You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Akshata Murty tax affairs
May 26 2022 1.42am

Akshata Murty tax affairs

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 22 of 23 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

 

View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 21 Apr 22 2.09am Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

The strange thing about this is, you are outraged at someone obeying the law. But you are being outraged, on a football fans forum, at someone who points out that it is idiotic to be outraged at somone obeying the rules.

So for all your twisting of what I say, you are the outraged idiot here. I couldn't be more simple. A bit like somebode else I've come across.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

And oh now people are 'outraged' at you too? Rather than just disagreeing with you.. You seem to recognise a lot of 'outrage' in others (usually while you're relentlessly peppering them with insults and falsely 'informing them' that they don't even have a job).

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 2.26am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 21 Apr 22 10.16am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Yep, that's easy. Those who are outraged by this are idiots if all they do is moan about the rich. There are tax laws that can be used by anyone to pay less tax. If anybody just whines about it, on a football fans forum, they are idiots too. She has done nothing wrong. It's equivalent to a vegan being outraged at you eating meat. You're allowed to do it, but morally it is wrong according to a vegan. However, it won't stop you eating meat.

However, if outraged people are prepared to protest about it, and I mean go and demonstrate outside somewhere officially linked to HMRC, they are not idiots. They are doing something to try and change it.

Vegans and tax avoidance (by a family deciding the tax people pay so a vested interest) arenít the best comparisons are they? Eating meat doesnít affect anyone. The Sunaks do, through being the chancellor and getting away with as much tax avoidance as possible means others have to pay more/have less assistance.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 21 Apr 22 10.23am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

Don't be so hard on yourself.

And oh now people are 'outraged' at you too? Rather than just disagreeing with you.. You seem to recognise a lot of 'outrage' in others (usually while you're relentlessly peppering them with insults and falsely 'informing them' that they don't even have a job).

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 2.26am)

I think we need a new hol award.

The most outraged
The most outraged idiot - awarded by Tim

Does Tim have this approach to everything? Shut up, never make a comment unless youíre going to protest or actually change it yourself. No discussion, no debate, no displeasure. Change it or youíre an idiot. An outraged idiot. What a joy to be around. Must get invited out loads.

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rudi Hedman's Profile Rudi Hedman Flag Caterham 21 Apr 22 10.35am Send a Private Message to Rudi Hedman Add Rudi Hedman as a friend

Are opinions on tv, radio and newspapers in print and online allowed or are they all outraged idiots as well? If they arenít physically protesting on the green and pavement outside parliament?Ö

 


COYP

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 21 Apr 22 11.31am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

I think we need a new hol award.

The most outraged
The most outraged idiot - awarded by Tim

Does Tim have this approach to everything? Shut up, never make a comment unless youíre going to protest or actually change it yourself. No discussion, no debate, no displeasure. Change it or youíre an idiot. An outraged idiot. What a joy to be around. Must get invited out loads.

It seems so! I gave a Palace example and he said expressing that view is idiotic as well.

The mental gymnastics are quite fun to watch - the idiot is tying himself in knots trying to defend his nonsensical position.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 21 Apr 22 11.33am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

Don't be so hard on yourself.

And oh now people are 'outraged' at you too? Rather than just disagreeing with you.. You seem to recognise a lot of 'outrage' in others (usually while you're relentlessly peppering them with insults and falsely 'informing them' that they don't even have a job).

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 2.26am)

He read the term 'outraged idiots' in a tabloid once so now he keeps saying it in the hope it makes him sound smart... it isn't working.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Apr 22 12.15pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

There are only two issues here.

It is OK to vilify someone for legally avoiding tax?

Is it wise for the Chancellor or his wife to be legally avoiding tax?

Clearly it is not a good look for a man in his position, but I would call anyone a liar who said they would not do the same if they were as wealthy.

The morality of a situation often becomes blurred when large sums of money are involved.

I have found that those who shout the loudest about virtue are usually the biggest hypocrites.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 21 Apr 22 2.35pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

There are only two issues here.

It is OK to vilify someone for legally avoiding tax?

Is it wise for the Chancellor or his wife to be legally avoiding tax?

Indeed


Quote
Clearly it is not a good look for a man in his position, but I would call anyone a liar who said they would not do the same if they were as wealthy.

The morality of a situation often becomes blurred when large sums of money are involved.

I have found that those who shout the loudest about virtue are usually the biggest hypocrites.

It's as much an issue of how rules crafted for the rich by the rich are clearly not in the interests of the average person who elects these 'servants of the people'. As in, it's not even about what 'others would do' or one person, but more that the various ways in which politicians, the rich and corporations pick our pocket should have more push back and shouldn't be options to begin with. If there were easy answers we'd already have them, but I'd certainly say that it's not a useful start for people to be 'outraged' that some 'idiots' would take issue with it to begin with.


People may well scoff but fundamentally it's wider discussion about the lack of accountability of those who 'we' elect and who should be 'working for us' not dictating how it is to us with no shame or accountability attached (it that attracts the ubiquitous 'virtue signalling' tag so be it). That's clearly an issue for you and where you feel politicians have led us as much as it is anyone else though really. I doubt many answers exist in greasing the wheels of the status quo (and i don't mean the band!).

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 2.39pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 21 Apr 22 3.03pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman


Does Tim have this approach to everything? Shut up, never make a comment unless youíre going to protest or actually change it yourself. No discussion, no debate, no displeasure. Change it or youíre an idiot. An outraged idiot. What a joy to be around. Must get invited out loads.

The closest to a meaningful campaign or protest most have seen on here is taking Wisbech Eagle to task . Yes though, we must have adopt new HOL system on the double, where for every ten posts on a topic we make, we take to the streets.. only for 'About Turn Tim' then to do another coin toss and decide that we're outraged idiots for doing that too.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Apr 22 3.05pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by BlueJay

It's as much an issue of how rules crafted for the rich by the rich are clearly not in the interests of the average person who elects these 'servants of the people'. As in, it's not even about what 'others would do' or one person, but more that the various ways in which politicians, the rich and corporations pick our pocket should have more push back and shouldn't be options to begin with. If there were easy answers we'd already have them, but I'd certainly say that it's not a useful start for people to be 'outraged' that some 'idiots' would take issue with it to begin with.


People may well scoff but fundamentally it's wider discussion about the lack of accountability of those who 'we' elect and who should be 'working for us' not dictating how it is to us with no shame or accountability attached (it that attracts the ubiquitous 'virtue signalling' tag so be it). That's clearly an issue for you and where you feel politicians have led us as much as it is anyone else though really. I doubt many answers exist in greasing the wheels of the status quo (and i don't mean the band!).

Edited by BlueJay (21 Apr 2022 2.39pm)

Certainly the rich pick our pockets and they are fortunate in so much as they have got themselves to that position or their ancestors have.
It is a difficult ideological conundrum, since any one of us could be 'the rich' but only a few of us are, and those who are make the rules and therefore often benefit themselves as all of us probably would.

Certainly there should be more checks and balances to ensure that the wealthy don't have it all their own way, but this really relies on some of those very people effectively legislating against themselves in the interests of what is fair.

This has happened throughout history. Some in the ruling classes have on occasion put the plight of the great unwashed before personal interest.
You could argue that our democratic system is evidence enough that the will and the needs of the people are a strong enough influence on those who make the rules.

My concern is that the current super rich of this world are eroding that influence with purposeful division and control of information.
The affairs of the Chancellor's wife are small potatoes.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View BlueJay's Profile BlueJay Flag UK 21 Apr 22 3.44pm Send a Private Message to BlueJay Add BlueJay as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Certainly the rich pick our pockets and they are fortunate in so much as they have got themselves to that position or their ancestors have.
It is a difficult ideological conundrum, since any one of us could be 'the rich' but only a few of us are, and those who are make the rules and therefore often benefit themselves as all of us probably would.

Certainly there should be more checks and balances to ensure that the wealthy don't have it all their own way, but this really relies on some of those very people effectively legislating against themselves in the interests of what is fair.

This has happened throughout history. Some in the ruling classes have on occasion put the plight of the great unwashed before personal interest.
You could argue that our democratic system is evidence enough that the will and the needs of the people are a strong enough influence on those who make the rules.

My concern is that the current super rich of this world are eroding that influence with purposeful division and control of information.
The affairs of the Chancellor's wife are small potatoes.

Certainly, it's more an accumulation of behaviour that takes the p!ss than any particularly story or event. I agree that often the system fits around these people, rather than the other way around, and so any effort to improve matters will result in adjustments in the opposite direction. I've often thought that those who are principled or non corruptible routinely get filtered out before they reach positions of significant power.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 21 Apr 22 7.40pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Well, I came to this thread and asked if she had to pay remittance. And if she does it would be £30k, rising to £60k. If she pays no remittance, I'll stand corrected, but this is the first time it was mentioned.

What Sunak does may anger you, and most others, including me, but to post outrage about it whilst doing nothing to change the system is such a futile approach. Do something, like lobby your MP, or write letters to the press, or organise a protest march.

Just stop whining.

Erm, I am in touch with Sarah Jones about HMRC at the moment. I am not whining, unless you count correcting the mistakes of others whining.

So, once again. Murthy is what used to be called RNOR, Resident Not Ordinarily Resident, in other words with her prime domicile is in another jurisdiction. She can be so despite living here. Then when she has been in the UK for 7 out of the previous 9 years she has to pay the (relatively small) £30k charge. I say relatively small in the context of her overall income and that she is able to recover this charge from her Indian tax. All the time she is non-dom she pays her tax on a remittance basis, i.e. any money she brings into the country is then subject to tax as earnings. She will not have remitted any funds so no charge.

After 7 UK years she is required to pay a charge of £30k per annum. That is because she is a non-dom. By extension is does mean she is paying on a remittance basis but it isn't called a remittance or a remittance charge

All make sense?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 22 of 23 < 18 19 20 21 22 23 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Akshata Murty tax affairs