Connect with us

News

British Prime Minister Liz Truss Resigns After 6 Weeks

Published

on

British Prime Minister Liz Truss Resigns After 6 Weeks

British Prime Minister Liz Truss abruptly announced she is stepping down just six weeks after assuming office.

Truss surrendered to the inevitable when her right-wing tax-cut plan crumbled, and many Conservative Party MPs revolted.

Truss stated in front of 10 Downing Street that she would remain Prime Minister until a new successor is chosen to serve as Tory leader. Party officials stated that the next leader would be chosen on October 28th.

“I recognize that, given the circumstances, I am unable to carry out the mandate for which I was chosen by the Conservative Party,” Liz Truss stated. “As a result, I have informed His Majesty the King that I am retiring as Conservative Party leader.”

Truss, 47, resigned after only 44 days in office, making him the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.

Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, whose opposition party has risen in opinion polls — now leads the Conservatives by 30 points — as a result of Truss’ crisis-plagued term, has called it a general election “right now.”

Tory MPs rebelled against Liz Truss.

In dramatic scenes at the House of Commons late Wednesday, Truss’s tenure ended as a senior minister resigned, and numerous Tory MPs rebelled over a vital vote.

Over a dozen Conservative MPs had publicly asked Liz Truss to resign by Thursday morning after her tax-cutting ideas sparked a market meltdown during an already severe cost-of-living crisis.

Many more were said to have sent letters demanding her removal, even though party rules would have barred her from running for office again for a year.

“The prime minister acknowledged yesterday was a challenging day,” her official spokesman said. “She recognizes the public expected to see the government concentrating less on politics and more on fulfilling their priorities.”

She left after two hours.

Things came to a head on Wednesday after the Telegraph called it “a day of unparalleled mayhem.”

Home Secretary Suella Braverman resigned, ostensibly at Truss’ request, after sending a government document in a personal email.

Liz Truss Steps Down

Scenes in parliament

However, Braverman, an outspoken right-winger with widespread popularity among Tory members, used her resignation letter to launch a scathing attack on Truss.

There were then ludicrous scenes in parliament as several Tory MPs defied the government’s insistence that they withdraw the party’s manifesto vow to keep fracking banned.

Accusations arose of heavy-handed efforts to whip MPs into line, with several telling the media that it was the final nail in the Truss premiership’s coffin.

The party is now attempting to avoid a long leadership election by rallying around a unity candidate to replace her.

Truss defeated former finance minister Rishi Sunak in the leadership campaign after Boris Johnson resigned in July — but Johnson loyalists have pledged to prevent Sunak from being crowned now.

And Johnson, despite being at the centre of a series of scandals that eventually proved too much for his party to bear, is rumoured to be a viable candidate, according to The Telegraph.

“He’s listening but is believed to believe it’s an issue of national interest,” said Times political editor Steven Swinford.

liz truss

Truss’ difficulties

Despite the short schedule, it is predicted that around 170,000 Conservative Party members will participate in the leadership process. Unless only one candidate remains, according to party rules, two candidates will be presented to the membership.

Truss’ difficulties began when her centrepiece tax-cutting strategy triggered market volatility, threatening the country’s pension funds and forcing her to make humiliating U-turns.

On Wednesday, Liz Truss removed close ally Kwasi Kwarteng over the budget catastrophe, replacing him with Jeremy Hunt, who quickly reversed almost all policy announcements.

According to the Daily Telegraph, Braverman departed following a “heated face-to-face row” with Truss and Hunt “about their requests to modify her stance on immigration.”

Despite removing Braverman as transportation secretary when she assumed power, Truss nominated Grant Shapps to replace him.

Shapps and Hunt had backed Sunak for the job, leaving her isolated inside her own government.

Braverman’s resignation letter came just hours after Truss used a combative speech in parliament to allay questions about her leadership.

Since the budget reversals, Truss was slammed by Labour’s Starmer at her first Prime Minister’s Questions.

As opposition MPs jeered and booed Truss and her own party’s MPs stayed mute, Starmer challenged the House of Commons, “What’s the sense of a prime minister whose pledges don’t even last a week?”

Truss’ successor will be the party’s fifth premier in less than seven years following the 2016 Brexit referendum, which ushered in an era of unprecedented political upheaval in the United Kingdom.

Source: CTN News

Geoff Thomas is a seasoned staff writer at VORNews, a reputable online publication. With his sharp writing skills and deep understanding of SEO, he consistently delivers high-quality, engaging content that resonates with readers. Thomas' articles are well-researched, informative, and written in a clear, concise style that keeps audiences hooked. His ability to craft compelling narratives while seamlessly incorporating relevant keywords has made him a valuable asset to the VORNews team.

Continue Reading

News

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Published

on

Heatwave in Delhi Claims 200 Homeless Lives in One Week

Around 200 homeless people have died in the Indian capital in the last week as a result of the country’s ongoing heatwave, according to a group committed to assisting homeless people.

The Times of India reported on Thursday that 52 bodies had been brought to hospitals in the previous two days, with the majority of them being poor people who lived and worked outside.

Delhi Heatwave

According to the Centre for Holistic Development, 192 homeless individuals died in New Delhi between June 11 and June 19, which is more than the number reported in prior years.

“The poorest people face the brunt of such climate change. Most of these folks live beneath flyovers and in the open, with no protection from the heat. According to Sunil Kumar Aledia, the head of CHD, heatwaves were primarily to blame for these deaths.

VOR News

This summer, India reported over 40,000 suspected heatstroke cases and at least 110 verified deaths between March 1 and June 18, when northwest and eastern India had more than double the typical number of heatwave days.

“A prolonged summer should be classified as a natural disaster,” the Hindu newspaper wrote in an editorial on Thursday, citing water shortages and record power demand.

VOR News

The health ministry asked federal and state institutions to provide rapid care to patients, while hospitals were told to make more beds available.

The meteorological office has anticipated above-normal temperatures for this month as well, and Delhi experienced its warmest night in over 50 years on Wednesday, with a minimum temperature of 35.2°C (95°F), according to weather department data.

Temperatures in the capital fell nearly 6°C to 37°C (98.6°F) on Thursday as rain provided relief from the heat, according to weather service data.

 

Continue Reading

News

UAE Predicted to Become World’s Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

Published

on

UAE Predicted to Become World's Top Wealth-Attracting Country for Third Consecutive Year

(CTN News) – The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report predicts that the UAE will become the world’s top wealth-attracting country for the third year in a row.

The survey, which was released earlier this week, expects an extraordinary inflow of 6,700 millionaires from all over the world by the end of 2024, CNBC reported.

The United States is trailing behind the UAE in second place, with an expected inflow of 3,800 millionaires by year end.

According to Henley, the analysis projects that 128,000 millionaires, or high-net-worth individuals with one million dollars or more, will relocate in 2024, breaking the previous record of 120,000 millionaires set last year, signaling a watershed moment in global wealth migration.

The analysis is based on data provided by the global wealth intelligence business, New World Wealth. It provides information on millionaires’ inflows and outflows, as well as their global mobility trends.

Why the UAE is a Top Choice for Millionaires

“This great millionaire migration is a canary in the coal mine, signaling a profound shift in the global landscape and tectonic plates of wealth and power, with far-reaching implications for the future trajectory of the nations they leave behind or those which they make their new home,” said Dominic Volek, director of private client services at Henley & Partners, an international law firm.

The UAE is becoming a popular choice for high-net-worth individuals worldwide, thanks to its favorable tax regulations, strategic location, and modern infrastructure.

The country offers a “golden visa” to attract foreign talent, intending to “provide long-term residence to investors, entrepreneurs, specialists, students, and researchers who make a significant investment in the country,” according to Henley & Partners.

People from the Middle East, India, Russia, Africa, and most recently, the anticipated migration from the United Kingdom and Europe, are driving an increase in migration to the UAE.

According to Henley & Partners, the top ten countries expecting the biggest net inflows of millionaires this year are listed below.

  • United Arab Emirates: +6,700
  • United States of America: +3,800
  • Singapore: +3,500
  • Canada: +3,200
  • Australia: +2,500
  • Italy: +2,200
  • Switzerland: +1,500
  • Greece: +1,200
  • Portugal: +800
  • Japan: +400
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Upholds Trump-Era Foreign Earnings TAX

Published

on

US Supreme Court Upholds Trump- Era Tax

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld an obscure tax established as part of Trump’s big 2017 reform package that targets U.S. taxpayers who own shares in certain foreign firms.

The Supreme Court concluded 7-2 that the so-called mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under Article I and the 16th Amendment, rejecting a lawsuit by a Washington couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, who claimed the provision violated the Constitution. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The Supreme Court’s decision was narrow, but by declining to overturn the tax, the justices avoided closing the door on Democrats’ proposals to levy taxes on the nation’s richest earnings. Kavanaugh emphasized that the court’s analysis ignores the difficulties created by holdings, wealth, or net worth taxes, as well as appreciation taxes.

“Those are potential issues for another day, and we do not address or resolve any of those issues here,” the Supreme Court judge’s counsel wrote. “In the Moores’ instance, Congress has long taxed an entity’s shareholders on its undistributed revenue, as it did with the MRT. This Court has long sustained such taxes, and we continue to do so with the MRT.

The high court opinion is also expected to allay fears about the impact of a sweeping decision rejecting the required repatriation tax on other elements of the tax legislation. Kavanaugh acknowledged the potential repercussions of such a finding, stating that if the Moores’ argument is adopted, “vast swaths” of the Internal Revenue Code may be declared unconstitutional.

“And those tax provisions, if suddenly eliminated, would deprive the U. S. government and the American people of trillions in lost tax revenue,” he wrote on behalf of the coalition. “The logical ramifications of the Moores’ thesis would thus oblige Congress to either dramatically slash important national programs or significantly increase taxes on the remaining sources available to it—including, of course, ordinary Americans. The Constitution does not need such a fiscal disaster.”

Dan Greenberg, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which represented the Moores, expressed disappointment with the verdict, which allows the government to collect income taxes on overseas stockholders who have never earned income.

“We think that is unfair, because the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax people on their income, not the income of foreign businesses that they do not control,” according to a press release.

US Supreme Court

Supreme Court Moore v. U.S.

The tax at the center of the case, known as Moore v. U.S., is imposed one time on U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations. The Moores challenged the measure after they were hit with a nearly $15,000 tax bill for 2017 as a result of the law, which required them to pay levies on their share of reinvested lifetime earnings from an India-based company called KisanKraft Tools.

The Moores had invested $40,000 in the company in 2006 in exchange for a 13% stake, and did not receive any distributions, dividends or other payments from it.

But the mandatory repatriation tax, enacted through the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was signed into law by former President Donald Trump, taxed U.S. taxpayers who owned at least 10% of a foreign company on their proportionate share of that company’s earnings after 1986. The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Though KisanKraft reinvested its earnings in the years after its founding, rather than distributing dividends to shareholders, the tax still applied to the Moores.

The Moores paid, but filed a lawsuit against the federal government to obtain a refund and challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory repatriation tax.

A federal district court ruled for the government and dismissed the case, finding that the mandatory repatriation tax is permitted under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the authority to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling that nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from “attributing a corporation’s income pro-rata to its shareholders.” The 9th Circuit noted that courts have consistently upheld other similar taxes, and warned that finding the measure unconstitutional would call into question many other long-standing tax provisions.

The Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit’s ruling and found that by 1938, its precedents had established a rule that contradicted the Moores’ argument in their case. That line of prior decisions, Kavanaugh wrote for the court, “remains good law to this day.”

Citing those earlier rulings and the similarities between the mandatory repatriation tax and other tax provisions, the court concluded that the measure “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in which she agreed with the outcome of the case, but split with the majority’s reasoning. Addressing the question that was before the court, Barrett said that the 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment to the states.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, Thomas said the Moores were correct in challenging the mandatory repatriation tax as unconstitutional. Because the couple never actually received gains from their investment, those unrealized gains couldn’t be taxed as income under the 16th Amendment, he wrote.

“The fact that the MRT has novel features does not mean that it is unconstitutional. But, the MRT is undeniably novel when compared to older income taxes, and many of those differences are constitutionally relevant,” he wrote. “Because the MRT is imposed merely based on ownership of shares in a corporation, it does not operate as a tax on income.”

Thomas criticized the majority over its concerns about the impact a broad decision would have on other longstanding taxes, writing that “if Congress invites calamity by building the tax base on constitutional quicksand, ‘the judicial power’ afforded to this court does not include the power to fashion an emergency escape.”

He also rebuffed the majority’s contention that its ruling does not speak to the constitutionality of other taxes that may be passed by Congress, such as a wealth tax.

“Sensing that upholding the MRT cedes additional ground to Congress, the majority arms itself with dicta to tell Congress ‘no’ in the future,” Thomas wrote. “But, if the court is not willing to uphold limitations on the taxing power in expensive cases, cheap dicta will make no difference.”

During oral arguments in December, the justices seemed sympathetic to concerns about how a sweeping ruling would reverberate across the U.S. tax system and threaten existing tax laws.

But some of the justices sought clarity on the limits of Congress’ taxing power. Lawyers for the Moores had warned the court that allowing a tax on income that has not yet been realized, or received, would pave the way for lawmakers to levy taxes on all manner of things, such as retirement accounts or gains in the value of real estate.

Justice Samuel Alito had faced pressure from some congressional Democrats to recuse himself from the case because of interviews he participated in with an editor at the Wall Street Journal and David Rivkin, a lawyer who represented the Moores.

The justice declined to step aside from the case, arguing there was “no valid reason” for him to do so.

Source: CBS News

 

 

Continue Reading

Download Our App

vornews app

Advertise Here

Volunteering at Soi Dog

People Reading

Trending