Forum Topic

Isn't anyone really annoyed about Mr & Mrs Sunak's lack of transparency?

At a time when we are all being squeezed via fuel prices and the general cost of living, is it only me that is absolutely fuming over yet more government ministers not playing by the rules imposed on the rest of us? The more I read and hear the worse I think it all is, talk about taking the p*ss big time. There are 76,000 'nom-doms' in this country, one of whom we now find out - was Sajid Javid -  apparently it was a piece of legislation brought in by Pitt 'The Younger' - P.M. from 1783 - 1801 and 1804 - 1806 so nice and relevant now then. I am heartily sick and tired of our rich and entitled posh boys club government thinking the rules only apply to the little people, from party-gate to this current deception. Legally this may well be O.K. - morally it damned well isn't - but then when did Tories have any morals?

Vanessa Smith ● 1627d55 Comments

They havn't vanessa !

Helen Bamberger ● 1627d

It’s not just the lack of transparency, it’s also the failure to recognise how bad this looks at a time when ordinary folk are having to make drastic economies just to survive from day to day.  And Sunak seems more concerned with who, in his eyes,  had the effrontery to leak the facts rather than anything more empathetic.  Such entitlement.  I also believe that it is deeply damaging to people’s respect for politics and politicians in general and hence democracy.  I have just seen a survey that demonstrates this, especially among younger people.  Just awful.

Alastair Banton ● 1627d

I thought it interesting that this has been brought out into the open.  After all it is something that a lot of rich people do because they can whereas people with a lot less certainly can't afford and probably when working three jobs find someone to manage their money for them and tell them about the loopholes in the law.  No-one has mentioned the difference in estate duty between different countries either.  Rishi Sunak could change the rules but how popular would that be with his fellow MPs and supporters?  It is a bit of a joke this separation of money business but I don't know what would be better.  I do wonder what the point is of having a partnership if you aren't sharing.

Philippa Bond ● 1627d

Boris isn't.

James Dow ● 1627d

Matthew Syed's column in 'The Sunday Times' about this is worth a read.One part really rips into Mr. Sunak."But Sunak has demonstrated a certain slipperiness, a promiscuity with the truth, that is indicative of the wider malaise within the Conservative Party. This isn't just about tax avoidance, the use of tax havens (Sunak has been listed as a beneficiary of his wife's, according to 'The Independent')or a green card; it is about a default to dishonesty. Did you notice, for example, the original defence of his wife's non-dom status, leaked with a nudge and a wink and approved by Sunak himself? That's right: it was clamed that she could not pay full UK taxes because of her Indian citizenship. A tax expert described this as 'a disgrace'. Let me put it more simply: it was a bare-faced lie.What emerged later, though, was far darker. Sunak implied that stories about his wife were evidence of racism: speaking to 'The Sun', he expressed his 'hope' that 'fair-minded people' did not mind 'an Indian woman living in Downing Street'. How dare a serving politician conflate legitimate public unease over tax avoidance with bigotry? How dare he devalue the concept of racism in such a self-serving fashion? It has been said that Sunak lacks political antennae. I disagree. This was a ruthless attempt to muddy the waters - not unlike his aides desperately briefing that the leaks were coming from No 10."It seems there are no depths these dishonest sh*ts will not sink.

Vanessa Smith ● 1627d

A legal loophole.

Janice Evans ● 1627d

I wonder if anyone on here were to find themselves in their position, that is acting legally within the law, would do what is considered by some, possibly many, to do the moral and ethical right thing ?I'm asking the question and not expressing an opinion.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1627d

It's legal so would think anyone would do the same but due to his position would they risk all the hassle if disclosed.

Janice Evans ● 1627d

The only thing I can say is that I wouldn't, and it's highly unlikely, I'd ever be in that position.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1627d

'I wonder if anyone on here were to find themselves in their position, that is acting legally within the law, would do what is considered by some, possibly many, to do the moral and ethical right thing ?I'm asking the question and not expressing an opinion.'Surely to God we all know the difference between right and wrong - well I'll qualify that and say - some of us - as it is clear there are a lot - mostly in the government who do not.  So my answer would be in that position I would do what is morally right irrespective of loopholes in the law.

Vanessa Smith ● 1627d

“  I am heartily sick and tired of our rich and entitled posh boys club government thinking the rules only apply to the little people, “I wouldn’t have thought that Sajid Javid could be classified as anything close to being a ‘posh boy’.

Steve Taylor ● 1627d

Agree Lorraine, although legal it was thoughtless really, it will be paid now so why not pay it in the first place.

Janice Evans ● 1627d

However they did nothing wrong from legal point of view.

Janice Evans ● 1627d

Janice, I agree with you, but I suspect the super rich have different values to the rest of us lesser well off mortals. Btw I'm not excusing their lack of morals and ethics.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1627d

What irks me is that  Bojo and Rishi can play around with our economy and the welfare of our people whilst feeling smugly safe with the knowledge  that they can desert the sinking ship whenever they please with their American citizenship or Green Card status in their back pockets. In Rishi’s case he can also run to India if he wants to.

Steve Taylor ● 1627d

When you read about how much Mrs Sunak 'earns' through her investments and inheritance, it is quite mind-boggling.  It would be impossible to spend that in one lifetime, probably children's and grandchildren's lifetimes too.  So why the necessity to do their utmost not to pay taxes? These rich people live in a rarified world that sees itself as far above everyone, which is why nationality doesn't seem to matter - money can make you welcome anywhere, but that calls into question Sunak's loyalty to this country.

Vivienne Cox ● 1627d

He obviously has NO loyalty to the UK. That’s why he got his Green Card.

Steve Taylor ● 1627d

The only way to stop people exploiting 'loopholes', like non-dom status or tax havens or big companies not paying UK tax on their UK earnings is to change the relevant laws and to enforce them. As if...!

Peter Evans ● 1627d

Paying tax makes society better. Very rich people avoid it  as much as possible. Rich people in Chiswick avoid it by not paying VAT on that bit of  work in the garden or cash in hand to the cleaner or gardener.

Stewart Jones ● 1627d

True, but I would bet that Chiswick's gardeners and cleaners do not have money in off-shore tax havens.

Vivienne Cox ● 1627d

The turnover threshold for VAT registration is £85,000. I doubt that the average self-employed cleaner or gardener earns that much! There's nothing dodgy about paying them in cash.

Robert Fish ● 1627d

It’s perfectly legitimate to pay in cash but it is also a way of hiding one’s obligation to pay the minimum wage, to provide statutory sick pay, holiday pay and NI contributions.My point was really about people avoiding paying VAT for building works and larger projects where it is tempting to avoid some or all  VAT by paying cash. The problem with that is that if the work turns out to be substandard then you have no recourse to he small claims court etc because you have acted outside the law in not paying VAT in the first place.

Stewart Jones ● 1626d

Akshata Murty was born in India. She is an Indian national. She earnt money in India from an Indian company. She correctly paid tax on those earnings in India. She is vilified as and tax dodger because she followed the rules for non-dom.Sajid Javid was born in Rochdale. He is British. He has never lived or worked in Pakistan, can't even speak the language, yet claimed non-dom status based on his dad coming from Pakistan. He also worked in New York and Singapore paying the lower local taxes there. He also created a trust generated for his earnings in UK in order to avoid paying UK taxes.100% tax dodger. He is given a mild time by the press.So, if this has nothing to do with racism - it has everything to do with ENVY. Because Murty is too rich, too smug, too happy. She is the wife of a politician yet she is getting a scrutiny beyond any politician. She has broken no rules and indeed even morally she has followed them.Javid is a politician. Has blatantly used the rules to avoid tax. He kept his green card like Sunak.There are other politicians who are/have used the rules to avoid tax. There may be spouses doing the same but we only seem interested in the tax affairs of one spouse. Hypocrisy & Envy

Richard Potts ● 1626d

Probably it is because Javid is 100% Tax Dodger that Boris appointed him originally as Chancellor. It seems you have to be adept at fleecing the system to get the job.

Steve Taylor ● 1626d

"She correctly paid tax on those earnings in India."  Possibly – but I suspect (but do not know) that that is unlikely, and that it is far more likely is that she holds her shares through an off-shore trust (probably Mauritius), and pays no tax at all on the dividends (provided that she does not repatriate the income into a UK bank account)."Non-dom" status is an anachronism.  The UK tax laws developed at a time when families went off to exploit the Empire (mainly India and the West Indies) and the UK tax authorities wanted to catch them in the UK tax net.  When the tax-payer (or non-tax payer) argued that they no longer had a connection with the UK, the concept of "domicile" was developed to catch them in the tax net - so even second or third (or later) generations of colonials would be caught.But in the last half century the traffic has turned, with people from the old colonies (and elswhere) moving to the UK. Because of the "stickiness" of domicile, they are able to claim that they are "non-dom" so should not be taxed on their non UK income (or assets with regard to inheritence tax).It is an an anachronism that makes no sense.  It is opaque, and benefits a few rich people.  Most people do not have overseas income or assets (regardless of domicile status), so only the very rich benefit.Is Mrs Murty really "non dom" - i.e. does she really intend to permanently return to India (or more accurately, has she abandoned her domicile of origin by forming the intention to permanently reside in the UK - which, considering she is married her, has children here, etc. seems likely)?If she is not truly non-dom (which is an objective test of her intention, by considering all of the relevant facts), then this is tax evasion - i.e. exploiting a status that she is not entitled to.And as already pointed out – her nationality has nothing to do with it (or is nothing more than one indicating factor).  Although India does not allow duel nationality as such, it is possible to give up Indian citizenship (although there is no reason why Mrs Murty should do so if she does not want to).  But if she were to do so, she would be entitled to be an "Overseas Citizen of India" (OCI) (as would her husband) with all the rights of an Indian citizen (except to vote or own farmland).This is just a few more brush strokes onto the wider picture of an out-of-touch government looking after their own.What is particularly interesting is who leaked the information.  The fingers seem to be pointed at 10 Downing Street – hence Sunak’s demand for an enquiry.  Revenge for the famous party picture taken from a window at number 11? What a nest of vipers.  Perhaps Sunak knows something we don't about Johnson's own tax status.  He had a US passport until the US tax authorities caught up with him for unpaid taxes in 2016.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/09/2017-02699/quarterly-publication-of-individuals-who-have-chosen-to-expatriate-as-required-by-section-6039g

T P Howell ● 1626d

Richard, you are right about Javid, that has only come to light after the publicity about Murty. The emphasis on Murty is because she is the wife of the chancellor, so it’s as much about him as her. She of course applied to be non dom. I don’t think  it’s envy that’s at the root here.  It’s more anger that the Uber rich are able to organise and indeed hide their wealth so they avoid paying taxes in the same way as the rest of us. Most of us don’t believe it’s right that someone with an income of say £5bn or even £5M can pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than someone on say £50K. It’s high time the non dom status was reviewed. What do other countries do?

David Turner ● 1626d

I agree that the non-dom status is an anachronism and should be dumped along with secret Tax havens (surely the current situation with Russia is an opportune time to tackle these?).However, I don't think what Murty has done is to dodge tax. Imagine if you were sent to work and live in India for a period. Do you think it would be fair if they demanded tax on income from any UK dividends and income while you were working there? It's not a privilege of the rich it's just common sense.However, this is all just nasty politics playing on bunch of distasteful prejudices.I wish this much time and energy would be invested in going after something that would really make a difference.We have thousands of parasite companies operating in UK and paying hardly any  tax. Every year they get away with this, they take money out of system, out of the NHS, schools etc. Companies that do pay tax can't compete and people lose their jobs. We are being sucked dry.We are talking billions each year. Our favourite target is Amazon. Declared about £130m UK profit in 2020 when the real number was likely over £2bn. But it's not just the big ones, it's thousands of companies. All hiding behind clever business models designed to avoid tax.Forget non-dom. Hit the parasites.

Richard Potts ● 1626d

I think that there is a difference between going to India to work for a short period (as in fact I often do) and marrying and settling, e.g. in India and bringing up a family there. In the latter case (becoming "ordinarily resident", which is a different categorisation than "domiciled") I would absolutely expect to pay taxes on my Worldwide income in India.On the international companies point - I absolutely agree with you.  In fact the laws are already in place (transfer pricing, and thin capitalisation) but are not enforced (unlike, for example, in Ireland and France).  This has been the case under both Labour and Conservative. The answer is simple. Impose a withholding tax on all interest paid to a group company in a lower tax jurisdiction, and likewise a withholding tax on royalties paid for intellectual property (e.g. trade mark licences).  These are the two typical rouses for transferring profits into a low or nil tax jurisdiction, to avoid paying a fair share of taxes.What is lacking is the political will to enforce the existing rulee, and to make the overall rules fairer.This can most effectively be done through international agreements (otherwise a country can try to play the rules, which creates a race to the bottom. Unfortunately (and sorry to raise the point) but one of the main unspoken motivations for Brexit was to enable the UK to keep its network of tax haven crown dependencies.  I can't remember the precise figure, but it is astonishing- something like 80% of tax havens are British Crown Dependencies.

T P Howell ● 1626d

'I don’t think  it’s envy that’s at the root here'Agree absolutely - it's the privilege that allows these very rich people to dodge paying their dues denied to everyone else, of course all these massive companies like Amazon should be paying up their proper share too. However, it's not Amazon or anyone else that makes the legislation - it is the government, and we surely are entitled to expect that they will set an example and do what they expect the rest of us to do? I seem to recall that they went after lots of celebs and football players for their various dodgy schemes, don't do as I do - do as I tell you? This non-dom rubbish should be banned - the U.S. won't put up with it, and while we're about it all these  'gold visas' that allow these rich people to swan into the U.K. should go too. When you think what these poor Ukranians are having to do to be able to get here - it makes you want to spit to see how Potty Patel is happy to turn a blind eye to people with oodles of cash to buy their way in.

Vanessa Smith ● 1625d

I agree.  Talk of envy is a red herring.  The issue is about fairness and simple decency.  But if someone who is living in poverty happens to feel some envy at the good fortune of the rich who have no material worries then I’m not going to condemn them and I certainly wouldn’t use their hurt feelings in an argument in defence of the greed and entitlement that we see so much of among the powerful and wealthy.

Alastair Banton ● 1625d

Whilst I agree with a lot that has been said some things are much more complex. The world has become much more connected and tax regimes around the world allow for complex corporate structures. The UK on its own has tried to introduce new sales tax on major online businesses then Trump stopped it by stating that import taxes would be increased on goods from the UK if it went ahead that would have destroyed many UK businesses. I do believe the world is working towards a standardised tax regime of 15% on the global companies which will take away some of the incentives to create complex corporate structures to avoid tax which is currently perfectly legal. Lawyers and accountants who earn vast fees to creating these complex structures should be held to account too. Lawyers in the UK trying to protect oligarchs from sanctions is absolutely appalling and just another example of the murky world we live. The super rich will always have privileges that 99.99999% can not enjoy. Probably needs more 9’s 😂😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

TPH > "I can't remember the precise figure, but it is astonishing- something like 80% of tax havens are British Crown Dependencies."The UK and its network of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, often referred to as the UK spider’s web, is responsible for over 51 per cent of the US$171 billion in tax the world loses to offshore wealth tax evasion every year, costing the world nearly US$88 billion in lost tax.https://taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/State_of_Tax_Justice_Report_2021_ENGLISH.pdfSomething at which the UK truly is world-beating!

John Whitworth ● 1625d

"The UK on its own has tried to introduce new sales tax on major online businesses then Trump stopped it by stating that import taxes would be increased on goods from the UK if it went ahead that would have destroyed many UK businesses."Exactly why, in isolation, the UK is a lot less powerful than by taking concerted effort with the EU.And on a wider point:  As people here had already pointed out, most people are willing to pay their taxes (and indeed most people do not have the choice - the tax is taken out of their pay packet before they see it).  We recognise that a civil (and civilised) society needs to be funded.Which is why Sunak & Co's actions are so corrosive.  They lead to the view amongst law abiding people “Who’s the Mug?”.  The same thing happened during the Parliamentary expenses scandal.  If "they" are scamming the system, why should "we" be left out?A fish rots from the head (as the Russians say).  Leadership and standards means something.  So when the two most senior ministers are tax dodgers and criminals, what hope (or right) do we have for our expectations for the rest of the population?

T P Howell ● 1625d

To add some balance to this conversation non domicile is legal, clearly very few people are able to take advantage of this status but I am very confident that those that can do. There is nothing wrong with it as our tax systems allows it. Obviously anyone planning to go into politics should think about the morality and sensitivity issue but no tax laws have been broken to my knowledge. Those that have money will have a tax advisor and plan accordingly. Tax is a sensitive subject whether one has money or not. I do think it’s important not to come from envy there will always be someone who has more wealth than you.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

And there you have it.  Suggestions for a fairer tax system and standards in public life are dismissed as "envy". No - arguments for a fairer society are not "envy".  Although I do understand how it is a lot easier to stigmatise those arguments by attributing base motivations to them then to address them.As it happens, just about anyone born overseas, or whose father (or even grandfather) was born oveseas could potentially claim "non-dom" status.  The vast majority do not.  In many cases this may be because the costs of doing so mean it is not worthwhile.  Which means, in effect, that non-dom status is a tax break only for the very rich - who end up paying less tax as a percentage of income than most of us.

T P Howell ● 1625d

Really astounds me how those who are besotted with Johnson on this Forum always try and wriggle out from under. 'Our tax system allows it' yes, and it bloody well shouldn't. And here we have another person accusing those of us who'd like honesty and fairness of 'envy', do shut up! What we have seen over the last few months is an absolute scandal - and no amount of wheedling, wriggling and playing with the English language can make any of this right and proper. You must be a right mug if you go along with this.

Vanessa Smith ● 1625d

It's not as if they need the money.  Anyone would be willing to agree if they were not able to afford five types of bread, but they could never spend all the money they have now.

Vivienne Cox ● 1625d

Am surprised that the press is going for Richi in such a big way when it seems the last Chancellor, Javid, is far more of a tax dodger than Richi. Richi's wife is the one slipping through legal loopholes rather than Richi, although he must have been aware of it.

Steve Taylor ● 1625d

They are not legal loopholes, the TAX systems allows it perfectly legal. The super rich will always find ways to keep their money many would move to other  countries so let’s keep this in prospective. This has absolutely nothing to do with Boris, Labour didn’t change it either it’s been around for centuries. So Vanessa you should discuss based upon facts not envy. There will always be super rich people regardless of what the UK tax systems allows.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

"the TAX systems allows it perfectly legal."and the Government has the power to change that but they haven't so the taxes flying through the window (the waste) is 100% the fault of the Government of the day and the person in charge of the Government of the day is Mr Johnson. If he had the will he could change it in a second but he leaves the legal loopholes so that his rich buddies can benefit from the system. They are no better than benefit scammers ripping off our Councils.  Only the amounts of the scams are vastly different.

Steve Taylor ● 1625d

Complete rubbish the tax system has allowed non doms for centuries. Better to get some tax than zero from the super rich. Tony Blair did he change it? Gordon Brown did he change it? no one has changed it I think the Tories put up the fees that’s something 😂😂😂😂

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

'So Vanessa you should discuss based upon facts not envy. There will always be super rich people regardless of what the UK tax systems allows.'Oi - I'm not envious - I am furious that these people don't give a sh*t about what they are doing to people in this country. What I will never understand is people like you who seem to enjoy being cr*pped on by these superior, arrogant tossers who clearly are in politics to big up their egos. Yes, there will always be people with lots of dosh but they still should pay their fair share of tax like everyone else has to.

Vanessa Smith ● 1625d

Hey, I have my own life and don’t expect any government to fund me, I do expect they provide the people with a framework to be achievers. I don’t believe in nanny state. I think you will find many high earners use whatever tax schemes they can to minimise their tax, nothing wrong with that. Create employment so people can enhance their lives, be independent, motivated and lead a fulfilled life whatever that may be. I don’t consider anyone superior to me, we all choose different paths in life.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1625d

"...they still should pay their fair share of tax..."How would you define a fair share, Vanessa ? Let's say someone pays a million pounds of tax annually - should that increase further if they earn more the next year, or should there be some sort of limit above which they can keep their earnings and spend it the way they want to, rather than see the government squander it. Were we better off under the Labour government of the 1960s and 70s when the marginal top rate of tax was around 98% and there was really no point in anyone earning more. It was having rates like that that had much to do with creating the tax avoidance industry in the first place. Those were the days when the likes of the Rolling Stones went into tax exile in France, which took a more relaxed attitude that the UK and was willing to cut a  deal to encourage high earners to live there. I suppose in some ways our non-dom rules are our way of encouraging wealth creators to settle here and back our economy by spending their monies here - after all, avoiding VAT and other taxes on spending is probably rather more difficult than avoiding income tax.

Richard Greenhough ● 1625d

Well 'Sir' (why?) Richard Branson did very well out of VAT fraud ; he had the help of his father ,a judge,who enabled him to get off lightly.And thus a global brand was born.How he is held up to be an example of a great British entrepreneur is beyond me.Being a spiv seems to be the British..or rather one of the English paths to the top.'Getting away with it' is admired here.

Ben Gemmingen ● 1625d

Yes I know this is controversial heading but hear me out.What Ms Murty did is not only in accordance with the letter of the law but also its intent.  It is no different to you or I saving tax by making pension contributions, we save tax because that is what the law meant to happen.Similarly, the UK tax system has for several decades treated a married couple as 2 separate people for tax purposes, what Ms Murty claims is entirely up to her and if she chooses not to tell her husband that is her right.  My wife has always worked and I have never known what she earns, how much tax she pays and what she may have saved, putting it bluntly it is none of my business.  For the Labour party to claim this is a "conflict of interest" because as Chancellor he is responsible for tax policy effectively means that they are saying only people whose spouse does not work and does not invest in a pension can be appointed as Chancellor.  They actually want, at least as far as the Chancellorship is concerned to reverse the decades old tax policy of treating married people as separate taxable people - and given that every Chancellor to date has been male, their policy is to disadvantage women, particularly rich, successful women.Finally what to Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Dennis Healey, Roy Jenkins, Jim Callaghan and Hugh Gaitskell have in common?  They were all Chancellor of Exchequer under a Labour govt post WW2, they all had an opportunity to repeal the non-dom rules and none of them did so - at a guess I would assume that the advice from the Civil Service at the time was that non-dom rules actually increased tax revenue and economic activity compared to repealing them, whether that advice was true then nevermind whether it would be true now would require a detailed economic analysis far beyond my ability, but it does have the ring of plausibility.  In fact the last major change to the non-dom rules was under a Tory govt.  So Labour is definitely guilty of a "do as I say not as I do" attitude.If you want to discuss tax policy whether in respect of companies or individuals I am happy to do so, but do so using facts and evidence not some "the rich should pay more tax" attitude

Justin Stephenson ● 1624d

Jayne, that pesky nanny state what with its furlough system during the pandemic, eat out to help out, overseas aid budgets, NHS, schools. So annoying, I know.But you appear to have forgotten that this ‘nanny state’ has pursued a policy of a hostile environment for refugees and asylum seekers , is limiting the right to protest, vilifies its poorest and most vulnerable. And just as a reminder, the vast majority of benefit claimants are in work but are paid very badly. Creating more badly paid jobs does not help.

Stewart Jones ● 1624d

I understood that if you claim benefits you have to declare how much money everyone else around you has.  You can't just say that's my husband's, wife's, child's, cat's, dog's or hamster's money.

Philippa Bond ● 1624d

How benefits work is completely irrelevant to the issue of tax policy and how much each person should pay.  So thank you for trying to deflect the argument away from what absolute hypocrites the Labour leadership is being.

Justin Stephenson ● 1624d

You have got to be kidding - deflection? The Tory speciality - so far we've had the d*ckhead Fabricant, the pillock Shapps and dozy Dorries banging on about Ukraine, vaccinations, pandemics and Christ alone knows what else as reasons and excuses not to do anything about the lying scumbags caught out. As for hypocrisy - it's bread and butter to this government.

Vanessa Smith ● 1624d

It isn't a deflection because so many people on benefits are also working.  Taxes are not proportionate here in the UK.  They are taken directly in PAYE from many.  There  have also been many cuts to those services that help those who are struggling with difficulties in housing eg Citizen's Advice and to HMRC who should be chasing harder cases more.If all those people who are busy employing Wealth Advisors were to fund advice for those who can't even afford time off to travel to a CAB or to Shelter etc for just advice that would be something.  But of course they won't and it would just be better if it was fairer.

Philippa Bond ● 1624d

Spot on Justin, my husband and I also don’t share details of our income or taxes  don’t think that is unusual when both people have careers. As you have very clearly highlighted we have a tax system that works within a legal framework and we all have to work within the framework otherwise HMRC will investigate and if a person or company is not compliant the fines can be enormous.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1624d

no

James Roy ● 1624d

"Taxes are not proportionate here in the UK.  They are taken directly in PAYE from many"And if the rich are employees then income tax is deducted via PAYE just the same as for every other employee.  It is actually worse if they are self employed because they pay tax in advance.But if taxes are not "proportionate" what rates would you apply to income tax, CGT and before you answer I wish to point out that it was a Labour Chancellor who reduced CGT rates so that they did not match income tax rates, and we also know that (a) the richest now pay a greater proportion of income tax that at any time in the last 60 years and (b) a top rate tax of 60%+ definitely reduces the amount of tax revenue received (it is likely that top rate above 50% also reduces the tax revenue but we do not have hard evidence for that).The problem with claiming that changing the tax rates will increase revenue is that the actual evidence suggests that the %GDP that the UK govt can extract from the economy in tax revenue is already at its upper limit - it is true that other countries do extract more, but that is not what the UK economy has delivered to the govt at any time over the last 60-70 years.  The only way to grow tax revenues consistently is to grow the economy.

Justin Stephenson ● 1624d

Justin again spot on 👏👏👏👏👏

Jayne Thorburn ● 1624d