Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

An interesting read, quite short.
www.mondaq.com/advicecentre/content/3132/UK-Resident-Non-Domiciled-Individuals-A-Beneficial-Tax-Regime

The council house sell-off was a bribe, pure and simple. It appealed to the baser side of human nature, but was 100% in keeping with the‘ no such thing as society’ ethos of the time. Those who could grab a fistful of ‘wonga’ could see plenty of others doing the same, and whilst yes, it was greedy, given that every second conversation was about house prices and the ‘property ladder’ it was understandable. I know people who did very well out of it, particularly those who ‘helped their parents’ to buy and then pocketed the publicly-funded windfall a few years later. I know others who bought them couldn’t afford the maintenance, and watched neighbours get new kitchens and rewires whist their own houses fell into disrepair. I’m sure we all know young people who are really struggling to get a house now, as they are paying private landlords huge rents to live in what used to be ‘social’ housing. The luck of the draw for individuals, but for the cohesion of society (which I do believe exists) it was an unmitigated disaster.

As for Sunak giving to food banks - wouldn’t that be seen as support for a system that relies on the charity of individuals (or in many cases the poor doing without so that the poorer don’t starve)? What government wants to take ownership of this third-world state of affairs by publicly donating?

She does not get non-domicile status bestowed on her, she has to actively apply for it, likewise she can give up non domicile for tax purposes at any time and pay tax in the U.K. From memory, HMRC apply a sort of suck it and see with regard to non-domicile.

So if you have your main home in the U.K. and spend the majority if your time in the U.K. over a number of years, together with things like you family bring resident and educated here plus other indicators, than you claim for non-domicile can be rescinded.

Council houses should never have been sold, and definitely not at such high discount. People we know bought at ridiculous price of £6k in 1985 and sold at a huge profit.
Housing wasn't replaced. Now private rentals are much higher than council rents and the government has to pay for those on benefits. Doesn't make sense.

Sunak's Sunaks

There is nothing illegal in what the Sunak's are doing.

Mrs Sunak is still a citizen of India, not of this country. There is also a certain morality in paying tax where the money is made. However, I would question whether she can have allegiance to this country when a citizen of a country that, at the moment, is very much an "old friend" of Russia and provides her with a very good life.

None of that would matter if her husband did not have intimate knowledge of the future planning of our country's economy. In this instance, I would also be concerned that he will know the very fundamentals of how this country is supporting Ukraine.

I think we have to hope he doesn't work at home.

Pantglas2

It’ll be the same people who didn’t have a good word to say about him even when they were grabbing all that furlough money.

I have friends who bought their council houses and still hate Thatcher for depleting social housing stock!

And you don't understand their point of view? I don't envy those who are friends of those with such a narrow point of view.

Niobe

I have to admit that I do wonder why we are just now hearing about the Sunaks’ slightly questionable finanacial arrangements. Surely they have been known about to the HMRC and the treasury. Could it be an attempt by someone to scupper RS’s leadership chances if Boris is forced out if fined for his role in Partygate? I don’t know but politics is a dirty game.

Johnson and Sunak have been briefing against each other for a long time. Not that it matters to those of us who take an interest in politics. It's been glaringly obvious for the past 3 years that neither are fit for the office of PM. None of the current cabinet are.

The selling of council houses was supposed to raise revenue to invest in new public housing policy.... part one happened....then it all got privatised with housing associations taking over
responsibility for 'affordable rental' homes which started off being good social enterprise type businesses but are less so now. We, with my DHs siblings, could have helped my in laws buy their flat in Wandsworth but we would not join in , on principle. It did not affect them but we might have made a bit of profit from a subsequent sale..but we could not sell our souls...

Niobe you have just hit the nail firmly on the head.

Mr. Sunak’s wife is not doing anything illegal, she pays all taxes due in her earnings in the U.K.

Obviously Mr. Sunak as PM is a worry to some.

I have to admit that I do wonder why we are just now hearing about the Sunaks’ slightly questionable finanacial arrangements. Surely they have been known about to the HMRC and the treasury. Could it be an attempt by someone to scupper RS’s leadership chances if Boris is forced out if fined for his role in Partygate? I don’t know but politics is a dirty game.

Thank you rosie1959 I though I saw that somewhere.

vegansrock

The chancellor obviously benefits from her millions with his many luxury homes. I think they are currently on holiday in their millionaires apartment in California.

He was seen in Welwyn Garden City yesterday at a hospital visit

The chancellor obviously benefits from her millions with his many luxury homes. I think they are currently on holiday in their millionaires apartment in California.

Yes it's legal but it's fair game for political comment - she is after all the wife of the Chancellor!

If course it's perfectly legal but it does seem a tad odd.

It may be legal, but looks dodgy - she is a non dom for tax purposes but actually is dom - she does live in the U.K. - maybe this loophole will be tightened up? I’m not holding my breath on that one.

I hold no brief for the Sunaks - her, I don't know; him I don't know either but I was appalled by the spring statement.

However, I don't see why she should have to pay tax on income which has been earned and taxed in another country. As far as I can see its legal, and while I support taxation 100% to fund key services, I couldn't warm to the idea of having to pay it twice.

She does not have British citizenship, India, from memory, is one of the countries that does not allow dual citizenship. I can quite see why she does not want to relinquish her ties with her country of birth . She will pay tax in India on her dividend and will have no say in where the company is registered and therefore where the dividend is paid.
I would argue that India probably needs the income more than we do.

Daisymae

It's very odd that the wife of the chancellor who supposedly lives in Downing Street is actually a non-dom. The main question though is how these people are chosen for high political office in the first place.

There is nothing illegal about her non dom status
She hasn't been chosen for high political office

It's easy to be popular when you are dishing out the cash, not so easy when you have to make tough decisions and balance the books.

I'm not so keen on Sunak now.

It's very odd that the wife of the chancellor who supposedly lives in Downing Street is actually a non-dom. The main question though is how these people are chosen for high political office in the first place.

JenniferEccles

How do you know he hasn’t donated to food banks?
A lot of surmising going on here.

Maybe he has (although I doubt it), but it's irrelevant. Can you honestly claim Winchester needs £100,000 more than foodbanks?

In India there are plenty millionaires. It's a poor country but not for some.

His wife has non-domicile status. She 'earns' around £11m from her share in her family's business in India and does not have to pay tax on it here. The Sunaks recently gave a donation of £100,000 to his old school, Winchester College. How can we expect the product of such an exalted social standing to have any sympathy - never mind empathy - with the poor, the sick, the elderly and those struggling to pay for a University education.