To think it sets a really bad example for the country when the PMs family have tax dodged millions

[Chloefairydust]

Just that really…

Im really surprised Sunak actually made it to be prime minister considering the recent stories that have been in the news regarding his family avoiding millions of ££ in tax . I actually thought Boris would have been more likely to have been PM. (Not that he’s any better🤔)

This

Non-dom status isn’t a loophole. A loophole is a way of reducing tax legally but which isn’t intended by parliament. Non-dom status is absolutely intended by parliament. There is loads of specific legislation about it.

It’s like saying that getting tax relief on your pension or ISA is a loophole.

And we have individual taxation in this country so I really can’t see the relevance of Rishi’s wife’s tax affairs anyhow.

He's a sneaky weasel.

Tax avoidance I believe it is, that's the legal method, which many various companies use, so if your calling out the pm for it, then you also need to do the same with the various number of organisations that do it to,

All these arse lickers defending tax avoidance while the amount of tax avoided by giant corporations and billionaires each year could literally pay for the NHS seven times over.
you are what’s wrong with the country.

Nope, as Jamie dimon, Ceo of Jp Morgan and chase, says in different speeches, we need a competitive tax system,

Except it literally isn’t tax avoidance
I mean if you have to mislabel an entirely legal practice in order to try and criticise people for it then you probably need to rethink your position.

Why do you think people who are non-domiciled in the UK should pay UK tax when they don’t need to? Are all the foreign aid and charity workers who also don’t pay tax here due to being non-dom also ‘what’s wrong with this country’ @Justkidding55 ?

It isn’t tax avoidance. Tax avoidance has a specific meaning. In layman”s speak the government says that tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain an advantage that parliament never intended.

Non-dom status isn’t bending the rules. It is something written into the rules.

And note that as a non-dom Rishi’s wife would still have paid UK tax on UK income and income brought into the UK. It’s just non-UK income which she may not have paid UK tax on (but she probably paid foreign tax on it e.g in India).

Because if you actually watch his speeches before getting high and all Elizabeth Warren on me, and actually learn, then you would understand my perspectives.

Who's to say exactly what caused the failure of trusses policies,
oh did you watch the news or believe the news papers ?
there's usually more to it all than just what's released officially.

Yanbu

Lastly, how about learning some manners, oh heaven forbid,.you can debate without cursing ?

I don't get why this was an issue. Non British woman who doesn't work in Britain, doesn't pay tax here. Except then they were effectively bullied into paying it. I'm hoping that someone who can work his way up the way he's done can do the same with the country. Except people like you are too blinkered and overly focused on the least important issue at the table.

1. What Rishi Sunaks wife has done is not tax avoidance.

If you want to call it tax avoidance, then everyone who: ▪︎pays into a pension, ▪︎has an ISA, ▪︎have a Salary Sacrifice Scheme, ▪︎claim business expenses from thier buisness profits ▪︎ and so on Are all tax avoiders too! In fact I would lay money, that you in fact, using your definition, also participate in a little "tax avoidance"

1. No one is defending Tax Avoidance.

but Tax Avoidance is not a one size fits all. It ranges from the bottom end - someone making a genuine mistake by not understanding the Tax Law All the way to the top end - someone purposefully looking for loopholes in the Tax Law.

But I am interested, seeing as you fully understand Tax Avoidance by giant corporations, please explain to me the Amazon case?
Actually I'll give you an easier one, lets go with Starbucks?

Tax evasion, tax avoidance, you seem very confused @Justkidding55

As someone who has been a non-dom in the UK, I have some pretty mixed feelings about it.

Basically, the way it works is that you can claim non-dom status for a certain number of years (15, I think). You pay a flat fee for the first 12 years of around £30,000 and then £60,000 for the last three. You then pay whatever tax rate you fall into on any money you remit (bring into the UK). So most non-doms keep as much of their holdings as possible, either offshore (the Channel Islands basically exist to facilitate this) or in their native country, and bring in as little as possible. Although fun fact: money you bring onshore to pay tax is considered a remittance and will be taxed in the next year.

Our tax rate here is 45%, our tax rate in the US is (I believe) 37%, I do not know the rate in India, where I think Akshata Murthy is domiciled. Weirdly, we also have a substantial tax bill every year in California, despite not having set foot in the state for so much as a weekend in probably twenty years, as they take a portion of income generated from any business there. There are also some complicated deadlines where if you pay a certain amount by a certain date in one country or the other you get a small credit against your liability in the other.

Even in our case, and we're worth much less than she/they are, it requires a lot of hours by knowledgeable accountants. IMO, it really is not like getting tax relief on a pension or ISA, which is pretty straightforward.

I actually think it's a pretty crap policy, and it's not a great look for the family of the man in charge of monetary policy to be taking advantage of it, but it is legal. I find it particularly troubling as there is talk of abolishing it as a policy and he was hardly in an unconflicted position. We converted to domiciled earlier than we needed to as we had some moral queasiness about the bulk of our tax money not going to support the place in which we were living and raising our family, but I suppose, while not an insignificant amount, we had less to lose than they did.

Last thing - I've seen a lot about how it's her money and sexism etc. to expect her to accommodate his career. I don't know their setup, but my husband and I have both worked in an industry where there are certain investments we would not be allowed to make because it would raise a conflict of interest, so I'd be surprised if they'd never run across that issue.

Very much appreciated for this, I need to do more research.

To add, my overall point being that it did cost us money, but we already had enough to live comfortably, pay for education, healthcare, get our kids on the housing ladder, make charitable contributions, etc. If we can afford it, so can they. They absolutely don't need the money they held onto that way - they're in the realms of people who couldn't spend it in their lifetimes if they tried.

Pension funds play cleverly with money. Which you could say is morally dubious sometimes. I've yet to meet anyone who refused their pension on these grounds.

Should we ban private pensions?

Gary Barlow Tax Avoidance Scheme is a good one to read, if your up for a laugh 😁

It's not a loophole and it is legal.

Of course it does. They have literally done nothing wrong.

I hate what politics (and the nefua agenda) do to the way people think. I have no intention of voting for Sunak or any other Conservative but this is just a bullshit story made up by the media for a headline which stupid people fall for hook, line and sinker.

Morals are much more important in this

Until you see a disabled person and call them scroungers, you lot are all the same. Always backing the wrong horse to make yourself feel better