Forum menu
Sunak is finished, he hasn’t got a cats chance in hell of being PM after this.
Looking at our current PM I wouldn't put money on the above statement.
I’m not crying over Rishi’s missus getting some stick
If they were going after her for some dodgy parking/claiming she kicked a kitten or something then I would be on the "leave her alone" side but that she is non-dom really isnt a good sign for the family of a senior minister and is relevant with regards to when he is applying taxes to those working in the UK.
The lies about it being needed due to Indian citizenship really didnt help either.
In other tory news. I wonder who had to take Pickles to one side and explain that complaining about the Grenfell inquiry impacting his busy calendar wasnt really a bright idea.
In other tory news. I wonder who had to take Pickles to one side and explain that complaining about the Grenfell inquiry impacting his busy calendar wasnt really a bright idea.Pickles is a busy man
Busy eating pies from the look of him. He's another unbearably smug ****er. I also think he got confused with Hillsborough (when he referenced the 96 dead) and Grenfell, in fact he didn't even get the name "Grenfell" correct.
To turn up at an inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy without even knowing how many people died in it. That's just unforgivable, they literally couldn't care less about 'the common people'.
Akshata Murty is worth £27bn and went to all that trouble to avoid £20m tax. Thats the same as having £27,000 in the bank and dodging paying 20 quid. The greed is mind boggling.
Still waiting to hear about where she was paying her tax instead of here. My money is on the USA. Who knows though…
Time to start asking about his own tax affairs… if they were arrogant enough to think they could get away with having a non-dom living above no10, I strongly suspect he’s tried a few (legal) cunning ruses himself… I can’t see HRMC staff being keen to look into it just for the public interest though.
Akshata Murty is worth £27bn and went to all that trouble to avoid £20m tax. Thats the same as having £27,000 in the bank and dodging paying 20 quid. The greed is mind boggling.
This is the bit that I just can't get my head around. They're now (deservedly IMHO) getting a ton of shit, possibly ending his obvious prime ministerial ambition, for the sake of what is effectively loose change to them.
They've already got more money than they know what to do with or could conceivably ever spend, no matter how many additional expensive holiday homes they buy.
Tory.
That’s the obvious one word answer to your query.
[ no, I don’t think all Conservative voters think or act this way, far from it, but they need to take a much closer look at who they are voting for ]
This is the bit that I just can’t get my head around.
Don't worry I'm sure argee will be here in a minute to tell us why it's all ok.
Still waiting to hear about where she was paying her tax instead of here. My money is on the USA
I doubt it. Most likely be some island somewhere with low rates since even marginal amounts is sufficient for them.
I do like how some of the defenders have been trying the "well the tax is going to India" leaving aside a)its unlikely and b)even if it was since we have a no double tax agreement with them it would still go to India first for anything "earned" there.
That tweet misses the point I think though. It will be more than 20 million over time and supposedly gives the best benefits come inheritance tax time. Hence why those patriotic owners of the daily mail claim that France is their true home.
Still waiting to hear about where she was paying her tax instead of here. My money is on the USA. Who knows though…
I swear this stuff must be on the entrance exam for politics.
Tax dodging, favours-for-mates, accepting donations...
I'm reminded of the Blackadder scene where Baldrick is being made a Member of Parliament and filling out the MP Application Form, it says "any criminal convictions"
Baldrick replies no and Blackadder says
"oh for God's sake Baldrick, you're going to be an MP - I'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy".
Yeah, basic politics you’d have thought.
Not sure this story is true though. It’s genuinely unbelievable. My thoughts last night…
https://twitter.com/spittingcat/status/1512206755471757313?s=20&t=j-KWOqntIRDtNWdIa3VzcA
The journalist is still pushing on with it though.
Sunak claiming (I think, his words are quite slippery) that the tax is being paid in India, not the USA or elsewhere…
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1512345739648770048?s=20&t=xAbcYdZRC7WxXLA0xh3jwA
To think that we once thought Sunak was the PR savvy one!
To think that we once thought Sunak was the PR savvy one!
Nah he's just another entitled rich **** who thinks the rules don't apply to him. Liz Truss will be happy at least. She's almost nailed on now to be the next tory leader.
Which means the parliamentary party will want to avoid a leadership contest. Job done for Johnson.
To think that we once thought Sunak was the PR savvy one!
He did have a good PR team in the past (Allegra Stratton was prominent until Johnson managed to entice her away but then screwed it up) but although it has gone down recently (eg the how do I pay for fuel?) I think it is mostly just down to the fact its easy to have good PR if the media are on your side.
Take Cameron. He was the all conquering genius former PR man (which itself was PR since his PR "career" was a short one as time out from politics arranged by his mum) who leapt mountains with a single bound.
Up until the point his policies conflicted with the media barons policies. At which point it all came crashing down.
"Citizens of Nowhere"
She’s almost nailed on now to be the next tory leader.
Im not so sure she's gaffe prone and has her own skeleton stuffed closets, someone like Morduant or Tugenhat would be in with a good chance (and do a better job than Truss)
means the parliamentary party will want to avoid a leadership contest.
I think all talk of a leadership challenge ended when Christian Wakeford defected to Labour. It was seen not so much as an attack on Johnson but a betrayal of the Party. Which of course from a Tory perspective it was.
After that all Tory MPs rallied round Johnson rather than risk being seen as disloyal.
Johnson owes Starmer some gratitude for accepting Wakefield onto the Labour Benches.
After that all Tory MPs rallied round Johnson rather than risk being seen as disloyal.
No they didn’t. Rebels have dropped their calls for him to go since Russia pushed further into Ukraine. Before that the “rallying round” was partial, at best.
Okay
like Morduant or Tugenhat would be in with a good chance (and do a better job than Truss)
Tugenhat is walking a very careful line right now. Somehow presenting himself as not rocking the boat, while also speaking up and against the government on nearly every issue (I’ve recently found myself agreeing with him nearly every day, which is most disconcerting).
The likes of bridgen & Ross have openly stated that they're backing Johnson again due to war in Ukraine
He could probably even ride out a fine
A tory car crash in Local elections next month will be tougher
Boris Johnson vows to fight on against any Tory rebellion as defection bolsters support
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-vows-fight-against-25992227
"The defection by Christian Wakeford, the MP for Bury South, was paraded as a triumph by Labour leader Keir Starmer at Prime Minister’s Questions.
But twitchy Conservative MPs viewed it as betrayal of their party rather than an attack on the Prime Minister."
binners
Full Member
Akshata Murty is worth £27bn and went to all that trouble to avoid £20m tax. Thats the same as having £27,000 in the bank and dodging paying 20 quid. The greed is mind boggling.This is the bit that I just can’t get my head around. They’re now (deservedly IMHO) getting a ton of shit, possibly ending his obvious prime ministerial ambition, for the sake of what is effectively loose change to them.
They’ve already got more money than they know what to do with or could conceivably ever spend, no matter how many additional expensive holiday homes they buy.
Her dads fortune is £27 billion i believe, and what she may inherit one day, there appears to be a lot of disinformation about her being thrown into the press and internet just now, which is pretty much the unsavoury side of politics and the press.
Rishi Sunak is a dead duck though, that's clear from the last month, he is no threat to Boris (or the others) any more, which as someone else has stated, is giving Boris more time to get through yet another scandal, honestly that man is made of teflon!
Even by the standards of this government this week has been an utter car crash.
This Week in Tory is the longest I've seen.
https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire/status/1512361561263906821
there appears to be a lot of disinformation about her being thrown into the press and internet just now, which is pretty much the unsavoury side of politics and the press.
Thank you. She's a billionaire who goes out of her way to avoid paying tax which represents a tiny fraction of her wealth which she can afford without it having any impact on her. It's indefensible greed and entitlement. It would be bad enough on it's own but her husband has ambitions to be Prime Minister and is in charge of setting tax and spending policy. She and her husband clearly think the rules don't apply to them.
"I need to claim Universal Credit... my wife's earnings...? That's none of your business! Take me wife's name off of you ******* application form!"
As well as the obvious conflict of interests of having the man who is responsible for the UK's tax system having a non-dom in his household... I suspect the political impact of his family saying that they are not making the UK their long term home (where exactly do they claim they're off to after the UK... I still think the USA) will be felt most keenly amongst those who have been voting for these fake patriots because they believed them to be more invested in the success of their country ahead of broader international concerns.
Didn't realise that apparently when Rishi became an MP he held a green card.
In normal times i'd say that was it as far as his career goes, but 1. these ain't normal times, 2. The tories will just appoint someone else to carry on the "good work"
In normal times i’d say that was it as far as his career goes
I think it is possible it might end his career or at least set it back for several years. Just on the grounds its clear Johnson and co see him as a threat and hence are less likely to protect him as opposed to if he was a loyal supporter in which case it would definitely be ignored.
its clear Johnson and co see him as a threat and hence are less likely to protect him
Pretty sure the main reason Johnson made him chancellor was because he knew he'd be no threat to him based on how compromised he was on the tax issue. It just shows Sunak's naivety and/or arrogance in not forseeing it, or thinking it wouldn't be a problem. He's been played by Johnson. He'll be gone soon and another sucker in place in time for the next election.
Pretty sure the main reason Johnson made him chancellor
I think you are overrating Johnson there. He made him chancellor since Sunak was willing to have his advisors provided by Cummings rather than his own which is why Javid quit.
I dont think any deep thought about future blackmail material came in as opposed to finding someone willing accepting a reduced chancellorship compared to the past.
Thank you. She’s a billionaire who goes out of her way to avoid paying tax which represents a tiny fraction of her wealth which she can afford without it having any impact on her. It’s indefensible greed and entitlement. It would be bad enough on it’s own but her husband has ambitions to be Prime Minister and is in charge of setting tax and spending policy. She and her husband clearly think the rules don’t apply to them.
How do you know she's a billionaire, can you provide valid data on this, or is this just another press statement of she is from a family who have billions?
Again, where is the evidence that she goes out of her way to avoid paying tax, have you reviewed her tax payments in India, UK, etc? Again, how is it indefensible greed or entitlement when you have none of the evidence?
As for the rules, again, what rules has she broken, you mention tax evasion earlier, but not seen any evidence of this, tax avoidance again is perfectly legal, thus defensible, i've not seen any news or evidence pointing to evasion, so any chance you can pop this up for your above, and previous claims?
Glad you want transparency and full disclosure as regards the tax affairs of the inhabitants of 10 and 11 Downing Street as well @argee. Let's see if we get it...
How do you know she’s a billionaire
She's not a billionaire, Daz was exaggerating.
With only an estimated £690M she is almost as poor as the Queen, who is only has a personal fortune of £635M btw.
As for the rules, again, what rules has she broken
Again I think Daz was exaggerating. Her husband makes the rules concerning taxation. I can't imagine why she would need to break them.
As for the rules, again, what rules has she broken
She makes (according to the press I've read) about £30M a year for doing **** all. She's now making it her business to make sure she doesn't pay about 40% of that huuuge pile of cash while living in a grace and favour apartment with a bloke who gets to decide who much tax she'll pay, and still....Still you're trying to make out that somehow she's the victim in all this?
Cool
With only an estimated £690M she is almost as poor as the Queen, who is only has a personal fortune of £635M btw.
Well now I'm feeling sorry for her, so thanks for that.
The convolutions that the mega-rich go through in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax are mind-boggling.
Given his alleged 'green card' status for at least some of the past few years, you'd have thought the IRS would be taking an interest in the pair of them by now.
I had a distant relative who owned property in the US, but was too afraid to visit, because she and her husband had spent so much time pissing about trying to dodge taxes. They ended up living for years on a 'posh' holiday caravan site to avoid paying taxes here. I'm sure they think it's worth it though.
Again, no laws broken, and those rules were created decades before Rishi was even near number 11, yes she is filthy rich, but is that the one parameter required to attack her, without anyone really knowing any actual facts about her?
Again, i have no interest in Rishi, his wife, the rich, poor or indifferent, i just see so many arguments being made because 'they're rich', or 'they must have done something wrong', the problem isn't individuals, it's the laws we have lived by for decades, Non-Dom has been an issue for decades, same with tax avoidance, and inheritance tax (how much did the Duke of Westminster passed away a couple of years ago?) and on and on.
As for the rules, again, what rules has she broken
Claims non-dom status in UK as she's domiciled in India, owns three houses in the UK, one in the US and none in India.
The key question gor her individual position is "do the facts support her claim to qualify for non-dom status?"
Yes, then she's broken no rules, the rules need changing
No, then Sunak should resign and Boris has removed a potential political threat.
the problem isn’t individuals, it’s the laws we have lived by for decades
So you accept that there "a problem", how do suggest that this problem is resolved?
And do you believe that Sunak is working hard to end these legal loopholes which are causing the problem?
Without fear or favour presumably, since you apparently believe that the fact that his wife benefits hugely from these legal loopholes is completely irrelevant.
it’s the laws we have lived by for decades
Given that his wife and therefore by extension he, will benefit from all those existing laws do you think Rishi is more or less likely to change them? Knowing what you know about his wife's wealth do you not think that makes his position difficult? Do you think we, as taxpayers have a right to know about the financial interests of his wife if they are affected by marginal tax rules that only a very very few have access to, and may influence her husbands behaviour?
Given that his wife and therefore by extension he, will benefit from all those existing laws do you think Rishi is more or less likely to change them? Knowing what you know about his wife’s wealth do you not think that makes his position difficult? Do you think we, as taxpayers have a right to know about the financial interests of his wife if they are affected by marginal tax rules that only a very very few have access to, and may influence her husbands behaviour?
You'd have to show me the actual policy or law, at present i do not believe there is one covering what you've stated above.
As stated on the previous page, his position is now untenable, he will move away in the coming weeks, not sure how or where, but can't see him really messing about on the back benches.
As for the tax rules, again, i do not believe he has influenced those which his wife benefits from, they were brought in decades ago, have been tweaked by New Labour, then by the Cameron Tories, to turn them into what they are now, an even simpler way of foreign individuals being able to hide their outside earnings from UK tax.
The reality is that you could remove Non-Dom status tomorrow, the rich will just reroute their outside earnings through other tax avoidance schemes, that's even if they want to actually bring those earnings into the UK. We had the Non-Dom arguments before though, Abramovich, Mittal, the Goldsmiths, etc, etc, i mean we had British born and bred individuals claiming Non-Dom through routes that make this issue look very vanilla.
the rich will just reroute their outside earnings through other tax avoidance schemes
Do you think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be...
a) trying to close such schemes
b) benefitting from such schemes
Conflict of interest concerning a Minister's spouse is covered by paragraph 7.3 of the Ministerial Code.
As for the tax rules, again, i do not believe he has influenced those which his wife benefits from, they were brought in decades ago, have been tweaked by New Labour, then by the Cameron Tories, to turn them into what they are now, an even simpler way of foreign individuals being able to hide their outside earnings from UK tax.
Non domciled individuals historically have never been charged to tax on anything other than a remittance basis for foreign income. Indeed the remittance basis applied to everyone when income tax was first introduced. This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced. There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak's wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
I saw a comment earlier on LinkedIn that Johnson has slowly eliminated all his main rivals for the job in an incredibly effective manner. He's probably incredibly lucky or he still has a Cummings-esque monster pulling some strings for him.
The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Not true. Non-dom is a choice, you can be fully resided here for taxes, wherever your father was born. Why is she a non-dom anyway? Why isn't she staying here on a permanent basis? Where is she going? When she goes, is she taking Rishi with her? So many questions...
There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Weird isn't it, when people think there's one rule for the super rich and another for everyone else?
It is obviously not Sunak wife's fault that she was born super rich and forced to claim that her home is on the other side of the world.
And that she doesn't need to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Or that Priti Patel isn't on her case and has her deported.
Why is she a non-dom anyway? Why isn’t she staying here on a permanent basis?
She claims that her billionaire father might one day need her to look after him.
Shame the law isn't so humane and understanding when it comes to the likes of the Windrush Generation.
Why is she a non-dom anyway?
Because her father is Indian. Losing a domicile of origin is something HMRC have been very reluctant to allow because they are much more worried about UK nationals going abroad than people coming here and that has always informed their policy.
Non domciled individuals historically have never been charged to tax on anything other than a remittance basis for foreign income. Indeed the remittance basis applied to everyone when income tax was first introduced. This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced. There is no loophole and these rules were subject to a public consultation under Brown. The only tax planning Sunak’s wife did was to be born to an Indian father which I doubt she had a lot of say in.
Yeah, you've put it a lot better than i have, i just remember when that 30k / 60k annual payment came out it was to give all those potentially 'evading' tax to claim this status and at least pay something.
As for Akshata Murthy, i know nothing about her, bar that nothing stated in the press is illegal, it's all within the tax rules within the UK. The flip side of the argument is that people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India on her earnings from her mainly Indian business and instead paying it here, it's just a weird argument.
Again, i have no side in this, i just get a little annoyed that there seems to be a real run of bad press on her, without anyone really knowing her financial business, and aiming their diatribe at her, instead of the actual laws and regulations that we have been hampered with for generations, there's been several areas of evasion and controversy on this status that's not even made a paper, funnily enough there's a couple of media moguls who are non-doms as well!
people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India
Cite one example of that.
Because her father is Indian.
No, that is part of the reason why she can claim to be a non-dom. The question is, why does she choose to be one? And if she isn’t staying, where is she going? Owning property and regularly visiting California suggests it might be there. Why does it matter? Because her husband is one of the main people running this country.
Or that Priti Patel isn’t on her case and has her deported.
Oh, that would be funny....
My wife is a Spanish nation, who also don't allow dual nationality and intents to return to Spain. She pays full UK tax. But then she isn't a millionaire.
Tax is for little people.
Maybe she would rather the Indian government got the taxes because they're less corrupt than bozo's circus.
This changed under Gordon Brown so you had to pay an annual fee to retain a remittance basis and these rules were expanded under Cameron and the 15 year deemed domcile rule was introduced.
So, under two recent governments, the rules were tightened up, to reduce what was basically piss taking? Now, will they be further tightened by this government, while there is a non-dom living above number ten Downing Street? If so, will the changes be drawn up in a way that impacts on her and her millions? By her husband? Hmm… imagine the conversations going on over cocktails on the beach in California between this couple…
it’s all within the tax rules within the UK
Well yes but that just because something is legal doesnt mean you should do it. Despite the false claims otherwise there is nothing in Indian or UK law stopping her being tax resident here. Many other Indian citizens manage it.
The flip side of the argument is that people on here are slating her for not avoiding paying the tax in India on her earnings from her mainly Indian business and instead paying it here
Its a weird argument because you just invented it.
Since we have a double tax agreement with India there would be no impact on the taxes paid to the Indian government from the Indian income. It would just be if the tax rate is higher in the UK then she would owe that amount.
I would note though given the careful wording of the statement about "international tax" I would be somewhat suspicious that other schemes are in place to minimise the tax due there though.
Again, i have no side in this
And yet you are busy defending her and announcing it is legal.
I would agree the problem is far larger than her. Its the issue that the "law" can be heavily influenced by people with deep pockets donating to the parties.
And yet you are busy defending her and announcing it is legal.
I'm giving counters to the she's richer than the queen so pay up, same with all the other arguments about why she should just pay over what she has too, just because of what her husband does.
It's the same with the arguments that Richi Sunak is currently sat there writing out the tax rules for his and his friends benefits, the man probably hasn't been near any of the computers or people who have written the policy, you want to see real areas of concern, check out how many secondee's from the big 4 accountancy firms have been in and around HMRC and the tax office in relation to writing and amending tax laws.
she's caved. She obviously fine with until it was exposed, now in the full light of day she looks like a right money grabbing shit. Too little to late to save the political future of your husband girl.
Sorry I am struggling to see your argument here. Is it just that others are worse?
I am quite aware of the fact the tax system has been taken over by the big 4 who benefit from more complex laws but thats not really an argument to ignore this particular case.
Looking at BBC breaking news it looks like even they have realised its not exactly a good look.
oH.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-tax-haven-b2054179.html?amp
Sorry I am struggling to see your argument here.
The argument is simple, she has followed the laws and regulations for tax purposes, could she pay more, well she has now, for no other reason than the hounding in the press, not because she legally had too. I'd guess she will be rearranging her affairs now to minimise the issues with this, i can't see Sunak being in office for much longer either, honestly can't understand why someone worth so much, who has so much would want to sit in this government and have their family put under this much scrutiny.
Wow someone really has it in for Sunak
who that could be 😉?
I wonder if we'll see more leaked pictures of lockdown busting garden parties snapped from Rishis balcony in retaliation 😂😂😂
she’s caved
I'm willing to bet she hasn't, they'll wait until it's all blown over and then be back to their tax-dodging ways. Yeah, maybe it's not strictly [b]illegal[/b] - much like most of the expenses scandal or the second homes flipping was technically illegal, it's just not a good look.
For me, it's just a matter of fairness and principle. She "earns" (gets given) tens of millions of pounds per year in dividends. That's more money than the average UK worker makes in a lifetime. It is literally more money than you can actually spend unless you are buying a new house every month. The right and fair thing to do on that is to pay what's due in tax, especially when you're telling the average UK worker to pay more tax and NI.
One rule for them, one for us - OK most of the tax avoidance stuff is available to the common people as well but when you're earning national average salary it's hardly worth the time to do that.
Does she even pay tax in India? How much of it will be squirreled away offshore in Mauritius or wherever.
Does she even pay tax in India? How much of it will be squirreled away offshore in Mauritius or wherever.
Nobody has a clue, all we know is she's non-domiciled, the rest is guesswork, but she's rich, so should pay more than she has too, like everyone else does.
why she should just pay over what she has too, just because of what her husband does
It's literally his job to decide "what she has toooo" pay, and what she can get away with not paying. That's the point you keep missing.
Anyway, she's made the right move, if they are to have any chance of staying living over number ten... never mind ever moving next door. I'd like to apologise about the cocktail jokes... I forgot that they don't drink. It'll be ice cold Mexican cokes on the beach in California.
No, that is part of the reason why she can claim to be a non-dom.
No it is a matter of fact, her domicile of origin is India, there is no question, no claim. it was automatic on her birth. The next question is whether she has acquired a domicile of choice and there is nothing to suggest she has. The attached article gives a basic outline of the law. I draw your attention to the section "2.2.1 Tenacity of Domicile of Original".
It’s literally his job to decide “what she has toooo” pay, and what she can get away with not paying. That’s the point you keep missing.
I don't miss it, i just don't see that he has written any tax laws to benefit her specifically, again, as stated earlier, the Chancellor is not someone who is sat there working out the intricacies of the tax law covering the UK to map out the best outcome for his wife, he is the figurehead of that department, he has a staff of thousands within those areas doing this, which then get passed through the house, voted on and brought in to law, as well as scrutinised by independent committees.
It's not a smear if it's entirely true Rishi!
frankconway
Full Member
ctk – what’s your problem?
You’re either trolling (unlikely) or are pushing an agenda.
Either way your posts aren’t worth reading
@frankconway 👍 Lovely post thankyou. I was both trolling and pushing an agenda.
The attached article gives a basic outline of the law. I draw your attention to the section “2.2.1 Tenacity of Domicile of Original”.
Thank you for that journey into the 18th century, or wherever it was that portal took me to.
I particularly liked :
“The term domicilium is derived from domum colere, to foster or inhabit the home. Domicile is not any place of residence but a place of habitual residence.”
So it turns out that Akshata Murty’s "place of habitual residence" is India.
I still can't believe that despite sunaks very expensive PR conpany/lawyers that they've been caught off guard by this
I can understand that he might not realise how nasty Johnson can be, but from an optics point of view he really is clueless
I still can’t believe that despite sunaks very expensive PR conpany/lawyers that they’ve been caught off guard by this
It's complicated being exceedingly wealthy.
Mo money mo problems...
So it turns out that Akshata Murty’s “place of habitual residence” is India.
Well that would be case if the law had stuck more to the original Latin meaning, but it developed as discussed in the essay to have a different definition. That said I appreciate a man of your background might be more comfortable looking to Rome and being sceptical of English innovations.
from an optics point of view he really is clueless
I think he got a bit giddy and thought that everybody loved him for his dazzling wit and charm, rather than because he was handing out free money and paying for your pizza.
Pretty much everything he’s done subsequently has been a disaster
Summed up nicely today by Marina…
You have to admit The Rishi Sunak Show is hilarious. The non-dom episode is the best yet
Some carefully worded comments being fed to the media… looks very much to me like non-dom status will be retained and this whole paying UK tax on all earnings thing is temporary while Rishi patches up his rep. Good tax planning in case of inheritance (which would likely be very big money) ?
I think he’s just living in that alternative world that rich people live in.
They look like us but are most definitely not,like the lizard overlords.
They slip up when having to do the mundane pleb tasks or forget that we don’t have a different car for each house we own.