It seems likely to me that’s the source of the initial furore.
1 Like
Not when you’re an MP, and when what they’ve done is decidedly dodgy (if not within the law).
We’ve seen HMRC go back and turn “legal loopholes” into “illegal loopholes” over the past few years and going back and getting back taxes. Seems like that needs to be done in this situation.
It’s not a loophole - it’s a specifically designed piece of tax law. She has used that law entirely as it was designed
Now whether it’s a good law is an entirely different debate
2 Likes
She’s not an MP. Her husband is, and as he pointed out she isn’t a possession. And she apparently hasn’t done anything outside the law.
One of the irritating sides to the media is the fact family members are considered fair game. Right or wrong? that’s not for me to say. Mind you, if I was going to run for public office I’d try to make sure there were no flies on me or family.
I think that MPs partners who use their spouses fame as a tool, then they are fair game and I am thinking John Bercows missus
Where they don’t court the limelight then they should be left alone
1 Like
If the income and tax affairs of a MP’s spouse are seen as private then so should the financial affairs of benefit claimants partners. Sauce for the goose.
5 Likes
To an extent. But where do you draw a line. If you don’t you have a daft situation where if someone eligible for benefits in their own right was married to a multimillionaire they would be able to claim.
1 Like
Benefits are another matter. In order to be eligible for them you have to demonstrate that you need them to live; I’m not married to my bird, and she doesn’t have regular employment. If everyone could claim that their partners finances were irrelevant to their own financial situation and not to be seen by the DWP, she could claim benefits if she wished regardless of the fact that we manage on what I earn. That would apply to so many people that the system could never cope. Taxation is another matter, that’s people paying into the system, not claiming benefits from it.
How likely do you think that is?! If there is a line to be drawn it should be drawn nearer to £30million than £300.
2 Likes
Is it worse for someone with no income to claim benefits from the system that they may not be desperate for, or the fabulously wealthy to minimise the amount of tax that they pay into the system? Why are the Chancellor and his Mrs so desperate to squirrel money away from the very system Sunak is supposed to be running?
4 Likes
Human nature / greed / not caring about the proles - are just a few thoughts that spring to mind
2 Likes
That’s an argument of whether we vote for a socialist government or the current one. The bottom line is did she break any UK taxation laws? If she didn’t, why shouldn’t her financial affairs be private, the same as anyone else’s? I pay my taxes, in full and on time, but that doesn’t mean I’d want my finances rummaged through by anyone who was nosy enough to look. I doubt you’d be happy with that either.
I don’t like either scenario- you should claim benefits if you don’t need to - nor should you actively avoid tax imho
Unfortunately our system provide the mechanism to do both
When you read that - none of it covers Rishis missus. Rishi would have declared her shares in infosys, but her tax status isn’t covered (maybe the rules need rewriting)
The second point on relates to Rishi, not his missus (again maybe the rules need rewriting)
Shows that looking into his spouse’s affairs is fair game.
My main issue is that this is the cunt who tells me what tax I have to pay and him and his Mrs are busy working out ways to avoid paying tax. Cunt.
3 Likes
For starters, why assume that he didn’t follow 7:2 to the letter?
Do you honestly suppose that there has been a UK chancellor in your lifetime that hasn’t a/ had more money than you, and b/ not sought to minimise his tax bill within the constraints of the law? It’s not even as if Sunak is in a socialist government. He’s a free marketeer tory, he’s signed up to this. I suppose if Brown had done it there would be some moral hypocrisy to get outraged by.