Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I know it's pipedream stuff but I'm in favour of seriously looking at UBI. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a hard one really. I'd like to see large uplifts in benefits so that no one is struggling. But, there's always a but, I'd like to see a huge clampdown on claims that are quite clearly fraudulent. Nthose who just can't be arsed to work should be made to. I'll get shit for it but I'm used to that
I know it's pipedream stuff but I'm in favour of seriously looking at UBI."UBI sounds nice because it’s benefits those that choose to work too There’s always going to be a large group of people that earn just enough to get no benefits, but not enough to live a decent life. They work hard and see the least return. Those people deserve UBI on top of their earnings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy." I’d have no problem with those suitable for for but not in work or training having to either undertake community work or military service to earn their benefits - so long as the system was robust enough that we didn’t force the unfit to work or cut handouts to those unable to work. It’s a broad problem though, with myriad factors at play. Prisoners receiving no training/rehabilitation for the outside world. People being made redundant late in life who struggle to retrain etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd like to under why people "choose" to not work. I suspect it's more nunaced than just being lazy and happy to live off benefits. Often real people are more complex than the 1D image we paint for ourselves. " Agreed. If one can get more from benefits than they would in work-travel expenses-childcare-time and so forth then it’s a no-brainer. That’s the problem that needs resolving. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As others have said, it is nuts if a person is better off on benefits than working. Why would anyone go out to work if they are better off (or even the same level) staying on benefits. There must also be local conditions. For example, I can’t believe anyone couldn’t find work in London, but rural areas I could see a problem." Just to add...like others, I do believe as a society that we do need to look after those with physical or mental health conditions that make working impossible or too difficult. Sadly there are some who exploit this and it has led to awful stories of genuinely disabled people having to go through difficult and embarrassing assessments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd like to under why people "choose" to not work. I suspect it's more nunaced than just being lazy and happy to live off benefits. Often real people are more complex than the 1D image we paint for ourselves. " That's never going to work for DM readers. 'They're lazy bums with satellite TV' is better outrage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy." Good idea to clamp down but doesn't go far enough. Fully agree that everyone in full time work should be paid a livable wage and all topup benefits should be scrapped. Benefits should be demeaning and should be given as goods not cash. So housing and bills are paid for. Food delivered as parcels of rations. No luxuries at all. This should be all that is supplied to those who won't work. For those who can't work (genuinely, not pretend) there is a case for possibly adding some luxuries for a limited time. Also those who can only work part time through caring responsibilities, illness or disability should be able to keep most of what they earn so it is worthwhile. Very few can't do anything at all. Nobody should be left homeless or hungry but the system should be a safety net not a lifestyle choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Benefits should be demeaning" Why? Why the spite? Absolutely there are people out there who are lazy and milk the system. There are those who are taking benefits despite having cash in hand sources of income. But there are also genuine hard working people who through no fault of their own lose their job and then struggle to find another job for all manner of reasons. You want to demean them! Seriously!!!! "For those who can't work (genuinely, not pretend) there is a case for possibly adding some luxuries for a limited time." I assume you don’t include people with disabilities in this “can’t work” category right? I hope so as they won’t have their disability for a limited time! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Benefits should be demeaning" At that point, everything else you said became irrelevant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me... Benefits should be demeaning Why? Why the spite? Absolutely there are people out there who are lazy and milk the system. There are those who are taking benefits despite having cash in hand sources of income. But there are also genuine hard working people who through no fault of their own lose their job and then struggle to find another job for all manner of reasons. You want to demean them! Seriously!!!! For those who can't work (genuinely, not pretend) there is a case for possibly adding some luxuries for a limited time. I assume you don’t include people with disabilities in this “can’t work” category right? I hope so as they won’t have their disability for a limited time!" No spite at all. Everyone in full time employment should earn a livable wage. Others should be supported. However, if that support is in the form of vouchers or food delivery in a van labelled "Social Food Bank" or similar is not a problem. The shame will push those who can work to do so. Those who won't probably won't care. As for disability, people don't choose to have them so should be supported however there are very few who can't do anything at all. As I said, keeping the proceeds of any work done makes it more worthwhile to work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me... Benefits should be demeaning Why? Why the spite? Absolutely there are people out there who are lazy and milk the system. There are those who are taking benefits despite having cash in hand sources of income. But there are also genuine hard working people who through no fault of their own lose their job and then struggle to find another job for all manner of reasons. You want to demean them! Seriously!!!! For those who can't work (genuinely, not pretend) there is a case for possibly adding some luxuries for a limited time. I assume you don’t include people with disabilities in this “can’t work” category right? I hope so as they won’t have their disability for a limited time! No spite at all. Everyone in full time employment should earn a livable wage. Others should be supported. However, if that support is in the form of vouchers or food delivery in a van labelled "Social Food Bank" or similar is not a problem. The shame will push those who can work to do so. Those who won't probably won't care. As for disability, people don't choose to have them so should be supported however there are very few who can't do anything at all. As I said, keeping the proceeds of any work done makes it more worthwhile to work." Wow just wow! So I have worked for approx 27 years and in that time I have paid a shit tonne of Income Tax snd National Insurance. So you are saying if I found myself out of work tomorrow my experience should be demeaning! Fuck that. I have paid so much into the system, I would expect to be treated with respect. But the same applies to anyone who loses their job through no fault of their own and then struggles to find work. As for your hand wave away on people with physical or mental disabilities, I will just leave that alone otherwise I could get myself a ban. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People on benefits usually die earlier, live in poverty and have less life chances. " Hence providing the essentials for life (accommodation, power, water and healthy food rations) is a good thing isn't it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People on benefits usually die earlier, live in poverty and have less life chances. Hence providing the essentials for life (accommodation, power, water and healthy food rations) is a good thing isn't it?" I think you honestly think all benefits claimants get their money and are straight down the off licence buying booze and fags or seeing their drug dealer while they and their kids have no food or clothes and they forget to pay the rent! Your posts on this topic are frankly insulting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy." What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat?" I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives." Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? " Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand "I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand
I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah!"I can only speak for people I personally know. But if I know 2 families, how many do others know? I wouldn't imagine it's most but it isn't something to be dismissed either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand
I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah!
I can only speak for people I personally know. But if I know 2 families, how many do others know?
I wouldn't imagine it's most but it isn't something to be dismissed either. "I think you would spend far more money in clamping down than you would reclaim through cutting their benefits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this on Twitter and thought “yeah”... “i cannot stand the "take any job or be punished" narrative imposed on people on benefits. What if you've got qualifications? What if the jobs available don't pay a living wage? What if the jobs are too far away and the cuts to your local transport means you can't get to them.” Also... The constant targeting of benefit claimants yet virtual silence on the £16bn estimated lost to Covid fraud. This govt has written it off. £16bn!!!!" . Most law abiding citizens and those claiming benefits would expect the government to target those who make fraudulent claims . It is a dispicable offence depriving the taxpayer of peoples hard earned cash. As far as I am aware the government are working hard in an attempt to recover any money lost due to Covid fraud. Thee are at least 1200 fraud investigation officers . How many people would you prefer to die of Covid due to unnecessary administration during a time of crisis ? The government are to be commended for the manner in which they handled the Covid crisis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all" Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this on Twitter and thought “yeah”... “i cannot stand the "take any job or be punished" narrative imposed on people on benefits. What if you've got qualifications? What if the jobs available don't pay a living wage? What if the jobs are too far away and the cuts to your local transport means you can't get to them.” Also... The constant targeting of benefit claimants yet virtual silence on the £16bn estimated lost to Covid fraud. This govt has written it off. £16bn!!!!. Most law abiding citizens and those claiming benefits would expect the government to target those who make fraudulent claims . It is a dispicable offence depriving the taxpayer of peoples hard earned cash. As far as I am aware the government are working hard in an attempt to recover any money lost due to Covid fraud. Thee are at least 1200 fraud investigation officers . How many people would you prefer to die of Covid due to unnecessary administration during a time of crisis ? The government are to be commended for the manner in which they handled the Covid crisis. " What part of “written it off” don’t you understand Pat? There are indeed investigations underway but most of these are in the PPE space not Covid fraud (which is classed as furlough, business continuity grants, bounceback loans etc). I certainly want benefit fraud stamped out. But I also want covid fraud money recovered. £16bn! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. " Assume that was targeted at me from you two 
Why is one form of fraud bad and one form of fraud acceptable? Is it because of who commits it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. Assume that was targeted at me from you two
Why is one form of fraud bad and one form of fraud acceptable? Is it because of who commits it?"It wasn't directed at you in particular. In fact, I had someone else in mind when I wrote it. No one said one form is bad and one acceptable. I believe Leroy said 'why can't they all be tackled?' It's the people who trot out 'don't look here, look over there' as some sort of insult that are trying to narrow down tackling certain aspects. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. Assume that was targeted at me from you two
Why is one form of fraud bad and one form of fraud acceptable? Is it because of who commits it?"Not directed at anyone. It was a general question to anyone. I'm not saying one type is bad and one acceptable. I'm saying both are bad and should both be tackled. Personally I don't think that lack of progress in tackling one type should prevent tackling the other type, which ever way around it is. This is what I meant by they should not be linked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. Assume that was targeted at me from you two
Why is one form of fraud bad and one form of fraud acceptable? Is it because of who commits it?
It wasn't directed at you in particular. In fact, I had someone else in mind when I wrote it.
No one said one form is bad and one acceptable. I believe Leroy said 'why can't they all be tackled?'
It's the people who trot out 'don't look here, look over there' as some sort of insult that are trying to narrow down tackling certain aspects. "Fair play (I can’t multi-task) and speed read it. The govt absolutely should tackle benefit fraud. But the govt also should not write off covid fraud. As they have it makes you wonder why? Are those who benefitted from covid fraud the good’uns but the benefit fraudsters the bad’uns? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why does clamping down on benefit cheats have to be linked to any other problem. I get the anger at missing covid money and tax loopholes but why can't they all be tackled and why does one have to wait for the other. Wasted/cheated money is wasted/cheated money after all Because they want to use the line 'look over there', it feeds into the mantra. I think it's more of a reflection on people who use thatvsort of language than the people they target with it. Assume that was targeted at me from you two
Why is one form of fraud bad and one form of fraud acceptable? Is it because of who commits it?
It wasn't directed at you in particular. In fact, I had someone else in mind when I wrote it.
No one said one form is bad and one acceptable. I believe Leroy said 'why can't they all be tackled?'
It's the people who trot out 'don't look here, look over there' as some sort of insult that are trying to narrow down tackling certain aspects.
Fair play (I can’t multi-task) and speed read it.
The govt absolutely should tackle benefit fraud. But the govt also should not write off covid fraud. As they have it makes you wonder why? Are those who benefitted from covid fraud the good’uns but the benefit fraudsters the bad’uns? "I agree covid fraud shouldn't be written off. Again though, no one has suggested certain fraudsters are good and certain bad. I don't know for sure but I'm assuming a lot of covid 'loans' were taken from LTD companies who then went bust. Not sure of the legal stance on that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know for sure but I'm assuming a lot of covid 'loans' were taken from LTD companies who then went bust. Not sure of the legal stance on that." The legal stance is simple, if the company has been dissolved, the money is lost. I got plenty of letters offering bounceback loans of £250,000. I'm sure that a lot of struggling companies would have taken these loans to dig themselves out of trouble, only to find that it wasn't enough and they had to fold. You can't really blame anyone for that sort of problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this on Twitter and thought “yeah”... “i cannot stand the "take any job or be punished" narrative imposed on people on benefits. What if you've got qualifications? What if the jobs available don't pay a living wage? What if the jobs are too far away and the cuts to your local transport means you can't get to them.” Also... The constant targeting of benefit claimants yet virtual silence on the £16bn estimated lost to Covid fraud. This govt has written it off. £16bn!!!!. Most law abiding citizens and those claiming benefits would expect the government to target those who make fraudulent claims . It is a dispicable offence depriving the taxpayer of peoples hard earned cash. As far as I am aware the government are working hard in an attempt to recover any money lost due to Covid fraud. Thee are at least 1200 fraud investigation officers . How many people would you prefer to die of Covid due to unnecessary administration during a time of crisis ? The government are to be commended for the manner in which they handled the Covid crisis. What part of “written it off” don’t you understand Pat? There are indeed investigations underway but most of these are in the PPE space not Covid fraud (which is classed as furlough, business continuity grants, bounceback loans etc). I certainly want benefit fraud stamped out. But I also want covid fraud money recovered. £16bn!" . It looks like you have failed to distinguish between accounting adjustments where amounts are written off and recovery of cash owing . In any event these loans were made to help struggling business in a time of national crisis . As you have queried the government action have you reviewed the full list of loans which you believe to be writen off and what action is being taken to recover them ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't know for sure but I'm assuming a lot of covid 'loans' were taken from LTD companies who then went bust. Not sure of the legal stance on that. The legal stance is simple, if the company has been dissolved, the money is lost. I got plenty of letters offering bounceback loans of £250,000. I'm sure that a lot of struggling companies would have taken these loans to dig themselves out of trouble, only to find that it wasn't enough and they had to fold. You can't really blame anyone for that sort of problem." Agreed but that isn’t classed as fraud. The Govt (HMRC) own estimates are that £16bn was lost to fraud (not only BBL but all Covid support). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy." It depends why they are unemployed. I spent 3 months on benefits due to an operation, then 3 weeks of Radiotherapy. I am glad I had the benefits to help me out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a hard one really. I'd like to see large uplifts in benefits so that no one is struggling. But, there's always a but, I'd like to see a huge clampdown on claims that are quite clearly fraudulent. Nthose who just can't be arsed to work should be made to. I'll get shit for it but I'm used to that
I know it's pipedream stuff but I'm in favour of seriously looking at UBI.
UBI sounds nice because it’s benefits those that choose to work too
There’s always going to be a large group of people that earn just enough to get no benefits, but not enough to live a decent life. They work hard and see the least return. Those people deserve UBI on top of their earnings. "Yes please. My hourly rate is above minimum/living wage but annually I'm several grand under due to a neuro disability making it impossible to work full-time. Yet I get treated as though it's a choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As others have said, it is nuts if a person is better off on benefits than working. Why would anyone go out to work if they are better off (or even the same level) staying on benefits. There must also be local conditions. For example, I can’t believe anyone couldn’t find work in London, but rural areas I could see a problem. Just to add...like others, I do believe as a society that we do need to look after those with physical or mental health conditions that make working impossible or too difficult. Sadly there are some who exploit this and it has led to awful stories of genuinely disabled people having to go through difficult and embarrassing assessments. " Assessments by lay people who make assumptions about what you tell them and disallow PIP based on those incorrect assumptions. Eg brain damage (ABI) = low intelligence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’d like to see us come down harder on people choosing not to work and making things way better for those that can’t If you truly can’t I’d hope all your needs are fully met so you don’t need to struggle and worry If you just don’t want to, you get nothing " This. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's never a black or white where benefits are considered as various points of the system. In my close of 44 households, only 7 goto work. Myself included. Yet another view is tax credits, invented by Labour to subsidiary of industry and low wages. Go back 50 years, a man could earn enough to feed the family, and the woman stayed at home looking after the kids .... Progress eh? "Not everyone. As a percentage though, you'd probably be right concerning the majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from The Conservative Party promising to clamp down on benefit cheats , I noticed that Mrs Sunak introduced Mr Sunak as he gave his speech to the party faithful in the audience and to the country as a whole , Did Mrs Sunak mention non doms at all ? , I didn't hear her , I know Mr Sunak didn't" Why would they mention non-dom status? It's not related to benefits in any way. Neither Mr or Mrs Sunak are on benefits, and neither of them are non-doms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives." The problem for me is the living wage is now seen as a base attempt to give higher wages for people to thrive on. I believe in the wage above. But when I look at houses in areas in Wales a living wage actually allows you to afford a house in north Wales in some areas. I think we need to be wary that the living wage isn't a hidden benefits payment for the government to make businesses subsidise people who don't want to improve their work ethic and make careers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand
I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah!
I can only speak for people I personally know. But if I know 2 families, how many do others know?
I wouldn't imagine it's most but it isn't something to be dismissed either. "For Mr I support child tax credits for up to 2 kids tk help buy clothes, feed etc Any one on benefits where the government is subsidising a holiday. Those benefits need reducing. I used to see it when I worked at the bank. And it infuriated me. People with PiP and other benefits who never worked a day in the lives were ( post tax) taking home more in disposable income than I was working 40 hours a week. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"While we are worrying about benefit cheats don't take your eyes off the PPE contracts ladies & gentlemen , that was our money too ,,,,, I didn't hear Hunt but did he mention the PPE contracts ???? " We still wait for the court cases no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from The Conservative Party promising to clamp down on benefit cheats , I noticed that Mrs Sunak introduced Mr Sunak as he gave his speech to the party faithful in the audience and to the country as a whole , Did Mrs Sunak mention non doms at all ? , I didn't hear her , I know Mr Sunak didn't Why would they mention non-dom status? It's not related to benefits in any way. Neither Mr or Mrs Sunak are on benefits, and neither of them are non-doms." It did seem weird. I dont think people get the non dom status thing. They were asking for her to pay double taxation. Politics of envy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand
I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah!
I can only speak for people I personally know. But if I know 2 families, how many do others know?
I wouldn't imagine it's most but it isn't something to be dismissed either.
For Mr I support child tax credits for up to 2 kids tk help buy clothes, feed etc
Any one on benefits where the government is subsidising a holiday. Those benefits need reducing.
I used to see it when I worked at the bank. And it infuriated me.
People with PiP and other benefits who never worked a day in the lives were ( post tax) taking home more in disposable income than I was working 40 hours a week. "PIP is not relevant to work or benefits. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant " I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. " I have never come across a single person in real life who said that the disabled should be demeaned . We have a safety net for those who need assistance. Universal Credit , Housing Benefit , Income Support and Pension credit are just a few of the schemes which help the less well off in society . Some benefit claims require further investigation before they are awarded. Not all claimants are honest or can be trusted. In these circumstances the government have no options but to put in rigorous checks .With the mobility scheme part of the benefit can be surrendered in orderto obtain a vehicle free of charge. One national newspaper did an excellent article on a number of people abusing the scheme . Aa some people abuse the benefits system there is no choice in some cases but to turn down some applicants at the first stage. These will usually be be borderline cases . Genuine applications will normally succeed at the appeal stage. I can think of one case where someone used a mobility vehicle as a taxi service for their friends and another case where a family member was using the mobility vehicle as theirs yet had the cheek to try and claim for an ambulance transfer to hospital. The benefits system in the UK provides a safety net to the less well off in society . Sadly some people also abuse it . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. I have never come across a single person in real life who said that the disabled should be demeaned . " See above in this thread. " We have a safety net for those who need assistance. Universal Credit , Housing Benefit , Income Support and Pension credit are just a few of the schemes which help the less well off in society . Some benefit claims require further investigation before they are awarded. Not all claimants are honest or can be trusted. In these circumstances the government have no options but to put in rigorous checks .With the mobility scheme part of the benefit can be surrendered in orderto obtain a vehicle free of charge. One national newspaper did an excellent article on a number of people abusing the scheme . Aa some people abuse the benefits system there is no choice in some cases but to turn down some applicants at the first stage. These will usually be be borderline cases . Genuine applications will normally succeed at the appeal stage. I can think of one case where someone used a mobility vehicle as a taxi service for their friends and another case where a family member was using the mobility vehicle as theirs yet had the cheek to try and claim for an ambulance transfer to hospital. The benefits system in the UK provides a safety net to the less well off in society . Sadly some people also abuse it . " Weirdly, some of the rest of this makes sense. Not sure what's going on there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. " It's demeaning when lay people judge you when assessing you and put their own spin on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. I have never come across a single person in real life who said that the disabled should be demeaned . We have a safety net for those who need assistance. Universal Credit , Housing Benefit , Income Support and Pension credit are just a few of the schemes which help the less well off in society . Some benefit claims require further investigation before they are awarded. Not all claimants are honest or can be trusted. In these circumstances the government have no options but to put in rigorous checks .With the mobility scheme part of the benefit can be surrendered in orderto obtain a vehicle free of charge. One national newspaper did an excellent article on a number of people abusing the scheme . Aa some people abuse the benefits system there is no choice in some cases but to turn down some applicants at the first stage. These will usually be be borderline cases . Genuine applications will normally succeed at the appeal stage. I can think of one case where someone used a mobility vehicle as a taxi service for their friends and another case where a family member was using the mobility vehicle as theirs yet had the cheek to try and claim for an ambulance transfer to hospital. The benefits system in the UK provides a safety net to the less well off in society . Sadly some people also abuse it . " AGAIN I state some slip through the safety net! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People on benefits usually die earlier, live in poverty and have less life chances. Hence providing the essentials for life (accommodation, power, water and healthy food rations) is a good thing isn't it? I think you honestly think all benefits claimants get their money and are straight down the off licence buying booze and fags or seeing their drug dealer while they and their kids have no food or clothes and they forget to pay the rent! Your posts on this topic are frankly insulting." .There was nothing insulting about the posters post. They have simply provided an alternative suggestion as to how we should help those on benefits. Their suggestion would probably eliminate some benefit fraud when in turn would mean more resources are available to help those in need. We should not be criticising a poster who made a valuable suggestion which would encourage people to return to work. Do you mix with or have any day to day contact with benefit claimants. ? From the manner in which you word your posts it would appear not. Sometimes in life first hand experience gives a great I sight into various scenarios. Maybe you should just be greatfull that you do not have to claim benefits and probably never will. Not everyone is so fortunate in life a fact that you have completely overlooked. At least the poster to which you refer was attempting to address some of the problems associated with the current benefit system. They were being forward thinking and encouraging people to work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this on Twitter and thought “yeah”... “i cannot stand the "take any job or be punished" narrative imposed on people on benefits. What if you've got qualifications? What if the jobs available don't pay a living wage? What if the jobs are too far away and the cuts to your local transport means you can't get to them.” Also... The constant targeting of benefit claimants yet virtual silence on the £16bn estimated lost to Covid fraud. This govt has written it off. £16bn!!!!. Most law abiding citizens and those claiming benefits would expect the government to target those who make fraudulent claims . It is a dispicable offence depriving the taxpayer of peoples hard earned cash. As far as I am aware the government are working hard in an attempt to recover any money lost due to Covid fraud. Thee are at least 1200 fraud investigation officers . How many people would you prefer to die of Covid due to unnecessary administration during a time of crisis ? The government are to be commended for the manner in which they handled the Covid crisis. What part of “written it off” don’t you understand Pat? There are indeed investigations underway but most of these are in the PPE space not Covid fraud (which is classed as furlough, business continuity grants, bounceback loans etc). I certainly want benefit fraud stamped out. But I also want covid fraud money recovered. £16bn!" . I would have thought that the phrase written off is self explanatory . It is simply an accounting adjustment. However there will be schedules to substantiate the amounts written off which would include company names , individuals and other recipients . The fact that amounts are written off does not mean that attempts are not made to recover the amounts concerned. Banks sometimes sell their debts onto third parties who will attempt to recover it. Maybe the more important question is how many people did you want to die or go bankrupt which rigorous procedures were put in place relating to the authorisation of loans. The subsequent delays in releasing funds would probably mean that a lot more businnesses would have gone under . The Daily Mail did an article on Covid Fraud . It made interesting reading especially when one analysed the backgrounds of some of those involved in the frauds . None were listed companies.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Saw this on Twitter and thought “yeah”... “i cannot stand the "take any job or be punished" narrative imposed on people on benefits. What if you've got qualifications? What if the jobs available don't pay a living wage? What if the jobs are too far away and the cuts to your local transport means you can't get to them.” Also... The constant targeting of benefit claimants yet virtual silence on the £16bn estimated lost to Covid fraud. This govt has written it off. £16bn!!!!. Most law abiding citizens and those claiming benefits would expect the government to target those who make fraudulent claims . It is a dispicable offence depriving the taxpayer of peoples hard earned cash. As far as I am aware the government are working hard in an attempt to recover any money lost due to Covid fraud. Thee are at least 1200 fraud investigation officers . How many people would you prefer to die of Covid due to unnecessary administration during a time of crisis ? The government are to be commended for the manner in which they handled the Covid crisis. What part of “written it off” don’t you understand Pat? There are indeed investigations underway but most of these are in the PPE space not Covid fraud (which is classed as furlough, business continuity grants, bounceback loans etc). I certainly want benefit fraud stamped out. But I also want covid fraud money recovered. £16bn!. I would have thought that the phrase written off is self explanatory . It is simply an accounting adjustment. However there will be schedules to substantiate the amounts written off which would include company names , individuals and other recipients . The fact that amounts are written off does not mean that attempts are not made to recover the amounts concerned. Banks sometimes sell their debts onto third parties who will attempt to recover it. Maybe the more important question is how many people did you want to die or go bankrupt which rigorous procedures were put in place relating to the authorisation of loans. The subsequent delays in releasing funds would probably mean that a lot more businnesses would have gone under . The Daily Mail did an article on Covid Fraud . It made interesting reading especially when one analysed the backgrounds of some of those involved in the frauds . None were listed companies.." How many people (Civil Servants) are currently involved in investigating and ultimately trying to recover the money lost to covid fraud? Also why the jump to “listed companies”? What was the relevance? That comes across as “well it’s ok actually as it wasn’t any companies on the FTSE!” Which is kind of | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People on benefits usually die earlier, live in poverty and have less life chances. Hence providing the essentials for life (accommodation, power, water and healthy food rations) is a good thing isn't it? I think you honestly think all benefits claimants get their money and are straight down the off licence buying booze and fags or seeing their drug dealer while they and their kids have no food or clothes and they forget to pay the rent! Your posts on this topic are frankly insulting..There was nothing insulting about the posters post. They have simply provided an alternative suggestion as to how we should help those on benefits. Their suggestion would probably eliminate some benefit fraud when in turn would mean more resources are available to help those in need. We should not be criticising a poster who made a valuable suggestion which would encourage people to return to work. Do you mix with or have any day to day contact with benefit claimants. ? From the manner in which you word your posts it would appear not. Sometimes in life first hand experience gives a great I sight into various scenarios. Maybe you should just be greatfull that you do not have to claim benefits and probably never will. Not everyone is so fortunate in life a fact that you have completely overlooked. At least the poster to which you refer was attempting to address some of the problems associated with the current benefit system. They were being forward thinking and encouraging people to work. " I disagree with your opening point. The poster said: "Benefits should be demeaning" The rest of your post is assumption and not even worth a response. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from The Conservative Party promising to clamp down on benefit cheats , I noticed that Mrs Sunak introduced Mr Sunak as he gave his speech to the party faithful in the audience and to the country as a whole , Did Mrs Sunak mention non doms at all ? , I didn't hear her , I know Mr Sunak didn't Why would they mention non-dom status? It's not related to benefits in any way. Neither Mr or Mrs Sunak are on benefits, and neither of them are non-doms. It did seem weird. I dont think people get the non dom status thing. They were asking for her to pay double taxation. Politics of envy" . ,,, politics of paying your fair tax ,,, strange how the people who complain about benefits , which come out of taxation are quick to defend the tax dodgers ,,, but heyho ,, and as for getting the non dom thing , I think the Sunak family get it and have certainly enjoyed the "benefits" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from The Conservative Party promising to clamp down on benefit cheats , I noticed that Mrs Sunak introduced Mr Sunak as he gave his speech to the party faithful in the audience and to the country as a whole , Did Mrs Sunak mention non doms at all ? , I didn't hear her , I know Mr Sunak didn't Why would they mention non-dom status? It's not related to benefits in any way. Neither Mr or Mrs Sunak are on benefits, and neither of them are non-doms. It did seem weird. I dont think people get the non dom status thing. They were asking for her to pay double taxation. Politics of envy. ,,, politics of paying your fair tax ,,, strange how the people who complain about benefits , which come out of taxation are quick to defend the tax dodgers ,,, but heyho ,, and as for getting the non dom thing , I think the Sunak family get it and have certainly enjoyed the "benefits" " . I have never seen a single person defending tax dodgers Failing to declare income is a criminal offence and there are severe penalties for failing to do do. Anyone eligible for non dom status could decide to leave the country . In that case we would lose what tax we already collect and by removing non dom status lose what tax we already collect . On a simplistic basis we would collect less tax overall . In any event non doms are taxed on a remittance basis and you lose the status after fifteen years. In order to qualify for non dom status there are strict rules to which you must adhere . There is also an annual charge levied by HMRc . Benefit fraud is stealing fron the tax payer. Non dom status is an open and transparent concept and you must meet all the qualifying criteria to be eligible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy." Benefits are the largest % of money paid out by the government, and to be clear the government does not have any of its own money, it is UK tax payers money. I want my tax £ to be protected and spent wisely, not open to abuse and I expect any government to drive out fraud. Common sense really. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. Benefits are the largest % of money paid out by the government, and to be clear the government does not have any of its own money, it is UK tax payers money. I want my tax £ to be protected and spent wisely, not open to abuse and I expect any government to drive out fraud. Common sense really. " The largest proportion of benefits paid out by the Government is the state pension. I agree fraud must be tackled. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from The Conservative Party promising to clamp down on benefit cheats , I noticed that Mrs Sunak introduced Mr Sunak as he gave his speech to the party faithful in the audience and to the country as a whole , Did Mrs Sunak mention non doms at all ? , I didn't hear her , I know Mr Sunak didn't Why would they mention non-dom status? It's not related to benefits in any way. Neither Mr or Mrs Sunak are on benefits, and neither of them are non-doms. It did seem weird. I dont think people get the non dom status thing. They were asking for her to pay double taxation. Politics of envy. ,,, politics of paying your fair tax ,,, strange how the people who complain about benefits , which come out of taxation are quick to defend the tax dodgers ,,, but heyho ,, and as for getting the non dom thing , I think the Sunak family get it and have certainly enjoyed the "benefits" . I have never seen a single person defending tax dodgers Failing to declare income is a criminal offence and there are severe penalties for failing to do do. Anyone eligible for non dom status could decide to leave the country . In that case we would lose what tax we already collect and by removing non dom status lose what tax we already collect . On a simplistic basis we would collect less tax overall . In any event non doms are taxed on a remittance basis and you lose the status after fifteen years. In order to qualify for non dom status there are strict rules to which you must adhere . There is also an annual charge levied by HMRc . Benefit fraud is stealing fron the tax payer. Non dom status is an open and transparent concept and you must meet all the qualifying criteria to be eligible. " . ;,, I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud , the difference being non doms can use expensive accountants to find loop holes for rich people to dodge taxes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud" That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through." . ;,, if I am prejudice about someone wealthy getting away without contributing to our society in the same way less wealthy people have to , then guilty as charged , and pleased to be guilty ,,,,, if there is nothing morally incorrect about being a legitimate tax dodger wonder why Mrs Sunak is no longer a non dom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through.. ;,, if I am prejudice about someone wealthy getting away without contributing to our society in the same way less wealthy people have to , then guilty as charged , and pleased to be guilty ,,,,, if there is nothing morally incorrect about being a legitimate tax dodger wonder why Mrs Sunak is no longer a non dom " Your post seems rather strange considering sall the benefits that non dom residents bring to the UK ( in addition to the taxes that they already pay ) Remove non dom status and we will end up collecting less tax . his remittance basis, far from being an alleged “loophole”, was actually the standard system of taxation in the UK until 1914. Before then all UK residents, regardless of their domicile, were taxed on their worldwide income only to the extent that it was remitted to the UK. The UK government only decided to tax its residents on their worldwide income to help fund the First World War but decided to carve out an exemption for non-doms. More than 100 years later, this exemption remains; presumably because successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high-net-worth persons to the UK brings to the UK economy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through." That’s because Non-Dom status has been abused and HMRC enabled that abuse by providing the option to pay a £30k annual fee to avoid having to declare or be investigated. Some people are legitimate Non-Doms but Mrs Sunak was really pushing credibility with her claim and she knew it which was why she was advised to change her status. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud" "That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through." "That’s because Non-Dom status has been abused and HMRC enabled that abuse by providing the option to pay a £30k annual fee to avoid having to declare or be investigated." This is just completely inaccurate. Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. "Some people are legitimate Non-Doms but Mrs Sunak was really pushing credibility with her claim and she knew it which was why she was advised to change her status." Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through. That’s because Non-Dom status has been abused and HMRC enabled that abuse by providing the option to pay a £30k annual fee to avoid having to declare or be investigated. This is just completely inaccurate. Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Some people are legitimate Non-Doms but Mrs Sunak was really pushing credibility with her claim and she knew it which was why she was advised to change her status. Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak." ,,,,, your point Mrs Sunak was not doing anything against the rules is something we can agree on , the rules need changing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I view being a non dom in our country as tax dodging , and is the same stealing as benefit fraud That's because you don't know what a non-dom is, and you're allowing your prejudices to show through. That’s because Non-Dom status has been abused and HMRC enabled that abuse by providing the option to pay a £30k annual fee to avoid having to declare or be investigated. This is just completely inaccurate. Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. " Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. "Some people are legitimate Non-Doms but Mrs Sunak was really pushing credibility with her claim and she knew it which was why she was advised to change her status. Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak." No the optics were bad and forced her hand having originally denied it. Of course politically she needed to be seen to do it because of hubby but her non-dom status was highly questionable and could have been subject to challenge by HMRC (wonder who their boss was) as she was clearly domiciled in the UK and had been for many years (inc primary residence and kids at school in UK). Of course nothing illegal because the rules allow tax avoidance (again who ultimately sets the rules). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak." "your point Mrs Sunak was not doing anything against the rules is something we can agree on , the rules need changing" So you agree then that having non-dom status is nothing like being a benefit cheat, since being a non-dom is within the law, while benefits cheating is illegal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak. your point Mrs Sunak was not doing anything against the rules is something we can agree on , the rules need changing So you agree then that having non-dom status is nothing like being a benefit cheat, since being a non-dom is within the law, while benefits cheating is illegal." . ;,, cheating on benefits is quite correctly illegal , getting away without paying your taxes in the country you live while being a multi millionaire is morally corrupt ,, so , yes , in the terms of the law they are different in morality at least equal (as I suspect the Sunaks realised when she changed her status ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak. your point Mrs Sunak was not doing anything against the rules is something we can agree on , the rules need changing So you agree then that having non-dom status is nothing like being a benefit cheat, since being a non-dom is within the law, while benefits cheating is illegal.. ;,, cheating on benefits is quite correctly illegal , getting away without paying your taxes in the country you live while being a multi millionaire is morally corrupt ,, so , yes , in the terms of the law they are different in morality at least equal (as I suspect the Sunaks realised when she changed her status ) " Who draws the moral line here? Will you ever pay extra tax that you were not required to pay by the law, just to be "morally" right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay." "Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC." That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. "It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m." Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30?" You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India." . Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK " Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations." I do wish you'd stop pushing this nonsense. Non-doms are just as liable to be investigated as anyone else. The payment is a fee for the registration of your status, and it stops people making frivolous claims. Non-doms still have to produce full accounts, and declare all of their world-wide earnings. Failing to declare something will still get them investigated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. " . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. " . Your point about being left alone by HMRC is simply bizarre . Anyone qualifying for the status can do a calculation to work out if it is to their benefit to pay this charge . The calculation is based on transparent and visible data . Have you any evidence of non doms being involved in tax fraud. ? . They are hardly going to be carrying their money around in cash in suitcases. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Akshata Murthy gave up her non-dom status for political reasons. There is no evidence that she was doing anything that isn't allowed by HMRC rules. The only reason she relinquished it is because it was getting too much attention in the papers, and it gave the Labour party an angle to attack Rishi Sunak. your point Mrs Sunak was not doing anything against the rules is something we can agree on , the rules need changing So you agree then that having non-dom status is nothing like being a benefit cheat, since being a non-dom is within the law, while benefits cheating is illegal.. ;,, cheating on benefits is quite correctly illegal , getting away without paying your taxes in the country you live while being a multi millionaire is morally corrupt ,, so , yes , in the terms of the law they are different in morality at least equal (as I suspect the Sunaks realised when she changed her status ) Who draws the moral line here? Will you ever pay extra tax that you were not required to pay by the law, just to be "morally" right? " ,, ,, ,, good question ,, I have always paid the tax I owe and never claimed benefits (not had children so this includes not claiming any child benefit ) ... But faced with the possibility of living in The UK but not paying my tax here , then no , I would not take advantage of the lawful fiddle even if it cost me more , | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. I do wish you'd stop pushing this nonsense. Non-doms are just as liable to be investigated as anyone else. The payment is a fee for the registration of your status, and it stops people making frivolous claims. Non-doms still have to produce full accounts, and declare all of their world-wide earnings. Failing to declare something will still get them investigated." Your accountants fill in your self assessment and tick the non-dom box. You pay your £30k. Pretty much end of. HMRC simply doesn’t have the manpower to investigate even a handful of cases. So in theory yes you are right. In practice no. But again, nothing illegal and not suggesting tax evasion is happening. It is the spurious nature of the non-dom claim that is the point. Are you really saying living in the UK for 13 years, your kids being born here and at school here, your primary residence being here. Your husband’s job requiring him to live here, is really an indicator of being a genuine non-dom? Come on! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . Your point about being left alone by HMRC is simply bizarre . Anyone qualifying for the status can do a calculation to work out if it is to their benefit to pay this charge . The calculation is based on transparent and visible data . Have you any evidence of non doms being involved in tax fraud. ? . They are hardly going to be carrying their money around in cash in suitcases. " The charge shouldn’t exist. You either live here or you don’t. You can only have one primary domicile and in this case I think 13 yrs was clearly an indicator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . " Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wish you'd stop pushing this nonsense. Non-doms are just as liable to be investigated as anyone else. The payment is a fee for the registration of your status, and it stops people making frivolous claims. Non-doms still have to produce full accounts, and declare all of their world-wide earnings. Failing to declare something will still get them investigated." "Your accountants fill in your self assessment and tick the non-dom box. You pay your £30k. Pretty much end of. HMRC simply doesn’t have the manpower to investigate even a handful of cases. So in theory yes you are right. In practice no." The same is true of any other person in the UK, except for the paying £30k. The payment doesn't give you a special status where investigations are concerned. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! " Oh, so now we've moved from 'non-dom is a fiddle' to 'non-dom is acceptable, but she didn't deserve it'. So once again it's come down to your personal hatred of the Sunaks. You really should work out what it is you've got against them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... bankers bounes not getting taxed ..." Where would you get the idea that bank executives don't pay tax on their bonuses? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... bankers bounes not getting taxed ... Where would you get the idea that bank executives don't pay tax on their bonuses?" I cant recall bow i thought this but its something ive been told from an early age. Just googled it and looks like im wrong. However i did find these whilst checking How will they avoid paying? A banker said today that there were 'half a dozen fairly obvious ways' to avoid the tax. We've put together seven. If you can think of any more, please add them in Reader Comments below. Qnd this Not to those in the City who get the largest payouts, since those who have guaranteed payouts written into their contracts will be immune. The supertax will apply only to the 'discretionary' element of bonuses. The most likely to be affected are middle managers, accountants, analysts and backroom staff | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"... bankers bounes not getting taxed ..." "Where would you get the idea that bank executives don't pay tax on their bonuses?" "I cant recall bow i thought this but its something ive been told from an early age. Just googled it and looks like im wrong." Well done for checking up. I wonder how many other things you've been told from an early age that will subsequently turn out to be untrue. "However i did find these whilst checking How will they avoid paying? A banker said today that there were 'half a dozen fairly obvious ways' to avoid the tax. We've put together seven. If you can think of any more, please add them in Reader Comments below. Qnd this Not to those in the City who get the largest payouts, since those who have guaranteed payouts written into their contracts will be immune. The supertax will apply only to the 'discretionary' element of bonuses. The most likely to be affected are middle managers, accountants, analysts and backroom staff" What you found was a 13 year old article about a 'supertax' that was placed on bankers by the Labour party. It was a one-off special tax, which is why there was so much discussion on how banks would react to it. Alistair Darling, the then chancellor' later admitted that wasn't a good idea, and it hadn't worked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also in scotland if you earn over £43600 odd they tax you 42% of your wage. You guys in England im sure its up to 50k before that tax you over 40 odd % then add on NI and pension you will have less than half your hourly rate." You don't pay National Insurance on the part of your earnings that falls into the higher rate tax band. And of course, money you pay into a pension is yours to keep. You can choose not to pay anything if you want. "No one can get rich from working for someone else's company thats for sure" Bankers are often quoted as being rich, and they all work for someone else's company. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Do you wotk in banking?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
I was not aware you stop paying NI on anything above the higher tax band. This has been something ive been stuggling with at work as any OT will take me over it so im in discussions to accrue it back in days holidays
Unleaa yoh know of another way around it lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But of you can spot any other incorrect lines from the above post id be interested to know" Since you've asked: "All the shit they claim on expenses" True, some politicians have made some ridiculous claims, but they all get investigated, and the invalid ones get rejected. "They all got wealthier from covid as most had shares in companys that have shares in the vaccines" Lots of people have shares in those companies. Anyone with a pension certainly will. It's not like the MPs bought those shares and then started CoViD. "The beifits bill is not a scratch on the revenue they lose from non doms" The UK's benefits bill is about £300bn a year. Even the most optimistic of the non-dom studies says that about £3bn could be made from abolishing non-dom status. In reality it would be a lot less. "The largest part of the benifits bill is actually pensions that folk paid in for their entire working life but goverments look at it like a loss." If you pay into a pension, that money is yours. The government pays the "old age pension" from tax receipts. That's part of what National Insurance is supposed to cover. "I do however feel a bit silly that ive believed that for Mary years without checking. Even had short discussions on it wifh work collages but you however are the first person to challange me on it so that may have been a factor in me still believing it" It's never too late to start learning new things. And it can be interesting to challenge yourself on some of your own opinions. Try looking for evidence for the opposite view, and it can be surprising what you learn. "Do you work in banking?" No, I never have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You don't pay National Insurance on the part of your earnings that falls into the higher rate tax band. And of course, money you pay into a pension is yours to keep. You can choose not to pay anything if you want." "Well today feels like a school day for me I was not aware you stop paying NI on anything above the higher tax band. This has been something ive been stuggling with at work as any OT will take me over it so im in discussions to accrue it back in days holidays
Unleaa yoh know of another way around it lol"I'm not an expert, but one thing you could do is up your pension payments. That doesn't make you richer today, but the more you have in your pension pot, the earlier you can retire. Think of it as working overtime today, so that you can have a holiday in the future. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! " The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm not an expert, but one thing you could do is up your pension payments. That doesn't make you richer today, but the more you have in your pension pot, the earlier you can retire. Think of it as working overtime today, so that you can have a holiday in the future" "Yeah i came across this idea but will have to research more about penaions as im not fully convvinced on how safe they are as im sure there has been cases over the yeara of governments dipping in to them The full facts tho im not fully aware of" The government can't get hold of pension money, but there have been plenty of cases of companies raiding their pension funds. I don't know your situation, but most pensions nowadays are run by independent financial companies, and are therefore about as safe as can be achieved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? " Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. " Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right." . If you believe that the rules were not correctly applied did you query them. ? What rules are you referring to . ?Are you attempting to claim that your assessment is superior to that of HMRC and that of the civil service . ? Were any professional advisers involved ? Only this week Bernie Ecclestone settled with HMRC for £650 million. This included £200 million in penalties. In addition he received a suspended prison sentence. HMRC routinely check company accounts and indivual tax returns . In a digital age data mining is a lot easier . Anomalies are a lot easier to identify | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. If you believe that the rules were not correctly applied did you query them. ? What rules are you referring to . ?Are you attempting to claim that your assessment is superior to that of HMRC and that of the civil service . ? Were any professional advisers involved ? Only this week Bernie Ecclestone settled with HMRC for £650 million. This included £200 million in penalties. In addition he received a suspended prison sentence. HMRC routinely check company accounts and indivual tax returns . In a digital age data mining is a lot easier . Anomalies are a lot easier to identify " ,,,,,,,, how many benefit cheats would you need to catch to recover £650million ????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are." I don't know where you get that idea. I've said nothing of the sort. You on the other hand seem to think that foreigners can bung £30k to HMRC, and they'll then turn a blind eye to any financial malfeasance. I wonder why Bernie Ecclestone didn't think of trying that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right." .. Maybe in order for people to understand your point you would need to provide some detail. What type of tax and you referring to , how did you have access to the information and if the rules were not correctly applied in your opinion did you report the issue to HMRC .? I think we can safely assume that tax advisers are not going to risk losing their professional qualifications and licence to practice by assisting clients to engage in criminal activity . It might be that the knowledge and advice of professionals on the matter is greater than yours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right." . HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. " ,,,, ,,, , Perhaps cheating on benefits is also not as easy as some attempt to portray | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. ,,,, ,,, , Perhaps cheating on benefits is also not as easy as some attempt to portray " Because it is difficult, that's okay? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. ,,,, ,,, , Perhaps cheating on benefits is also not as easy as some attempt to portray Because it is difficult, that's okay?" No , neither is OK , that is the point | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. " You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK?" To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view. " And you believe him Pat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view. "
Oh dear
Next you’ll be quoting the excuse she is an Indian citizen and India doesn’t permit dual citizenship (while conveniently ignoring that citizenship is irrelevant to taxation in the UK!)
I guess the Sunak’s were also planning on a separation if she expected to return to India and he was holding onto his Green Card and intending to live in the USA! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view.
Oh dear
Next you’ll be quoting the excuse she is an Indian citizen and India doesn’t permit dual citizenship (while conveniently ignoring that citizenship is irrelevant to taxation in the UK!)
I guess the Sunak’s were also planning on a separation if she expected to return to India and he was holding onto his Green Card and intending to live in the USA!". I do not make the rules. If there was an issue why did no one raise it previously. The issue ie fairly straight forward. People want to discriminate against her for bring the PMs wife. The fact that HMRC accepted her status is good enough for me . They have vast experience in these issues . The politics of spite and envy have no place in my agenda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view.
Oh dear
Next you’ll be quoting the excuse she is an Indian citizen and India doesn’t permit dual citizenship (while conveniently ignoring that citizenship is irrelevant to taxation in the UK!)
I guess the Sunak’s were also planning on a separation if she expected to return to India and he was holding onto his Green Card and intending to live in the USA!. I do not make the rules. If there was an issue why did no one raise it previously.
The issue ie fairly straight forward. People want to discriminate against her for bring the PMs wife.
The fact that HMRC accepted her status is good enough for me . They have vast experience in these issues .
The politics of spite and envy have no place in my agenda "And yet you regularly bring up or imply criticism of my wealth. Perhaps I should be a Tory MP (or marry one) then you’d clearly give me a pass on anything | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view.
Oh dear
Next you’ll be quoting the excuse she is an Indian citizen and India doesn’t permit dual citizenship (while conveniently ignoring that citizenship is irrelevant to taxation in the UK!)
I guess the Sunak’s were also planning on a separation if she expected to return to India and he was holding onto his Green Card and intending to live in the USA!. I do not make the rules. If there was an issue why did no one raise it previously.
The issue ie fairly straight forward. People want to discriminate against her for bring the PMs wife.
The fact that HMRC accepted her status is good enough for me . They have vast experience in these issues .
The politics of spite and envy have no place in my agenda
And yet you regularly bring up or imply criticism of my wealth. Perhaps I should be a Tory MP (or marry one) then you’d clearly give me a pass on anything ". To keep things in context someone's personal wealth would be none of my businness . I have never made a post on any posters personal wealth. I cannot remember the extra wording of the post . It was simply to note that a few posters on here always appeared to be keen to inform people of to their own financial status when advocating higher tax rates for the so called wealthy . I have always suspected that such people were virtue signalling and in real life have claimed every possible tax relief available. If they have not claimed these reliefs they would probably have experienced difficulties in both building up and running their businness. If you included yourself in this group it was your choice. The post to which you refer did not name anymore. To make a broad generalisation the group referred to were woke warriors and appear to be extremely well off financially. They were keen to post their financisl status on a number of occasions . There is nothing wrong in being a woke warrior . We live in a free society where everyone is free to express opinion. However people have to recognise that the opinions of woke warriors are in a minority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India.. Everything she did was transparent,legal and above board. You cannot simply decide to be non domiciled because you want to avoid tax . You would have HMRC crawling off over you. In any event any money which she transferred to the UK would be the subject of normal taxation rules on a remittance basis . Why should she be treated any differently to any other non domiciled person. She is simply being penalised for being the PMs wife . In any event you lose your non domiciled status if you are here for more than 20 years and the £30000 charge doubles to £60000 after fifteen years . She has probably contributed more to UK taxation than most people and in addition will never have claimed any benefits. Clamping down on the non dom status would mean that even less resources are available to help those in need as the overall tax collected would drop with non doms deciding to become residence outside the UK Sorry Pat you have your facts wrong. Non-Doms can pay £30,000 a year for 13 years. It then goes to £60,000 for yr 14 & 15. Once you have been here 15 years you can no longer claim to be Non-Dom. Of course it is legal. It is another example of tax avoidance that is enabled in the UK. I love your naivety re being investigated. The whole point of paying the £30k is HMRC simply leaves you alone due to their lack of adequate resources for carrying out forensic financial investigations. BTW your change of tune on the Sunaks hasn’t gone unnoticed. You were vicious in your attacks on them when they betrayed your hero Johnson. . The £30,000 to which you refer does not mean that you pay no tax , it simply means that you are taxed on a remittance basis. By making this election you lose your personal allowance and any exemptions for capital gains. The remittance basis of taxation has been in place for more than one hundred years. Successive governments have recognised the net benefits that attracting internationally mobile high net worth person's in the UK brings to the IK economy. I cannot see many ( if any ) high net worth individuals becoming involved in fraud. HMRC have sufficient resources available to undertake detailed data mining. Information technology makes their investigationa a lot easier . Who said you pay no tax? You pay tax on earnings in the UK but you are not taxed on overseas earnings like you would be if you did not claim non-dom. the point is, was she a genuine non-dom! The simply answer is yes .She satisfied all the criteria . .if her financial affairs were not fully transparent HMRC would be crawling all ove her ? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more comfortable. Do a little research into HMRC and their capacity and how they actually work and allocate cases. You might be shocked. Actually what is the point. You and MrDiscretion inhabit a world where you seem to think rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are. It is quite breathless naivety but it clearly gives you both comfort to think that. I base my opinions on what I have witnessed first hand and been exposed to over the course of my professional and personal life. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion and in all honesty I wish you were both right.. HMRC have also collected £20 million in tax and penalties from Bernie Ecclestones solicitor , Stephen Mullens and the Solitors Regulation Authority have now launched an investigation . It looks like tax evasion is not as easy as you attempt to portray and in any event those attempting it will be caught and in addition have to pay penalties. You’re conflating evasion with avoidance. HMRC have surprisingly limited resources and budgets so decisions are made on who will and will not be investigated. Various factors inform that decision. Mrs Sunak’s claim to non-dom status was tenuous but let go. As for the rest of your post(s) why on earth would I share that sort of information on here? I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? To set your mind at rest Rishi Sanak said that his wife was domiciled in India and would eventually return there to care for her patents when they got older . She appears to satisfy all the requirements for non dom status if you want to take an impartial and objective view.
Oh dear
Next you’ll be quoting the excuse she is an Indian citizen and India doesn’t permit dual citizenship (while conveniently ignoring that citizenship is irrelevant to taxation in the UK!)
I guess the Sunak’s were also planning on a separation if she expected to return to India and he was holding onto his Green Card and intending to live in the USA!. I do not make the rules. If there was an issue why did no one raise it previously.
The issue ie fairly straight forward. People want to discriminate against her for bring the PMs wife.
The fact that HMRC accepted her status is good enough for me . They have vast experience in these issues .
The politics of spite and envy have no place in my agenda
And yet you regularly bring up or imply criticism of my wealth. Perhaps I should be a Tory MP (or marry one) then you’d clearly give me a pass on anything . To keep things in context someone's personal wealth would be none of my businness . I have never made a post on any posters personal wealth. I cannot remember the extra wording of the post . It was simply to note that a few posters on here always appeared to be keen to inform people of to their own financial status when advocating higher tax rates for the so called wealthy . I have always suspected that such people were virtue signalling and in real life have claimed every possible tax relief available. If they have not claimed these reliefs they would probably have experienced difficulties in both building up and running their businness.
If you included yourself in this group it was your choice. The post to which you refer did not name anymore.
To make a broad generalisation the group referred to were woke warriors and appear to be extremely well off financially. They were keen to post their financisl status on a number of occasions .
There is nothing wrong in being a woke warrior . We live in a free society where everyone is free to express opinion.
However people have to recognise that the opinions of woke warriors are in a minority. "Ah you are only talking about posts you have made using this latest profile. Gotcha!
Over the years using the various other profiles you have had running including tractors, and truckers, and haymakers etc you have from time-to-time made direct reference to my wealth. It’s fine, I have no issue with my success or any embarrassment but when you say...
"The politics of spite and envy have no place in my agenda" It rings rather hollow to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive." I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. "So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK?" The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right." I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?" . People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ironically Kier Sttarmer had a special law passed in order that he have favourable treatment relating to his pension while employed by the DPP . " The leader of the opposition can pass laws now! Shocking (if true). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ironically Kier Sttarmer had a special law passed in order that he have favourable treatment relating to his pension while employed by the DPP . " What year was that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy " If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ironically Kier Sttarmer had a special law passed in order that he have favourable treatment relating to his pension while employed by the DPP . What year was that?" We've updated our Privacy and Cookies Policy We've made some important changes to our Privacy IMAGE SOURCE,PA MEDIA Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy by Conservatives over a tax exempt pension deal he has from a previous job. Sir Keir criticised measures in the Budget which scrapped the £1m cap on lifetime pensions savings. The Telegraph reported Sir Keir got a special "tax unregistered" pension scheme when he stood down as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in 2013. Labour says it was standard practice for retiring DPPs to get such a deal. But senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith told The Telegraph it made a "mockery" of Labour's position on the lifetime pension allowance, and was as "close to hypocrisy as it is possible to get". Tory MP Andrea Leadsom told the BBC's Politics Live it was an example of "extraordinary hypocrisy". Pensions tax cut for all is wrong, Labour says How are pension rules changing? Budget 2023: Key points at-a-glance Sir Keir was the top public prosecutor in England and Wales between 2008 and 2013, before entering politics. High earners After standing down as Director of Public Prosecutions, he was granted a "tax-unregistered" pension scheme by an act of parliament. The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, introduced through secondary legislation, means the lifetime allowance does not apply to his contributions from his time as DPP between 2008 and 2013. The legislation means Sir Keir is exempt from paying tax on pensions savings over £1m. It is not clear whether the Labour leader has saved enough to have benefited from the scheme. After last week's Budget, Labour pledged to reverse plans to introduce similar exemptions for high-earners if it wins power. Sir Keir said the government's tax exempt scheme would only benefit the "richest 1%", and proved the government had the "wrong priorities". He said a tax break should only be available to NHS doctors, to encourage them to keep working and not take early retirement. 'Wrong priority' Under the Budget plans, the £1.07m limit on how much individuals can put into their pension pot before having to pay extra tax will be scrapped. The annual tax-free allowance on pensions will also increase from £40,000 to £60,000. On Tuesday night, Labour MPs voted against the measure, saying it was the wrong priority at the wrong time. A government source said: "Sir Keir is more than happy to tax experienced public servants into early retirement - and keep the benefit all to himself." . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time." You're clearly wrong. Akshata Murthy came to the UK in 2010, to set up a fashion business. Previously she had been living and working full time in India. That's exactly the sort of person that non-dom status is aimed at. Do you have any evidence that she didn't meet the criteria when she arrived? "The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation." Rishi Sunak didn't become chancellor until 2020, ten years after Akshta Murthy was given her non-dom status. He wasn't even elected as an MP till 2015. What conspiracy theory are you going to come up with to explain why HMRC didn't investigate her before then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ironically Kier Sttarmer had a special law passed in order that he have favourable treatment relating to his pension while employed by the DPP ." He didn't have the law passed, it was passed as part of the normal procedure for appointing a Director of Public Prosecutions. Every past DPP has a similar Act. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. You're clearly wrong. Akshata Murthy came to the UK in 2010, to set up a fashion business. Previously she had been living and working full time in India. That's exactly the sort of person that non-dom status is aimed at. Do you have any evidence that she didn't meet the criteria when she arrived?" Of course but clearly circumstances changed and instead of being revisited and reviewed it was perpetuated. "The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. Rishi Sunak didn't become chancellor until 2020, ten years after Akshta Murthy was given her non-dom status. He wasn't even elected as an MP till 2015. What conspiracy theory are you going to come up with to explain why HMRC didn't investigate her before then?" Why use the “conspiracy” word? That feels like trying to remove credibility. As per above. Circumstances changed and it should have been addressed. The paying of £30k basically means HMRC turning a bit of a blind eye (which helps them due to resource challenges). So five years after moving to the UK her husband becomes an MP. That should trigger a close review. As I have said, why the 48hr about face if all ok? Anyway, we won’t agree. Be interesting to see a cost benefit analysis of her contribution to the UK purse and whether being exempt from c.£20-30m in tax has been offset. Especially as some of her UK businesses have been net beneficiaries of UK Govt policy and several have closed down owing the taxman a fortune! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation." "Rishi Sunak didn't become chancellor until 2020, ten years after Akshta Murthy was given her non-dom status. He wasn't even elected as an MP till 2015. What conspiracy theory are you going to come up with to explain why HMRC didn't investigate her before then?" "Why use the “conspiracy” word? That feels like trying to remove credibility." I used 'conspiracy' because it sounds like one. You're claiming that she was within the rules for 10 years, and then stepped outside the rules at exactly the point her husband became Chancellor and could protect her. At the same time you're also claiming that she was never within the rules, and shouldn't ever have been granted non-dom status. "The paying of £30k basically means HMRC turning a bit of a blind eye (which helps them due to resource challenges)." And there's another bit of conspiracy theory - the idea that rich foreigners can bribe HMRC into ignoring millions of pounds of potential tax revenue, by making a payment of £30,000. And that the multitude of civil servants involved in non-dom work will all conspire to keep quiet about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. Rishi Sunak didn't become chancellor until 2020, ten years after Akshta Murthy was given her non-dom status. He wasn't even elected as an MP till 2015. What conspiracy theory are you going to come up with to explain why HMRC didn't investigate her before then? Why use the “conspiracy” word? That feels like trying to remove credibility. I used 'conspiracy' because it sounds like one. You're claiming that she was within the rules for 10 years, and then stepped outside the rules at exactly the point her husband became Chancellor and could protect her. At the same time you're also claiming that she was never within the rules, and shouldn't ever have been granted non-dom status. The paying of £30k basically means HMRC turning a bit of a blind eye (which helps them due to resource challenges). And there's another bit of conspiracy theory - the idea that rich foreigners can bribe HMRC into ignoring millions of pounds of potential tax revenue, by making a payment of £30,000. And that the multitude of civil servants involved in non-dom work will all conspire to keep quiet about it." Talk about putting words in my mouth! We won’t agree! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. " . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. " You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose." Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? " It’s called a conversation Pat. You have an entrenched position that I think is highly naive. You can choose to accept or not accept what I have said, I do not really care. For me it is more interesting that you appear to have this blind faith based on what? Nothing from what I can tell? What is also interesting is how viciously you attacked Sunak when he ousted Johnson. You called him a traitor and more besides. Admittedly that wasn’t under your current pseudonym but was one of the Tractor/Trucker/Haymaker ones. Why the change of heart? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
How long until we get to 176? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me, this is boring. Thought it was about state benefits
How long until we get to 176?"Ha ha ha thought you had been quiet for a while? You’ve been missed! Keep posting and you can close it down | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me, this is boring. Thought it was about state benefits
How long until we get to 176?
Ha ha ha thought you had been quiet for a while? You’ve been missed!
Keep posting and you can close it down "Tbh atm it's just Israel-Palestine. There's no debating on that subject so I've tried to stay out of it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me, this is boring. Thought it was about state benefits
How long until we get to 176?
Ha ha ha thought you had been quiet for a while? You’ve been missed!
Keep posting and you can close it down
Tbh atm it's just Israel-Palestine. There's no debating on that subject so I've tried to stay out of it "Fair enough and yeah! But in this one, keep on trucking!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Fuck me, this is boring. Thought it was about state benefits
How long until we get to 176?
Ha ha ha thought you had been quiet for a while? You’ve been missed!
Keep posting and you can close it down
Tbh atm it's just Israel-Palestine. There's no debating on that subject so I've tried to stay out of it
Fair enough and yeah!
But in this one, keep on trucking!!!!"I don't even know what the topic is
I'll go back to ignoring it. Hopefully it'll die soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? It’s called a conversation Pat. You have an entrenched position that I think is highly naive. You can choose to accept or not accept what I have said, I do not really care. For me it is more interesting that you appear to have this blind faith based on what? Nothing from what I can tell? What is also interesting is how viciously you attacked Sunak when he ousted Johnson. You called him a traitor and more besides. Admittedly that wasn’t under your current pseudonym but was one of the Tractor/Trucker/Haymaker ones. Why the change of heart? " . Boris Johnson won an eighty seat majority which was a stunning achievement and a true reflection of what the electorate think. Riski Sunak was partly responsible for the downfall of Boris and by subsequently standing for the leadership took advantage of the situation. We had already elected a leader and instead of having forward vision party members and MPs conspired again her. I have no choice but to support Riski Sunak in the short term. I am hardly going to support a party with a leader who is incapable of defining what a women is . Simply a coward who is unable to answer a simple question . Boris Johnson gave a straight forward answer to the question when asked. Luckily we still have some great Conservative MPs . Priti Patel and Sue Braverman are an inspiration to those who want to tackle some of problems which society faces. They certainly have my support for the next PM.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? It’s called a conversation Pat. You have an entrenched position that I think is highly naive. You can choose to accept or not accept what I have said, I do not really care. For me it is more interesting that you appear to have this blind faith based on what? Nothing from what I can tell? What is also interesting is how viciously you attacked Sunak when he ousted Johnson. You called him a traitor and more besides. Admittedly that wasn’t under your current pseudonym but was one of the Tractor/Trucker/Haymaker ones. Why the change of heart? . Boris Johnson won an eighty seat majority which was a stunning achievement and a true reflection of what the electorate think. " Brutal take down of the electorate. " Riski Sunak was partly responsible for the downfall of Boris and by subsequently standing for the leadership took advantage of the situation. We had already elected a leader and instead of having forward vision party members and MPs conspired again her. " The Tories had "forward vision party members"? Do you have any evidence for this outlandish claim? " I have no choice but to support Riski Sunak in the short term. " There are always choices in life " I am hardly going to support a party with a leader who is incapable of defining what a women is . Simply a coward who is unable to answer a simple question . Boris Johnson gave a straight forward answer to the question when asked. " Newsflash, the opposite of supporting the Conservatives is.... Drum roll.... Not supporting the Conservatives. Absolutely nothing to do with Labour. " Luckily we still have some great Conservative MPs . Priti Patel and Sue Braverman are an inspiration to those who want to tackle some of problems which society faces. They certainly have my support for the next PM.. " This last section is proper funny. Fair play. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? It’s called a conversation Pat. You have an entrenched position that I think is highly naive. You can choose to accept or not accept what I have said, I do not really care. For me it is more interesting that you appear to have this blind faith based on what? Nothing from what I can tell? What is also interesting is how viciously you attacked Sunak when he ousted Johnson. You called him a traitor and more besides. Admittedly that wasn’t under your current pseudonym but was one of the Tractor/Trucker/Haymaker ones. Why the change of heart? . Boris Johnson won an eighty seat majority which was a stunning achievement and a true reflection of what the electorate think. Riski Sunak was partly responsible for the downfall of Boris and by subsequently standing for the leadership took advantage of the situation. We had already elected a leader and instead of having forward vision party members and MPs conspired again her. I have no choice but to support Riski Sunak in the short term. I am hardly going to support a party with a leader who is incapable of defining what a women is . Simply a coward who is unable to answer a simple question . Boris Johnson gave a straight forward answer to the question when asked. Luckily we still have some great Conservative MPs . Priti Patel and Sue Braverman are an inspiration to those who want to tackle some of problems which society faces. They certainly have my support for the next PM.. " I am sure now he is taking the mick. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am not trying to change your mind or MrDiscretions. It would be a pointless exercise. Just pointing out that IMO you are both being naive. I asked earlier why you were lumping me in with Pat on this. I have never said that "rules are applied evenly and consistently regardless of who you are", or anything even vaguely similar. So let me ask you both a direct question... Q. If a nom British citizen is living the vast majority of their time in the UK and had been for 13years, running businesses from the UK and in the UK, who is married to a Brit whose job requires him to live in the UK, and you have children born in the UK and at school in the UK, would consider that person to be domiciled in the UK? The whole point of non-dom status is to attract foreign money here to invest in the UK. To set up a business here, a foreigner would need to come over and stay here for more than the usual limit of 90 days. So how long should they be given? A year is obviously too short to get a business up and running, 3 years might be closer to it for a small/medium business. For something like a steelworks, maybe 10 years wouldn't be enough. HMRC couldn't possibly address each case on its merits, and weigh up how the business is doing, where the spouse lives, where the children go to school, how much time they spend back in their 'home' land, etc. You're the one that's always going on about how woefully understaffed HMRC is, how do you think they'd cope if they had to assess whether each non-dom was appropriately domiciled each year, and then cope with the inevitable appeals? The only workable system is to make sure that they fit the criteria when they arrive here, and then give them a set period that their non-dom status can last for. The time period we have chosen is 15 years. You can argue that the time period is too long and should be changed, but you can't argue that someone who's following the rules should be stripped of their status just because it doesn't feel right. I absolutely think Mrs Sunak did not fit the criteria and had not done for some time. The fact that HMRC was ultimately answerable to the Chancellor, who happened to be her husband, means it would have been career limiting to open an investigation. If she had a watertight case she would have stuck to her position to prove the rules had not been bent or broken. She changed her position within 48hrs. The people who defend her on here regarding her involvement in businesses that have benefitted from Govt policy since her husband became then PM will often cite that her investment are broad and she doesn’t have direct executive control over these businesses (that it is all coincidence). Her venture capital firm is based offshore and apparently invests all over the world. So why does she need to be in the UK but claiming to be domiciled in India?. People defend her because they believe in equality and treating everyone equally. Everyone accepted her status prior to Sunak becoming Prime Minister and nothing had changed in how she managed her affairs. I am sure that plenty of civil servants were out to get her. Had any civil servant been penalised for investigating her they would have been onto the press promptly. She was treated differently to other members of the public Hoe msny people have their tax affairs scrutinised by the press and have them publicisd all over the Internet. Publicity is fine if you have broken the law but all her affairs were transparent and above the law . It is difficult to see how anyone would wish to be associated with the policies of spite and envy If you are in the public eye and earning money from the public purse then your affairs better be watertight and beyond reproach as they should very much be under higher levels of scrutiny! If you don’t like it don’t take the job! As for your Civil Servant comments. Again you betray such naivety and I respectfully suggest you have no first hand experience and have never worked at the heart of Whitehall. . Last time I checked it was Rishi Sunak that was Prime Minister , not his wife. She satisfied all the criteria to have non dom status but had to change her status because of pressure applied by those motivated by hate and spite The civil service are hardly sympathetc to the Conservative party. Lots of civil servants would be eager to investigate the Prime Ministees wife . Aa no questions were raised on the issue previously by the Civil Service we can assume that her affairs were in order If we follow your logic you now appear to be suggesting that the Civil Servive are incompetent for failing to identify the matter previously. Luckily most people are more rational and reasonable and do not believe in the politics of envy and spite . Most people would be more interested in the performance of a Prime Minster , not what his wife does or the source of his wife's income Thw whole point of non dom status is to encorsge investment. You don’t know what you are talking about Pat. You clearly have no idea how things really work in Whitehall. In addition there have been various studies that show the “non doms encourage investment” is something of a myth and results in a net loss to the economy rather than a gain. It really is quite easy to research some of this. Also, another person putting words in my mouth. It really is poor form. Where have I said the Civil Service were/are incompetent? What I have said is that due to a lack of resource (and that includes the most highly skilled tax experts ironically due to wage freezes) HMRC can only investigate a limited number of cases. This results in them turning a blind eye in most cases to people claiming non-dom who pay the £30k or £60k and instead focusing on domestic investigations (rather than international) that are easier and provide more certainty on their ROI in time/resource/effort. As I said to MrDiscretion, we won’t agree and I am not trying to change your mind. Sometimes in these forums there are people who do actually know stuff but for obvious reasons can’t/won’t support with evidence. You can choose to accept or ignore. Either way no skin off my nose. Why would anyone need to know what they talking about on a site such as this ? It is a bizarre comment to make. The audience is very small ,probably a few posters. What would matter is information received in real life and the impact on people personally . Do you want people to take an intelligent test or general knowledge test before they can post. ? Even more bizarre is your implications that you are in possession of information that you are unable to disclose. Why make such a comment? It’s called a conversation Pat. You have an entrenched position that I think is highly naive. You can choose to accept or not accept what I have said, I do not really care. For me it is more interesting that you appear to have this blind faith based on what? Nothing from what I can tell? What is also interesting is how viciously you attacked Sunak when he ousted Johnson. You called him a traitor and more besides. Admittedly that wasn’t under your current pseudonym but was one of the Tractor/Trucker/Haymaker ones. Why the change of heart? . Boris Johnson won an eighty seat majority which was a stunning achievement and a true reflection of what the electorate think. Riski Sunak was partly responsible for the downfall of Boris and by subsequently standing for the leadership took advantage of the situation. We had already elected a leader and instead of having forward vision party members and MPs conspired again her. I have no choice but to support Riski Sunak in the short term. I am hardly going to support a party with a leader who is incapable of defining what a women is . Simply a coward who is unable to answer a simple question . Boris Johnson gave a straight forward answer to the question when asked. Luckily we still have some great Conservative MPs . Priti Patel and Sue Braverman are an inspiration to those who want to tackle some of problems which society faces. They certainly have my support for the next PM.. I am sure now he is taking the mick." Pat is the master. He plays Jedi Mind Tricks! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who was that poster that said we should call out every instance of "piling on", and ganging up on an individual? We should call them in here so they can say it again." The poster who first complained about 'piling on' is here, engaging 
I think you know that though  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who was that poster that said we should call out every instance of "piling on", and ganging up on an individual? We should call them in here so they can say it again." Ah but when does the pile oner become the pilee | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah but when does the pile oner become the pilee "Surely "pile-onee"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who was that poster that said we should call out every instance of "piling on", and ganging up on an individual? We should call them in here so they can say it again." Piling on Pat? I enjoy his posts. No one savages Tory voters harder, and he seems to get away with it. They never argue back. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Who was that poster that said we should call out every instance of "piling on", and ganging up on an individual? We should call them in here so they can say it again. Piling on Pat? I enjoy his posts. No one savages Tory voters harder, and he seems to get away with it. They never argue back." FAB POP | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So what do we think about the Tories clamping down on state benefits? For a starter, I think every single person in full time employment should be entitled to a living wage without the need for state benefit top-ups (which are demeaning). But those who refuse to work? Should they get benefits? The problem is enforcement. It's too easy to hide behind incapacity which becomes hard to distinguish between the genuine and fraudulent. Then in the end, if benefits don't get paid, it's kids that suffer which is unfair. Not easy. What's a living wage? Enough to rent pay bills and eat? I'd have thought the term was self-explanatory, but yes, as you describe and other necessities. Not swimming with dolphins in the Maldives. Do many people on benefits holiday in the Maldives, then? Maybe not The Maldives, but Florida and Thailand
I bet there has been one or two but the millions on benefits...nah!
I can only speak for people I personally know. But if I know 2 families, how many do others know?
I wouldn't imagine it's most but it isn't something to be dismissed either.
For Mr I support child tax credits for up to 2 kids tk help buy clothes, feed etc
Any one on benefits where the government is subsidising a holiday. Those benefits need reducing.
I used to see it when I worked at the bank. And it infuriated me.
People with PiP and other benefits who never worked a day in the lives were ( post tax) taking home more in disposable income than I was working 40 hours a week.
PIP is not relevant to work or benefits."It's a state benefits. It's literally on the uk state benefits List https://www.gov.uk/income-tax/taxfree-and-taxable-state-benefits | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. " Who said these things. Because I certainly didn't. See point about never working a day in their life. I dont think any one else in the thread brought it up. So I can only assume you mean me. Thus. I assume you again have forgotten how to read. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. Who said these things. " Someone about 8 posts in. " Because I certainly didn't. " Marvellous. " See point about never working a day in their life. " What point is this? " I dont think any one else in the thread brought it up. So I can only assume you mean me. " Brought what up? " Thus. " No idea. " I assume you again have forgotten how to read." Maybe see if you can figure out what's going on before insulting people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Non-doms still have to provide tax returns, they still have to declare all earnings world-wide, and they still have to pay tax on all earnings received in the UK. The annual fee doesn't protect them from investigation, it's just an extra fee they have to pay. Ok “declare” may be the wrong word. However, non-doms avoid double taxation (ie they only pay tax on their worldwide earnings in their claimed domicile country, in this case not the UK) and pay £30k as a flat fee to secure this arrangement with HMRC. That seems like a reasonable arrangement. Not charging them double tax seems fair to me. Because they certainly wouldn't come here if we did charge them double tax. And of course they also pay full UK tax on all earnings that are earned in, or remitted to, the UK. It is estimated this saved Akshata Murthy somewhere in the region of £30m. Is that relevant? Would you be happier with non-dom status if she'd only saved £30? You are missing the point (deliberately I think). She had made her life here for 12 years. Her primary home was/is in the UK. Her kids go to school in the UK. Her husband is in the UK with a job that ties him into Britain like no other job can. She was legally non-dom but no way was she actually non-dom. Paying £30k to avoid £millions despite enjoying the benefits of living in the UK but avoiding contributing appropriately via tax. The double taxation only happens if living here but not claiming non-dom. She could declare herself domiciled in UK and avoided tax in India but CGT and dividend tax is higher in UK than India." . I am sorry but i dont think this is true She oays tax on her uk based earnings. Non dom say she doesn't have to oay tax on her India based companies earnings. When giving this up She pays tax on those earnings in India and again here in the uk | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. Who said these things. Someone about 8 posts in. Because I certainly didn't. Marvellous. See point about never working a day in their life. What point is this? I dont think any one else in the thread brought it up. So I can only assume you mean me. Brought what up? Thus. No idea. I assume you again have forgotten how to read. Maybe see if you can figure out what's going on before insulting people?" If its the person that posted about 7 days before my post that no one including yourself further discussed pip with for 7bdays. I dont see the insult they made in their post. Your reply about pip and the 2 other replies seem to come directly after ri rementioned it. I suppose that's just coincidence. Either way glad we agree no one did what you claimed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I got PIP after months of interviews and a lot of help from my sisters,I have had 9 strokes and my left arm is totally redundant I disagree with those who have said people like you deserve to be demeaned. And would go as far as saying that the lack of empathy in this country is one of the things dragging us down. Who said these things. Someone about 8 posts in. Because I certainly didn't. Marvellous. See point about never working a day in their life. What point is this? I dont think any one else in the thread brought it up. So I can only assume you mean me. Brought what up? Thus. No idea. I assume you again have forgotten how to read. Maybe see if you can figure out what's going on before insulting people? If its the person that posted about 7 days before my post that no one including yourself further discussed pip with for 7bdays. I dont see the insult they made in their post. Your reply about pip and the 2 other replies seem to come directly after ri rementioned it. I suppose that's just coincidence. Either way glad we agree no one did what you claimed. " someone said benefits should be demeaning. You agree PIP is a state benefit. So that original person is saying they want PIP to be demeaning. Isn't that what is being claimed? They may not had meant PIP... They may not have realised PIP was a state benefit. But thats not for anyone but them to clarify I guess. There's certainly some evidence to support the claim | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Happy for you to point out Johnny where any one said the poster should be demeaned or used language to that effect. Feel free to post it. I await." I didn't say anyone said that specific poster should be demeaned. Someone said benefits should be demeaning. Try having a read of the thread. Maybe you could apologise for insulting me when you have time? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
