A good point: now it's clear and official that UK is a plutocracy.

== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

"That wealth became an issue earlier this year when it was revealed that Murthy used legal but cynical tax minimization practices even as Sunak ran the UK economy as Chancellor of the Exchequer – a gig that entails a sharp focus on ensuring all due taxes are gathered."

This is not *that* bad. At least, it's better than the former french budget minister, Cahuzac, who was patronizing everyone about the duty to pay taxes, while concealing 60 grands in Switzerland.

Or fucking Gaymard with his 600 square meters apartment in central Paris, paid with public money ... Even the Chinese press did articles on this ...

Don’t forget our own Nadim Zahawi, briefly chancellor of the exchequer, taking a £26m “loan” from a Gibraltar based family trust around the same time a closely related offshore company took £26m in income and disbursed it to… unspecified.

Every contractor here will recognise this tax evasion dodge, although perhaps not at that amount. More significantly I think, said contractors were not the government minister in charge of the countries finances.

The whole Tory party is rotten to the core.

I need to qualify. Tax avoidance if the loan is paid back, Tax evasion if it's eventually written off.

so can anyone explain something to me?

'Murthy used legal but cynical tax minimization practices........'

As I understand it Murthy paid taxes in India on earnings in India, and paid taxes in the UK on earnings in the UK - why was this wrong? In other words she should pay the taxes where she currently lives (where she is based) rather than where the money is earned. The answer because Murthy has sheds load of money is not an acceptable response.

On the basis that a corporation is deemed as a person in law for many cases (such as tax) why should the likes of Amazon or Starbucks or be under pressure to pay taxes in the country the earnings are made rather than where the parent company is based (USA) or via lower taxation route such as ROI.

These seem to be the exact opposite of each other but because Blighty would benefit Murthy was being cynical by not paying extra taxes here.

Don't get me wrong I think taxes should be paid in the country where the money is earned / made but then why should someone have to pay taxes in the UK on the money earned in another country? What if it is someone who earns significantly less, or does it not matter because it is only a small amount / there is no embarrassment factor ?

Pay where it's earned is very easily open to abuse - you cite Amazon and Starbucks as examples and they're good ones. Amazon had sales revenue of £23,000M in the UK last year, but paid £648M in tax because they can funnel it offshore to a sweetheart jurisdiction of their choice.

That's clearly unfair on the UK Exchequer and unfair on smaller rivals who don't have an offshore structure to back them up.

It's the same for individuals. Paying tax where the money is earned sounds reasonable until you realise exactly the same process will be used: Shares will be transferred to an offshore trust in a low-rax jurisdiction, loans will be disbursed as required, houses and school fees paid by the trust so not incurring income tax. It's a legal but arguably unfair model.

By contrast paying tax in the country of residence - where the individual has the benefits of a legal system, safe housing, roads, emergency healthcare - makes a lot more sense. I don't have any issue with non-dom tax for a short period, but dragging it out for years when you're permanently resident here (and she is married to the prime-minister) is manifestly taking the piss.

Even if these wealthy people avoid some tax by using these legal workarounds, they still pay more tax in a year than most people do in a lifetime.

Whilst actually using the state provided services less.

Tax reformers have been campaigning for ages to have income taxed where it's generated, not where the owner lives. This capitulation to demands by the mob to tax where the owner lives instead has completely destroyed decades of work. The profits of the Facebooks and Googles of this world will now be entirely taxed in the USA instead of here.

People can't tell the difference between people not paying taxes they should pay, and not paying taxes they shouldn't pay.

Hopefully we'll now see visa free/waiver style travel for Indians back on the table as part of a trade deal.

Good news for a great many British citizens with family in India. This would be fantastic on oh-so-many levels.

No, we don't need to iincrease immigration - it's already at super insane levels.

If only there were some way that the UK could ensure that they have sovereign rights to control immigration.

I'm sure that I read that there was a way to do that .... I think on the side of a bus nearly a decade ago!

The feared the Polish Plumber so much they couldn't see the Indian PM coming... but probably is just all about money - after all the Russian oligarchs were welcome too...

"No, we don't need to iincrease immigration - it's already at super insane levels."

Ha ha ha. It's travel, not immigration. Careful not to pull a ligament when your knee jerks like that.

If it's travel and not immigration, you don't need a visa. Only pariah states go out of their way to impose visa requirements on sub-30-day visits, most countries allow sub-90-day visa-free travel.

I can see that going down well with the conservative party membership, who would have voted anyone but Sunak if it came down to two finalists, same as last time.

Tice is probably already making plans to take the Reform party out of deep freeze to keep the tory party so far right that it would be impossible to make make migration any part of a trade deal with India.

How about Indians stay in India and people in the UK who love India that much be invited to go and live there too.

The UK has a housing shortage, public service shortages and doesn't need further mass immigration. There's too much already, illegal and also legal. Opening the floodgates to another 800 million people might make the UK hating leadership of India happy but not the people of the UK.

And no, I don't care what the skin colour of those people are, or indeed that of Sunak. Something I sadly can't say about several of the people celebrating his coronation.

A cunt's a cunt no matter whether they're brown skinned or come over as black text on grey.

"How about Indians stay in India and people in the UK who love India that much be invited to go and live there too."

Oh dear. Another right-whinger conflating immigration with tourism and business travel.

Although banning drunk racist English thugs from travelling the world... Hmmm. You might be on to something!!!

Although banning drunk racist English thugs from travelling the world... Hmmm. You might be on to something!!!

I think that's already a thing. The convicted hooligans are required to submit their passports during football tournaments and events.

As long as you aren't a journalist from Kashmir - you'll be blocked without reasons at an Indian airport while trying to travel to get your Pulitzer prize...

I don't really care if Sunak is prime minister or not, but I find it very interesting indeed that people are talking abour race so much. The same people who seem to promote negativity in relation to straight white men / white people in general, bordering sometimes on blantant racism and sexism. I.e. the progressive far left (who aren't actually progressive, as bigotry never is).

Indeed, I find that the attitude I've always taken towards race (i.e. ignoring it) is becoming increasingly marginalized

This is (was) my attitude as well, but it's increasingly difficult to sit back and watch people call out disdain against one group*, but espouse it against another. In this country, we're supposed to have equal opportunity where possible and to not be derided or elevated based off of immutable characteristics.

I'm now starting to call out the hypocrisy, no matter the group* being attacked, because main stream society is going backwards when it comes to things like race and sex. Martin Luther King Jr would be appalled, I think.

* as defined by immutable characteristics

I cite every Mail article discussing Meghan Markle as evidence that the reactionary far right are just as bad. My personal favourite was reference to her "exotic DNA", like she's some sort of lizard. Or, depending on your view of the Royal Family, perhaps that she's some sort of mammal.

The Daily Mail isn't far right. It's just a populist rag.

Believe me, there are trashy(ier?) outlets in other countries. The EU country I'm in now, has fantastically classy news outlets where the headlines fill the entire screen, and others still that print such things as "ram them right in the arse" with regards to $opposing_football_team

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As far as Megan Markle is concerned: There have been quite a number of articles about her, many of which are ciritical of her actions, not her race. That doesn't mean that there aren't *rsehats banging on about her race (those should always be called out), but there have been some people who have conflated the two things. Race should never trump actions/opinions, good or bad.

But in at least some cases, Meghan was criticised by papers for doing exactly the same things that won Kate praise.

There is always someone to pick on. I do recall when Sarah Ferguson was a royal spouse, she got it far worse than this new woman. Is it 'cos she am a ginge innit ??

What I care about is the fact that the same guy who was running the economy is now telling us that this time, giving him even more power, will somehow fix every last problem. It's just a revolving door.

When did he tell us that? Got a quote?

I find it completely uninteresting that the negative references to his race I have heard thus far come from the same reactionary right-wing creeps they always have.

The left are keeping their heads down after Rupa Huq got the boot for her outrageously racist remark about Kwarteng.

I personally think this is a big deal, the leader of your country not being a native. AFAIK this hasn't occurred elsewhere in Europe.

It has in the US, of course, since we're a nation of immigrants.

Quote: "...prime_minister_v3_final..."

Sorry, but your counting is off by quite a few:

(1) Cameron

(2) May

(3) Johnson

(4) Truss

(5) Sunak

Twelve years.......five sock puppets......bad news for 60++ million citizens......

Sunak's the third of this parliament.

Twelve years.......five sock puppets

Yes, but it could have been worse, we could have had Jeremy Corbyn. With him in charge, by now the UK economy would have imploded, we'd have rampant inflation, an impending recession, chaos in Parliament...

Um, hang on a sec...

Biden clearly said that Rashid Sanook had won.

Interesting how the algorithm is picking stories to link below this comment section though.

Cut him some slack, he's 79. People slow down and lose neuroplasticity as they age, making it harder to react quickly and accurately to new information.

"making her a paper billionaire."

"Sunak has also done well as an investment banker and hedge fund maven. The couple, with a net worth of £730 million ($825 million)"

So which is it? Is she a paper billionaire (USD or GBP or other) or are they worth ~ 730m GBP / 825m USD ?

Or is she worth 1b + and together they are also worth 730 GBP as well?

?

I suspect he will have the same problem that Obama had when he was US president. He will have lots of really good ideas, but he won't be able to implement them because he's surrounded by a bunch of racist cunts who will undermine him at every opportunity.

In my opinion he will have no problems as "South Asians" are regarded as hard working and just get on with things.

There are more than twice as many "South Asians" in the UK as "(relatively recent) African decedents".

Which of these 2 groups screams and shouts about racial equality all the time? Which group is disproportionally represented on TV, etc.?

Rishi is there on merit - not because of anything else and good for him.

Life should be a meritocracy, not an equality tick box.

Sunak will only lose credibility and face an uphill battle (like Obama did) if he starts to bang on about race.

He's British and that's good enough for me.

Sunak only became PM because no other suitable white candidate could be found in the Tory Party.