Tax details published, what is to hide?

[foxy lady 10]

so you will be showing us your tax return on here then????

 

Apparently it was just a publicity stunt to highlight the fact that the Labour government failed to collect a penny in corporation tax from Google between 2005 and 2010.

[RonJeremy 10]

It is absolutely none of anyone else's business what I, George Osborne or anyone else pays in tax except for the Inland Revenue. It is private and should remain that way.

[Cyclone 10]

It is absolutely none of anyone else's business what I, George Osborne or anyone else pays in tax except for the Inland Revenue. It is private and should remain that way.

 

I disagree.

Whilst privacy should be a given for most of the population. If you want to run the country then I think you have to accept that you will be under scrutiny and you have to be seen to be behaving in the correct way.

Just my opinion. (But the expenses scandal goes some way to explaining why I might think that).

[Eric Arthur 10]

I disagree.

Whilst privacy should be a given for most of the population. If you want to run the country then I think you have to accept that you will be under scrutiny and you have to be seen to be behaving in the correct way.

Just my opinion. (But the expenses scandal goes some way to explaining why I might think that).

 

There's no reason why you should know or why it should make any difference. It would make more sense to see your doctors practice certificate before being treated, or take references from your butcher about the tastiness of his meat because at least there is a point to that which affects you.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

Yes, it would make sense for a doctor to have proof, and such things are publicly available, so I don't really see your point.

I doubt that a butcher can vouch for something so subjective, that's a very poor analogy, I might ask their opinion though, if I didn't know what I wanted.

[999tigger 10]

There's no reason why you should know or why it should make any difference. It would make more sense to see your doctors practice certificate before being treated, or take references from your butcher about the tastiness of his meat because at least there is a point to that which affects you.

 

You already know Drs are regulated. You can check most professionals are on the register/ roll of their profession. Your argument is a poor one.

 

Wage secrecy is deep within the British psyche. I understand it but it also has an element of divide and rule. In the scandinavian countries everyones salary details are known and published online. Norway, Sweden, Finland.

 

The biggest sufferers from wage secrecy are women who suffern from being paid c 20% less than their male counterparts. Wage secrecy helps keep a lot of that hidden.

[Eric Arthur 10]

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.

 

A politician's tax return will tell you nothing at all about their probity and the last thing it does is provide any oversight. It is just another stick to beat them with and distract them from doing what is important.

[truman 10]

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.

 

 

How would you know that the details the MP put on their return was actually the truth? People have been known to lie on these things you know

[999tigger 10]

How would you know that the details the MP put on their return was actually the truth? People have been known to lie on these things you know

 

Presumably because HRM would be the publisher and if they were in the public domain then journalists would be all over them to point out any discrepancy. Reporting false information would be a fraud for which they would be prosecuted and their political reputation severely damaged if not destroyed. You dont take those sort of risks.

[Eric Arthur 10]

Presumably because HRM would be the publisher and if they were in the public domain then journalists would be all over them to point out any discrepancy. Reporting false information would be a fraud for which they would be prosecuted and their political reputation severely damaged if not destroyed. You dont take those sort of risks.

 

Which is exactly why we don't want politicians publishing their tax returns.

[Berberis 10]

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has published his tax return and has urged Chancellor George Osborne to do the same. Everyone, and every company should have to do this. The Conservative are so very much anti-public sector, you would think at the very least they would be pushing for all employees paid by the state to have their tax details published. What is to be ashamed of?

 

So if Osborne was accused of having a vagina, would John McDonnell publish a naked full frontal picture of himself to try and force Osborn to do they same?

 

Tax is private and until the government changes this (which labour did not do in their time in office), Osborne is entitled to keep them as such.

[999tigger 10]

Which is exactly why we don't want politicians publishing their tax returns.

 

So you would be against prosecuting someone who was found to be fraudulently misrepresenting their earnings to HMRC?