Vegans and tax avoidance (by a family deciding the tax people pay so a vested interest) aren’t the best comparisons are they? Eating meat doesn’t 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

Are opinions on tv, radio and newspapers in print and online allowed or are they all outraged idiots as well? If they aren’t physically protesting on the green and pavement outside parliament?…

COYP

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.

Indeed

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.

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?