This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Teddy Eagle 13 Apr 22 12.59am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
I see where you are coming from, and understand the 'popularity' angle, but what has happened here is not illegal. I get that it appears unethical, but if the system allows it, get the system changed, don't hate on the people who use the system. The problem is that billionaires can employ better financial advisers than the government. It’s like O. J. Simpson with his dream team of lawyers - they’re just better at what they do.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 13 Apr 22 1.00am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Get yours cut. Idiot. Yes, people tend to do that with hair. Thanks for the suggestion, Timbo. Edited by BlueJay (13 Apr 2022 1.55am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 1.13am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by palace99
as you seem to know so much about the non dom law you must know that to qualify you need to be permanent resident in another country. She has a holiday home in the US and 3 homes in the UK. The Sunak's have stated they are currently holidaying at their US holiday home. So by their own admission they are not permanent US residents. As you say Law is Law!!! She is from India. She was born there, and so was her father. That is more than enough to claim Indian domicile. She can have holiday homes in every country which allows them if she so wishes. It's not against the law to live in another country. She could probably afford it too. But none of that is illegal. She has Indian citizenship. She wishes to keep that status. I have no problem with a foreigner living in this country, as long as they abide by the rules. Which she is.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 1.17am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The problem is that billionaires can employ better financial advisers than the government. It’s like O. J. Simpson with his dream team of lawyers - they’re just better at what they do. That's a good point Teddy. But O.J. wasn't a Tory.....
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 13 Apr 22 1.17am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The problem is that billionaires can employ better financial advisers than the government. It’s like O. J. Simpson with his dream team of lawyers - they’re just better at what they do. Exactly. Plus they have the ear of politicians and disproportionately shape political and financial systems. Corporations and politicians are often hand in glove in a symbiotic relationship. Look at the likes of Tony Blair and how much money he and his rake in post PM. Most MPs don't want to rock the boat, and instead grease the wheels (carving out beneficial legal and political paths to their mates and corporations along the way, throwing them lucrative contracts as a cherry on top) as they know they're on a good thing longtime. And with any crisis it's always shaped into an opportunity for the mega rich, that costs and average tax payer. Any financial crash, or war, the past tells us who 'somehow' benefits and who foots the bill. Privatised gains, and socialised losses. They're no better than those gaming the social. The rich obeying rules created by the rich for the rich is hardly something we should be viewing as a full stop, and tells us nothing about the ethics of the behaviour and how detached the common man is from ever having a hand on any of the levers of power, despite it being his vote that puts these chancers there in the first place. Edited by BlueJay (13 Apr 2022 1.28am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 13 Apr 22 1.20am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
That's a good point Teddy. But O.J. wasn't a Tory..... No. He ended up in gaol.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 1.28am | |
---|---|
Also, I notice that nobody disputed the fact that this law has existed for centuries, and governments of all colours, whether they be Whigs or Tories or Labour or any of the other competing parties have done nothing about it. Why moan about it now? Obviously not Tory bashing?
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 13 Apr 22 1.34am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Also, I notice that nobody disputed the fact that this law has existed for centuries, and governments of all colours, whether they be Whigs or Tories or Labour or any of the other competing parties have done nothing about it. Why moan about it now? Obviously not Tory bashing? It's not being disputed on account that you're the one who perceives any criticism as 'tory bashing' (not useful). I specifically highlighted that this is an issue with the rich and politics in general (hence the Tony Blair reference). That is precisely why it is something that is so very difficult to get out of politics. Edited by BlueJay (13 Apr 2022 1.36am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 1.35am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
No. He ended up in gaol. Well, maybe if he had been non dom he'd have got away with it. Let the game commence!
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 1.47am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
It's not being disputed on account that you're the one who perceives any criticism as 'tory bashing' (not useful). I specifically highlighted that this is an issue with the rich and politics in general (hence the Tony Blair reference). That is precisely why it is something that is so very difficult to get out of politics. Edited by BlueJay (13 Apr 2022 1.36am) If enough of you outraged idiots assemble outside Parliament and protest about the non dom law, it will get changed. It was done for Poll Tax. It was done for fox hunting. Both of those were massively beneficial to the rich only. Get off your ass and get it changed rather than whinging about it. Pick your toys up, change your nappies, and do something.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BlueJay UK 13 Apr 22 1.50am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
If enough of you outraged idiots assemble outside Parliament and protest about the non dom law, it will get changed. It was done for Poll Tax. It was done for fox hunting. Both of those were massively beneficial to the rich only. Get off your ass and get it changed rather than whinging about it. Pick your toys up, change your nappies, and do something. I'm simply making a point about why there is a clear lack of ethics at the top, and how these systems magically 'always' manage to prop up and have the backs of the rich rather than others who they are also supposed to represent. The issue at hand doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's a problem that has wide, non partisan acknowledgement, just that unfortunately it's not the easiest thing for concerned tax payers to do much about (or 'outraged idiots' as you repeatedly call both them and me). Long term it will likely just result is more anti establishment candidates and parties getting in, as the publics 'roll of the dice'. Whether that will be any better is anyones guess. Edited by BlueJay (13 Apr 2022 1.54am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 13 Apr 22 2.11am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Bloke is so busy trying to prove how 'unemotional' and intelligent he is, he doesn't even understand the point he's trying to make. It's one thing to debate the validity the existence of the non-dom status (a very valid debate), but even beyond that, Akshata has fraudulently claimed the status when it should not apply to her. I'm not trying to prove anything. Akshata Murthy was born in India. Therefore she is a citizen of India. If that is not enough evidence for you, her father was also born in India. Either of those facts permit her to claim domicile in India. She can live in this country, according to our laws, for 15 years as non domicile. Which no doubt can be manipulated to stay here longer, but 15 years until she has to change citizenship. How many UK ex-pats give up their UK passports? Maybe you should get off the 'hate' path.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.