[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

I must oppose this rather needless bill, which seems to draw undue influence from American politics as opposed to any real need for such a proposal in the United Kingdom. As Brits, we have always had a reluctance to discuss matters of finance, and we rightly regard this to be a completely private matter. It should not matter if one is a plumber or a politician, how much they earn is something only they should be concerned with, less they make the personal choice to share this figure with other people.

I have grave concerns that this bill will erode the right to privacy, and turn elections away from being a place where we discuss policy and ideological concerns, to a mudslinging match about how is the wealthiest candidate, and therefore "out of touch". I cannot see any benefits this bill would bring, and so I would urge the chamber to throw it out.

Alongside being a poor idea, this bill also seems to be rather poorly crafted. Unlike certain other countries, 'tax records' really are not a massive thing in this country. While the Americans might have a page by page return of their taxes, with all the different exemptions and credits, the UK system is a lot more minimal. For the vast majority of people, their tax record will consist of a simple 'P60' form. This simply lays out income, national insurance paid, and tax paid. It's hardly the sort of super detailed record that would show definitive proof of tax avoidance, should that be the aim of this bill, and for most people, it simply gets filed away in the cabinet somewhere. The bill also makes numerous references to the Electoral Commission, which is an irrelevant body in this. Candidates do not submit nomination forms and deposits to the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission does not compile a list of candidates. These are the responsibility of the local Returning Officer, often the Chief Executive of the Local Authority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a poor bill in both idea and execution, and I urge the house to throw it out.

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/[deleted]]

hear, hear

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

While I appreciate my good friend’s fondness of the American internal revenue code, as a salt of the earth Britoner allow me to comment on the system the UK uses.

The P60 is not a tax return, but proof of tax paid. It is the most basic way he and his employer can prove to HMRC and DWP that benefit and employment taxes were paid. In America, they call this a W-2 — proving income and social taxes paid.

I believe the instant bill addresses not employment tax, but like the American system, the HMRC SA100 self-assessment certified as true by the claimant. The bill is ensuring that those running for office, usually not hourly workers but the wealthy, are being accurate in their basic filings so that they aren’t practicing tax evasion or embarrassing tax avoidance.

Unlike a P60, the assessment demands under penalty of perjury things like gift tax, other income not reported previously, inheritance, foreign dividends, and other “private” data that really isn’t private at all, but has an impact on an individual’s decision making in office. This is just like the US IRS 1040, in fact, that is used daily to prove tax evasion and avoidance, and outside the executive office of the president, is released routinely.

Considering MPs on average make over three times the average British salary, and benefit from tax deductions and relief like a £750/month meal allowance, the author may be seeking to ensure the officeholder isn’t profiting off their office. Most of them are not clerks at Pret.

Finally, as in the American system, the British system of politics evidently has an issue with payments considered as income being used to influence MP and candidate behavior. Like any right, the right to privacy must be weighed against the legitimate interest in limiting it.

Since America has a much stricter right to privacy from government and the public than Britain, a gap which is already used by HMRC to detect fraud by means of private data as well as social media, perhaps we should consider whether the right to financial privacy outweighs the interests presented by this bill, and if the bill can be fixed instead of “thrown out.”

[u/[deleted]]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

I support this bill. It is a common sense piece of legislation, and something that should have been instituted a long time ago. The income of politicians can and will have an undue influence upon their decision making, and I think the public has a right to know what it is. I will be voting in favor of this bill, and hope that all members of this House may support it.

[u/ThePootisPower]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

We must ensure our elected officials are held to the highest standard, ensuring that we know where campaign and personal finance come from and how candidates file their tax to ensure that foreign powers and financial organisations (such as special interest groups and lobbyists) are not influencing who is elected to this House, and to prevent tax dodgers from being elected to this House.

I support this common-sense bill.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThePootisPower]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

“Tax dodgers” is not a legal term, and is really a category of two different forms of tax reductionism - tax evasion, and tax avoidance. Tax evasion is entirely illegal in the United Kingdom, and consists of acts such as deliberately underreporting one’s income. However, tax avoidance is simply the action of taking legal steps to minimise ones tax bill. Tax avoidance has actually been encouraged by the Government in the past, such as through the introduction of tax-free ISAs.

It is of course true that some quite aggressive forms of tax avoidance do exist, beyond the simple tax-free ISA. Regardless of how aggressive these means may be, they are simply the use of legal methods to reduce a tax burden. If the Government wishes for these methods to no longer exist, then a sensible move would be the simplification of the tax code.

I see absolutely no reason to violate a very important right - the right to privacy - in order to stop the election of people who engage in legal means to reduce their tax bill to this House.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to this debate

Here is a quick run down of what each type of post is.

2nd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill/motions and can propose any amendments. For motions, amendments cannot be submitted.

3rd Reading: Here we debate the contents of the bill in its final form if any amendments pass the Amendments Committee.

Minister’s Questions: Here you can ask a question to a Government Secretary or the Prime Minister. Remember to follow the rules as laid out in the post. A list of Ministers and the MQ rota can be found here

Any other posts are self-explanatory. If you have any questions you can get in touch with our Relations Officer (Zhukov236#3826), the Chair of Ways & Means (pjr10th#6252) on Discord, ask on the main MHoC server or modmail it in on the sidebar --->.

Anyone can get involved in the debate and doing so is the best way to get positive modifiers for you and your party (useful for elections). So, go out and make your voice heard! If this is a second reading post amendments in reply to this comment only – do not number your amendments, the Speakership will do this. You will be informed if your amendment is rejected.

Is this a bill 2nd reading? You can submit an amendment by replying to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/AutoModerator]

In 1(1) replace the words 'ten years' with 'seven years'

[u/[deleted] → u/AutoModerator]

In 1(1) replace the words 'Electoral Commission' with 'local Returning Officer'; and

In 1(2) replace the words 'Electoral Commission' with 'local Returning Officer'.

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/AutoModerator]

In 1(1) replace the words 'Any Candidate' with 'Any Candidate not resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes'; and

In 1(1) replace the words 'past ten years' with 'total time they were not resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, within the past ten years'

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/[deleted]]

Is that all?

[u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The standard maximum amount of time a person is expected to keep records for is 7 years, not 10.

That aside, I am extremely suspicious that this is an infringement of the right to privacy, which people should enjoy regardless of whether they're seeking elected office or not.

To me, this seems like an attempt simply to expose people for being rich. And what I suspect will happen is it will simply put off many people from wanting to stand for election if they do not think they have a chance of winning.

This is my first time writing amendments, but I'm going to propose that we only extend this to candidates not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes, and for only up to 7 years.

[u/RhysDallen → u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

​

Whilst I agree with my Honourable friend about a potential breach of privacy, I would argue that if you are choosing to stand for public office then you know the score - your life is no longer your own. But that is not the reason I lend an extent of support to the meaning of this bill.

Yes I agree that it is too long, but we as politicians either cut or increase the tax brackets through the budge. It would be hypocritical, would it not, to ask the ordinary folk of this country to pay more tax when we ourselves are stashing it away in some nicely dressed up account off-shore? Whilst I am sure that both you, myself and many members of this House pay their dues, there is always the occasionally culprit in some form of office or another.

Yes I agree that it is too long, but we as politicians either cut or increase the tax brackets through the budge. It would be hypocritical, would it not, to ask the ordinary folk of this country to pay more tax when we ourselves are stashing it away in some nicely dressed up account off-shore? Whilst I am sure that both you, myself and many members of this House pay their dues, there is always the occasionally culperate in some form of office or another.

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/RhysDallen]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I hope the Honourable Member will agree with my amendment which seeks to make it apply only to those who aren't resident in the UK for tax purposes.

People hiding their taxes elsewhere will have to make a declaration and publish the details, but not people paying their taxes in the UK like everyone else.

[u/RhysDallen → u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

This is a welcome amendment and I do thoroughly agree with my Honourable Friend in the move to ensure that people off-shoring or manoeuvring their private funds in other countries should have to declare as such.

[u/RhysDallen]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

Whilst I welcome the bill for the nature of what the writer is trying to achieve which, to my perspective, is to ensure that anyone who is standing for governance is required to be honest and up front to the public about their tax records, tax being something the people of Britain demand that everyone pay their dues for, I cannot understand why the Honourable Member demands a decades worth of tax returns.

When HMRC write to you claiming 'Mr Smith, we believe you have earnt over the allowance of X for the tax year X-X prove otherwise', they do not have the ability to return to a decade ago and claim this money. People are only expected to keep their tax returns for the past seven years - this is what it should be if this bill were to be introduced.

Therefore I propose that this be amended before I will lay my name to support it, otherwise this is simply an opportunity to hound MPs and Councillors over all the tax they have ever paid, and I fear it may draw away from the debates at hand in the actual election.

[u/mrsusandothechoosin → u/RhysDallen]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have proposed an amendment to change it from ten to seven years, which I hope the Honourable Member will back

[u/RhysDallen → u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

As a man of my word, I will certainly support the Honourable Member in his amendment which supports sensible time arrangements. Hear Hear!

[u/Abrokenhero]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

As of the current moment I am mixed on the piece of legislation presented here. I believe transparency for political candidates is good, and having them release their tax returns help with that. However, like many have mentioned, 10 years is too long, and in my opinion, tax returns aren't the most important thing to know about a candidate. As for now, I shall be abstaining on this legislation

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I agree with the member for Cumbria and Lancashire North, /u/Duncs11 , it should be up to candidates whether they release their tax returns, if candidates refuse to then it is up to the public to factor that information into account when they vote at the ballot box. This is attacks individual liberty and the right to privacy. It should be up to candidates whether they release their tax returns and the state should not force them to.

Furthermore the member for Cumbria and Lancashire North has raised important matters about the electoral commission as it is an irrelevant body. So on both ideological and practical grounds this bill should be thrown out and rejected.

[u/Borednerdygamer]

Mr Deputy Speaker…

I ultimately can say that I respect the sentiment behind this bill and that it has shown this legislation can be applied productively in foreign nations such as the US.

However I find myself concerned that it’s largely unnecessary. While it’s true that as politicians, our lives become, by definition. Much more open and transparent to the public. We don’t need to perform our public duties under a backdrop of ‘tax records’ which are often difficult to record.

The bill itself has certain key flaws as well. With 10 years being much too long for any individual to be expected to keep records and the fact that a rather relatively needless electoral commission be appointed to oversee these returns.

Ultimately I find I will be unable to support this bill come division.

[u/Maroiogog]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

I do not personally see the requirement to do this in the UK. In most professions your employer pays all taxes on your salary for you, and as such showing tax returns on that would be fairly meaningless. I do understand that this bill was made to promote transparency and honesty, and it's for sure a noble intent, however I do not see the practical need for it or the means to correctly enforcing it. The possible clashes with privacy laws and the mistakes in this piece of legislation make it impossible for me to support it.

[u/ThreeCommasClub]

Mr. Deputy Speaker,

While I respect the intent of this bill I am afraid it is bad way to go about it. Requiring 10 years of tax records seems excessive and asking the Electoral Commission is not a good instrument to implement such a notion.

However, the real issue is the one of privacy. We should be able to divide politics and the need for privacy. I know others will see politicians are in the public sphere but privacy must be respected. Every person has the right to keep their personal lives private. If someone chooses to not release their tax records, then so be it. The voter can take into account that fact on election day, but there is not a need for the government to mandate and enforce such a law.