Tax details published, what is to hide?

[Cyclone]

I have no interest in how much you earn or the tax affairs of George Osborne .

 

---------- Post added 01-02-2016 at 10:55 ----------

 

It's a goodwill gesture by Google , they have agreed to pay tax based on revenue earned from UK advertisers in the future .

 

You don't think that the publicity surrounding this tax return is what has forced google to do what should already be a legal requirement?

[Eric Arthur]

That was the conlcusion for your reason not to post them. The journalists wouldnt publish them it would be HMRC or the parliamentary website. neither of which are politically motivated. Its just data.

 

The point about journalists was something that passed you by as it was focused on reasons why politicians would make sure the data they submitted was accurate and honest.

 

That's exactly why we DO want it publishing. So that they can be shown to be acting correctly, or prosecuted for not.

 

Rubbish. I'm no more interested in their tax return than I am in yours. Let's see yours too then.

 

I don't want a parliament strangled by bureaucracy created by the terminally stupid asking stupid questions about things they are too stupid to get their mind around.

 

If HMRC isn't fit for purpose, sort out HMRC, don't delegate the job to any passing amateur Shoestring that has an internet connection and an attitude.

[El Cid]

If HMRC isn't fit for purpose, sort out HMRC, don't delegate the job to any passing amateur Shoestring that has an internet connection and an attitude.

 

If we knew all the tax details of people/companies, we would know if they were doing a good job, or not.

[Eric Arthur]

If we knew all the tax details of people/companies, we would know if they were doing a good job, or not.

 

What are your qualifications to make that judgement?

 

I could have the biggest house and the flashest car and be getting a tax refund every year. A tax return would tell you nothing about anything unless you wanted to make mischief with people too stupid to understand that.

[999tigger]

Rubbish. I'm no more interested in their tax return than I am in yours. Let's see yours too then.

 

I don't want a parliament strangled by bureaucracy created by the terminally stupid asking stupid questions about things they are too stupid to get their mind around.

 

If HMRC isn't fit for purpose, sort out HMRC, don't delegate the job to any passing amateur Shoestring that has an internet connection and an attitude.

 

1. Transparency is important to have faith in your piblic representatives..

2. MPs are public servants in position of power. They put themselevs in position of scrutiny.

3. I doubt it would create much bureaucracy at all so a false argument. Its just under a thousand records.

4. Nobody said HMRC wasnt able to do it, thats just you.HMRC would be the reliable source of information. the official parliament website would be the the most sensible place to publish.

5. Not everyone is stupid, so thats a poor argument for not doing it. If they were accurate then they would stand up to scrutiny becayse theyd be accurate and hence honest.

[Cyclone]

Rubbish. I'm no more interested in their tax return than I am in yours. Let's see yours too then.

You have no interest, so no.

 

Also I quite clearly said that the general right to privacy should remain, but politicians are not "general", they're a special case.

 

I don't want a parliament strangled by bureaucracy created by the terminally stupid asking stupid questions about things they are too stupid to get their mind around.

How would parliament be required to answer questions or at all inconvenienced? That's just an excuse not to allow public scrutiny.

 

Presumably you don't approve of the expenses scandal having been exposed either?

[Eric Arthur]

1. Transparency is important to have faith in your piblic representatives..

2. MPs are public servants in position of power. They put themselevs in position of scrutiny.

3. I doubt it would create much bureaucracy at all so a false argument. Its just under a thousand records.

4. Nobody said HMRC wasnt able to do it, thats just you.HMRC would be the reliable source of information. the official parliament website would be the the most sensible place to publish.

5. Not everyone is stupid, so thats a poor argument for not doing it. If they were accurate then they would stand up to scrutiny becayse theyd be accurate and hence honest.

 

 

The problem with all this is that there's no end to it and the information falls squarely into the so what category unless there is some legal problem, and then you need HMRC and the CPS, not the Daily Express. A councillor made a few quid in dividends from shares they hold in Tesco who they voted a planning application through for. Would you want to know that? How about an MP who owns an estate with a wind farm subsidy? Or a front bencher who's family has a wallpaper business that supplies the refurbishment of a government property?

 

It's all so what unless you want to make mischief.

 

Which public servants would be exempt? Lords? Councillors? Police Officers? Servants? Planning Officers? Generals? Tax Collectors? Nurses? How about the people who supply goods and services to the public sector? Why should they be exempt too?

 

If you want probity, you need to have real probity, not some mealy mouthed version that is really just a political beating stick dressed up as probity.

[999tigger]

The problem with all this is that there's no end to it and the information falls squarely into the so what category unless there is some legal problem, and then you need HMRC and the CPS, not the Daily Express. A councillor made a few quid in dividends from shares they hold in Tesco who they voted a planning application through for. Would you want to know that? How about an MP who owns an estate with a wind farm subsidy? Or a front bencher who's family has a wallpaper business that supplies the refurbishment of a government property?

 

It's all so what unless you want to make mischief.

 

Which public servants would be exempt? Lords? Councillors? Police Officers? Servants? Planning Officers? Generals? Tax Collectors? Nurses? How about the people who supply goods and services to the public sector? Why should they be exempt too?

 

If you want probity, you need to have real probity, not some mealy mouthed version that is really just a political beating stick dressed up as probity.

 

1. There us an end because you are just publishing their HMRC tax return which is a defeined amount of data.

2. The information promotes transpaarency about who the public are electing and exercising power in their name.

3. What legal problem would there be? You use HMRC because they are the people with the data.

4. Surely you would want to know those things about other sources of income? If theres nothing there then that speaks for itself as well.

5. having public servants as honest and being transparent about it is not mischief making.

6. The talk is just about MPs as they have a special position holding political office.

[L00b]

The information promotes transpaarency about who the public are electing and exercising power in their name.

Except, it doesn't tell you anything about the power they have and can wield.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about their memberships and appointments.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about non-cash freebies and incentives.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about (nor provide any clues towards) offshore banking arrangements.

 

It just tells you how much taxable income they (consent to claiming to-) have.

 

And in any case, it's a completely sterile debate, until and unless HMRC is statutorily excused in respect of MP details and submissions under the DPA.

 

Which isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon...since MPs would most likely have to vote about it

[999tigger]

Except, it doesn't tell you anything about the power they have and can wield.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about their memberships and appointments.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about non-cash freebies and incentives.

 

It doesn't tell you anything about (nor provide any clues towards) offshore banking arrangements.

 

It just tells you how much taxable income they (consent to claiming to-) have.

 

And in any case, it's a completely sterile debate, until and unless HMRC is statutorily excused in respect of MP details and submissions under the DPA.

 

Which isn't going to happen anytime remotely soon...since MPs would most likely have to vote about it

 

1. I never said it did. Perhaps they should reconsider what information they ought to provide.

2. A DP exception isnt an obstacle if the MPs vote for it. Discussing it doesnt make it completely sterile.