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 would be an option yes, and a smaller % increase would be needed
I thought VAT was generally considered a regressive tax? I know the “sin” taxes are certainly extremely regressive - although probably needed.

There are plenty of times we should hold sexism to account- this is not one of them. And I’m sorry to, but to imply that holding the chancellor and his family to account for their financial planning is sexist completely undermines women.
We should call out sexism, not use it as a screen for unethical behaviour

@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.

Yes I think the big problem here is nobody knows what she does with her money.

Also, by using tax loopholes to get out of tax. She is deciding how much she has to give away rather than giving away what she should.

If rich people are not taxed proportionately to their wealth. Society basically creates a morality tax.

If wider society adopted the same approach nobody would pay any tax and it would be up to the individual to decide whether they were bothered by people starving and being destitute. If she cared about people affected by poverty in the UK she would not be using such loopholes.

By declaring non dom she has taken millions of pounds in tax revenue out of the economy nestled away in some faraway tax haven.

To think these people care about you or your problems is laughable at best. If they did they would have already closed said loop holes.

@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.

Yes to your number 2 in particular. DH and I, through jobs we have held have always been treated as one financial entity pretty much. This is why I think it was fair to ask questions about his wife’s financial dealings with Russia for instance as the same would be asked of me.

I am actually generally (not always but mostly) a conservative voter and am pretty appalled at Sunak’s wife being a non dom. I’m not sure it would be enough to push me to Starmer over him but possibly.

By declaring non dom she has taken millions of pounds in tax revenue out of the economy nestled away in some faraway tax haven.

Is this definite?

Or is the tax being paid in India? I don’t begrudge India getting it tbh if it is.

@balalake

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.

I agree, there are double tax treaties between most countries that prevent the same income being taxed twice, and, as you say, you end up with credit being given for tax paid in the other country, so pay the difference to the country with the higher rate.

We need to go with "residence" rules alone, and scrap the non dom rules. If someone is "resident" in the UK, then they should pay UK tax on their worldwide income (having given credit for taxes paid in other countries).

@MarshaBradyo

By declaring non dom she has taken millions of pounds in tax revenue out of the economy nestled away in some faraway tax haven.

Is this definite?

Or is the tax being paid in India? I don’t begrudge India getting it tbh if it is.

She will have paid tax in India (at a much lower rate), so morally she should pay the difference in tax rates to the UK, i.e. upto 45% income tax in UK, and 20% in India, so having already paid 20% to India, she should morally pay the balance of 25% to the UK, to make up the current UK higher rate.

so morally she should pay the difference in tax rates to the UK

Surely themoral thing to do would be to pay the difference to the Indian* government, where it would make a much larger difference!

It may well be legal, but it's not a good look. Essentially by being a non-dom she's saying "I'm just in the UK temporarily, my main home is elsewhere and I plan to return there". Fairly disastrous for any hopes that Sunak might have had of becoming PM.

@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.

So 20% tax on the capital she declared.

1. We don't have a clue as to the extent of her assets and the idea that she will have been upfront about capital gains in India is laughable.

1. 20% tax on millions of pounds in annual dividends is not a lot. How is it that normal Indian families will end up paying over 30% tax when they live in relative poverty.

1. If she lives her life here she should be taxed accordingly. Even if she eventually wants to return to India. That could be 20 years...

I think anyone who lives has the right to live and work in the UK and takes advantages of its public services should pay their fair share.

I'm sure she enjoys having an NHS, police and fire services. I'm sure she travels on our roads. Uses our infrastructure...

I lived in Canada for 2 years on a working holiday visa. I was still a British citizen but a resident of Canada and I paid my fair share of taxes accordingly. Why should she only have to pay £30,000 a year on over £10m in dividends income.

Imagine what £4m could have done to help the NHS or food banks.

People who defend this are nothing but bootlickers.

Can anyone show me where they've actually said she does pay Indian tax on these investments? AFAIK they're only saying she's paid all the tax due, which if she paying tax in India would be at their rates (and fine IMO, as long as she meets the criteria for being non resident here) but it's far more likely that she's using the non dom status to declare her earnings some where like Cayman Islands, especially given their unwillingness to say one way or the other, which is much less fine.
.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

so morally she should pay the difference in tax rates to the UK

Surely themoral thing to do would be to pay the difference to the Indian* government, where it would make a much larger difference!

No, she's living and working in the UK where she's benefitting from taxpayer's funds in terms of infrastructure etc.

It's up to the Indian Govt to set their tax rates and they could increase the rate charged on ex-pats from 20% to a higher rate if they so wanted to finance their infrastructure etc.

Not read the thread.
But.
No. If you thin that we haven't been shouting long and hard about Goldsmith, Carney, Rothermere and a dozen other issues then you haven'T been paying attention.

It isn't about her sex. It isn't actually even about her nationality (and probably therefore skin-colour, except that it does play a part and she brought it up). It is about the fact that she is using a legal loop-hole to not pay tax, with a completely irrelevant thing (her nationality). It is about the ministarial code which would require Sunak to come clean about her father's company (in which she has a large stake) and their dealings in Russia. It is about claiming non-dom due to Indian citizenship when you don't even own a house there, and at the time of him becoming Chancellor both having US green cards (prerequisite: the declaration of being domiciled there, afaik). It is about the absolute brass neck of living in Downing street, sending your kids to school in Westminster, having 3 homes in the UK and saying "yah boo sucks to you, i am not paying my fair share towards the infrastructure of this country".

So yeah. She can do one. But not for being a woman. Not for having Indian nationality. But for being a morally and ethically bankrupt fucker. As is her husband.

No, she's living and working in the UK where she's benefitting from taxpayer's funds in terms of infrastructure etc. She pays taxes on the money she earns n the UK. She pays the non dom tax on themoney she earns outside of the UK. She is a net giver.

It's up to the Indian Govt to set their tax rates and they could increase the rate charged on ex-pats from 20% to a higher rate if they so wanted to finance their infrastructure etc.

My point was tongue in cheek. Pointing out the ludicrousness of the idea that anyone had a moral imperative to pay any monies to someone, some country, that had no call on it. And she isn't an "ex-pat" in India, that's where she is domiciled. Which is, in law as well as in fact, legally different from where she lives.

I suppose my main point about all of this is that it is useless to rant on about the morals, the optics, the inequity etc etc etc.

It is the longstanding laws that allow such acts that need to be looked at with all transparency.

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

so morally she should pay the difference in tax rates to the UK

Surely themoral thing to do would be to pay the difference to the Indian* government, where it would make a much larger difference!

Actually you could argue it would be less effective as india has a really big problem with corruption.

If you think the majority of tax money in India goes to the right places you are deluded.

She should pay tax into the country in which she resides. She is likely to live here long term and has already lived here for years.

If she wants to retain her indian citizenship then she should also be required to pay whatever taxes are enforced on her capital based in India.

Places like America already have this system. If for example an American moves abroad. They get taxed by the IRS on their foreign income. They also get taxed in the country in which they are working. If they wish to stop paying the tax in America they can go through the process to renounce their citizenship.

I don't see why she should be treated any differently, the idea that she doesn't really live here and is going back to India soon is pretty stupid when you see all of the roots they have put down in the UK. And does that mean I get to claim non dom if I think I might go and live in another country.

If you live here and take advantage of our public services. Pay your fair share or get out.

Dh is from another country and for the first two years he lived here, he had non dom status. When he decided he wanted to settle permanently, he gave it up and applied for the ILR and then citizenship. The fact that Sunak’s wife is married and has a family here but claims she will not live her permanently because of her parents just stinks. It’s utterly greedy.

I actually think the biggest issue is how she's managed to show she's non resident and whether that's correct.

And I'd like to think that would be thoroughly checked for any fabulously weather person, no matter who they were married to.

It’s not about sex or her role, it’s about his morals and ethics. A company director in a listed company has to account for their conflicts of interest and those of their related parties. These are disclosed and failure to disclose is an offence under either the market abuse regulations or even criminal standards for insider trading, our elected officials should be held to higher standards, in fact the highest standards of behaviour.

Richie Sunak is in a position to make tax policy and tax law that his wife will directly and personally benefit from. That is a conflict of interest.

I also question her non dom status. Is the UK really only a temporary residence and not her “natural home”? If so we have a Chancellor making far reaching decisions for country that he plans to leave permanently in a relatively short time. That’s pretty relevant information to the electorate.

I’m sure none of us pay more tax than we legally need to.

True, but I'm not sure most of us force others to pay more.

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.

Fair enough, then - if she's given all/most of it away to those in need and no longer has it herself, I guess we all owe her an apology.

I thought VAT was generally considered a regressive tax? I know the “sin” taxes are certainly extremely regressive - although probably needed.

The original idea of VAT was that it was supposed to be a tax on luxury/non-essential goods, hence the rich would pay far more than the poor, who were not in the market for fancy non-essentials in the first place.

I think that, if we increased VAT to even something like 40-50%, but ONLY on actual luxury goods that people could freely choose whether or not to buy (or essential goods but over a certain level of luxury e.g. on Jimmy Choos but not on Asda shoes), it would make a lot more sense. As it is, the very fuel that we need to live basic modern lives, and to store and cook our food not sit there freezing, is considered a VAT-able luxury. As are shoes, clothes (not just designer ones - very basic ones too), essential repairs and maintenance to our homes, almost everything in fact.

Even the punitive tax on the petrol and diesel that many of us need to get to work has VAT on top of it: paying the additional tax that we have no option but to pay is considered a luxury and thus taxed again.

Rightly or wrongly ( well, probably wrongly) Rishi was the person at the helm of Tory finances when the albatross fell ( or the magic money tree received a dose of roundup). They need to demonstrate a sacrifice of the out-of-touch rich kid to appease the electorate with civil unrest just around the corner. She has not committed a crime but it will obviously look worse because of the magnitude of the numbers involved. He needs to go fast.

Rishi not Richie. Apologies.

my issue with this status for a MPs wife, as they are a couple there is not a commitment to the UK if she is not going to be making UK her long term home. Therefore if that is the case why would I want her husband as an MP if he is not committed to staying here in the UK

@SamphirethePogoingStickerist

No, she's living and working in the UK where she's benefitting from taxpayer's funds in terms of infrastructure etc. She pays taxes on the money she earns n the UK. She pays the non dom tax on themoney she earns outside of the UK. She is a net giver.

It's up to the Indian Govt to set their tax rates and they could increase the rate charged on ex-pats from 20% to a higher rate if they so wanted to finance their infrastructure etc.

My point was tongue in cheek. Pointing out the ludicrousness of the idea that anyone had a moral imperative to pay any monies to someone, some country, that had no call on it. And she isn't an "ex-pat" in India, that's where she is domiciled. Which is, in law as well as in fact, legally different from where she lives.

I suppose my main point about all of this is that it is useless to rant on about the morals, the optics, the inequity etc etc etc.

It is the longstanding laws that allow such acts that need to be looked at with all transparency.

How can you expect the laws around tax avoidance to change if the chancellor of the exchequers wife uses said loopholes to not pay 10's of millions in tax?

Why would he do something that would lead to the potential break up of his marriage and the loss of millions of pounds for himself personally.

The rich get richer the poor get poorer. This has and always will be the way until we become a truly post scarcity society.

If you think rishi or his wife have anyone else's interests at heart than their own then you are sorely missguided

I also question her non dom status. Is the UK really only a temporary residence and not her “natural home”? If so we have a Chancellor making far reaching decisions for country that he plans to leave permanently in a relatively short time. That’s pretty relevant information to the electorate.

put far more eloquently than I have ^^ agree

Ye gods! Do we really have to go all the way back to the beginning of the thread @Pattybutties4lyf?

• not a loophole

And the rest of that is vaguely nonsensical, emotive balderdash!