I felt that the former was fair game as well, but in and of her own person rather than as the Chancellor’s wife. The other thing on the other hand…
If you’re on the left and can afford to go private for health, education etc but choose instead to be a further drain on public utilities to the detriment of those who are not so fortunate, you’re not a proper socialist. 
1 Like
But if the public service is good enough for everybody else’s kids……
It’s not as damning as you think it is. There is a legitimate case to be made that resources should be going to public institutions, instead of starving them. It could even be argued that it illustrates exactly the problem, that the state schools should be funded better and improved, rather than outsourcing everything privately.
1 Like
Public schools get tax payers money, don’t they?
Since when has everything on the left side of the political spectrum become full blown Socialism?
Really concerned if that’s where we’re at now.
2 Likes
Not really. The government subsidises private school fees for certain senior members of the armed forces and diplomatic corps and gives some funding if private schools provide additional tutoring to comprehensive school pupils but the total is somewhere around £200m a year. That’s not really significant.
The biggest benefit is the tax breaks most private schools get due to charitable status.
1 Like
I was being slightly facetious, sorry mate.
Ah, you got me. Fair play.
Any tips on removing a bowling ball rattling round in your head, my head that is?
Could be a goer. I’ve got some pliers in the garage.
If what she is doing is legal, but some would argue unethical, then the law is an ass and needs to be changed.
At that point, legitimate questions might be asked of the Chancellor, but if the law was in play long before he took office (I’m sure it was) then she is benefitting from a pre-existing set of circumstances, rather than something illegal or having been engineered by her husband.
That’s the best case for them.
If they have lied and broken the law, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent permissible, he should lose his job, and they will need to decide where they want to live and pay tax.
Overall though, it is not a shocking story. Rich people always want to avoid paying more tax than they absolutely have to. They view it as their obligation to keep hold of as much of their wealth as possible, and they usually employ plenty of people to help them do it. The bulk of the population pays their taxes and sees numerous shortfalls in public amenities, so when a rich person is perceived as doing less than their fair share, there is outrage.
‘‘Twas ever thus.
On this one it sounds like the law needs to be amended and tightened up. Even at that point, rich people will always find ways to circumvent legislation to their own advantage. Again, ‘‘twas ever thus.
It has been there before Sunak was in office but George Osborn tried to shut it down but it never went through for some reason.
He, as Chancellor could also close the loophole but obviously has no interest in doing so, for all the wrong reasons.
2 Likes
Forgot to mention that perhaps we should be asking whether Johnson knew of Sunaks wife’s status and whether it affected policy.
The response would be blindingly obvious but you could then ask if he was aware of Osborne’s proposal to close off the loop hole.
There are all kinds of problems with her claiming non-dom status. Having kids here is just one.
The most obvious one is she is married to the Chancellor of the fucking Exchequer and it’s simply not credible for her to claim that her stay in the UK is a temporary one, or that she doesn’t consider the UK her primary home. Does Sunak - a man with ambition to be Prime Minister - also consider India to be his primary home? Surely not.
Does a situation where a married couple claim their primary homes are on separate continents seem remotely plausible?
And I don’t accept that Sunak’s wife affairs is nothing to do with him. They are married. I wouldn’t enter into complicated financial arrangements without consulting my partner, and we’re not even married.
4 Likes
No, US apparently.
2 Likes
By the way, I notice from my Facebook memories feed that it’s six years since David Cameron was embroiled in a scandal relating to his tax affairs.
They get votes in the same way that people who have sent five grand to an exiled Nigerian Prince will send another five grand because it’s better that admit they’ve been conned. It’s human nature to dig in, even as these cunts are laughing in our faces.
1 Like
Dennis Skinner was right about Cameron. A crook with a posh accent.
Where did the money go Dodgy Dave?
1 Like
Commie!
As I pointed out originally.
1 Like