Politics

[PaddockLad 17160]

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I'm kind of struggling with this one tbh. She's not paying tax in the UK but she is presumably paying it in India? For earnings made from an Indian company? What is everyone complaining about...

 

Shes plainly entirely living in the UK though, she is still liable to pay tax to the UK exchequer regardlessof where she earns her money.  Non Dom status costs 30k a year, so if she's paying that I imagine she's saving millions...

[Gemmill 44559]

20 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I'm kind of struggling with this one tbh. She's not paying tax in the UK but she is presumably paying it in India? For earnings made from an Indian company? What is everyone complaining about...

 

The actual Chancellor of the Exchequer's wife who clearly is domiciled in this country, at 11 Downing Street no less, is avoiding paying UK tax while her husband makes us all pay more. 

 

Which means the Chancellor the Exchequer is enjoying the benefits of tax avoidance while he makes the rest of us pay more, and whilst millions are seeing their cost of living skyrocket. 

 

It's absolutely scandalous. I don't know how it isn't all anyone is talking about. 

[Craig 6682]

13 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

The actual Chancellor of the Exchequer's wife who clearly is domiciled in this country, at 11 Downing Street no less, is avoiding paying UK tax while her husband makes us all pay more. 

 

Which means the Chancellor the Exchequer is enjoying the benefits of tax avoidance while he makes the rest of us pay more, and whilst millions are seeing their cost of living skyrocket. 

 

It's absolutely scandalous. I don't know how it isn't all anyone is talking about. 

Agreed, even by Tory piss taking standards, this is on a whole new level.

[Gemmill 44559]

You know they know its scandalous as well because that CUNT Kwarteng has been all over the airwaves this morning telling us that "we all need to move on from this story", which is the way this government deals with its worst shit. 

[Craig 6682]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

You know they know its scandalous as well because that CUNT Kwarteng has been all over the airwaves this morning telling us that "we all need to move on from this story", which is the way this government deals with its worst shit. 

 

[Renton 21443]

Well I for one am surprised @Rayvin supports the chancellor and his tax evasion. I am expecting him to quickly come and apologise explain himself. 

[Rayvin 5189]

I just try to understand issues before flying off the handle. I think what I'm getting from this is that she may or may not pay tax in India on her earnings for this company - we don't know - but we feel that she should be paying them here instead because she technically lives here. And that this matter is made worse by the fact that Sunak is increasing taxes on everyone else.

 

I'd find it a lot easier to pick up my pitchfork if we definitively knew she wasn't paying tax in India. As it is, as long as she's paying it somewhere, I'm still not quite getting how she's done anything wrong (other than that she clearly is domiciled here). So we're saying she should be double taxed, effectively (but also that she's probably not being taxed even once anyway because she'll be doing similar bullshit in India).

 

My position on this then becomes that I don't think people should be double taxed, but that if she isn't paying tax in India either, we should kick off. If she is, then I just... I mean idk, the optics look bad for Sunak, we should absolutely kick off on that basis alone, but for me personally that would just be a political kicking off rather than a principle one. If India would insist on taking the tax revenues as well as the UK, then I fully see why she's done this. I would do this. Do we know if that's the case or not?

 

This post is going to go down like a lead balloon, I can see it now

[ewerk 30406]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

I just try to understand issues before flying off the handle. I think what I'm getting from this is that she may or may not pay tax in India on her earnings for this company - we don't know - but we feel that she should be paying them here instead because she technically lives here. And that this matter is made worse by the fact that Sunak is increasing taxes on everyone else.

 

I'd find it a lot easier to pick up my pitchfork if we definitively knew she wasn't paying tax in India. As it is, as long as she's paying it somewhere, I'm still not quite getting how she's done anything wrong (other than that she clearly is domiciled here). So we're saying she should be double taxed, effectively (but also that she's probably not being taxed even once anyway because she'll be doing similar bullshit in India).

 

My position on this then becomes that I don't think people should be double taxed, but that if she isn't paying tax in India either, we should kick off. If she is, then I just... I mean idk, the optics look bad for Sunak, we should absolutely kick off on that basis alone, but for me personally that would just be a political kicking off rather than a principle one. If India would insist on taking the tax revenues as well as the UK, then I fully see why she's done this. I would do this. Do we know if that's the case or not?

 

This post is going to go down like a lead balloon, I can see it now

 

Your last sentence was about the only thing you got right there.

 

You don't see how she's done anything wrong other than claiming non-dom status despite being clearly domiciled in the UK? That's the whole point. She's living here but choosing not to pay her taxes here. The UK has a double tax treaty with India so it won't end up with her paying twice. You can't see how the wife of the Chancellor (who clearly wants to be PM) dodging tax in the country which she has made her home isn't completely wrong?

[Gemmill 44559]

She lives in the UK. She enjoys the (dwindling) benefits of living in the UK, as do her children. She owns three fucking houses in the UK. She should pay tax in the UK. 

 

The idea that she is married to a man that is domiciled in the UK but isn't domiciled here herself is absurd. 

[ewerk 30406]

I guess it's just a lucky coincidence for her that she happens to pay 20% tax in India but it would be 38% here.

[Rayvin 5189]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

Your last sentence was about the only thing you got right there.

 

You don't see how she's done anything wrong other than claiming non-dom status despite being clearly domiciled in the UK? That's the whole point. She's living here but choosing not to pay her taxes here. The UK has a double tax treaty with India so it won't end up with her paying twice. You can't see how the wife of the Chancellor (who clearly wants to be PM) dodging tax in the country which she has made her home isn't completely wrong?

 

So again, I'm just talking through my understanding of it in anticipation of discussion. I don't really understand why you've levelled that last question since you've dedicated the rest of your post to correcting my assumptions.

 

If there is a double tax treaty in place then yes - that does change the picture. Then she is simply choosing to pay tax (or not) in India for what are presumably financial reasons, despite the fact she lives here. So yes, I understand the outrage better now. Carry on.

[ewerk 30406]

I don't want you to understand the outrage, I want you to FEEL it.

 

Rise up and overthrow the tiny man in No.11 Downing Street.

[Renton 21443]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

I don't want you to understand the outrage, I want you to FEEL it.

 

Rise up and overthrow the tiny man in No.11 Downing Street.

 

Exactly. You go first Rayvin, we'll, erm, defend the rear. 

[Rayvin 5189]

I mean I think at this point it's so "par for the course" for this government and everyone associated with it that I'm struggling, other than it being a handy stick to beat Sunak with, to get very worked up about it.

[Rayvin 5189]

Just now, Renton said:

 

Exactly. You go first Rayvin, we'll, erm, defend the rear. 

 

They have long since broken my spirit on that front, I should add. Brexit killed off any hope or aspirations I had for this country to be anything other than a shit heap.

[ewerk 30406]

1 minute ago, Rayvin said:

I mean I think at this point it's so "par for the course" for this government and everyone associated with it that I'm struggling, other than it being a handy stick to beat Sunak with, to get very worked up about it.

 

It's particularly hypocritical when her husband is Chancellor of the Exchequer whose job it is to raise tax revenue and who has recently increased tax levels across the country while knowing that his wife is certainly bending (if not breaking) the rules in order to deprive his own Treasury of that money. If you can't get worked up about that then you're definitely politically burnt out.

[Rayvin 5189]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

It's particularly hypocritical when her husband is Chancellor of the Exchequer whose job it is to raise tax revenue and who has recently increased tax levels across the country while knowing that his wife is certainly bending (if not breaking) the rules in order to deprive his own Treasury of that money. If you can't get worked up about that then you're definitely politically burnt out.

 

This is it, honestly  I do get it, but compared to the other stuff it feels very minor. I mean, what will happen? Nothing. His approval ratings go down I guess, that's good. Let's hope the public don't forget about it going into the next poll.

[Toonpack 9316]

2 hours ago, Rayvin said:

I'm kind of struggling with this one tbh. She's not paying tax in the UK but she is presumably paying it in India? For earnings made from an Indian company? What is everyone complaining about...

 

She owns 3 homes in the UK and one in the US, but no known home in India but is "Indian" for tax purposes. That doesn't even touch on the fact that a senior minister is married to someone who has not taken citizenship (obviously for tax reasons). How can someone from a foreign power be so close to someone so close to the seat of power.

[Rayvin 5189]

Also a decent point. Like I say, carry on  

 

Let's hope it buries him. It won't, but we can dream.

[Howmanheyman 32890]

1 hour ago, Gemmill said:

You know they know its scandalous as well because that CUNT Kwarteng has been all over the airwaves this morning telling us that "we all need to move on from this story", which is the way this government deals with its worst shit. 

 

 

 

 

From few days ago but the Tory mantra, 'I think people just want to move on' is obviously their codeword for stop talking about this you cunt or we'll privatise you.

 

 

[Alex 34953]

9 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Also a decent point. Like I say, carry on  

 

Let's hope it buries him. It won't, but we can dream.

Not if the fucking general public are like you it won’t, you dozy cunt  

[ewerk 30406]

And in more depressing news, the Tories have amended the electoral system for mayors to be FPTP. It's fucking ridiculous that this country still doesn't have a constitution to embed these sort of things.

[Craig 6682]

13 minutes ago, ewerk said:

And in more depressing news, the Tories have amended the electoral system for mayors to be FPTP. It's fucking ridiculous that this country still doesn't have a constitution to embed these sort of things.

 

Doesn't amendments like that have to be themselves put to a vote?

 

[ewerk 30406]

It was and made it through the House of Lords last night. If it were in a constitution then it could be protected by a supermajority requirement.

[NJS 4375]

I read they've done a public survey about alternatives to fptp but are now suppressing it as obviously they don't like the results.