Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: General election/politics


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 36087
Date:
RE: General election/politics


Coup Droit wrote:

I'm not defending her or them AT ALL but, Jon, she is NOT above the tax rules of the country - she has acted completely within the rules.

Non-dom status has been around for ages, it's always been a centre of much controversy, no government has had the guts to cancel it (they've just tinkered around the edges, giving people a flat fee they can choose instead of a tax rate as such).

Of course, it looks very bad, and given her husband is such a political public figure, it may well have been a very poor choice. But she is one of thousands who choose that option, quite legally (I know half a dozen or so others).

My issue is not with her (as such) but with the government (and previous ones) for allowing such a system.



-- Edited by Coup Droit on Thursday 7th of April 2022 11:14:14 AM


 To be honest, CD, I havent the time to debate it - but judging by what I have read, she may not have actually had the right to non dom status and thus didnt act within the rules. Putting aside ethics of it. 

I think Bobs twitter link explains that more clearly, need to rush! 



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 36087
Date:

My reading of it was that if you pick apart the basis on which you can claim non dom status, she probably had no grounds to and, as such, the author of the twitter link that Bob posted is questioning that and saying HMRC should therefore investigate to see if that is correct.

So whether that makes it illegal or legal, I dont know - but if she should have paid taxes that she didnt pay, whilst not illegal, she should have that position challenged and, if found to have been wrong, she should pay the taxes that are due. Which I am sure she can afford to pay.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52634
Date:

Oh, she's got more right to claim Non-Dom than most.

Think of Zack Goldsmith

Think of Mark Carney (ex chairman on the Bank of England)

Think of the 20 or 30 Lords in the House of Lords who all chose to keep their non-dom status and quit the House of Lords when the rules changed - they'd been here for donkeys years, had British passports, were part of the truly British establishment - and yet all claimed non-dom privileges.

As said, I'm not defending her - I'm just saying that there are lots in far more dodgy positions to claim it - she's got perfectly reasonable grounds - of course it's not black and white but the whole concept of 'domicile' is very unclear - unlike residence - basically, if she intends to go back to India as an old lady, she's got a very good claim to not being domiciled here.

The fact that we actively choose to give fiscal advantages to these people is the root of the problem.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19018
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:

My reading of it was that if you pick apart the basis on which you can claim non dom status, she probably had no grounds to and, as such, the author of the twitter link that Bob posted is questioning that and saying HMRC should therefore investigate to see if that is correct.

So whether that makes it illegal or legal, I dont know - but if she should have paid taxes that she didnt pay, whilst not illegal, she should have that position challenged and, if found to have been wrong, she should pay the taxes that are due. Which I am sure she can afford to pay.


I think she has the right to CLAIM non-dom status as I am sure anyone can. The issue as I see it is why was the application approved. Perhaps at the time the application was valid but from what I am seeing, it now needs reviewing.

The problem is within the system and how it allows 'those in the know' to play it to their advantage.  It becomes even more of a conflict of interest when those 'playing the system' are those who make up the rules in the first place.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52634
Date:

No, I don't mean she has the right to claim it as you or I do (with no chance of getting it)

She has a good claim.

I mean, look at the rules, and look at who else gets it - over 130,000 at last count, I think it was. I'm not at all surprised it was approved - as said, domicile is very nebulous.

And it's not a question of being in the know - it's (unfortunately) common to anyone with overseas connections and money - 130,000 is a reasonable amount of people. Any accountant will have advised her to do so. It was all over the papers in 2010 when there was the scandal about it and later in the early part of the 2010s too. Cameron and Zack Goldsmith's spat about it made good headlines. It's not as thought it's a sudden revelation.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19018
Date:

By 'claim', I meant apply for. Obviously if someone has always lived and worked in the UK, doesn't own a passport, has no overseas connections and has never been to Benidorm on holiday, their claim/application won't make it through the front door.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52634
Date:

Yes, I understood you. What I mean is Zack got non-dom status simply because his father was born abroad, had claimed it and - basically - you can inherit it.

Now THAT'S taking the Michael.

If you moved back to the UK briefly, Bob, you could claim it. So could I (I never would) But we would have a claim. And it's possible - just possible - it would be granted.

However, Mrs Rishi's claim is far better - does she intend to live here permanently? Does she intend to go back to India when she's old? Applying the rules, it's very likely that HMRC would allow it, and probably rightly, according to the utterly daft rules we have.

__________________


Challenger level

Status: Offline
Posts: 2526
Date:

You would think that the behaviour of people in this role in life would have to be whiter than white but that does not seem to be the case, the expenses scandal provided ample evidence of that. I think where it harms the Tories most though is they general do not seem to "get it" when complaints surface. The morals of a subject are overridden by whether it technically legal (which is often is, technically) That does not make it all right in my mind though, nor with the vast majority of the public, but still they protest their innocence to the point that the act that it the public who have got it all wrong.

__________________

 Its really not as bad as they say :)



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19018
Date:

Shhh wrote:

You would think that the behaviour of people in this role in life would have to be whiter than white but that does not seem to be the case, the expenses scandal provided ample evidence of that. I think where it harms the Tories most though is they general do not seem to "get it" when complaints surface. The morals of a subject are overridden by whether it technically legal (which is often is, technically) That does not make it all right in my mind though, nor with the vast majority of the public, but still they protest their innocence to the point that the act that it the public who have got it all wrong.


Well said.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39542
Date:

... and the "within the rules" behavior relating to covid from ministers and advisers has been appalling and dangerous in mixing the messages and turning folk away from the messages.

Indeed clearly with the fixed penalties given out the police judged that some in Downing Street weren't even within the rules.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52634
Date:

Shhh wrote:

You would think that the behaviour of people in this role in life would have to be whiter than white but that does not seem to be the case, the expenses scandal provided ample evidence of that. I think where it harms the Tories most though is they general do not seem to "get it" when complaints surface. The morals of a subject are overridden by whether it technically legal (which is often is, technically) That does not make it all right in my mind though, nor with the vast majority of the public, but still they protest their innocence to the point that the act that it the public who have got it all wrong.


 Absolutely no



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 36087
Date:

And yet people keep voting for them and effectively make it all right to behave like this; like people voted Trump and in essence gave him the vindication when he effectively created a mini coup.

And saying the other lot are unelectable is not really any defence , IMO. You have to start with how you want people to behave or at the very least truly hold them to account.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19018
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:

And yet people keep voting for them and effectively make it all right to behave like this; like people voted Trump and in essence gave him the vindication when he effectively created a mini coup.

And saying the other lot are unelectable is not really any defence , IMO. You have to start with how you want people to behave or at the very least truly hold them to account.


Saw a scary opinion poll the other day saying that in a Trump/Biden election next time round, Trump was about 6 points in the lead. I know it's mid term, but the thought of him getting back in doesn't bear thinking about.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 52634
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:

And yet people keep voting for them and effectively make it all right to behave like this; like people voted Trump and in essence gave him the vindication when he effectively created a mini coup.

And saying the other lot are unelectable is not really any defence , IMO. You have to start with how you want people to behave or at the very least truly hold them to account.


 I beg your pardon????  



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 36087
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:

And yet people keep voting for them and effectively make it all right to behave like this; like people voted Trump and in essence gave him the vindication when he effectively created a mini coup.

And saying the other lot are unelectable is not really any defence , IMO. You have to start with how you want people to behave or at the very least truly hold them to account.


 I beg your pardon????  


 6th January 2021, thats what Id call it. Given he was no longer the effective president 



__________________
«First  <  1 2 3 4 533  >  Last»  | Page of 33  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard