This is the problem with social media politics, a justifiable point and then unnecessary stuff gets thrown in the mix ie furlough, which dilutes what is the main, valid question. Plenty of usually profitable large companies used the scheme and it basically protected the economy and public from wide spread redundancies, so as shmmeee said, its fair, valid use of the scheme unless fraud was involved. Also if we’re talking about a company where she has a minority shareholding, that decision to use the scheme is probably nothing to do with her
For what it’s worth I think there is no way Sunak gets to PM with his wife using non dom status for tax purposes. It might be legal but morally it’s just wrong. The only excuse would be if she’s paying equal/more tax in say India (country of birth and majority of where income is derived I think) in which case, in my eyes at least, it’s not avoidance but helping her country of birth through paying her dues there. If she’s minimising her tax liabilities by using some tax haven it’s obviously a totally different matter. In all the uproar has anyone seen this info yet as I haven’t ?
Ive never really cared what people earn, that’s their business but if you’re that rich just pay your fair share