Each persons income and tax in the public domain?

Interesting
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nearly-half-of-british-public-think-all-tax-returns-should-be-made-public-a6987521.html

I imagine - although I don't really know - that it would be overridden by a new law. I am pretty sure it would apply currently.

Can somebody tell me why the Data Protection Act doesn't apply if we were
'all ' required to publicly disclose our tax returns and indeed all our finances as has been the call on Cameron.

We can't even put the names and addresses of proposed new members on a notice board in our local club, because of the Data Protection Act . If a piddly action like that is seen as going against a persons right, what the heck does making us all publicly publish our tax affairs mean with regard to the Data Protection Act.

Please somebody tell me why it does not apply.

No its me I'm knackered

I was just commenting in my last post (and agreeing) whitewave so do you mean that one or another post?

I am sure you are not being dim - sometimes I don't understand what I'm reaching for - just that I am aware of the inequity of it all :-(

Grace don't understand your question - sorry to be so dim again!

Wow - interesting article Jen.

It is noticeable how many are commenting on the fact that the gap between what people can not only earn but aspire to earn can been seen to flag up potential problems in society. There seems to be not only an acknowledged need for democracy but we are seeing more validation that there will be a break-down in society when the perception and belief in democracy are breaking down.

whitewave your last sentence sums up the perversity of tax laws and who they benefit but I cannot understand why so many on fairly ordinary incomes support the very, very rich getting richer under such rules.

Well time will tell with that one - it certainly won't happen until they judge that all this has blown over. Anything that provides the rich with more wealth is not welcome by opinion at the moment.

Do you think Cameron will change the law on inheritance tax himself, or leave it to his successor?
It needs to be done before his mum dies for him to be able to take advantage of it.

Good isn't it?

I think he is picking up the zeitgeist that is going around the world. For sure the same conversation is taking place in Europe and the US and almost certainly in many countries throughout the world.

Thomas Pickerty describes just this phenomenon, and it recognised now that the type of inequality we are now seeing contributes towards economic instability, low growth, poor wage growth, but high growth in wealth to a tiny minority. This wealth by being stashed away from tax authorities contributes absolutely nothing to the worlds welfare, although the owners of this wealth use it to buy political influence ensuring that the tax laws that do exist to which they must comply is as lenient as possible.

www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/money-offshore-corrupt-democracy-political-influence

This is an excellent article by Aditya Chakrabortty.

Oh yes gracegran I can see where you are coming from now. Sorry I misunderstood.

Why is inheritance tax so high, considering very few people have to pay it?
It seems illogical to me, and is probably a reason why people try to minimise their taxes.
The other problem now is that Cameron wants to remove it, but that will be seen as another way to benefit himself and his pals. Not a good idea at the moment.

Do you read taxresearch, Gracesgran?

I know it will not solve all the issues I personally would want evening up but I do, like you, think it would make people questions some of the earning of those employed at the top of companies. I also think it will open up the gender issues in companies where there are any.

I would very much then want us to start us taxing earned and unearned income alike, doing away with stamp duty on houses and treating them in the same way we would treat any capital asset - charging capital gains on the sale. I would also abolish Inheritance Tax on the estate and tax the person receiving at the same rate as they would pay for the same amount of earned income received.

I agree that the likelihood of us seeing any of this in our lifetime is slim indeed but we should talk about making taxes (and benefits) as fair as possible imo.

Maybe we should have a referendum on it!

I think it would be a good idea, but like whitewave, think that it will not happen in the present circumstances.
I fill my tax return in online, so it must be available.
I do not know who wrote Corbyn's but the writing is atrocious. He ought to do it online.
I agree that there would probably be some sort of shock when people see the differences between the pay they get and that of their employer, so it could lead to a narrowing of the pay gap.
Or is that just wishful thinking.

"No gracegran it isn't my opinion, it is what I think will or will not happen"
I am fascinated as to how you would define "opinion" whitewave. This seems to sum it up.
Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
What you say has insufficient grounds to call it a certainty - we are talking about the future so who knows? - so I believe most people would define it as an opinion; it's certainly not a fact so what else can it be?

Certainly tax returns do not tell us anything that people have been hiding from the tax man but, as I quite clearly said, "it seems to diminish the extremes (both ways) of pay and of the gender pay gap" which is at least as important to me and maybe some others. I did also say - you may have missed it - "just as people may report those who are not declaring all their taxable income (usually ex husbands and wives I believe )

I hope that clarifies what I was suggesting

I agree with you and still wonder what it is that makes us so different from Norwegians. My answer would be snobbery and the class system Daphne but that is just my opinion. It can't be true of course - people are just not that shallow are they?

You are right that most of the information could probably be put on line pretty quickly - most people would only have PAYE and they have the information for that in order to work out your tax code.

Poor you with the pensions! You really need an accurate one to be able to work out what you will be able to do.

No gracegran it isn't my opinion, it is what I think will or will not happen. I think it is a good idea but with the caveat that tax returns only show you what has been declared it doesn't show you a persons wealth or income not declared for tax purposes, and that is the issue at stake.

There has been a relatively long period of slow global economic growth, but this has been far outstripped by personal wealth amongst the super rich.

Gracesgran, The government already has information about how much tax we pay and benefits we receive. When I 'supported' my daughter's application for student finance a couple of years ago, I was told that I didn't need to provide any further information, because they already had all the information they needed about my income.

It's actually worth checking it, if you still have the relevant paperwork, because the various government departments do make mistakes. In most cases, I don't suppose it really matters if they're a few pounds wrong, but it does matter for pension eligibility (I have three estimates and still don't have a matching pair) and would be even more important, if the information were to be made public.

Good post, Gracesgran. I agree with you and still wonder what it is that makes us so different from Norwegians.

Nigel Farage is very much against it

That is your opinion whitewave and, of course it is a legitimate one but I had put a caveat in my post saying that I know everyone does not think it is a good idea.

However, there is a lot of talk about the Norwegian and Swedish system at the moment as they do, indeed have open systems. I suppose this will not interest those who kick the idea into touch because they don't like it - I was really asking the question the question of those who like to use a bit of critical reflection on how things could/might/should be.

Personally I think it would be a good idea because it seems to deminish the extremes (both ways) of pay and of the gender pay gap. I also think that if we did decide this was a way forward then we should include those on benefits as I am sure it would stop people carping quite so much about people who they think are defrauding the system (when they currently can have no actual way of knowing) and the reporting of those who actually are - just as people may report those who are not declaring all their taxable income (usually ex husbands and wives I believe )

No idea gracegran not likely to happen anyway.

I have another question to ask which follows on from the OP. If, and I know not everyone thinks it is a good idea, but if everyone's tax return was in the public domain and open to scrutiny would everyone have to make a return - even if it was a negative one because they were getting benefits?

Now that is funny