There has been much excitement over the last week after it was discovered that Rishi Sunak, the chancellor of the exchequer for the UK, held a US green card for six years whilst an MP. Furthermore, he continued to hold the green card for 19 months as chancellor.
There is much speculation as to why he retained the green card and whether any laws (both in the US and UK) were broken. He may have been leaving the door open for a return to the US or it may have provided some tax advantages.
His wife, Akshata Murty, is the daughter of the so-called ‘Bill Gates of India’. She is extremely wealthy and holds non-domicile status in the UK, again to save tax.
However, is a wealthy politician a good thing? Does it mean they are less susceptible to financial corruption and bribery, as they are not desperate for money. Rishi seems to hold his ground with the things he believes in. For example, he was strongly against additional lockdowns, said the virus gonna virus and is one of the reasons additional restrictions weren’t applied.
Compare that to Boris Johnson, the prime minister, who has secret illegitimate children and is rumoured to have financial troubles. How trustworthy can someone in this situation be, even if they have the best intentions?
On the other hand, does inevitable corruption follow from absolute power and enormous wealth? The Biden family certainly sound interesting. Rishi Sunak recently brought in tax breaks which benefit fund managers who are non-domiciled, which is likely to benefit his and his wife’s wealth.
So is a rich politician less likely to be corrupt or is a corrupt but poor politician more likely to worry about having their collar felt and consequently stay more on the straight and narrow?
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
More relevant than any of this to this millionaire's meteoric rise to arguably the most import job in the Cabinet is his incestuous relationship with the architects of the Great Reset, which will ultimately rob his own and all other nations of their sovereignty and subject them to "global governance" by the world elite and their Fauci-style techno-pets. In other words, along with the venal blond clown who appointed him, he is a traitor.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
From the US here. Regardless of someone’s social or financial status I believe all politicians are corruptible....... eventually. There has been a popular push for term limits on US Congressmen. However, the people who would need to actually vote for that change are the congressmen themselves. Good luck asking the golden goose to kill itself!
The biggest problem is voter apathy. Too many citizens who could vote career politicians out of office simply don’t think ‘their’ congressman is doing a bad job. We leave them in for decades allowing them to eventually become corrupted and become a shill for big pharma, big tech, big finance or whatever influential industry needs a “helping hand”.
Rich or poor, power is intoxicating and at some point almost anyone can be broken. The longer a politician stays in office, the more corruptible they become.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
His wife’s non dom status is specifically aimed at avoiding paying UK tax. She’s his wife, not his occasional girlfriend or drinking buddy. He will clearly be deriving a financial advantage from the fact that - despite living in the UK - his wife avoids paying UK taxes. They’re a unit, practically if not legally. That’s what marriage means.
At the moment my fingers are so cold I can barely type. Why? Because I’m worried about putting my heating on, given both the huge increase in fuel costs and the recent UK tax hike (through national insurance). If I too could avoid paying taxes- the taxes Sunak sets but avoids himself- I’d be a lot better off. I could put my heating on. But no, unlike Mrs Sunak, I’m just an ordinary person, a pleb, so I have to pay tax.
What does this tell us? That the UK government believes taxes - like lockdown rules- are for little people. Not for them. That they’ll avoid taxes themselves, while screwing more and more money out of ordinary people. That we’re being conned by people who have no intention of following the crippling rules they impose on the rest of us.
The point isn’t that Sunak is rich. The point is that he’s bleeding ordinary people by imposing taxes that his own family avoid. That he’s exploiting ordinary people through the rules he himself makes, but which he doesn’t treat as applying to him.
Apr 12, 2022·edited Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Whilst I find the discussion about politicians' wealth and corruptibility quite important, for me at least, these details don't quite get to the nub of the Sunak story. It appears that we have here a man who'd like a stab at becoming Prime Minister of the UK. On his way there he becomes an MP, and then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the ultimate decision maker of the financial minutiae - and therefore wellbeing - of millions of people. So you'd expect him to have some kind of emotional, psychological, personal, or political commitment to Britain and its people. But wait, he's got a US green card in his back pocket and so does his wife, and his wife expects to move back to India sometime. So if the stab at becoming PM in the UK doesn't work out, and maybe another 3 million people in Britain sink below the poverty line, well hey ho, let's try something else, perhaps in the US or India.
I have nothing against spending time in other countries. I've lived abroad twice in my life, and recognize both as important experiences. But this rootless, extremely well-heeled internationalism, that's what sticks in my craw. Someone rich and rootless might own a premier league football club; okay, who apart from the fans care. But if one of those people gets to become a top politician of a country, but that is just part of his transactional ambitious life, that's when I want to reach for the pitchforks.
Apr 12, 2022·edited Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
There are three kinds of people who take modestly-paying political jobs with high career uncertainty:
1. Corrupt grifters who turn power into money (e.g. Bill Clinton).
2. True-believer ideologues for whom their beliefs about how things should be are the most important thing in the world (e.g. the Squad). These people often slide into group 1 after tasting the high life.
3. Rich people who got their money some other way and for whom politics is an expensive hobby (e.g. Michael Bloomberg).
It would be better if political jobs had salary commensurate with the responsibility (i.e. millions per year), to attract high-functioning people outside the above three categories.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Just make them like other civil service people... A decent salary and benefits with retirement. But like other civil service titles, they can't be invested in any corporations that deal with the government. No fucking excuses, my friend that works for a state, said that even he has to get approval to work a second job. Also when leaving service he cannot work for any contractors that deal with the state for 5 years.
Why do these fucking people get to inside trade and so on? Fucking stock market gambling is also to blame for inflation including the shit people forgot about, 2 decades of housing more than doubling in cost. Fyi housing takes more of our budgets than anything else.
Apr 12, 2022·edited Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
When I look at the power grab in countries such as Canada, Germany and New Zealand I am grateful for "party gate". Without this I believe the power grab in the form of lockdowns would still be in place. Power and corruption appears to be two cheeks of the same arse.
Apr 12, 2022·edited Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
In my opinion there should be no career politicians. Every political public servant should serve a term of 4 years. No more. And that's it for them for life - no other position in the political arena. All service is "voluntary." No votes to increase your own salaries, no kickbacks, no monetary incentives to serve the people.
Furthermore, they should meet less. Vote on bills every other year. And for God's sake, rehaul the rules for emergency powers.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
No connection.
You can be rich, moral, ethical, as well as poor and a right bastard, or handicapped and a rampant abuser, or [insert preferred holy cow victim group of choice] and still be a real Fritzl-wannabe.
A former leader of the Swedish Farmer's Alliance party (now Centerparty) had his wife return all office material he accidently had rough home over his decades in parliament and in office - he himself was to ashamed to do it. You can't buy character and intergrity like that for money.
Former head of the swedish secret police was notorious for crashing any department or civil service he was made head of. Every time he caused disaster, he was promoted because he loyally followed any orders of anyone who paid him the most and gave him the greates leeway: he is now the official (figure)head of the swedish agency for civil defence and readiness, earning more than the PM and keeping out of sight since a little hushed-up scandal of him going abroad to hang out with barely legal teenage gay boys at clubs.
It's the Rng of Gyges problem all over: a corrupt person will use the ring for corrupt deeds, but using the ring at all means the wearer risks corruption no matter the intent.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
An age old discussion. If that is true what you say of Johnson then it reminds me of Churchill who was also not without money problems (I know nothing of bastards). But as I said elsewhere as someone who's never voted for the right I'd rather have Johnson than Ardern right now.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
All politicians are motivated by three things. In this order.
1. Getting re-elected
2. Feathering their nest
3. Spending other people’s money
Rule three facilitates one.
If you’re lucky you might have someone who will follow laws and ethical norms when applying rule two. Regardless, feathering a nest might have monetary implications or could be any other number of personal benefits of holding the elected office.
The larger the govt the more corruptible the politician will be. The larger the office the more likely the position will attract less ethical or moral characters. With sufficient power and budget, no amount of salary will prevent shenanigans. The size of the govt and size of the budget given to the politician is directly related to the amount if power of the position, and the amount of power is directly related to the desire of immoral or evil people to hold that office.
The only control we have over the past politician is rule one. If we threaten their ability to be re-elected then they may act against their personal interests. If unethical, immoral or illegal activity threatens their ability to hold the office, then they will abide the rules and expectations of the electorate.
Other rules may help unethical behavior, but only if enforced. This enforcement is a safeguard that threatens their ability to hold office.
Ideally people who hold political office do not want to hold office. Members of a community should be selected almost randomly by the community with anyone “running” for office being disqualified. The political position should pay nothing. And the politicians financials open to the public. All financial transactions of the individual and their family members should be audited annually and every dollar accounted for and publicized. The amount and grantor of every dollar received by the politician needs to be accounted. Along with the financial interests of that grantor.
No salary will ensure that the politician must have another job or source of income. It will leave this person with less time to fuck with people in new laws and regulations. No salary will save the taxpayers. And, finally, there is no evidence salary effects behavior nor is there a negative correlation between salary and ethical behavior of a politician.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
A chancellor who clearly has no understanding of what it's like to struggle day in day out to survive seems the perfect fit for today's Tory government. On the other hand, he is probably less corruptible.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
The question is a dangerous red herring.
The answer is neither is better. There is extreme hazard (both moral and consequential) in investing so much public power in a few individuals, and any human, from ANY walk of life, is susceptible to corruption. We should draw our leaders from ALL corners of society. Background is important for some offices, but socio-economic status should not be considered for any.
Eternal skepticism, open minds, and watchful eyes are necessary in any case.
Apr 12, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com
Both situations are bad. Both corrupt. And why the hell should someone who resides in a country under that status not have to pay taxes? Ugh never mind, I give up.
Money and power only make you more of what you already are. If you’re a good person, you’ll be better. If you’re a bad person, it’ll make you worse. Because money and power enable.
I think the main problem is the centralization of power. The good thing about local govt's is that they are within reach of the voters... literally. Will I, living on the West Coast of the US, easily go to Washington, DC and confront my "Representative" or Senator face to face? THAT was the main argument when the US was just setting up all the rules and regs. Centralized power is a big problem, and we ought, in my opinion, take a very serious look. Most issues could well be taken care of locally, where citizens and govt. officials are still pretty much on speaking terms, or should be. All that said, I DO believe in wealth caps, and not just for some, but for all. Nobody needs to have such vast wealth that they can buy another COUNTRY. Or even a TOWN. It's absurd, really.
More relevant than any of this to this millionaire's meteoric rise to arguably the most import job in the Cabinet is his incestuous relationship with the architects of the Great Reset, which will ultimately rob his own and all other nations of their sovereignty and subject them to "global governance" by the world elite and their Fauci-style techno-pets. In other words, along with the venal blond clown who appointed him, he is a traitor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19juF7JdqkQ
From the US here. Regardless of someone’s social or financial status I believe all politicians are corruptible....... eventually. There has been a popular push for term limits on US Congressmen. However, the people who would need to actually vote for that change are the congressmen themselves. Good luck asking the golden goose to kill itself!
The biggest problem is voter apathy. Too many citizens who could vote career politicians out of office simply don’t think ‘their’ congressman is doing a bad job. We leave them in for decades allowing them to eventually become corrupted and become a shill for big pharma, big tech, big finance or whatever influential industry needs a “helping hand”.
Rich or poor, power is intoxicating and at some point almost anyone can be broken. The longer a politician stays in office, the more corruptible they become.
Police and politicians: The more someone wants to hold the position, the more they're unfit to hold the position.
That said, anyone who gains great wealth while employed in public service is very highly suspect.
His wife’s non dom status is specifically aimed at avoiding paying UK tax. She’s his wife, not his occasional girlfriend or drinking buddy. He will clearly be deriving a financial advantage from the fact that - despite living in the UK - his wife avoids paying UK taxes. They’re a unit, practically if not legally. That’s what marriage means.
At the moment my fingers are so cold I can barely type. Why? Because I’m worried about putting my heating on, given both the huge increase in fuel costs and the recent UK tax hike (through national insurance). If I too could avoid paying taxes- the taxes Sunak sets but avoids himself- I’d be a lot better off. I could put my heating on. But no, unlike Mrs Sunak, I’m just an ordinary person, a pleb, so I have to pay tax.
What does this tell us? That the UK government believes taxes - like lockdown rules- are for little people. Not for them. That they’ll avoid taxes themselves, while screwing more and more money out of ordinary people. That we’re being conned by people who have no intention of following the crippling rules they impose on the rest of us.
The point isn’t that Sunak is rich. The point is that he’s bleeding ordinary people by imposing taxes that his own family avoid. That he’s exploiting ordinary people through the rules he himself makes, but which he doesn’t treat as applying to him.
Whilst I find the discussion about politicians' wealth and corruptibility quite important, for me at least, these details don't quite get to the nub of the Sunak story. It appears that we have here a man who'd like a stab at becoming Prime Minister of the UK. On his way there he becomes an MP, and then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the ultimate decision maker of the financial minutiae - and therefore wellbeing - of millions of people. So you'd expect him to have some kind of emotional, psychological, personal, or political commitment to Britain and its people. But wait, he's got a US green card in his back pocket and so does his wife, and his wife expects to move back to India sometime. So if the stab at becoming PM in the UK doesn't work out, and maybe another 3 million people in Britain sink below the poverty line, well hey ho, let's try something else, perhaps in the US or India.
I have nothing against spending time in other countries. I've lived abroad twice in my life, and recognize both as important experiences. But this rootless, extremely well-heeled internationalism, that's what sticks in my craw. Someone rich and rootless might own a premier league football club; okay, who apart from the fans care. But if one of those people gets to become a top politician of a country, but that is just part of his transactional ambitious life, that's when I want to reach for the pitchforks.
I have the feeling that being a politician automatically comes with traits like corruption.
There are three kinds of people who take modestly-paying political jobs with high career uncertainty:
1. Corrupt grifters who turn power into money (e.g. Bill Clinton).
2. True-believer ideologues for whom their beliefs about how things should be are the most important thing in the world (e.g. the Squad). These people often slide into group 1 after tasting the high life.
3. Rich people who got their money some other way and for whom politics is an expensive hobby (e.g. Michael Bloomberg).
It would be better if political jobs had salary commensurate with the responsibility (i.e. millions per year), to attract high-functioning people outside the above three categories.
Beware the politician who gets rich in office.
Corruption is a moral failing. Wealth does not confer morality.
Just make them like other civil service people... A decent salary and benefits with retirement. But like other civil service titles, they can't be invested in any corporations that deal with the government. No fucking excuses, my friend that works for a state, said that even he has to get approval to work a second job. Also when leaving service he cannot work for any contractors that deal with the state for 5 years.
Why do these fucking people get to inside trade and so on? Fucking stock market gambling is also to blame for inflation including the shit people forgot about, 2 decades of housing more than doubling in cost. Fyi housing takes more of our budgets than anything else.
When I look at the power grab in countries such as Canada, Germany and New Zealand I am grateful for "party gate". Without this I believe the power grab in the form of lockdowns would still be in place. Power and corruption appears to be two cheeks of the same arse.
In my opinion there should be no career politicians. Every political public servant should serve a term of 4 years. No more. And that's it for them for life - no other position in the political arena. All service is "voluntary." No votes to increase your own salaries, no kickbacks, no monetary incentives to serve the people.
Furthermore, they should meet less. Vote on bills every other year. And for God's sake, rehaul the rules for emergency powers.
No connection.
You can be rich, moral, ethical, as well as poor and a right bastard, or handicapped and a rampant abuser, or [insert preferred holy cow victim group of choice] and still be a real Fritzl-wannabe.
A former leader of the Swedish Farmer's Alliance party (now Centerparty) had his wife return all office material he accidently had rough home over his decades in parliament and in office - he himself was to ashamed to do it. You can't buy character and intergrity like that for money.
Former head of the swedish secret police was notorious for crashing any department or civil service he was made head of. Every time he caused disaster, he was promoted because he loyally followed any orders of anyone who paid him the most and gave him the greates leeway: he is now the official (figure)head of the swedish agency for civil defence and readiness, earning more than the PM and keeping out of sight since a little hushed-up scandal of him going abroad to hang out with barely legal teenage gay boys at clubs.
It's the Rng of Gyges problem all over: a corrupt person will use the ring for corrupt deeds, but using the ring at all means the wearer risks corruption no matter the intent.
An age old discussion. If that is true what you say of Johnson then it reminds me of Churchill who was also not without money problems (I know nothing of bastards). But as I said elsewhere as someone who's never voted for the right I'd rather have Johnson than Ardern right now.
All politicians are motivated by three things. In this order.
1. Getting re-elected
2. Feathering their nest
3. Spending other people’s money
Rule three facilitates one.
If you’re lucky you might have someone who will follow laws and ethical norms when applying rule two. Regardless, feathering a nest might have monetary implications or could be any other number of personal benefits of holding the elected office.
The larger the govt the more corruptible the politician will be. The larger the office the more likely the position will attract less ethical or moral characters. With sufficient power and budget, no amount of salary will prevent shenanigans. The size of the govt and size of the budget given to the politician is directly related to the amount if power of the position, and the amount of power is directly related to the desire of immoral or evil people to hold that office.
The only control we have over the past politician is rule one. If we threaten their ability to be re-elected then they may act against their personal interests. If unethical, immoral or illegal activity threatens their ability to hold the office, then they will abide the rules and expectations of the electorate.
Other rules may help unethical behavior, but only if enforced. This enforcement is a safeguard that threatens their ability to hold office.
Ideally people who hold political office do not want to hold office. Members of a community should be selected almost randomly by the community with anyone “running” for office being disqualified. The political position should pay nothing. And the politicians financials open to the public. All financial transactions of the individual and their family members should be audited annually and every dollar accounted for and publicized. The amount and grantor of every dollar received by the politician needs to be accounted. Along with the financial interests of that grantor.
No salary will ensure that the politician must have another job or source of income. It will leave this person with less time to fuck with people in new laws and regulations. No salary will save the taxpayers. And, finally, there is no evidence salary effects behavior nor is there a negative correlation between salary and ethical behavior of a politician.
People are who they’re going to be, regardless of wealth or lack thereof.
A chancellor who clearly has no understanding of what it's like to struggle day in day out to survive seems the perfect fit for today's Tory government. On the other hand, he is probably less corruptible.
The question is a dangerous red herring.
The answer is neither is better. There is extreme hazard (both moral and consequential) in investing so much public power in a few individuals, and any human, from ANY walk of life, is susceptible to corruption. We should draw our leaders from ALL corners of society. Background is important for some offices, but socio-economic status should not be considered for any.
Eternal skepticism, open minds, and watchful eyes are necessary in any case.
Both situations are bad. Both corrupt. And why the hell should someone who resides in a country under that status not have to pay taxes? Ugh never mind, I give up.
Even the Albino Blancmange's biographer admitted that he doesn't know how many children Johnson's johnson has fathered . . . at least 7, maybe 8
So far only Donald J Trump appeared "wealthy enough" out of many decades of my observations. And, "a sample of one" proves nothing.
We no longer have "statesmen," the word has almost disappeared.
The politicians always say "Welfare wasn't meant to be a way of life."
I have always said "Neither was politics."
Money and power only make you more of what you already are. If you’re a good person, you’ll be better. If you’re a bad person, it’ll make you worse. Because money and power enable.
I think the main problem is the centralization of power. The good thing about local govt's is that they are within reach of the voters... literally. Will I, living on the West Coast of the US, easily go to Washington, DC and confront my "Representative" or Senator face to face? THAT was the main argument when the US was just setting up all the rules and regs. Centralized power is a big problem, and we ought, in my opinion, take a very serious look. Most issues could well be taken care of locally, where citizens and govt. officials are still pretty much on speaking terms, or should be. All that said, I DO believe in wealth caps, and not just for some, but for all. Nobody needs to have such vast wealth that they can buy another COUNTRY. Or even a TOWN. It's absurd, really.