
Employers NI contributions though: there’s a stealth tax on the employed classes surely?
It's all stealth taxes in one form or another. One of the side benefits of PAYE is indeed that people don't really notice the huge sums that are taken out of their salary, because they don't miss what they never had. Which helps explain why, in the US, people generally pay less tax than in Europe, but feel (and act) like they pay more. And also why tax increases are unpopular here, but vastly more so in the US.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Hmmmm
Is there a similar map for solar farms. Round here we have very few turbines because of the AONBs all along the coast - and Dartmoor. But we have very extensive areas of solar farms doing their bit.
(Snip)
Look at the excellent link YBarddCwsc gave above, then select 'operational' and 'Solar voltaics'
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?
That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
Surely you would prefer local workers to have somewhere to work or would you prefer there to be no local work and for everyone to be forced to leave the area to get work?
After construction, tell me how many local workers are actually needed?
Remember the land had a use before wind-farms -- usually farming. So there is the loss of agricultural land/jobs (& possibly also tourism jobs).
The employment benefit for locals for wind-farms is marginal, maybe even negative.
Windfarms to me are a thing of beauty, because of their aethetic appeal together with environmental benefits that they signal. I have no problem whatsoever with gazing at them when in the mid-Wales countryside.
I can't imagine that the farmers on whose land they are constructed don't like them either, given that they must be getting a cut of the profits. The sheep who continue to graze around them probably aren't that bothered either way.
On the chancellor's wife - lots of people resident in the UK pay tax in other jurisdictions on their income there. There is nothing odd about that. The non-dom thing confuses me. The bigger issue is where she is paying tax on her UK income?
Frankly I don't see why someone who spends more than 183 days a year here should not be considered domiciled without very good reason. There is the issue of expatriate employees in the UK, I don't know whether she would be in that category would she?
An apparently expert tax lawyer on Twitter says that Sunak’s wife has to make this choice every tax year: stay non dom or become a domiciled Brit paying full British taxes
So she could have decided, once Sunak made it to Chancellor, to avoid this obvious looming clusterfuck and pay her full taxes (not that painful for her, given that she is worth 700 million). Then Sunak could have looked us all in the eye and said We pay full taxes in the UK. No scandal
Instead she decided to carry on avoiding lots of tax. In which case Sunak should have told her: fair enough darling, but that means I cannot be Chancellor, the political embarrassment will be horrible and damaging
That’s the conversation they should have had. Either they didn’t have it - hard to believe - or they thought, fuck it, we can get away with it
The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
I would expect Boris knew, I doubt he will be too concerned this news emerges before the local elections, ending the Tory leadership hopes of his biggest rival.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Whilst I do understand the sentiment, a wind map might reveal why.
But there should be local business rates, surely? If not, why not?
An apparently expert tax lawyer on Twitter says that Sunak’s wife has to make this choice every tax year: stay non dom or become a domiciled Brit paying full British taxes
So she could have decided, once Sunak made it to Chancellor, to avoid this obvious looming clusterfuck and pay her full taxes (not that painful for her, given that she is worth 700 million). Then Sunak could have looked us all in the eye and said We pay full taxes in the UK. No scandal
Instead she decided to carry on avoiding lots of tax. In which case Sunak should have told her: fair enough darling, but that means I cannot be Chancellor, the political embarrassment will be horrible and damaging
That’s the conversation they should have had. Either they didn’t have it - hard to believe - or they thought, fuck it, we can get away with it
The temptation to try to get away with it was immense, though.
And for every day over the last two years, he did, reinforcing the temptation to continue trying to get away with it
The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
I would expect Boris knew, I doubt he will be too concerned this news emerges before the local elections, ending the Tory leadership hopes of his biggest rival.
However, not sure local councillors are going to be terribly pleased if they then lose their seats all because of Operation Save Big Dog.
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
They'd have to make the case to the voters that doing it was a better use of money than how the Government has used the cash.
"Labour wants to buy back Channel 4. But the Government sold Channel 4 and used it to fund all these places for homeless kittens.
Why does Labour hate these kittens? Do you want Labour to turn these kittens out on the streets? If not, then don't vote Labour!"
(You could possibly insert homeless people for kittens here.)
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
The majority of the mega rich get seduced by the idea of legacy and dynasty easily. They start mixing with other mega rich who have famous ancestors and want a bit of that for their descendants. Their son starts dating some heir to a US major family and they want their own name to be held up in the society the same way.
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
Nothing personal but this is one of the most misjudged posts I've ever read on PB.
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
So, just to get this right, if there's a factory in Wales, and it makes something used in (say) england, then that is the English exploiting the Welsh?
That chip on your shoulder, you better check it's not made from English potatoes.
If there is an industry owned by non-locals, in which the profits are exported from the country, in which all the well-paid jobs go to non-locals ... yes, that is the ABC of colonialism.
Surely you would prefer local workers to have somewhere to work or would you prefer there to be no local work and for everyone to be forced to leave the area to get work?
After construction, tell me how many local workers are actually needed?
Remember the land had a use before wind-farms -- usually farming. So there is the loss of agricultural land/jobs (& possibly also tourism jobs).
The employment benefit for locals for wind-farms is marginal, maybe even negative.
Windfarms to me are a thing of beauty, because of their aethetic appeal together with environmental benefits that they signal. I have no problem whatsoever with gazing at them when in the mid-Wales countryside.
I can't imagine that the farmers on whose land they are constructed don't like them either, given that they must be getting a cut of the profits. The sheep who continue to graze around them probably aren't that bothered either way.
Thanks for your view from the West Midlands.
You are quite right. Someone is getting a big "cut of the profits". Not though the Welsh farmer.
Given that planning permission on such matters are the reserve of the Welsh Government -- who have to overrule the ungrateful locals, as in the Hendy wind-farm -- I wonder who is making "a cut of the profits"?
Are there perhaps any lobbying companies employed by these companies? And which political party do you think those lobbyists may be associated with?
An apparently expert tax lawyer on Twitter says that Sunak’s wife has to make this choice every tax year: stay non dom or become a domiciled Brit paying full British taxes
So she could have decided, once Sunak made it to Chancellor, to avoid this obvious looming clusterfuck and pay her full taxes (not that painful for her, given that she is worth 700 million). Then Sunak could have looked us all in the eye and said We pay full taxes in the UK. No scandal
Instead she decided to carry on avoiding lots of tax. In which case Sunak should have told her: fair enough darling, but that means I cannot be Chancellor, the political embarrassment will be horrible and damaging
That’s the conversation they should have had. Either they didn’t have it - hard to believe - or they thought, fuck it, we can get away with it
The temptation to try to get away with it was immense, though.
And for every day over the last two years, he did, reinforcing the temptation to continue trying to get away with it
The naive bloody fool didn't realise he was up against the master of getting away with it.
The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
I would expect Boris knew, I doubt he will be too concerned this news emerges before the local elections, ending the Tory leadership hopes of his biggest rival.
However, not sure local councillors are going to be terribly pleased if they then lose their seats all because of Operation Save Big Dog.
I doubt Boris will be that bothered about that either, as long as the Tories avoid a massacre in May he should be safe, even if significant losses of Tory councillors
The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
I would expect Boris knew, I doubt he will be too concerned this news emerges before the local elections, ending the Tory leadership hopes of his biggest rival.
May presumably knew. Was Boris paying enough attention when/if he was told?
It's a bit parodic, but it's easy to imagine him saying "Rishi's missus is a non-Dom? Capital news. Imagine being married to a grumpy scruffbag like Dom."
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
They'd have to make the case to the voters that doing it was a better use of money than how the Government has used the cash.
"Labour wants to buy back Channel 4. But the Government sold Channel 4 and used it to fund all these places for homeless kittens.
Why does Labour hate these kittens? Do you want Labour to turn these kittens out on the streets? If not, then don't vote Labour!"
(You could possibly insert homeless people for kittens here.)
Places for Homeless kittens would be a better use of money than most tax revenue.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
The majority of the mega rich get seduced by the idea of legacy and dynasty easily. They start mixing with other mega rich who have famous ancestors and want a bit of that for their descendants. Their son starts dating some heir to a US major family and they want their own name to be held up in the society the same way.
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
As a poor working stiff with a six-figure PAYE tax bill I have to say that nothing boils my piss quite like the attitude of some very wealthy people towards their tax liabilities.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
They don't accrue to the locals anywhere, it's landlords and Windcos everywhere. Except praps in Highland Scotland where the crofters have done a buyout.
Not everywhere. Try France.
I'd say the issue is that Planning means they will be no quicker than other renewables, and economics / small turbines means they will hardly be cheaper for the consumer.
Dale Vince of Ecotricity was on Sky earlier demanding that letting him build onshore wind farms would reduce the price of electricity.
But AIUI in the UK unit, the price is set by the "marginal" unit ie the one that meets the last bit of demand, once the generation sources have been sorted from low to high by various criteria.
So he won't be meeting his claim unless he builds enough to swamp the market, or the regulatory setup is changed.
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
Nah if anything that means the price goes up because the government will have to pay the new owner for it. It's not as if the UK government will expropriate it.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
The majority of the mega rich get seduced by the idea of legacy and dynasty easily. They start mixing with other mega rich who have famous ancestors and want a bit of that for their descendants. Their son starts dating some heir to a US major family and they want their own name to be held up in the society the same way.
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
A bit like the marriage of Brooklyn Beckham to Nicola Peltz, daughter of billionaire businessman Nelson Peltz, this weekend
I was thinking of Tiger Woods when reading about the sad early death of Scotland prop forward Tom Smith. He was described by Ian McGeechan as possibly the best prop forward Scotland has ever produced, but this was an almost incidental detail into a description of what a nice bloke he was. I was struck again how very secondary being a decent (rugby player/golfer/whatever your chosen field is) against being a decent human being. Tom Smith was the former, but more importantly the latter. I know how I'd rather be remembered. (Not that, I will admit, I am in much danger of being remembered as the best at anything in particular.)
The question must be asked, however, is whether Boris, his team, Number 10, anyone at the top of the Tory party knew any of this beforehand?
I imagine they did NOT know the Winchester stuff. That is very obscure (but damaging). The non-dom stuff is huge and obvious - a billionaire wife not paying tax? How can you possibly have a CHANCELLOR, who raises tax on all of us, and demands that we pay, enjoying an easy life, in that situation?
Ridiculous. If the Tories knew this, they were grossly incompetent in appointing him. If they didn’t know, they were also grossly incompetent. Idiots
Yes they did know. Sunak reported it to the cabinet office when he was appointed in 2018. How do you think the press found out?
Also the Winchester magazine.....definite tip off from somebody in the know. There is no way somebody from the press is digging through 2 year old magazines that have 1 sentence about him on page 46.
Then they were damn fools. A squillionaire Chancellor with a trillionaire wife (legally) dodging lots of tax. It’s a political car-wreck waiting to happen
Just stupid
It's exposing a lot of hypocrisy from people who loudly proclaim they are 'citizens of the world' though.
Which people proclaim they are citizens of the world, and then complain about this?
Also, even in the event there were people who proclaimed thus, why would it be hypocrisy? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect people who live somewhere to pay taxes? I don't get to avoid the US taxman on my UK earnings, just because I plan on returning up Blighty some day.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
The majority of the mega rich get seduced by the idea of legacy and dynasty easily. They start mixing with other mega rich who have famous ancestors and want a bit of that for their descendants. Their son starts dating some heir to a US major family and they want their own name to be held up in the society the same way.
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
They've been talking of themselves as custodians for centuries. Once knew someone at uni who was heir to a major peerage/estate. He had that view of the family estate. In this sense, the modern megarich trust is merely a financial version of LOrd Palliser's entailed estate in some Trollope novel. Like a nouveau riche buying a country mansion to gentrify himself in an Austen book.
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
When I moved back to Britain from Switzerland on election I needed for one year to do tax returns in both countries, which was no big deal in either - HMRC and their Swiss counterparts were very helpful. I got advice on investing my refunded Swiss pension contributions (the fine print of the company scheme said that if I left before retirement, I'd lose all the company pension contributions, eek) and specified that I didn't want anything in tax havens. The adviser was bemused but duly put it in a domestic fund. It really doesn't have to be complicated.
Hidalgo falls to just 1%, the lowest poll rating for the French Socialist Party in a poll or national election since its creation in 1969
Looks like Le Pen has a serious chance of winning the election. Should we all start buying currency, or something? I remember some members of my family doing that on the day before the Brexit referendum.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
One of the issues though is that most of these huge assets of these sort of people are in trusts - now it’s all great for the current beneficiary to say “don’t worry, just reduce my taxes a bit” - the problem is that the future beneficiaries are able to sue the trustees if the trustees can be shown to have damaged the wealth of the trust by bad investments, not applying best tax advice etc.
A lot of friends who are trustees had to deal with a big shake up a while ago where previously the settlor of the trust would want x and y done and the grandchildren didn’t matter now the grandchildren can turn round and sue the trustee (because they are greedy little shits despite not doing anything to create the money) because they didn’t maximise returns, protect the wealth fully etc.
So ultimately it’s fine if you aren’t using a trust or foundation etc but the chances are with that sort of wealth you would be.
Ah trusts another thing I would ban. 'Why did you ban trusts Alex' they'll say. And the reply because the wealth creator should not be able to bind the hands of the coming wastrel generations.
Wealth should be earnt and then lost and especially not kept in tax efficient entitles for perpetuity (Delaware?).
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
They'd have to make the case to the voters that doing it was a better use of money than how the Government has used the cash.
"Labour wants to buy back Channel 4. But the Government sold Channel 4 and used it to fund all these places for homeless kittens.
Why does Labour hate these kittens? Do you want Labour to turn these kittens out on the streets? If not, then don't vote Labour!"
(You could possibly insert homeless people for kittens here.)
Places for Homeless kittens would be a better use of money than most tax revenue.
I thought that was [edit] a non-trivial chunk of the public money (Raff salaries, plane depreciation, Civil Service and HMG salaries, phone bills etc.) spent on the Afghan evacuation?
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
I'd say that map reflects population density roughly.
And given that we have a much higher population density than most of Europe, and the best offshore wind resource, then keeping wind turbines offshore, where they are more efficient and do not take up farmland, or areas we need for recreation, makes sense.
It does not mean "zero onshore wind", but imo it should mean "generally, don't do onshore wind".
For a quick change, probably solar on roofs is the best option for most, as that is generally Permitted Development, rather than "get planning permission".
An apparently expert tax lawyer on Twitter says that Sunak’s wife has to make this choice every tax year: stay non dom or become a domiciled Brit paying full British taxes
So she could have decided, once Sunak made it to Chancellor, to avoid this obvious looming clusterfuck and pay her full taxes (not that painful for her, given that she is worth 700 million). Then Sunak could have looked us all in the eye and said We pay full taxes in the UK. No scandal
Instead she decided to carry on avoiding lots of tax. In which case Sunak should have told her: fair enough darling, but that means I cannot be Chancellor, the political embarrassment will be horrible and damaging
That’s the conversation they should have had. Either they didn’t have it - hard to believe - or they thought, fuck it, we can get away with it
Sunak is obviously now dead in the water so far as the leadership is concerned. I wonder if at the next reshuffle he'll stand down from the cabinet and leave politics at the next GE. The dream is over - UK's first BAME PM. What is there to look forward to now?
I've felt for quite a while - before Ukraine - that Ben Wallace was being overlooked as a potential successor to Boris. He will go down very well with Tory members and looks very competent and reliable. Hopefully he doesn't have a billionaire wife either.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
See large numbers in the entertainment and sports industry...if you earn big bucks and it doesn't have to be done via PAYE, all of a sudden there is a raft of options and lots of people happy to facilitate that (for a fee of course).
Absolutely. PAYE is a huge scam on the middle classes - the ultimate stealth tax. It should be replaced by a system where people get paid, then have to give the money back to the government actively. Politicians love to trumpet the projects paid for by the huge tax burden, but love to hide where the money comes from as much as possible.
This is how it works in the US, and it's resulted in a complete mess of tax credits and filing requirements. Plus there's the problem of what to do with people who get to the end of the year and realise they've overspent and can't afford their tax bill. PAYE is much, much better than the alternatives.
QFT.
Employers NI contributions though: there’s a stealth tax on the employed classes surely?
It's all stealth taxes in one form or another. One of the side benefits of PAYE is indeed that people don't really notice the huge sums that are taken out of their salary, because they don't miss what they never had. Which helps explain why, in the US, people generally pay less tax than in Europe, but feel (and act) like they pay more. And also why tax increases are unpopular here, but vastly more so in the US.
Not entirely sure the average professional working US person pays all that much less once you include healthcare costs, which appear to be astronomically priced over there. But then said costs tend to be very unevenly distributed so you think you’re paying less until you get stuck with the bill when something goes wrong.
& yes, the idea that all taxes must be obvious to the payer is entrenched in a lot of the US, which in turn drives a lot of the low level political background.
If Labour want to prevent the sale of C4 then the best way to do it will be attacking the fundamentals, get 50-60 Tories on side and defeat the government. Force the government to outline exactly where this imaginary benefactor who will pay £1bn for C4 and then invest another £2-3bn in programming is going to come from. Which prospective buyers are they talking to, what kind of reserve price will be placed on the asset to ensure the taxpayer isn't going to get shafted, what investment guarantees will the buyer have to sign up to etc...
Simply attacking it just makes them look useless as the government moves ahead. The key is to win in 2024 and having that gotcha moment in the run up to the election as the PE company asset strips C4 is worth far, far more than an unrealistic pledge to renationalise it.
If Labour want to prevent the sale of C4 then the best way to do it will be attacking the fundamentals, get 50-60 Tories on side and defeat the government. Force the government to outline exactly where this imaginary benefactor who will pay £1bn for C4 and then invest another £2-3bn in programming is going to come from. Which prospective buyers are they talking to, what kind of reserve price will be placed on the asset to ensure the taxpayer isn't going to get shafted, what investment guarantees will the buyer have to sign up to etc...
Simply attacking it just makes them look useless as the government moves ahead. The key is to win in 2024 and having that gotcha moment in the run up to the election as the PE company asset strips C4 is worth far, far more than an unrealistic pledge to renationalise it.
That requires thinking about policy from the current Shadow Cabinet.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Much more likely it's the rich Welsh exploiting the poor Welsh (by stealing the howling gales which are the Welsh peasant's birthright).
Also, try overlaying a contour map, or looking at windy.com every day for a month.
No winds on the English South coast? No winds on the Pennines?
More to the point, try overloading a map of Tory constituencies.
What fraction of the UK's wind-farms are in Tory constituencies in England?
Incredibly, it looks like < 10 per cent!
Well get out there and campaign for a Tory MP of your own, then. Bloody apathy.
I don't mind wind-farms, I object to zero benefit accruing to the locals.
They don't accrue to the locals anywhere, it's landlords and Windcos everywhere. Except praps in Highland Scotland where the crofters have done a buyout.
Not everywhere. Try France.
I'd say the issue is that Planning means they will be no quicker than other renewables, and economics / small turbines means they will hardly be cheaper for the consumer.
Dale Vince of Ecotricity was on Sky earlier demanding that letting him build onshore wind farms would reduce the price of electricity.
But AIUI in the UK unit, the price is set by the "marginal" unit ie the one that meets the last bit of demand, once the generation sources have been sorted from low to high by various criteria.
So he won't be meeting his claim unless he builds enough to swamp the market, or the regulatory setup is changed.
Does anyone know different, this being quite a complex subject?
If anyone wants to keep their bill down, it is back to the reduce / reuse coalface, applied to power and energy, as it has always been.
The price of any commodity is set by the marginal cost of supply, and electricity is no different.
However, a lot of wind (plus new nuclear) in the UK is on fixed price contracts. If a turbine produces 1KW of wind, then it will be paid the contracted price. So, the price of electricity may be high, or low, the price it attracts is fixed, and the grid operator basically guarantees to take it. Right now, that means that a lot of renewables is being sold at below market rates.
If you add additional supply, then unless it is at the very far right of the merit curve, then it will likely reduce prices, because it will displace another higher cost form of generation.
Just to think about this for a second, imagine that 10GW of power is demanded (and imagine that the wind and solar was *not* on fixed price contacts):
Solar will supply 1GW at a marginal cost of 1c/GW Wind will supply 2GW at a marginal cost of $1/GW Nuclear will supply 5GW at a marginal cost of $100/GW Gas will supply up to 10GW at a marginal cost of $200/GW
In which case the price will be $200/GW, and it will be provides by 1GW Solar, 2GW Wind, 5GW Nuclear, and 2GW gas.
Now imagine that demand drops to 8GW. Well, now the marginal producer is nuclear, and that means the price that everyone receives will drop to $100/GW.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
I absolutely love this line of attack on the Chancellor, because it basically boils down to "women are the property of their husband, who is therefore to be held responsible for all the silly things they do".
Which is... let's say, somewhat at odds with the general views on gender equality usually held by many of those people making the argument.
I think the response would have been the same if the Chancellor had been a woman and her husband had been non domiciled. If anything your response that this is a 'silly thing to do' is a rather sexist take on what was clearly not a silly thing to do, it was a hardheaded decision to save millions of pounds rather than pay it in tax.
Yes, the reaction would be precisely the same. It’s got fuck all to do with gender
It’s got everything to do with a very rich politician taxing all the poor people in Britain, even as he enjoys the fruits of extremely lavish tax avoidance. That’s it. It ain’t quantum hermeneutics.
Mrs May's hubby was attacked too, not quite as visceral, but certainly was attacked for his professional interests.
Hidalgo falls to just 1%, the lowest poll rating for the French Socialist Party in a poll or national election since its creation in 1969
Looks like Le Pen has a serious chance of winning the election. Should we all start buying currency, or something? I remember some members of my family doing that on the day before the Brexit referendum.
Le Pen is now 7/2 in some places. Down from 14/1 last week when I pointed out the VALUE there
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
According to flow chart one on this govt website, nobody with settled long term plans to stay in the UK should be a non-dom. If the Chancellor's wife has no settled long term plans to be in the UK then that is a rather odd state of affairs isn't it?
Zac Goldsmith had to give up his non-dom status for this reason
The wife of the CHANCELLOR?
Incidentally, in answer to the question why do mega-rich people try and avoid tax so strenuously, when they can easily afford it, a friend of mine - who is literally married to a billionairess (her extended family is even richer) explained this to me the other day
What happens is that a clever person comes to you and says, Oh, by the way, did you realise that if you do THIS, THIS and THIS, you can avoid £20 million in tax this year?
Even the ultra-rich find that psychologically hard to resist. Twenty million quid. In one year? What happens if something terrible happens and I suddenly need that twenty million after all? A coup? An asteroid? A plague?
And so the rich person says Yes to the clever person, and off they go down the road of tax minimization, which then conjures a life of its own: more people get involved, more schemes are devised, it gets more complex, the taxman takes an interest, more schemes are needed, and so on and so forth. My friend says he’s seen members of this family spend fruitless weeks sorting their finances when they are stupidly, stupidly rich, and could thus enjoy one of the great benefits of wealth - NOT having to worry about money. Yet they do not enjoy this benefit
I found his argument plausible - and consoling
My own experience is... as soon as you start dealing with multiple types of income across different countries... you get inevitably drawn in to time consuming issues relating to tax planning. You just have no choice other than to engage with it. I am sure that other people posting on here will have the same experience.
Life is simple for people who just live in one country, you can manage your tax affairs yourself easily. As soon as you start living in two countries or owning property overseas, it gets very complicated.
These are not dilemmas unique to the ultra rich, by any means.
I dunno. If I was worth, say, a billion, I’d just hire a solid reputable accountant and say: minimise my taxes, but don’t go overboard, and leave it at that
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
If I was worth a billion, I'd ask my accountant to make sure I paid my fair share of taxes, and leave it at that. I think I'd survive even if I missed out on some 'tax minimisation' opportunities.
Well yes, I'd do the same. But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
The majority of the mega rich get seduced by the idea of legacy and dynasty easily. They start mixing with other mega rich who have famous ancestors and want a bit of that for their descendants. Their son starts dating some heir to a US major family and they want their own name to be held up in the society the same way.
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
As a poor working stiff with a six-figure PAYE tax bill I have to say that nothing boils my piss quite like the attitude of some very wealthy people towards their tax liabilities.
Doesn't that make you rather a well off working stiff ? Though I appreciate your feelings on the matter.
A bit of good news from the day job (and congratulations to both Government and Opposition on getting it through with a pretty broad consensus and minimal boat-rocking by everyone). It's actually quite unusual for a Government to set up a committee with the express task of holding Ministers to account.
Incidentally, on Channel 4 I'd like to see the Labour Party announce now that they will make a manifesto pledge to take it back into public control if it has been sold off by the time of the next GE. That may be enough to deter potential buyers.
They'd have to make the case to the voters that doing it was a better use of money than how the Government has used the cash.
"Labour wants to buy back Channel 4. But the Government sold Channel 4 and used it to fund all these places for homeless kittens.
Why does Labour hate these kittens? Do you want Labour to turn these kittens out on the streets? If not, then don't vote Labour!"
(You could possibly insert homeless people for kittens here.)
Nah, you completely lose the effect by substituting idle, feckless scoundrels for homeless fluffy kittens. We all love cuddly kittens, but alky vagrants? Not in my back yard matey!
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland Actual quote from a focus group last night. "I'd rather have a massive wind turbine in my back garden than nothing in my bank account."
SNIP
Even better is to have a massive wind turbine in someone else's back garden.
And so, the uplands of mid-Wales are sprouting wind-farms (with no benefit for the locals).
Most are run by a company called Bute Empire, I mean Bute Energy, based in Edinburgh and London,
And people still disputes that Wales is a colony run for the benefit of others ...
Are there no local taxes on these things, like for other businesses?
Now, look at the map and tell me which areas are devoid of wind-farms.
Wales, Scotland & N. Ireland must easily have three or four times as many wind-farms as the whole of England.
Look at the South East. Look at the South of England. Look at the English counties just next to Powys, Herefordshire, Shropshire. Look at the Pennines. Virtually no wind-farms.
I have no objections to wind-farms in Wales if it is benefitting Wales. It is not.
The profits are outsourced elsewhere. We are left with the turbines & no doubt the de-commissioning costs.
England as usual is exploiting its neighbour.
Whilst I do understand the sentiment, a wind map might reveal why.
But there should be local business rates, surely? If not, why not?
There is an uplift to the business rates, but my understanding is that this is not spent locally.
It is gathered e.g., by Powys Council, who merge it with central funds.
And then the Welsh Government's Local Government Settlement will take this additional income into account.
So the practical benefit to the locals is almost zero.
Yet again, I am objecting not to windfarms ... but to windfarms built in Wales with no discernible benefit to the Welsh. That is colonialism.
Comments
Also, even in the event there were people who proclaimed thus, why would it be hypocrisy? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect people who live somewhere to pay taxes? I don't get to avoid the US taxman on my UK earnings, just because I plan on returning up Blighty some day.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/windiest-place-in-uk
They do not have the right to ignore political reality: which is that, if you are the Chancellor raising taxes on poor people, you can’t be in a family worth seventy trillion pounds where your bazillionaire wife is literally dodging UK tax (albeit legally) via a scheme which has been infamously controversial for years, and which has caused grief to much lower profile Tory MPs already
The optics are simply appalling, and damage the party
The Sunaks should have chosen: political career leading to Number 11, or enormous, cleverly conserved private wealth? You can’t have both
Employers NI contributions though: there’s a stealth tax on the employed classes surely?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LL9g1ayLt0I
I could say the same about solar farms. Look at how many are in Conservative constituencies in England, and how few are in Scotland!
Isle of Wight, in the back garden of @IanB2 ?
In fact, wasn't he reporting massive winds recently.
Windfarms are simple, the owner of the land makes the profit...
But he won't.
I’d probably end up paying £10mn a year rather than the possibly optimum, fuck-the-taxman £5mn? But I would calm myself by remembering I am worth £1bn so it is peanuts. And I would get on with my life not having to give another thought to money, which is a marvellous thing, and surely the greatest boon of serious wealth (unless you actually enjoy playing with money, and some do - I don’t)
Of course, the big battle is still to come: why the hell are we going for 8 nuclear plants when we could have 8 tidal lagoons that are W-A-Y cheaper to build and operate for the electricity consumer. Just why is Boris going for very expensive lecky, that won't be adding to the Grid for many, many years (if at all)? It is genuinely bizarre.
About the only thing that makes any sense requires you to ascribe very base motives to the players involved.
Talking to German officials in 2015: if we build connectors between Iberian peninsula and rest of Europe, renewables together with Algerian gas and then LNG into 7 terminals we have, enough to replace all Russian gas
German officials: no need, we know Russia better than you
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1512040018465984521
They could have enjoyed their money without being quite so obviously vulgar in maximizing it
It’s also quite amusing that not long ago when Boris couldn’t pay for his wallpaper everyone was pillorying him for being absolutely shit with his finances and then we have the guy who’s responsible for the country’s finances showing that he’s actually really clever with his family finances and he’s pilloried.
If I were Sunak I would probably walk away at next GE and spend time with my money as it’s really not worth the hassle being in politics.
It's as if he believed his boss when he blathered on about having your cake and eating it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_wind_energy#United_Kingdom
But the point stands.
https://sinanaral.medium.com/fake-news-about-our-fake-news-study-spread-faster-than-its-truth-just-as-we-predicted-77db6d9ca8c8
https://data.barbour-abi.com/smart-map/repd/beis/?type=repd
Algerian gas and LNG ports around Europe wouldn't mean any profits. For certain German interests.
Note that there was even an attempt to prevent LNG ships transiting German waters, and efforts to stop LNG ports in Poland.
These were his closing words:
"But one thing plants can't withstand and that's the determined onslaught of humans. Ever since we arrived on this planet as a species we've cut them down and dug them up, burnt them and poisoned them. Today we're doing so on a greater scale than ever. We destroy plants at our peril. Neither we nor any other animal can survive without them. The time has now come for us to cherish our green inheritance not to pillage it. For without it, we shall surely perish."
It's 30 years since they filmed the series. Some of you will doubtless seek to run down those words, for there are many humans who put profit before the planet but what he said back then was so prophetic.
It’s got everything to do with a very rich politician taxing all the poor people in Britain, even as he enjoys the fruits of extremely lavish tax avoidance. That’s it. It ain’t quantum hermeneutics.
A lot of friends who are trustees had to deal with a big shake up a while ago where previously the settlor of the trust would want x and y done and the grandchildren didn’t matter now the grandchildren can turn round and sue the trustee (because they are greedy little shits despite not doing anything to create the money) because they didn’t maximise returns, protect the wealth fully etc.
So ultimately it’s fine if you aren’t using a trust or foundation etc but the chances are with that sort of wealth you would be.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-61020685
As an aside, can one tanker really hold £250k's worth of fuel? According to (1), a large tanker can hold 38,000 litres. At £1.70 per litre, that makes around £65k. So is the MODs fuel more expensive for some reason, was the fuel taken in more than one tanker (not what the article implies)? Or have I made a holiday-inspired mistake?
(1) https://www.gdjones.co.uk/en/vehicles
But that's because I'm not ultra-motivated by money. And that's why I'm not mega-rich. Much of the time, the mega-rich have different motivations from you or me: that's why they're mega-rich.
In a wide-ranging interview, Noam Chomsky, speaks to @georgeeaton about Brexit, the war in Ukraine and the return of Donald Trump.
https://twitter.com/NewStatesman/status/1511706224676548617?s=20&t=0CvhEhp2mvf2nDIa0lKa2g
I can't imagine that the farmers on whose land they are constructed don't like them either, given that they must be getting a cut of the profits. The sheep who continue to graze around them probably aren't that bothered either way.
Frankly I don't see why someone who spends more than 183 days a year here should not be considered domiciled without very good reason. There is the issue of expatriate employees in the UK, I don't know whether she would be in that category would she?
So she could have decided, once Sunak made it to Chancellor, to avoid this obvious looming clusterfuck and pay her full taxes (not that painful for her, given that she is worth 700 million). Then Sunak could have looked us all in the eye and said We pay full taxes in the UK. No scandal
Instead she decided to carry on avoiding lots of tax. In which case Sunak should have told her: fair enough darling, but that means I cannot be Chancellor, the political embarrassment will be horrible and damaging
That’s the conversation they should have had. Either they didn’t have it - hard to believe - or they thought, fuck it, we can get away with it
Sunak 7.2 / 8
Truss 7.6 / 8.8
Tugendhat 8.8 / 9.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.160663234
But there should be local business rates, surely? If not, why not?
And for every day over the last two years, he did, reinforcing the temptation to continue trying to get away with it
DataPraxis/YouGov poll:
Macron (EC-RE): 27%
Le Pen (RN-ID): 25%
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 15%
Zemmour (REC-NI): 9%
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 8%
...
Fieldwork: 28-31 March 2022
Sample size: 1,883
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1512031721566392325?s=20&t=XElH9GGiDIx9uUG5egeIgQ
Hidalgo falls to just 1%, the lowest poll rating for the French Socialist Party in a poll or national election since its creation in 1969
"Labour wants to buy back Channel 4. But the Government sold Channel 4 and used it to fund all these places for homeless kittens.
Why does Labour hate these kittens? Do you want Labour to turn these kittens out on the streets? If not, then don't vote Labour!"
(You could possibly insert homeless people for kittens here.)
This leads to them wrapping up the assets so they don’t get frittered away by a rogue Getty or similar who comes into the family and so they create trusts and foundations.
Once these exist however the money doesn’t really “belong” to say the daughter of Mr Infosys. She can’t just say “fuck this I’m buying a jet made out of diamonds”.
It’s not hers to do with as she pleases and so if she wants to put aspects of the family wealth at a disadvantage in the eyes of the rest of the family it has a wide range of consequences for her.
And the people who actually run the money are bound to ensure no tax is paid that doesn’t need to be paid or they are out of a job.
Also it’s possible that there are certain rules or laws relating to any directorships or other positions she holds with the family companies where she needs to be an Indian national - not sure but it’s not wildly unlikely.
So yes it’s not ideal but imagine having to take the decision as a couple of either potentially damaging your wealth and family relationships or turning down a political career that you think you can do something special with.
But the point I started with is that the mega rich do think differently and start to see themselves as “custodians” - which whilst being wildly twattish is how they want to be seen. It’s like the Patek Philippe ads which say “you never really own a Patek Philippe” accompanied by a picture of cheesy euro-dad handing over his £100k watch to equally cheesy euro-brat….
You are quite right. Someone is getting a big "cut of the profits". Not though the Welsh farmer.
Given that planning permission on such matters are the reserve of the Welsh Government -- who have to overrule the ungrateful locals, as in the Hendy wind-farm -- I wonder who is making "a cut of the profits"?
Are there perhaps any lobbying companies employed by these companies? And which political party do you think those lobbyists may be associated with?
It's a bit parodic, but it's easy to imagine him saying "Rishi's missus is a non-Dom? Capital news. Imagine being married to a grumpy scruffbag like Dom."
https://vortexfdc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/screenshot-from-2019-06-04-15-32-30.png
His just a politically motivated mischief maker
Dale Vince of Ecotricity was on Sky earlier demanding that letting him build onshore wind farms would reduce the price of electricity.
But AIUI in the UK unit, the price is set by the "marginal" unit ie the one that meets the last bit of demand, once the generation sources have been sorted from low to high by various criteria.
So he won't be meeting his claim unless he builds enough to swamp the market, or the regulatory setup is changed.
https://www.edfenergy.com/large-business/talk-power/newsletter/wholesale-energy-costs-made-simple
Does anyone know different, this being quite a complex subject?
If anyone wants to keep their bill down, it is back to the reduce / reuse coalface, applied to power and energy, as it has always been.
Wealth should be earnt and then lost and especially not kept in tax efficient entitles for perpetuity (Delaware?).
And given that we have a much higher population density than most of Europe, and the best offshore wind resource, then keeping wind turbines offshore, where they are more efficient and do not take up farmland, or areas we need for recreation, makes sense.
It does not mean "zero onshore wind", but imo it should mean "generally, don't do onshore wind".
For a quick change, probably solar on roofs is the best option for most, as that is generally Permitted Development, rather than "get planning permission".
I've felt for quite a while - before Ukraine - that Ben Wallace was being overlooked as a potential successor to Boris. He will go down very well with Tory members and looks very competent and reliable. Hopefully he doesn't have a billionaire wife either.
& yes, the idea that all taxes must be obvious to the payer is entrenched in a lot of the US, which in turn drives a lot of the low level political background.
Simply attacking it just makes them look useless as the government moves ahead. The key is to win in 2024 and having that gotcha moment in the run up to the election as the PE company asset strips C4 is worth far, far more than an unrealistic pledge to renationalise it.
Pigs might fly. Imo.
However, a lot of wind (plus new nuclear) in the UK is on fixed price contracts. If a turbine produces 1KW of wind, then it will be paid the contracted price. So, the price of electricity may be high, or low, the price it attracts is fixed, and the grid operator basically guarantees to take it. Right now, that means that a lot of renewables is being sold at below market rates.
If you add additional supply, then unless it is at the very far right of the merit curve, then it will likely reduce prices, because it will displace another higher cost form of generation.
Just to think about this for a second, imagine that 10GW of power is demanded (and imagine that the wind and solar was *not* on fixed price contacts):
Solar will supply 1GW at a marginal cost of 1c/GW
Wind will supply 2GW at a marginal cost of $1/GW
Nuclear will supply 5GW at a marginal cost of $100/GW
Gas will supply up to 10GW at a marginal cost of $200/GW
In which case the price will be $200/GW, and it will be provides by 1GW Solar, 2GW Wind, 5GW Nuclear, and 2GW gas.
Now imagine that demand drops to 8GW. Well, now the marginal producer is nuclear, and that means the price that everyone receives will drop to $100/GW.
Macron has moved from 1/33 to 2/9
Though I appreciate your feelings on the matter.
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/news/2022/04/a-victorious-day-for-animals
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1512057963481083906?s=20&t=9DTA_oTGourMfpWs4HGKeg
It is gathered e.g., by Powys Council, who merge it with central funds.
And then the Welsh Government's Local Government Settlement will take this additional income into account.
So the practical benefit to the locals is almost zero.
Yet again, I am objecting not to windfarms ... but to windfarms built in Wales with no discernible benefit to the Welsh. That is colonialism.