Sunak - The Tax Cutting Chancellor

Mexboroseasider said:
Yes. The whole point of leaving the EU was that we could remake the country and find our own way in the world. The points you make, along with what happened with P&O, is part of that debate.

What sort of country do we want not be? What’s important to us as a nation? What are our principles?

The direction of travel is pretty clear and shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone who has read “Britannia Unchained”. But we haven’t yet had any real debate about all these important issues. And I don’t suppose “the powers that be” really want us to.
Click to expand...
We have encouraged any kind of wealth to flow into our country, both by turning a blind eye to how it was obtained (oligarchs for example) and by giving tax advantages to the super rich through things like non-dom status. This has effected our society in many ways, for instance one knock on effect is the rise in property prices as the global super rich gradually buy up luxury properties where-ever they can be found in the UK. This displaces the local population and prices them out of inner city areas, forcing low-paid service workers to live miles from their place of work. Is this really a good thing? You may feel rich as a result if you are on the property ladder but you may also feel sad that your children stuck in the hamster wheel of paying exorbitant rent are probably counting the days until you die so that they can buy a place. What ever happened to government being for us, the people and looking after our interests rather than the interests of the world's wealthy elite.
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
She doesn't have UK citizenship because India don't allow dual nationality. She has opted to keep Indian citizenship but lives here all year round and has successfully applied for non dom status. She's also avoiding exactly where she pays tax on the £500 million she gets in dividends from her Dad's business. It would be 40% tax here, 20% in India, but the suggestion is 5% in the Caymans.

All in this together.

PS Non domiciled would indicate not living here but she has been here since 2005. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Is she an economic migrant?
 
seasideone said:
Sunak did not make the rules on this!

A simple question.....

Do you think....

A/ People should pay tax on anything they earn globally in the country they live?

Or

B/ Pay taxes in the country where the money is derived from?

Interested in your opinion?
Click to expand...
My opinion is that you should pay tax to the country you live in. You take the benefits from it so you should pay your percentage back.

The £30K she pays is chicken feed in comparison to what she would have to pay on her £11.5 million dividend.

IMO unearned income should also be taxed at the highest possible level.

Even though what she is doing is within the law the vast majority of the country will feel it's simply greedy and synonymous with the current government who appear to just look after the high earners.

The law needs to be changed.
 
This story is getting murkier by the hour... I think Bozo is trying to do Rishi down, by knee-capping him politically.
www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak ‘was declared permanent US resident’ while being chancellor of UK

Chancellor and his wife reportedly had US green cards which require tax to be paid in US
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak and his wife were legally declared to be "permanent US residents" while he was chancellor of the UK, it has been reported. The claim comes after The Independent revealed that the Chancellor's spouse Akhshata Murty has non-domiciled status despite residing in Downing Street – potentially letting her off the hook for around £4.4 million in tax last year alone.

Now Sky News reports claims that the Downing Street couple held US "green cards" permitting them residence in the United States until more than a year into his chancellorship.

Holders of the green card are required to file US tax returns on their worldwide income – and also to make a legal commitment to "make the US your permanent home".
 
The Cabinet seem to be chewing each other up like rats in a sack... who could have known about Rishi’s U.S. Green Card status while Chancellor other than his accountant, the PM, security services and the Chief Whip? This Govt seems totally dysfunctional.
 
Hertsseasider said:
Princess Nut Nuts at work I think......
Click to expand...
No coincidence that this story hits the headlines on the day of the NI increase. According to some, internecine war within the Conservative party is worse than it ever has been. Is this a return to the Brown / Blair dynamic where the chancellor was apparently briefing against the PM and vice versa? So much for the national interest.
 
Archibald Knox said:
The Cabinet seem to be chewing each other up like rats in a sack... who could have known about Rishi’s U.S. Green Card claim while Chancellor other than his accountant, the PM, security services and the Chief Whip? This Govt seems totally dysfunctional.
Click to expand...
It's a fatal blow to Sunak's chances of becoming PM IMO. Well executed it has to be said and as mentioned the timing is entirely deliberate.
 
The narcissistic spoilt baby in No.10 has been feeling threatened by Dishy Rishi, especially since the Chancellor failed to support him in the media over “Partygate” earlier this year. Rishi was thought to be quietly encouraging the Tory MPs to knife Bozo and obviously lining himself up as the new PM.
 
Last edited:
seasideone said:
It's irrelevant.

She pays 30k plus any tax on any UK derived income.

She pays her tax on dividends elsewhere.

Pretty much everyone on this board uses tax avoidance schemes (pensions, ISAs for example), she did not make the law and in fairness nether did her husband.

These schemes have been around for years, and not one country can really change the global tax law (maybe US can) or precidents.

I would not be against the world sitting down (yeh right) to change it all - but singling out one person for operating legally is wrong.

To paraphrase one of the live debates between Clinton and maniac Trump...

Hillary: You have been avoiding tax for years and it's wrong.

Trump: I just follow the rules you lot made, if you didn't like them - why didn't you change them, you have had enough time??
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the hypocrisy, we may use tax avoidance however we're not in charge of the treasury.

The chancellor can whinge all he likes about 'targeting his wife' Bit he doesn't strike me as a stupid man so surely must realise this is a legitimate news story in the same week NI contributions have risen.

It would be massively remis of the opposition not to play this up and he knows it.
 
Last edited:
Archibald Knox said:
This story is getting murkier by the hour... I think Bozo is trying to do Rishi down, by knee-capping him politically.
www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak ‘was declared permanent US resident’ while being chancellor of UK

Chancellor and his wife reportedly had US green cards which require tax to be paid in US
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

Rishi Sunak and his wife were legally declared to be "permanent US residents" while he was chancellor of the UK, it has been reported. The claim comes after The Independent revealed that the Chancellor's spouse Akhshata Murty has non-domiciled status despite residing in Downing Street – potentially letting her off the hook for around £4.4 million in tax last year alone.

Now Sky News reports claims that the Downing Street couple held US "green cards" permitting them residence in the United States until more than a year into his chancellorship.

Holders of the green card are required to file US tax returns on their worldwide income – and also to make a legal commitment to "make the US your permanent home".
Click to expand...
Read that this morning, looks dodgy. How can they make the US their permanent home, when they live in the U.K.?
 
hampshire_exile said:
Well I do understand what domicile of choice means in tax terms. Choice is the key term here.

Ms Murthy could, if she so wished, choose to say that she had permanently settled in the UK for the rest of her life, and that her domicile had shifted to the UK. At that point she would become taxable in the UK on her worldwide income. That would be the means by which she would pay the maximum tax in the UK, although her non-UK income would still be subject to the relevant double tax treaty between the UK and where ever the income arose.

Many people choose to say, “well I haven’t decided yet” as to whether they have permanently settled in the UK. That enables them to continue to claim non-domicile status in the UK and avoid paying UK tax on their overseas arising income. This tactic can be Income tax effective for around 15 tax years, until the Income Tax legislation deems them to be UK domiciled on the basis that they have been UK tax resident for this period.

There is nothing wrong with taking the approach outlined in the above paragraph. However, it sticks in the craw that someone who has moved to the UK, married someone in high office and is very well connected, is unwilling to take steps to pay tax on her worldwide income. Still doubtless some of you will disagree. To which I say - who the fuck is going to pay for our hospitals and schools?
Click to expand...

You make some interesting points, and I fear we're wandering off into an area where even an expert would tread carefully, I'll make some general observations:
  • AFAIK none of us has seen Ms Murthy's tax returns or any other relevant documentation, that applies to the journalists as well, everything that has been said is speculation based on her nationality;
  • you reference double taxation treaties and implicitly double taxation relief, thus you recognize that her income arising abroad will have been taxed abroad, it is far from clear how much additional tax would be due in the UK is she were treated as domiciled in the UK;
  • it is not known how much of her income has been remitted to the UK, it is thus not known how much of an effect her domicile would have on her UK tax liability;
  • it is not known if in fact she has opted to be taxed on the remittance basis;
  • domicile is a common law concept almost unique to UK law, for the few other countries that do have the concept I don't know if it is relevant to their tax laws or not;
  • most case law, AFAIK, concerns establishing a domicile of choice outside the UK;
  • it is not a simple case of stating one's intention to leave the UK permanently, there needs to be a wider severing of ties that demonstrates an intention never to return;
  • we do not know what her future intentions are, it could be that she plans to leave the UK at some point in future, in which case she would not be UK domiciled.
Now some positives:
  • children normally inherit the domicile of their father, thus her children are UK domiciled, thus, subject to residence, they will be within the UK tax system;
  • the couple married in 2009, thus regardless of all other factors, it is likely that she will be deemed domiciled in the UK in a couple of years anyway.
It's worth noting in passing, that the 15-year rule is new and was introduced in 2017, so the changes that will ultimately bring Ms Murthy within the UK domicile rules were introduced by a Conservative government.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You make some interesting points, and I fear we're wandering off into an area where even an expert would tread carefully, I'll make some general observations:
  • AFAIK none of us has seen Ms Murthy's tax returns or any other relevant documentation, that applies to the journalists as well, everything that has been said is speculation based on her nationality;
  • you reference double taxation treaties and implicitly double taxation relief, thus you recognize that her income arising abroad will have been taxed abroad, it is far from clear how much additional tax would be due in the UK is she were treated as domiciled in the UK;
  • it is not known how much of her income has been remitted to the UK, it is thus not known how much of an effect her domicile would have on her UK tax liability;
  • it is not known if in fact she has opted to be taxed on the remittance basis;
  • domicile is a common law concept almost unique to UK law, for the few other countries that do have the concept I don't know if it is relevant to their tax laws or not;
  • most case law, AFAIK, concerns establishing a domicile of choice outside the UK;
  • it is not a simple case of stating one's intention to leave the UK permanently, there needs to be a wider severing of ties that demonstrates an intention never to return;
  • we do not know what her future intentions are, it could be that she plans to leave the UK at some point in future, in which case she would not be UK domiciled.
Now some positives:
  • children normally inherit the domicile of their father, thus her children are UK domiciled, thus, subject to residence, they will be within the UK tax system;
  • the couple married in 2009, thus regardless of all other factors, it is likely that she will be deemed domiciled in the UK in a couple of years anyway.
It's worth noting in passing, that the 15-year rule is new and was introduced in 2017, so the changes that will ultimately bring Ms Murthy within the UK domicile rules were introduced by a Conservative government.
Click to expand...
I could get bogged down in technical arguments on some of the things you say (for example she has, by claiming non- Dom status actively chosen to pay tax on the remittance basis).

However most other people reading the thread will have long since lost the will to live.

So, let’s cut to the chase. Do you think it is morally right that the wife of the Chancellor is making a conscious decision to actively limit her exposure to UK tax.
 
Lost Seasider said:
You make some interesting points, and I fear we're wandering off into an area where even an expert would tread carefully, I'll make some general observations:
  • AFAIK none of us has seen Ms Murthy's tax returns or any other relevant documentation, that applies to the journalists as well, everything that has been said is speculation based on her nationality;
  • you reference double taxation treaties and implicitly double taxation relief, thus you recognize that her income arising abroad will have been taxed abroad, it is far from clear how much additional tax would be due in the UK is she were treated as domiciled in the UK;
  • it is not known how much of her income has been remitted to the UK, it is thus not known how much of an effect her domicile would have on her UK tax liability;
  • it is not known if in fact she has opted to be taxed on the remittance basis;
  • domicile is a common law concept almost unique to UK law, for the few other countries that do have the concept I don't know if it is relevant to their tax laws or not;
  • most case law, AFAIK, concerns establishing a domicile of choice outside the UK;
  • it is not a simple case of stating one's intention to leave the UK permanently, there needs to be a wider severing of ties that demonstrates an intention never to return;
  • we do not know what her future intentions are, it could be that she plans to leave the UK at some point in future, in which case she would not be UK domiciled.
Now some positives:
  • children normally inherit the domicile of their father, thus her children are UK domiciled, thus, subject to residence, they will be within the UK tax system;
  • the couple married in 2009, thus regardless of all other factors, it is likely that she will be deemed domiciled in the UK in a couple of years anyway.
It's worth noting in passing, that the 15-year rule is new and was introduced in 2017, so the changes that will ultimately bring Ms Murthy within the UK domicile rules were introduced by a Conservative government.
Click to expand...
Phew, that's alright then.

Perhaps you can clarify...Is she non-dom because she pays her taxes in India or in the USA?
 
hampshire_exile said:
So, let’s cut to the chase. Do you think it is morally right that the wife of the Chancellor is making a conscious decision to actively limit her exposure to UK tax.
Click to expand...
  1. We don't know if that is the case;
  2. Baron Tomlin established the principle in 1936: "every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be".
Is there a reason that the wife of the Chancellor should be taxed differently to anyone else in her position?
 
What sort of country do we want not be? What’s important to us as a nation? What are our principles?

Obviously, we want to be a patriarchal society in which the super-rich from all over world are invited to buy all our big assets on which they can pay no tax by off-shoring that liability to somewhere where taxes are not collected. This then gives us the ability to rule ourselves by keeping lots of our citizens in destitution then blaming them when we think we are being exploited. We are now free to elect law makers to form Governments peopled by the upper-classes, tax-exiles and rich citizens of other countries who use their powers to benefit themselves and their friends at our expense.
Aah, the blessed freedom of Brexit. Makes you want to watch an old war film about us plucky Brits up against Johnny foreigner.
 
Lost Seasider said:
  1. We don't know if that is the case;
  2. Baron Tomlin established the principle in 1936: "every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be".
Is there a reason that the wife of the Chancellor should be taxed differently to anyone else in her position?
Click to expand...
gfycat.com

Harry Enfield - Tory Boy.flv GIF | Gfycat

Watch and share Harry Enfield - Tory Boy.flv GIFs on Gfycat
gfycat.com gfycat.com
 
And people have been complaining vociferously about Haz and Megs buggering off to live in California...who are politically powerless. While at that time the member of the Government who controls the UK’s economy was beholden to the US Government to pay his taxes to !!! Talk about failed loyalty, it’s more treasonous than H&M.

Let’s not forget that until a few years ago, Bozo also had US citizenship as a result of being born there and only ditched that when the Yanks sent him a tax bill following the sale of one his houses in London. You really could not make all this up.
 
Lost Seasider said:
  1. We don't know if that is the case;
  2. Baron Tomlin established the principle in 1936: "every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be".
Is there a reason that the wife of the Chancellor should be taxed differently to anyone else in her position?
Click to expand...
1. No one in Sunaks corner has denied she has made a claim for non-Dom status. They have had ample opportunity to do that

2. I am well aware of that quote thanks. I am not saying that by claiming non-Dom status she is doing anything illegal. However, as I have said, by claiming non-Dom status she wants the best of both worlds ( lots of access to connections in the UK, but pay no tax in the UK on overseas income).

Lots of people do that: I believe that the wife of a senior Government minister who has overall responsibility for the introduction of tax legislation should not be one of them.

Mark_GT said:
£30k wouldn't buy her a handbag mate.
Click to expand...
 
hampshire_exile said:
1. No one in Sunaks corner has denied she has made a claim for non-Dom status. They have had ample opportunity to do that

2. I am well aware of that quote thanks. I am not saying that by claiming non-Dom status she is doing anything illegal. However, as I have said, by claiming non-Dom status she wants the best of both worlds ( lots of access to connections in the UK, but pay no tax in the UK on overseas income).

Lots of people do that: I believe that the wife of a senior Government minister who has overall responsibility for the introduction of tax legislation should not be one of them.
Click to expand...

Is anyone in Sunak's corner ITK about her tax affairs?

Is there any reason why she should be taxed differently to anyone else in the same position?
 
hampshire_exile said:
1. No one in Sunaks corner has denied she has made a claim for non-Dom status. They have had ample opportunity to do that

2. I am well aware of that quote thanks. I am not saying that by claiming non-Dom status she is doing anything illegal. However, as I have said, by claiming non-Dom status she wants the best of both worlds ( lots of access to connections in the UK, but pay no tax in the UK on overseas income).

Lots of people do that: I believe that the wife of a senior Government minister who has overall responsibility for the introduction of tax legislation should not be one of them.
Click to expand...
And that's the point.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Is anyone in Sunak's corner ITK about her tax affairs?

Is there any reason why she should be taxed differently to anyone else in the same position?
Click to expand...
Lost Seasider said:
Is anyone in Sunak's corner ITK about her tax affairs?

Is there any reason why she should be taxed differently to anyone else in the same position?
Click to expand...
As I said in my previous email, because she is the wife of the Chancellor who determines tax policy. And again she makes a conscious decision to claim non-Dom status.

Enough
 
Lost Seasider said:
So essentially, anyone who has a foreign wife cannot be a politician.
Click to expand...
give up.
Any politician can have any wife or husband. But they cannot be seen to be gaining an unfair tax break especially at a time when so many are struggling and your husband happens to be CoE.
I'm surprised that you are not rowing back on this given that it is now widely accepted that the leak came from no. 10 Downing street. Do you think it is wrong for the PM's office to leak information about other cabinet ministers in order to undermine them? It's just that you seemed incensed when you thought it was the Labour Party. It must all be very confusing.
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
give up.
Any politician can have any wife or husband. But they cannot be seen to be gaining an unfair tax break especially at a time when so many are struggling and your husband happens to be CoE.
I'm surprised that you are not rowing back on this given that it is now widely accepted that the leak came from no. 10 Downing street. Do you think it is wrong for the PM's office to leak information about other cabinet ministers in order to undermine them? It's just that you seemed incensed when you thought it was the Labour Party. It must all be very confusing.
Click to expand...
So you believe the wife of the CoE should be treated differently (and worse) to other people?

I personally think that's prejudice!!
 
Democracy at it’s finest, anyone can become a politician in this country or America…just as long as your a multi millionaire…😎
 
seasideone said:
So you believe the wife of the CoE should be treated differently (and worse) to other people?

I personally think that's prejudice!!
Click to expand...
I think that the non-doms tax rules should be scrapped.
The perception is that, like the Downing Street parties, there is a different set of rules and laws for the political and financial elites. This fundamentally undermines trust in our democracy.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think that the non-doms tax rules should be scrapped.
The perception is that, like the Downing Street parties, there is a different set of rules and laws for the political and financial elites. This fundamentally undermines trust in our democracy.
Click to expand...
That's fine thinking that - but to think someone is different is prejudice.
 
I think all the money and assets of everyone living in the country should be taken by the government and distributed evenly across the population.

I’m sure I’ve seen this before
 
Matesrates said:
I think all the money and assets of everyone living in the country should be taken by the government and distributed evenly across the population.

I’m sure I’ve seen this before
Click to expand...
...and within a couple of years or so the distribution would be close to somewhere like it was before.
 
I always wondered why Sunak supported Brexit as he seems quite rational.

Obviously the EU trying to take an aggressive stance regarding tax evasion in off-shore tax havens will have not been his (& his wife's) motivation.
 
Giro said:
It’s more about morality, not legality.
Click to expand...
Yep. David Cameron having a go at Jimmy Carr about his tax avoidance schemes comes to mind. Not illegal but morally wrong. Cameron was right then so I will expect him to be publically criticising Sunak and his wife.
 
Lost Seasider said:
So essentially, anyone who has a foreign wife cannot be a politician.
Click to expand...
Not saying that. But I think I’m right in saying that MPs can’t have non Dom status?

So there is an argument that family members of MPs - or maybe just ministers who have influence - shouldn’t be allowed to have non-Dom status either? There’s a clear conflict of interest.
 
She has just made all those apologists look pretty foolish.

Now, can the Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer be permanently resident in another country, indeed, what are the rules for elected MPs?
 
Ok
Tangerinemoss said:
She has just made all those apologists look pretty foolish.

Now, can the Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer be permanently resident in another country, indeed, what are the rules for elected MPs?
Click to expand...
😂 😂 😂

Lost - This is a matter of principle!!!!!. I shall go down fighting for the right of the Chancellor’s wife not to pay tax on overseas earnings.

Oh. Really? She’s caved in?

😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top