Akshata Murty tax affairs

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Akshata Murty tax affairs

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 17 of 23 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Badger11 Beckenham 17 Apr 22 8.47am
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle This is a difficult issue. Tax is a legal obligation but also seen as a moral issue. I have little doubt that she has paid the right amount of tax according to the law but as the law in the UK is such that you don't pay for ax on worldwide income as you do in other countries she has not paid tax at a level she would say in the level she would in some other places. It's a oddity in the UK system which can be argued to attract money into the UK. But tax is taxing. I do see an irony in the £millions the UK government pays Infosys that swell the Murray coffers and that the Chancellor indirectly benefits from That is the crux of the problem when people start demanding that somebody should pay more tax even though they have done nothing wrong. It's like a cop pulling you over for speeding and when you object and tell him your were under the speed limit he says "yes but morally you were speeding." I have said for years we need to simplify our tax system close most of the tax loopholes which in turn would allow the basic rate to be lowered. I quite like the idea of a flat rate system where everybody body the same rate based on their income (Singapore?) and their are no tax loopholes. If you earn £1m but your net income is £100,000 tough you pay tax on £1m. The tax rate would more likely be around 12 or 15%. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 17 Apr 22 8.47am

Originally posted by orpingtoneagle

This is a difficult issue. Tax is a legal obligation but also seen as a moral issue.

I have little doubt that she has paid the right amount of tax according to the law but as the law in the UK is such that you don't pay for ax on worldwide income as you do in other countries she has not paid tax at a level she would say in the level she would in some other places.

It's a oddity in the UK system which can be argued to attract money into the UK.

But tax is taxing. I do see an irony in the £millions the UK government pays Infosys that swell the Murray coffers and that the Chancellor indirectly benefits from

That is the crux of the problem when people start demanding that somebody should pay more tax even though they have done nothing wrong.

It's like a cop pulling you over for speeding and when you object and tell him your were under the speed limit he says "yes but morally you were speeding."

I have said for years we need to simplify our tax system close most of the tax loopholes which in turn would allow the basic rate to be lowered.

I quite like the idea of a flat rate system where everybody body the same rate based on their income (Singapore?) and their are no tax loopholes. If you earn £1m but your net income is £100,000 tough you pay tax on £1m. The tax rate would more likely be around 12 or 15%.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Apr 22 9.04am
Originally posted by HKOwen FFS, try and keep up. She paid tax here on her UK income and paid a fee for doing so. That is the prevailing rule. To state she pays no tax here is not correct. That your post has basic error is no surprise. Edited by HKOwen (17 Apr 2022 12.40am) What, in Hong Kong? She paid the ‘annual charge’ but not tax on her earnings. Do keep up.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Apr 22 9.04am

Originally posted by HKOwen

FFS, try and keep up. She paid tax here on her UK income and paid a fee for doing so. That is the prevailing rule. To state she pays no tax here is not correct.

That your post has basic error is no surprise.

Edited by HKOwen (17 Apr 2022 12.40am)

What, in Hong Kong?

She paid the ‘annual charge’ but not tax on her earnings. Do keep up.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Apr 22 9.15am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 So much wrong with this. She doesn't pay income tax as her income is made in another country. She has non dom status. Which is allowed. Admittedly, she pays no NIC. But I very seriously doubt that she will be using the NHS, or trying to draw a state pension. VAT is paid by all consumers in this country. It's really quite irrelevant where the money comes from, as long as the VAT is paid. Rishi's not claiming VAT rebates for his wife. More people spending money, more VAT in the HMRC coffers. But for some reason, you think only her husband pays it, even though they are a couple, and have kids, and shop in this country. There will be a time when she will have to pay all her taxes in this country if she stays here, which I believe is 2028, and she will be required to become a British citizen. So if she opts to give up her Indian domicle earlier and pay UK taxes, she would have to give up her right to vote, and sell her assets and property, in India. Which is something not many people would be willing to do. She will pay uk tax if she is resident in the UK for at least 15 of the 20 tax years immediately before the relevant tax year. I am not aware she will be required to’become’ a British citizen, she will just be taxed on an arising not a remittance basis.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Apr 22 9.15am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

So much wrong with this.

She doesn't pay income tax as her income is made in another country. She has non dom status. Which is allowed.

Admittedly, she pays no NIC. But I very seriously doubt that she will be using the NHS, or trying to draw a state pension.

VAT is paid by all consumers in this country. It's really quite irrelevant where the money comes from, as long as the VAT is paid. Rishi's not claiming VAT rebates for his wife. More people spending money, more VAT in the HMRC coffers. But for some reason, you think only her husband pays it, even though they are a couple, and have kids, and shop in this country.

There will be a time when she will have to pay all her taxes in this country if she stays here, which I believe is 2028, and she will be required to become a British citizen. So if she opts to give up her Indian domicle earlier and pay UK taxes, she would have to give up her right to vote, and sell her assets and property, in India. Which is something not many people would be willing to do.

She will pay uk tax if she is resident in the UK for at least 15 of the 20 tax years immediately before the relevant tax year. I am not aware she will be required to’become’ a British citizen, she will just be taxed on an arising not a remittance basis.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 17 Apr 22 9.47am
Nothing to do with how rich she is. That is just people with little left to defend it with. He is the chancellor. He has almost as much power as the PM. Certainly financially he does. He decides what tax everyone pays while doing this. But it isn’t only this. There’s the US green cards. Why? And what happens in 2028 when she’ll need to relinquish or sell her assets in India or return to India? Does he leave politics? Infosys hey? Profits for cabinet individuals when the opportunities arise but avoid the tax. Then there’s the conflict of interest and so far no mention of these tightening these loopholes and advantages he is using. Just getting very annoyed at everyone else. The cronyism and taking advantage of us and what opportunities present for themselves and blatantly using them for huge multimillion pond profits isn’t the kind of party I feel comfortable voting for with this current lot in it. Some of us have gone from thinking it’s someone’s right to make a lot of money to it’s the government’s right to take as much as they can while the opportunity is there. It’s nothing to do with how rich she is. That’s for the left wingers and The Daily Mirror. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 17 Apr 22 9.47am

Nothing to do with how rich she is. That is just people with little left to defend it with. He is the chancellor. He has almost as much power as the PM. Certainly financially he does. He decides what tax everyone pays while doing this. But it isn’t only this. There’s the US green cards. Why? And what happens in 2028 when she’ll need to relinquish or sell her assets in India or return to India? Does he leave politics? Infosys hey? Profits for cabinet individuals when the opportunities arise but avoid the tax. Then there’s the conflict of interest and so far no mention of these tightening these loopholes and advantages he is using. Just getting very annoyed at everyone else. The cronyism and taking advantage of us and what opportunities present for themselves and blatantly using them for huge multimillion pond profits isn’t the kind of party I feel comfortable voting for with this current lot in it.

Some of us have gone from thinking it’s someone’s right to make a lot of money to it’s the government’s right to take as much as they can while the opportunity is there. It’s nothing to do with how rich she is. That’s for the left wingers and The Daily Mirror.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Apr 22 10.15am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 So much wrong with this. She doesn't pay income tax as her income is made in another country. She has non dom status. Which is allowed. Admittedly, she pays no NIC. But I very seriously doubt that she will be using the NHS, or trying to draw a state pension. VAT is paid by all consumers in this country. It's really quite irrelevant where the money comes from, as long as the VAT is paid. Rishi's not claiming VAT rebates for his wife. More people spending money, more VAT in the HMRC coffers. But for some reason, you think only her husband pays it, even though they are a couple, and have kids, and shop in this country. There will be a time when she will have to pay all her taxes in this country if she stays here, which I believe is 2028, and she will be required to become a British citizen. So if she opts to give up her Indian domicle earlier and pay UK taxes, she would have to give up her right to vote, and sell her assets and property, in India. Which is something not many people would be willing to do. As a non-resident she has no right to NHS services unless she pays for them. That must be awkward. Edited by Mapletree (17 Apr 2022 12.17pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Apr 22 10.15am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

So much wrong with this.

She doesn't pay income tax as her income is made in another country. She has non dom status. Which is allowed.

Admittedly, she pays no NIC. But I very seriously doubt that she will be using the NHS, or trying to draw a state pension.

As a non-resident she has no right to NHS services unless she pays for them.

That must be awkward.

Edited by Mapletree (17 Apr 2022 12.17pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 17 Apr 22 10.36am
The NHS and all other services are not an opt in-opt out option. Everyone having access to services and everything being maintained has a benefit for all. If they weren’t there then crime and breakdowns in society would be worse. I live here but won’t pay because I’m not likely to use them doesn’t wash. And what if she causes a car crash and injuries to others? No education for all means crime and crime on her demographic (level of wealth) as well. Edited by Rudi Hedman (17 Apr 2022 10.38am) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 17 Apr 22 10.36am

The NHS and all other services are not an opt in-opt out option. Everyone having access to services and everything being maintained has a benefit for all. If they weren’t there then crime and breakdowns in society would be worse. I live here but won’t pay because I’m not likely to use them doesn’t wash. And what if she causes a car crash and injuries to others? No education for all means crime and crime on her demographic (level of wealth) as well.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (17 Apr 2022 10.38am)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 17 Apr 22 11.09am
Originally posted by Mapletree Clearly neither Clearly.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

17 Apr 22 11.09am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Clearly neither

Clearly.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 17 Apr 22 11.19am
We all hated how Blair used his status to make money. Nothing to do with being a Tory, which I and others have voted. That is partly how they get away with it. Well they shouldn’t and I think they’re going to find that out. Unfortunately we may end up with a Kier Labour government so we’ll see. But that threat is wearing thin and governments lose elections rather than opposition’s winning them. One term of Kier might sweep out all the sh1te in the Tory cabinet. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 17 Apr 22 11.19am

We all hated how Blair used his status to make money. Nothing to do with being a Tory, which I and others have voted. That is partly how they get away with it. Well they shouldn’t and I think they’re going to find that out. Unfortunately we may end up with a Kier Labour government so we’ll see. But that threat is wearing thin and governments lose elections rather than opposition’s winning them. One term of Kier might sweep out all the sh1te in the Tory cabinet.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 17 Apr 22 12.17pm
i see this discussion taking political sides again. divide and conquer , and all that. I have no political axe to grind. Assigning oneself to any political party ensures you keep the elites in power. It's a distraction from what is actually happening in Governance. The issue is that a UK resident, major shareholder in several large international companies, has swerved a large tax bill due to diligent accounting. Companies, some of which, got major furlough and monetary assistance from the UK Government. As a moral judgment, you think someone like that should be swerving taxes ? Especially when their income has so many zero's on the end of it that i could count. I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 17 Apr 22 12.17pm

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

i see this discussion taking political sides again. divide and conquer , and all that.

I have no political axe to grind. Assigning oneself to any political party ensures you keep the elites in power. It's a distraction from what is actually happening in Governance.

The issue is that a UK resident, major shareholder in several large international companies, has swerved a large tax bill due to diligent accounting. Companies, some of which, got major furlough and monetary assistance from the UK Government.

As a moral judgment, you think someone like that should be swerving taxes ? Especially when their income has so many zero's on the end of it that i could count.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 17 Apr 22 12.41pm
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly i see this discussion taking political sides again. divide and conquer , and all that. I have no political axe to grind. Assigning oneself to any political party ensures you keep the elites in power. It's a distraction from what is actually happening in Governance. The issue is that a UK resident, major shareholder in several large international companies, has swerved a large tax bill due to diligent accounting. Companies, some of which, got major furlough and monetary assistance from the UK Government. As a moral judgment, you think someone like that should be swerving taxes ? Especially when their income has so many zero's on the end of it that i could count. Well said. However, I think the issue rather more is that the Chancellor has swerved the tax, a tax for which he is responsible. He and his household are the beneficiaries and intend to be longer term through inheritance tax 'swerving' too.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 17 Apr 22 12.41pm

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

i see this discussion taking political sides again. divide and conquer , and all that.

I have no political axe to grind. Assigning oneself to any political party ensures you keep the elites in power. It's a distraction from what is actually happening in Governance.

As a moral judgment, you think someone like that should be swerving taxes ? Especially when their income has so many zero's on the end of it that i could count.

Well said. However, I think the issue rather more is that the Chancellor has swerved the tax, a tax for which he is responsible. He and his household are the beneficiaries and intend to be longer term through inheritance tax 'swerving' too.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 18 Apr 22 12.15am
Originally posted by Mapletree Are you saying an NRI can’t hold property or assets in India? Well, I'm not saying that, I'm paraphrasing what Nimesh Shah, chief executive of the accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, said in The Times. Who probably knows a tad more than us about tax affairs. Maybe it's Indian law? I don't have a link as I read it the hard copy. It was printed a week or two ago. I'm sure you would find it if you wanted to. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 18 Apr 22 12.15am

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Originally posted by Mapletree

Are you saying an NRI can’t hold property or assets in India?

Well, I'm not saying that, I'm paraphrasing what Nimesh Shah, chief executive of the accountancy firm Blick Rothenberg, said in The Times. Who probably knows a tad more than us about tax affairs. Maybe it's Indian law?

I don't have a link as I read it the hard copy. It was printed a week or two ago. I'm sure you would find it if you wanted to.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 18 Apr 22 12.23am
Originally posted by Mapletree She will pay uk tax if she is resident in the UK for at least 15 of the 20 tax years immediately before the relevant tax year. I am not aware she will be required to’become’ a British citizen, she will just be taxed on an arising not a remittance basis. OK, hands up, I meant 'be treated as', not 'become'. My bad. Whatever, she pays more than you do at the moment, and when she dies, will have paid far, far more into the UK coffers than you, unless she leaves the country. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 18 Apr 22 12.23am

Originally posted by Mapletree

OK, hands up, I meant 'be treated as', not 'become'. My bad.

Whatever, she pays more than you do at the moment, and when she dies, will have paid far, far more into the UK coffers than you, unless she leaves the country.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 17 of 23 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Akshata Murty tax affairs

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors