To pay the govt 30k to avoid paying 4million?!

[Blinkingbatshit]

Sorry - please can someone explain to me how this works? So, the chancellor’s wife (Mrs Sunak) has apparently paid £30k to be registered as a non dom so she then doesn’t have to pay the govt £4million(!!!!) in tax🤷🏼‍♀️ - I just don’t get on what level this should ever be ok, let alone if you’re married to a serving minister….who is in charge of supposedly making sure everyone is taxed fairly!! WTAF. What fools we are to allow this sort of total bollocks to take place whilst more people than ever are relying on food banks. If they shouldn’t feel total shame someone tell me why!!! - Surely there’s a finite time you can remain if you have no intention of staying in the Country and are using this to (MASSIVELY) reduce your tax bill?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4523749-Rishis-wife-does-not-pay-tax-millions-on-dividends
@Blinkingbatshit, read this thread, it explains it quite well within the first few pages.

If she is paying £30k annual charge my understanding is that any money she then brings into this country she would also have to pay tax on

Agree. It’s a national disgrace and he should absolutely not be Chancellor now this has come out.

The loophole only lasts 15 years, she has lived here since 2009 I think, maybe before 2024 they may go back to live in India or end up paying nearly 50% tax. He is a multi millionaire too.

How do you think India would feel if she stopped paying tax there?

I would think they need it more than we do tbf.

Didn't she move here in 2013? Regardless, I don't see the problem in paying tax where the money is earned. Isn't that what we all complained about Amazon not doing?

@Justkeeppedaling

How do you think India would feel if she stopped paying tax there? I would think they need it more than we do tbf.

They both have been very careful to avoid saying WHERE she pays tax on her Indian dividends.

He is on record as saying that she pays "international tax".

What the heck is international tax ???

The Cayman Islands at a guess ....

I bet after 15 years as a NonDom she'll suddenly decide to stay here saved herself a literal fortune not paying tax to this country for the first 15 years.

Yes it's legal but in their position its moral and unethical.
Screwed his chances of ever becoming PM.

Why is it that it's always the people with millions of pounds that are always trying to pay less tax than everyone else?

@Justkeeppedaling

How do you think India would feel if she stopped paying tax there? I would think they need it more than we do tbf.

Does she pay in there.... many do the non dom thing to then register in a tax haven. It never clarified on the news where she was actually registered.

Personally if you live in a country then you should pay tax there.

It's just the ridiculously rich who CAN AFFORD to pay the tax that avoid it. It's morally wrong.

@Charlize43

Why is it that it's always the people with millions of pounds that are always trying to pay less tax than everyone else?

It's greed. Immorality. Selfishness. etc etc

Screwed his chances of ever becoming PM

This country voted in Boris Johnson. I don’t think he’s screwed his chances at all.

This is a rule that applies to all rich Indians who reside here. It’s because the UK and India have a tax agreement & the UK (like many other countries) decided to let India be the one to take the tax returns for obvious reasons. Indian Tax is really high and she would def have paid her share in those.

The arguments against her are just racist claptrap from ignorant ppl who dont understand how the tax system works.

The whole of Boris' government, including Boris, is corrupt as f*ck.
Yet people keep voting for them. I despair.

@Ozanj

This is a rule that applies to all rich Indians who reside here. It’s because the UK and India have a tax agreement & the UK (like many other countries) decided to let India be the one to take the tax returns for obvious reasons. Indian Tax is really high and she would def have paid her share in those.

The arguments against her are just racist claptrap from ignorant ppl who dont understand how the tax system works.

That’s assuming she is registered as being domiciled in India, which I suspect she isn’t!

Apparently another benefit of her non-dom status, regardless of whether she rescinds it after the 15 yrs, is that the Sunak children will also avoid inheritance tax eventually.

Some people are saying we would all do the same if we could (I def wouldn’t), and that we shouldn’t judge him on his wife’s dealings; as a single Mom, if I were to claim benefits (fortunately I don’t need to at the moment), they would be very interested in my ‘household’ income and if I then moved a man in, his income would affect what I was entitled to regardless of the children not being his. Rishi Sunak’s ‘household’ benefits from her financial decisions, so he should open to being included in the judgement.

But hey-Jeremy Corbyn would’ve been worse 😤

She's not breaking any law. People quite legally transfer their personal tax allowance to a spouse so they can save paying some tax. Is that immoral? Should they be castigated for doing that?

@BlueOverYellow

The whole of Boris' government, including Boris, is corrupt as f*ck. Yet people keep voting for them. I despair.

There's nothing corrupt about having non dom status.

The Chancellor's wife using these tricks to avoid paying tax? Immoral.as.fuck.

But the bootlickers will insist it's absolutely fine and there's nothing to see here.

If this is you, OP, then perhaps be careful what you and your DH say around Priti, Michael, Liz and Carrie.

Otherwise, don't look up a Churchillian approach to tax compliance.

Non doms and the remittance basis has been a thing since I qualified in the late 80s. In fact, the charge only came in more recently- possibly in the last 10-15 years?

What she is doing breaks no rules from the information we have. What it does is emphasise again what this Government is like. She has a choice and, in her position, you'd expect her to go the extra mile to pay more not less and, of course, she would still be Iiving very comfortably.

However, she doesn't have to and there appears to be no movement on the part of the Chancellor to appreciate the rule requires a change. Just as there's little movement on partygate. Or the contracts to their mates.

We have the Government we (not me ) voted for and cannot expect any different from them. It is their view they are different and can act differently and pay a smaller burden percentage wise. It's built into their psyche.

I hope enough people see this and vote them out at the next opportunity.

Sometimes being legal shouldn’t be the only standard.

Lots of self-employed men pay themselves a low wage to avoid paying for their children, and I have a very rich friend (Husband owns a business) who does the same and still is able to claim child benefit as they are technically under the £60k threshold. All this is legal but is bit of a shitty thing to do

I don’t know where we lost our standards of holding MP’s to account. People seem to like behaviour that makes these Eton-type politicians ‘more like us’ and doing things we might be tempted to do, yet judge people like Angela Raynor for actually being working class and having a regional accent-and for actually being one of us

@Kezzie200

Non doms and the remittance basis has been a thing since I qualified in the late 80s. In fact, the charge only came in more recently- possibly in the last 10-15 years?

What she is doing breaks no rules from the information we have. What it does is emphasise again what this Government is like. She has a choice and, in her position, you'd expect her to go the extra mile to pay more not less and, of course, she would still be Iiving very comfortably.

However, she doesn't have to and there appears to be no movement on the part of the Chancellor to appreciate the rule requires a change. Just as there's little movement on partygate. Or the contracts to their mates.

We have the Government we (not me ) voted for and cannot expect any different from them. It is their view they are different and can act differently and pay a smaller burden percentage wise. It's built into their psyche.

I hope enough people see this and vote them out at the next opportunity.

Agree 100% @Kezzie200

I hope you all follow the same morals and never pay a tradesman cash in hand or receive cash in hand for any service.

I never pay cash in hand and my cleaner was a bit put out when she asked for cash in hand rather than bank transfer. If I did, I would be lining both our pockets by enabling her to tax avoid.

It's just the ridiculously rich who CAN AFFORD to pay the tax that avoid it

That’s not true. Most tradespeople I have employed want cash in hand. Why do you think that is?