Tax details published, what is to hide?

[the_bloke]

It's public nosiness not interest..

 

The register of interests for each MP is far more interesting to be honest. It also gives an idea of who is greasing their palms and how much organisations are prepared to pay to support their favoured MP.

[999tigger]

The register of interests for each MP is far more interesting to be honest. It also gives an idea of who is greasing their palms and how much organisations are prepared to pay to support their favoured MP.

 

Thank you at last...

[truman]

For the moment no because it just concerns MPs. Theres one thing im surprised nobody has mentioned. Will wait to see if anyone picks up.

 

Councillors arent paid public servants though. They also dont get to wiled the same level of power as MPs, but I see your point.

 

They get a member's allowance I think Julie Dore got over £20k last year...

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2016 at 12:29 ----------

 

Thank you at last...

 

That's in the public domain already anyway..

[L00b]

1.You were the one who introduced all the things that it wouldnt tell you. the discussion was just about tax returns. Its possible you cna open up the discussion into a general one about transparency about what information MP's should disclose. Can't see any problem with that.

Given the context of the thread (if you don't mind), you were the one who introduced the notion of MP 'power'. I merely listed some basic and fundamental components of what routinely constitutes this 'power', which a tax return gives no useful indication of.

 

As correctly pointed out by the_bloke, the register of interests does that much better than a tax return ever could, and it's already public indeed.

2. You said the argument is sterile, but I disagree. Its a moderately interesting area when looking at why and whether salary details should be transparent like the nordic countries or firmly private. In this argyment iits how much information should MPs disclose transparency v privacy.

Feel free to debate it until the cows come home.

 

MPs are sure to eventually consider the question of, and vote for, making themselves an exception to the DPA as it applies to HMRC so that their tax returns are put into the public domain every year.

 

Do you want extra sarcasm with that? Or perhaps some help with the notion of 'conflict of interest'?

3. You brought into it the problems of the DPA, but presumably it wouldnt happen unless the MPs brought it into being in the first place and they could legislate for any DPA issues.

See the above. Not ever going to happen, even in a month of sundays.

 

The register of interests already gives them enough headaches as it is, without adding tax returns and all sorts of other private documentation to the bonfire.

 

What would you like next after tax returns, by the way? Annual blood test results? Full medical report? Hey, come on, they're public persons don't you know, no privacy allowed.

 

Edited February 1, 2016 by L00b

[Eric Arthur]

They get a member's allowance I think Julie Dore got over £20k last year...

 

It's not a lot of money for the job she does. That's why councillors tax returns should be more interesting to the people who want to see MP's tax returns. How do people like Julie Dore get by on such a small allowance? Dammit! We should be able to see their tax returns to find out and do something if they have more income than their published allowance.

[hyper]

There's a very good reason why it should make a difference. People expect their representatives to be following the law, and many of them have demonstrated (expenses) that if there is no oversight then they won't.

 

.

So do we publish their driving licences to show they have zero points, DBS checks to show no convictions, bank statement so we can see their council tax d/debits, invoice for his new sofa, so we know its not off the back of a truck.??? Where does this principle of proving they follow the law always end?

[999tigger]

1.The thread was about the John McConnell declaration to make tax returns public.

Youll need to clarify about the MP power thing. the context in which I mentioned it was the accountability and transparency of those who hold public office.

 

2. I never said otherwise.

 

3. You raised it as an issue, when it isnt. They would have to decide whether they wnated to make public tax returns. If they so decided, then its easy for them to take the necessary measures to waive or legislate any DPA objections. What's so difficult to understand about that. You were raising an issue that i think is easily surmountable if the government of the time wanted to make it happen.

 

4. If they wanted to add tax returns then its relatively simple. HMRC manage tens of millions, so i doubt a few hundred tax returns by the palriamentary authorities would pose much of a challenge.

 

5. Now you are being disingenuous. I havent claimed I wanted anything, just discussed the issue. The issues of transparency is an important one.

[L00b]

1.The thread was about the John McConnell declaration to make tax returns public. Youll need to clarify about the MP power thing. the context in which I mentioned it was the accountability and transparency of those who hold public office.

Do you think they're not accountable or transparent enough as it is?

 

Before you answer, please consider the armful of committees to which each MP is answerable (including, but no exclusively, the Parliamentary Disciplinary Committee ) and their existing statutory disclosure requirements (including, but no exclusively, the HoC's register of interest).

3. You raised it as an issue, when it isnt.

It absolutely is, and a practical issue at that, not a hypothetical one.

 

HMRC is restrained by the DPA from publishing any tax return or other personal information about taxpayers. MPs are entirely ordinary taxpayers in that respect, and if their tax returns are to be published, then a relevant exception must be first made in the current legislation. That exception will require a corresponding SI, which must be voted through by Parliament.

 

Now, if it is your contention that a majority of MPs are going to vote for allowing HMRC to publish their tax returns, fine, hold on to it. In the meantime, I will continue to quietly shake my head at your naivety and hold an equally strong belief to the contrary.

 

Not because I think MPs have more to hide than the next ordinary taxpayer. Not because I think that MPs are tax-evading and -avoiding crooks.

 

But because this measure would be merely soaping the greasy slope of ever more complete disclosure of private and personal matters that should stay private and personal, lest publishing of more information (and/or extension of the measure to other taxpayer subgroups) occurs. I'd want my MP to oppose it regardless of his rosette on that basis alone.

easily surmountable if the government of the time wanted to make it happen.

I very much doubt that.

5. Now you are being disingenuous. I havent claimed I wanted anything, just discussed the issue. The issues of transparency is an important one.

'You' was figurative, so the style of the question put aside: not in the least, I am merely following the logic of the debate in this thread and extending it to other types of personal information about MPs. Allow me to rephrase, then: what's the limit?

[Obelix]

For the moment no because it just concerns MPs. Theres one thing im surprised nobody has mentioned. Will wait to see if anyone picks up.

 

Councillors arent paid public servants though. They also dont get to wiled the same level of power as MPs, but I see your point.

 

I think you will find they are.... they get a basic allowance and expenses.

[truman]

I think you will find they are.... they get a basic allowance and expenses.

 

Post #93 ... 999tigger seems to have ignored/missed it..