Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

My Sunak 2022 exit bet is looking better – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Mike Smithson
    @MSmithsonPB
    ·
    45m
    We have crossover in the next CON leader betting.Liz Truss edges into the favourite slot.
    @betdatapolitics

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1512346250112376832
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,985
    Leon said:

    ClippP said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    I think the issue here is not really the tax arrangements, but the non-domicile status. If my other half was Chancellor, and wanted to be PM, even if I was born elsewhere I'd want to demonstrate my commitment to the UK as a permanent resident. I wouldn't, every year, reassure HRMC that my permanent residence was in fact in the country of my birth rather than the UK. It would seem odd, don't you think, not to demonstrate that I share my other half's ambitions for this country by committing to it? Why on earth would I do that?
    But being non-dom means that Mrs Sunak has to spend more than half her time out of the UK. Not sure that I would be a happy bunny if my wife were with me only half the time.
    No it doesn’t mean that
    It is just a con for the rich to avoid tax.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    No leadership election any time soon now I guess.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,985
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    And taxed in India, so it’s not like it’s gone untaxed.

    It’s disgusting of the Labour Party to go after politicians in this way, through targeted family members. Not even the Peaky Blinders went that bad. There has to be a value code not to cross or else our politics will be anarchy that lives in gutter.

    No law has been broken, so the right thing for Labour is propose a law change, if public agree and elect you then change the law.

    Smearing your opponents through their family members, whatever you use be it finance, sexual orientation, etc is wrong.

    And it is Labour doing this, not Tories, because there is Starmer on the news smearing Sunak’s wife.
    It’s not a smear. It is simply the case. The facts have been revealed

    And they look awful for a chancellor who is taxing the poor as he benefits from a controversial loophole which allows his wife to earn £:11, MILLION a year and not pay UK tax on any of it

    Jesus. Why didn’t she just renounce her non Dom status when Sunak became chancellor? The poor lamb would be a few million quid poorer. Oh well. She’s still got £700 million left. And he could have gone on to be PM

    Instead they greedily kept all the money and now his career is fucked. Zero sympathy
    Well said , in one word GREED.
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.

    In other words, typical Theresa May.
    It was catastrophic

    Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah

    Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this

    A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
    Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she did
    Worse than that.

    The ERG went batso about the Chequers plan- betrayal, vassaldom, that sort of thing. Had May gone softer than that, there's no way she would have survived. Especially with the spectre of BoJo brooding over her.

    There's a legit desire for the UK to have a Common Market with the EU, without being in the EU. Personally, I don't think it works long-term, because the other 27 generally want closer union faster, and the end point is then 1 orbiting 27 rather than 1 in 28. But that's an argument for the past, and maybe for the future, not for now.

    Once the UK voted the way it did, the only ways to get the autonomy we apparently voted for were either roughly what we've ended up with, the EU changing its market rules to suit us (why should they?) or magic.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,194
    edited April 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.

    That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching

    It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history
    This reminds me of the argument that Mr Meeks used to make about losers' consent. That speech, reinforced by several other things she did, trashed any opportunity for creating any sort of consensus or compromise over Brexit.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,569

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @HYUFD You responded to a post of mine with a typical 'so what ' and 'sneering liberal elite'...

    Surely he didn't do any such thing.
    We're regularly assured that HYUFD is invariably polite and doesn't engage in ad hominem.
    Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!
    Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.

    You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
    It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.

    For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't
    It was a rather unkind joke on two counts, as Benny, the Crossroads character wasn't the sharpest knife in the box. It was however similar remarks which are made about anywhere with small, and potentially inbred, population.
    Contrast and compare Norfolk, especially NW Norfolk, 'jokes"'
    Cameron referred to the turnip Taliban when he was getting pushback from local parties in that region for his A list candidates.

    It’s unpleasant.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    Leon said:

    France, BVA poll. 2nd round


    Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
    Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)



    +/- vs. 30 - 31 March

    Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
    Sample size: 1,015


    May want to check this. I think the numbers are swapped. ie Le Pen is 47%

    https://presidentielle2022.bva-group.com/intentions-vote/intentions-de-vote-vague13-macron-lepen-participation/

    See section Second round: the gap closes
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,984

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    I suspect our superb performance on genomics (and vaccines) tells us more about the quality of our scientific community than about the performance of our PM.
    But then you rapidly fall into the trap that anything that goes right cannot possibly be the government's responsibility, whilst anything that goes wrong is their responsibility. It's not a very grown-up way to view things.
    I think it was Foch who, when asked if he had been responsible for the victory on the Marne, paused and then replied that he was quite certain he would have been blamed for a defeat.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,624
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    MattW said:

    Leon said:

    France, BVA poll. 2nd round


    Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
    Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)



    +/- vs. 30 - 31 March

    Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
    Sample size: 1,015


    Question: Do we get polls in France between Rounds 1 and 2 of the Election?

    (Watching the French coverage, I'm quite surprised how hard they are all chasing the endorsements of previous Presidents - eg Sarkozy - who have jail sentences for criminal activities committed whilst leading politicians. In his case related to campaign finance.)
    Yes there will be loads of polls next week . Once the French have given Macron a kicking in the first round it’s expected that Macron will have a decent second round lead. And of course as we’ve seen from the UK it’s hard to win an election if the over 65s hate you . Le Pens ratings with that group are dismal .

    To be re elected Macron relies on Pecresse voting over 65s switching to him in the runoff yes.

    While to beat Macron Le Pen needs to win over most Melenchon voters.

    Those will be the key swing voters in the runoff, assuming Macron and Le Pen win almost all their first round voters again and the vast majority of Socialist and Green voters switch to Macron and most Zemmour voters switch to Le Pen
    His pension reforms have really hurt him and he’ll need to do something to get more of Mélenchons supporters back on side.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited April 2022



    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.

    You are describing how you would like the UK tax system to work, not how it does work and has worked for many decades. So it's not a 'tax dodge', it's how the system is supposed to work.

    Obviously, it's reasonable to ask whether the law should be changed, but first you need to think about what you are actually saying. Do you really think that someone temporarily resident in the UK (for example, someone seconded by an American bank to work in the City for four or five years), should be taxed on their worldwide income, subject to UK capital gains tax on their US home if they sell it whilst they are here, and their US estate subject to UK inheritance tax if they die whilst they are here? Have you modelled the net effect on tax revenues and the economy of making that drastic change to established UK law?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 37,985

    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.
    She is being attacked for lying that she does not live in the UK so she can take advantage of a law made for ultra rich people like her , whilst her husband beggars half the UK population. If it wlks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,801
    edited April 2022
    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    Heathener said:

    Fishing said:

    Heathener said:

    It is indeed as Milke says an extraordinary story.

    The Sun claims it to be a Labour smear but all the others reckon it is a No.10 hatchet job. It bears all the hallmarks of Johnson's revenge. Oppose him and he will shaft you.

    There is a problem of course with this. And that is that someone like Sunak, or his family and allies, will expose some more of Johnson's many skeletons.

    Regardless of the origins of the story, I suggest that Sunak is now finished as a potential political leader. The idea of a non-dom tax avoiding spouse of a multi-millionaire Chancellor at a time of such huge financial squeeze is just absurd.

    Even one of my most loyal tory friends thinks Sunak is totally unsuitable for the job.

    He is indeed unsuitable for the job, but not because of his wife's tax status. It's his poor management of the economy and pubilc finances and lack of any solution to Britain's long-term economic problems (in particular chronically low productivity outside a few industries and regions and a disastrously over-regulated and volatile housing market) that are the issue.
    I don't disagree with any of those points but I don't think they contradict the personal unsuitability? It's both together imho. This might be a Left-Right point of difference, and some might accuse of me of the politics of envy, but the idea that in the midst of all this incredible squeeze on our finances you should have as Chancellor, or PM, a multi-millionaire ex-banker hedge fund manager with a mega rich non-dom tax avoiding spouse just takes the mick.

    It simply won't wash with the voters. Not at this time. A few on here might say it doesn't matter but all that means is that it doesn't matter to them. I believe that for a significant majority of people this does matter. As I say, a lifelong ultra-loyal tory friend of mine has been telling me for months that Sunak is completely unsuitable.
    The rest is irrelevant fluff.

    Same with whatever parties the PM attended for a few minutes in his own garden.
    But I'm guessing that's because you are comfortably well off. You can afford to think it is irrelevant fluff.

    For most of the rest of this country, often unrepresented on pb's demographic, it really does matter.

    I'm not taking a pop as such. Good luck to you. I'm just saying you are unintentionally out of touch with the nation on this.
    Actually, it is particularly the worst off for whom productivity and economic growth really does matter, compared to parties and the legal tax status of one of the incredibly rich. It determines whether they are in work, or have enough to eat, rather than whether just the size of their bonus or whether they can buy a new Range Roer or Ferrari.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,315

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @HYUFD You responded to a post of mine with a typical 'so what ' and 'sneering liberal elite'...

    Surely he didn't do any such thing.
    We're regularly assured that HYUFD is invariably polite and doesn't engage in ad hominem.
    Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!
    Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.

    You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
    It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.

    For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't
    It was a rather unkind joke on two counts, as Benny, the Crossroads character wasn't the sharpest knife in the box. It was however similar remarks which are made about anywhere with small, and potentially inbred, population.
    Contrast and compare Norfolk, especially NW Norfolk, 'jokes"'
    That of course wasn't really the joke. It was quick response of the soldiers to rename them as Stills. It is also pointless to ignore something that actually happened. We shouldn't be rewriting history for political correctness. It is something those against woke complain about all the time but are happy to do so if it doesn't suit them.

    I really didn't think would have to justify a post that simply demonstrated the soldiers quick wit for being political incorrect from those who complain about woke.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,510
    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    France, BVA poll. 2nd round


    Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
    Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)



    +/- vs. 30 - 31 March

    Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
    Sample size: 1,015


    May want to check this. I think the numbers are swapped. ie Le Pen is 47%

    https://presidentielle2022.bva-group.com/intentions-vote/intentions-de-vote-vague13-macron-lepen-participation/

    See section Second round: the gap closes
    “Fieldwork: April 1”
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    That may be true. But that speech was totally the wrong time to say anything like that.

    That speech needed to be conciliatory and kind, consensual and open. Everyone was watching

    It was one of the most misjudged speeches in recent british political history
    Theresa was not the best prime minister of recent years, I’ll give you that
    She probably had the most personal morality of any PM of recent times though
    I don't think you can say that. I'm not sure about vs Cameron. Brown was a son of the manse and in many (not all) respects, it showed. Blair got into a terrible mess over justification of Iraq but otherwise was on a par with Cameron.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,850
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: just realised the pre-qualifying tosh needs doing this afternoon/evening.

    Truss: got an old bet on her to be next Con leader at 36. May hedge this soon.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,187
    Trudeau announces a ban on foreigners buying some homes in Canada. Although it would exempt permanent residents and foreign students and workers, as well as those buying their primary residence.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61027374
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,152

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.

  • Mike Smithson
    @MSmithsonPB
    ·
    45m
    We have crossover in the next CON leader betting.Liz Truss edges into the favourite slot.
    @betdatapolitics

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1512346250112376832

    So when do the briefings against the Foreign Secretary start?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    Taz said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    kjh said:

    FPT @HYUFD You responded to a post of mine with a typical 'so what ' and 'sneering liberal elite'...

    Surely he didn't do any such thing.
    We're regularly assured that HYUFD is invariably polite and doesn't engage in ad hominem.
    Given kjh's sneers at the Falkland Islanders intellect in the previous thread, it was well deserved!
    Pillock. You referred to them as unsophisticated so I told the story about what the soldiers called the islanders which I was aware of because I knew some of the soldiers and I thought posters here might enjoy the story.

    You often show that you completely misunderstand posts. I was making no point whatsoever. It was just a funny story. Get a life.
    It was a post that disrespected the people of the Falklands, even though at least it might have been a joke on your side.

    For others in the liberal elite like Sir Simon Jenkins, not only do they genuinely think of the islanders as simpletons they also want to give the islands back to Argentina which I accept you don't
    It was a rather unkind joke on two counts, as Benny, the Crossroads character wasn't the sharpest knife in the box. It was however similar remarks which are made about anywhere with small, and potentially inbred, population.
    Contrast and compare Norfolk, especially NW Norfolk, 'jokes"'
    Cameron referred to the turnip Taliban when he was getting pushback from local parties in that region for his A list candidates.

    It’s unpleasant.
    Not quite the same - that (Turnip Taliban) was used to refer to the local squirearchy who were super anti-Brexit. It was punching sideways!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,187
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    I hamfistedly tried to raise this last night and was called 'malevolent idiot'. I probably didn't make the best arguments, for which I apologise, but you are not alone.
    I've some sympathy with both your thoughts on this.
    Given the existence of Non Dom tax status, which doesn't seem to be questioned by either of the major parties, his wife's tax affairs ought not t be a massive political issue.
    (There is the fair point that he ought to have been rather more open in his disclosures about it, as it does constitute a potential future conflict of interest on tax policy, and spouses' interests are a matter for disclosure.)

    Whoever has chosen to brief against him on this, though has done so very effectively, and any protests aren't going to change that. My money would be on either Boris or Truss.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,152
    edited April 2022

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    Applicant said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Best PhD thesis title ever.
    Has it been tested in laboratory, like using mice, so you can say scientifically no?
    I 'think' the first question is naked vs not naked. We've seen the endless debates about masks (to some, literally 'face nappies'), so we'll probably need two PhD studies, not one.
    Will the mice be SPF or not?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,194

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.

    In other words, typical Theresa May.
    It was catastrophic

    Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah

    Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this

    A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
    Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she did
    Worse than that.

    The ERG went batso about the Chequers plan- betrayal, vassaldom, that sort of thing. Had May gone softer than that, there's no way she would have survived. Especially with the spectre of BoJo brooding over her.

    There's a legit desire for the UK to have a Common Market with the EU, without being in the EU. Personally, I don't think it works long-term, because the other 27 generally want closer union faster, and the end point is then 1 orbiting 27 rather than 1 in 28. But that's an argument for the past, and maybe for the future, not for now.

    Once the UK voted the way it did, the only ways to get the autonomy we apparently voted for were either roughly what we've ended up with, the EU changing its market rules to suit us (why should they?) or magic.
    May's plan looks like a reasonable attempt to achieve the impossible and cube all the spheres, but before revealing it did she spend two years leading the country through a debate on the trade-offs and contradictions? Did she explain the responsibilities we still had and the prices that would be paid? Did she lead the country to the realisation that there were no easy answers, but she was the serious politician who could be trusted to find a reasonable way forward?

    No. She did none of that. She spent two years keeping everything secret, pandering to the Brexit extremists, alienating Remain voters. It was an abject failure of leadership.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Applicant said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Best PhD thesis title ever.
    Has it been tested in laboratory, like using mice, so you can say scientifically no?
    I 'think' the first question is naked vs not naked. We've seen the endless debates about masks (to some, literally 'face nappies'), so we'll probably need two PhD studies, not one.
    Will the mice be SPF or not?
    Crikey - gonna need a whole research team at this rate!
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,025
    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    "Earned" is surely being generous when applied to dividends. Did she "earn" the £500m or £1bn in assets perhaps sufficient to generate such a level of dividends by her own hard work? I think not. It irks as an example of the manipulation of language to try and sugar coat the indefensible.

    But that's beside the point. The substantive points I took from Radio 4's coverage this morning are that: 1. we don't know whether that £11m in overseas income was actually routed through Indian taxation (already much lower rates than the UK) or via a series of legal entities through an overseas tax haven (in which case it will hardly have been taxed at all). 2. It's not as though non-dom UK residents don't widely manipulate the sources of their income so that "earnings" are generated abroad as opposed to the UK. While we don't definitively know the scale to which she's using UK laws on non-dom to minimise her taxes, the fact that she's using the key tax vehicle needed to make use of tax havens and paying £30k annually for the privilege does infer that there are huge benefits to her from her choice.

    Sunak may not be directly responsible for her choices, but as her spouse he will personally benefit greatly from the regulations that allow her to make them. He's responsible for those non-dom regulations and yet he had managed to keep all this out of the public domain until last week. So in my mind he deserves all the brickbats he gets for this.

    In political terms, apart from scuppering prematurely Sunak's own prospects (much exaggerated as he was always a lightweight) what matters more is that this moves the theme of Conservatives allowing and benefitting from tax avoidance firmly to the centre of political debate, just at the moment when ordinary people are being absolutely walloped financially. The "same old Tories" charge will be harder to shake off now in the Red Wall.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    malcolmg said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Obviously a Tory shill. Since you appear to be an idiot I will spell it out. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD. Any brain dead moron would know how bad that looks given his position and couple that with fact that they are so rich they would not even notice the difference. Given the greed , tin earred and stupidity why would anyone want that idiot running the countries finances.
    OK, why should the UK Treasuary not to receive tax on money earned in the UK by a UK citizen who happens to (mostly) live in the USA?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510
    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Also note the surveillance of sewage for an indicator of covid rates in towns and cities. Probably one of the easiest ways to keep tabs of population rates (a few tests on sewage vs thousands of lateral flows).
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    biggles said:

    Just seen this green card thing. If he had one as Chancellor then he should be sacked for being monumentally stupid, or unforgivably arrogant, as much as anything else.

    I thought green cards last 10 years and then expire. Is there actually a mechanism to surrender them early?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The wife of the man responsible. Not the woman responsible.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.
    She is being attacked for lying that she does not live in the UK so she can take advantage of a law made for ultra rich people like her , whilst her husband beggars half the UK population. If it wlks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
    She hasn’t said she doesn’t live in the Uk.

    She has said it is her current intention to leave the Uk at some point in the future
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.

    In other words, typical Theresa May.
    It was catastrophic

    Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah

    Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this

    A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
    Keep eating that Turkish Delight. They say it's therapeutic
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,510

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    There is a very moveable line between tax minimisation and tax avoidance and tax evasion. Governments set up schemes to allow citizens to reduce tax (e.g. Isa's, and non-dom status) that are accepted as legal. Sometimes genuine schemes set up for one purpose become corrupted (such as the ploys used by celebrities - stand up Jimmy Carr). And then there are outright illegal schemes.

    As far as I can see, Sunak's wife has complied with the law, unless people feel she is lying about the intention to return to India at some point. Doesn't make it right, but it does comply with the law.

    And as was pointed out last night, the role of her husband in setting whether non dom etc is legal or not is a conflict of interest that could have been avoided.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    Leon said:

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck

    It began when you voted for it
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.
    She is being attacked for lying that she does not live in the UK so she can take advantage of a law made for ultra rich people like her , whilst her husband beggars half the UK population. If it wlks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
    She hasn’t said she doesn’t live in the Uk.

    She has said it is her current intention to leave the Uk at some point in the future
    Similar to that one-time Labour MP who is now (or was until very recently) Governor of the Pakistan bit of the Punjab?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    edited April 2022

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    There is a very moveable line between tax minimisation and tax avoidance and tax evasion. Governments set up schemes to allow citizens to reduce tax (e.g. Isa's, and non-dom status) that are accepted as legal. Sometimes genuine schemes set up for one purpose become corrupted (such as the ploys used by celebrities - stand up Jimmy Carr). And then there are outright illegal schemes.

    As far as I can see, Sunak's wife has complied with the law, unless people feel she is lying about the intention to return to India at some point. Doesn't make it right, but it does comply with the law.

    And as was pointed out last night, the role of her husband in setting whether non dom etc is legal or not is a conflict of interest that could have been avoided.
    Given what we know now, and he did then, accepting the post of Chancellor probably wasn't a good idea.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    edited April 2022

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.
    She is being attacked for lying that she does not live in the UK so she can take advantage of a law made for ultra rich people like her , whilst her husband beggars half the UK population. If it wlks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
    She hasn’t said she doesn’t live in the Uk.

    She has said it is her current intention to leave the Uk at some point in the future
    Similar to that one-time Labour MP who is now (or was until very recently) Governor of the Pakistan bit of the Punjab?
    Yes, or at least in terms of the identification of your chap, not what his intentions are/were): Mr Sarwar pere (Mr S. fils took over his MP's seat and now is MSP and local branch manager for Labour in Scotland).

    https://news.sky.com/story/sarwar-from-labour-mp-to-governor-of-punjab-10438713
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    Domicile is derived from place of birth
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,055
    edited April 2022
    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Flipping eck. I had £25 on no. I was about to post some people are thick and ask for my money, but it looks like I have lost.

    You can catch covid from farts 🤭 But bum masks help to some degree.

    They need to stick naked mice farting on each other and bum pant mice farting on each other in bowl for more info.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000

    malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury. Why she chooses to do this I don't know. Perhaps she can see what's obvious to the rest of us. Under the stewaerdship of her husband and our Prime Minister we are going to Hell in a handcart and like all Tories she first and foremost looks after number 1.
    Earned in India is the key there. If it was earned here and taxed elsewhere I'd agree there's a problem. Specifically for this £11m was it brought to the UK? If not then I don't see what claim Her Majesty's best has on it. There's a potential tax liability building up for her but it wouldn't be realised until the money is actually brought to the UK, which she can simply choose not to do.
    And that is exactly what is happening. She is being attacked for following the law.
    She is being attacked for lying that she does not live in the UK so she can take advantage of a law made for ultra rich people like her , whilst her husband beggars half the UK population. If it wlks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
    She hasn’t said she doesn’t live in the Uk.

    She has said it is her current intention to leave the Uk at some point in the future
    Similar to that one-time Labour MP who is now (or was until very recently) Governor of the Pakistan bit of the Punjab?
    This bloke:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaudhry_Mohammad_Sarwar

    Father of...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anas_Sarwar
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 14,014
    Leon said:

    FF43 said:

    Leon said:

    France, BVA poll. 2nd round


    Le Pen (RN-ID): 53.5% (+7)
    Macron (EC-RE): 46.5% (-6)



    +/- vs. 30 - 31 March

    Fieldwork: 1 April 2022
    Sample size: 1,015


    May want to check this. I think the numbers are swapped. ie Le Pen is 47%

    https://presidentielle2022.bva-group.com/intentions-vote/intentions-de-vote-vague13-macron-lepen-participation/

    See section Second round: the gap closes
    “Fieldwork: April 1”
    FWIW the BVA webpage says fieldwork 6-7 April.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    It’s not a laboratory, it’s a bloody big manufacturing facility. It needs volume of commercial production to make it viable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    "...Horrific images & reports from Kramatorsk train station where state railway company board chairman Oleksandr Kamyshin says more than 30 people killed, 100+ others injured in a Russian rocket attack. 1000s of civilians fleeing the Donbas were there...."
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,025

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    On that basis nothing that's legal is a "tax dodge".

    Imagine a 30 year old on modest earnings working their way up the career ladder and facing huge marginal tax rates as a result of income tax, NI and student loan repayments plus further deductions for pension contributions. And now rocketing fuel bills which the Chancellor has done next to nothing to mitigate.

    Why should they be concerned that in all likelihood they are paying overall marginal rates several times higher than the wife of the Chancellor because said Chancellor is content to maintain tax regulations that makes that outcome legal?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    edited April 2022
    Slovakia to sell 🇺🇦 16x self propelled artillery Zuzana (155mm, 33km range)
    - 2 batteries = 16x vehicle, 200 operators.
    - 1 or more weeks training required.
    - Crew stays inside during ops/firing.

    - https://twitter.com/matosalka/status/1512177964020121608

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155mm_SpGH_ZUZANA
    Uses NATO standard 155mm ammunition, which is important, as apparently Ukraine is running low on ammo for their Soviet era kit.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    So you're stealing tax from those other countries, aren't you?

    See how easy it is to spin something in the worst possible light?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000
    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Sorry, are you saying that if Keir Starmer has an ISA, he's in trouble?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,829

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning everybody.
    I wasn't sure that there was much new to say about the Falklands, but there was an interesting programme on ITV last night about the Royal Marine garrison on the islands who, completely outnumbered and outgunned, were accused by the 'popular press' of not fighting hard enough.
    They were in an even worse position than the defenders of Hong Kong in 1941 but fortunately didn't face such a ruthless enemy.

    Quite.A few score booties (more than usual because of a changeover, but with some detached to S Georgia) plus some sailors and Falklands territorials versus a force of over 20 Amtracs and plenty of Agrentinians.
    As my ex-para mate put it, the crack Argentine invaders and Royal Marines shot at each other for two hours with no casualties on either side.
    Honour satisfied on both sides, the best outcome. I’d guess most battlefield massacres/shooting of prisoners (most of which never reach the public eye) happen after the captors have suffered high casualties beforehand.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck

    It began when you voted for it
    If you are imagining that everything would have been tickety-boo had the vote gone the other way you are in cloud cuckoo land.

    It began, I'd argue, back in 2005/2007, when the EU changed from a trade organisation into a political union.
    Perhaps it actually began with Maastricht back in 1992.
    Perhaps it began when we joined in the 70s.
    Perhaps it actually began in 1957 when 'ever closer union' was written into the text.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    edited April 2022
    Nigelb said:

    "...Horrific images & reports from Kramatorsk train station where state railway company board chairman Oleksandr Kamyshin says more than 30 people killed, 100+ others injured in a Russian rocket attack. 1000s of civilians fleeing the Donbas were there...."

    Reminds me of 1984 where whoever the enemy was fired rockets occasionally and indiscriminately into London. (Allegedly)
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,055

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    Flipping eck. I had £25 on no. I was about to post some people are thick and ask for my money, but it looks like I have lost.

    You can catch covid from farts 🤭 But bum masks help to some degree.

    They need to stick naked mice farting on each other and bum pant mice farting on each other in bowl for more info.
    No spare the mice. I’ve been a good girl and paid up. It was a proper bet, gob on hand handshake and all that.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,933
    kle4 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Rishi's hopes of becoming party leader and PM are dead. But I'm not sure that means he's going to be booted out of No 11 anytime soon.

    Better a wounded chancellor next door than a king across the water on the back benches…to mix metaphors.

    I suspect Sunak will quit politics at the next GE.
    Not so sure. People (ie everyone on PB) are quick to say this or that politician will quit of their own volition. But when does it ever happen. Ans: almost never. Perhaps after BoJo toxified the Cons party and all the normal/sane Cons MPs left.

    Politicians are driven to a degree that we probably can't imagine, making sacrifices, spending huge amounts of time, energy and money, and in many cases simply outlasting those they are competing against (internally) before going on to fight against the other parties which requires them to do it all over again. They give up very rarely; it's not why they became politicians. Those who quit did so while candidates to be PPC.
    A person of Sunaks wealth isnt going to want to eke it out on the backbenches for years, dealing with the petty concerns of normal people in the constituency rather than shaping policy - so I suspect whether he stays on or not will depend how he thinks the Tories will do. If he thinks theyll win he'll stick around as he'll have a chance at a top job under someone. If it looks like 1997 and a long period out of office he'll jump.
    Or the opposite? Surely Sunak's wealth means he can do whatever he likes, which might or might not include remaining in Parliament. Unlike many, he does not need a Cabinet post to keep him in the style to which he has become accustomed.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,624
    Sunaks excuse is his wife will at some point return to India to look after her parents . So he’s trying to suggest that if she became UK domiciled the Indians would refuse to let her return . This is a risible defence .
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Sorry, are you saying that if Keir Starmer has an ISA, he's in trouble?
    Not necessarily but perhaps. Because it is a tax avoidance mechanism. Imagine the two-inch high banner headlines in the Mail - Starmer in Tax Avoidance Shocker.

    By the time people get to the "oh it's only an ISA" part, the damage has been done. Plus I really couldn't tell you how widespread ISAs are. On PB they are something you would be criticised for not having; in the Red Wall? No idea.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck

    It began when you voted for it
    It began when the Europhiles, in their infinite wisdom, denied us a vote on Maastricht.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624
    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    So you're stealing tax from those other countries, aren't you?

    See how easy it is to spin something in the worst possible light?
    It has to fly. That wouldn't even get off the ground.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    Cookie said:

    If you are imagining that everything would have been tickety-boo had the vote gone the other way you are in cloud cuckoo land.

    Perhaps, but we would have been somewhere on the spectrum between that and the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck (sic) we have now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    edited April 2022
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck

    It began when you voted for it
    If you are imagining that everything would have been tickety-boo had the vote gone the other way you are in cloud cuckoo land.

    It began, I'd argue, back in 2005/2007, when the EU changed from a trade organisation into a political union.
    Perhaps it actually began with Maastricht back in 1992.
    Perhaps it began when we joined in the 70s.
    Perhaps it actually began in 1957 when 'ever closer union' was written into the text.
    Given that both the Mail and the Express had delighted headlines that Yes had won in 1975 I'd suggest Maastricht.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Absolutely and thereby it has done irreparable harm reigniting Norman Tebbit's who do you support and where is your loyalty charges against those who are not white, english CoE (as opposed to CotE).
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    On that basis nothing that's legal is a "tax dodge".

    Imagine a 30 year old on modest earnings working their way up the career ladder and facing huge marginal tax rates as a result of income tax, NI and student loan repayments plus further deductions for pension contributions. And now rocketing fuel bills which the Chancellor has done next to nothing to mitigate.

    Why should they be concerned that in all likelihood they are paying overall marginal rates several times higher than the wife of the Chancellor because said Chancellor is content to maintain tax regulations that makes that outcome legal?
    It’s a politically effective attack, and it’s pretty foolish of Sunak - not arguing against that. He did disclose it to the treasury / cabinet office in advance and they cleared it, but that just makes it legitimate, not wise.

    I find it distasteful that a man’s wife is being attacked as a proxy when she has never sought public office.

    There is a perfect reasonable argument (I disagree) that non dim status should be abolished. But Labour isn’t making that argument - they are attacking a civilian for obeying the law.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    Applicant said:

    It began when the Europhiles, in their infinite wisdom, denied us a vote on Maastricht.

    Different "it"

    You can argue the roots of Brexit lie there, but the clusterfuckettyfuck only manifest after the vote
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,855
    Rishi blaming Labour, the hit job is probably a bit closer than that !

    I note there's now a "green card" second echelon starting to emerge..
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    "To be eligible to stand as an MP a person must be at least 18 years old and be a citizen of the UK, a Commonwealth nation, or Ireland."

    Are there similar restrictions around the Governor of the Bank of England?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,783
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    ..

    The Tory talent cabinet is absolutely bare. There is nothing there. This government cannot offer ideas, vision or competence; or much hope. Johnson is the best it has. That’s how bad it is.

    I think that's slightly unfair, since politics is being events-driven at the moment. Covid, the war in Ukraine and the resultant economic woes leaves precious little room for new ideas or vision. The government has to concentrate on sailing these choppy seas.

    And you know what? It hasn't done too badly on Covid, and has been very good with the war in Ukraine.

    As for hope: that depends on the individual. I don't see Starmer singing "Things can only get better," either. He is an utterly uninspiring individual. I'll still probably vote for him over Johnson, though. (local candidates notwithstanding).
    Has Johnson done well in dealing with these shocks?

    On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag

    Ukraine: done well on early supply of weapons, and general enthusiasm for the Ukrainian cause. Poor on refugees. Pass.

    Brexit: he helped create the problem in the first place and has mishandled the implementation since. Fail.

    Cost of living. Complete failure to deal with this issue, exacerbated by Brexit and poor handling of the economic consequences of Covid. Missed chance to do something in the Spring Statement. Other countries struggle with this issue too but their failure isn't quite so total.

    Overall 1½ out of 4
    "On Covid he did well on vaccines, very badly on everything else; overall mediocre compared with West European peers. Mixed bag"

    That's rubbish. As an example we did superbly on genomics - and the fact you choose to ignore that is telling.

    One of the interesting things about the Covid crisis was seeing fools almost salivating over the daily death figures, proclaiming how bad we were. It's a weird form of exceptionalism: people who like to think that we're uniquely bad.
    Johnson wasn't doing the genomics. That's why I left it out of my assessment of his performance. I think we can assume the genomics would have been done equally well if any other prime minister was in charge. I don't salivate over daily death figures, nor do I think the UK is uniquely bad, as is clear from my comment.
    I think you have missed a few things out on both sides.

    eg on the one hand there is various things done putting vaccine infrastructure in place, and BJ largely being kept in his toybox, and much excellent work on green energy which has been continued.

    On the other for example, the national green strategy published the other day has some holes, and the national vaccine centre has just been sold off, which is unforgiveable imo.
    Catalent is a very good operator though.

    I’ve not seen the terms of the transaction but the UK government cares about capacity and pandemic preparedness not about operating a facility

    If the government has;

    - got its capital invested back
    - Has operating, employment and investment commitments from Catalent
    - Has first priority over capacity on the event of a future pandemic
    - Has done kind of golden share to prevent on sale

    Then arguably it’s a very good deal. It’s better for us to have an operating facility bringing money into the country and ensuring a pool of trained staff rather than just a mothballed facility gathering dust in case we ever need it in future
    They may be a good operator, but for me this needs to be about a national resource, and does not belong in the commercial sector as a subunit of a multinational.

    The organisation had the potential to further develop the non-profit strategy of AZ during the pandemic, and encourage the development of local vaccine industries worldwide - which is one of the great things done during the pandemic. Compare with the strategy of the large majority of advanced countries who have tried to land-grab for their local industries.

    It would be best positioned either in the commerce-related part of academe, as a Govt-owned laboratory funded as part of science and also overseas development, or perhaps owned by an organisation such as the Wellcome Trust.

    Those important possibilities have now been snuffed out for a bit of cash.
    Absolutely right. An appropriatde model might be the Royal Ordnance Factories of the 1930s onwards. Some were kept on postwar in state ownership for obvious reasons of ensuring a production basis for future wars.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    He wasn’t very good…
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,152
    edited April 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.

    In other words, typical Theresa May.
    It was catastrophic

    Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah

    Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this

    A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
    Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she did
    There's a legit desire for the UK to have a Common Market with the EU, without being in the EU. Personally, I don't think it works long-term, because the other 27 generally want closer union faster, and the end point is then 1 orbiting 27 rather than 1 in 28. But that's an argument for the past, and maybe for the future, not for now.

    Once the UK voted the way it did, the only ways to get the autonomy we apparently voted for were either roughly what we've ended up with, the EU changing its market rules to suit us (why should they?) or magic.
    I don't believe this "the other 27 generally want closer union faster". The Brussels establishment do. Not sure about the countries.

    Consider the "Conference on the Future of Europe" (leaving aside the conceit about the EU being 'Europe'). As soon as some countries started asking questions about the form of the setup, howls of indignation started appearing.

    Ditto the Euro. 7 countries are required to join the existing 19 (Denmark has an opt-out), yet not one has joined since Li in 2015. They are spinning out the process.

    I think we will end up with a more diverse, flexible EU, or it will become more irrelevant.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    kjh said:

    @leon stop making posts I agree with. It is unsettling me.

    Yes. What the actual fuck was that one about May should have been more inclusive, thoughtful, considered, etc. Absolutely spot on. He is obviously losing it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,568
    edited April 2022
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    Scott_xP said:

    Applicant said:

    It began when the Europhiles, in their infinite wisdom, denied us a vote on Maastricht.

    Different "it"

    You can argue the roots of Brexit lie there, but the clusterfuckettyfuck only manifest after the vote
    If one thinks about it, its was likely from some of the speeches from some of the campaigners.

    But that's being wise after the event.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Ursula heading to Kyiv.

    Top trolling from the EU.

    Maybe Vlad will burst a main artery in his rage?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Nigelb said:

    "...Horrific images & reports from Kramatorsk train station where state railway company board chairman Oleksandr Kamyshin says more than 30 people killed, 100+ others injured in a Russian rocket attack. 1000s of civilians fleeing the Donbas were there...."

    Reminds me of 1984 where whoever the enemy was fired rockets occasionally and indiscriminately into London. (Allegedly)
    1984 or 1984?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,746
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    There was a germ of a reasonable idea in there - stated in the most cack-handed and ill-considered way by someone who thought she understood people not like her.

    In other words, typical Theresa May.
    It was catastrophic

    Imagine if she’d gone the opposite way. Said “we will Brexit but we will not forget that 48% of the country voted Remain and they will also be respected. We want a strong and close association with the EU, our beloved friends and neighbours. This is a time to come together as a country and find a Brexit that can work for as many people as possible, knowing that the country is badly divided”. Blah blah blah

    Lots of stuff like that. No stupid red lines boxing herself in. No triggering of A50 til we had some sense of how we were going to do all this

    A totally different trajectory. A much better outcome. So much less bitterness
    Had she gone for EEA and free movement however, she would have seen a surge to Farage and UKIP and lasted even less time as Tory leader than she did
    Yes. Though EEA/EFTA was obviously the right first step, once everyone had decided that FoM was the hinge upon which the whole thing depended, and that it had to be dealt with RIGHT NOW, then there were no good outcomes, only sub optimal and worse ones.

    The EU should have granted a derogation from FoM at least from the newer entrants.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,772
    TOPPING said:

    On PB they are something you would be criticised for not having; in the Red Wall? No idea.

    Scratchcards are their ISAs.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,829
    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    The really, really stoopid thing is that Rishi could have turned it into a positive: I publicly renounce capitalism and all its works (for a defined period while keeping all that lovely capital) just so I can serve our wonderful country.

    Amateur hour.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290
    IshmaelZ said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...Horrific images & reports from Kramatorsk train station where state railway company board chairman Oleksandr Kamyshin says more than 30 people killed, 100+ others injured in a Russian rocket attack. 1000s of civilians fleeing the Donbas were there...."

    Reminds me of 1984 where whoever the enemy was fired rockets occasionally and indiscriminately into London. (Allegedly)
    1984 or 1984?
    LOL. While the 80's weren't a particularly good decade for me personally (with exceptions) I remember being quite relieved on Jan 1st 1984 that it wasn't as predicted. And even more so in April that the clocks were normal!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185
    Friday’s @EveningStandard #GrandNational2022 #GrandNational #cartoon https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1512369663333830658/photo/1


  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck

    It began when you voted for it
    If you are imagining that everything would have been tickety-boo had the vote gone the other way you are in cloud cuckoo land.

    It began, I'd argue, back in 2005/2007, when the EU changed from a trade organisation into a political union.
    Perhaps it actually began with Maastricht back in 1992.
    Perhaps it began when we joined in the 70s.
    Perhaps it actually began in 1957 when 'ever closer union' was written into the text.
    I think Maastricht was the beginning of the end - it was the first time that Euroscepticism really became a political concept outside of the looniest of fringes. It was also the signal that the political and economic union had become more significant than the common market. It led directly to the spectre of the euro, which in turn led to the rise of the Referendum Party which showed at the 1997 general election that there was a core of people in the country that would vote against The European Project. That in turn led to Blair being too scared to hold a referendum on joining the Euro and Blair and Brown being too scared to hold a referendum on the Constitution and then Lisbon. And those failures to ask the people made it much more likely that when given the chance to press the button, the electorate would press the only button they had.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,358
    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    That explains the high covid levels in Scotland. Kilts!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,969

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    The whole non dom thing is a tax dodge. Of course it is legal. But it is still a tax dodge, a special arrangement for the mega wealthy to avoid paying the same taxes as the rest of us.
    It is sickening that Sunak carps on about balancing the budget, usually in the context of why we can't afford to give people an extra £20 per week so they can feed their children, while his own household plays the system to avoid paying taxes, which they could eadily afford, that might help to balance the budget.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,624

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    Domicile is derived from place of birth
    It means for tax purposes where your permanent home is.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,185

    If one thinks about it, its was likely from some of the speeches from some of the campaigners.

    But that's being wise after the event.

    Lots of people said before the event, if we voted for Brexit it would be a clusterfuckettyfuck.

    And we voted for it.

    And it is.

    But the point at which the clusterfuckettyfuck became a reality instead of a rhetorical instrument was the vote, not May's speech after the vote.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,290

    MattW said:

    Can you catch covid from farts?

    Been there; done that.

    TL:DR - the other person wearing pants/panties helps you not catch it.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7716952/

    A recent study has also suggested post-flush toilet plume to be a potential route of transmission through ‘aerosolized feces’. Another aspect of probable transmission could be through flatulence by infected patients, although no such published data has been found. But, according to several existing investigations, farts do have the tendency to carry micro-particles which have the capacity to spread bacteria (55). However, additional research is still warranted to estimate the intensity of such infections; presence of undergarments/ clothing would however, lower the risk of transmission through this passage. The same was claimed by the Chinese Centres of Disease Control and Prevention that pants do act as a hindrance in the transmission of disease via flatulence that contains the SARS-CoV-2 virus (56).
    That explains the high covid levels in Scotland. Kilts!
    Cue a discussion on what is worn under the kilt!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,052
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    As I said perhaps the most damaging element of this is that it will resurrect the issue of loyalty of (1st, 2nd, 3rd.. generation) immigrants to the UK. Bring back Norman Tebbit.

    You don't have a problem with it is sadly not indicative of there not being a problem.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,315
    edited April 2022
    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    She pays tax.
    Radio 4 did a bit nof a number on her this morning. She earned £11 million in dividends last year in India which will be denied to the Treasury.
    If it's earned in India, how can it possibly be "denied to the [UK] Treasury"?
    Most of us with a share portfolio invest in various different countries but we pay tax on it where we're domiciled. She appears to be living in the UK so she must have chosen to be domiciled elsewhere for some other reason
    So you're stealing tax from those other countries, aren't you?

    See how easy it is to spin something in the worst possible light?
    No you are not. If there is no double taxation agreement you are definitely not. If there is an agreement the tax is still deducted locally and you offset this against your UK tax. The UK will limit the percentage you can offset and the agreement may allow you to reclaim the difference or some of the difference from the local authorities, in which case there maybe some loss to them, but that is usually swings and roundabouts.

    I assume there is an agreement and from what I heard the Indian rate is lower than ours. I haven't read the agreement but I assume that will mean the Indian authorities won't lose out and we will gain more tax as she pays the difference here. I assume that is considerable if she is willing to pay £30K for the privilege.

    I can't claim domicile elsewhere and I have Spanish and Swiss income. The process seems pretty fair to me. My Spanish Income is small, so I don't bother with claiming the excess back from Spain so I am out of pocket by a few tens of pounds. The Swiss income is much more and I do, do so.

    It all seems pretty fair to me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Pulpstar said:

    Rishi blaming Labour, the hit job is probably a bit closer than that !

    I note there's now a "green card" second echelon starting to emerge..

    Green card is worse by sounds of it.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 24,000
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    1. She is a non-Dom which is a perfectly legitimate category but which arouses some suspicion of tax dodging/one rule for them.
    2. She is very, very wealthy.
    3. She is married to the CotE.
    4. Does she owe tax in the UK according to the law? It's complicated.
    5. Is she legitmately a "non-Dom"? See Pt.1.

    If you put all those factors into a bowl and stir you come to the conclusion that it was a hugely idiotic move politically by Sunak to do anything other than have himself and his family pay as much tax as possible as might ever be suggested by the tax authorities.

    Complicated dividend payments held offshore? Nope. Non-dom status for your spouse? Nope. Even ISAs could be used against you, so ISAs? Nope.

    It was a political blunder.

    Yes, exactly. His wife is blameless, provided her claim to non-dom status stands up, but Rishi is toast. It's over (in fact, it probably already was anyway).

    It's not even just the tax aspect, although as we're seeing that's not going down well. It's also the question about his long-term commitment to the UK.
    Apologies if you did answer this last night, but do you think it was wrong to have Mark Carney as governor of the Bank of England?
    No, it wasn't wrong. He was hired for a specific term (later extended), for his expertise, and around the world it's not actually that uncommon for foreign citizens to be appointed to such posts. There was never any suggestion that he was moving here permanently. That's not the same as a politician seeking to become PM, and voters won't see it as the same.
    I disagree. People can have allegiances to more than one country. It really wouldn't bother me if he followed his wife to India in 10 years time or whatever (or if, more importantly, he refused to rule out moving there in the future).
    As I said perhaps the most damaging element of this is that it will resurrect the issue of loyalty of (1st, 2nd, 3rd.. generation) immigrants to the UK. Bring back Norman Tebbit.

    You don't have a problem with it is sadly not indicative of there not being a problem.
    But right now, the "loyalty" issue is only being discussed on PB. Labour sure as hell aren't going there, as then the Tories will, quite rightly, accuse them of outright racism.

    So it comes down to wealth and tax. Does it damage Sunak? Probably. Is it fatal to his chances of becoming PM? I don't think so, though I suspect he has missed his chance.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110

    Applicant said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    I am clearly in a small minority in finding this attack on Sunak based upon his wife's tax affairs completely wrong and frankly a bit ridiculous. So be it. We clearly want a government of people who have done nothing but sip at the public purse, who are financially dependent upon their office and are cravenly obedient as a result.

    The tax affairs of very rich people are always going to be complicated and Mrs Sunak does not hold and has not sought any public office. It remains a completely absurd basis to undermine someone who has.

    As I made clear at the time I thought Rishi's latest financial statement was disastrous. He is open to a range of criticisms for what he did and what he failed to do, especially the latter, and all of that is fair enough. But this wife stuff? Not for me.

    David, you show how real Tories think , me me me , F the plebs. Given they will never be able to spend their dosh in many lifetimes and knowing how bad it would look if the COE's wife was tax avoiding , they are still so greedy they couldn't bring themselves to pay a bit of extra tax for a few years. They prefer to lie and pretend she does not reside in the UK because she wants to be buried in India. Great morals and fantastic judgement, cafring sharing Tories.
    On the contrary, Sunak has come into politics rather than make tens of millions in the private sector which he easily could have done. Some may think that this is ego, some that it is a desire to give public service but either way he sure as hell didn't do it for the money.

    The tax his wife has legally avoided comes from her very substantial holding in an IT company based in India which makes its profits there and trades there. It is part of an even larger holding that her family hold in that business. What right has the UK taxpayer to this money, exactly? It is not invested here, it is not made here and it is not paid here.

    She pays tax on all of the money she makes in the UK which is again considerable. You could argue that as someone now resident here, if not domiciled, that we are entitled to a cut of all her earnings world wide but you can equally argue the reverse and she has complied with the rules. If her residence continues for 15 years she will have to pay that tax on that Indian income but at the moment it is taxed in India where it should be.
    It is indefensible David, a tax dodge for the rich, nothing less. No morals, no principles , just greedy.
    Why should the UK Treasury expect to receive tax on money earned in India by an Indian citizen?
    Because she clearly lives in the UK and her non-Dom status is questionable given her profound ties to this country?

    I'm pretty sure HMT examines claims of non-dom status very closely.

    But my question is more philosophical. Let's take the case of a super-rich Brit who marries an American and moves (mostly) to California but maintains businesses and investments in the UK. Shouldn't HMT get tax on the profits from those businesses and investments?
    If the business is based in the UK then taxes due on the business, eg corporation tax, should be paid to HMT. If the owner is based abroad then tax due on the income disbursed to the owner by the business in the form of dividends, eg income tax, should be paid to the tax authorities of the country the owner is resident in. It really isn't that complicated.
    Sunak's wife is a British resident, and so HMT should be able to tax her global income, including dividends paid to her from India. Non-dom status is simply a tax dodge. As she is the wife of the man responsible for administering the tax system, it is simply staggering to me that she has chosen to avoid paying taxes in this way.
    The problem it’s not a “tax dodge” it is a specific category that HMT has created for people in her situation. It’s the moral equivalent of an MP “dodging taxes” by investing via an ISS
    On that basis nothing that's legal is a "tax dodge".

    Imagine a 30 year old on modest earnings working their way up the career ladder and facing huge marginal tax rates as a result of income tax, NI and student loan repayments plus further deductions for pension contributions. And now rocketing fuel bills which the Chancellor has done next to nothing to mitigate.

    Why should they be concerned that in all likelihood they are paying overall marginal rates several times higher than the wife of the Chancellor because said Chancellor is content to maintain tax regulations that makes that outcome legal?
    It’s a politically effective attack, and it’s pretty foolish of Sunak - not arguing against that. He did disclose it to the treasury / cabinet office in advance and they cleared it, but that just makes it legitimate, not wise.

    I find it distasteful that a man’s wife is being attacked as a proxy when she has never sought public office.

    There is a perfect reasonable argument (I disagree) that non dim status should be abolished. But Labour isn’t making that argument - they are attacking a civilian for obeying the law.
    No, they aren't.
    I listened to Thornberry on R4 this morning, and the point of attack was the Chancellor's less than forthright prior public disclosure of a potential conflict of interest.
    The questions they now have relate to that.

    FWIW, my belief on this was had Sunk publicly disclosed this in detail when first appointed to the cabinet, it would likely have been a minor issue. "Getting it cleared by the cabinet office" is not at all the same thing - particularly when we're not entirely clear what 'it' is.

    (And btw, abolishing "non dim" status seems like an impossible task to me.)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,690

    Leon said:

    As a non-dom, can Mrs. Rishi vote for Mr. Rishi?

    Yes. Domicile and Residence are different things.
    There should be No Representation Without Taxation!
    Why am I hearing this, echoing in my head?


    "If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere. You don't understand what citizenship means."

    She was taking to task the rootless managers of British businesses who behaved "as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road".
    She was making an important point but was howled down by people determined to take offence because they wanted a cheap nanny from Romania
    No, it was pointlessly and gratuitously insulting to a lot of people who like to this they are “internationalist” at a time when the country needed healing and concord over Brexit. She also alienated the EU even further

    What did she gain by sounding like Farage? I’m a soft Leaver and I like to occasionally feel like a citizen of the world. She pissed me off so god knows what she did to Remainers

    That whole speech was the beginning of the Brexit clusterfuckettyfuck
    It was poorly expressed.

    But there is a group of people who float around the world (sometimes literally) paying minimal tax and free riding off countries without making a contribution to the local community

    That behaviour is not meritorious
    I had lunch the other day with a group of retirees from my former employer. One of them spends his time travelling between several homes so he does not end up tax resident anywhere. He looked exhausted.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,855
    I think Rishi will stay as chancellor, Boris knows he's no threat for the top job now so will give him full backing. Which means his only serious threat is now Liz Truss, and I'm not a Tory MP but I'd be wary of moving to stick her in as PM - which all means Boris has probably sown up the top job at least till the next election for himself.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,110
    TOPPING said:

    kjh said:

    @leon stop making posts I agree with. It is unsettling me.

    Yes. What the actual fuck was that one about May should have been more inclusive, thoughtful, considered, etc. Absolutely spot on. He is obviously losing it.
    That's a bit like saying Boris should have been more honest.
This discussion has been closed.