mudsticks
Squire
And people knew this full well before the last election..
Yet still they voted for the lying barstewards .
Funny old world isn't it.. ??
Yet more Tory sleaze….
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
And people knew this full well before the last election..
Yet still they voted for the lying barstewards .
Funny old world isn't it.. ??
Xipe Totec
Something nasty in the woodshed
Cretin-In-Chief Raab has been doing the rounds this morning, asserting that when Johnson repeatedly stood at the despatch box and lied about the existence of, the legality of, and his presence at the numerous Tory Covid Piss-Ups, he wasn't misleading Parliament - he was, in fact, "telling the truth to the best of his ability".
Amazing.
Amazing.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Thing is, I think he's maybe right. I am, quite clearly, not a psychologist but I honestly think Johnson's lying is pathological. He can't help it, he neither knows nor cares about the difference between truth and lie, he simply has no concept of it. So yeah, his massive outright lie may in fact have been his best attempt at the truth.Cretin-In-Chief Raab has been doing the rounds this morning, asserting that when Johnson repeatedly stood at the despatch box and lied about the existence of, the legality of, and his presence at the numerous Tory Covid Piss-Ups, he wasn't misleading Parliament - he was, in fact, "telling the truth to the best of his ability".
Amazing.
ebikeerwidnes
Senior Member
Actually I totally agree with himCretin-In-Chief Raab has been doing the rounds this morning, asserting that when Johnson repeatedly stood at the despatch box and lied about the existence of, the legality of, and his presence at the numerous Tory Covid Piss-Ups, he wasn't misleading Parliament - he was, in fact, "telling the truth to the best of his ability".
Amazing.
I think it is quite possible that he was telling teh truth to the best of his ability
and I think he is REALLY doing his very best in this job
which is the worst thing I can say about him
this cluster **** is REALLY his VERY VERY best
what a good little boy - here have a medal for taking part - you tried really hard
deptfordmarmoset
Über Member
qigong chimp
Settler of gobby hash.
I'd happily wear green pyjamas, be limited to one make of lemonade and 8 speed downtube lever groupsets for the rest of time, to see these bastards dispossessed and sent to the gulags.
newfhouse
pleb
Here is Professor Richard Murphy’s view as a blog post rather than as a Twitter thread.
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
I need to report what a spokeswoman for Murthy has said, which was: “Akshata Murthy is a citizen of India, the country of her birth and parents’ home. India does not allow its citizens to hold the citizenship of another country simultaneously. So, according to British law, Ms Murthy is treated as non-domiciled for UK tax purposes. She has always and will continue to pay UK taxes on all her UK income.” I would have hoped that Ms Murthy could buy advice that was right, but this statement is wrong.
Domicile has nothing to do with a person’s nationality. Nor does it have anything to do with not being able to have a British passport because a person holds citizenship from another country. And non-domiciled status is certainly never given for that reason.
The first thing to note about non-domiciled status is that it is given to no one if they do not apply for it. In that case the implication in Ms Murthy’s statement that she has to be treated as non-domiciled is simply wrong: she is only non-domiciled because she asked to be so.
Second, she can also give up the claim to be non-domiciled at any time. Just because she was non-domiciled when she arrived in the UK as a newly married person does not mean she has to keep the status now. So the fact she’s still non-dom is also a choice.
In other words, the claims made in the statement issued by Ms Murthy are wrong, and as evidence, just because a person has Indian citizenship will never automatically grant them non-dom status in the UK. It might help, but never be enough.
That’s because non-dom status is about where a person’s natural home is. Essentially, it is a test based on the evidence that they are only temporarily resident in the UK because they retain the intention to return to another place, which is their natural home.
There are many ways to prove where your natural home is. Family ties are a big issue. So too is retaining strong ties with the country you claim to be your place of domicile. For example, you own a house there and only rent in the UK because you intend to leave sometime soon.
Making no strong ties with the UK is another way of proving this is not your domicile. Choosing to educate your children in your natural home and not in the UK might be another. So too might holidaying their frequently be a good indication.
Having a source of income in the place that is your natural home helps, but only if you actively manage it.
What the Revenue here think – and legislation now backs this up – is that the longer you’re in the UK the less likely it is that you are domiciled elsewhere. The evidence of your behaviour then suggests that your home is really here.
The law on this relates to what is called ‘deemed domicile’. If as a matter of fact you have been tax resident in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years, you’re deemed to be domiciled here whatever you say. It seems very unlikely that Ms Murthy is at this point, as yet.
But the Revenue can challenge anyone’s non-dom status whenever they wish (if only they had the resources to do so, of course, which is another issue). I suggest that they could do this in the case of Ms Murthy.
She is reported to have four homes around the world, with her husband Rishi Sunak. Three are in the UK and one is in the USA, which is called a holiday home. I have heard no reports of a home in India, which does not help a domicile claim.
The fact that they choose to holiday in the USA and not India does not help either.
And being here for a long time, married to a man whose current career is only possible in the UK is not a good look for someone who claims to plan to leave sometime. As far as I know the children of this marriage are also educated here.
And we know that Ms Murthy is a donor to Winchester School, which shows a commitment to the UK and its establishment, which is often considered a sign of where you think your home might be.
I am not saying that any of these facts are persuasive in themselves. There might be other facts to consider, of course. But could they be enough for HMRC to open an enquiry to ask why she continues to think herself domiciled in India? I think so.
The evidence that as the wife of a senior government minister who very clearly has ambition to further his career in UK politics she is likely to remain in the UK, quite probably forever, looks to be particularly compelling to me.
So, my question is a simple one, and is whether Ms Murthy is really non-domiciled at all now? I stress, I cannot answer the question. All I am saying is that there enough evidence to ask it.
And what I am also saying is that the claim to be non-domiciled is one she has made by choice that she can withdraw at any time (albeit at significant financial cost). In that case I think it her job to justify it, and the statement she’s issued so far does not do that.
I will leave the ethics of this aside. The reaction in the media makes clear where most people stand on that issue. I am just addressing facts here. And I suggest the Chancellor has a duty in this case to get his wife to put the facts on the table or drop her claim that save tax.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...y-a-non-dom-its-a-question-needing-an-answer/
It’s been reported that the Chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murthy, is not tax domiciled in the UK. This has been confirmed by a statement issued on her behalf. But I think the statement of facts issued by her is wrong. And I also suggest HMRC could challenge this claim. A thread….
I need to report what a spokeswoman for Murthy has said, which was: “Akshata Murthy is a citizen of India, the country of her birth and parents’ home. India does not allow its citizens to hold the citizenship of another country simultaneously. So, according to British law, Ms Murthy is treated as non-domiciled for UK tax purposes. She has always and will continue to pay UK taxes on all her UK income.” I would have hoped that Ms Murthy could buy advice that was right, but this statement is wrong.
Domicile has nothing to do with a person’s nationality. Nor does it have anything to do with not being able to have a British passport because a person holds citizenship from another country. And non-domiciled status is certainly never given for that reason.
The first thing to note about non-domiciled status is that it is given to no one if they do not apply for it. In that case the implication in Ms Murthy’s statement that she has to be treated as non-domiciled is simply wrong: she is only non-domiciled because she asked to be so.
Second, she can also give up the claim to be non-domiciled at any time. Just because she was non-domiciled when she arrived in the UK as a newly married person does not mean she has to keep the status now. So the fact she’s still non-dom is also a choice.
In other words, the claims made in the statement issued by Ms Murthy are wrong, and as evidence, just because a person has Indian citizenship will never automatically grant them non-dom status in the UK. It might help, but never be enough.
That’s because non-dom status is about where a person’s natural home is. Essentially, it is a test based on the evidence that they are only temporarily resident in the UK because they retain the intention to return to another place, which is their natural home.
There are many ways to prove where your natural home is. Family ties are a big issue. So too is retaining strong ties with the country you claim to be your place of domicile. For example, you own a house there and only rent in the UK because you intend to leave sometime soon.
Making no strong ties with the UK is another way of proving this is not your domicile. Choosing to educate your children in your natural home and not in the UK might be another. So too might holidaying their frequently be a good indication.
Having a source of income in the place that is your natural home helps, but only if you actively manage it.
What the Revenue here think – and legislation now backs this up – is that the longer you’re in the UK the less likely it is that you are domiciled elsewhere. The evidence of your behaviour then suggests that your home is really here.
The law on this relates to what is called ‘deemed domicile’. If as a matter of fact you have been tax resident in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years, you’re deemed to be domiciled here whatever you say. It seems very unlikely that Ms Murthy is at this point, as yet.
But the Revenue can challenge anyone’s non-dom status whenever they wish (if only they had the resources to do so, of course, which is another issue). I suggest that they could do this in the case of Ms Murthy.
She is reported to have four homes around the world, with her husband Rishi Sunak. Three are in the UK and one is in the USA, which is called a holiday home. I have heard no reports of a home in India, which does not help a domicile claim.
The fact that they choose to holiday in the USA and not India does not help either.
And being here for a long time, married to a man whose current career is only possible in the UK is not a good look for someone who claims to plan to leave sometime. As far as I know the children of this marriage are also educated here.
And we know that Ms Murthy is a donor to Winchester School, which shows a commitment to the UK and its establishment, which is often considered a sign of where you think your home might be.
I am not saying that any of these facts are persuasive in themselves. There might be other facts to consider, of course. But could they be enough for HMRC to open an enquiry to ask why she continues to think herself domiciled in India? I think so.
The evidence that as the wife of a senior government minister who very clearly has ambition to further his career in UK politics she is likely to remain in the UK, quite probably forever, looks to be particularly compelling to me.
So, my question is a simple one, and is whether Ms Murthy is really non-domiciled at all now? I stress, I cannot answer the question. All I am saying is that there enough evidence to ask it.
And what I am also saying is that the claim to be non-domiciled is one she has made by choice that she can withdraw at any time (albeit at significant financial cost). In that case I think it her job to justify it, and the statement she’s issued so far does not do that.
I will leave the ethics of this aside. The reaction in the media makes clear where most people stand on that issue. I am just addressing facts here. And I suggest the Chancellor has a duty in this case to get his wife to put the facts on the table or drop her claim that save tax.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...y-a-non-dom-its-a-question-needing-an-answer/
newfhouse
pleb
A further excoriating piece from Richard Murphy today.
Sunak shot to prominence in 2020 when appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although not quite unknown before then, few had paid him much attention.
Even his appointment as Chancellor looked as much like luck as anything else. He’d managed to be promoted through the ranks of obscure ministers to hold the number 2 position at the Treasury when Sajid Javid resigned. Appointing him saved a reshuffle, so he got the job.
Then Covid happened and Sunak spent like almost no Chancellor in history. Having discovered there really was a magic money tree, which quantitative easing turned on, he had the Bank of England create all the money he needed to cover the cost of Covid.
It could be argued that anyone who spends £400 billion without asking for anything back in tax and without increasing borrowing (which he didn’t, because QE cancels government debt) is going to be popular. Sunak was.
Then came the reckoning. £37 billion on track and trace was very obviously wasted. It turned out Covid loans to businesses were handed out without any basic checks and billions will be lost. And then there was PPE corruption. Sunak must have known. The crown slipped.
But what we did not see until Covid was declared ‘over’ (when it very clearly was not) was just what the real Rishi Sunak was like. And the reality was shocking. The man who had turned the money on declared that this was an aberration. Sunak decided to play the hard man instead.
Not only did Sunak now deny there was a magic money tree, when he’d so obviously been using it, but he declared the policies he’d pursued were reckless and now he must shrink the state to pay for them. Rishi Scrooge appeared out of nowhere.
Although Covid put massive pressure on public services, and increased the cost of supplying them, Sunak refused the money to deliver the services required. From health to education, care, the legal system and so much more all Sunak offered was austerity and pressure on employees.
Pensioners lost out on the inflation pay rise they were due under existing rules.
Universal credit was cut even though it was known the cost of living was rising.
Tax increases were announced that hit those in work and on lower pay hardest, but which did not go near those with wealth at all.
And as fuel costs escalated because Sunak’s Treasury had failed to understand that reopening after Covid was always going to impose supply chain, cash flow and other disruptions, his rebate offer was too small, and based in the idea of a loan, not a subsidy.
In the meantime the Bank of England chose to put up interest rates to increase the cost of living, deliberately, as if people were not being punished enough. Sunak must have approved this as he has the right to veto it.
Come the latest announcements, the failure to take further measures to help those millions now facing unplayable bills revealed a complete ignorance of the despair people face when their costs go up by maybe £3,000 a year and they have no way to find that money.
At the same time he revealed he did not know how to pay for a can of coke using a contactless payment card.
And we learned that Brexit, of which he was a strong supporter, really has trashed UK exports when those of every other country were recovering.
To cap which, he’s also opposing spending on green measures as we are being told we are in the last chance saloon on climate change.
Then we discovered his wife has likely saved tens of millions in tax, quite legally, by paying £30,000 a year to use a scheme that let her do so. In other words, she consciously chose not to pay her taxes here.
So what to think of Rishi Sunak? Is he a man suitable to be Chancellor, let alone Prime Minister, as he’d clearly love to be? There are four criteria here. They’re politics, economics, empathy and ethics.
Sunak’s politics are to the right of the Tory party. He’s into small government, low tax, and leaving people to get on and sort out their own problems without state help. But that’s not what we need now.
Sick people desperately need a better, bigger NHS. We need more spent on education, the judicial system, care, the environment, green transport, climate change and social housing and benefits. Sunak is not recognising this. Politically he doesn’t recognise the need of the moment.
Worse politically, his choice to make people worse off now - which has been his pattern since it was claimed Covid was over - has within it the suggestion that people must now be punished for Covid, and that was not their fault. That’s bad political judgement.
Worse still is his economic judgement. He does not realise that by crushing expenditure by the government and by at the same time forcing households into poverty he is most likely pushing us into deep recession.
All Sunak thinks important is balancing his books, he has not noticed that by doing so he’s reducing the income of most people in the country - and recession has to follow. That’s the action of a man who does not understand economics, or his job.
But maybe that’s not surprising because what’s become very clear is that Sunak has not got the empathy required of a senior politician. It’s either that, or he’s just so rich that the idea that you just cannot pay your bills or opt for private medicine is beyond his comprehension.
To describe Sunak as a man without the common touch is to be generous: he does not even realise that there is such a thing and that he needs to have it.
And so I come to his ethics. As his family’s decisions on tax reveal, these prioritise his wealth above the public interest. Faced with a moral choice, what is legal but not ethical is the choice made so long as there is personal gain to be had. For a politician that is staggering.
Is Rishi Sunak in that case a man fit to be Chancellor when his political, economic, empathic and ethical decisions are all wrong? The obvious answer is that he is not. Nor should he ever be a candidate for prime minister unless we want to create a wasteland.
Sunak’s wife’s domicile claim is based on the suggestion that she does not wish to live here in the long term. I’d suggest now is the time for Boris Johnson to help her fulfil that dream. Sunak needs to be sacked, and be free to leave.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/04/08/sunak-needs-to-be-sacked-and-be-free-to-leave/
Sunak shot to prominence in 2020 when appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although not quite unknown before then, few had paid him much attention.
Even his appointment as Chancellor looked as much like luck as anything else. He’d managed to be promoted through the ranks of obscure ministers to hold the number 2 position at the Treasury when Sajid Javid resigned. Appointing him saved a reshuffle, so he got the job.
Then Covid happened and Sunak spent like almost no Chancellor in history. Having discovered there really was a magic money tree, which quantitative easing turned on, he had the Bank of England create all the money he needed to cover the cost of Covid.
It could be argued that anyone who spends £400 billion without asking for anything back in tax and without increasing borrowing (which he didn’t, because QE cancels government debt) is going to be popular. Sunak was.
Then came the reckoning. £37 billion on track and trace was very obviously wasted. It turned out Covid loans to businesses were handed out without any basic checks and billions will be lost. And then there was PPE corruption. Sunak must have known. The crown slipped.
But what we did not see until Covid was declared ‘over’ (when it very clearly was not) was just what the real Rishi Sunak was like. And the reality was shocking. The man who had turned the money on declared that this was an aberration. Sunak decided to play the hard man instead.
Not only did Sunak now deny there was a magic money tree, when he’d so obviously been using it, but he declared the policies he’d pursued were reckless and now he must shrink the state to pay for them. Rishi Scrooge appeared out of nowhere.
Although Covid put massive pressure on public services, and increased the cost of supplying them, Sunak refused the money to deliver the services required. From health to education, care, the legal system and so much more all Sunak offered was austerity and pressure on employees.
Pensioners lost out on the inflation pay rise they were due under existing rules.
Universal credit was cut even though it was known the cost of living was rising.
Tax increases were announced that hit those in work and on lower pay hardest, but which did not go near those with wealth at all.
And as fuel costs escalated because Sunak’s Treasury had failed to understand that reopening after Covid was always going to impose supply chain, cash flow and other disruptions, his rebate offer was too small, and based in the idea of a loan, not a subsidy.
In the meantime the Bank of England chose to put up interest rates to increase the cost of living, deliberately, as if people were not being punished enough. Sunak must have approved this as he has the right to veto it.
Come the latest announcements, the failure to take further measures to help those millions now facing unplayable bills revealed a complete ignorance of the despair people face when their costs go up by maybe £3,000 a year and they have no way to find that money.
At the same time he revealed he did not know how to pay for a can of coke using a contactless payment card.
And we learned that Brexit, of which he was a strong supporter, really has trashed UK exports when those of every other country were recovering.
To cap which, he’s also opposing spending on green measures as we are being told we are in the last chance saloon on climate change.
Then we discovered his wife has likely saved tens of millions in tax, quite legally, by paying £30,000 a year to use a scheme that let her do so. In other words, she consciously chose not to pay her taxes here.
So what to think of Rishi Sunak? Is he a man suitable to be Chancellor, let alone Prime Minister, as he’d clearly love to be? There are four criteria here. They’re politics, economics, empathy and ethics.
Sunak’s politics are to the right of the Tory party. He’s into small government, low tax, and leaving people to get on and sort out their own problems without state help. But that’s not what we need now.
Sick people desperately need a better, bigger NHS. We need more spent on education, the judicial system, care, the environment, green transport, climate change and social housing and benefits. Sunak is not recognising this. Politically he doesn’t recognise the need of the moment.
Worse politically, his choice to make people worse off now - which has been his pattern since it was claimed Covid was over - has within it the suggestion that people must now be punished for Covid, and that was not their fault. That’s bad political judgement.
Worse still is his economic judgement. He does not realise that by crushing expenditure by the government and by at the same time forcing households into poverty he is most likely pushing us into deep recession.
All Sunak thinks important is balancing his books, he has not noticed that by doing so he’s reducing the income of most people in the country - and recession has to follow. That’s the action of a man who does not understand economics, or his job.
But maybe that’s not surprising because what’s become very clear is that Sunak has not got the empathy required of a senior politician. It’s either that, or he’s just so rich that the idea that you just cannot pay your bills or opt for private medicine is beyond his comprehension.
To describe Sunak as a man without the common touch is to be generous: he does not even realise that there is such a thing and that he needs to have it.
And so I come to his ethics. As his family’s decisions on tax reveal, these prioritise his wealth above the public interest. Faced with a moral choice, what is legal but not ethical is the choice made so long as there is personal gain to be had. For a politician that is staggering.
Is Rishi Sunak in that case a man fit to be Chancellor when his political, economic, empathic and ethical decisions are all wrong? The obvious answer is that he is not. Nor should he ever be a candidate for prime minister unless we want to create a wasteland.
Sunak’s wife’s domicile claim is based on the suggestion that she does not wish to live here in the long term. I’d suggest now is the time for Boris Johnson to help her fulfil that dream. Sunak needs to be sacked, and be free to leave.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/04/08/sunak-needs-to-be-sacked-and-be-free-to-leave/
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
Things aren't getting any easier for Mr Sunak.
The Independent reports that he and his wife were officially permanent US residents while he was Chancellor.
The Independent reports that he and his wife were officially permanent US residents while he was Chancellor.
Rishi Sunak and his wife were legally declared to be "permanent US residents" while he was chancellor of the UK, it has been reported.
The claim comes after The Independent revealed that the Chancellor's spouse Akhshata Murty has non-domiciled status despite residing in Downing Street – potentially letting her off the hook for around £4.4 million in tax.
The claim comes after The Independent revealed that the Chancellor's spouse Akhshata Murty has non-domiciled status despite residing in Downing Street – potentially letting her off the hook for around £4.4 million in tax.
Now Sky News reports claims that the Downing Street couple held US "green cards" permitting them residence in the United States until more than a year into his chancellorship.
Holders of the green card are required to file US tax returns on their worldwide income – and also to make a legal commitment to "make the US your permanent home".
The pledge would seemingly be at odds with Mr Sunak's position as Chancellor of the United Kingdom, being a member of parliament since 2015 and minister since 2018, and the fact he lives on Downing Street.
