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!

Disagree. Would be the same if Theresa May's husband was non-dom and she'd just introduced NI increases etc

@HardyBuckette, telegenic? Really? I’m one who never understood the fan club about him being dishy Rishi. I also never saw him as a future PM. But I cannot imagine any current politician as potential PM.

Sorry, but I think YABU

This doesn’t strike me as sexism

I’m sure people would complain about a husband of a chancellor (if we ever had a female or gay male chancellor) having non dom status, especially if they were this rich!

@SmellyOldOwls

This did make me laugh from Private Eye

Haha very good

It is his economic and financial knowledge and skills that are important not his bank balance.

increasing NI which targets the poorest when the economy is fragile isn't great skills imo

@SmellyOldOwls

This did make me laugh from Private Eye

[quote Thesefeetaremadeforwalking]@LordEmsworth

The Sunaks own 3 homes in the UK and a holiday home in the US. Her permanent home "is considered" by whom exactly to be outside the UK?

Please read my post about tax laws in UK

And are you seriously, seriously suggesting that because the rupee is unstable, a fortune estimated at £690 million - pounds, not rupees - is "modest"?!

Please read my reply.
It doesn't matter what the 'fortune' is calculated to be in basic terms.
If the money can't be taken out of India it's not worth anything ![/quote]
Please read my post about tax laws in UK
I did. I still disagree with you. You mean her "domicile" is in India, I mean most people would consider her "home" to be the UK or US given those are the countries where she spends her time and has a family. She could choose to switch her "domicile" to match her "home", she has chosen not to. I'm not saying that's not legal, I am saying it shows how shitty the rules are.

She owns 4 homes in the UK & US worth an estimated £15 million. To describe that as "a modest lifestyle" is frankly insulting.

If the money can't be taken out of India it's not worth anything !
Seriously??? £690 million in India is worth £690 million in India, and she is free to move there to make use of it. I cannot accept that she is actually sitting frowning at her energy bills and wondering whether she can really afford all 4 types of bread for different family members.

You can say as much as you like that they're a regular, average-income, normal family with the same money worries as everyone else. That doesn't make it true...

@JaniieJones

'I don't think having a chancellor who is so rich is a good idea....'

It is his economic and financial knowledge and skills that are important not his bank balance.

I think its quite good, surely shows he can manage money. He clearly isn't doing it for the salary is he.

Pretty sure there are plenty of financial analysts out there who are just as competent in terms of economics and yet are still not obscenely rich.

How is it good that he is as rich as he is? How is he likely to understand the plight of the poorest and most marginalised in society? His policies already show he doesn't have a clue about how hard real life is.

I think the idea that someone's wealth denotes how hard they have worked is absolutely stupid. I tend to look at where people get their wealth.

If the majority of your wealth comes from labour then sure the argument is there that it shows you have worked your are off to get the things in life that you want.

If you derive most of your wealth from capital (rishis wife gets her wealth from dividends paid out for her 1% stake in her fathers company) She hasn't worked for that money at all. Just gets quarterly dividends worth millions that then get funneled through the appropriate channels.

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.

Having rich people in positions of power isn't going to help any of us. Otherwise the autocratic and plutocratic societies of our past would not have been rife with class warfare.

[quote Why2why]@HardyBuckette, telegenic? Really? I’m one who never understood the fan club about him being dishy Rishi. I also never saw him as a future PM. But I cannot imagine any current politician as potential PM.[/quote]
Myself I don't think he's particularly good looking, although let's be honest there is an advantage to being a presentable and not unattractive politician. But that isn't really what I meant. More that he's charismatic and able to give good media. His ambition is also quite evident.

[quote Collaborate]It's all about a breach of the ministerial code. This states at para 7.3:

On appointment to each new office, Ministers must provide
their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests
which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should
also cover interests of the Minister’s spouse or partner and close
family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

So you can't say that she's irrrelevant because she's his wife, not him, unless you think there should be no standards in public office (which to be fair if you still support the Tories you must think that already).

You can find it here:assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/826920/August-2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL-FORMATTED-2.pdf[/quote]
This code is right but also he did declare correctly. It was covered today on R4 if you’re interested, at around 8.30am

The Tory party under David Cameron, declared these type of tax rules immoral, but didn't do anything about it then, it would be interesting to see if the its true that tax loopholes in this country could be closed very easily and why those in power don't actually do that, it cant be because they use those very same loopholes now can it??

@Comedycook

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?

So only people who have experience of working in minimum wage jobs should be allowed to be chancellor?

He did disclose it. No one cared until now.

I could see the controversy if he was planning on whacking up the tax on dividends. But the rise in NI doesn’t make any difference to her taxable dividends.

@BigGreenSpacehopper

Plus her views will have no influence on what’s in his red box and what he therefore decides to do in response. The chairman of the Daily Mail will have an influence on the tone of the paper, which has 1.7billion minutes spent on it in one month.

Riiiiiight. Because carrie doesn't influence boris at all?

You would have to be naive to think that she has absolutely no say or bearing on her husbands decisions. Can you really imagine him tightening the rules on non dom and closing tax loopholes that they themselves are benefitting from?

The whole point of getting into politics is soft power. Most of their power and wealth comes from whos palms they choose to grease. And thats rife among all the major political parties.

I could see the controversy if he was planning on whacking up the tax on dividends. But the rise in NI doesn’t make any difference to her taxable dividends.

That's a whole other issue but exactly why the NI increase so immoral controversial. It's only the poor who pay it. 1.25% on income tax would have had the same effect for people, except those with lots of unearned income..

And of course the new tax laws in EU would have made it far more difficult for the Sunaks to get away with this. I’m not saying they have done anything illegal— but when their ‘life’ is here — it’s piss poor that they themselves are using dodgy loopholes— no wonder he’s been reluctant to tighten those laws— and yet it seems plenty including ordinary earners don’t seem to give a shit , so long as we don’t have Polish people here doing the shittier low paid jobs that they themselves dont want either.

He is definitely not good looking but he is definitely very bright and was a suitable poster boy. His career was probably accelerated to some extent.

The Tories were faced with a situation where they spent time in bed with the extreme right, won a referendum, were 'doing Brexit' while having to lead a diverse country. Boris was mindful of ensuring that his front bench obviously reflected this diversity. The pool of suitable candidates was already modest. With the departure of each competent Tory (especially Tories of colour), Tory HQ would be gritting it's teeth because there is a distinct lack of talent willing to step up and take over.

@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!

Zac Goldsmith isn't elected. Mark Carney was not British clearly. Sunak is the Chancellor & he and his family live in Downing Street. We are living through the worse cost of living crisis since the 2nd WW & he seems tone deaf. Naive to think this wouldn't surface even if it is legal.

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.

'increasing NI which targets the poorest when the economy is fragile isn't great skills imo'

How do you suggest we repay the debt caused by the pandemic? We really can't get India to send us Mrs Sunak's legitimate tax that was legitimately earned and paid India, sorry.

Do the 'poorest' even pay national insurance, I believe it is people in employment who pay NI and from July the threshold increases so those on low wages won't pay it www.mirror.co.uk/money/millions-workers-face-national-insurance-26645235

Were it not for trying economic times, Rishi would be seen as doing a sterling job and been duly promoted to the top job. However, the tide has turned against him and he has not jumped during the last six months of Tory HQ briefing against him. They are now having to push him out.

[quote JaniieJones]'increasing NI which targets the poorest when the economy is fragile isn't great skills imo'

How do you suggest we repay the debt caused by the pandemic? We really can't get India to send us Mrs Sunak's legitimate tax that was legitimately earned and paid India, sorry.

Do the 'poorest' even pay national insurance, I believe it is people in employment who pay NI and from July the threshold increases so those on low wages won't pay it www.mirror.co.uk/money/millions-workers-face-national-insurance-26645235[/quote]
By increasing a tax that everyone pays, rather than targeting the poorest and leaving the wealthy untouched?

People in employment earning more than £190 pw pay NI. That's quite poor....isn't it?

Whilst those with huge dividend or other unearned income pay nothing.

'At a time when personal taxes have just gone up, when the cost of living is rising steeply, when inflation is increasing, and when benefits are falling in value in real terms – and when Mr Sunak is the all-powerful minister responsible for every single one of these issues – the revelation of his rich wife’s choice of non-dom status sends a message that there is one law for the rich and another law for the rest of us. This may be legal, but it is, quite simply, unfair'.
I agree with the Guardian. It's nothing to do with misogyny, nothing to do with racism, nothing to do with attacking the chancellor's wife. It is, quite simple, not fair, and while legal, not right.

I think lots of people are envious and are immediately judging her for having money. But it's not like she comes from aristocracy or has somehow gained her wealth through dubious means - if you read about her family background it's clear her parents were ordinary working people who started a business - and yes, got very, very lucky - but she was not born into a wealthy family.

On whether he has a chance to be PM he does f have to appeal to everyone, and won’t of course, but for more central voters maybe.

That top left cartoon made me laugh but I still think it’s a maybe