The Conservative Party

[Del_Bosque]

I don’t doubt she (like most wealthy people) has been smart with what taxes she pays within the laws of the land - and there is absolutely a conversation to be had about governments allowing certain loopholes that exploit the spirit of the law if not the law itself.

Trouble is the system is too complicated and governments are always playing catch-up. Identifying the problem is much much easier than identifying the solution. All I’ve ever heard is pie in the sky ideas or taxing the easy pickings more - I don’t have the answers either beyond ripping the whole thing up and starting again. Some of the stuff being done on a global level definitely appear steps in the right direction.

Agree on that 100% and non-dom will still be probably being discussed 50 years from now.

But my point is, he can't fill the role of Chancellor while his wife is doing that.

It's not compatible with asking the public to pay an ever increasing amount of personal taxes, and actually the largest tax burden since the 40s.

To be honest Boris and the rest of them will know he's done they are just letting his reputation get further into the mud before he goes, so they never have to deal with him in a leadership contest.

I reckon he'll stand down as an MP at the next election.

 

[metalblue]

Agree on that 100% and non-dom will still be probably being discussed 50 years from now.

But my point is, he can't fill the role of Chancellor while his wife is doing that.

It's not compatible with asking the public to pay an ever increasing amount of personal taxes, and actually the largest tax burden since the 40s.

To be honest Boris and the rest of them will know he's done they are just letting his reputation get further into the mud before he goes, so they never have to deal with him in a leadership contest.

I reckon he'll stand down as an MP at the next election.

Ok, slightly different topic but I get where you are going now. I’d go slightly further, his wife is retaining non dom status - implying she plans to return to India full time. He is setting tax laws that will last long after he has [likely] left the UK. Now I’ve not seen anything he has done that would imply he doesn’t give a shit but it raises uncomfortable questions and does make his position awkward.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I don’t doubt she (like most wealthy people) has been smart with what taxes she pays within the laws of the land - and there is absolutely a conversation to be had about governments allowing certain loopholes that exploit the spirit of the law if not the law itself.

I'd be interested to know to what extent there are objective rules for determining whether someone is genuinely a non-dom. Because obviously anyone can claim anything on their tax form, but there is presumably a way to say, "no, actually you're taking the piss there. Pay up."

I applied to do a master's course recently, and they said I wasn't entitled to home fees because I've not been resident in the UK for 10 years. But if I can show that I've maintained a UK address, bank account, NHS registration, and that my work contracts overseas are temporary, I would qualify. I wonder what non-doms have to show to prove it.

I get the point of the non-dom status. If you want to attract talented workers to the UK, it's a bonus to be able to say that they will only pay UK tax on the stuff they earn here (although again, funny how that doesn't apply to lorry drivers or nurses, because the fees involved show that it's only for the super rich). But that has to be linked to a temporary work contract of some kind, and once that contract is up and you choose to stay, you're then taxed as a resident. The idea that someone can be living in the UK for 15 years and still claiming these tax breaks is taking the piss.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Agree on that 100% and non-dom will still be probably being discussed 50 years from now.

But my point is, he can't fill the role of Chancellor while his wife is doing that.

It's not compatible with asking the public to pay an ever increasing amount of personal taxes, and actually the largest tax burden since the 40s.

To be honest Boris and the rest of them will know he's done they are just letting his reputation get further into the mud before he goes, so they never have to deal with him in a leadership contest.

I reckon he'll stand down as an MP at the next election.

killing off the competition.

 

[metalblue]

I'd be interested to know to what extent there are objective rules for determining whether someone is genuinely a non-dom. Because obviously anyone can claim anything on their tax form, but there is presumably a way to say, "no, actually you're taking the piss there. Pay up."

I applied to do a master's course recently, and they said I wasn't entitled to home fees because I've not been resident in the UK for 10 years. But if I can show that I've maintained a UK address, bank account, NHS registration, and that my work contracts overseas are temporary, I would qualify. I wonder what non-doms have to show to prove it.

I get the point of the non-dom status. If you want to attract talented workers to the UK, it's a bonus to be able to say that they will only pay UK tax on the stuff they earn here (although again, funny how that doesn't apply to lorry drivers or nurses, because the fees involved show that it's only for the super rich). But that has to be linked to a temporary work contract of some kind, and once that contract is up and you choose to stay, you're then taxed as a resident. The idea that someone can be living in the UK for 15 years and still claiming these tax breaks is taking the piss.

They won’t have to jump through the same hoops as you I suspect. It’s not a tax break in this specific case exactly, but maybe the answer to non dom is - after a specific period - you pay the greatest tax on where you live or where you earn it - there is an inherent fairness in that. So specifically on dividends - India is 15%, UK is (for her) 39.35%. She would pay 15% to Indian treasury and remaining 24.35% to UK in return she is freely allowed to bring the money in to the UK. She absolutely shouldn’t pay best part of 55% in tax, that’s unfair.

Hope you managed to get on your masters course mate.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Having lived and worked abroad myself I’ve got some idea of the complexities of maintaining a life in both countries. Which points are wrong exactly? I don’t think anyone is saying she has broken the law by paying Indian tax on Indian income that remains in India.

LOL at the idea she pays tax in India. She pays £30k a year to maintain a tax break she had for nothing for 15 years. On the basis I pay well over £10k a year in tax I can quite confidently say I have payed more tax than she has in the time she has lived here (however long that is). I think a number of us on here could say that.

It might be legal but its wrong. We have every right to pissed off about it.

Its also something that is quiet easily changed. I worked in the US many years back - there i could do 2 years tax free then if you stayed on you had to pay tax going forward and back pay for the 2 years you didn't. It's not hard to change 15 years to 2 and scrap the £30k sweet deals.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

They won’t have to jump through the same hoops as you I suspect. It’s not a tax break in this specific case exactly, but maybe the answer to non dom is - after a specific period - you pay the greatest tax on where you live or where you earn it - there is an inherent fairness in that. So specifically on dividends - India is 15%, UK is (for her) 39.35%. She would pay 15% to Indian treasury and remaining 24.35% to UK in return she is freely allowed to bring the money in to the UK. She absolutely shouldn’t pay best part of 55% in tax, that’s unfair.

Hope you managed to get on your masters course mate.

Cheers.

Typically people don't pay double tax and there are other schemes to claim tax relief if you do end up in that situation for one reason or another. I've not seen anything to suggest that she's paying the UK tax rate on dividends minus her tax obligations in India. As far as I can tell, she's paying nothing on that stream of income in the UK, and potentially some tax "overseas."

Incidentally, I think you're being very generous in assuming that the "overseas" she is paying tax in is India. Based on the fact that she hasn't said she's paying tax in India, it almost certainly means some tax haven.

I think there are very good reasons why taxation should be based on residency, not where the money is earned (for individuals - for companies it's different despite that Mail journalist on Question Time trying to conflate the two). Taxes exist to pay for public services. If you aren't living in a country, you're not using the public services.

 

[metalblue]

LOL at the idea she pays tax in India. She pays £30k a year to maintain a tax break she had for nothing for 15 years. On the basis I pay well over £10k a year in tax I can quite confidently say I have payed more tax than she has in the time she has lived here (however long that is). I think a number of us on here could say that.

It might be legal but its wrong. We have every right to pissed off about it.

Its also something that is quiet easily changed. I worked in the US many years back - there i could do 2 years tax free then if you stayed on you had to pay tax going forward and back pay for the 2 years you didn't. It's not hard to change 15 years to 2 and scrap the £30k sweet deals.

Of course she pays tax in India - she may do so efficiently but that sounds like a problem for the Indian government and its citizens. But… you lived tax free in the US as a foreign national? Not a criticism, good on you, but you used tax rules to your personal benefit yet are now pissed about someone else potentially doing the same? Pot kettle and all that.

Anyways they obviously got wise to that as was different when I lived in US and had to pay taxes from day 1, only choice I had (IIRC) was to pay resident state taxes monthly or yearly and you had self declared discounts such as mortgage. As I earned in one state and lived in another I think earning state and federal tax were deducted at source.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Well the story is now developing into they had Green cards during his first year as chancellor, so in theory they must have been paying US tax on international earnings.

However the most likely thing is she's been funnelling her money off to a tax haven, as do most non-doms. Something that was dodged in their statement to the press.

I don't think the debate here should be whether non-dom status is right or wrong to exist, that's far too wide and far reaching a subject.

It's that the associated benefits of being in a marriage with a globe trotting international non-dom is 100% incompatible with the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK, and it's even more mind boggling when said chancellor putting taxes up during a cost of living crisis.

He's absolutely cooked as Chancellor and he'll never be PM now.

Agree 100% people can't expect him to give up his wifes citizenship, but he will have to give up his ambitions of holding one of the 4 great offices of state.

Bet you £20 that its Number 10 briefing against Sunak to stop any leadership challenge. (Not that the tory membership would ever vote for him anyway because ..... (begins with R and ends with M)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Lords vote to extend the range of IDs allowed to vote beyond just photoID.
Good thing someone's upholding democracy.