I see Rishi Sunak finally released his tax returns. I wonder why he chose to do so whilst everyone was busy watching the Johnson Partygate investigation? It’s almost as if he didn’t want anyone to know that “His income totalled more than £1.9million in the financial year 2021/22, which included £1.64m in capital gains from a single US-based investment fund held in a “blind trust” and almost £330,000 from interest on savings and dividends.” Some people believe that Sunak might be benefiting from having invested in Covid vaccine producer Moderna, but, unless things have changed, he refuses to say.
I'm no fan of the government, far from it, but surely if Rishi didn't want anyone to know, he just wouldn't have released his tax returns. People will try and create a fuss over them, but there's really not much to see here. It's the tax returns of someone wealthy who is reasonably smart about where things are held. And a blind trust is there to make sure there isn't a conflict of interest, so seeing as he entered into that in 2019, he wouldn't have been investing in Moderna (at least knowingly). Criticise where it's due, absolutely. But don't criticise just because he's a Tory, and for that reason only.
I knew I should have added this to the original post. As you can see from this link, I wasn’t just posting because he is a Tory. Feel free to apologise for your inaccurate assumption. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-if-he-will-profit-from-moderna-covid-vaccine
Apologise for what? You've made a post very obviously trying to have a pop at Sunak's tax returns, and why he chose to release them at this point (which he didn't need to do at all). My point being, criticise him for things that are due criticism. His tax returns are very much not one of those things (in my opinion). The Moderna thing is a real reach too. I mean, a huge, Mr. Fantastic/Inspector Gadget length reach.
On the other hand, why are poor English people consistently represented by people who have lived their whole lives cocooned in money?
There is definitely a question about whether it should be allowed for the PM (or any MP) to have their salary from their government role be “immaterial” to them. I know if I earned 10 times more than the salary my job paid my (especially from passive income) that I would not feel as invested in my job performance at the employment role. And that’s before you get onto so many of this lot having no integrity anyway. I appreciate legacy and ego come into it. As well as (for some) altruism. Because the flip side is that we wouldn’t want someone in the top roles motivated solely by the pay. But the argument is usually that the pay isn’t enough to attract the “top people”. I’m not sure I fully agree with that. It probably could stand to be higher for the prime minister As with everything it is nuanced
KEIR Starmer published details of his own tax affairs last night, showing an income of £211,620 in 2021/22. The Labour leader, left, earned a £126,154 salary alongside capital gains of £85,466 from the sale of a home he bought for his sister. He paid £67,033 in tax on his earnings. It is understood his £350,000-£400,000 sale last year of a field bought for his parents in the 1990s will appear in his next return. The following is by Professor Richard Murphy who co-founded the Tax Justice Network, the Fair Tax Mark and Finance for the Future. He founded and directs Tax Research UK explaining the importance of tax transparency. Rishi Sunak has not published his tax returns, which he promised to do. What he actually did was publish a summary of his tax returns – and that’s not good enough. It means there is a great deal we do not know that we should know. We do not know what shares and other investments he owns. So we do not know if there is any conflict of interest with his position as Prime Minister. This was a major reason for asking for his tax returns. We also do not know how much of his very large income was paid to him by “blind trustees” who manage investments whilst he is Prime Minister. We have to assume some was paid to him as his PM’s salary was nowhere near enough for his tax bill. We also don’t know the value of investments sold – and if anything replaced them. Absurd, as the reason for having this data is to spot conflicts of interest. All of which means Mr Sunak has failed in his promise. He proved he is very wealthy and is no fan of paying tax. But when it came to the nitty gritty, he left us in the dark. He should come back with the right answers. Right now, he’s failed the test set for him.
Except Starmer only published a summary of his tax returns too. Because it's not a story. There are so, so many politicians, and particularly Tory politicians, out there up to no good, that to zero in on Sunak just is a classic Cry Wolf scenario, which will weaken arguments raised about the real villains when you make them, because it's just a blind attack on anything Tory. I understand why you might want to do that, but really, pick your battles. This isn't one of them.
Unlike many on here, I have never hidden what side of the political spectrum I support. I am proud of the fact that I have never been suckered into believing that the Tory party has any regard or respect, or desire to improve the lives of the working class people of the UK. If I wish to post anti Tory rhetoric on here, within the rules of the forum, then I will do so. Freedom of speech. I am sure, given your connections, that you are aware of this principle and wouldn’t deliberately write a response to my posts that could be considered an attempt to stop me posting what I wish to post. If you don’t like or agree with what I post, that is fine. I don’t always like or agree with comments you post, and that is fine too. Have a good day.
It's not an attempt to stop you posting what you like, that's daft. It's an attempt at discussion. I disagree with you on this one, I agree with you on a lot of the other points you raise on this thread. I just think that this one is a slightly blind attack that serves no purpose. If you don't see it as such, that's fine too. It's my opinion, which you're free to disagree with. If somebody disagrees with what I'm saying, that's great because they may have points to their arguments that I haven't considered, so it's an opportunity to learn, and sometimes adjust behaviours. I actually think you're better than simple broadsides, which is what I see this as, and I think it weakens your more valid arguments. If you don't agree, crack on! But that very freedom of speech allows me to respond.
One thing worthy of note that may be highlighted by this is the inequalities of income compared with capital gains and dividend taxes.
Some people have been hiding their real political beliefs. **** me, they must have hidden their hiding pretty well then I dont often pop up on this thread, but every now and again I browse. Always the same people arguing. Reminds me of an Italian footballer
I'm assuming you are aiming that at the Tory's but pretty much all politicians are more than comfortably off, just that many Tory's are far richer than the rest. Admittedly not all have lived their whole lives in that way but Keir Starmer is estimated to be worth £7 million. Jeremy Corbin in the £3-4 million range and David Lammy earns over £200,000 a year on top of his parliamentary role, more than any other serving MP. Ed Davey's annual income is estimated at £2.7 million and Nick Clegg has shares in Meta worth around £19.3 million. So, my point is none of them have much in common with the poor. Their salaries alone would distance them from the vast majority of "ordinary" people. I'm not sure a Lib/Labour millionaire would have more of a connection than a Tory billionaire. I don't know how accurate the above figures are. I googled them from many different sources without finding an official record, so take them at face value.
I think you are wrong to declare the comments on Sunak’s tax returns as a Cry Wolf scenario. It clearly outlines the amount of money he is making from a blind trust and he has refused to reveal what is in said blind trust. No one knows what he has invested in and what is being held in his name so it is impossible to know if he is voting through/changing laws that will allow him to benefit financially. Or giving contracts to companies that he has invested in. We DO know that he helped to vote through the reduction in Capital Gains tax, in 2016, reducing his tax burden from 28% to 20%. As a result of this his overall tax burden for the year 21/22 was 22% of his overall income of more than £1.9 million. Employees on PAYE are paying 21% on earnings that are considerably lower than his. This is newsworthy and as Sunak has declared himself to be transparent, there shouldn’t be any issues with him declaring what is in the blind trust. Yes, you are right that there are many that are worse than him, but if you want to tackle them then you start at the top and send a message that no one is exempt from investigation.
Jeremy Corbyn is a millionaire for the rather absurd reason that he bought a terraced house in Islington over 30 years ago. It's not a particularly impressive looking house, and back in the day very few wealthy people wanted to live anywhere near Finsbury Park. Can we at least try for a little bit accuracy when we make these sweeping generalisations about all politicians being the same, etc.?
The trouble is, there's just no way of proving that he might be giving contracts to people to increase his own wealth (call me naive but I very much doubt he is). There's probably businesses that are part of the funds that have government contracts, but so what? All it would do is get the more paranoid and obsessive people to start screaming that there's some kind of nefarious activity going on (whilst ignoring that, I dunno, LOADS of other politicians from all sides probably have shareholdings in various companies with government contracts). The whole point of him having a blind trust is to try and stop there being any sense of him doing deals like that on the sly. I'll hold my hands up and say that I don't know if he has visibility on a blind trust as to what his holdings are in, but I do know he doesn't have a say in what they go into. The Moderna one is a case in point. Already people have clearly speculated on whether he has holdings in Moderna - but again, so what if he does. Good on him. When the vaccine contracts were awarded to Moderna, it had absolutely nothing to do with a shareholding that Rishi Sunak may or may not have (I mean, he wasn't even PM then anyway) - and everything to do with the fact they were one of three companies with a viable vaccine. In fact, they were the third of the companies given that contract, and their vaccine was the least used of the three. But madly enough, that still doesn't stop people from speculating, as per that ridiculous Guardian article. So I kind of get why the investments in the blind trust aren't revealed, because people are silly about these things. And that's working on the not very good assumption that he knows what's in a blind trust anyhow.
Here you go - so a blind trust investor will know what holdings they have already going into the trust, but don't have visibility of any what is happening from that moment on (so for all Sunak knows, a Modena holding might have been sold straight away). So yes, I do think this is very much a Cry Wolf scenario, and a bit of a waste of energy, frankly. Conversely, a blind trust is designed so that the trust beneficiaries and the trustor have no knowledge of the investment holdings within the trust. Neither party has any control or say in how the investments are managed, including whether to buy or sell specific securities. A blind trust can be a revocable trust, meaning the trustor can make any changes to the trust, trustee, and terminate the trust. A blind trust can also be an irrevocable trust, which means nothing can be changed once it has been established. Whether the trustor would set up a revocable or irrevocable trust depends on the particular situation and goal of the trust. An irrevocable trust, for example, can be designed so that assets are no longer the legal property of the trustor and thus, preventing creditors or the government, such as Medicaid, from claiming the assets. Special Considerations There are challenges and issues that can arise with a blind trust, since the trustor establishing the trust is at least aware of the investment mix at the onset, and cannot realistically forget that information when weighing future decisions. The trustors may also set the rules under which the investments are managed and, of course, pick trustees that they are confident will act in a certain way in potential situations. As a result, the efficacy of a blind trust, in truly eliminating conflict of interest, is far from proven. That said, politicians with a large amount of wealth or in high office use blind trusts to show that at least the effort is being taken to establish impartiality.
