"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

I agree with you Doodledog. Benefits should be based on the individual, no matter what the circumstances of the other people in the household are - and it's not just spouses/partners.

Shropshirelass

What Rishi Sunak and his wife have or do not have has no bearing on decisions made with the Governments purse strings. Quite honestly, Rishi and his wife have done nothing wrong and it really is none of our business. What would anyone do if they were fortunate enough to be in their position? We all take advantage of schemes that are available to us.

Might not be legally wrong, but it’s morally bankrupt while he’s sticking it to the rest of us. A billionaire as chancellor isn’t exactly the brightest of ideas.

The question should be "Do we want somebody who has no idea what it's like to struggle financially and couldn't give a fig about most people, running the country's (and our) finances?"

Germanshepherdsmum

You don’t have to be ‘very rich’ to be treated as an individual for tax purposes. Every person liable to pay UK tax is treated as an individual.
As regards household income being considered for benefits purposes, wouldn’t there be an outcry if the spouse of a high earner were paid UC? That could easily happen if household income were not taken into account.
As regards the so-called cut in UC, GrannyGravy says it all. How many ordinary working people received a permanent £20 pw wage increase during the pandemic?

I don't understand why we are taxed as individuals but benefit and other entitlements are paid as households, other than as social engineering to encourage marriage.

My views on means-testing are well-documented on here (I hate it ), but I also think that adults who are able to contribute to the coffers should do so in their own right, and that couples shouldn't be given an unfair advantage over single people. The state shouldn't give financial advantage to one way of living over another, IMO.

If someone has contributed via tax/NI they should be able to claim benefits (and by this I mean pension, unemployment benefit, maternity pay etc, whether or not I would view them as 'benefits' ordinarily) as an individual, and their spouse's income should be irrelevant. Equally, I don't think that couples where only one person has paid in should expect to get two lots out when it comes to claims, so I would more clearly restore the link between contributions and entitlements, and remove any tax benefits to belonging to a couple, too.

Wrt the Sunaks, I agree with Coastpath:
To use or condone the use by family members of these methods of absolving the duty to pay our way fairly (not legally, but fairly and with charitable intent) says something about a person which does not sit right with my idea of someone who becomes an MP in order to serve their country and make society a better place for all.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD

OK.

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of money is?

Money is a tool MaizieD as I am sure you know.

I couldn’t give a monkeys cuss what the super rich do with theirs, as long as it is not illegal.

As for their large houses, super yachts, probably art collections and jewellery. The houses have to be maintained and furnished, someone built them and the furniture in the first place.

There was a guy on the radio 2 the other week who owns a company in the U.K. which manufactures and refits super yachts, he employs 100s full time and brings in artisan workman when needed, which is often. The average super yacht is re-fitted every 10 years.

High end couture, employs 1,000s of seamstresses and trains many more. High jewellery/watch production is also a large employer and has apprenticeship schemes.

That's not a valid argument. If wealth were distributed more equally, there would still be people buying "stuff", which need to be built, maintained, etc. The wealth wouldn't disappear.

To my mind the whole point is not how wealthy you are but the fact that in this country it buys you access to the democratically (?) elected government and the ability to influence policy, whilst at the same time ensuring as far as possible that your stake in this country is reduced to the smallest extent possible

DaisyAnne

^I couldn’t give a monkeys cuss what the super rich do with theirs, as long as it is not illegal.^

But on this thread that is not the question you are being asked. Are you aiming to be a politician GG13?

No the question being posed appears to be how can we punish those who have made more money than they need.

It is not illegal to make money, it is not illegal to be rich.

As long as all taxes are paid to the appropriate authorities depending where one lives, where ones money is made and where one chooses to invest/keep their money it really is nobody else’s business.

I will repeat no Government has done enough regarding tax loopholes they are the ones at fault, every MP / Lord in Westminster, and the devolved Nations.

Some very rich people have a developed sense of morality and some don't. J K Rowling does not avoid tax and gives away millions to charities. Maybe because she's known both sides of the coin and hasn't forgotten the tough times. Or maybe just because she's a decent person.
I can understand anyone wanting enough money to ensure they'd have security in the future whatever happened, but I do wonder at those who want to keep such vast sums that they couldn't spend in several lifetimes.

MaizieD good question. The purpose of money is to buy things and have financial security? My mind boggles however at the quantities of money some super rich have whilst others have little or none. What do they want multiple billions for? I wouldn’t be able to even imagine what I would spend it all on. I am comfortably off with my own house having worked up from very little. I don’t need more. Some salaries and earnings are obscene.

Witzend

While stressing that I’m no fan of Boris or this government, can I just point out that during their 13 years, Labour never did anything about non-doms, either. I seem to recall Tony Blair saying that all the super-rich coming to the U.K. - or at least buying very expensive houses here - would have a ‘trickle-down’ effect.
Precisely how he thought that was going to happen I still don’t understand.

Some time ago I met someone whose daughter is married to the manager (so I was told) of an English vineyard. But the family is ‘domiciled’ in Monaco.
The mother told me, in all seriousness, that they ‘had to’ be domiciled there, for tax reasons.

This is not a thread about a long distant Labour government Witzend. Could you try reading my post Sat 09-Apr-22 11:24:19 and answering it? I would be grateful to hear a balance to what I am curently thinking.

Even if a Government manages to change the tax laws here in the U.K., it will in all honesty not bother the super rich one iota.

It will however put more of the tax burden on what I call the comfortably off

I couldn’t give a monkeys cuss what the super rich do with theirs, as long as it is not illegal.

But on this thread that is not the question you are being asked. Are you aiming to be a politician GG13?

While stressing that I’m no fan of Boris or this government, can I just point out that during their 13 years, Labour never did anything about non-doms, either. I seem to recall Tony Blair saying that all the super-rich coming to the U.K. - or at least buying very expensive houses here - would have a ‘trickle-down’ effect.
Precisely how he thought that was going to happen I still don’t understand.

Some time ago I met someone whose daughter is married to the manager (so I was told) of an English vineyard. But the family is ‘domiciled’ in Monaco.
The mother told me, in all seriousness, that they ‘had to’ be domiciled there, for tax reasons.

There seems to be a misapprehension about Universal Credit on this thread. 40% of claimants of UC are working. So the idea that it was different for those working is completely wrong. The figures are here www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/universal-credit-cut-will-hit-millions-working-families-and-key-workers

There was a time when aquiring wealth required that you used some of your money to provide services or facilities which helped or enriched poorer people's lives. It was really buying your way into heaven. Now the rich don't even bother doing that.

MaizieD

OK.

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of money is?

Money is a tool MaizieD as I am sure you know.

I couldn’t give a monkeys cuss what the super rich do with theirs, as long as it is not illegal.

As for their large houses, super yachts, probably art collections and jewellery. The houses have to be maintained and furnished, someone built them and the furniture in the first place.

There was a guy on the radio 2 the other week who owns a company in the U.K. which manufactures and refits super yachts, he employs 100s full time and brings in artisan workman when needed, which is often. The average super yacht is re-fitted every 10 years.

High end couture, employs 1,000s of seamstresses and trains many more. High jewellery/watch production is also a large employer and has apprenticeship schemes.

Shropshirelass

What Rishi Sunak and his wife have or do not have has no bearing on decisions made with the Governments purse strings. Quite honestly, Rishi and his wife have done nothing wrong and it really is none of our business. What would anyone do if they were fortunate enough to be in their position? We all take advantage of schemes that are available to us.

They have done nothing illegal Shropshirelass that is true.

However, Rishi Sunak and his wife have both had US green cards for a period while he was Chancellor. They thought it was okay to have committed to being a permanent US resident, while holding the second-highest position in the country - which they don't think will remain their country ... Not illegal but surely someone with so little alliegence to this country should not be party to state intellegence or bending its economy to his will.

Are you saying the man who decides how much tax you should pay, who lives at the cost of the UK tax payer in a Grace and Favour flat and uses tax payer paid for services; who doesn't appear to have decided where his allegiance lies, is fit for the office he holds?

I put the OP up to discuss the choices this government makes. The pure hypocracy of a government that chases every penny from tax and benefits for working people but makes special dispensations for companies like Amazon and Google. These people who make our laws gives billionaires a special deal which means for an up front £30,000 they can protect their wealth from tax while taking £20 a week back from those struggling to, get by.

Sunak, who doesn't even know to which country he owe's any sort of allegience, is part of the law making system that he is asking us to consider his wife a foreigner and therefore allowed tax dispensation while his governement wont allow refugees to work and pushes them into poverty. You are asking for different standards for some who find it necessary to be vistitors in a foreign land but not for others.

It is the different standards of this government and those in high office that I refered to. How can you justify them?

In my opinion the purpose of money is to make life better, easier, safer and more full of hope for you and as many other people as possible.

To buy stuff with it MaizieD?
Certainly not to hoard it I imagine.

OK.

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of money is?

GrannyGravy13

Wealth made legally is not a crime.

It's not a crime because the people who want to amass more and more 'wealth' to leave it lying idly in tax havens, unused houses, unused luxury yachts etc have ensured that the laws concerning money and wealth all work to their advantage.

Can you explain to me to rationale for supporting the sheer pointlessness of the wealthy sucking money out of economies all over the globe and leaving it sitting idle when the greater part of the global population lives in poverty or near poverty?

My definition of 'the wealthy' can include the vast multinational corporations which sit on vast profits and pay their workers peanuts.

There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them.

What a judgemental sentiment. What do you think should be done with these individuals? Assuming they’ve legally earned their income and paid all taxes due?

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

There it is in one sentence

There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them

I for one am more than happy to live in a Country that allows people to follow their destiny, and if that makes them super rich, good on them.

I think that you are missing the point entirely.

Not at all

GrannyGravy13

There it is in one sentence

There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them

I for one am more than happy to live in a Country that allows people to follow their destiny, and if that makes them super rich, good on them.

I think that you are missing the point entirely.

There it is in one sentence

There should not be any super rich individuals, it isn’t good for them

I for one am more than happy to live in a Country that allows people to follow their destiny, and if that makes them super rich, good on them.

People in all walks of life avoid paying tax and do so illegally. Undeclared earnings from 'cash in hand' jobs.

For example someone I know who runs their own small business paid for her dishonesty when the furlough scheme was introduced because she received less than she could have done by not declaring everything she'd earned previously.

Criticise those who break the law by all means, but don't criticise those who have avoided tax legally.

Good posts GG13. As you say wealth made legally is not a crime and you do not have to be rich to feel entitled.