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!

I have no issue with her personally or the fact that she has chosen a perfectly legal way to be more tax efficient. (although I DO have a problem with the fact that our tax system allows SOOOOO many useful loopholes for rich people and corporates).

The issue is that her husband is the chancellor and he is an elected official.

1. We ARE allowed to make moral judgements on the people we elect, particularly at this level. Many many people I know do whatever they can to be tax efficient but ALSO make moral judgements. This includes tax affairs and decision making re, for example, investments in Russia during a time of war.

1. when I worked in the City for an investment bank, DH was considered to have similar restrictions as me in terms of private investments. I even had to check on a particular investment my father was making because of my role at the bank. This is because relationships of this sort are such that information and/or decisions by one can affect the other. Considering Sunak's decisions affect millions of people, it is not unreasonable for the rest of us to be concerned whether he is making such decisions for our benefit or the person he is married to.

Why not Sunak paid furlough out of her wife's inherited money, which she inherited in other country? How dare he is asking to pay furlough for UK people from UK people?
His wife pays tax only on UK earned money.... when she and he have so much extra money unfair .
Why cant Sunak force his wife and show some patriarchy, to distribute her inherited/earned money among UK people. Why they are buying houses from inherited money for themselves.
MORALLY he should donate his money along with his wife's money for roads, ambulance etc. etc. as he holds THE exchequer post. Why he is making furlough schemes in lockdown and charging tax afterwards for same people when business are open? Why cant he give away his money when he eats 3 breads at the same time.

When they distribute their money in public then only he can be considered PM material ... ohh wait ..still may be nahhh

@nordica

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.

It's nothing to do with wealth. It's avoiding tax on the wealth while ordinary people are facing tax increases that her husband imposed.

And we could carry 'the debt' from the pandemic for decades without harm. It's sovereign debt. We only quite recently repaid our war debt to the US. No one was banging on about that, probably none of us even knew about it. People should stop that silly, simplistic comparison between a household's budget and that of a nation.

@MarshaBradyo

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

Yes, of course a PM doesn't have to appeal to everyone, whether to be elected or once in power. Johnson certainly doesn't.

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.

You do realise we are talking about a Conservative politician here?

@nordica

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.

There isn't - nor ever will there be - enough meaningful information put out in public about how Indian/Russian/Chinese/[insert your own] billionaires generated their wealth. They have governments who protect their interests.

@nordica

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.

Who cares about how she got the money, she's living in a residence paid for by British tax payers, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet due to terrible decisions her husband has made and all while she (albeit legally) reduces her tax burden. I agree it's not her fault really but it does highlight that the system needs an overhaul. And yes peoples spouses are taken into consideration for many jobs.

Given that she's already paid 20% tax on it in India, if this is true: www.india-briefing.com/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-dividend-taxation-in-india-23886.html/
and that she pays UK tax on her UK earnings, is it fair that that's the only tax she pays? Should she be taxed extra on top, and pay tax on already taxed in India income? Should the same apply to anyone receiving dividends? Or is one just complaining that by fortune of birth to a clever father she's had income handed to her on a plate, a fate the falls on several people.

It's not even a tax loophole. It is an unfair rule designed by the legislators to help their rich cronies. It gets confusingly tied in with favours, donations and contracts and the rest of the mutual back scratching. She has been benefitting for eight years and she hoped to keep her head down and clear off before reaching the magic milestone of fifteen years.

@BlingLoving

I have no issue with her personally or the fact that she has chosen a perfectly legal way to be more tax efficient. (although I DO have a problem with the fact that our tax system allows SOOOOO many useful loopholes for rich people and corporates).

The issue is that her husband is the chancellor and he is an elected official.

1. We ARE allowed to make moral judgements on the people we elect, particularly at this level. Many many people I know do whatever they can to be tax efficient but ALSO make moral judgements. This includes tax affairs and decision making re, for example, investments in Russia during a time of war.

1. when I worked in the City for an investment bank, DH was considered to have similar restrictions as me in terms of private investments. I even had to check on a particular investment my father was making because of my role at the bank. This is because relationships of this sort are such that information and/or decisions by one can affect the other. Considering Sunak's decisions affect millions of people, it is not unreasonable for the rest of us to be concerned whether he is making such decisions for our benefit or the person he is married to.

Good post.

I think people don’t understand what non-domicile involves. She pays tax on her income generated in the UK.

People also don’t seem to understand macroeconomics, that the whole world is facing huge interest increases as a result of Covid and worldwide shortages. That increasing public spending on things like benefit increases also increases inflation. People are blaming Rishi Sunak (and his wife for no apparent reason) worldwide problems is ridiculous.

@Ariela

Given that she's already paid 20% tax on it in India, if this is true: www.india-briefing.com/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-dividend-taxation-in-india-23886.html/ and that she pays UK tax on her UK earnings, is it fair that that's the only tax she pays? Should she be taxed extra on top, and pay tax on already taxed in India income? Should the same apply to anyone receiving dividends? Or is one just complaining that by fortune of birth to a clever father she's had income handed to her on a plate, a fate the falls on several people.

Why can she get away with paying ONLY 20% tax in India when the highest UK income tax rate is 45%?

She should be liable to the highest tax rate (as is usual with double taxation treaties but exempted by the non dom rule), so that would mean 20% to India and 25% to the UK where she's actually living and working!

@Ariela

Given that she's already paid 20% tax on it in India, if this is true: www.india-briefing.com/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-dividend-taxation-in-india-23886.html/ and that she pays UK tax on her UK earnings, is it fair that that's the only tax she pays? Should she be taxed extra on top, and pay tax on already taxed in India income? Should the same apply to anyone receiving dividends? Or is one just complaining that by fortune of birth to a clever father she's had income handed to her on a plate, a fate the falls on several people.

Has she though? They're only saying she's non dom and refusing to say where she does pay tax (unless that has changed since yesterday)

I tend to agree that, if she's paying correct tax in India on Indian earnings that's fine, but if so, why so reluctant to say that and confirm that these investments aren't held in a tax haven?

@midsomermurderess

And we could carry 'the debt' from the pandemic for decades without harm. It's sovereign debt. We only quite recently repaid our war debt to the US. No one was banging on about that, probably none of us even knew about it. People should stop that silly, simplistic comparison between a household's budget and that of a nation.

Trouble is that interest needs to be paid on debt. I think I saw a figure of 80 BILLION pounds of interest being paid on national debt this year alone. Just think how many schools/hospitals could be paid for from just a fraction of that. If we hadn't borrowed so much in the past, we wouldn't be paying so much interest now!

By increasing a tax that everyone pays, rather than targeting the poorest and leaving the wealthy untouched?

So you would increase VAT?

@elbea

I think people don’t understand what non-domicile involves. She pays tax on her income generated in the UK.

People also don’t seem to understand macroeconomics, that the whole world is facing huge interest increases as a result of Covid and worldwide shortages. That increasing public spending on things like benefit increases also increases inflation. People are blaming Rishi Sunak (and his wife for no apparent reason) worldwide problems is ridiculous.

People understand unethical behaviour and he is being called out on his unethical behaviour. No one is blaming him for global problems. He’s only being held to account for his lack of ethics and common sense.

Do you think he is too rich to be held accountable for his own behaviour?

@Wnkingawalrus

By increasing a tax that everyone pays, rather than targeting the poorest and leaving the wealthy untouched?

So you would increase VAT?

That would be an option yes, and a smaller % increase would be needed

I have no problem with Mark Carney as it could not have been made clearer when he took the job that his move was temporary only.

I would suggest that Rishi Sunak and family reside permanently in the U.K. There should be some sort of test for non dom status - you should have to include evidence to satisfy your claim and show an intent to leave the U.K.

Her husband's financial decisions have directly impacted our national and individual tax burdens for the foreseeable. That makes his position untenable. It is always too complicated to unravel the tax schemes of the wealthy so many years in. Even if she made a generous cash donation, people would still be probing into the hidden money pots spread all over the world. Like all the other HNWs, she is not going to happily oblige. There is no way out other than disappearing with dignity.

@elbea

I think people don’t understand what non-domicile involves. She pays tax on her income generated in the UK.

People also don’t seem to understand macroeconomics, that the whole world is facing huge interest increases as a result of Covid and worldwide shortages. That increasing public spending on things like benefit increases also increases inflation. People are blaming Rishi Sunak (and his wife for no apparent reason) worldwide problems is ridiculous.

[sigh]

No, no-one is blaming either of them for worldwide problems.

We are saying that it doesn't feel ethical and moral that someone in one of the highest-ranking offices in the UK, isn't fully committed to living in the UK (because if his spouse isn't, then presumably he isn't).

We are saying that for him to have not declared that he stands to benefit, via his spouse, from some of his policy decisions, is unethical and immoral if not actual wrong-doing.

We are saying that very, very, very rich people, who have always been very, very, very rich, might not be able to truly understand what it means to struggle financially; and increasing taxes for the bottom and middle, while choosing to (it is a choice, she could make a different choice) take advantage of entirely legal tax avoidance schemes is questionable at best.

We are saying that lying about it when asked - as a spokesperson initially said she doesn't have a choice, that is an outright fabrication - is also not illegal but does leave a very nasty taste.

You don't have to think the same way, but we are entitled to believe that Rishi Sunak is taking the piss.

@thewhatsit

I have no problem with Mark Carney as it could not have been made clearer when he took the job that his move was temporary only.

I would suggest that Rishi Sunak and family reside permanently in the U.K. There should be some sort of test for non dom status - you should have to include evidence to satisfy your claim and show an intent to leave the U.K.

It lasts for fifteen years so I guess they’ll have to decide whether to stay or not then.

Maybe people think that’s too long, but you don’t get to stay indefinitely without a change in status

Goldsmith isn’t elected. He sits in the Lords.

Non-dom status should be abolished in my opinion. You can have provisions that take into account tax paid abroad on foreign income.

My grandmother had a pension from outside the UK, was taxed at a lower rate in the country concerned, her income tax liability was reduced by the amount paid abroad.

Agree that there is a double standard though re Zac Goldsmith less attention.

If he was married to a man who was non-dom I would feel the same way.