A Political Thread pt. 2

[TRF_Olyy]

Doesn't make it morally right

Whenever rich people's taxes are in the press it always reminds me of this clip:



It's a morality test, not a tax, at that level

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Tbh the whole surge of anti-Sunak stories recently scream leadership election post May tbh

Yes. The Daily Mail is, as ever, the one to watch to gauge what is going on in the minds of those pulling the strings of the Tories. They are reporting on Sunak's wife, indicating to me they think he should be getting his wings clipped.

Conversely, the Daily Mail is trying to show how desperately extreme right wing Boris is prepared to go with his recent bout of transgender tourettes. This was apparently their main story yesterday along with an editorial celebrating it.

Boris Johnson opposes biological men taking part in female sports

The PM said parents should have 'involvement at the very least' in decisions made by children to alter their gender . It came as he faced a Tory split over a ban on conversion therapy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

By showing nothing is beyond the pale for him (by constant near daily anti-trans remarks) he is signalling he will do anything to remain in power if only the Daily Mail (and counterparts) would be so kind as to support him.

If he'd come out with this observation in isolation at a time there wasnt unprecedented global diplomatic, medical and economic woes, then fine. But it's the repeated peddling of trans issues to demonstrate he'll make it a central campaign plank (like Hungary, Florida etc) that is absolutely stomach churning.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The NATO chief comes out this afternoon and says it is "strange to make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons since Ukraine is defending itself", so hopefully an outbreak of backbone is changing opinions on MiGS and tanks before it is absolutely too late. Its definitely a change of tone and one I dont think is accidental.

More worryingly, the Ukraine government is telling civilians to abandon the large city of Dnipro which is well away from the front on the east side of the Dnieper river that splits Ukraine in half. This to me is the first indication that since retreating from Kyiv Putin will be wanting the entire eastern half of Ukraine, not just Luhansk and Donetsk, but that the Russian military will be more slow and methodical in seeking territory (e.g. still ignoring largely bypassing Kharkiv for now). This would be consistent with US based rumours in the first week (with the change being he appears to have given up on a puppet regime in Kyiv for now).

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yes. The Daily Mail is, as ever, the one to watch to gauge what is going on in the minds of those pulling the strings of the Tories. They are reporting on Sunak's wife, indicating to me they think he should be getting his wings clipped.

Conversely, the Daily Mail is trying to show how desperately extreme right wing Boris is prepared to go with his recent bout of transgender tourettes. This was apparently their main story yesterday along with an editorial celebrating it.

Boris Johnson opposes biological men taking part in female sports

The PM said parents should have 'involvement at the very least' in decisions made by children to alter their gender . It came as he faced a Tory split over a ban on conversion therapy.

www.dailymail.co.uk

By showing nothing is beyond the pale for him (by constant near daily anti-trans remarks) he is signalling he will do anything to remain in power if only the Daily Mail (and counterparts) would be so kind as to support him.

If he'd come out with this observation in isolation at a time there wasnt unprecedented global diplomatic, medical and economic woes, then fine. But it's the repeated peddling of trans issues to demonstrate he'll make it a central campaign plank (like Hungary, Florida etc) that is absolutely stomach churning.

Boris's comments on transgender athletes seemed more logical than I have seen from almost anyone else on the subject. Of course I only saw the quotes the Guardian selected so they weren't trying to rile anyone up.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

What would happen if she ends up remaining in the UK and not going back to the India (which is what I imagine will happen)? Would she get away with claiming that she 'changed her intentions' after max'ing out the benefits of being a non dom? Seems a bit suss to me. People who do that should then be taxed retrospectively IMHO.

She's deemed domiciled after 15/20 years and doesn't leave. Means she will be taxed on her worldwide income and capital gains for income tax and CGT purposes. And for IHT her estate would also include her worldwide assets. Currently her estate includes just her UK assets. The Infosys shares are excluded because of her Non Dom status say if she dropped down dead tomorrow.

If she remains at least 15/20 and then she want to lose her Deemed Domiciled status she would have sever her ties with the UK and also IIRC it's something like 4 complete tax years remain outside UK. Occasional visits back being acceptable.

There's loads of case law on this with rich folk who have tried to leave UK and lose their domicile to escape UK IHT on their non UK assets. But courts have found against because they still had homes and family who they visited etc. Examples of ties to UK include like Rishi and his wife making donations to Winchester College (Rishi's Alma mater) being an example. But I am sure she signed a pre-nup before she married Rishi.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I find it baffling that it takes 15/20 years to be deemed domiciled. In that time you could have a child raise them, see them through school and have them mid way through uni / working / starting a family of their own. That is how long they deem it takes to be domiciled? It's ridiculous. Would have thought 5 years would seem more appropriate.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Boris's comments on transgender athletes seemed more logical than I have seen from almost anyone else on the subject. Of course I only saw the quotes the Guardian selected so they weren't trying to rile anyone up.

That is why I said "in isolation", because to question the sense of mingling bodies that developed in fundamentally different biological ways in the same sporting contest requires serious consideration. However, he is absolutely laying the foundations for trans rights being a major policy platform from the past fortnight. He has made comments specifically tying the Labour leader to extending trans rights and it is his number one topic just now.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

That is why I said "in isolation", because to question the sense of mingling bodies that developed in fundamentally different biological ways in the same sporting contest requires serious consideration. However, he is absolutely laying the foundations for trans rights being a major policy platform from the past fortnight. He has made comments specifically tying the Labour leader to extending trans rights and it is his number one topic just now.

yeah I read the piece you linked to and he seems to be setting up an "image" around trans rights. The Guardian was only talking about the sports aspect so I didn't see any of the other stuff.

 

[General Melchett]

She's deemed domiciled after 15/20 years and doesn't leave. Means she will be taxed on her worldwide income and capital gains for income tax and CGT purposes. And for IHT her estate would also include her worldwide assets. Currently her estate includes just her UK assets. The Infosys shares are excluded because of her Non Dom status say if she dropped down dead tomorrow.

If she remains at least 15/20 and then she want to lose her Deemed Domiciled status she would have sever her ties with the UK and also IIRC it's something like 4 complete tax years remain outside UK. Occasional visits back being acceptable.

There's loads of case law on this with rich folk who have tried to leave UK and lose their domicile to escape UK IHT on their non UK assets. But courts have found against because they still had homes and family who they visited etc. Examples of ties to UK include like Rishi and his wife making donations to Winchester College (Rishi's Alma mater) being an example. But I am sure she signed a pre-nup before she married Rishi.

I seem to recall reading that the UK is the only or one of the few countries that still uses the concept of domicile (in addition to tax residence). Seems a bit archaic to me. Would be far easier if it was just tax residence based on how many days per year you spend in the country and also what ties you have to that country like owning property and/or where your family is based etc. I'm guessing they use the whole non-dom concept as a vehicle to attract wealthy foreigners.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

from what I've read the issue is that they haven't said where she is paying her non-uk tax. I'm assuming opposition would drop it if she showed that she was paying the tax in India but if she was routing the money through the Cayman Islands there would be an uproar.

 

[ncurd]

Boris's comments on transgender athletes seemed more logical than I have seen from almost anyone else on the subject. Of course I only saw the quotes the Guardian selected so they weren't trying to rile anyone up.

Ed Milliband spoke more sense this morning (ah the path not travelled). Johnson was spouting off easy to sell garbage from the hip which he's been doing for weeks on trans rights.

There is an incredibly complex and nuanced conversation that needs to be had about trans woman and trans men in genderised sports categories. And every sport is going to come to diffrent conclusions based on its own physical requirements of the participants. Along the lines of Oscar Pretorius or Castor Semenya. I'm on the side of multiple peer reviewed studies of multidisciplinary teams of scientists which I don't belive there is a clear concensus yet.

Johnson is never a person for such a debate. And is just using it to stoke the flames of a culture war he think he can win with the knee jerk response.

 

[ncurd]

from what I've read the issue is that they haven't said where she is paying her non-uk tax. I'm assuming opposition would drop it if she showed that she was paying the tax in India but if she was routing the money through the Cayman Islands there would be an uproar.

She's married to the head of our treasury who makes the ultimate decision on our tax laws and lives in the UK almost permanently. Purely from an optics perspective nobody will by suxh a billionaire paying their tax in a diffrent country. The country she does pay tax want wash with most people.

 

[General Melchett]

from what I've read the issue is that they haven't said where she is paying her non-uk tax. I'm assuming opposition would drop it if she showed that she was paying the tax in India but if she was routing the money through the Cayman Islands there would be an uproar.

It won't be India and you're probably not far off with the Cayman islands. It's probably a murky labyrinth of offshore company structures and trusts based in tax havens that are not required to disclose anything.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

She's married to the head of our treasury who makes the ultimate decision on our tax laws and lives in the UK almost permanently. Purely from an optics perspective nobody will by suxh a billionaire paying their tax in a diffrent country. The country she does pay tax want wash with most people.

an Indian citizen making money off of the work of an Indian company paying tax to India surely makes sense. It's not like she is doing work for the company. The optics of the UK claiming they have the right to India's tax revenue is not good.

Edit: but it certainly doesn't look like she is paying her tax in India

 

[ncurd]

an Indian citizen making money off of the work of an Indian company paying tax to India surely makes sense. It's not like she is doing work for the company. The optics of the UK claiming they have the right to India's tax revenue is not good.

Edit: but it certainly doesn't look like she is paying her tax in India

I work in Britain we sell nothing, the stuff we design and build gets put in products designed, built and shipped from Canada, the company is ultimately trading in America despite being worldwide multinational.

I pay UK tax.

 

[Reiser99]

Ed Milliband spoke more sense this morning (ah the path not travelled). Johnson was spouting off easy to sell garbage from the hip which he's been doing for weeks on trans rights.

There is an incredibly complex and nuanced conversation that needs to be had about trans woman and trans men in genderised sports categories. And every sport is going to come to diffrent conclusions based on its own physical requirements of the participants. Along the lines of Oscar Pretorius or Castor Semenya. I'm on the side of multiple peer reviewed studies of multidisciplinary teams of scientists which I don't belive there is a clear concensus yet.

Johnson is never a person for such a debate. And is just using it to stoke the flames of a culture war he think he can win with the knee jerk response.

The main starting problem is the notion that all men and women are the same. Unfortunately over the thousands of years humans have existed we have created an extremely narrow definition of what it means to be be a man or a woman when the reality is that it is a whole spectrum, with many traits people over lapping with the opposite sex. The butch male and the dainty woman are on the extreme ends of the scale. It's one of the reasons gender identity and expectations on men and women cause so many mental health issues because it's almost impossible to live up to this archaic ideal image of being a man or a woman.

It's the same with biology, humans are all different and some men and women have higher or lower testosterone and other chemicals etc... than others. Yes there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, but it shouldn't be as basic as you were born with or without a penis. Imagine you had one person who was born naturally as a woman and one who transitioned, but both have the same testosterone levels. Why should one be allowed to compete just because of how they were born? (this is a very basic example).

Johnson's view, like most of his thoughts is far to simplistic and comes from a place of comfort and power. As others have said it also comes from a place of knowing how the average conservative voter thinks, which is change is bad.

 

[General Melchett]

The main starting problem is the notion that all men and women are the same. Unfortunately over the thousands of years humans have existed we have created an extremely narrow definition of what it means to be be a man or a woman when the reality is that it is a whole spectrum, with many traits people over lapping with the opposite sex. The butch male and the dainty woman are on the extreme ends of the scale. It's one of the reasons gender identity and expectations on men and women cause so many mental health issues because it's almost impossible to live up to this archaic ideal image of being a man or a woman.

It's the same with biology, humans are all different and some men and women have higher or lower testosterone and other chemicals etc... than others. Yes there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, but it shouldn't be as basic as you were born with or without a penis. Imagine you had one person who was born naturally as a woman and one who transitioned, but both have the same testosterone levels. Why should one be allowed to compete just because of how they were born? (this is a very basic example).

Johnson's view, like most of his thoughts is far to simplistic and comes from a place of comfort and power. As others have said it also comes from a place of knowing how the average conservative voter thinks, which is change is bad.

Good to know that penis isn't on the forum's naughty words list. I'll be keeping that in mind next time Dan Biggar starts flapping his arms or whining to the ref.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I work in Britain we sell nothing, the stuff we design and build gets put in products designed, built and shipped from Canada, the company is ultimately trading in America despite being worldwide multinational.

I pay UK tax.

but the work you do is done in the UK. The only connection her money has to the UK is that she lives there. She doesn't do any work for the company she is just a large shareholder. For instance my brokerage firm tells me what taxes I have paid in foreign countries based on the money I have made from my shares in foreign corporations. It's no different than her other than she just makes a lot more money.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The main starting problem is the notion that all men and women are the same. Unfortunately over the thousands of years humans have existed we have created an extremely narrow definition of what it means to be be a man or a woman when the reality is that it is a whole spectrum, with many traits people over lapping with the opposite sex. The butch male and the dainty woman are on the extreme ends of the scale. It's one of the reasons gender identity and expectations on men and women cause so many mental health issues because it's almost impossible to live up to this archaic ideal image of being a man or a woman.

It's the same with biology, humans are all different and some men and women have higher or lower testosterone and other chemicals etc... than others. Yes there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, but it shouldn't be as basic as you were born with or without a penis. Imagine you had one person who was born naturally as a woman and one who transitioned, but both have the same testosterone levels. Why should one be allowed to compete just because of how they were born? (this is a very basic example).

hence the need for peer reviewed studies

 

[Reiser99]

but the work you do is done in the UK. The only connection her money has to the UK is that she lives there. She doesn't do any work for the company she is just a large shareholder. For instance my brokerage firm tells me what taxes I have paid in foreign countries based on the money I have made from my shares in foreign corporations. It's no different than her other than she just makes a lot more money.

I'll add that with the advent of remote working tax laws need an overhaul anyway. If I work for a UK company, but live in Germany for example, who should receive my taxes? The country where the company is based or the country whose public services I'm using? How about if you own a company in the UK and live abroad (genuinely, not for tax purposes) what then?

For me it's simple, the whole system is complex because it allows those with money to manipulate and avoid the system. It just needs simplifying and needs to be made consistent across the globe. Unfortunately, that is the real issue because other countries know they can make money by being tax havens and until the rules are consistent there will always be loopholes.