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!

@Notcreativeatall

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

He will make decisions that actively benefit him and his wife's financial affairs. That is a serious problem.

"Who knows? Definitely multi millionaires. I haven't looked for more blind trusts etc. I am not HMRC!"

To be fair I suspect most MPs are richer than Johnson. Having almost 10 children and divorcing an angry wife after cheating on her miltiple times must be expensive.

@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!

I have been appalled at the misogynistic reporting. Being a wife she should do what her husband tells her to do with her income.

1. The Chancellor correctly declared her status etc. in 2018 -why has it taken journalists 4 years to report this? If it had been reported in 2020 when he was announcing furlough schemes etc. would it have been reported in the same way?
2. She has broken no laws, I have used legal tax avoidance measures such as ISAs and paying pension contributions out of gross salary for decades, how many others do the same? Am I as guilty, is everyone who uses legal tax avoidance guilty? How about those who pay cash in hand to avoid VAT?
3. These days women are legally allowed to have their own incomes and investments, there is no legal requirement to couple themselves financially to a man. Do we really want to go back to a time when women need a man’s signature to get a mortgage (father or husband). Her money her business.
4. If we disagree with the current tax rules then use the ballot box to bring in a government that will change the rules. I believe everyone should receive all their income via PAYE even directors, sole traders etc. this way the tax is deducted at source then claimed back - there would be a riot but much fairer. As money becomes more and more digitised it’s much easier to track.
5. Jealously/envy is also playing a major part in responses - if his wife was a cleaner working cash in hand no one would care.

It's utterly utterly wrong that she's done this. He's the bloody chancellor for God's sake! If they don't pay taxes who will? And its no good saying that they are married but her financial affairs are seperate - no one believes that, not even HMRC (see the child benefit rules this government brought in!)

This is exactly like the No. 10 parties and Barnard Castle - one rule for the elite and one for everyone else. Its just such a massive pity, because it undermines people's faith in government, democracy and politicians, and so damages our country even further.

@BigGreenSpacehopper

Yes exactly *@JaniieJones*, the bills have to be paid. Yes it’s annoying, we are all going to suffer but how exactly are we going to pay for over £100bn of cost for the furlough scheme without a raise in taxes? And for context, a windfall tax would bring in £1.2bn or 1% of that.

The windfall tax could have eased our personal fuel bills- look at France! Tories have done well to sell the narrative that nothing is down to them. There’s no magic money tree but we all have to find one

So one of the pre-requisites to be Chancellor is to be 'poor'?

It's a job very few want and has been described as "The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man whose duties make him more or less of a taxing machine. He is entrusted with a certain amount of misery which it is his duty to distribute as fairly as he can."

Mrs Sunak's permanent home is considered outside of the UK and, although she is still liable for UK tax on income made in this country, she does not have to pay UK tax on foreign income unless it is brought into the UK.

Indian currency (Rupee) is an Internal Currency which is worth little on world markets because it is unstable. There are also very strict rules about taking Rupees in or out of India, maximum amount is £25,000 rupees. = about £250.

This is a non-story. I know quite a few Indians who could be classed as millionaires in India but have a modest lifestyle here because of the reasons above.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

Whatever else I'll say about Labour I suspect they'd have more sense than to hire a billionaire to be chancellor and then act all surprised when it turns out to be bad politics when he raises taxes.

Really? You do know that both Starmer and Corbyn are far richer than Johnson?

And you might like to look at the personal wealth of the current Shadow Chancellor Rachal Reeves. Also richer than Johnson. And maybe have a lool at her husband too!

Sorry - wtf has that got to do with anything?

Are their spouses claiming non-dom status??

If not, this is irrelevant to this discussion. If so, let's hear it.

Just because you vote Tory doesn't mean all you have to do is point at someone else in another political party and we will all get distracted.

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I have no doubt this dirt was dug up to end Sunaks PM dreams- but the dirt is there!!!! Vile pair

It's interesting timing, but I do think the billionaire wife thing was going to prevent him from being PM as soon as the cost of living crisis kicked in, even if she weren't a non dom. Far too easy to paint him as out of touch. He's missed his slot now, I think.

Wow this is the same clown that said all men are rapists. I bet you would defend Margaret thatchers relationship with pinochet based off of her sex?

If rishi was gay and his husband was in the same tax situation we would all be saying the same.

When you are the spouse or partner to one of the most important persons in the whole of the UK. Then of course your tax affairs should be scrutinised.

Pretty sure if the police commissioners partner was found involved in technically legal, but socially dubious practices the general population would want to know about it.

Part of being in politics is being in the public spotlight. The same way celebrities have to expect a certain level of media attention wherever they go.

Rishi sunak trying to deflect completely reasonable questions around his families tax dealings as sexist is demeaning to those actually facing sexism on a regular basis.

@Silverclocks

It's not about his wife's individual tax position. It's about the fact that he presides over a system that allows his family to benefit so much whilst increasing taxes for other people.

Nail on head.

Really you think if his wife was a cleaner working cash in hand people wouldn’t care

They absolutely would care because he is a higher earner himself. Not everyone is sympathetic to those who need cash in hand jobs but many are but they draw a line at who is in need and who isn’t

If rishi was gay and his husband was in the same tax situation we would all be saying the same.

Mmm, I very much doubt him being married to a non-dom male billionaire would've been well received in the current climate either.

@SleeplessInEngland

"Who knows? Definitely multi millionaires. I haven't looked for more blind trusts etc. I am not HMRC!"

To be fair I suspect most MPs are richer than Johnson. Having almost 10 children and divorcing an angry wife after cheating on her miltiple times must be expensive.

True

I don’t need a chancellor to have grown up poor but I need one who knows how to use a chip n pin machine - there’s a level of richness that is so out of touch

He reminds me of Mr Burns from The Simpsons - instead of going to the trouble of changing his bed sheets, he just presses a button which burns the whole bed to a crisp and then a new bed pops out of the wall. It's funny in fiction....

Anyone defending Rishi Sunak and his wife Akshata needs to examine themselves and their moral compass.

This stinks to high heaven on so many levels.

It’s neither sexist nor racist. I’d be more than happy to come riding to their defence if there was even a hint of these.

What they have done is shameful.

Tax policies and benefits in the UK take account of household income and circumstances. It’s not at all unusual in public office or certain businesses for your spouses financial dealings to be part of your moral and legal considerations.

Lmao yeah, I can well believe Boris has cash flow issues bearing in mind he's got about a million kids. Plus an ex wife who he shat all over and who also happens to be a top barrister!

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

Whatever else I'll say about Labour I suspect they'd have more sense than to hire a billionaire to be chancellor and then act all surprised when it turns out to be bad politics when he raises taxes.

Really? You do know that both Starmer and Corbyn are far richer than Johnson?

And you might like to look at the personal wealth of the current Shadow Chancellor Rachal Reeves. Also richer than Johnson. And maybe have a lool at her husband too!

Corbyn and Srarmer both pay UK tax. And if they're really richer than Boris, it's only because his assets are hidden in trusts. Corbyn is worth about £3m, much of which is his MP's pension. Is Johnson really worth less than that?

Regardless, this is not about people being rich, it's about avoiding tax on their riches and about non dom status, which neither Corbyn nor Stamer use.

So one of the pre-requisites to be Chancellor is to be 'poor'?

Don't be ridiculous. They don't have to be poor...but they appear to rich on a mega scale. They aren't just well off...they are seriously seriously rich by the sounds of it. How on earth can he relate to or understand normal people?!

Domicile invariably is your place of birth
Despite not owning assets, deriving any income from the UK and living abroad from nearly three decades, Richatd Burton‘s domicile – to all intents and purposes – never moved away from the Welsh valleys.

As a famous film star, he wasn’t accorded special privileges. And, from a tax perspective, neither are the rest of us. We all start out with a domicile and it’s usually our place of birth and from where our parents originate, remaining so until we die.
It can be contested, with difficulty, e.g. if you come from non-British parentage. This may enable you to be domiciled elsewhere, but for anyone with British mothers and fathers, the process is a whole lot harder.

If HMRC believes you don’t have a case for being domiciled elsewhere, 40% of one’s estate will be taken in IHT. (Inheritance Tax)

These days women are legally allowed to have their own incomes and investments, there is no legal requirement to couple themselves financially to a man. Do we really want to go back to a time when women need a man’s signature to get a mortgage (father or husband). Her money her business.

Women are also required to accurately declare and pay tax on those incomes and investments.

Either you have no money of your own and leave 'all of that sort of stuff' to your husband or you do have financial independence, but then are responsible for managing it like a responsible independent adult. We can't have it both ways.

@HRTQueen

Really you think if his wife was a cleaner working cash in hand people wouldn’t care

They absolutely would care because he is a higher earner himself. Not everyone is sympathetic to those who need cash in hand jobs but many are but they draw a line at who is in need and who isn’t

There's nothing wrong with a cleaner working cash in hand. Most won't earn enough to make tax due

Is she actually here more than 90 days a year ? Because if she is my understanding was that she couldn’t register as ‘non dom’ for tax purposes? I may be wrong. Personally whilst what they have done is legal (and it’s strange on mumsnet people always talk about money as ‘family money’ ) it suddenly becomes’her’ money when it’s about a woman or daring to criticise a Tory. Can you imagine the hoo ha from press and right wingers if this was Keir Starmers wife— its not exactly in the spirit of ‘we are all in this together’ — and I would bet my last pound that she doesn’t pay the bulk of her taxes in India.

So one of the pre-requisites to be Chancellor is to be 'poor'?

There's poor (as in on the bread line, heat-or-eat situation) and poor (as in can only afford one yacht).

I hear all the women's lib bits, but who here would not benefit from having a rich spouse? No way can we imagine that her wealth does not benefit Sunak.

Non-dom needs to go. It only benefits rich people. They have quite enough benefit in their lives already.

@carefullycourageous slow down a bit. Don't make such assumptions. I got my Labour membership card on my 18th birthday. Sent it back just before I turned 50 and chose to spoil my last ballot paper rather than vote Tory.

If you can't see that the fact that all of our major politicians seem to be multi millionaires is part and aparcel of what is and is not being highlighted here then you need to think again.

And I have already explained what I think of Sunak and what should be being looked at. I am not a partisan poster. I have been politically homeless for about 7 years now. And that rankles as I have always been politically active. Now I don't even have a choice locally, they are all utterly bobbins!

@OnlyFoolsnMothers

I actually feel way more angry about the likes of (elected) Rees-Mogg who has offshore companies and directly benefitted from Brexit, and others like him Rees-Mogg isn’t chancellor !!!

But Rees-Mogg is elected and she is not.

It's too simplistic to just get angry at Murty. By doing so the public are playing exactly into Johnson / Truss's hands.

Murty has followed the law and her husband declared everything. The laws need to be changed so that you can't have non-dom status or we have a wealth tax (not something the Tories would ever do obvs). Murty may be morally wrong, and politically naïve but we need to be angry at their entire system, not one woman.

I can't believe I'm defending them as a Labour voter, but honestly I think the public need to apply a little bit of critical thinking here instead of the explosive emotive reactions on here - tabloid fuelled and playing into Johnson's hands brilliantly.