Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Rishi Sunak’s wife is NOT elected OR in a public role but she is a woman

903 replies

BigGreenSpacehopper · 08/04/2022 09:05

Have you noticed that Zac Goldsmith (elected), Mark Carney (role of significance to all of us as Govenor of the Bank of England), 4th Viscount Rothmere (controlling shareholder and Chair of the Daily Mail) all have non Dom status but no mention is really made. However, a woman, who has no public role, has never said anything public, is being criticised for her non Dom status?

And yes she’s getting massive dividends but I imagine as it’s family money there is a massive pre-nup in place so it’s not like Rishi will be able to run off with it!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
OnlyFoolsnMothers · 08/04/2022 09:07

I think it’s different sorry- he just made decisions that made life unbearable for millions and his family pot of money is overflowing and underpaying- I feel no sympathy for either of them

Juggle42 · 08/04/2022 09:09

And yes she’s getting massive dividends but I imagine as it’s family money there is a massive pre-nup in place so it’s not like Rishi will be able to run off with it!

I don't disagree with you. But for me, it's not about whether or not it's his money. At the end of the day, I don't want someone like him deciding we can manage on minimum wage with increasing bills and NI and all the rest when it's very clear he hasn't the foggiest regardless as to who's money it is, his family is so far removed from reality that's it's actually insulting that's he's the one in charge of telling others what they should and should be able to live off.

Unocard · 08/04/2022 09:09

This is not a sexism thing. It’s disgusting. He’s caused so many people unimaginable suffering with his policies.

Juggle42 · 08/04/2022 09:10

Should & shouldn't*

SleeplessInEngland · 08/04/2022 09:10

Carney was never planning to live in the UK for long - his residence was only for the job, and now he doesn't live here.

Mind you given how unpopular the Sunaks are I doubt they'll spend much longer in the UK either now.

Bikeybikeface · 08/04/2022 09:10

@OnlyFoolsnMothers I agree, it’s not that she’s a woman but that she’s the chancellors wife. It’s him under fire more than anything. Taxing the British people into poverty while not applying the same moral courtesy to his own personal dealings. It’s disgusting.

scaevola · 08/04/2022 09:11

Mark Carney is a little different, as he is
a) former holder of that role, not current
b) Canadian and with a career there until he came over for a few years here,
c) not elected.

If his constituents knew about Goldsmith's financial status and elected him anyhow, there there's nothing much that can be done.

And yes, agree that it approbrium should be heaped more on the holders of the jobs/roles than their spouses. Independent taxation was hard won.

Waxonwaxoff0 · 08/04/2022 09:12

No, it's because her husband is Chancellor of the Exchequer and makes financial decisions that affect us all.

Mischance · 08/04/2022 09:14

The difference is that Sunak has just placed thousands of people in a heat-or-eat situation.

I find the whole non-dom thing iniquitous - apparently you qualify if you are planning to go back to your country of birth "one day." How can this be right?

witheringrowan · 08/04/2022 09:14

Goldsmith gave up his non dom status in 2009.

HRTQueen · 08/04/2022 09:16

Interesting this has come out now …..

Well Boris Johnson is safe from any leadership challenge for him

JassyRadlett · 08/04/2022 09:16

And frankly, no one was even slightly interested until Infosys decided to keep operating in Russia after the invasion (now reversed that decision) and she decided to defend it/keep her shareholding - thus tacitly supporting the decision.

At the time a lot of businesses were taking a financial hit to get out of Russia, and ordinary people were paying (and will pay) huge amounts due to the costs of the war particularly on oil and gas prices.

She wasn't the only rich person to be criticised for not divesting from Russian-linked investments or operations.

And the statement she put out was just such total bullshit, it's massively inflamed the situation by conflating tax residency with citizenship. If she hadn't lied, she'd be in less trouble now.

LordEmsworth · 08/04/2022 09:17

Bollocks.

I don't care that a woman is a non-dom. I do care, very much, that the chancellor of the exchequer is married to someone who is non-dom, and has not declared that he has a personal interest as a result, he still benefits from "family money".

I have no issue with her actions. I have a lot of issues with his. He has made decisions, and is in a position to make them happen, that directly benefit his wife, his family, and himself; and hidden that potential influence from the public. Saying "oh she makes her own choices" does not negate the fact that he makes his own choices as well. And he's made some bloody bad choices.

Silverclocks · 08/04/2022 09:17

Aren't the sums involved much greater for Mrs Sunak (is that the name she goes by?)

Yes, I agree in principle that it's her issue not his, but his family/household benefits at a time he's increasing taxes for everyone else. If he hadn't done that it wouldn't have been raised in this way (as it hasn't until now).

I do think she needs to declare where she is paying tax. If she's paying tax in India, as an Indian citizen, on Indian businesses, that seems reasonable to me. If, as I suspect, it's all in some tax haven, that's different altogether and it's the Chancellor's actual job to close those loopholes IMO, so it is relevant that he's facilitating a system that allows his family to benefit.

HardyBuckette · 08/04/2022 09:17

The financial affairs of the Chancellor's spouse are of clear public interest. Trying to downplay that simply looks ridiculous.

Bornsloppy · 08/04/2022 09:18

So it's fine to tax millions of lower earners more, plunge 1.5m into actual poverty, do nothing about increasing energy bills while the Chancellor of the Exchequer benefits from his wife's tax arrangement?

If it's sexist to call that out, then I'm happy to be called a sexist.

Notcreativeatall · 08/04/2022 09:18

I don't agree with non-dom status full stop.

He is benefiting from her non-dom status- in the same way he was benefiting from her investment in a company that invests in Russia.
It feels he can make decisions on tax etc without it actually impacting him

JohannSebastianBach · 08/04/2022 09:18

Mark Carney doesn't live in the UK now. Viscount Rothermere doesn't set government financial policy.

It's because she lives in the UK and is married to the chancellor. It's pretty hypocritical, do as I say not as I do.

Sartre · 08/04/2022 09:19

Difference is she’s married to the chancellor, a chancellor who has raised NI and forced people into a situation where they either pay to stay warm or pay to eat. In 21st century Britain. So yeah, her being a seedy fuck is going to come into question and has nothing to do with her being a woman.

PastMyBestBeforeDate · 08/04/2022 09:20

Sunak is in charge of the Exchequer. He sets the tax rates. His wife has legally avoided paying any tax on massive dividends. He benefits from that untaxed income.
It's a simple conflict of interest for him. This isn't really about her, it's about him.

Patchbatch · 08/04/2022 09:20

@LordEmsworth

Bollocks.

I don't care that a woman is a non-dom. I do care, very much, that the chancellor of the exchequer is married to someone who is non-dom, and has not declared that he has a personal interest as a result, he still benefits from "family money".

I have no issue with her actions. I have a lot of issues with his. He has made decisions, and is in a position to make them happen, that directly benefit his wife, his family, and himself; and hidden that potential influence from the public. Saying "oh she makes her own choices" does not negate the fact that he makes his own choices as well. And he's made some bloody bad choices.

Well apparently he did declare it and they weren't bothered which says a lot. I suspect lots of money floating around MPs families is similar, they're not arsed. Absolutely smacks of being a smear campaign, but similarly although she is doing nothing wrong it does sting when he, in his role, has inflicted misery to millions of families. Ew.
ancientgran · 08/04/2022 09:20

@SleeplessInEngland

Carney was never planning to live in the UK for long - his residence was only for the job, and now he doesn't live here.

Mind you given how unpopular the Sunaks are I doubt they'll spend much longer in the UK either now.

I think Carney's situation was what the non dom rules were aimed at. Not people who marry and settle here, have a family here.
SueSaid · 08/04/2022 09:21

I'm not sure what folk are so riled about. She pays tax in this country on her uk income, she pays tax in India on her income there.

The fact they are rich is irrelevant, I can understand people are jealous but it all reeks of racism and misogyny and the fact is it's all legal.

Sunak has had to make tough financial decisions because we've just paid lots of people's wages in furlough for 2yrs. It's got to be repaid somehow. Do we think Mrs Sunak is responsible for the costs of the pandemic?

Comedycook · 08/04/2022 09:22

I don't think having a chancellor who is so rich is a good idea....how can he have any concept or idea of what life is like for a person on minimum or even average wage, let alone benefits?

Silverclocks · 08/04/2022 09:23

@JaniieJones

I'm not sure what folk are so riled about. She pays tax in this country on her uk income, she pays tax in India on her income there.

The fact they are rich is irrelevant, I can understand people are jealous but it all reeks of racism and misogyny and the fact is it's all legal.

Sunak has had to make tough financial decisions because we've just paid lots of people's wages in furlough for 2yrs. It's got to be repaid somehow. Do we think Mrs Sunak is responsible for the costs of the pandemic?

Does she? They haven't confirmed that. If she does pay tax in India, I agree, but as she hasn't said that, there's a strong suspicion that it's all in a tax haven somewhere.

If Mrs Sunak paid the tax due on her earnings, other taxpayers would carry significantly less burden. That's the whole point.