FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why Sunak wanted to be PM?
Why Sunak wanted to be PM?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who is the quote from?" Does it have to be from anyone? It’s happened and it’s happening. Just need to join the dots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who is the quote from? Does it have to be from anyone? It’s happened and it’s happening. Just need to join the dots." Of course it matters. Anyone could write anything against the Tories and you'll believe it to be true so I understand why you don't think it matters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). " How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? " Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion?" You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately." You also posted it without telling us where you got it from. And then you ignored all the requests for you to let us know. Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. " Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? " I did not reference govt contracts. I pointed out there is a whiff (might be coincidence might not be, neither you or I have access to info to prove either way) around Infosys winning £1.5bn contract with Shell mere weeks (possibly days) before Sunak/Govt announced new licences for the North Sea. And that the Shell CEO is part of Sunak’s advisory panel. I think saying there is no connection would be naive as too many coincidences and timing too close together. What happens is some people will dismiss it as nothing to see here at best or at worst try to lump it into a conspiracy theory to undermine any level of credibility. It is a bit like how some people were acting in 2020 when the theory of an accidental lab leak was cause of Covid pandemic was put forward. It was quickly dismissed and rapidly grouped with the idea of a deliberate lab leak, then bio-weapon, then agenda 21, and so on. When instead an accidental lab leak was highly plausible considering the location of a lab specialising in studying Coronaviruses in Wuhan opposite the wet market and patient 0 believed to be one of the scientists working there. Yet it was dismissed as conspiracy. As I say, could all be a total coincidence that Shell will benefit from UK Govt policy under Sunak and his Father-in-Law and Wife’s firm are simultaneously benefitting from a huge new contract, but it has a whiff! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. You also posted it without telling us where you got it from. And then you ignored all the requests for you to let us know. Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more?" I didn’t ignore them, I was busy away from Fab. Saying that annoyingly I cannot find it now (I spent 10mins looking and gave up). However, it still raises an interesting point for discussion don’t you think? Regardless of who said it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. You also posted it without telling us where you got it from. And then you ignored all the requests for you to let us know. Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more? I didn’t ignore them, I was busy away from Fab. Saying that annoyingly I cannot find it now (I spent 10mins looking and gave up). However, it still raises an interesting point for discussion don’t you think? Regardless of who said it!" BTW hardly ranting is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go!" Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I pointed out there is a whiff (might be coincidence might not be, neither you or I have access to info to prove either way) around Infosys winning £1.5bn contract with Shell mere weeks (possibly days) before Sunak/Govt announced new licences for the North Sea." Really? You think that Shell would commit to such a massive contract *before* the politician gave them what they wanted? You think they would just take his word for it? "And that the Shell CEO is part of Sunak’s advisory panel." Gasp! An advisory panel on fossil fuels is taking information from someone who knows what they're talking about. What horror! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? I did not reference govt contracts. I pointed out there is a whiff (might be coincidence might not be, neither you or I have access to info to prove either way) around Infosys winning £1.5bn contract with Shell mere weeks (possibly days) before Sunak/Govt announced new licences for the North Sea. And that the Shell CEO is part of Sunak’s advisory panel. I think saying there is no connection would be naive as too many coincidences and timing too close together. What happens is some people will dismiss it as nothing to see here at best or at worst try to lump it into a conspiracy theory to undermine any level of credibility. It is a bit like how some people were acting in 2020 when the theory of an accidental lab leak was cause of Covid pandemic was put forward. It was quickly dismissed and rapidly grouped with the idea of a deliberate lab leak, then bio-weapon, then agenda 21, and so on. When instead an accidental lab leak was highly plausible considering the location of a lab specialising in studying Coronaviruses in Wuhan opposite the wet market and patient 0 believed to be one of the scientists working there. Yet it was dismissed as conspiracy. As I say, could all be a total coincidence that Shell will benefit from UK Govt policy under Sunak and his Father-in-Law and Wife’s firm are simultaneously benefitting from a huge new contract, but it has a whiff! " How many bid for the new licences and who decided who was awarded the licences? There is so much scrutiny over these deals you would think something untoward would be identified and reported. Why hasn’t there been a sniff of wrong doing in the award of contracts and licences associated to the PM or any other government rep? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately." "You also posted it without telling us where you got it from. And then you ignored all the requests for you to let us know. Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more?" "I didn’t ignore them, I was busy away from Fab." And yet you posted messages in this thread whilst you were 'away'. "Saying that annoyingly I cannot find it now (I spent 10mins looking and gave up)." Then I'm going to assume that you just made it up to give you another excuse to trot out your favourite conspiracy theory. "However, it still raises an interesting point for discussion don’t you think? Regardless of who said it!" Not really. We've heard it all before. You have no evidence whatsoever other than your personal 'feeling' that there's something wrong. You obviously have something against Sunak (I can't imagine what), and you're picking the facts that suit your feelings, whilst ignoring all the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you don't think he manipulates his position to make even more money then you haven't been following politics for the last thousand years. " I certainly haven't, I've not been around for a thousand years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dunno, the effort to become an MP and the chances of becoming PM and then be able to change IHT so seem like this is a poor bet to be making. Reducing IHT feels a very Tory thing to do. A tory policy is often based on the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority... to horribly misquote ! " Exactly, why bother when you can use your wealth to just lobby policies for you and stick to your day job and earn much more money, rather than become a MP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. You also posted it without telling us where you got it from. And then you ignored all the requests for you to let us know. Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more? I didn’t ignore them, I was busy away from Fab. And yet you posted messages in this thread whilst you were 'away'. Saying that annoyingly I cannot find it now (I spent 10mins looking and gave up). Then I'm going to assume that you just made it up to give you another excuse to trot out your favourite conspiracy theory. However, it still raises an interesting point for discussion don’t you think? Regardless of who said it! Not really. We've heard it all before. You have no evidence whatsoever other than your personal 'feeling' that there's something wrong. You obviously have something against Sunak (I can't imagine what), and you're picking the facts that suit your feelings, whilst ignoring all the rest." Made it up. Jeez really? You think I lack enough backbone to just say what I think? I saw something thought provoking so I copied it over. If I wanted to make the point myself I just would. No qualms there! I’m shocked I tell you, shocked you would even dream I wouldn’t just put my own point across  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back. I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy. The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists. Sorry chaps but that is a shocking level of naivity." The moral of the story is do not trust politicians.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you" Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back. I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy. The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists. Sorry chaps but that is a shocking level of naivity. The moral of the story is do not trust politicians. "Unless they're Tory, in which case defend them to the last, for they can do no wrong.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dunno, the effort to become an MP and the chances of becoming PM and then be able to change IHT so seem like this is a poor bet to be making. Reducing IHT feels a very Tory thing to do. A tory policy is often based on the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority... to horribly misquote ! " There’s a difference between a long shot long term plan and being opportunistic to take advantage of circumstances and one’s position/timing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back. I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy. The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists. Sorry chaps but that is a shocking level of naivity. The moral of the story is do not trust politicians.
Unless they're Tory, in which case defend them to the last, for they can do no wrong.
"The other political party sympathisers know not to trust politicians then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back." It is appreciated. These discussions always work better if we can all keep our cool. "I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy." She did benefit. But so did all the other shareholders in that company, and all the other companies that work in the same area. The change made (a £1200 grant for people taking childcare training) was a useful and sensible thing to do. His wife is a multi-millionaire. Do you really think that they would collude to change government policy just so that her company can earn an extra few thousand a year, of which she will only get a small percentage? "The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists." I don't doubt that deals get done in non-transparent ways regularly. It's clear that companies often divert cash to MPs to get what they want. But I just don't see it in the Sunaks' case. Infosys is a big company that has been getting government contracts for decades. They are well respected in the industry. I don't see any undue influence in these contract awards. I think you really need to look at what it is you've got against Sunak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw something thought provoking so I copied it over." I don't believe that for a second. The words you posted wouldn't have provoked any thoughts in you, since you already felt that way. You didn't start this thread to tell us an interesting thought that you'd recently had, you started it just to have the same tired discussion that you have been dropping into various threads for weeks now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. " You have mistrust and it sways your thinking into the worst possible outcome you can think of as your starting point. You do realise that’s your feelings and not based on anything solid? Ps, no need to be rude | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dunno, the effort to become an MP and the chances of becoming PM and then be able to change IHT so seem like this is a poor bet to be making." "Reducing IHT feels a very Tory thing to do. A tory policy is often based on the primary role of government is to protect property from the majority... to horribly misquote !" "There’s a difference between a long shot long term plan and being opportunistic to take advantage of circumstances and one’s position/timing." Were you aware of that difference when you created a thread called "Why Sunak wanted to be PM", and made an initial post that claims he became PM for the sole purpose of getting Infosys contacts and reducing IHT? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back. I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy. The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists. Sorry chaps but that is a shocking level of naivity." Sunak is not stupid and he has an ambition to win the next GE, jeopardising that is not on the table, is my opinion. I’m not sure why you think I’m being sarcastic, I’m explaining the situation how I see it. You look through one lens I look through another | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"NotMe & Discretion - Chaps I am trying to turn over a new leaf and not rise to the sarcasm. Especially you Mr Discretion. I am going to try and let it roll off me like water off a duck’s back. It is appreciated. These discussions always work better if we can all keep our cool. I think you are both of you are being surprisingly naive. Contracts are scrutinised. Yeah sure but over recent years we have seen how that worked out with PPE and other Covid contracts. We have seen that Murty just happened to have shares in a childcare company that benefitted from access to Govt via Sunak and subsequent changes in Govt policy. She did benefit. But so did all the other shareholders in that company, and all the other companies that work in the same area. The change made (a £1200 grant for people taking childcare training) was a useful and sensible thing to do. His wife is a multi-millionaire. Do you really think that they would collude to change government policy just so that her company can earn an extra few thousand a year, of which she will only get a small percentage? The idea that the whole “you scratch my back now and I’ll pay you back later” is nonsense is, well nonsense back at you. Backroom handshake deals happen all the time. In govt too. That is the whole reason the lobbying industry exists. I don't doubt that deals get done in non-transparent ways regularly. It's clear that companies often divert cash to MPs to get what they want. But I just don't see it in the Sunaks' case. Infosys is a big company that has been getting government contracts for decades. They are well respected in the industry. I don't see any undue influence in these contract awards. I think you really need to look at what it is you've got against Sunak." Again in relation to Infosys I did not say Govt contracts. Last I looked Shell wasn’t a UK nationalised business? Collude is too strong a word. See my comment on opportunism. Several companies Murty is involved with have benefitted from govt policy since Sunak was Chancellor and/or PM. Not so before. Might be coincidence. Might not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. You have mistrust and it sways your thinking into the worst possible outcome you can think of as your starting point. You do realise that’s your feelings and not based on anything solid? Ps, no need to be rude" Not being rude. And not sure why you're making this about my feelings. My feelings or opinions are unrelated to the PMs nepotism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I saw something thought provoking so I copied it over. I don't believe that for a second. The words you posted wouldn't have provoked any thoughts in you, since you already felt that way. You didn't start this thread to tell us an interesting thought that you'd recently had, you started it just to have the same tired discussion that you have been dropping into various threads for weeks now." Rather sad you think that Mr Discretion. Had hoped that the intellectual quality of most (not all) of my posts were evidence enough to show that if I say something I have the integrity to be honest about it? I saw that and I thought “hmmm good point”. I am not into lying or stealth posting. As you say, I already feel that way about Sunak (sometimes) so shy would I make up a bogus post? Bizarre anyone would. I stand by what I say. Also, what posts have I mads about Sunak in the last few weeks? Can’t remember the last time I mentioned him? I have even been positive about him that he was an improvement over Johnson and Truss. Anyway, if I have an axe to grind I have broad enough shoulders (and brass neck) to declare it myself, not make up a post I saw! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it weird the way tribalism can impede critical reasoning. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog, then there is a good chance it is a dog." But in this case, no one else thinks that it does look smell, or bark like a dog. You're just in the position that you already think it's a dog, and you go looking for anything that will fit your theory. "Notice how Mr Discretion attacked the messenger more than the message." No I hadn't noticed that. I've just re-read the thread and I seem to be consistently refuting the message. Feel free to point out anything I've missed. "The shouts of “prove it” work both way." I haven't asked you to "prove it". Unless you're doing that Daily Mail thing of putting 2 unrelated sentences together and claiming that it was accidental. "Oh and love the “you have something against Sunak, can’t think why” by which I take it Mr Discretion you are trying to imply racism? Why not just say it. Have the strength of your convictions. If you think I am racist then say so. But be prepared to provide evidence and quote it. Or was it some other implication? Because Sunak is a Tory? Well as a Centrist I’ll swing my vote where it suits me. I just want a decent credible scandal free govt. Or is it because Sunak is rich? You think there is envy? You need to follow the threads more closely if you think I am against being rich!" In my head I was thinking that it's because he's a Tory. But you've now denied that, along with envy. I wasn't considering racism before, but it's the only thing you haven't actually denied yet, so I suppose I'll have to consider it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it weird the way tribalism can impede critical reasoning. If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog, then there is a good chance it is a dog. But in this case, no one else thinks that it does look smell, or bark like a dog. You're just in the position that you already think it's a dog, and you go looking for anything that will fit your theory. Notice how Mr Discretion attacked the messenger more than the message. No I hadn't noticed that. I've just re-read the thread and I seem to be consistently refuting the message. Feel free to point out anything I've missed. The shouts of “prove it” work both way. I haven't asked you to "prove it". Unless you're doing that Daily Mail thing of putting 2 unrelated sentences together and claiming that it was accidental. Oh and love the “you have something against Sunak, can’t think why” by which I take it Mr Discretion you are trying to imply racism? Why not just say it. Have the strength of your convictions. If you think I am racist then say so. But be prepared to provide evidence and quote it. Or was it some other implication? Because Sunak is a Tory? Well as a Centrist I’ll swing my vote where it suits me. I just want a decent credible scandal free govt. Or is it because Sunak is rich? You think there is envy? You need to follow the threads more closely if you think I am against being rich! In my head I was thinking that it's because he's a Tory. But you've now denied that, along with envy. I wasn't considering racism before, but it's the only thing you haven't actually denied yet, so I suppose I'll have to consider it." Why would I have to deny racism? Show me a single racist comment I have made in all the years I have posted here. That is totally below the belt and shouldn’t even be implied. There are zero grounds to consider it and you know that. You are better than that. Don’t lower yourself. I have nothing against Sunak the person. Never met him or had direct dealings with him. My only concern is integrity in public office. I fear there are too many conflicts of interest, too many whiffs of things not being totally above board. I simply do not believe in convenient coincidences, especially when they keep happening. Re sarcasm, will go back and have a read. Maybe I was being sensitive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more?" "Then I'm going to assume that you just made it up to give you another excuse to trot out your favourite conspiracy theory." I think my posting history speaks for itself. You may not agree with my views sometimes, but I have never lied? Sarcasm: "Gasp! An advisory panel on fossil fuels is taking information from someone who knows what they're talking about. What horror!" "And yet you posted messages in this thread whilst you were 'away'." Yep I posted one post then went away again. Weird concept but it happens! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, what posts have I mads about Sunak in the last few weeks? Can’t remember the last time I mentioned him? I have even been positive about him that he was an improvement over Johnson and Truss." The search function on this forum is atrocious, but here's an example: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1509299#message_36698634 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go Mr Discretion (it was you not NotMe who I apologise to)... Attacked the messenger (or implied I was lying at least): "Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more?" "Then I'm going to assume that you just made it up to give you another excuse to trot out your favourite conspiracy theory."" That's not 'attacking the messenger'. That's just me saying that I don't believe you. If I'd said that you were an acknowledged liar, so we shouldn't believe you; that would be 'attacking the messenger'. For the record, I don't see you as a regular liar. "Sarcasm ..." Yes, I've not denied the sarcasm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you don't think he manipulates his position to make even more money then you haven't been following politics for the last thousand years. I certainly haven't, I've not been around for a thousand years." Then take it from me, I HAVE been around that long. Certainly feels like it anyway. Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, what posts have I mads about Sunak in the last few weeks? Can’t remember the last time I mentioned him? I have even been positive about him that he was an improvement over Johnson and Truss. The search function on this forum is atrocious, but here's an example: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1509299#message_36698634" Ok fair play, though a bit weak... "Now I am one of the first people to jump on the Sunak’s for apparent conflicts of interest (Childcare agencies for example) but in this instance, simply being Indian is of no relevance. As far as I am aware Akshata Murthy’s family have no involvement in TATA?" And actually supports my other point re not being racist! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here you go Mr Discretion (it was you not NotMe who I apologise to)... Attacked the messenger (or implied I was lying at least): "Is it really something that you saw somewhere, or have you just made it up to let you rant about your favourite topic some more?" "Then I'm going to assume that you just made it up to give you another excuse to trot out your favourite conspiracy theory." That's not 'attacking the messenger'. That's just me saying that I don't believe you. If I'd said that you were an acknowledged liar, so we shouldn't believe you; that would be 'attacking the messenger'. For the record, I don't see you as a regular liar. Sarcasm ... Yes, I've not denied the sarcasm. " I was about to say thank you but realised you used a qualifier... "For the record, I don't see you as a regular liar." “Regular liar” why not just say “don’t see you as a liar”. Not sure how to take that do will give you the benefit of doubt and ask you to revise that comment. Implying someone is lying or saying I don’t believe you is attacking the messenger (it’s a soft attack but an attack nonetheless). Plus if you don’t see me as a liar why would I suddenly be one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Regular liar” why not just say “don’t see you as a liar”. Not sure how to take that do will give you the benefit of doubt and ask you to revise that comment. Implying someone is lying or saying I don’t believe you is attacking the messenger (it’s a soft attack but an attack nonetheless). Plus if you don’t see me as a liar why would I suddenly be one?" Sorry if you're offended, but I don't see any other explanation. I find that it stretches credulity too far to believe that you saw those words somewhere, you created a thread here specifically to discuss them, and then you forgot where you saw them and can no longer find the origin. After all, if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
That's all I get from this thread.
I'll sleep better tonight knowing the quote is from somewhere but we have no idea where so can discount it immediately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Regular liar” why not just say “don’t see you as a liar”. Not sure how to take that do will give you the benefit of doubt and ask you to revise that comment. Implying someone is lying or saying I don’t believe you is attacking the messenger (it’s a soft attack but an attack nonetheless). Plus if you don’t see me as a liar why would I suddenly be one? Sorry if you're offended, but I don't see any other explanation. I find that it stretches credulity too far to believe that you saw those words somewhere, you created a thread here specifically to discuss them, and then you forgot where you saw them and can no longer find the origin. After all, if it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, barks like a dog ..." Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again." Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate." So where’s your apology to me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://twitter.com/JamesKAArcher/status/1706029414473937120?t=-RzDeuHvs0A5WimuvqGkXw&s=19" Thanks for finding that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
That's all I get from this thread.
I'll sleep better tonight knowing the quote is from somewhere but we have no idea where so can discount it immediately. "You really disappoint me. After all the discussions about trying to be better on here! Also, it is clearly an opinion rather than a fact with evidence. Do how can you discount an opinion. There was me thinking it might stimulate an interesting debate on Sunak’s motivations but no (apart from NotMe really). My more considered approach may have to revert. Pity! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again." "Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate." "So where’s your apology to me?" I had nothing to apologise for. You didn't produce a link to the tweet, so there was no proof one way or the other. But someone else has now posted a link for you. I now accept that you were not lying when you said that you'd seen those words. I still think that you were being disingenuous, because you knew it was on X the whole time, but didn't want to say so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate. So where’s your apology to me? I had nothing to apologise for. You didn't produce a link to the tweet, so there was no proof one way or the other. But someone else has now posted a link for you. I now accept that you were not lying when you said that you'd seen those words. I still think that you were being disingenuous, because you knew it was on X the whole time, but didn't want to say so." Hollow apology at best with an “ah but”. Pathetic really. I didn’t think to say it was on Twitter. Nothing disingenuous at all as without the actual name of the poster that became irrelevant. It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion! I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion!" I didn't see it as an opinion. That view on the Sunak's is one that you have expressed often, and I genuinely thought that you were saying that you had found some evidence. I was expecting it to be a news article, or an investigative report. "I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit." There's the obvious explanation - that he's made his money and now he just wants to do some good for the country. Perhaps he signed up to be an MP because he thought Brexit was a good idea, and he wanted to help make sure it happened. Maybe he only stepped up for the top job because he saw how popular Liz Truss was going to be, and thought that he'd better offer a more sane candidate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
That's all I get from this thread.
I'll sleep better tonight knowing the quote is from somewhere but we have no idea where so can discount it immediately.
You really disappoint me. After all the discussions about trying to be better on here!
Also, it is clearly an opinion rather than a fact with evidence. Do how can you discount an opinion.
There was me thinking it might stimulate an interesting debate on Sunak’s motivations but no (apart from NotMe really).
My more considered approach may have to revert. Pity!"Why have I disappointed you? Didn't you know that it wouldn't have stimulated an 'interesting debate'? Forget the fact that he's PM, why would anyone want to become an MP? I don't buy that 'do better for your community' bullshit. Did Sunak actually become an MP with the intention of becoming PM just to better his families riches? Seems a but far fetched being that he had less than 0.01% of ever becoming PM. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate. So where’s your apology to me? I had nothing to apologise for. You didn't produce a link to the tweet, so there was no proof one way or the other. But someone else has now posted a link for you. I now accept that you were not lying when you said that you'd seen those words. I still think that you were being disingenuous, because you knew it was on X the whole time, but didn't want to say so. Hollow apology at best with an “ah but”. Pathetic really. I didn’t think to say it was on Twitter. Nothing disingenuous at all as without the actual name of the poster that became irrelevant. It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion! I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit." doesn't that suggest the only motivation to be an MP is money ? I can't rule out he's opportunistic and doing it for gains. Maybe his wife becoming non Dom has created a IHT bill. However equally, we are told that the very rich have ways out of iht. I can see her becoming non Dom after he's done. And anyway an IHT change is likely to be in the rounding when it comes to their bill (if they have one) let alone fortune. For me, the more plausible reason for his new potential policy is IHT reduction appeals to many many voters. Including those on the left. And including those who won't pay it. It's a great GE policy as it wins votes, yet only helps c 4pc of the population who are largely deep blue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion! I didn't see it as an opinion. That view on the Sunak's is one that you have expressed often, and I genuinely thought that you were saying that you had found some evidence. I was expecting it to be a news article, or an investigative report. I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit. There's the obvious explanation - that he's made his money and now he just wants to do some good for the country. Perhaps he signed up to be an MP because he thought Brexit was a good idea, and he wanted to help make sure it happened. Maybe he only stepped up for the top job because he saw how popular Liz Truss was going to be, and thought that he'd better offer a more sane candidate." I don’t buy any of that. I believe it is about power and ability to create an environment that benefits himself and his family. This is a man who worked in a team who helped create the 2008 financial crisis and got rich out of it. A man who didn’t remotely consider any issue with still holding a USA Green Card while actually not just being a British citizen but also holding the no.2 and no.1 job in the UK. The man who didn’t see why his wife being a non-dom while he was responsible for setting UK tax policy was inappropriate. Who has changed/set Govt policy that has benefited his family and their business interests. Whose wife had businesses bailed out by the taxpayer that was never paid back due to letting them go bankrupt. Nothing strictly illegal of course but appropriate for the Chancellor/PM, I think not. Sorry but really not seeing the altruistic man who wants to help the UK. Anyway all that said I can’t get away from you calling me a liar. You accused me of toxic masculinity a few weeks back. I suggest you buy a big mirror and start to realise your hypocrisy. Hey I may even start asking again for your evidence to support your opinion on the Nazis that was never forthcoming! Or I could just say fuck it because sometimes the behaviours on here are pathetic.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. " I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. " Morley I 100% agree (see my post a bit above this one). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate. So where’s your apology to me? I had nothing to apologise for. You didn't produce a link to the tweet, so there was no proof one way or the other. But someone else has now posted a link for you. I now accept that you were not lying when you said that you'd seen those words. I still think that you were being disingenuous, because you knew it was on X the whole time, but didn't want to say so. Hollow apology at best with an “ah but”. Pathetic really. I didn’t think to say it was on Twitter. Nothing disingenuous at all as without the actual name of the poster that became irrelevant. It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion! I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit.doesn't that suggest the only motivation to be an MP is money ? I can't rule out he's opportunistic and doing it for gains. Maybe his wife becoming non Dom has created a IHT bill. However equally, we are told that the very rich have ways out of iht. I can see her becoming non Dom after he's done. And anyway an IHT change is likely to be in the rounding when it comes to their bill (if they have one) let alone fortune. For me, the more plausible reason for his new potential policy is IHT reduction appeals to many many voters. Including those on the left. And including those who won't pay it. It's a great GE policy as it wins votes, yet only helps c 4pc of the population who are largely deep blue. " Totally agree re General Election ploy, of course! It is also about power and influence. A rather nice side benefit being increased or retained wealth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok I am offended because you are calling me a liar. It was on X/Twitter but must have been within a chat rather than on my timeline/who I follow as couldn’t find it again. Why didn't you say that right at the start? If you'd owned up to it being just some random bloke on X, we could have avoided this whole debate. So where’s your apology to me? I had nothing to apologise for. You didn't produce a link to the tweet, so there was no proof one way or the other. But someone else has now posted a link for you. I now accept that you were not lying when you said that you'd seen those words. I still think that you were being disingenuous, because you knew it was on X the whole time, but didn't want to say so. Hollow apology at best with an “ah but”. Pathetic really. I didn’t think to say it was on Twitter. Nothing disingenuous at all as without the actual name of the poster that became irrelevant. It is clearly opinion and I thought it an interesting one but the Fab Forum hoy paloy demand evidence, for an opinion! I note that nobody has provided an alternative argument for why Sunak (almost a billionaire in his own right with billionaire wife and father-in-law) would want to be an MP or Minister or PM. THAT is the type of discussion I hoped for but no we just get the usual point scoring shit.doesn't that suggest the only motivation to be an MP is money ? I can't rule out he's opportunistic and doing it for gains. Maybe his wife becoming non Dom has created a IHT bill. However equally, we are told that the very rich have ways out of iht. I can see her becoming non Dom after he's done. And anyway an IHT change is likely to be in the rounding when it comes to their bill (if they have one) let alone fortune. For me, the more plausible reason for his new potential policy is IHT reduction appeals to many many voters. Including those on the left. And including those who won't pay it. It's a great GE policy as it wins votes, yet only helps c 4pc of the population who are largely deep blue. Totally agree re General Election ploy, of course! It is also about power and influence. A rather nice side benefit being increased or retained wealth." depending on the policy it may be buttons. It's probably buttons to those he wishes to have power and influence with too as they will have teams of accounts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. Morley I 100% agree (see my post a bit above this one)." Following on from the power and legacy drivers, which is why they run for the job…. Sunak is in a world of over achievers, becoming the leader of a country is pretty much a top trump card, and his reason for his determination to be PM and the reason he wouldn’t throw his reputation under a bus on a cheap deal for the father in-law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. You have mistrust and it sways your thinking into the worst possible outcome you can think of as your starting point. You do realise that’s your feelings and not based on anything solid? Ps, no need to be rude Not being rude. And not sure why you're making this about my feelings. My feelings or opinions are unrelated to the PMs nepotism. " I will give you credit for being consistent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. Morley I 100% agree (see my post a bit above this one). Following on from the power and legacy drivers, which is why they run for the job…. Sunak is in a world of over achievers, becoming the leader of a country is pretty much a top trump card, and his reason for his determination to be PM and the reason he wouldn’t throw his reputation under a bus on a cheap deal for the father in-law" Cheap deal! Wow NotMe can you come and work with me if you think that is cheap, I need some of the deals you must be cutting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.”" . Just a few minor anomalies . a. Contracts go out to competitive tender. Are you trying to blame Civil Servsnts for not reviewing these contacts thoroughly. ? b. You would have insufficient information to calculate any IHT liability for the Sunaks. They are both comparatively young so IHT is hardly going to bother them. At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . He is now claiming the hill and in a years time will leave Kier Starmer in the slipstream. Victory is about to commence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. Morley I 100% agree (see my post a bit above this one). Following on from the power and legacy drivers, which is why they run for the job…. Sunak is in a world of over achievers, becoming the leader of a country is pretty much a top trump card, and his reason for his determination to be PM and the reason he wouldn’t throw his reputation under a bus on a cheap deal for the father in-law Cheap deal! Wow NotMe can you come and work with me if you think that is cheap, I need some of the deals you must be cutting "
You know how many global contracts infosys win, a leg up from the son in law is not needed, in my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.”" Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. You have mistrust and it sways your thinking into the worst possible outcome you can think of as your starting point. You do realise that’s your feelings and not based on anything solid? Ps, no need to be rude Not being rude. And not sure why you're making this about my feelings. My feelings or opinions are unrelated to the PMs nepotism. I will give you credit for being consistent "Thanks. Now, my feelings aside, you didn't really offer anything in the way of evidence to suggest the blatant nepotism, is in actual fact cool. As an aside, is there a line in the sand that the Tories could cross that would be unacceptable for you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.”. Just a few minor anomalies . a. Contracts go out to competitive tender. Are you trying to blame Civil Servsnts for not reviewing these contacts thoroughly. ? b. You would have insufficient information to calculate any IHT liability for the Sunaks. They are both comparatively young so IHT is hardly going to bother them. At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . He is now claiming the hill and in a years time will leave Kier Starmer in the slipstream. Victory is about to commence " Pat is back. Combine Harvester is a good name bringing together Haymaker and Tractor names from yesteryear. Welcome back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you never thought that for someone from Indian subcontinent whose parents arrived here long back and worked hard, always abiding the law, gave what they could afford to help him go with best schools, as any other white patent would do, later Sunak with his own ability finding a job to run hedge fund, could be a matter of reputation which is well and above the point of squeezing the benefits that PM position offers? To be a non elected PM is much more tough because you have to gain a lot of respect, qualify and support from your peers who are at some level are equally good, isn’t it? He was pushed back initially by those true white Brits initially, he didn’t moan, went back to his life, but when Market slapped the economy, same true white Brits brought him back, why?? And liz truss charged £20k/hr for speech in Vietnam, Tony Blair runs one of the biggest lobbying firms of the world..well, ignorance is bliss, but don’t let it make you blind…And if you are not aware you will soon see another Indian American POTUS, Vivek. And let me tell you, Rich knows how to run the world that is why they are rich, now talking about the tax evasion, it’s not because of they are rich because historically the economic system is built for Rich, and helping people to become rich, have you not heard about business saving tons as expenses and showing losses when filing taxes, is it just a fault of Rishi Sunak as to why Tax authorities could not do anything…it’s a system, that needs cleaning and changing..and if they do it for Rich, then it would affect my next door neighbour business ruining a couple of off licenses too..so think again..before commenting or targeting an individual" Vivek won't get the nominee for POTUS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a myopic and narrow minded post by OP "Read the post again, then the thread. Comprehension skills are poor in here today! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that" Read the post again and then the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . " Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you never thought that for someone from Indian subcontinent whose parents arrived here long back and worked hard, always abiding the law, gave what they could afford to help him go with best schools, as any other white patent would do, later Sunak with his own ability finding a job to run hedge fund, could be a matter of reputation which is well and above the point of squeezing the benefits that PM position offers? To be a non elected PM is much more tough because you have to gain a lot of respect, qualify and support from your peers who are at some level are equally good, isn’t it? He was pushed back initially by those true white Brits initially, he didn’t moan, went back to his life, but when Market slapped the economy, same true white Brits brought him back, why?? And liz truss charged £20k/hr for speech in Vietnam, Tony Blair runs one of the biggest lobbying firms of the world..well, ignorance is bliss, but don’t let it make you blind…And if you are not aware you will soon see another Indian American POTUS, Vivek. And let me tell you, Rich knows how to run the world that is why they are rich, now talking about the tax evasion, it’s not because of they are rich because historically the economic system is built for Rich, and helping people to become rich, have you not heard about business saving tons as expenses and showing losses when filing taxes, is it just a fault of Rishi Sunak as to why Tax authorities could not do anything…it’s a system, that needs cleaning and changing..and if they do it for Rich, then it would affect my next door neighbour business ruining a couple of off licenses too..so think again..before commenting or targeting an individual Vivek won't get the nominee for POTUS. " Yeah, may be VPOTUS this time and in 28 the POTUS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This could read: Am I the only one who can't understand why a millionaire, married to the daughter of a billionaire would want to become PM for £107k a year. It must be something dodgy, it must be... Is it because he's setting up deals for infosys, is it because he can change the law around inheritance tax to save a fortune... Something doesn't sit right with me because if I had all that wealth and access to billions I would be sitting on my backside doing nothing. I think this says more about the person who wrote it than the reality. To question motivation and ambition by saying Sunak has made money and can live off his wife and family, is a bad start. To then suggest he plotted and schemed to get into power so infosys can gain a few more contracts is pathetic! The cherry on the cake, his master plan and strategy for changing inheritance tax, talk about the long game..... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I posted without comment you will notice. Deliberately. I have made my personal views on IHT plain on here (I am against it and at very least think the threshold should be higher). However, it is inarguable that the Sunak’s would massively benefit from abolishing IHT. IMO there is a whiff around some of the connections between Infosys and Govt policy (Infosys won a £1.5bn contract with Shell in the weeks before Sunak/Govt announced more North Sea licenses and with the Shell CEO on Sunak’s advisory group). How many UK gov contracts did Infosys win before the appearance of Sunak into politics? Is the number of contracts they won without nepotism going to impact the discussion? You have made an assumption of nepotism now, like a lot of people. Why not approach this in a pragmatic way and see if your view stays the same. Sure. I'm open to any evidence to suggest it's not nepotism. Go! Any deal that would have our PM involved would be highly scrutinised and there is no chance the civil servants would let that slip. Now over to you Come on. That's not evidence! That's blind faith in the system set up by the people who are benefiting from it. Over to me? Are you aware of who owns Infosys, who one of them is married to, and the contracts they get awarded? I assume you are but that you're being facetious. You have mistrust and it sways your thinking into the worst possible outcome you can think of as your starting point. You do realise that’s your feelings and not based on anything solid? Ps, no need to be rude Not being rude. And not sure why you're making this about my feelings. My feelings or opinions are unrelated to the PMs nepotism. I will give you credit for being consistent
Thanks.
Now, my feelings aside, you didn't really offer anything in the way of evidence to suggest the blatant nepotism, is in actual fact cool.
As an aside, is there a line in the sand that the Tories could cross that would be unacceptable for you?"Come on now.... You're the one who constantly claims 'blatant nepotism'. It's on you to provide the evidence of that, not for someone else to prove you wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. " And breathe. It'll never leave a dent in the Tory party. Their faithful voters don't give a fuck what they do and defend them regardless (as you demonstrated here). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. " I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread." I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. " The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK)." Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius??" It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you never thought that for someone from Indian subcontinent whose parents arrived here long back and worked hard, always abiding the law, gave what they could afford to help him go with best schools, as any other white patent would do, later Sunak with his own ability finding a job to run hedge fund, could be a matter of reputation which is well and above the point of squeezing the benefits that PM position offers? To be a non elected PM is much more tough because you have to gain a lot of respect, qualify and support from your peers who are at some level are equally good, isn’t it? He was pushed back initially by those true white Brits initially, he didn’t moan, went back to his life, but when Market slapped the economy, same true white Brits brought him back, why?? And liz truss charged £20k/hr for speech in Vietnam, Tony Blair runs one of the biggest lobbying firms of the world..well, ignorance is bliss, but don’t let it make you blind…And if you are not aware you will soon see another Indian American POTUS, Vivek. And let me tell you, Rich knows how to run the world that is why they are rich, now talking about the tax evasion, it’s not because of they are rich because historically the economic system is built for Rich, and helping people to become rich, have you not heard about business saving tons as expenses and showing losses when filing taxes, is it just a fault of Rishi Sunak as to why Tax authorities could not do anything…it’s a system, that needs cleaning and changing..and if they do it for Rich, then it would affect my next door neighbour business ruining a couple of off licenses too..so think again..before commenting or targeting an individual" ************************************* Well written, thank you. There are some helpless moaning fools here and in general life who begrudge anyone they characterise as "rich", irrespective of how they earned their brass..... I despise these sort, safely hiding behind their keyboards, posting whatever enters their one-track minds....... (Oh, and don't some of you come back with the old 'yeah.... but..... what are you doing then, eh?' rebuke......!) I and my good friends would face anyone in OPEN, ADULT, CONSTRUCTIVE AND FACTUAL debate, given the chance. Why do I get annoyed? It's only a little forum on a sex site but, I have my reasons, they're personal. I know certain facts about getting off your fat arses and doing something productive and getting reimbursed for it. Better than carping day in, day out on the 'net.........non-stop. I'm off. The good folks here, you know who you are, all have my best regards. The rest can carry on whining. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend "Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions." You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it.."I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc. The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. " Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. " Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant."Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?"The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work." If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. " IHT does not create any profit, therefore it can't be capitalist. The aim of capitalists is to turn a profit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain. "This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. IHT does not create any profit, therefore it can't be capitalist. The aim of capitalists is to turn a profit." Inheritance allows families to hoard money and keep it out of the system. A punitive rate of IHT forces that money to be spent back into the system - keeping the capitalist wheels rolling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. IHT does not create any profit, therefore it can't be capitalist. The aim of capitalists is to turn a profit. Inheritance allows families to hoard money and keep it out of the system. A punitive rate of IHT forces that money to be spent back into the system - keeping the capitalist wheels rolling. " Forces money into the public system - not capitalist. A capitalist requires PRIVATE actors to be in control of funds. You're either conflating the 2 purposely or just don't understand how a capitalist society works. I'm lretty sure I know which one it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. IHT does not create any profit, therefore it can't be capitalist. The aim of capitalists is to turn a profit. Inheritance allows families to hoard money and keep it out of the system. A punitive rate of IHT forces that money to be spent back into the system - keeping the capitalist wheels rolling. Forces money into the public system - not capitalist. A capitalist requires PRIVATE actors to be in control of funds. You're either conflating the 2 purposely or just don't understand how a capitalist society works. I'm lretty sure I know which one it is. " Who’s forcing money into the public system? A high rate of IHT forces money into the private system - because the ultra wealthy will be forced to use their capital rather than lose it to public coffers. But of course you’ll claim I’m wrong, or that I’ve moved the goalposts or some such nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain. "How do they reach to these public offices in democracy?? Who is their supporter? Isn’t it British public themselves responsible for it. Your leaders are the images and mindset of the voters..isn’t it? This is not spiritualism where being righteous is more important than abiding the law of the land.. when you talk about being righteous..then killing any animal for consumption should be banned unless you don’t have green available to eat..isn’t it? But your law allows you to eat whatever you like to..yes or no?? Politicians or politics is not about enforcing what is righteous but to follow the law and ensure others follow too…if your law has provisions for Rich to avoid paying fair taxes they would do it..does not matter if they sit in public or private offices..this is not how governments or governance work.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . Society would be fairer if inheritance tax were more punitive. And it should appeal to capitalists - forcing money into the system rather than hoarding it. Missed your left wing ideology insert, be more punitive..... This is the very reason labour became a lighter shade of blue, keep up the good work. If you don’t understand how a punitive IHT is a capitalist policy, I’m not sure what to say. IHT does not create any profit, therefore it can't be capitalist. The aim of capitalists is to turn a profit. Inheritance allows families to hoard money and keep it out of the system. A punitive rate of IHT forces that money to be spent back into the system - keeping the capitalist wheels rolling. Forces money into the public system - not capitalist. A capitalist requires PRIVATE actors to be in control of funds. You're either conflating the 2 purposely or just don't understand how a capitalist society works. I'm lretty sure I know which one it is. Who’s forcing money into the public system? A high rate of IHT forces money into the private system - because the ultra wealthy will be forced to use their capital rather than lose it to public coffers. But of course you’ll claim I’m wrong, or that I’ve moved the goalposts or some such nonsense. " Where does IHT go? The whole point in a capitalist society is that the private actors can choose what or who is deserving of their capital. By FORCING them to spend it, takes away that ability to choose. We could have them buy 'services' from offshore companies owned by their inheritors. That'll work. It doesn't matter which way you try to spin it, a more punitive IHT doesn't in any way play into a capitalist society, its a socialist argument to try take some sort of win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
How do they reach to these public offices in democracy??
"Join an established political party, work their way up, get parachuted into a constituency. " Who is their supporter? " Oil companies, other corporations that fund them and their parties. " Isn’t it British public themselves responsible for it. " Yes the British public being disengaged in the political processes plays a huge part. " Your leaders are the images and mindset of the voters..isn’t it? This is not spiritualism where being righteous is more important than abiding the law of the land.. when you talk about being righteous..then killing any animal for consumption should be banned unless you don’t have green available to eat..isn’t it? But your law allows you to eat whatever you like to..yes or no?? Politicians or politics is not about enforcing what is righteous but to follow the law and ensure others follow too…if your law has provisions for Rich to avoid paying fair taxes they would do it..does not matter if they sit in public or private offices..this is not how governments or governance work.." Not sure I understand your point from the last section, can you rephrase? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships. "statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this? Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no?? Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich and those who are working hard to reach to that category…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
How do they reach to these public offices in democracy?? Who is their supporter? Isn’t it British public themselves responsible for it. Your leaders are the images and mindset of the voters..isn’t it? This is not spiritualism where being righteous is more important than abiding the law of the land.. when you talk about being righteous..then killing any animal for consumption should be banned unless you don’t have green available to eat..isn’t it? But your law allows you to eat whatever you like to..yes or no?? Politicians or politics is not about enforcing what is righteous but to follow the law and ensure others follow too…if your law has provisions for Rich to avoid paying fair taxes they would do it..does not matter if they sit in public or private offices..this is not how governments or governance work.."Talking of green...this feels like a word salad
I disagree. Those in public office should be held to a higher standard. Don’t like it, don’t run for public office.
The UK has some of the most convoluted and complex tax laws in the World. There is a reason for that and it allows loopholes to be exploited by those with the means to do so. Simplify tax, close loopholes, everyone pays what is due (inc companies) and no more tinkering needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this? Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no?? Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich and those who are working hard to reach to that category…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…"Following your thought processes is a bit difficult. Any chance of using paragraphs? You seem to be saying the system is shit, either accept the system being geared to benefit the rich or complain to your MP to change the system? Is that right? And you seem to be saying don’t be angry with Sunak despite him being one of those MPs who could change the system because he is right to exploit the system for his own gain, because that is the system and just the way it is. Is that right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
"You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer? " Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no?? " What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no". " Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful " Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from? " …without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich " Yes " and those who are working hard to reach to that category " No " …if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…" You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this? Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no?? Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich and those who are working hard to reach to that category…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
Following your thought processes is a bit difficult. Any chance of using paragraphs?
You seem to be saying the system is shit, either accept the system being geared to benefit the rich or complain to your MP to change the system? Is that right?
And you seem to be saying don’t be angry with Sunak despite him being one of those MPs who could change the system because he is right to exploit the system for his own gain, because that is the system and just the way it is. Is that right?"Well…I guess you want anyone running for public offices to be righteous than being law abiding citizen..isn’t it? I said to talk to your MP because you would then hear direct from horses mouth whether system can really be overhauled or not? I am telling you It cannot be as it helps everyone to become rich and amass wealth, does not matter if they are into politics or running small corner shop in your neighbourhood…yes the scale of abuse might be different but it is there..and everything is done under the law so no has any problem…I agree that Politicians are responsible for making stricter laws but they won’t…why..because at the end of the day everyone is a beneficiary of this system…I know many people dream about an utopian idealistic society where everything is fair and balanced from financial equality point of view - but in reality it will never happen…so either accept it and enjoy what you currently have and grow it using the same system that these rich people use when they started climbing up on the ladder of wealth..or keep on ranting about that dream… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. "no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I would rather attack with fact, promotional better policies or with opposition to existing policies...... there must be something among those areas to knock the Tories down with? Attacks of the kind within the OPs post generally tend to backfire and elicit an antipathy towards the accusers and everything that they hope to achieve." While it was clearly someone’s opinion, the facts are still there. 1. If Sunak scraps IHT he will save c.£300m (although the reality is that his people will have strategies in place to avoid paying IHT anyway). 2. Infosys did win a £1.5bn contract from Shell a few weeks before Sunak announced the Govt would issue new North Sea licences. 3. Sunak does meet regularly with the CEO of Shell as the latter is one of his advisors. Maybe all of that is coincidental. Maybe it isn’t. Doesn’t mean it should’t be highlighted and discussed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome."So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time? I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner."You are aware that the PM can't just make laws aren't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner."Mate.. I now have a serious doubt about your intelligence..sorry I have to stop here…but to answer your question - yes, if collective intelligence of politicians allow that law to be made and King of this country to sign on it, if required - you got to take the hit everyday..and pay for it too…doesn’t matter how miserable your life would become. your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate..moreover you don’t know anything about how contracts are awarded - never asked questions why Shell got the contract of North Sea oil drilling instead of BP, but raised question about Infosys..mate learn about this term “RFP” and how companies respond…and secondly spend some time with a financial advisor to help you understand how the law and finance work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner.
Mate.. I now have a serious doubt about your intelligence..sorry I have to stop here…but to answer your question - yes, if collective intelligence of politicians allow that law to be made and King of this country to sign on it, if required - you got to take the hit everyday..and pay for it too…doesn’t matter how miserable your life would become.
your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate..moreover you don’t know anything about how contracts are awarded - never asked questions why Shell got the contract of North Sea oil drilling instead of BP, but raised question about Infosys..mate learn about this term “RFP” and how companies respond…and secondly spend some time with a financial advisor to help you understand how the law and finance work"If you can't make your point without personal insults, then it's probably not a very strong point. Still, if you're comfortable being fucked over because the people who make the laws want to continue to serve themselves at our expense. Then fair play to you. No need to get angry at those of us who speak out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner.
Mate.. I now have a serious doubt about your intelligence..sorry I have to stop here…but to answer your question - yes, if collective intelligence of politicians allow that law to be made and King of this country to sign on it, if required - you got to take the hit everyday..and pay for it too…doesn’t matter how miserable your life would become.
your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate..moreover you don’t know anything about how contracts are awarded - never asked questions why Shell got the contract of North Sea oil drilling instead of BP, but raised question about Infosys..mate learn about this term “RFP” and how companies respond…and secondly spend some time with a financial advisor to help you understand how the law and finance work"You really do not need to get personal to this poster or any poster. Poor behaviour. People have different opinions. Respect that and get over it!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner.
Mate.. I now have a serious doubt about your intelligence..sorry I have to stop here…but to answer your question - yes, if collective intelligence of politicians allow that law to be made and King of this country to sign on it, if required - you got to take the hit everyday..and pay for it too…doesn’t matter how miserable your life would become.
your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate..moreover you don’t know anything about how contracts are awarded - never asked questions why Shell got the contract of North Sea oil drilling instead of BP, but raised question about Infosys..mate learn about this term “RFP” and how companies respond…and secondly spend some time with a financial advisor to help you understand how the law and finance work
If you can't make your point without personal insults, then it's probably not a very strong point.
Still, if you're comfortable being fucked over because the people who make the laws want to continue to serve themselves at our expense. Then fair play to you. No need to get angry at those of us who speak out."I have explained my point of view very well - have not insulted anyone. If you give super rubbish example to make your point…then what should I think about you?? Now to your point - You have been fucked over and over again by Rich folks since ages…nothing changed for them…they got more Richer and in the same period many who had the ability to turnaround their lives reached in that club as well…why because level 0 and level 100 guy used the same system..that’s called equal opportunity by the law…if you are not happy about it..,talk about it but you are taking a shot at an individual who happen to be Rich and successful not because he was born with blue blood but rather was privileged to have hard working parents around him who offered him the best of the best, given him right direction early in his life - and then with his own ability he reached to the level where he is at..,do you think he was given everything on plate since day one…you targeting an individual is making this whole conversation bloody stinking… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wow - you guys really know what portion of Infosys business come from UK?? Just do Google folks, don’t assume too much…before I talk further - Infosys is also providing employment to local Brits…now Infosys is not just owned by his FIL, it has many stakeholders who started this company..plus Infosys main market is US and Europe, they make significantly money there..and why on earth someone at UK PMs position would help do favours to FILs firm for business market here in UK, knowing that it would be scrutinised and can leave a dent on Tory party. I would request you all to read about Sudha Murthy - just do Google she is MIL of PM and you will learn a lot about this family. I know plenty about Infosys thanks. And as per OP and earlier posts in this thread, nobody mentioned UK Govt contracts. Most of their shareholdings in Infosys are held offshore in Mauritius, a tax haven, meaning the family pays no tax on them in India (or the UK). Evidences of shareholdings are in Mauritius?? It was widely reported at the time of the Non Don reveal of Murthy. Google is your friend
Oh man man…is it a crime to have non Dom status? Is it unlawful? Where in the books of law it is written that you cannot keep your non Dom status if you are an immigrant to this country…mate you are having some hidden agenda through this post..because with someone of your capability can easily see that it a system that allows it. If you are so concerned then ask all the previous governments on why such system wasn’t closed..why all these systems are kept open for Rich people to take advantage of which they do it lawfully..isn’t it?? otherwise from Richard Branson to All rich footballers they would end up getting imprisoned..isn’t it? Failing to differentiate and identify the root cause for such a simple thing raises many questions about your intellect man…anyways keep on paddling your agenda..Rich are Rich and Wealthy because system allows them to - and the same system gives an opportunity to each and every individual to elevate their lifestyle using the same system…from your regular handyman to investment bankers to iconic artists to sports icons - everyone use it..
I do not agree with non dom status. It is legalised tax avoidance. In this case being allowed to pay £30k a year to avoid paying millions in tax in the country that is very obviously and clearly her home for 13 years and compounded by her husband being public servant number 1. I don’t agree with people like Philip Green transferring all his shares to his wife who lives in Monaco to avoid tax when it is totally obvious it was him running Arcadia Group etc.
The only “agenda” I have is an expectation of propriety in public office and businesses and individuals paying all their taxes. The little guys can’t avoid tax so why should the big guys? The tax system needs a huge shake up. It needs to be simplified and avoidance loopholes closed. In Sunak’s case, when you were/are responsible for setting UK tax policy but are personally benefitting from loopholes, it isn’t right. Nobody forced him to enter politics but as he did then he should be held to a higher standard than “normal” people because, supposedly he works for us, he is a public servant.
Doesn’t matter if you like it or not…Bro you have to understand that there is a clear difference between being righteous and being lawful - yes as an individual one should side with what is right, but this world does not work like that, so long you are lawful, you can do whatever you want..isn’t it? raise concern about changing the laws that allow such things, not about Rishi Sunak, because when you mix Rich and Rishi Sunak - you fail to curse the system, and finger pointing an individual. Today Sunak is the PM tomorrow someone else would replace him - but the system will stay as is, so raise your voice to overhaul the system and block all the loopholes. Let me tell you one more thing - there is no perfect system anywhere in this world…otherwise how would Accountants, and Lawyers make money. Their industry is thriving based on the loopholes..isn’t it?
The problem is, those people who are benefiting financially from being in power, are the same who participate in making the laws that allow them to use their position for personal financial gain.
This
And @_exanthem I am sorry but if someone wants to be in public office then it means they are rightly under far more scrutiny than private individuals, if for nothing else that they are in receipt of public/taxpayers money and have the power to set policy that impacts on all of us. I don’t accept the “it’s the way of the world” argument because if we do then we may as well just accept anarchy or dictatorships.
statements again - yes everyone knows about..what is new in this?
You asked me the question. Why would you ask if you don't want an answer?
Have you raised your concern to your sitting MP about making more stricter law..yes or no??
What stricter law? I don't know what law you're asking about. So I'll say "no".
Many will go and vote based on populist agenda - those who feel left far behind and no hopes to do well in life - will vote for those who are against the rich and successful
Never heard of anyone being "against the rich and successful", where did you get this from?
…without applying an Iota of intelligence that it none of these elected leader will change the system…these systems are created to be exploited for people who rich
Yes
and those who are working hard to reach to that category
No
…if you have your businessman or woman friend and ask them what is their turnover and how much do the pay in fair taxes?? If you have never opened any business, then just talk to an accountant and finance lawyers - they will teach you how squeeze the system by staying within the boundaries of the law…so target law and system not an individual..and ask these questions to media personals..lets see what they say…half of them are crooked themselves making millions by siphoning money to tax heavens…your poster Boys, icons all are in the same boat…
You're missing the point, it's one thing a business owner doing what they can within the law to avoid paying taxes. It's different when those making the laws are doing so with their own bank balances in mind. no sir - anything done under the law and following the law is right..you don’t have any written constitution in this country otherwise I would have said law and constitution… rest everything is a matter of discussion over pint without any meaningful outcome.
So you'd be comfortable defending Sunak if me made a law that it was compulsory for the PM to punch you in the nuts every day, and you pay him £10 each time?
I mean, it would be the law, so Sunak would drop round every morning for his low blow and tenner.
Mate.. I now have a serious doubt about your intelligence..sorry I have to stop here…but to answer your question - yes, if collective intelligence of politicians allow that law to be made and King of this country to sign on it, if required - you got to take the hit everyday..and pay for it too…doesn’t matter how miserable your life would become.
your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate..moreover you don’t know anything about how contracts are awarded - never asked questions why Shell got the contract of North Sea oil drilling instead of BP, but raised question about Infosys..mate learn about this term “RFP” and how companies respond…and secondly spend some time with a financial advisor to help you understand how the law and finance work
If you can't make your point without personal insults, then it's probably not a very strong point.
Still, if you're comfortable being fucked over because the people who make the laws want to continue to serve themselves at our expense. Then fair play to you. No need to get angry at those of us who speak out.
I have explained my point of view very well - have not insulted anyone. If you give super rubbish example to make your point…then what should I think about you??
Now to your point - You have been fucked over and over again by Rich folks since ages…nothing changed for them…they got more Richer and in the same period many who had the ability to turnaround their lives reached in that club as well…why because level 0 and level 100 guy used the same system..that’s called equal opportunity by the law…if you are not happy about it..,talk about it but you are taking a shot at an individual who happen to be Rich and successful not because he was born with blue blood but rather was privileged to have hard working parents around him who offered him the best of the best, given him right direction early in his life - and then with his own ability he reached to the level where he is at..,do you think he was given everything on plate since day one…you targeting an individual is making this whole conversation bloody stinking…"You're the one making it about an individual. And you have been insulting. Like I said, I'm comfortable with you being okay with those making the laws, making them to benefit themselves. Not sure why you're so upset with people who point out why that's not a good way to run society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People talking about their point of views, helps you map what British people think and feel about the following topics Race(absolute love for BBCs, black men only, no Indian (Asian) or black women topics ), un conscious biases, Tories vs Labour vs other parties, Brexit, hate for Rich and successful, Migrants love and hate, inflation, viruses, green agenda, non doms to name a few." Which to me says he has an axe to grind and is trying to make criticism of Sunak to be about race | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also in the “why do you like this forum” thread this chap posted... People talking about their point of views, helps you map what British people think and feel about the following topics Race(absolute love for BBCs, black men only, no Indian (Asian) or black women topics ), un conscious biases, Tories vs Labour vs other parties, Brexit, hate for Rich and successful, Migrants love and hate, inflation, viruses, green agenda, non doms to name a few. Which to me says he has an axe to grind and is trying to make criticism of Sunak to be about race "Fair point above, maybe he doesn't know enough people yet
I don't agree that his comment = sunak = race though. I certainly dont take it like that from those words above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you." Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also in the “why do you like this forum” thread this chap posted... People talking about their point of views, helps you map what British people think and feel about the following topics Race(absolute love for BBCs, black men only, no Indian (Asian) or black women topics ), un conscious biases, Tories vs Labour vs other parties, Brexit, hate for Rich and successful, Migrants love and hate, inflation, viruses, green agenda, non doms to name a few. Which to me says he has an axe to grind and is trying to make criticism of Sunak to be about race "That’s low OMG - you picking up my other posts and putting it here, wow..you seem too desperate to prove your illogical stuff- yes I have an axe to grind your illogical arguments which you try to prove through your myopic vision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also in the “why do you like this forum” thread this chap posted... People talking about their point of views, helps you map what British people think and feel about the following topics Race(absolute love for BBCs, black men only, no Indian (Asian) or black women topics ), un conscious biases, Tories vs Labour vs other parties, Brexit, hate for Rich and successful, Migrants love and hate, inflation, viruses, green agenda, non doms to name a few. Which to me says he has an axe to grind and is trying to make criticism of Sunak to be about race
That’s low OMG - you picking up my other posts and putting it here, wow..you seem too desperate to prove your illogical stuff- yes I have an axe to grind your illogical arguments which you try to prove through your myopic vision."Maybe now would be a good time to clarify what you meant by. "your post, and the discussions afterwards shows you have something specifically against Sunak…it stinks mate.." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.”. Just a few minor anomalies . a. Contracts go out to competitive tender. Are you trying to blame Civil Servsnts for not reviewing these contacts thoroughly. ? b. You would have insufficient information to calculate any IHT liability for the Sunaks. They are both comparatively young so IHT is hardly going to bother them. At least the Chancellor is attempting to make society fairer by removing a totally unjustifiable tax. Hopefully a vote winner . He is now claiming the hill and in a years time will leave Kier Starmer in the slipstream. Victory is about to commence " OMG!!! The Pat is back….let battle commence…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.”" Why do people work for free in charity shops, why do people do stupid things for children in need, why do people run marathons for charity, why does a billionaire take a relatively low paid job. Maybe just maybe it's because they think they can make a difference. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of sunak and I'm not saying this is why he's fought to become pm but i am saying that not everyone is out for themselves. Just a different perspective | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do people work for free in charity shops, why do people do stupid things for children in need, why do people run marathons for charity, why does a billionaire take a relatively low paid job. Maybe just maybe it's because they think they can make a difference." I'm going to disagree with you on the 'running a marathon' bit. In my experience, anyone who does something 'for charity' is actually doing something they've always wanted to do, and they're just using the charity as their excuse to do it. But you make a good argument with your other points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved" It wasn’t an attack it was an observation. I actually paid you a compliment. However, I totally believe you play the rhetorical card a lot and you know more than you let on. You’ve been posting on here for ages, yet not once (that I have seen) have you ever claimed good knowledge on any subject. You always act like you don’t know but then ask questions that are consistently insightful. That suggests to me a tactic being played. I have given my “evidence” to support my opinion, ie too many coincidences and undeniable truths. Why do YOU think Sunak became an MP and wanted the top job? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also in the “why do you like this forum” thread this chap posted... People talking about their point of views, helps you map what British people think and feel about the following topics Race(absolute love for BBCs, black men only, no Indian (Asian) or black women topics ), un conscious biases, Tories vs Labour vs other parties, Brexit, hate for Rich and successful, Migrants love and hate, inflation, viruses, green agenda, non doms to name a few. Which to me says he has an axe to grind and is trying to make criticism of Sunak to be about race
That’s low OMG - you picking up my other posts and putting it here, wow..you seem too desperate to prove your illogical stuff- yes I have an axe to grind your illogical arguments which you try to prove through your myopic vision."Ok so if that is not what you are saying, then what is it you are trying to claim? You keep saying we should not attack Sunak. Why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Why do people work for free in charity shops, why do people do stupid things for children in need, why do people run marathons for charity, why does a billionaire take a relatively low paid job. Maybe just maybe it's because they think they can make a difference. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of sunak and I'm not saying this is why he's fought to become pm but i am saying that not everyone is out for themselves. Just a different perspective " That’s all lovely. Now what evidence supports that POV in relation to Sunak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Why do people work for free in charity shops, why do people do stupid things for children in need, why do people run marathons for charity, why does a billionaire take a relatively low paid job. Maybe just maybe it's because they think they can make a difference. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of sunak and I'm not saying this is why he's fought to become pm but i am saying that not everyone is out for themselves. Just a different perspective That’s all lovely. Now what evidence supports that POV in relation to Sunak?" No evidence at all it's just a different perspective as to why he may have become an MP and eventually the PM. But that said in his biography on the Conservative website he says (I grew up watching my parents serve our local community with dedication. My dad was an NHS family GP and my mum ran her own local chemist shop. I wanted to make that same positive difference to people as their Member of Parliament) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved It wasn’t an attack it was an observation. I actually paid you a compliment. However, I totally believe you play the rhetorical card a lot and you know more than you let on. You’ve been posting on here for ages, yet not once (that I have seen) have you ever claimed good knowledge on any subject. You always act like you don’t know but then ask questions that are consistently insightful. That suggests to me a tactic being played. I have given my “evidence” to support my opinion, ie too many coincidences and undeniable truths. Why do YOU think Sunak became an MP and wanted the top job?" So it's ok to accuse others of something not related to the topic and later just say it is an observation? You directly talked about me, not the subject, something that has been called out on here before, possibly by yourself on occasions. Again I ask questions if I don't know. I never thought that would be a bad thing and get me accused of anything. Your incorrect to say i have always said I don't understand a subject. I have posted statements of fact before but refuse to make things up or try to join the dots on matters I don't have great knowledge of. On the 'What do you like about the forum' thread I said I find it genuinely educational. I ask again please don't accuse me of things as it looks a bit like your calling me dishonest. You clearly spoke about the poster not the post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Why do people work for free in charity shops, why do people do stupid things for children in need, why do people run marathons for charity, why does a billionaire take a relatively low paid job. Maybe just maybe it's because they think they can make a difference. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of sunak and I'm not saying this is why he's fought to become pm but i am saying that not everyone is out for themselves. Just a different perspective That’s all lovely. Now what evidence supports that POV in relation to Sunak? No evidence at all it's just a different perspective as to why he may have become an MP and eventually the PM. But that said in his biography on the Conservative website he says (I grew up watching my parents serve our local community with dedication. My dad was an NHS family GP and my mum ran her own local chemist shop. I wanted to make that same positive difference to people as their Member of Parliament) " Understood, of course there will be other perspectives. The point is it is no more or less plausible then the other theories. As for his website bio...it’s all about PR. He’s not exactly going to say “I wanted to be an MP so I could further my agenda and in the process benefit from it!” I love the way he tries to portray his parents as normal everyday working people. If they could afford to send him to Winchester College then they had some pretty serious money. Yes hard work and all that, but check out the fees and work out how much they would have to earn before tax to pay that. BTW I have no issue at all with him going to Winchester or any private school but it is laughable how he tries to portray himself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved It wasn’t an attack it was an observation. I actually paid you a compliment. However, I totally believe you play the rhetorical card a lot and you know more than you let on. You’ve been posting on here for ages, yet not once (that I have seen) have you ever claimed good knowledge on any subject. You always act like you don’t know but then ask questions that are consistently insightful. That suggests to me a tactic being played. I have given my “evidence” to support my opinion, ie too many coincidences and undeniable truths. Why do YOU think Sunak became an MP and wanted the top job? So it's ok to accuse others of something not related to the topic and later just say it is an observation? You directly talked about me, not the subject, something that has been called out on here before, possibly by yourself on occasions. Again I ask questions if I don't know. I never thought that would be a bad thing and get me accused of anything. Your incorrect to say i have always said I don't understand a subject. I have posted statements of fact before but refuse to make things up or try to join the dots on matters I don't have great knowledge of. On the 'What do you like about the forum' thread I said I find it genuinely educational. I ask again please don't accuse me of things as it looks a bit like your calling me dishonest. You clearly spoke about the poster not the post" Not calling you dishonest at all. I just think you know more than you let on. I see that as a compliment! So are you going to answer the question on Sunak? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the answer he didn't, until the tories ran out of candidates for the leadership. " Possibly though he was pretty active at bringing down Johnson so he certainly had his eye on the prize. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the answer he didn't, until the tories ran out of candidates for the leadership. Possibly though he was pretty active at bringing down Johnson so he certainly had his eye on the prize." Do you think Starmer will be accused of underhand dealings when he becomes PM? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the answer he didn't, until the tories ran out of candidates for the leadership. Possibly though he was pretty active at bringing down Johnson so he certainly had his eye on the prize. Do you think Starmer will be accused of underhand dealings when he becomes PM?" Probably. It would be nice to have a period of “clean(er)” politics regardless of blue or red. Sadly we probably won’t see it. There is bound to be back room / handshake deals that Starmer has to honour. There’ll still be a whiff. Still a lack of hard evidence but lots of “coincidences”. The other thing that WILL be refreshing is that people on here who a tribalist will be able to attack the Government and it will prove that others will continue to attack the Govt because the tie colour doesn’t matter! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved It wasn’t an attack it was an observation. I actually paid you a compliment. However, I totally believe you play the rhetorical card a lot and you know more than you let on. You’ve been posting on here for ages, yet not once (that I have seen) have you ever claimed good knowledge on any subject. You always act like you don’t know but then ask questions that are consistently insightful. That suggests to me a tactic being played. I have given my “evidence” to support my opinion, ie too many coincidences and undeniable truths. Why do YOU think Sunak became an MP and wanted the top job? So it's ok to accuse others of something not related to the topic and later just say it is an observation? You directly talked about me, not the subject, something that has been called out on here before, possibly by yourself on occasions. Again I ask questions if I don't know. I never thought that would be a bad thing and get me accused of anything. Your incorrect to say i have always said I don't understand a subject. I have posted statements of fact before but refuse to make things up or try to join the dots on matters I don't have great knowledge of. On the 'What do you like about the forum' thread I said I find it genuinely educational. I ask again please don't accuse me of things as it looks a bit like your calling me dishonest. You clearly spoke about the poster not the post Not calling you dishonest at all. I just think you know more than you let on. I see that as a compliment! So are you going to answer the question on Sunak?" You claimed I know more than I let on because I ask questions. First if all this had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You claimed I play dumb. Again absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I explained that I am not playing dumb and ask questions when I don't know or understand. Your response was to try and dismiss this as observation and totally ignored the fact that you was talking directly about me. Something that has been called out on here several times. Worse was you repeated that you think I'm playing dumb after I explained to you that I wasn't. That looks very much like you are saying my explanation is dishonest. Again speaking about me directly. I certainly don't see it as a compliment after I had explained it to you. As for Sunak reason for wanting to be PM I would assume he wants to succeed in his chosen career. Many politicians want to get to the top I would have thought. For someone of Sunaks wealth I find politics an odd choice of career but it does seem that many politicians are very wealthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Saw this... “For all the people wondering why someone worth £700 million and married to the daughter of one of the richest men in the world took a job for under £170k, it turns out the answer is a couple of billion in contracts for the in-laws and saving £300,000,000+ in Inheritance Tax.” Personally I don't care if the PM is very rich or a pauper. What matters is the job he or she does. I'm not knowledgeable about this company that his wife is a shareholder of but according to other posters they have been winning government contracts for a while now and before Sunak became PM. To accuse him of wanting to be PM just to hand out contracts to the company his wife has shares should really be backed with some proof. I'm not dismissing your claim entirely and agree things should be above board. However I would expect to see a decent increase in contracts for this company that coincide with Sunak becoming PM and afterwards when he is no longer PM a reverse of that. Such evidence I think would mean you are on to something though a slap in the face to those that scrutinised such contracts. Not sure taking on the job of PM would be my choice if I was that rich and wanted to get more contracts. I suppose in a way many decisions that benefit the population also benefit him. If he were to reduce income tax it would also benefit him. Should he not do it because if that Read the post again and then the thread. I did but clearly missed something. I'm guessing by your recent post its because I mentioned government contracts but not sure. The OP was A) not mine but a copy paste of something I saw that I thought was interesting and B) makes no mention of Govt contracts. So your post either misses the point or makes incorrect assumptions. You copied stuff from the internet and posted it here but don't agree with it or do agree with it? How is this company benefiting that Sunak is PM but without it involving the government. I'm sure further up people talking about the childcare thing. Is there any evidence either from yourself or this random Twitter person. Oh Leroy don’t play the “rhetorical, I don’t understand all these things” card. Been watching you for a long time now. You are a smart guy and know far far more than you let on. You are a very careful and polite poster which is refreshing, but you like to “play dumb” so that you do not appear to be pushing your views. I have already explained the amazing coincidences regarding Infosys, Shell, North Sea licences. If you and others feel that is all totally above board and nothing to see here then that’s great for you. Would you prefer I say I understand something that I don't. I'm not saying I'm dumb nor playing at it. If I don't have good knowledge of something I say so. My question was do you or the Twitter person have any evidence. As I said previously you may be on to something but evidence is good to have. By the way there was a thread recently where certain people were accusing others of attacking the person rather than debating the subject. I think you were involved It wasn’t an attack it was an observation. I actually paid you a compliment. However, I totally believe you play the rhetorical card a lot and you know more than you let on. You’ve been posting on here for ages, yet not once (that I have seen) have you ever claimed good knowledge on any subject. You always act like you don’t know but then ask questions that are consistently insightful. That suggests to me a tactic being played. I have given my “evidence” to support my opinion, ie too many coincidences and undeniable truths. Why do YOU think Sunak became an MP and wanted the top job? So it's ok to accuse others of something not related to the topic and later just say it is an observation? You directly talked about me, not the subject, something that has been called out on here before, possibly by yourself on occasions. Again I ask questions if I don't know. I never thought that would be a bad thing and get me accused of anything. Your incorrect to say i have always said I don't understand a subject. I have posted statements of fact before but refuse to make things up or try to join the dots on matters I don't have great knowledge of. On the 'What do you like about the forum' thread I said I find it genuinely educational. I ask again please don't accuse me of things as it looks a bit like your calling me dishonest. You clearly spoke about the poster not the post Not calling you dishonest at all. I just think you know more than you let on. I see that as a compliment! So are you going to answer the question on Sunak? You claimed I know more than I let on because I ask questions. First if all this had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. You claimed I play dumb. Again absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I explained that I am not playing dumb and ask questions when I don't know or understand. Your response was to try and dismiss this as observation and totally ignored the fact that you was talking directly about me. Something that has been called out on here several times. Worse was you repeated that you think I'm playing dumb after I explained to you that I wasn't. That looks very much like you are saying my explanation is dishonest. Again speaking about me directly. I certainly don't see it as a compliment after I had explained it to you. As for Sunak reason for wanting to be PM I would assume he wants to succeed in his chosen career. Many politicians want to get to the top I would have thought. For someone of Sunaks wealth I find politics an odd choice of career but it does seem that many politicians are very wealthy. " Unfortunately there is still a lot of cachet in becoming PM amongst the Eton and Winchester cohort and they see it as a means to a lucrative future career in public speaking and becoming board members of public companies. It’s all about the connections they make rather than the quality of their work and I imagine that most of the senior ministers have already lined up their escape routes. I am still astonished that anyone would give Liz Truss the time of day for her thoughtful insights, let alone the 20k an hour she is purported to have raked in | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. " Oh did I not write Churchill? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? " I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! " .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. " So what I don’t get about all the anti Blair stuff is that apart from getting involved in America’s wars he actually left the country in a pretty good state so why pick him out as a demon when the turmoil, corruption and nepotism of the last 13 years of Tory government has absolutely fucked our economy…and I am not talking the blue sky world you operate in but rather the long term realities of biggest tax burden in over half a century, mushrooming national debt, wealth based on property rather than production and no feasible economic recovery plan on the horizon! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. " Does "guiding the uk through brexit and covid." mean ruining the country so a few disaster capitalists could get rich and patting hard while British people died alone in hospitals while their loved ones stayed at home following lockdown rules? In which case. I agree. This is his legacy. Along with being thought of as Trump-lite in terms for the volume of lies told. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. So what I don’t get about all the anti Blair stuff is that apart from getting involved in America’s wars he actually left the country in a pretty good state so why pick him out as a demon when the turmoil, corruption and nepotism of the last 13 years of Tory government has absolutely fucked our economy…and I am not talking the blue sky world you operate in but rather the long term realities of biggest tax burden in over half a century, mushrooming national debt, wealth based on property rather than production and no feasible economic recovery plan on the horizon! " In fairness, dragging the UK into the war of terror on Iraq and Afghanistan outweighs anything else. This is the man's legacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. So what I don’t get about all the anti Blair stuff is that apart from getting involved in America’s wars he actually left the country in a pretty good state so why pick him out as a demon when the turmoil, corruption and nepotism of the last 13 years of Tory government has absolutely fucked our economy…and I am not talking the blue sky world you operate in but rather the long term realities of biggest tax burden in over half a century, mushrooming national debt, wealth based on property rather than production and no feasible economic recovery plan on the horizon! In fairness, dragging the UK into the war of terror on Iraq and Afghanistan outweighs anything else. This is the man's legacy. " I think his legacy is that he believed what the Americans were telling him about Iraq and Afghanistan, which doesn’t give him a get out of jail free card btw as geopolitics and history should have made him know what a disaster that part of the world is for any foreign intervention. Apart from the fact that they were run by genocidal monsters I never really understood why we stopped supporting Iraq and Syria as they were on our side! Perhaps the American desire for obvious acts of vengeance was more important to them than the destabilising of Europe and allowing Putin to gain a naval base in the Mediterranean. Bigger pictures at play perhaps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what I don’t get about all the anti Blair stuff is that apart from getting involved in America’s wars he actually left the country in a pretty good state so why pick him out as a demon when the turmoil, corruption and nepotism of the last 13 years of Tory government has absolutely fucked our economy…and I am not talking the blue sky world you operate in but rather the long term realities of biggest tax burden in over half a century, mushrooming national debt, wealth based on property rather than production and no feasible economic recovery plan on the horizon!" We don't have the highest tax burden in over half a century, it hasn't changed much over the last 40 years, and it's currently slightly down since the Tories came into power. We've always had wealth based on property rather than production, you can't blame the Tories for that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. So what I don’t get about all the anti Blair stuff is that apart from getting involved in America’s wars he actually left the country in a pretty good state so why pick him out as a demon when the turmoil, corruption and nepotism of the last 13 years of Tory government has absolutely fucked our economy…and I am not talking the blue sky world you operate in but rather the long term realities of biggest tax burden in over half a century, mushrooming national debt, wealth based on property rather than production and no feasible economic recovery plan on the horizon! " Left the country in a good state? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I dont think its necessarily about money...by the time you get to 700m plus of riches...its never about money. It's about power. It's about cementing a legacy. Wanting to be remembered. You can be a Blair or a Churchill.and you hope it's Churchill. I love how you went Blair when it could have been Johnson and Churchill... imo this two really show how paths can diverge despite seemingly similar starting points. Oh did I not write Churchill? I've reread my list a few times to see how it can be missread and I can't see it.... I didn't say you didn't mention Chruchill. For clarity, as it appears it needs it, I was amused that you went for Blair as the bad example when (imo) Johnson would have been a more powerful comparator given the similarities on starting points and dissimilarities in ending points. Hope that's clear now! .I dont think Johnson is a good example. Many are roiud and still proud to have voted in BJ in 2019. Blair is some one many deny voting for and many on here for example claim didn't represent the left wing policies of the party he represented. Many believe he was involved in the death if David Kelly, many brleive he's a war criminal who's policies bankrupted the country. I think the example fits perfectly. I think Blair legacy is thay above. I think johnsons legacy will likely be of a cheat who did what he set out to do and guiding the uk through brexit and covid. Does "guiding the uk through brexit and covid." mean ruining the country so a few disaster capitalists could get rich and patting hard while British people died alone in hospitals while their loved ones stayed at home following lockdown rules? In which case. I agree. This is his legacy. Along with being thought of as Trump-lite in terms for the volume of lies told." He followed pretty much very other western countries policies. Left or right wing. They all did tbe same. So if you criticise bj plans you criticise gemrants Frances Italy Americas Australia's. New Zealand. Etc etc. Brexit. He honoured whaybthe people voted for and regardless of what others wanted he received a mandate from the electorate for it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur" he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. " Sorry but I just dont agree. Large portions lf the public would gladly admit voting Johnson still. I have seen many deny voting Blair because they can't admit to themselves they voted him in. Johnson government for me many policy mistakes I listed about 10 I'm a thread I didn't agree with. But Blair legacy is one of people denying voting for him a d using new Labour as a slur and decrying new Labour a tory party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. Sorry but I just dont agree. Large portions lf the public would gladly admit voting Johnson still. I have seen many deny voting Blair because they can't admit to themselves they voted him in. Johnson government for me many policy mistakes I listed about 10 I'm a thread I didn't agree with. But Blair legacy is one of people denying voting for him a d using new Labour as a slur and decrying new Labour a tory party." I have never seen what you claim, ie people denying voting for Blair. Where have you seen this? How would you know? I HAVE seen people say the same as me...proud to vote for Blair/New Labour in 97 but ultimately disappointed he trashed his legacy by becoming Bush’s laptop and taking us into an illegal war. The people who complain about New Labour were/are the left of the party who evolved into Momentum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
that brings a whole different angle to their relationship! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. Sorry but I just dont agree. Large portions lf the public would gladly admit voting Johnson still. I have seen many deny voting Blair because they can't admit to themselves they voted him in. Johnson government for me many policy mistakes I listed about 10 I'm a thread I didn't agree with. But Blair legacy is one of people denying voting for him a d using new Labour as a slur and decrying new Labour a tory party. I have never seen what you claim, ie people denying voting for Blair. Where have you seen this? How would you know? I HAVE seen people say the same as me...proud to vote for Blair/New Labour in 97 but ultimately disappointed he trashed his legacy by becoming Bush’s laptop and taking us into an illegal war. The people who complain about New Labour were/are the left of the party who evolved into Momentum." Exactly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. Sorry but I just dont agree. Large portions lf the public would gladly admit voting Johnson still. I have seen many deny voting Blair because they can't admit to themselves they voted him in. Johnson government for me many policy mistakes I listed about 10 I'm a thread I didn't agree with. But Blair legacy is one of people denying voting for him a d using new Labour as a slur and decrying new Labour a tory party. I have never seen what you claim, ie people denying voting for Blair. Where have you seen this? How would you know? I HAVE seen people say the same as me...proud to vote for Blair/New Labour in 97 but ultimately disappointed he trashed his legacy by becoming Bush’s laptop and taking us into an illegal war. The people who complain about New Labour were/are the left of the party who evolved into Momentum." He got in again after his illegal wars. If you Google Tony Blair / new Labour in this forum you will see certain comments. But this was also in threadsnwhere people spoke on policies of preferring Labour under corbyn than Blair and new Labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am simply going off what people in thksnflrum have posted on Blair a d what many on social media now claim. So many left wing people decry how he acted with their Labour party and new Labour in here is often used as a slur he doesnt have a great public image legacy. Even if you can point to successes. I'd say same for Boris ATM. Time will tell if Boris goes down as delivering brexit, or resigning in the face of a by-election. Today, if say his public legacy is poor. And possibly worse than Blair. Sorry but I just dont agree. Large portions lf the public would gladly admit voting Johnson still. I have seen many deny voting Blair because they can't admit to themselves they voted him in. Johnson government for me many policy mistakes I listed about 10 I'm a thread I didn't agree with. But Blair legacy is one of people denying voting for him a d using new Labour as a slur and decrying new Labour a tory party." there's gonna be a degree in echchamberism and a degree of confirmation bias. For me, I have no idea how most people I know voted, let alone know if they are now denying it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem there's a lack of middle left. They're either extreme left wing supporters like momentum. Or new Labour. And many see new Labour as right wing/tory( not me personally) " Are unions and workers rights now considered "extreme"? What a time to be alive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem there's a lack of middle left. They're either extreme left wing supporters like momentum. Or new Labour. And many see new Labour as right wing/tory( not me personally) Are unions and workers rights now considered "extreme"? What a time to be alive. " So then you agree those on momentum see themselves only slightly on the left? And that new Labour were tories all along? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It would seem there's a lack of middle left. They're either extreme left wing supporters like momentum. Or new Labour. And many see new Labour as right wing/tory( not me personally) Are unions and workers rights now considered "extreme"? What a time to be alive. So then you agree those on momentum see themselves only slightly on the left? And that new Labour were tories all along? " I can't comment how momentum see themselves. New Labour were centre right. Not sure how these relate to your assertion that momentum are "extreme left". All that really tells us is that your political compass is skewed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some on the left side of the fence say the BBC is extreme right of the fence, but that is their opinion." And vice versa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
