The BBC seem to have decided that I am the person to argue for all tax returns being placed on public record as a consequence of my having very strongly supported this measure for MPs and members of the House of Lords. I did several broadcast interviews on the issue yesterday.
I note the BBC report on the comments made by Sir Alan Duncan on this issue in the House of Commons in which they noted that:
He warned that if the PM's critics were not careful, "we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers, who hate enterprise, hate people who look after their own family and who know absolutely nothing about the outside world".
And
Mr Cameron said he was "grateful" for Sir Alan's support, before saying MPs should not be forced to publish their tax returns as it could discourage people from seeking election to Parliament.
As I said in a television interview for the BBC last evening, I think this suggestion is absurd. Politicians choose to put themselves in the public eye. They choose the resulting publicity. And they should accept the resulting obligation to be accountable. If they do not, then it is my very simple and straightforward suggestion that they are not the appropriate people to be making decisions on our behalf.
We do expect to be governed by people who accept responsibility for their actions. And we do expect them to tell us the truth. What is more, we do believe they should act without conflicts of interest. We have this expectation in business. We have it even when it comes down to the level of being a school governor. So why should we not expect our politicians to be accountable for the risks that their private financial affairs might create in the exercise of their judgement?
Alan Duncan is just wrong: he is revealing his commitment to the politics of jealousy. Those who are making this demand are revealing their commitment to the politics of accountability. The two are based upon very different sentiments, and deliver very different outcomes, and we have a right to know who is committed to each.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree and I would argue more that those currently motivated to this position need to live life as per the average working family in this country. Highly motivated people will always be highly motivated so this argument is flawed – “we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers”… We may actually get a House of Commons stuffed with people from the “commons”…
“we risk seeing a House of Commons which is stuffed full of low achievers”
That’s exactly what we’ve got know (FFS!). creosoted, bumptious shysters who know the value of nothing except personal wealth accrual (emphasis an ‘-cruel’). Alan Duncan is betraying his empty and vapid notion of ‘achievement’ that is utterly contemptible, illiterate and worthy of a cheapskate robber baron mentality. We have some of the most incompetent politicians in history in power at present, pure hobbyists-as Varoufakis recently put it:
‘this is why politicians aren’t what they used to be. It’s not because our DNA is degenerating. It’s that there is a natural Darwinian process, a natural selection process. Politics attracts the least well-meaning and least talented people because the political sphere has been devalued.’
Duncan’s superficial, one dimensional conception of ‘achievement’ exemplifies this beyond doubt. Anyone who watched Channel 4’s program on PIP assessments and the mocking of the comoditised disabled will realise what lowest common denominator culture we have become-a society voided of moral sensibility with a breathtaking vacuity.
If Duncan can’t see this then he is being wilfully blind or a moron educated beyond his intellectual capacity.
Nice bit of journalism on the more dubious exploits of Sir Alan Duncan, very amusing videos worth a watch too!
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/12/millionaire-tory-mp-got-strange-opinions-achievement-looks-like/
The contempt in the terms used like “low achievers” and knowing “absolutely nothing about the outside world” disgusts and angers me in equal measures.
He means knowing and approving his version of the world. I would rather be poor than rich with his values.
Surely then on the same basis, someone like yourself should also publish his tax returns? Same should apply to others from civil society who make it their business to comment on other peoples tax affairs (Christensen, Shaxson etc – how about Polly too?)
I voluntary publish my accounts and all major sources of income already – more than a tax return would show
Perhaps you could publish your accounts, LLP Fulcrum, any other bodies you have set up and of course your personal accounts for past 3 years on this blog seeing this is a current issue.
If you have published these in the past, they are well hidden.
I make clear my sources of funding n this blog
I publish the full LLP accounts at Companies House
What dripped from every word Duncan uttered was snobbery and an ingrained sense of superiority and entitlement, Richard. He is a man, as are many/all Tories, who have never ever accepted that “ordinary” men and women were given the vote and thus the power to upset the “natural” order of things – even if, sadly, we seldom actually use that power to that end. If Duncan and his ilk had their way we’d all still be doffing our caps to our “betters”. And being thankful for a few scraps from their table, which if you think about it could be a metaphor that accurately describes the situation many people are in after six years of Tory rule.
I remember an old saying that to deal with a self-important painter, you get a man to stand behind him with a hammer and a nail, to show him his real place in the world. I think it’s a good way to deal with a self-important politician … demand to see his tax return. That way we show him who’s boss… and that it’s not him!
Sir Alan Duncan’s comment yesterday was one of the more absurd, in a day full of absurdity.
But it’s good to get a very un-subtle reminder every now and again that the British political system has always been (and still very much is) rigged for the benefit of the upper echelons of wealth and power. Those who consider themselves as a result of birth, good fortune or even some slight intellect – above the common man!
They (the establishment for want of a better word) will try to cling onto that until their teeth and claws have fallen out, because without un-democratic control on the political system they know that their days in control of this country are numbered.
But let’s not forget that the definition of common is “shared or communal” – which is what our society and planet really is. So it is time for all common men (and women) to stand up and show that the time for the next major change in this country is now!
Even the Telegraph has attacked him for it
Ye gods! Scintilla of hope?
Richard,
This article in the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/12/the-moral-case-for-low-taxes/
is scandalous in my view. One quote that really shocked me is
“Mr Corbyn contributed £18,912 in income tax to the Exchequer last year, Mr Cameron handed over £75,000 and Mr Osborne £70,000. The two Conservatives each paid nearly four times more than the Labour leader towards the upkeep of the nation.”
I see it differently and may be you can correct me if I am wrong. Both Cameron and Osborne enjoy state funding housing and let out their properties which incidentally were acquired by inherited income. The fact that they receive additional income as a result of tax payer funded housing is state welfare not a net contribution to the “upkeep of the nation”.
The rest is no better!
They just earn more than Jeremy Corbyn!
And, as you note, enjoy state subsidies that allow them to gain privately
The claim is clearly made in the spirit of Alan Duncan’s to the HoC
Low achievers, it ranks with trapped in wealth as such Tory class drivel. Does Mr Duncan view people on a scale of dullard to posh boy, no doubt he does and he will not be alone. My paternal grandfather managed mills in Brazil for the Lancashire Cotton Corporation, my dad and siblings spent their formative years there, he came back to England to do his apprentiship, the rest of the family a few years later, fairly well off. They were horrified when my dad chose my mother, a mill girl from an impoverished background to marry. Where do I put my mother in the achievement scale, STRATOSPHERIC, Mr Duncan. My Rio grandad must have been a Tory, my Manchester, Carter dad with his horse and cart where it was first up best dressed, don’t know for sure. My dad though, proud to say Labour.
And Duncan is the man who claimed expenses of £5,000 for his garden and said that MPs, who at the time were paid around £64,000 a year, were having, “to live on rations and are treated like shit.”
I thought that name rang a bell!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5304976/Alan-Duncan-claimed-thousands-for-gardening-MPs-expenses.html
Personal musings lead me to say that the meddling with the education system has done as much to promote ignorance as has the choice to refrain from reading. The wealthiest people in the country have divorced them selves from the 99% and very subtley ensured that the rungs of self improvement have been made unavailable for those with aspirations. TV and MSM have only encouraged this as has the love affair with digital technology. I Well remember a Tory politician saying that if people got bored with politics they wouldnt vote and that was the aim of what he was doing.
The 1% are afraid of an interested electorate!
The 1% are afraid of an interested and informed electorate!
When the Labour Party was having an internal argument about Trident, I forget what was the exact cause of the fuss, Corbyn and other anti-Trident leaders within the labour Party got air tine, (as did the other side) to air the arguments against Trident. Within a week the public opinion polls showed an 11% swing (iirc) to the anti-Trident view. Proof that many of the public’s “opinions” can be shifted, and very rapidly indeed, when the arguments are aired properly.
On transparency, any thoughts on Jeremy Corbyn’s tax return Richard?
Seems to me that Questions 1 to 9 MUST be completed (and answered to the best on his knowledge and belief) but he only answers question 3. Does this make it a fraudulent or negligent return?
Also, I understand that he has a lodger. Question 4 should be answered in the affirmative even if this is less than rent a room exemption of £4,250. It is not answered.
I believe there is also a question that he did not disclose all his other income for his lecturing per Parliamentary records.
I have not actually seen it
And I have not an iota of respobnsibility for it
I note this
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/73724/jeremy-corbyn-overstated-income-his-tax-return
It wpulod seem he has over-declared his income
I would be interested to know how my comment on Corbyn failing to declare about £10k pension income on his tax return (something he has admitted) infringed your comments policy other than it ran contrary to the narrative you want to create. It seems straight-forward that omissions of this nature in tax returns should be wholly condemned and it must raise questions on the accuracy of his other numbers and past returns. It also shows how misguided it can be not to appoint a tax return preparer such as yourself. You seemed very happy to paint Cameron’s affairs in a particularly bad light although at least his position was legal.
I suspect you haven’t got the nerve to post this either.
It added nothing to debate
It did look remarkably like trolling
The nastiness of your tone bores me rigid
I am the editor
And so say all of us…
We definitely need to challenge the idea that those earning the most, or even those paying the most tax, are somehow the best of us. Personal financial wealth is a very poor yardstick against which to measure our usefulness to society. A rich asset owner might contribute next to nothing and be handsomely rewarded whilst a minimum wage worker in public health might be saving the lives of thousands who would otherwise have died of disease. The combined value of society is near infinitely greater than the sum of it’s parts. Our culture, history, technology, infrastructure, medical staff, education staff, our parents, our colleagues, etc. etc. all combine to make us who we are and to claim for ourselves the majority credit of this joint achievement is a huge arrogance. Without society we would be ignorant, illiterate ape creatures scratching for seeds and roots. When someone can make themself a billionaire amongst the Orangutans of Borneo I might admit they deserve the lion share the credit.
If we accept that society is a joint enterprise and all of us contribute to varying degrees then we must see the division of wealth for what it is, an arbitrary assignment based on a complex set of rules. For society to be seen as just these rules must be seen as fair. In my view that requires a basic level of freedom, health, shelter and protection for everyone and a meritocratic system of distribution for the rest. I don’t believe we currently have that situation and so the system should be changed so that we do.
Those who earn the most in our society are currently receiving the largest share of the wealth. We should be asking what they do to justify that privilege and changing the laws that enshrine it where necessary. It is our collective wealth, not theirs. They are taking from us not us from them. Let them scrabble for berries in the primeval forest if they don’t like the deal.
You are of course right Alberto, the economic principles of the “market” and “competition” and “free trade” and “supply and demand” will always fail completely to reward people based on the real value they provide to society. Instead the rewards will always be based on the level of ownership of the three means of production (land, labour and capital).
Clearly if you only own your own labour (or are now a modern day slave), in this increasingly dystopian world dominated by the financial power of land and capital – you are at an impossible disadvantage from the outset and will most likely always remain so.
And so it is entirely logical that those who currently own the land and capital use all the economic tools of their trade to justify their continued dominance, control and power over those who only own their labour (not forgetting the young, sick, disabled not able to participate in the labour force)
So when you see the words “market forces”, “free trade”, “supply and demand” “competition”, “globalisation” and all other such words that describe the economic principles underpinning capitalism appear in front of your eyes or in your ears – you know one thing for sure.
You’re screwed!
Because if you’re not already in the very small minority who control the land, the capital and the demand for labour then you don’t stand a chance of progressing or aspiring to much more than what you started with – virtually nothing at all.
Unless of course you are one of the luckiest people on the planet who finds some way to scrape enough from the top table through birth, connections, luck, determination, skill or crime. No discredit to anyone who falls into this category (except the criminals of course).
That is the Global Lottery that is now being played out – so the question is – Do you feel lucky today?
Thanks Alberto – fine statement of the position – I enjoyed it a lot and have filed it away . . .
Here’s a good example of what real “achievement” is – fighting against all the odds, sheer hard work and determination, dedication to public service and caring for others, and all for £13 an hour!
Alan Duncan should be ashamed of himself for thinking his “silver spoon” version of achievement is the one that counts, and his constituents should be questioning who he is really representing in parliament as it won’t be most of them.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/04/12/an-nhs-workers-open-letter-to-the-tory-mp-who-called-people-low-achievers-for-fighting-tax-avoidance/
I think that all of those who have control over public funds should be obliged to reveal their tax returns. It is notable that Cameron’s revelations, limited as they are, only cover the last 6 years – Osborne’s just last year’s. It is highly likely that Cameron’s financial affairs were drastically overhauled in 2010.
I would be content with a confession of bad behaviour and a promise to be good in the future;o)
But, Carol, they did not reveal their tax returns, only summaries of those returns, leaving questions unanswered. Which makes Mary Snell’s comments about Corbyn’s return, not a summary, containing errors somewhat unhinged. We’ll never know if the same could be true of Cameron and Osborne unless we see the same actual tax returns as Corbyn shared.
This is just an example of the Just World fallacy which claims that if you are rich then it is because there is a universal force that keeps a moral balance. Conversely if you are poor then it must be because you are morally inferior or lacking in some way or simply don’t work hard enough. This is how they justify the high pay of CEOs…they are ‘better’ than us and they work 50 timesharder as well of course. The way this backward facing logic is generally accepted puzzles me daily.
Someone suggested to me today that the determinant of whether your financial affairs be open to public scrutiny, should be whether you were voted into public office in any capacity. I think that is fair. Most who can determine policy / pass laws at a country level would, I hope be captured. This would also highlight, with quite a number of MPs of all hues, just what a small proportion of their annual income comes from representing all of us low achievers. Corruption? How could we useless paps think such a thing of our self styled betters?
No wonder they are circling the wagons.
The truth is that Duncan and his ilk have contempt for ordinary people and believe that we have no right to hold them to account.
“They” are of course all “high achievers” or is that code for those that have climbed the greasy pole by their fawning ingratiating behaviour to those holding wealth and power.
“They” love “enterprise” ..the sort that involves looting the state by for example privatizing the NHS, rescuing dud banks selling arms to “terrorist states”
“They” love “looking after their own family” ..this encompasses the range from nepotism to the “old boy network”
Lastly, “they” know everything about the “outside world” …their skill set being grounded in the dark arts of deception, exploitation and corruption.
All this because they have forgotten that they are “Public Servants” and not the “the Public’s Masters”!
And then there is the really big issue that does not seem to have taken centre stage, although it yet might?
Cameron’s government is committed to closing all but 14 of the UK’s 300+ tax offices. How can anybody believe he is committed to oppose tax avoidance and evasion in the light of that?
There are doubts as to whether HMRC has the resources to properly follow up the info in the Panama papers now, after all the cuts it has taken. It certainly won’t have the resources after most of the offices have been closed.
I reckon Osborne’s tax returns would indeed be interesting.
However I am convinced that it is time the spotlight started to move on to the Tory party donors as well. Cameron’s tax affairs, when he publishes them, may prove to be a damp squib.
He has suffered serious damage so far but I believe the issues around him are set to run out of steam soon: the sums involved are relatively small, he has paid tax due and he sold up before he became PM.
Questions about Tory donor tax dodging that need to be asked are these:
Is the PM comfortable with the revelations in the Panama Papers about Tory tax dodging donors?
Does the PM agree that tax avoidance schemes such as those used by Heritage Oil (see http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/tory-donors-links-to-offshore-firms-revealed-in-leaked-panama-papers
for Guardian double page spread on Tory donors mentioned in the Panama Papers,) are morally wrong (“frankly and morally wrong” is the exact phrase used by Cameron about comedian Jimmy Carr’s K2 scheme in Jersey).
Will he legislate to ban those who dodge their taxes from donating to political parties?”
After all they have absconded from society in the sense of pretending their money is located in another country, so why should they suddenly be concerned about the politics of this one?
The real issue remains tax havens
This whole issue has been a distraction
Congratulations Richard, you’ve once again landed a telling blow. I predict that if you keep it up within mere months we’ll be ready to take the next step and start talking explicitly about ‘the tribe’ responsible for all this. Then it won’t take long for the people to wake up to who’s been exploiting them and ‘finally solve’ the problem once and for all. The current wave of accusations of ‘antisemitism’ against people like you and Jeremy Corbyn is simply the last desperate wriggling of the fish you’ve so neatly hooked.
What are you talking about?
Jeremy Corbyn and I cannot be bracketed
I have never been accused of anti-semiticism that I know of, and am not anti-Semitic in any way that I know of
So what is this nonsense?
Sorry if I’ve been too explicit – one of your great achievements has been making things quite clear while remaining ‘politically correct’. Don’t worry, though, we see what you’re really saying and fully support you. One day we will ‘finally solve’ the problems you campaign against, and you will be our acclaimed leader.
Once again, from the bottom of my heart, thankyou: the ‘you-know-whos’ (it rhymes…) had almost entirely taken discussion of their crimes off the table in this country until you came along and returned discussion of the YKW-problem to the mainstream. I would go as far as to say that without you, this cause would be entirely dead. Congratulations Richard, keep fighting the good fight and sooner or later we will thoroughly exterminate ‘the tribe’.
I assure you, there are plenty of others working on the issue too
But thanks
The tax returns of politicians will be broadly useless because anything really interesting will appear on the tax return of their spouse instead. The issue will not be one of “offshore” it will be one of “not-self”.
MPs will be scurrying around even as I write this, making sure that various things are divested to a spouse and historic returns almost certainly won’t be required. Only an MP without a reliable spouse will be revealing substantial assets.
Furthermore as tax returns only reveal chargeable gains and income there will be a drive to holding assets that don’t generate income and defer capital gains taxes. Not to mention that the public will know nothing of pension entitlement or ISA holdings. Over the years it has been possible to put a great deal into an ISA so there could be substantial hidden assets.
Personally I find it rather worrying that people tasked with running the economy of the country hold all their liquid assets as cash. Are they saying that they don’t believe in holding a balanced investment portfolio, or do they think things are so bad that it is time to go to cash? Or is this a case of “not-self” … ?
Personally, I believe that ‘a balanced investment portfolio’ requires appropriation of the surplus labour of other workers and that the only thing required of your savings is to maintain their purchasing power. I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn agrees with me. I guess you approve of buy-to-let and other rent-seeking activities.
Savings in cash certainly won’t maintain their purchasing power with current interest rates. If you want to achieve that you really need a mixture of things, some with a little more risk and some with less.
There is a question of balance to be had. Some “rent-seeking activity” is absolutely fine. I am living in a rented house because I don’t want the cost and inconvenience of buying a house when I plan to leave in the next few years. I am glad that some people “buy-to-let” because I want to rent and from a personal point of view there isn’t enough of it on offer!
Furthermore when going on holiday with my wife and 4 children I shouldn’t need to buy a house to avoid staying in a hotel, but again that is somebody involved in “buy-to-let”.
Holding savings in cash amounts to letting the bank lend your money and take all the rewards and risk, that sounds like assisting “rent-seeking” to me.
I don’t live in your black and white world where all “rent-seeking” is necessarily a bad thing.
I do not live in a black and white world
It is you who is deliberately dissembling
I know that you don’t live in a black and white world. I was responding to Carol Wilcox’s comments on a balanced portfolio rather than yours
Agreed, but the Commons is already full of low achievers. I really despair about the quality of people there in general. Apart from Caroline Lucas and a few others they are difficult to take credibly. Great great with this blog – some sanity in a increasingly propagandised world.
Only a tiny elite channel their cash through the British Virgin Islands or dodgy regimes like Panama. The things that have emerged from Jeremy Corbyn’s return are of an entirely different nature, and thousands, if not millions may have done the same.
Indeed given the hysterical reaction I feel some reassurance is due to those that might conclude they should worry.
Apparently Corbyn omitted his pensions. His state pension is already known to HMRC, and he will have paid the correct tax on it through coding out on the PAYE code applied to his salary. His works pension is also known to HMRC and will have suffered tax at source at higher rate under PAYE.
So no additional tax due. If investigated, interest on 0 unpaid = £0, penalty ?% (probably zero% for genuine error) x 0 unpaid = £0. HMRC has never inveastigated something like this.
So anybody in the same position can rest easy.
And a £100 fine for a return a few days late. The price of not using a professional adviser? But he has saved the adviser’s fee. I think £100 pa would be a bit steep, but he has saved this over several years. An adviser might charge a bit for coping with the additional MP pages?
Spot on
Thanks
Ed note: I really would have thought that you would have learned by now that you really are too boring to ever get on here
The criteria I use for deleting you is ‘does not add to debate’
Now please don’t waste my time