Goodness - golden boy Sunak now less popular than Starmer!

She is richer than the Queen.

Shocking. That's enough to pay for Prince Charles's personal income.

"Akshata Murty may have avoided up to £20m in tax with non-dom status"

This exemption is subject to a fee of £30,000 p.a. You have to be earning a considerable sum from overseas investments for it to be worth paying 30grand a year to avoid paying UK tax on it.

Her vast wealth is being protected by £30k exemption fee which is more than triple the annual income of those on state pension. It may be legal but it’s immoral and it stinks.

However I read somewhere that for the super-rich you can live here full-time and still be 'non-dom' for tax purposes.

That's because being a 'tax resident' and being 'non dom' are completely different things for taxation purposes.

Katie59

The Problem is that if you are a “non dom” you are supposed to have a home elsewhere and be a “temporary” resident in the UK.
If the Sunaks are temporary residents what the hell are we doing electing him as an MP, let alone chancellor

No you don't.

I'm sure this has been explained before but I'll try again.

Non dom has nothing at all to do with your citizenship status or where your 'home' is.

Don't confuse it with being 'resident for tax purposes', a status in which a Brit living abroad pays no UK tax on UK income but is taxed on it in the country they live in. This is subject to a restriction on the number of days a year they can spend in the UK.

Mrs S is 'tax resident' in the Uk, but:

Non dom status can be claimed to avoid tax on earnings from 'overseas' on the grounds that you do not intend to live permanently in the UK. This, in itself, has interesting implications for the state of the Sunak marriage. ?
This exemption is subject to a fee of £30,000 p.a. You have to be earning a considerable sum from overseas investments for it to be worth paying 30grand a year to avoid paying UK tax on it.

Two points raised earlier were

1) about double taxation of Mrs S's India derived income, but apparently the UK has treaty with India to ensure this doesn't happen.

2) Does she pay Indian tax on this money?
It seems doubtful as it is apparently offshored in Mauritius.

Katie59

The Problem is that if you are a “non dom” you are supposed to have a home elsewhere and be a “temporary” resident in the UK.
If the Sunaks are temporary residents what the hell are we doing electing him as an MP, let alone chancellor

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. I have a friend who's lived in the US for decades and for tax reasons only spends 90 days a year in the UK - her case is what most of us think of.

However I read somewhere that for the super-rich you can live here full-time and still be 'non-dom' for tax purposes.

Supposed to attract wealth to the country - probably how we ended up with so many oligarchs.

If anyone thinks that rich people in India pay a fair share of the taxes they don’t know anything about the Indian tax system! Believe me.

But I suppose she pays her taxes to India.... should she be taxed twice?

This

Jo Maugham
@JolyonMaugham
·
39m
Lots of things not illegal are still immoral. Like forcing children into poverty, making pensioners live in the cold and failing to pay your fair share in taxes.

The right to buy was blatant gerrymandering to get Thatcher elected, of course it was popular but put low wage earners at a big disadvantage because councils were deprived of the cash they needed to replace housing.

Someone renting for 15 years for a low rent, then buying at a high discount would have the same asset Dinahmo.
Of course people took advantage of it, why shouldn't they, but it still wasn't a good idea.
My last post, sorry OP.

The Problem is that if you are a “non dom” you are supposed to have a home elsewhere and be a “temporary” resident in the UK.
If the Sunaks are temporary residents what the hell are we doing electing him as an MP, let alone chancellor

In my opinion - What Sunak needs to get to grips with is this: he’s inured to tax and cost of living rises, almost all the rest of us are not.

So, when he says we have to suck it up, it really doesn’t sit well. When he has the means to make our lives less expensive, and doesn’t yet still splurges our money on non-essential things like ‘net-zero’ and HS2, the kind of things that could have money wasted on them when the sun was shining, it also doesn’t sit well.

Bottom line, a really, really rich person telling us he needs more of our money to spend on things we don’t need or want grates very badly.

Could have gone towards a lovely new hospital.

Probably helped them to purchase their holiday home in the USA.

Avoided £20 million over the past decade apparently.

Not bad.

The reason why the fact that Sunak’s wife “earns” £11.5 million in her Indian company and pays no tax on it because of the archaic tax laws is an issue, is that - her husband, who no doubt benefits from this wealth, has done nothing to ease the cost of living crisis which will push thousands into poverty. Sunak could have done something to help the poorest , but chose to protect the wealthiest instead. We now have the highest inflation and the highest taxation in decades.

nadateturbe

Of course it worked for them DiamondLily. But why should tenants who pay a moderate rent then be offered their house at a ridiculously low price while others are paying at least twice the council rent in mortgage payments. There is no logical reason for selling off council housing.
It's a disgrace and the reason people pay so much for private rentals which they could lose any time.

Well, I didn't take up the offer to buy mine, but many friends and neighbours did, which was up to them.

We all do what what we consider best for our families, I suppose.

I still think the problem now is due to not replacing the stock as it was sold. If that had happened, we wouldn't have had the dire affordable housing shortage we have now.

Both political parties need to take responsibility for this, as neither, since the 80's, have built enough affordable housing.

nadateturbe

Interest..capital.. whatever..you obviously don't get my point Dinahmo...

I can assure you I did. It seems to me that you are the one not understanding. It seems to me that you are just comparing the amount of money your mortgage outgoings with the rents paid by someone else for social housing.

I took the following figures from Lloyds Bank website - today's rates for a first time buyer.

Mortgage £140k (Over 25 years)
Total paid over 25 years £226k
Interest element = £86k

Monthly repayments £753, capital element £467 therefore interest £286.

Whilst you are paying out £753 per month, you are in effect investing £467 in your home. Assuming that there are no increases in the value of property at the end of 25 years you would have an asset worth £140,000. Someone renting social housing would, at the end of 25 years, not have an asset.

For the purpose of this exercise I have ignored a deposit and obviously interest rates will fluctuate over 25 years.

Interest..capital.. whatever..you obviously don't get my point Dinahmo...

Perhaps they could have tightened up on the reselling rules?
I think it used to be that you had to give the council first refusal if you sold within 5 years (or 10?)

trisher I have a theory about that Rents must have given some councils quite a large income, especially the large cities.

There's a frequently quoted statement - I've never checked it, but could believe it - that Glasgow City Council were the biggest landlords in Europe.

MissAdventure

I didn't know that, Petera.
Well, perhaps some other scheme to help people have a home, then?

I'm sure the original intention wasnt to allow ex council properties to be owned and let out by people who were never tenants in the first place.

From a BBC article

"Under the rules, councils were prevented from reinvesting most of the proceeds of council house sales in new homes. After 1990, most local authorities were only allowed to spend 25% of such receipts on building houses."

nadateturbe

Dinahmo whatever way you explain it, tenants paid much less then those paying a mortgage then got the opportunity to buy the house for a pittance. (We were offered ours for £6k). After a time they could sell and make a huge profit towards theirnext home. How is that fair? Council housing should never be sold, it's for those who can't afford to buy.

As I said, you need to strip the capital element before you can really compare.

Dinahmo whatever way you explain it, tenants paid much less then those paying a mortgage then got the opportunity to buy the house for a pittance. (We were offered ours for £6k). After a time they could sell and make a huge profit towards theirnext home. How is that fair? Council housing should never be sold, it's for those who can't afford to buy.