Toynbee - "tax returns of every citizen must be made public"

[otolith]

Toynbee says that the Grauniad pays her 115k pa (she's not saying much about her other income streams). In response to suggestions that this is a lot of money for her to be paid, she says this;

"Did I ever justify the gross inequality in Britain's wages? See my books Unjust Rewards, or Hard Work. There is next to no connection between reward and desert"

Well there bloody could be, if it really matters to her as much as she claims it does. She could easily negotiate a pay cut if she doesn't think she deserves the money. She could walk into the Guardian's offices and tell them about how it is unjust for her to receive over four times the median salary and (x) multiples of the salary of a teacher, nurse or other saintly public sector worker. "Cut my salary in half and use the other half to stop exploiting those unpaid editorial work experience placements", she could say.

I wonder how many hours a week she actually works for that?

[pingu393]

Gene Vincent said:

Not the tax return, but 'tax paid'... that would expose fraudsters, embezzlers and a whole multitude of other thefts.

It's not theft, embezzlement or fraud to avoid tax to below the threshold and hence pay £0. It's just using the system .

[Gene Vincent]

pingu393 said:

Gene Vincent said:

Not the tax return, but 'tax paid'... that would expose fraudsters, embezzlers and a whole multitude of other thefts.

It's not theft, embezzlement or fraud to avoid tax to below the threshold and hence pay £0. It's just using the system .

Not specifically tax... but generally.

The person down the road with fabulous lifestyle supported by embezzling from his employers or dealing drugs or defrauding others on the net.

Taxman, fk him, if I could be paid cash and pay none except purchase taxes, I would, without doubt.

[stevejh]

It would be interesting to see what certain members of our society earn and/or pay in tax. I'm particularly thinking of the more mobile elements if you get my drift.

However, I actually think it's a terrible idea and I'm not surprised that Toynbee is putting her weight behind it. It's all just feeding the politics of envy that seems to pervade all elements of our society these days.

My income is my (and the taxman's) business and that's how it should stay. I really don't care what they do in Sweden or wherever it's not something I want to see in this country.

[HundredthIdiot]

I am a company director and my salary is a matter of public record, part of the accounts we file.

I can't say it's a particularly comfortable thing but no one has ever mentioned it to me, so either they haven't bothered to look or don't feel the need to bring it up.

[excel monkey]

Gene Vincent said:

Taxman, fk him, if I could be paid cash and pay none except purchase taxes, I would, without doubt.

I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, which is why HMRC have the powers they do.

[ElvisPenhaligon]

Gene Vincent said:

Not specifically tax... but generally.

The person down the road with fabulous lifestyle supported by embezzling from his employers or dealing drugs or defrauding others on the net.

Taxman, fk him, if I could be paid cash and pay none except purchase taxes, I would, without doubt.

So, get off your arse and start up your own business.

I did and it was fking hard work. However, when I look at the government hosing my cash at st, at least I'm not being raped via PAYE.

[Blue62]

HundredthIdiot said:

I am a company director and my salary is a matter of public record, part of the accounts we file.

I can't say it's a particularly comfortable thing but no one has ever mentioned it to me, so either they haven't bothered to look or don't feel the need to bring it up.

As someone previously posted, I think this is more about how much tax you pay as opposed to what you earn. Still interested to know why so many people on here (possibly not representative of the UK population) would object to the extent that they seem to, reading through the posts I can't find a single, cogent argument other than the usual line about envy, which seems to be a stock PH response these days. I'm not arguing in favour, just interested to know. People are often keen to let others know how much they donate to charity, so why not disclose your tax contribution?

[carmonk]

Blue62 said:

HundredthIdiot said:

I am a company director and my salary is a matter of public record, part of the accounts we file.

I can't say it's a particularly comfortable thing but no one has ever mentioned it to me, so either they haven't bothered to look or don't feel the need to bring it up.

As someone previously posted, I think this is more about how much tax you pay as opposed to what you earn. Still interested to know why so many people on here (possibly not representative of the UK population) would object to the extent that they seem to, reading through the posts I can't find a single, cogent argument other than the usual line about envy, which seems to be a stock PH response these days. I'm not arguing in favour, just interested to know. People are often keen to let others know how much they donate to charity, so why not disclose your tax contribution?

1) Privacy.

2) It encourages discord.

3) It serves no social benefit.

[Northern Munkee]

Not sure about individuals but just reading about Apple paying £10m on £6Bn of UK profit, and that Amazon's UK operation hasn't paid any in 2010 or 2011, due to offshoring account on UK business transactions to Cork (Apple), Luxembourg (Amazon), irelands corporation tax 12.5% compared to ours double that, of course we contributed to their bail out. WTF! What a shower our politicians are, it's about time we took our sovereignty back from the EU, if people want to sell goods in our market, they ought to pay the markets taxes end of.... Then when they are in it together with us, the correct tax take ought (if it were the world as it should be) to allow the tax rates for ordinary people to fall (I.e those who don't have a clever tax accountant), or we might start making in roads into the deficit!

So in so much as publishing this tax stuff prominently shines a light on what is going I'd say yes to company accounts, individuals, non paye. Well Bliar paying £300k on £12m. Hmmm... The nutter might have a point!

[Mermaid]

Northern Munkee said:

.. The nutter might have a point!

But wants publicity mainly.

[Northern Munkee]

Mermaid said:

But wants publicity mainly.

True enough but doesn't necessarily mean she is entirely wrong. Or should we blinkered to only play the (wo)man rather than the ball? As I say just because it's legal to avoid paying is it morally right, politicians and media, get on their high horse about hypocrisy, the light of publicity does wonders and look what publicity did for MP expenses?

[Gene Vincent]

ElvisPenhaligon said:

Gene Vincent said:

Not specifically tax... but generally.

The person down the road with fabulous lifestyle supported by embezzling from his employers or dealing drugs or defrauding others on the net.

Taxman, fk him, if I could be paid cash and pay none except purchase taxes, I would, without doubt.

So, get off your arse and start up your own business.

I did and it was fking hard work. However, when I look at the government hosing my cash at st, at least I'm not being raped via PAYE.

I know it's hard... a run a couple.

[DonkeyApple]

otolith said:

Toynbee says that the Grauniad pays her 115k pa (she's not saying much about her other income streams). In response to suggestions that this is a lot of money for her to be paid, she says this;

"Did I ever justify the gross inequality in Britain's wages? See my books Unjust Rewards, or Hard Work. There is next to no connection between reward and desert"

Well there bloody could be, if it really matters to her as much as she claims it does. She could easily negotiate a pay cut if she doesn't think she deserves the money. She could walk into the Guardian's offices and tell them about how it is unjust for her to receive over four times the median salary and (x) multiples of the salary of a teacher, nurse or other saintly public sector worker. "Cut my salary in half and use the other half to stop exploiting those unpaid editorial work experience placements", she could say.

I wonder how many hours a week she actually works for that?

If she had any morals she would decline to work for a company which avoids paying tax in the UK.

That's the trouble with these types, they rant on about morals when they are in deficit themselves.

The last thing any good socialist wants is to have their gross income published.

[Blue62]

carmonk said:

1) Privacy.

2) It encourages discord.

3) It serves no social benefit.

Take your point on provacy, but does it actually matter if I know what my neighbour paid out in tax last year?

Apparently this is common practice, according to the OP in certain Scandinavian countries (I will research if I really have to, but will rely on OP for now), I don't see too much social discord coming out of that part of the world, at least compared to the levels we experienced here last summer. I'm not suggesting that that point settles the argument, moreover that there's no evidence for your assertion.

Why does it serve no social benefit? If it encorages greater transaprency and increases the tax take as a result, is that not a social benefit?

To be clear, I'm not an advocate as I use all legitimate means to reduce my tax bill, but I am interested in the debate.

[thinfourth2]

Wouldn't bother me as i earn close to fk-all

[carmonk]

Blue62 said:

carmonk said:

1) Privacy.

2) It encourages discord.

3) It serves no social benefit.

Take your point on provacy, but does it actually matter if I know what my neighbour paid out in tax last year?

Apparently this is common practice, according to the OP in certain Scandinavian countries (I will research if I really have to, but will rely on OP for now), I don't see too much social discord coming out of that part of the world, at least compared to the levels we experienced here last summer. I'm not suggesting that that point settles the argument, moreover that there's no evidence for your assertion.

Why does it serve no social benefit? If it encorages greater transaprency and increases the tax take as a result, is that not a social benefit?

To be clear, I'm not an advocate as I use all legitimate means to reduce my tax bill, but I am interested in the debate.

The preservation of privacy isn't incumbent on whether harm would be done by disclosure. I could stand at your window all day and peer at you and your family without any measurable loss to yourselves (in fact, I'm there now, with my iPhone) but I'd assume you wouldn't want me to do that. Privacy should be at the core of any civilised society. If privacy is sacrificed for control then you have to ask yourself whether that's an indication of societal advancement or just something to give that appearance. To me the answer is obvious - it's the latter.

I don't know what happens in Scandinavia but I do know it's a different culture and you can't just take a chunk of one culture, impose it on another and expect it to work. I think the main reason for doing this in the UK would be to get citizens to do the government's work, by snooping on their neighbours and reporting anything they think is 'a bit odd'. Whilst this might trap a few tax dodgers the harm it would cause would massively outweigh the benefits. I'm sure that I'd be reported a dozen times over because whilst I don't fiddle my taxes, the link between my lifestyle and my income is not immediately obvious to anybody simply viewing my tax bill. It's not immediately obvious to me sometimes but that's another story.

You say it increases transparency like that's a good thing. Transparency in government is good, not in citizenship.

All in all I can't see a single reason to support the idea.

[AndrewW-G]

Blue62 said:

but does it actually matter if I know what my neighbour paid out in tax last year?

Why do you want to know? . . . . or are you still upset that they have a better car / bigger house / haven't returned the hedge clippers they borrowed from you last year etc. etc. etc.


As with many of these things, anybody who wants to know, is the sort of person who shouldn't be told

[bitchstewie]

It's an interesting premise and some interesting opinions so far.

I guess personally I'm a bit of a hypocrite in that I wouldn't be too comfortable with people knowing what I earn and what tax I pay, but if, say, Bob Diamond was found to be paying 5% tax on his income through some legal but elaborate tax rouse, I think there is a public interest element in knowing that - problem is I'm not sure I can articulate why, if what he's doing is perfectly legal.

[s3fella]

otolith said:

Only if benefit receipts are also made public.

These should be anyway, i mean it is public cash not private..?