Should the UK have Tax (and income) transparency

buglawton

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

Going back to the Norway example discussed earlier in this thread, there's a delightful podcast just available:
In Business: Tax transparency - Norway's model
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03qg4mg

Guess what the result is in Norway? Flatter salary scales and narrowest gender pay gap in the world.

HornetSaver

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

buglawton wrote: »

Guess what the result is in Norway? Flatter salary scales and narrowest gender pay gap in the world.

One of course leads to the other. If in isolation a flatter pay scale were the cause of a low gender pay gap, it would simply be that because the pay scales are flatter, then disproportionately women at the bottom and disproportionately men at the top would result in a lower gender pay gap.

The true goal of gender equality between men and women is that both can move up the career ladder with equal ease and in equal proportions, as a result of ability and experience alone (and explicitly not as a result of quotas or "positive discrimination").

Compare Scandinavia to Britain. I passionately believe that British employers recognise that men and women are at least equal in terms of natural ability (if anything women are slightly ahead once you factor in how well they apply themselves at school), and are as committed to gender equality as any in the world. But if the dad takes a maximum of two weeks off and goes back to work - and is more likely to accept jobs that will result in not seeing their children for sustained periods than an equally talented mother would - it is inevitable that on average men will meet the criteria for promotion at a faster pace than women, perpetuating a gender imbalance the further up the income scale you go.

Scandinavia have government policies and social norms in place that make this imbalance smaller - women are more likely to be as flexible as men, men are more likely to take as much time off as a result of having a child as women, and employers are more likely to have flexible working policies in place - resulting in a higher proportion of women at the top.

buglawton

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

Granted, though I think the narrow gap is not a statistical side effect but due to the lack of secrecy. Employers can't 'con' women (or men for that matter) into accepting less pay for comparable work. It makes me wonder if in the UK we couldn't device a semi-transparent system of impartial 3rd party reviewing of suspicious salary gaps- since the UK couldn't stand full openness I guess.

Currently in Norway, not only is income public but net worth too!

BobQ

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

I do not think that people's tax should be openly published except where they are applying for public office and serving in those capacities.

Maybe there is also a case for those who receive income from abroad. But I would prefer just to see open disclosure to the HMRC.

I would remove non-dom status however.

CLAPTON

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

BobQ wrote: »

I do not think that people's tax should be openly published except where they are applying for public office and serving in those capacities.

Maybe there is also a case for those who receive income from abroad. But I would prefer just to see open disclosure to the HMRC.

I would remove non-dom status however.

what does 'open disclosure to the HMRC' mean?

seems odd that some-one could have 10,000,000 income in the UK with no public disclosure but have to disclose publicly 1,000 if from abroad.

HornetSaver

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

CLAPTON wrote: »

what does 'open disclosure to the HMRC' mean?

seems odd that some-one could have 10,000,000 income in the UK with no public disclosure but have to disclose publicly 1,000 if from abroad.

Some would argue that having 10,000,000 income would in and of itself be grounds for disclosure (I'm not)

Perhaps a better question would be whether "open disclosure" would mean that a BTL landlord owning 50 properties would be free to keep their tax affairs private, while a tenant earning £25,000 a year, but getting £1000 worth of shares in a non-British company as part of that renumeration package should publicly disclose everything.

To be crystal clear I'm not arguing that BTL landlords should have to disclose their tax affairs (with or without offshore investments), but I'm sure even the majority of this forum's users - noting that a higher than typical proportion are landlords - would agree that the above situation would be particularly absurd.

ruggedtoast

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

Right now you can easily look up any public sector employee in the State of California and determine their income.

http://transparentcalifornia.com/

The most prosperous part of the most prosperous, most capitalist country in the world.

Yet we are told by Tory MPs and their ilk that the plebs daring to see their incomes will destabilise the world as they know it.

What they mean is that it will highlight the enormous disparity in wealth between they, and the people whose real incomes they continue to straiten.

The very minimum requirement for public office should be financial transparency. If you want to hide your income then go and find a different job.

The fact that most of the government appears to be incapable of understanding why this might be desirable says a lot about them.

CLAPTON

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

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Right now you can easily look up any public sector employee in the State of California and determine their income.

http://transparentcalifornia.com/

The most prosperous part of the most prosperous, most capitalist country in the world.

Yet we are told by Tory MPs and their ilk that the plebs daring to see their incomes will destabilise the world as they know it.

What they mean is that it will highlight the enormous disparity in wealth between they, and the people whose real incomes they continue to straiten.

The very minimum requirement for public office should be financial transparency. If you want to hide your income then go and find a different job.

The fact that most of the government appears to be incapable of understanding why this might be desirable says a lot about them.

so
how did the Tories prevent Labour bringing in a transparency deal?
Is it part of Labour's manifesto commitment?

And california only publishes public sector PAY and NOT peoples other wealth or other incomes nor what their mother gave then as a gifts.
Public sector salaries in the UK are virtually public data anyway but that's very different to tax transparency.

buglawton

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

So Germany's proposing to introduce transparency now
http://www.thelocal.de/20160511/wage-transparency-plan-is-not-enough-women

michaels

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

buglawton wrote: »

So Germany's proposing to introduce transparency now
http://www.thelocal.de/20160511/wage-transparency-plan-is-not-enough-women

Seems to only be at the UK level of aveage salaries in big companies not 'I can see what you earn' transparency.