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

[BigGreenSpacehopper]

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!

That isn't what I meant. I was referring to the fact that everyone, media, here etc, refers to her as "Sunak's wife" - she has a name. It isn't Mrs Sunak. I find it odd, depressing.

i can't get excited about it. Most people wouldn't recognise her name if they didn't say "Sunak's wife" nobody would know who she was and why it's an issue. This isn't "Well known man's name's wife got a gold medal at the olympics" territory is it? The only reason this is a topic of conversation is the fact that she is married to the man who sets the rules that allow her to continue to do this. (well played her, by the way, well played)

Companies had to pass on the furlough money to the employees, so if anyone should be repaying money, it's the employees who benefitted not the employer!

nope. The employee furlough scheme was expressly designed like it was (80% of full salary IIRC) so that the companies didn't simply fire everyone and then they would have to suddenly claim benefits. That would have really fucked things up in a big way. So the companies passed that money on, and in return they didn't have to close their companies or didn't have to try to rehire everyone they'd fired previously or replace them, at a cost of course.

Companies at the time were begging for help to survive. If they then "survived" to the point that they could then pay dividends, the moral and ethical thing would be to return the furlough money, or at least some. Companies used the furlough period in a some cases to streamline and improve. And of course so many of the self employed were completely shafted while others just lived the high life on their dividends.

Furlough wasn't simply government largesse just for the sake of it.

[quote Eleganz]@FreddyVoorhees

She lives here, she should pay tax here. Really rather simple. The non-dom status has been a problem for a long time and has regularly risen to the surface from time to time in the public consciousness when people are reminded that our tax rules allow rich people to pay a fee to claim they don't really want to stay here permanently so should be able to avoid millions in tax. We have no idea what her tax affairs are in India and shouldn't have to care because she should be paying tax here.

The behaviour and affairs of the spouse of a senior government minister are in the public interest, Mr Sunak and his wife both know this.

Personal wealth is not a requirement to be Chancellor of the Exchequer and has no bearing on how well one performs the role. Claiming that it is is bizzare and still no justification for the state of affairs.

What Labour did it didn't do in power is no justification for why the non-dom status should exist in our tax code nor why individuals who are clearly fully resident here with obvious evidence of their domicile (family ties, children educated here, etc) are allowed to pretend they are not for years on end to avoid tax.

So this freebie for the wealthy needs to be removed and if the Chancellor's wife is the agent for that change then so be it.[/quote]
You'd be happy with a bankrupt Chancellor then?

Labour not doing it does make a difference. If it's not worthy of change during your Government is it that much of a problem when you're in opposition.

It's not a freebie for the wealthy. She pays tax. In her own country.

She is not flying a flag of convenience such as the Seychelles (like the Guardian utilised to avoid Capital Gains Tax).

We don’t know that she pays tax in India either.

“Sunak gave India only as an example, leaving open the possibility that Murty may have paid the tax in a tax haven where no taxes would have been due.” The Guardian

I also question her non dom status. Is the UK really only a temporary residence and not her “natural home”?

Probably not if Labour/a Labour coalition are in government.

If so we have a Chancellor making far reaching decisions for a country that he plans to leave permanently in a relatively short time. That’s pretty relevant information to the electorate.

Could be worse - some people in Brussels making far reaching decisions for a country they have never lived in. Don't vote for the Lib Dems if you are worried - they want to rejoin the EU.

I'd also point out that for all Labour's noise on the issue, they've been more than happy for the non dom rules to exist throughout all of their periods in Government.

Indeed - are Labour pledging to hand back the £5 million plus they received in donations from Indian steel magnate (and non-dom) Lakshmi Mittal?

In the meantime, I see that shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves had a little telling off by the parliamentary commissioner for standards last week;

order-order.com/2022/04/01/shadow-chancellor-did-break-commons-rules/

I did think listening to this "debate"on radio this morning that there was pleanty that Rishi Sunak has done in his role that can be criticized.

I have to also admit some of the comments from Labour about his unelected wife do add to the whole feel that Labour is quite misogynistic.

At same time I don't think have a obviously rich chancellor at this economic time is great optics and it's interesting timing in the Tory party with leadeship murmuring.

But either there's an issue with Non dom status - and these men should also be called out as they have actual positions of influence or there isn't.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

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

Yep,

Greed. Pure and simple and wrong. He is the chancellor, raising NI contributions for the poorest in society whilst a family member doesn't bother to pay the tax that she should.

The loophole should be closed for both men and women.

are Labour pledging to hand back the £5 million plus they received in donations from Indian steel magnate (and non-dom) Lakshmi Mittal?

That’s a red herring because it’s a totally different issue but are the Tories going to return the donations from Russian oligarchs?

It seems both of them had a US Green Card until 2020 declaring that the US was their permanent home and requiring them to pay US tax on worldwide income.

Who is behind Sunak?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/08/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-us-green-cards

You have to declare your partner/spouses income for tax credit and universal credit purposes even if in reality you are financially independent of each other. People go to prison for basically what Sunak suggests is no ones business but his wifes. It's not Mysogyny to point this out. What they are saving with this non Dom scheme is peanuts to them as billionaires.

[quote Clavinova]I also question her non dom status. Is the UK really only a temporary residence and not her “natural home”?

Probably not if Labour/a Labour coalition are in government.

If so we have a Chancellor making far reaching decisions for a country that he plans to leave permanently in a relatively short time. That’s pretty relevant information to the electorate.

Could be worse - some people in Brussels making far reaching decisions for a country they have never lived in. Don't vote for the Lib Dems if you are worried - they want to rejoin the EU.

I'd also point out that for all Labour's noise on the issue, they've been more than happy for the non dom rules to exist throughout all of their periods in Government.

Indeed - are Labour pledging to hand back the £5 million plus they received in donations from Indian steel magnate (and non-dom) Lakshmi Mittal?

In the meantime, I see that shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves had a little telling off by the parliamentary commissioner for standards last week;

order-order.com/2022/04/01/shadow-chancellor-did-break-commons-rules/[/quote]
Labour policy at last election was to abolish non-dom tax treatment.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a bit of Labour bashing.

www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-politics-labour-nondom-idUKKBN1W60FZ

@Volhhg

You have to declare your partner/spouses income for tax credit and universal credit purposes even if in reality you are financially independent of each other. People go to prison for basically what Sunak suggests is no ones business but his wifes. It's not Mysogyny to point this out. What they are saving with this non Dom scheme is peanuts to them as billionaires.

Good point - and the Sunaks are living in social housing.

That’s a red herring because it’s a totally different issue but are the Tories going to return the donations from Russian oligarchs?

Are Labour going to return donations from the 'Chinese spy'?

'Greed. Pure and simple and wrong. He is the chancellor, raising NI contributions for the poorest in society whilst a family member doesn't bother to pay the tax that she should.'

The 'poorest' on benefits won't pay anyway and the threshold for ni has been raised so those on lower incomes won't pay from July. He had to do something to pay for the massive pandemic debt.

She does pay the tax she should. In the UK on her UK income, in India on her income from India. Why aren't people understanding this?

He is the chancellor, raising NI contributions for the poorest in society

From April 2022, anybody earning more than £9,880 a year will pay 1.25p more in the pound.

From July 2022 the point at which employees start paying NI will increase to £12,570.

Combining those two measures means that in the 12 months from April 2022, anyone earning less than about £34,000 will pay less NI than they did last year. Anybody earning more than that will pay more.

An employee on £20,000 a year will pay £178 less NI in 2022-23 than they did the previous year.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58436009

@Clavinova

That’s a red herring because it’s a totally different issue but are the Tories going to return the donations from Russian oligarchs?

Are Labour going to return donations from the 'Chinese spy'?

I asked first. You have no answers other than whataboutery and copy and paste @Clavinova.

As the wife of the chancellor, especially at a time when things are so tough for so many, they should be applying some logic and not making the decision to save themselves millions while others can’t eat.

I can’t find a way to look at it which doesn’t make it completly immoral

Clavinova can you raise a family on 35k given the current costs of living? Oh I see 35k rich, Rishi Sunak and his wife just a little bit wealthier than most….perlease
Clearly she’s not a non dom- her life is here- the tax rules are disgusting and they as shady as they come

@Sirzy

As the wife of the chancellor, especially at a time when things are so tough for so many, they should be applying some logic and not making the decision to save themselves millions while others can’t eat.

I can’t find a way to look at it which doesn’t make it completly immoral

Exactly- paying her fair share of tax wouldn’t affect their lifestyle at all- the £50 a month they’ve taken from me and the next to nothing energy help means for my family our standard of living is dropping!!!

@JaniieJones

'Greed. Pure and simple and wrong. He is the chancellor, raising NI contributions for the poorest in society whilst a family member doesn't bother to pay the tax that she should.'

The 'poorest' on benefits won't pay anyway and the threshold for ni has been raised so those on lower incomes won't pay from July. He had to do something to pay for the massive pandemic debt.

She does pay the tax she should. In the UK on her UK income, in India on her income from India. Why aren't people understanding this?

People understand it just fine, not sure why you think they don't. Indeed she does pay the tax she should as the system is geared to appease the rich.

Oh dear, the thread has degenerated into posting Guido Fawkes links.

@Iggly

YABU

It’s literally a requirement of being a minister that you declare interests.

It is, and he did.

I'm no fan, but let's at least get the facts straight.

@Wnkingawalrus

If I earned that much money and was married to somebody at the heart of government. You can bet I would be wanting large chunks of it helping to pay the poorest and most marginalised.

You have no idea what she does with her money. There are plenty of people in need in India. Maybe she prefers to focus her philanthropic efforts in her country of birth.

You are deluded.

What she does is tax arbitrage on a global scale. This costs many ££ millions.

Cycles dividends through many different countries and regulatory regimes, so in the end she likely pays close to 0% effective tax on her "earnings".

Does that sound to you like a person who actually cares about the average person in society?

People have the pitchforks out because she has been playing both ends against the middle, for her own benefit. In India, she had the power and influence to get away with it. UK? Not so much. Public opinion matters, specially the optics.

The chickens have truly come home to roost.

Stick a fork in Sunak. He is done now.

'Indeed she does pay the tax she should as the system is geared to appease the rich.'

The system is geared to pay tax in the country earned in this case.

Tax laws are annoying. I loathe tax dodgers who work off shore for example. but what you can you do. It isn't the person's fault for living within the tax rules.

That is separate to Sunak needing to increase NI to recoup the costs of the pandemic.

'Stick a fork in Sunak. He is done now.'

Oh maybe we could have several threads called 'the fall of Sunak' like the tedious Bozo ones. Look how that went.

@Clavinova

That’s a red herring because it’s a totally different issue but are the Tories going to return the donations from Russian oligarchs?

Are Labour going to return donations from the 'Chinese spy'?

I agree Clav, once Ms Lee has been prosecuted and shown to actually be a "Spy" then all monies should be returned but as i understand it, she has committed no crime whatsoever.

Sunak's wife's family are strong backers of Modi... and who does Modi support?
Putin, the man who orders the killing of women and children in Ukraine, whose soldiers rape to death women and children, who today killed 39 at they waited at a train station, who wrote "for the children" on the air burst missile.

The Sunaks are benefiting from tax loop holes he himself will not close (saving themselves millions) so when you get your paltry £150 of your CT bill (whilst it went up £220 p.a.) or hear about the latest Russian war crime... consider what these people really think about us.