Tax details published, what is to hide?

[alchresearch]

I'm no taxman, but if he wants to boast about transparency he should be posting his confirmation from the tax office, not half complete screenshots.

 

That just sums up Labour when it comes to finances. All their bleating about the pitiful tax that Google paid - for the years they never paid it while Labour were in office!

[999tigger]

Yes it is a reason. You should have a bloody good reason before you get to see anything that is private no matter who we're talking about.

 

I'll ask you again, what do you think you are going to do with this information if you have it?

 

As i said secrecy about wages is deep within the British psyche. I'd imagine you'd explode if you had to live in one of the Nordic countries where they publish everyones salaries.

[Cyclone]

Yes it is a reason. You should have a bloody good reason before you get to see anything that is private no matter who we're talking about.

 

I'll ask you again, what do you think you are going to do with this information if you have it?

 

You didn't ask that, so you can't ask it again...

 

The only point of interest would be their income really, see how much we're really "all in this together".

See how their declared income matches up with the register of interests perhaps.

[999tigger]

That just sums up Labour when it comes to finances. All their bleating about the pitiful tax that Google paid - for the years they never paid it while Labour were in office!

 

Tbf that has less to do with the government in power and more to do with HMRC and getting to grips with the situation. Not just this country but its a worldwide problem as businesses run rings round governments.

[truman]

As i said secrecy about wages is deep within the British psyche. I'd imagine you'd explode if you had to live in one of the Nordic countries where they publish everyones salaries.

 

Looks like the tide may be turning..

 

". Last year, Sweden changed the rules so that tax information, rather than being posted online, was made available only to people who demonstrated that they had a 'legitimate need' for it. Similar changes are being discussed in Norway, where the government has been successfully sued for publishing incorrect figures. "

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100150768/if-tax-transparency-turns-us-into-scandinavians-so-much-the-better/

[L00b]

You did notice the expenses scandal in the news a little bit?

You did notice my use of the temporal qualifier "as it is" and the Members' Expenses Committee, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) and the Speaker's Committee on IPSA a little bit yourself?

1. Are MP's accountable enough? I believe i was discussing it rather than pushing it as my own view. Youd have to go back to see what i posted, but I believe that was my point on the issues of wage secrecy, which overlaps in part with the need for MPs to be accountable and transparent. Nobody asked me do i think McConnells idea is amazing and should we do it or is there a need for it. No I dont, but it raises relevant issues and I dont think it would eb unreasonable in the name of transparency.

There is no secret of salaries for MPs, their pay scale and pay increases are all public domain.

2. You keep pushing this DPA difficulty, but I dont see one. If the government deicdes it wants to make a DPA exception as you say it passes the apprproate SI. it does it all the time.

 

3. Thats you just creating an issue where there isnt one. If they decided they wanted to they could do it with no fuss. Until they so decide obviously nothing will happen.

The government doesn't decide law, MPs do. If the government wants something done, it asks the MPs, its majority share of them first, to vote the relevant law that gives the government the power to do the deed.

 

But as we've seen, majority MPs aren't afraid of giving No.10 the rods about policies they don't like, whips or not.

 

Thankfully for democracy, I'd say.

4. The slipperly slope argument maybe but thats also an argument for never changing.

That's a black or white answer to my grey question, where's your balance gone? The "slippery slope" argument is never an argument for not changing, it's an argument to force thoughts about consequences of an act or decision (one way or the other).

5.what's the limit? Ah a good question. Tbh I don't know it's all that line drawing again.

Everything is a drawn line or another. No lines = anarchy. It's just the shade of black (and/or width) of the lines that vary

The thread straddles two areas.

Alright:

i) Secrecy of salaries

There is no secret of salaries for MPs, their pay scale and pay increases are all public domain.

 

Don't confuse public sector pay dynamics for private sector pay dynamics either. That's a fundamental, but frequently-made, mistake.

ii) This issue as proposed by McConnell. Transparency and accountability are important.

They are.

 

So I'll ask you again: in what way are current levels of transparency and accountability deficient for MPs, and how does adding tax returns to the pot of statutory disclosures corrects that imbalance?

The limit? Something that need to be reviewed all the time so you get the correct balance.

That's a bit of a cop out, don't you think? I asked for a limit, not a wishy-washy, wouldn't-it-be-nice-if.

 

If you don't want to commit to an answer, that's absolutely fine with me. It's not a point-scoring exercise, I'm genuinely interested in whether you'd consider e.g. health reports as equally desirable in the name of 'transparency and accountability'?

 

They can indicate substance abuse, you know...surely you want to know if your MP snorts the occasional line or two off his secretary's )( every now and then, no?

 

 

 

 

 

DNA testing MPs' kids next? Go on, you know the public wants to know, really...scroates on Jeremy Kyle just don't cut it any more

Edited February 1, 2016 by L00b

[Eric Arthur]

You didn't ask that, so you can't ask it again...

 

The only point of interest would be their income really, see how much we're really "all in this together".

See how their declared income matches up with the register of interests perhaps.

 

Your test seems to be that the public is interested, not that it is in the public interest. It's the same argument that the press had for phone-tapping Millie Dowler's voicemail.

 

All that you're saying is that you're a bit nosey and you'll make a personal judgement without any context on 850 people who's personal circumstances you don't know from Adam's. Then what?

 

You need to come up with something that isn't so wishy washy if you want people to disclose their private information.

[Berberis]

This is no different to the motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" which is not a world I would like to live in, thank you very much.

 

Do all the people advocating this also want their internet history made public too?

[foxy lady]

This is no different to the motto "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" which is not a world I would like to live in, thank you very much.

 

Do all the people advocating this also want their internet history made public too?

 

It just seems like another attempt by a desperate Labour Party incapable of actually constructing a working policy to debate.

 

I see that Corbyn has once again opened his mouth and put his foot in it again.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35454109

 

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to penalise firms who do not pay the Living Wage has been described as "unworkable" by his business spokesman.

 

Angela Eagle told The Sunday Times the plan to ban such firms from paying dividends was "not a runner".

 

The idea was criticised as "silly" by Labour economic adviser David Blanchflower, in the New Statesman.

 

The party just keeps spouting out stupid idea after stupid idea, knowing that those of a certain mentality will latch onto them imagining it to be workable policy.

Edited February 1, 2016 by foxy lady

[Eric Arthur]

The idea was criticised as "silly" by Labour economic adviser David Blanchflower, in the New Statesman.

If even the arch leftie economist Danny Blanchflower thinks it's silly they are in real trouble.