Should the UK have Tax (and income) transparency

CLAPTON

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

N1AK wrote: »

No, but don't let that crimp your style and stop you making up ridiculous straw-men arguments to attack as usual.

my position is clear and unambiguous : there should be transparency for all residents

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

What about income from gambling....

HornetSaver

No - It is between me and my employer and would only lead to jealousy and crime

CLAPTON wrote: »

I can see no particular logic that says e.g. a teacher that works in the state sector should have their pay details made public but a teacher that works in the private sector should not.

If you are employed by the taxpayer, the taxpayer has a right to know what they're spending.

If you are employed by a company which receives revenue from the taxpayer in exchange for a service, the taxpayer has the right to know what the company is receiving and what it is doing in return for that money, but not more granular detail about its financial affairs.

(not my exact position, but that's the logic)

I voted No in this poll as it was the answer that came closest to my position. I think the public has a right to know how much it is spending on particular types of public sector workers, within narrow salary bands (for instance, how many teachers earn £20-25k, how many earn £25-30k, etc, and the same for nurses, doctors, firefighters, police officers, council workers, you name it), but not more specific details about those individuals. This approach would mean that most of the very highest earners' salaries would be known, but that would be as a result of them being uniquely identifiable due to their job description, rather than as a specific attempt to single an individual out.

I don't think the public has a right to know the income and tax affairs of those whose primary source of income does not come from the state. Though I believe this should be a qualified right - be found guilty of tax evasion or cheating the benefits system and forfeit the right to keep your affairs private. Those in these categories should be subjected to at the absolute minimum the Norwegian system.

If an objective test of "aggressive" tax avoidance could be devised, I'd personally extend that forfeit to avoidance as well. If you're abusing an offshore loophole which quite obviously does not reflect the reality of your situation, however have done it so well that you're clearly not breaking any laws, you are probably entitled to get away with it financially, but probably not entitled to maintain your good name.

The debate about whether those receiving huge percentages of their income from benefits should have their affairs published is a more difficult one. Does an increased spend on housing benefit mean more scrounging, or housing becoming less affordable? Does an increased overall spend on disability benefits mean we are becoming a more compassionate country, or that we have gone beyond supporting those who cannot support themselves? Anyone with an ounce of sense would say "it's a bit of both" to both questions, though no doubt the right wing would say there is one correct answer for each, and the left wing would agree that there is one correct answer for each - the one that the right-wing didn't give.

CLAPTON

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

HornetSaver wrote: »

If you are employed by the taxpayer, the taxpayer has a right to know what they're spending.

If you are employed by a company which receives revenue from the taxpayer in exchange for a service, the taxpayer has the right to know what the company is receiving and what it is doing in return for that money, but not more granular detail about its financial affairs.

(not my exact position, but that's the logic)

I voted No in this poll as it was the answer that came closest to my position. I think the public has a right to know how much it is spending on particular types of public sector workers, within narrow salary bands (for instance, how many teachers earn £20-25k, how many earn £25-30k, etc, and the same for nurses, doctors, firefighters, police officers, council workers, you name it), but not more specific details about those individuals. This approach would mean that most of the very highest earners' salaries would be known, but that would be as a result of them being uniquely identifiable due to their job description, rather than as a specific attempt to single an individual out.

I don't think the public has a right to know the income and tax affairs of those whose primary source of income does not come from the state. Though I believe this should be a qualified right - be found guilty of tax evasion or cheating the benefits system and forfeit the right to keep your affairs private. Those in these categories should be subjected to at the absolute minimum the Norwegian system.

If an objective test of "aggressive" tax avoidance could be devised, I'd personally extend that forfeit to avoidance as well. If you're abusing an offshore loophole which quite obviously does not reflect the reality of your situation, however have done it so well that you're clearly not breaking any laws, you are probably entitled to get away with it financially, but probably not entitled to maintain your good name.

The debate about whether those receiving huge percentages of their income from benefits should have their affairs published is a more difficult one. Does an increased spend on housing benefit mean more scrounging, or housing becoming less affordable? Does an increased overall spend on disability benefits mean we are becoming a more compassionate country, or that we have gone beyond supporting those who cannot support themselves? Anyone with an ounce of sense would say "it's a bit of both" to both questions, though no doubt the right wing would say there is one correct answer for each, and the left wing would agree that there is one correct answer for each - the one that the right-wing didn't give.

I'm not sure it's a left-right wing issue : its more about open-ness and transparency
one would expect both the left and the right to oppose albeit for different reasons.

Not much use exposing tax/benefit cheats to the light of day, as we are unlikely know who they are without the information being public in the first place.
Would we have known about MPs expenses without the info being published?

HornetSaver

No - It is between me and my employer and would only lead to jealousy and crime

CLAPTON wrote: »

Would we have known about MPs expenses without the info being published?

Probably not.

As an aside, did the expenses scandal really have any lasting effect? Jacqui Smith would have lost her seat anyway on an average swing. Most of those who stepped down due to expenses were of pensionable age or had circumstances which would have led to them stepping down anyway. And as soon as the rules were tightened up, any savings from expenses were simply used to pay MPs more.

CLAPTON

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

HornetSaver wrote: »

Probably not.

As an aside, did the expenses scandal really have any lasting effect? Jacqui Smith would have lost her seat anyway on an average swing. Most of those who stepped down due to expenses were of pensionable age or had circumstances which would have led to them stepping down anyway. And as soon as the rules were tightened up, any savings from expenses were simply used to pay MPs more.

seems a point of some sophistry

HornetSaver

No - It is between me and my employer and would only lead to jealousy and crime

Let me put it another way.

If we had had full transparency on expenses earlier on, the financial and political outcomes would likely have been no different to the effect of the expos!.

Heck, if we had full transparency on all of David Cameron's affairs, he would be in a far less sticky situation today despite him having done exactly the same things at exactly the same times.

CLAPTON

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

HornetSaver wrote: »

Let me put it another way.

If we had had full transparency on expenses earlier on, the financial and political outcomes would likely have been no different to the effect of the expos!.

Heck, if we had full transparency on all of David Cameron's affairs, he would be in a far less sticky situation today despite him having done exactly the same things at exactly the same times.

I would say the people that actually went to jail may have a different view about the outcome

but anyway seems reasonably in support of full disclosure even if for venial reasons

HornetSaver

No - It is between me and my employer and would only lead to jealousy and crime

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would say the people that actually went to jail may have a different view about the outcome

I can't think of too many people who would be transparent about the fact that they are committing fraud, whatever the rules on disclosure happened to be.

CLAPTON

Yes - it would help with evasion, benefits cheating and gender pay inequality

HornetSaver wrote: »

I can't think of too many people who would be transparent about the fact that they are committing fraud, whatever the rules on disclosure happened to be.

I'm not asking for people to be transparent but that the system is, so a start is full disclosure of people tax affairs.