Forum Topic

Rishi Sunak's Wife Will Pay Tax In UK

Just heard her statement on LBC. Not clear if it will include retrospective tax or just future tax.

Sue Hammond ● 1396d29 Comments

Michael,When Blair handed it over it was complete broken.The rating in the polls was decreasing each election from what I remember.But I blame both of them for wasting valuable government time on their own personal ambitions.Just a great shame that John Smith like so many passed away conveniently giving these lightweights a free run.

Ed Robinson ● 1395d

Ed, so you see today's PM, Johnson, handing over the leadership of the Tory party to his Chancellor, Sunak, in the same way Blair handed over leadership of the Labour party to Brown in 2007?

Michael Ixer ● 1395d

"Does the strategy remind you at all to Theresa May's demise?  I do wonder....."Actually it reminds me of Blair and Brown and the wasted years.

Ed Robinson ● 1395d

Incredibly messy indeed.  As I said before, I wonder if Rishi Sunak became a dangerous "adversary" for some in government.He is the Chancellor and dirty linen is coming out - by the bucket full.We seem to have forgotten that our PM owes explanations left, right and centre.The investigative journalism here is very impressive and well done to them.But still, Johnson and Sunak are, supposedly, at loggerheads. Does the strategy remind you at all to Theresa May's demise?  I do wonder.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1395d

All this is beginning to look messy - and just to show no bias I'm quoting the Daily Mail:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10701243/Rishi-Sunak-faces-fresh-questions-accused-beneficiary-trust-held-tax-haven.html

Michael Ixer ● 1395d

"Envy is a futile emotion. Health is your wealth."Where do you see envy here?"Health is your wealth."And vice versa, of course.BMA:-"Poverty can affect the health of people at all ages. In infancy, it is associated with a low birth weight, shorter life expectancy and a higher risk of death in the first year of life. Children living in poverty are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases and diet-related problems. Twice as many people are obese in the most deprived areas of the UK than in the least deprived areas. Poverty can affect children’s cognitive development, and those living in poverty are over three times more likely to suffer from mental health problems. Poverty has long term implications on children’s ‘life chances’ and health in adulthood. Most individual long-term conditions are more than twice as common in adults from lower socio-economic groups, and mental health problems are much more prevalent." https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2084/health-at-a-price-2017.pdf

David Ainsworth ● 1395d

Also I am sure these wealthy MPs all pay very clever accountants to exploit every tax loophole ...

Sue Hammond ● 1395d

Jane,I didn't take Sue's post to imply that they were "non Doms". I am easily confused Sue - which is why I like to keep things simple :)The point I thought that Sue was making was that the political parties benefit indirectly from these arrangements.Party donations also help to keep the wheels of the honour system greased. I've lost count of the number of cash for honours scandals we have had.Both parties have ran away from simplifying taxation once in power although George Osborne made some tweaks to the "non Dom" laws, they really need to go. Spain has a resident and non-resident wealth tax I'm sure that there are other countries have better systems.

Ed Robinson ● 1395d

Hi Jane. I think I may have confused Ed and you with my earlier post about Sir Starmer and Lady Nugee. I didn't mean to imply they had non-dom status, I was just trying to say that wealthy MPs like them would not like their own wealth and tax management methods scrutinised but obviously I failed miserably.🙁 Sorry for the confusion.

Sue Hammond ● 1395d

EdSue stated that changing the tax rules re non doms would not suit Starmer or Thornberry - she does not use her titleYou agreed with her, at least ‘exactly Sue” would suggest that you do agreeHence I was asking you if you have evidence that Starmer or Thornberry are evading the tax laws ie benefitting themselves.

Jane Carter ● 1395d

An odd question Jane.Their counterparts Johnson and Truss are also not "non Doms". I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs?But I do believe Emily Thornberry is in favour of changing the law according to her comments on QT the other night (similar to my point on the other thread).Thorberry is not shadow chancellor however and is of course further to the left than Starmer and Reeves. It is unlikely such a view will become policy.But back to the point. Both parties have benefited from donation from individuals with "non Dom" status. Labour is returning again to a policy of relying on big donors. So very unlikely to see any law changed from either party

Ed Robinson ● 1396d

I found an interesting article which contains a brief background to taxation in the UK and the issue of domicile and non-domicile.https://library.croneri.co.uk/cch_uk/btr/199-620I have only had time to read the Historical Background but will read the rest over the weekend.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1396d

‘Exactly Sue’So, Ed, you have evidence that Keiri Starmer and Emily Thornberry are evading the tax laws/ hold non dom status?

Jane Carter ● 1396d

Exactly Sue.The "non Dom" arrangements is very convenient for both political parties not to mention newspaper proprietors.

Ed Robinson ● 1396d

Ed, I don't remember Labour ever wanting to change the tax laws either. It probably wouldn't suit Sir Keir Starmer or Lady Nugee, not to mention many more wealthy individuals in the HoL

Sue Hammond ● 1396d

It's a question of morales we are told by people with dubious morales that do not actually want to change the tax laws.You really couldn't make it up.

Ed Robinson ● 1396d

99% of self employed people and others not on PAYE do the same thing albeit on a (much) smaller scale so this witch-hunt against Akshata Murty needs to stop.  If it is proven that Sunak has been evading paying his tax in this country then he must resign and his political career will be over. Envy is a futile emotion.  Health is your wealth.

Sue Hammond ● 1396d

Agreed, Martine,  and I doubt that the change in tax status will be a great hardship for them. If I were being cynical I'd say it must nice to afford a good PR agency to write one's public statements on tax for one. But to be fair it's not her fault her father was renterprising and bright enough to create Infosys - in the same way we shouldn't begrudge Bill Gates's children benefiting from some of his endeavours.  It would be good though if she and her father payed tax or contributed to charity in the same way that Bill and Melinda Gates have? 

Michael Ixer ● 1396d

I was agreeing with you, Ms Guy. I obviously misphrased my response. Sorry.

David Ainsworth ● 1396d

I remember when Gordon Brown got in and stuck to the Conservative budget to prove how tough they were.The economy was growing and even Ken Clark said he would not have stuck to his budget.I'm not seeing the necessarily coming from the opposition.Would a Labour chancellor not as rich but  with the same policies be any different?On some areas they are even further to the right than the government.

Ed Robinson ● 1396d

If ending her non-dom status now is the right thing to do, why didn't she deem it to be the right thing to do years ago? The Sunaks have been forced to take this step because they had to be reminded that the tax setup was inappropriate. The same applies to the US Green Card status he retained for several months while serving as chancellor.

Alexander MacLeod ● 1396d

How can someone who has inherited or married into huge wealth ever understand the struggles of those choosing to heat their home or go without food?  I do not believe, as I have said before, that this is a good look for the Conservative Party having a filthy rich Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Martine Guy ● 1396d

You have asked this before Martine and I said I did not know.I have never been in a country invaded by another but I certainly do feel for the Ukrainians!  I will do whatever I can to help (meaning donations) but there is not much more I can do. I watch the news and am beyond horrified!I do not know how hard life is in a war but I can certainly be human about this.I am not defending Mr & Mrs Sunak by any stretch of the imagination, but it does not mean that I can say for certain that they cannot see and feel what is happening.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1396d

What do you mean, David, I don’t understand your point?  What do you mean “Do you think so?”I do not believe it is possible for Mr & Mrs Sunak to have any idea how the poorest are struggling to survive.  People are working 2 or 3 jobs and it is still not enough.

Martine Guy ● 1396d

It's the same Sunak as before when the BBC painting him as superman which I objected to. I equally object to how he is being treated now, which I do not believe is connected to his or his family's wealth.I would be happier if he used his super powers as chancellor of the Exchequer to tighten up the rules on "non Dems"

Ed Robinson ● 1396d

"This is good to hear, but it doesn’t mean Mr &Mrs Sunak understand how hard life is for the poorest in this country."Do you think so?"Akshata Murty, who has a personal fortune of around £725m," (DT today). At the age of 41, wow.

David Ainsworth ● 1396d

This is good to hear, but it doesn’t mean Mr &Mrs Sunak understand how hard life is for the poorest in this country.

Martine Guy ● 1396d

Her full statement:"Since arriving in the UK, I have been made to feel more welcome than I ever could have imagined, in both London and our home in North Yorkshire. This is a wonderful country."In recent days, people have asked questions about my tax arrangements: to be clear, I have paid tax in this country on my UK income and international tax on my international income."This arrangement is entirely legal and how many non-domiciled people are taxed in the UK. But it has become clear that many do not feel it is compatible with my husband's role as chancellor. I understand and appreciate the British sense of fairness and I do not wish my tax status to be a distraction for my husband or to affect my family."For this reason, I will no longer be claiming the remittance basis for tax. This means I will now pay UK tax on an arising basis on all my worldwide income, including dividends and capital gains, wherever in the world that income arises. I do this because I want to, not because the rules require me to. These new arrangements will begin immediately and will also be applied to the tax year just finished."

Sue Hammond ● 1396d

Yes, it was breaking news on the BBC as well.It was reported that "These new arrangements will begin immediately and will also be applied to the tax year just finished (2021-22)." Ms Murty is doing this because she does not wish to be a distraction for her husband.I was never too sure about this but I wonder if Rishi Sunak's popularity, at least for a while, was too much for some...

Ivonne Holliday ● 1396d