Forum menu
Any evidence for this weirdo conspiracy theory?
Any evidence for what you made up?
He's retained non-dom status. It hasn't been removed despite legislation changes in 2017. Unless you know something no-one else does. Perhaps a link detailing how, or when, or if Lord Rothermere lost his non-dom status. Just one. You can cite weirdo conspiracy theory websites as sources if you want. Go ahead...
You could also correct Wikipedia if you wanted, rather than save the sharing of your knowledge with us...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_non-domiciled_status_in_the_UK
...get the Former "non-doms" section updated to avoid further confusion.
No solution then?
Yep, loads of solutions but none that the current political system and party approach would ever put in place as it would mean they would no longer exist.
Until then we are going to be continually living in a tory country as that is what the people (as per the current system) want more than anything else.
Well it is widely documented he lives in the UK and has done for many years which makes him resident here for tax purposes for a long period certainly before his father's death in 1998. If one is resident for more than 15 out of 20 years you are automatically deemed to be domiciled in the UK under the 2017 legislation(S29 F(No2)A 2017). On this basis, absent any evidence to the contrary the natural conclusion is that he is domiciled here. Even the Guardian noted how the Daily Mail didn't rail against the change in rules despite it impacting their proprietor.
He still has non-dom status. No one has ever said that he's lost it, apart from you. Cite just one source other than your own mind... go ahead... dig as deep into the weirdo conspiracy theory corners if the internet as you want. You concluding that he "should" have lost it, based on your knowledge of the legislature, and your knowledge of his affairs, really doesn't cut it, sorry.
Yep, loads of solutions but none that the current political system and party approach would ever put in place as it would mean they would no longer exist.
Until then we are going to be continually living in a tory country as that is what the people (as per the current system) want more than anything else.
So never offer an alternative - especially when time eventually takes its toll on the Tories.
Roll over and die then.
We've tried a couple of things - we just can't do it?
He still has non-dom status. No one has ever said that he’s lost it, apart from you.
Bless
Go on, cite one source. Doesn’t have to be a tax expert, or someone close to him… any crank will do. Just so we know there’s more than one person in the world who’s come to the same conclusion.
Roll over and die then.
Kerley is our resident 'woe is me' poster. Nothing will ever be better, we're doomed to a tory dystopia forever, resistance is futile, we have to accept it etc.. 🙂
Doesn’t have to be a tax expert
I became a member of the Institute of Taxation in 1988.
That's great, you'll have sources to hand you can cite then. Go on... just one other person saying he's lost non-dom status.
some proof hes not a non-dom would be easy to show then
I doubt it matters if he's non-dom or not, he'll be using tax avoidance and every other avenue available to minimise taxation in any form, it's no different to any other asset owner, be it dukedoms or media empires.
some proof hes not a non-dom would be easy to show then
There's not a register, it is simply an analysis of the law which I have referenced and a broad understanding of his personal circumstances. All long term residents of the UK are now deemed to be domiciled here and have been ever since the 2017 legislation came in.
Any link to someone else coming to the same conclusion? Ideally someone with more than a "broad" understanding of his circumstances. But really, any other voice would do. Just cite one...
All long term residents of the UK are now deemed to be domiciled here and have been ever since the 2017 legislation came in.
Like Mrs Sunak, who has been living in the UK since 2015?
It would seem that there's a loophole for billionaires somewhere?
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
Like Mrs Sunak, who has been living in the UK since 2015?
Long term is at least 15 years in this context.
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
All that says is he didnt complain. Now what could be a logical reason for him not complaining?
To date he has declined to comment on his nondom status. Now admittedly there could be a chance he is worried if he does then he would be expected to answer questions about all his other tax affairs but alternatively it is that he still is one.
He is reluctant to comment on anything, he doesn't give interviews and he lets his editors get on with it. So the theory that the Daily Mail is having a go at Starmer because of his tax status fails on more than one level, but its a nice comfort blanket.
Doesn't Rothermere live in France?
and he lets his editors get on with it.
I would imagine his editors have a fairly fundamental grasp of what he'd like to see in his newspapers without having to check back daily.
The Peter Preston article I already linked.
Doesn't say that is has given up non-dom status. It claims he took a hands off approach to his paper when the 2017 legislation was proposed, and mischaracterised it. Preston was often standing up for newspapers and journalists, of all persuasions. Anyway, the quote...
You might, in other hands, have expected a rampant Mail campaign when the Treasury did away with the non-dom tax status that has served the fourth and third viscounts so well. But no, not a squeak.
Did the Treasury do away with non-dom tax status? No. Have the changes introduced in 2017 resulted in Rothermere losing his non-dom status? 🤷🏻
So the theory that the Daily Mail is having a go at Starmer because of his tax status fails on more than one level, but its a nice comfort blanket.
Whilst I would love to take your condescending word for it I notice that you fail to provide any evidence for your claims.
I've found a Times article from last year that might make the same claim as you... doing some digging behind the firewall...
cookeaa
It seems that if the Great Unwashed Majority are going to vote for anything other than a corrupt bastard with fluffy hair it’s going to be a “sensible” centrist offering from Labour. Present them easily derided “hard-left” policies, fronted by a renegade geography teacher and they’ll just choose the Tory Clown again.Those determined to drag a “moderate” “Centrist” labour back towards the left are just going to help create a split and in doing so gift the next GE to to the Torys.
Nice to see some sense talked on this thread.
I became a member of the Institute of Taxation in 1988.
Swoon.
BTW I showed this thread to my wife, who is a Chartered Tax Advisor. She thinks, like Dissonance, that whilst it's possible he's lost his non-dom status, this hasn't been demonstrated by anything you've presented so far.
Present them easily derided “hard-left” policies
What policies would they be then? Seriously, I can't remember any 'hard left' policies in the last two labour manifestos.
Those determined to drag a “moderate” “Centrist” labour back towards the left are just going to help create a split
There already is a split, created by the leadership and the PLP who won't accept that their members want something different to what they are offering.
I'm a member and I want what they're offering.
You don't, but then you're not a member 😛
In a moment of magnanimous grace I'm prepared for the Sunderland FC supporters club and the S Club 7 fan club to voice opinions that differ to mine as I'm a member of neither, though I would still be of the latter if it wasn't for the restraining order
You don’t, but then you’re not a member
I was a member right up to the point where it became obvious that people like myself weren't welcome. There are around 200k more like me. It doesn't make much sense to be a member of an organisation which I don't support. I might even consider rejoining if Starmer is removed by his own incompetence and Reeves doesn't succeed him, but until then I have as much in common with Labour as I do with the tories or liberal democrats.
She thinks, like Dissonance, that whilst it’s possible he’s lost his non-dom status, this hasn’t been demonstrated by anything you’ve presented so far.
But that is only because we don't know for sure that he has been tax resident for years. To the extent there is any press coverage of him, it strongly suggests he has lived here for a long time (split between Wiltshire and Holland Park) and he has therefore been resident and would accordingly fall within the rules.
But that is only because we don’t know for sure that he has been tax resident for years.
So none of us know? And you're just guessing? Let's leave it there. Schrödinger's non-dom. Less of the "weirdo conspiracy theory" charges please.
But that is only because we don’t know for sure that he has been tax resident for years. To the extent there is any press coverage of him, it strongly suggests he has lived here for a long time (split between Wiltshire and Holland Park) and he has therefore been resident and would accordingly fall within the rules.
Are we not doing argument from authority any more?
Are we not doing argument from authority any more?
It doesn't matter how august you are, if you don't know the precise facts you can never be completely sure but everything points to him being tax resident for a long time, the Times article, likely sloppily worded, also suggests there was a change in circumstance in 2017 so I am very sure I'm right.
Less of the “weirdo conspiracy theory” charges please.
Why, it is what I think, it is like much of the other stuff posted on political threads.
14000!!!!!
Have we reached peak disgruntlement yet?
I've said it before, but the main thing that makes labour difficult to elect as there's two factions (centrist left and harder left) for want of a better phrase, that will happily do each other over even if it means alienating 50% of thier potential voters.
Unless they can present a united front or split themselves into two parties they will remain that way.
Ok there's a glimmour of hope that they will gain votes just because people don't want conservatives, but a lot of those votes will end up with the Lib dems anyway, see the locals just gone...massive lib dem gains compared to very modest Lab gains. so it's hardly a strategy.
Someone has been giving Durham Police a helping hand on Twitter - see below.
In fairness to Sir Keir I'm sure he is very busy all of the time. He may not be able to recall accurately what he did last month / last year and this could account for the inconsistency between some of his comments and the facts to the contrary.
BUT - he's also been very unforgiving of other possibly even more busy people not having an accurate recall of their own actions.
https://twitter.com/Greg_P_C/status/1521597949138063360
so I am very sure I’m right.
That is surprising.
Oh dear, 'GregC' can't even work out how to put together a sentence, and 'Samantha Smith' is one of those really weird young conservatives who seem to have watched Harry Enfield and thought it was a joining campaign instead of a comedy!
I do love how they are weirdly liberal when interpreting the truth, the house party is a good touch, as is the indoor gatherings being banned, well unless you forgot what Tier 2 was, i.e. sports events allowing fans back, pubs pretending that a packet of pork scratchings is substantial so they could open and so on!
It's quite sad that not one news agency has noted the difference between the lockdown and what happened with the tier system, all those people who couldn't have a wedding, or be at a funeral, or see family in hospital, or even form a 'bubble' to have company are being derided by all this, it's as bad as Rishi Sunak seeing the effect of inflation and recession and saying 'i know how you feel' to try and soothe folk on the breadline.
Less of the “weirdo conspiracy theory” charges please.
Why, it is what I think, it is like much of the other stuff posted on political threads.
A fair point imo. I think the across the board onslaught Starmer is currently facing from the right-wing press is unlikely to be connected to the tax status of the Daily Mail's proprietor.
I am sure that even Viscount Rothermere sees a broader picture beyond his narrow tax avoidance needs. Besides, he can't be responsible for other newspapers suddenly taking off the kid gloves with regards to Starmer.
The question therefore is why has Starmer recently started to receive the same treatment in the last few days that the previous leader was receiving on a daily basis, you know the relentless attacks on his character and personality, and which ironically Starmer connived to instigate.
Having established that in your opinion the alleged nom dom connection is a weirdo conspiracy theory why then, in your opinion, have the right-wing press recently taken a particularly hostile attitude towards Starmer, or would you deny that they have?
I am genuinely interested in your opinion mefty as you are sadly about the last remaining alternative Tory opinion on stw.
I’ve said it before, but the main thing that makes labour difficult to elect as there’s two factions (centrist left and harder left) for
Lol.
It's always centre-left and HARD left.
HARD is not on a sliding scale with centre.
The majority of the problems lies with calling something 'hard' that simply intends to use the state to to improve the standard of living rather than using the market (via the state) to allocate resources to bring about an improvement of standards of living.
The centre is not the centre in this context
Always thought they used the terms soft left and hard left as descriptors, centre left is just something to denote that side of the argument.
It's a tabloid term - hard left.
Soft left I've never really heard used.