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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good question! Another one is what leverage do others have on him... What skeletons are in the cupboard.. big business has lobbyists pulling strings" I agree listen to this... https://youtu.be/DVvoyRpxG-A?si=egD7EcKVXALMfV3t Gary Stevenson @garyseconomics was Citibank's most profitable trader in 2011 by predicting there would be an increase in economic inequality. Now, he spends his time exposing the inequality embedded into the global economic system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m" Tldr. 690 of the 730 is his wife's stake in the family business. The other 40m is unexplained. Not even clear if it is his or hers. Terrible article. Horrible website. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good question! Another one is what leverage do others have on him... What skeletons are in the cupboard.. big business has lobbyists pulling strings" None. The best thing about Rishi is that nobody can buy him. He doesn't need anybody for anything (financially). Their wealth is real (not purely paper wealth) and there's diversification and liquidity (unlike Trump). Even if Infosys folded tomorrow, he'd still be minted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers" Lol ...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good question! Another one is what leverage do others have on him... What skeletons are in the cupboard.. big business has lobbyists pulling strings None. The best thing about Rishi is that nobody can buy him. He doesn't need anybody for anything (financially). Their wealth is real (not purely paper wealth) and there's diversification and liquidity (unlike Trump). Even if Infosys folded tomorrow, he'd still be minted." A man for the people lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers" Maybe someone who benefited from living here but choosing to pay there tax somewhere else may be described as a scrounger by some | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers Maybe someone who benefited from living here but choosing to pay there tax somewhere else may be described as a scrounger by some " An Indian woman whose father did well in business married an English guy. She moved to his country. She has UK business interests *and pays UK tax on those*. Despite this, the UK population is clamouring for a slice of her family wealth, for the privilege of living here. Sounds almost colonial  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers Maybe someone who benefited from living here but choosing to pay there tax somewhere else may be described as a scrounger by some An Indian woman whose father did well in business married an English guy. She moved to his country. She has UK business interests *and pays UK tax on those*. Despite this, the UK population is clamouring for a slice of her family wealth, for the privilege of living here. Sounds almost colonial ""Rishi Sunak's wife has potentially avoided up to £20m in UK tax by being non-domiciled and pays £30,000" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" "Rishi Sunak's wife has potentially avoided up to £20m in UK tax by being non-domiciled and pays £30,000" " Yes. That is solely on her overseas dividend income. That does not address any of her UK interests and tax thereof. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m" Is there a problem with the PM being wealthy. How much is to much and why?. I won't be voting for his party at the GE but it's nothing to do with his wealth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just of topic if you had £750m Or 3 million a month to spend " that's what it should earn at 0.05%" Would you carry on working? I for 1 would NOT" Perhaps Sunak isn't as lazy as you are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just of topic if you had £750m Or 3 million a month to spend " that's what it should earn at 0.05%" Would you carry on working? I for 1 would NOT Perhaps Sunak isn't as lazy as you are." Hay I don't think I lazy but I will take the point. My point is for sum 3million a month is not enough. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just of topic if you had £750m Or 3 million a month to spend " that's what it should earn at 0.05%" Would you carry on working? I for 1 would NOT" "Perhaps Sunak isn't as lazy as you are." "Hay I don't think I lazy but I will take the point. My point is for sum 3million a month is not enough." Thanks for seeing the humour. Of course, the Sunaks don't have £750m sitting in the bank. Wealth is not the same thing as money. Much of their wealth will be in shares, which may not bring any income, and which they can't actually sell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m" That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more." Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. " The hate and ignorance goes both ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. " Name me one career polititcian from any party that has a scooby what its like for working class people? And name me a working class politician that knows what it is like for middle class or generational wealth constituents? Point is no prime minister can be representative of the entire population, they are one person. Thats why we have to vote for people that we believe represent us and our interests and hope that proportionally across the whole of parliament we get something that broadly reflects societies wishes. PR voting would do a better job of it sure, but even then the PM will still be only 1 person | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. The hate and ignorance goes both ways." And opinionated assumptions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. Name me one career polititcian from any party that has a scooby what its like for working class people? And name me a working class politician that knows what it is like for middle class or generational wealth constituents? Point is no prime minister can be representative of the entire population, they are one person. Thats why we have to vote for people that we believe represent us and our interests and hope that proportionally across the whole of parliament we get something that broadly reflects societies wishes. PR voting would do a better job of it sure, but even then the PM will still be only 1 person" Off the top of my head Ramsey McDonald. Bu this is the problem.. lack of working class backgrounds means no understanding of the majority of people on the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. Name me one career polititcian from any party that has a scooby what its like for working class people? And name me a working class politician that knows what it is like for middle class or generational wealth constituents? Point is no prime minister can be representative of the entire population, they are one person. Thats why we have to vote for people that we believe represent us and our interests and hope that proportionally across the whole of parliament we get something that broadly reflects societies wishes. PR voting would do a better job of it sure, but even then the PM will still be only 1 person Off the top of my head Ramsey McDonald. Bu this is the problem.. lack of working class backgrounds means no understanding of the majority of people on the UK." the trouble is people see the person that someone has become and not the upbringing. A nurse and a tool maker sound working class (ish). Would that count ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-net-worth-how-rich-b2451574.html Prime minister and his wife Akshata Murty are worth a reported £730m That is an under estimation it is going to be much more. Exactly.. Plus someone with that amount of wealth hasn't a scooby what it's like for working class people. Name me one career polititcian from any party that has a scooby what its like for working class people? And name me a working class politician that knows what it is like for middle class or generational wealth constituents? Point is no prime minister can be representative of the entire population, they are one person. Thats why we have to vote for people that we believe represent us and our interests and hope that proportionally across the whole of parliament we get something that broadly reflects societies wishes. PR voting would do a better job of it sure, but even then the PM will still be only 1 person Off the top of my head Ramsey McDonald. Bu this is the problem.. lack of working class backgrounds means no understanding of the majority of people on the UK.the trouble is people see the person that someone has become and not the upbringing. A nurse and a tool maker sound working class (ish). Would that count ?" Hard to look at Reese Mogg and not seen the upbringing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just of topic if you had £750m Or 3 million a month to spend " that's what it should earn at 0.05%" Would you carry on working? I for 1 would NOT Perhaps Sunak isn't as lazy as you are. Hay I don't think I lazy but I will take the point. My point is for sum 3million a month is not enough. Thanks for seeing the humour. Of course, the Sunaks don't have £750m sitting in the bank. Wealth is not the same thing as money. Much of their wealth will be in shares, which may not bring any income, and which they can't actually sell." Off course shares bring in income, that is the whole point, assets being in income...rent, interest...this is basic economics. Read the below. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/05/banker-budget-mega-rich-traders-jeremy-hunt The budget is a piece of theatre meant for your consumption. It is a cute moment – a photogenic moment where a multimillionaire can hold up a red box and bribe you with a bit of your money, while they and all the other multimillionaires bankrupt the government with monetary and fiscal stimulus packages that seem somehow to always end up in their own pockets | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course, the Sunaks don't have £750m sitting in the bank. Wealth is not the same thing as money. Much of their wealth will be in shares, which may not bring any income, and which they can't actually sell." "Off course shares bring in income, that is the whole point, assets being in income...rent, interest..." Shares that they have bought as an investment will probably be bringing in income. But the vast majority of their wealth comes from her ownership of Infosys shares. It's common for a family business to have shares given to all of the family, but with no dividend rights. That keeps the company in family ownership whatever happens, but means that the kids can't use the company as a cash machine. If her Infosys shares are held that way, she'll get no income, and she won't be able to sell the shares. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course, the Sunaks don't have £750m sitting in the bank. Wealth is not the same thing as money. Much of their wealth will be in shares, which may not bring any income, and which they can't actually sell. Off course shares bring in income, that is the whole point, assets being in income...rent, interest... Shares that they have bought as an investment will probably be bringing in income. But the vast majority of their wealth comes from her ownership of Infosys shares. It's common for a family business to have shares given to all of the family, but with no dividend rights. That keeps the company in family ownership whatever happens, but means that the kids can't use the company as a cash machine. If her Infosys shares are held that way, she'll get no income, and she won't be able to sell the shares." She gets an income.... As Murty recieves the latest £6.8 million dividend from her father’s company, Infosys, it brings her total dividend income up to £13.5 million for the year. https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/akshata-murty-net-worth-rishi-sunak-wife-wealth-father-infosys-b1074114.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course, the Sunaks don't have £750m sitting in the bank. Wealth is not the same thing as money. Much of their wealth will be in shares, which may not bring any income, and which they can't actually sell. Off course shares bring in income, that is the whole point, assets being in income...rent, interest... Shares that they have bought as an investment will probably be bringing in income. But the vast majority of their wealth comes from her ownership of Infosys shares. It's common for a family business to have shares given to all of the family, but with no dividend rights. That keeps the company in family ownership whatever happens, but means that the kids can't use the company as a cash machine. If her Infosys shares are held that way, she'll get no income, and she won't be able to sell the shares." It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares. Look back at articles from around the time of the Non-Dom revelations. The figure of £13m a year is in my head but that might be wrong. I also recall revelations that she holds the shares in the tax haven of Mauritius so pays no tax to India either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers" HAHAHA..  HAHAHAHAHA
https://youtu.be/CrHWoipWBuw?si=O95Y5l23eUfkKMxq | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers Maybe someone who benefited from living here but choosing to pay there tax somewhere else may be described as a scrounger by some " Apparently much of their wealth is held offshore on tax havens. Her shares in Infosys held in Mauritius. So they don’t really pay much tax abroad either! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just of topic if you had £750m Or 3 million a month to spend " that's what it should earn at 0.05%" Would you carry on working? I for 1 would NOT Perhaps Sunak isn't as lazy as you are." Or perhaps Sunak realised that going into politics and ending up with the top job would create personal/family/friends enrichment opportunities longer term! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares." It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation. "The figure of £13m a year is in my head but that might be wrong." If that's an accurate figure, it's a good way off the £3m a month that someone calculated up above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares. It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation. The figure of £13m a year is in my head but that might be wrong. If that's an accurate figure, it's a good way off the £3m a month that someone calculated up above." It took me about 30 seconds on Google… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/akshata-murty-rishi-sunak-wife-get-almost-67m-infosys-dividends £13m in that FY. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares." "It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation." "It took me about 30 seconds on Google… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/akshata-murty-rishi-sunak-wife-get-almost-67m-infosys-dividends £13m in that FY." That article uses the phrase "... Murty’s share was an estimated £6.25m". In other words, they've looked at the declared dividend, worked out her share holding, and assumed that she'll get £6.25m. It then goes on to say "It is unclear whether she receives the dividend payment directly from Infosys". So in reality they don't know how, or to whom, any money might get paid. Maybe it goes directly to her, maybe it goes into a trust fund that she doesn't control, or maybe nothing gets paid at all. It's clear that she has invested in several UK companies, and puts a lot of effort into building up businesses. Either she's very driven to succeed, or she's trying to make her own wealth. It's obvious that's she's not at all poor, but it isn't obvious that she's rolling in mountains of cash. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares. It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation. The figure of £13m a year is in my head but that might be wrong. If that's an accurate figure, it's a good way off the £3m a month that someone calculated up above. It took me about 30 seconds on Google… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/akshata-murty-rishi-sunak-wife-get-almost-67m-infosys-dividends £13m in that FY." . If you wanted accurate unbiased information you would be better downloading the accounts of Infosys and obtaining the information from a reputable source. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good for them, we could do with more wealth creators a fewer scroungers" The biggest scroungers in this country is the ones in the monarchy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An M.P asked a question at PMQs today. Mr speaker in some jurisdictions minsters routinely publish their tax returns the PM voluntary published his UK tax returns last year. Does the PM agree that minsters of the crown should publish their tax returns as a matter of course. And has he ever filed any returns in the USA that have not been published. Rishis reply Mr speaker I don't think that would be proportionate or apportionate for all ministers to publish their tax returns in keeping with the longstanding tradition I voluntary published my tax returns as did the chancellor I think that is the right balance and ive been completely transparent as ive done it. Note he never answered the second part of the question concerning tax returns in the USA being published here." It's not like a politician to dodge a question lol. Perhaps it's something Labour can introduce after the next GE, then the few Tory MP's left will have to do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares. It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation. It took me about 30 seconds on Google… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/akshata-murty-rishi-sunak-wife-get-almost-67m-infosys-dividends £13m in that FY. That article uses the phrase "... Murty’s share was an estimated £6.25m". In other words, they've looked at the declared dividend, worked out her share holding, and assumed that she'll get £6.25m. It then goes on to say "It is unclear whether she receives the dividend payment directly from Infosys". So in reality they don't know how, or to whom, any money might get paid. Maybe it goes directly to her, maybe it goes into a trust fund that she doesn't control, or maybe nothing gets paid at all. It's clear that she has invested in several UK companies, and puts a lot of effort into building up businesses. Either she's very driven to succeed, or she's trying to make her own wealth. It's obvious that's she's not at all poor, but it isn't obvious that she's rolling in mountains of cash." But your whole point of “she may not receive dividends” is completely unprovable and you have provided no source whatsoever to support your argument. I would say their lifestyle and properties would indicate receipt of significant dividends, your argument is based on what? I could dig deeper if i was that bothered, but what would that achieve. The fact that Mr & Mrs Sunak are very wealthy is inarguable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It has been widely reported that she receives dividends from her Infosys shares. It has been widely reported, but not by anyone who has access to her bank accounts. The reports I read always say something along the lines of "Infosys paid a 2% dividend last year, so her share would be £2m". They never say that she actually did receive the money, just that a dividend was paid, and that she owns some shares, then speculation. The figure of £13m a year is in my head but that might be wrong. If that's an accurate figure, it's a good way off the £3m a month that someone calculated up above. It took me about 30 seconds on Google… https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/13/akshata-murty-rishi-sunak-wife-get-almost-67m-infosys-dividends £13m in that FY.. If you wanted accurate unbiased information you would be better downloading the accounts of Infosys and obtaining the information from a reputable source. " Assume you will do that for us Pat? Does that include a list of all shareholders and their dividend payments? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But your whole point of “she may not receive dividends” is completely unprovable ..." Agreed. As is the idea that she definitely receives dividends. The media and us lot here don't actually know. "... you have provided no source whatsoever to support your argument." I have pointed out the weasely words used by the media in their reporting. In my experience, weasely words are an indication that the reporter is unsure of their facts. "I would say their lifestyle and properties would indicate receipt of significant dividends ..." I have already said that their lifestyle shows that they are very wealthy. But it doesn't show that they are extremely wealthy. Their lifestyle could be achieved on £500k a year. If they're getting several million a year, it doesn't show. "The fact that Mr & Mrs Sunak are very wealthy is inarguable." Agreed. But I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was arguing with the chap above who thinks that they have £750m sat in the bank and are currently taking in £3m a month. He's almost certainly wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But your whole point of “she may not receive dividends” is completely unprovable ... Agreed. As is the idea that she definitely receives dividends. The media and us lot here don't actually know. ... you have provided no source whatsoever to support your argument. I have pointed out the weasely words used by the media in their reporting. In my experience, weasely words are an indication that the reporter is unsure of their facts. I would say their lifestyle and properties would indicate receipt of significant dividends ... I have already said that their lifestyle shows that they are very wealthy. But it doesn't show that they are extremely wealthy. Their lifestyle could be achieved on £500k a year. If they're getting several million a year, it doesn't show. The fact that Mr & Mrs Sunak are very wealthy is inarguable. Agreed. But I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was arguing with the chap above who thinks that they have £750m sat in the bank and are currently taking in £3m a month. He's almost certainly wrong." But you are really just being contrary. For example, you say her dividends may pay her direct, into a trust, or not at all. And…? The result of the first two is the same as she will be the beneficiary of the trust. In fact I suspect they WILL be paid into a trust for tax purposes*. I would also argue that on balance of probability it is far more likely her Infosys shares are paying her dividends direct or via trust than her shareholding not providing any benefit. After all, where else is she getting the wealth she uses to invest in other businesses? So while I get the point of you disproving wealth/cash in bank and wealth being “on paper” your follow on points are purely hypothetical and based on nothing. *I have previously read (but cannot recall where) that her Infosys shares are held offshore in Mauritius, which is a tax haven. “Held” could mean direct or via Trust but the point is, if they are not delivering dividends, why use tax avoidance approaches? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... you say her dividends may pay her direct, into a trust, or not at all. And…? The result of the first two is the same as she will be the beneficiary of the trust." Again, I was arguing with a bloke that thinks she has £750m sat in the bank. If her money is instead in a trust which she doesn't control, then she doesn't have access to it. "After all, where else is she getting the wealth she uses to invest in other businesses?" The money she has invested in UK companies amounts to just over a couple of million (from the press reports that I could find). We know that she ran successful businesses in India. If she really is getting all that money from Infosys, it's not obvious what she's doing with it. "I have previously read (but cannot recall where) that her Infosys shares are held offshore in Mauritius, which is a tax haven. “Held” could mean direct or via Trust but the point is, if they are not delivering dividends, why use tax avoidance approaches?" You're right, Mauritius was reported as being where the shares were held. A good reason for using a foreign trust would be privacy. Perhaps they don't want the average Indian citizen to know how much the family owns. Another good reason would be that India has a habit of raiding rich people's finances when it needs some extra cash. Putting the shares out of reach of the state would seem like a sensible idea. Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that we don't know the details. What inferences you draw, and what you choose to believe will depend on your pre-judged thoughts on the people involved. And to be even more clear - I am saying that the bloke who thinks she has £750m sat in the bank is wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... you say her dividends may pay her direct, into a trust, or not at all. And…? The result of the first two is the same as she will be the beneficiary of the trust. Again, I was arguing with a bloke that thinks she has £750m sat in the bank. If her money is instead in a trust which she doesn't control, then she doesn't have access to it. After all, where else is she getting the wealth she uses to invest in other businesses? The money she has invested in UK companies amounts to just over a couple of million (from the press reports that I could find). We know that she ran successful businesses in India. If she really is getting all that money from Infosys, it's not obvious what she's doing with it. I have previously read (but cannot recall where) that her Infosys shares are held offshore in Mauritius, which is a tax haven. “Held” could mean direct or via Trust but the point is, if they are not delivering dividends, why use tax avoidance approaches? You're right, Mauritius was reported as being where the shares were held. A good reason for using a foreign trust would be privacy. Perhaps they don't want the average Indian citizen to know how much the family owns. Another good reason would be that India has a habit of raiding rich people's finances when it needs some extra cash. Putting the shares out of reach of the state would seem like a sensible idea. Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that we don't know the details. What inferences you draw, and what you choose to believe will depend on your pre-judged thoughts on the people involved. And to be even more clear - I am saying that the bloke who thinks she has £750m sat in the bank is wrong." I wrote a long reply, took a phone call and the reply had deleted. Can’t even remember what I wrote (next it will be “was I going up or coming down the stairs?”) So just one point…I simply cannot agree with your “they could have that lifestyle on £500k per year”. First of all their “Lifestyle” is not fully exposed to us anyway but secondly, again on balance of probability, I do not believe for one moment that someone worth on paper £750m (or thereabouts) would accept living on a paltry £500k per year! That is just a silly statement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So just one point…I simply cannot agree with your “they could have that lifestyle on £500k per year”. First of all their “Lifestyle” is not fully exposed to us anyway but secondly, again on balance of probability, I do not believe for one moment that someone worth on paper £750m (or thereabouts) would accept living on a paltry £500k per year! That is just a silly statement." I can't work out what's in your head, but I'll try to explain. Rishi got his first place over 20 years ago for £270,000. He probably paid cash. He and his wife have subsequently bought a town house in London (probably £1m at the time he bought it), a place in Santa Monica (speculated at around £4m), and a manor house in Yorkshire for £2m. That comes up to 12 years of 'earnings' at £500k per year, assuming that they don't have any mortgages. It's an entirely achievable lifestyle on that level of money. I don't know if that's what their income was (before he became PM), but what we see if them could have been achieved at that level. They probably have a higher income than that, but there are no clues to it from their outward appearance. They don't drive expensive cars, don't have their own aircraft, don't live on a private island, etc. But your view seems to be that they are worth £750m because the Guardian says so, and therefore they must be living a £750m lifestyle, thus proving that they are worth £750m. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...on balance of probability, I do not believe for one moment that someone worth on paper £750m (or thereabouts) would accept living on a paltry £500k per year! That is just a silly statement." Meet Narayana Murthy: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/25/rishi-sunak-father-in-law-narayana-murthy-billionaire-who-does-the-dishes "He may be worth £3.9bn but Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law, NR Narayana Murthy, lives in the same Bengaluru flat with his wife, Sudha, that he did decades ago, drives a small car, clears up the dishes, and cleans his own toilet." He has horrible ideas about how hard people should work, but at least he lives then himself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So just one point…I simply cannot agree with your “they could have that lifestyle on £500k per year”. First of all their “Lifestyle” is not fully exposed to us anyway but secondly, again on balance of probability, I do not believe for one moment that someone worth on paper £750m (or thereabouts) would accept living on a paltry £500k per year! That is just a silly statement. I can't work out what's in your head, but I'll try to explain. Rishi got his first place over 20 years ago for £270,000. He probably paid cash. He and his wife have subsequently bought a town house in London (probably £1m at the time he bought it), a place in Santa Monica (speculated at around £4m), and a manor house in Yorkshire for £2m. That comes up to 12 years of 'earnings' at £500k per year, assuming that they don't have any mortgages. It's an entirely achievable lifestyle on that level of money. I don't know if that's what their income was (before he became PM), but what we see if them could have been achieved at that level. They probably have a higher income than that, but there are no clues to it from their outward appearance. They don't drive expensive cars, don't have their own aircraft, don't live on a private island, etc. But your view seems to be that they are worth £750m because the Guardian says so, and therefore they must be living a £750m lifestyle, thus proving that they are worth £750m." You made a claim about their lifestyle being achievable on £500k not me lol. I didn’t say they “must be living a £750m lifestyle” those are your words not mine. I said “I do not believe for one moment that someone worth on paper £750m (or thereabouts) would accept living on a paltry £500k per year!” Those are two different statements entirely! 
Also, I am not stating they are worth £750m based on The Guardian  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone else please tell me whether it's me that missing the point, or _irldn. PM will be fine if you don't want to clutter up the thread." I don’t think it matters. We may be talking at cross purposes? You appear to be trying to claim the Sunaks are not as rich as the media has portrayed them. Your workings are back of fag packet at best. I am trusting the investigative journalists of various respected newspapers. Either way not sure what purpose it serves or what point you are really trying to make because: 1. We know the Sunaks are very wealthy 2. We know that much of that (on paper) wealth comes from her shares in Infosys You put forward a hypothesis that she “might not get paid dividends” which has little credibility considering their obvious wealth. You then try to argue they can’t be that wealthy because you only see x amount of property. You are doing exactly what you accuse the media of doing and speculating except I would expect their investigations to be more detailed and thorough than yours (no offence meant just a fact) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can someone else please tell me whether it's me that missing the point, or _irldn. PM will be fine if you don't want to clutter up the thread. I don’t think it matters. We may be talking at cross purposes? You appear to be trying to claim the Sunaks are not as rich as the media has portrayed them. Your workings are back of fag packet at best. I am trusting the investigative journalists of various respected newspapers. Either way not sure what purpose it serves or what point you are really trying to make because: 1. We know the Sunaks are very wealthy 2. We know that much of that (on paper) wealth comes from her shares in Infosys You put forward a hypothesis that she “might not get paid dividends” which has little credibility considering their obvious wealth. You then try to argue they can’t be that wealthy because you only see x amount of property. You are doing exactly what you accuse the media of doing and speculating except I would expect their investigations to be more detailed and thorough than yours (no offence meant just a fact)" And there endeth this thread  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
