This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/12/tax-transparency-start-publish-payrolls-end-privilege

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Tax transparency is just the start. Let’s publish payrolls too Tax transparency is just the start. Let’s publish payrolls too
(5 months later)
When the Panama Papers first hit the headlines, many of the usual, mostly foreign, suspects were in the frame. Jump forward a week, and some of the most profound repercussions have been in the UK, where public pressure has compelled the prime minister and others to publish details of their tax payments. This is an enormous change in the political culture; it has happened virtually overnight, without any the ponderous process of legislation, and it will be nigh on impossible to reverse.When the Panama Papers first hit the headlines, many of the usual, mostly foreign, suspects were in the frame. Jump forward a week, and some of the most profound repercussions have been in the UK, where public pressure has compelled the prime minister and others to publish details of their tax payments. This is an enormous change in the political culture; it has happened virtually overnight, without any the ponderous process of legislation, and it will be nigh on impossible to reverse.
With openness, the male-female pay gap would have been eliminated years agoWith openness, the male-female pay gap would have been eliminated years ago
The only sensible question to ask now, as Lord Hague did on the BBC on Tuesday morning, is how much further do we go? Should all members of the government be required to come clean about their tax affairs, or just the prime minister and the leader of the opposition? How about all MPs? Are the declarations of MPs’ interests enough? What about local councillors? Anyone elected to, or who even stands for, public office?The only sensible question to ask now, as Lord Hague did on the BBC on Tuesday morning, is how much further do we go? Should all members of the government be required to come clean about their tax affairs, or just the prime minister and the leader of the opposition? How about all MPs? Are the declarations of MPs’ interests enough? What about local councillors? Anyone elected to, or who even stands for, public office?
And if all MPs or those elected to public office are required to publish their tax returns, will the result be – as Sir Alan Duncan suggested in the Commons on Monday – that parliament becomes a congregation of the mediocre?And if all MPs or those elected to public office are required to publish their tax returns, will the result be – as Sir Alan Duncan suggested in the Commons on Monday – that parliament becomes a congregation of the mediocre?
On this narrow point, I would give (most of) those standing for election the benefit of the doubt. We tend to underestimate the genuine public service motive that underlies many quests for elected office; I suspect that most of those now elected would regard tax transparency, if required, as an aspect of their public duty. And if they don’t – well, how worthy are they to represent the law-abiding, tax-paying public?On this narrow point, I would give (most of) those standing for election the benefit of the doubt. We tend to underestimate the genuine public service motive that underlies many quests for elected office; I suspect that most of those now elected would regard tax transparency, if required, as an aspect of their public duty. And if they don’t – well, how worthy are they to represent the law-abiding, tax-paying public?
What about unelected holders of public office? Judges, senior civil servants, top people at the BBC? Or political journalists who see their job as holding politicians to account? I hear the squeals already. But these are still the few. How about the many? How Scandinavian are we? How Scandinavian do we, as a country, aspire to be?What about unelected holders of public office? Judges, senior civil servants, top people at the BBC? Or political journalists who see their job as holding politicians to account? I hear the squeals already. But these are still the few. How about the many? How Scandinavian are we? How Scandinavian do we, as a country, aspire to be?
With a window now open on politicians’ tax affairs, it will be quite hard to keep all others closed. The force is with openness. And so it should be. Information is power. Why should companies not publish their whole payroll, top to bottom and end this very British squeamishness about talk of (our own) money?With a window now open on politicians’ tax affairs, it will be quite hard to keep all others closed. The force is with openness. And so it should be. Information is power. Why should companies not publish their whole payroll, top to bottom and end this very British squeamishness about talk of (our own) money?
Related: Britain should deal with tax havens the way De Gaulle took on Monaco | Polly Toynbee
Secrecy about pay is how privilege is most smoothly perpetuated. Even the openness that used to exist in the public sector, thanks to rigid grades, pay scales and the clout of trade unions, has been eroded by performance pay and bonuses.Secrecy about pay is how privilege is most smoothly perpetuated. Even the openness that used to exist in the public sector, thanks to rigid grades, pay scales and the clout of trade unions, has been eroded by performance pay and bonuses.
The winners, time and again, are those who set their own pay at the top – consider the stratospheric rise in remuneration for university vice-chancellors – and distribute rewards to others like them. With openness, the male-female pay gap would have been eliminated years ago; the glaring disparity between salaries at the top and the bottom would have had, at very least, to be justified, and the loopholes that made tax partially optional to those with the means and knowledge to game the system would have been closed.The winners, time and again, are those who set their own pay at the top – consider the stratospheric rise in remuneration for university vice-chancellors – and distribute rewards to others like them. With openness, the male-female pay gap would have been eliminated years ago; the glaring disparity between salaries at the top and the bottom would have had, at very least, to be justified, and the loopholes that made tax partially optional to those with the means and knowledge to game the system would have been closed.
Lord Hague asked for a debate. It is not a debate on transparency that we need, nor yet more legislation. What is needed is a change in attitude. With the tax payments of the prime minister and others now public, that change might just have begun.Lord Hague asked for a debate. It is not a debate on transparency that we need, nor yet more legislation. What is needed is a change in attitude. With the tax payments of the prime minister and others now public, that change might just have begun.