Transparency for all

Annasopra

The situation about charities has got me thinking a lot about the issue of transparency. There are always calls for wages of politicians, civil servants and people working for charities to publish their salary details. At the moment income inequality is ironically and bizarrely enough being debated in Davos at the World Economic Forum.

Anyway I think that we in Ireland should have a similar system to Norway. Make everyones income and tax details publicly available.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/in-norway-everyones-income-is-public-and-so-is-tax-paid/242386/

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/10/20/tax-lists-bared-for-public-review/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/04/want-to-know-what-tax-transparency-looks-like-look-at-norway/

Mint Aero

Cool lets do that, you first

Irish Steve

That may be a step too far for the conservative Irish general population, but a starting point would be that the income details for ANYONE involved in dealing with public funds or charitable donations has to be disclosed in the public domain.

MadYaker

Feck off, if I want to dodge tax its non of your business, its between me and Revenue.

king_of_inismac

Interesting.

I was thinking something similar today (albeit from a more basic level).

Is secrecy ever a good thing (for a population as a whole, rather than on an individual level)?

I mean is EVERYTHING was known about EVERYONE would society be more accepting?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Actually if something is transparent you can't see it. Light passes straight through it so you see the object beyond it. So calls for transparency are misguided.

dxhound2005

MadYaker wrote: »

Feck off, if I want to dodge tax its non of your business, its between me and Revenue.

If you take your tax dodging to a certain level they will most likely break the mutual bond of silence. The interesting characters are in Part 2 every quarter and they usually cause a few headlines.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

king_of_inismac

Emmie Steep Boy wrote: »

Actually if something is transparent you can't see it. Light passes straight through it so you see the object beyond it. So calls for transparency are misguided.

I don't know if you're joking or not.

They are looking for transparency so those on the outside of an entity can see what's happening inside the entity.

looking_around

I don't see why not, I have nothing to hide.

And if anyone does have something to hide, it's more of a reason for transparency than not.

awec

What anyone earns is no business of yours.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I don't know if you're joking or not.

They are looking for transparency so those on the outside of an entity can see what's happening inside the entity.

I'm certainly not joking. If everything in an organisation is transparent then it, in itself, is invisible, cannot be seen, is not in view. Transparency is the wrong word.

J_E

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Interesting.

I was thinking something similar today (albeit from a more basic level).

Is secrecy ever a good thing (for a population as a whole, rather than on an individual level)?

I mean is EVERYTHING was known about EVERYONE would society be more accepting?

Read 1984 and find out

humbert

awec wrote: »

What anyone earns is no business of yours.

Completely agree. The suggestion is completely insane. For public officials I can understand it but for private citizens it's just bewildering.

humbert

Emmie Steep Boy wrote: »

I'm certainly not joking. If everything in an organisation is transparent then it, in itself, is invisible, cannot be seen, is not in view. Transparency is the wrong word.

You're taking the physical definition of the word and applying it out of context. It's not the wrong word.

Annasopra

awec wrote: »

What anyone earns is no business of yours.

why?

Rabelais

mango salsa wrote: »

why?

Because what someone makes is the same as asking someone about their age, sexuality, what they had for breakfast, or how many bowel movements they had on Tuesday.

Dyr

imagine it,

a nation of curtain twitchers salivating at the prospects of knowing their neighbours/friends/colleagues financial details while petrified at the idea of everyone knowing their details too, finance wise.

Not one constituency would vote for it

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

humbert wrote: »

You're taking the physical definition of the word and applying it out of context. It's not the wrong word.

There can only be one definition of transparent and I gave it. As for a physical definition, that's a new one on me?

Relax!

Rabelais

Jesus, it's like the type of thing that would be discussed at a Socialist Workers Party 'workshop' before the lunchtime split.

Badly Drunk Boy

Emmie Steep Boy wrote: »

I'm certainly not joking. If everything in an organisation is transparent then it, in itself, is invisible, cannot be seen, is not in view. Transparency is the wrong word.

Openness might be a better word.

dxhound2005

Bambi wrote: »

imagine it,

a nation of curtain twitchers salivating at the prospects of knowing their neighbours/friends/colleagues financial details while petrified at the idea of everyone knowing their details too, finance wise.

Not one constituency would vote for it

It wouldn't make any difference anyway. Even though we have had a system of publishing tax defaulters details since 1997 it is still going on. And a quick google will tell you that there is lots of tax evasion happening in Norway too.

http://taxtrustestatenews.com/six-u-s-states-involved-in-norwegian-tax-evasion-case/

In another example of international cooperation to quell Norwegian tax evasion, a quiet investigation is expected to reveal the identities of Norwegian taxpayers with secret U.S. bank accounts and of residents of Norway who should be, but aren't, paying taxes there.

So any so called transparency law will just be ignored by tax cheats, human nature being what it is in Norway just like anywhere else.

Annasopra

Rabelais wrote: »

Because what someone makes is the same as asking someone about their age, sexuality, what they had for breakfast, or how many bowel movements they had on Tuesday.

No it's not. It's completely different.

Do people who insist that they should know what politicians get paid seriously ask what they eat for breakfast?

Rabelais

mango salsa wrote: »

No it's not. It's completely different.

Do people who insist that they should know what politicians get paid seriously ask what they eat for breakfast?

We know what politicians get paid. We know what the Chief Executives of our semi-state companies get paid. And what senior civil servants get paid.

What do you want? Is there a limit at which the wage of someone isn't published? If so, why? Can lenders and service providers access this list?

Micky Dolenz

mango salsa wrote: »

why?

If you are asking, it's probably because they earn more than you.

Arthur Beesley

mango salsa wrote: »

The situation about charities has got me thinking a lot about the issue of transparency. There are always calls for wages of politicians, civil servants and people working for charities to publish their salary details. At the moment income inequality is ironically and bizarrely enough being debated in Davos at the World Economic Forum.

Anyway I think that we in Ireland should have a similar system to Norway. Make everyones income and tax details publicly available.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/in-norway-everyones-income-is-public-and-so-is-tax-paid/242386/

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/10/20/tax-lists-bared-for-public-review/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/04/want-to-know-what-tax-transparency-looks-like-look-at-norway/

Why do you think this?

mrolston

I have long believed that things should be much more transparent when it comes to money and those people who are supposed to be public figures. I honestly don't know how to balance things between making stuff transparent without causing problems on the security level at a national level. Many politicians are able to spend money on nearly anything they want, and I don't recall being able to access salaries and the income of those in power. I would also be curious to see what tax advantages they receive, or even take for themselves, and a transparent financial structure would allow us to know exactly what they are earning, and where they are spending.

awec

mango salsa wrote: »

why?

Because it's private, personal information. Wanting to know is just sheer nosiness.

It's none of your business. The people who need to know how much someone earns already do.

Why on earth would you want to know? Are you going to treat people differently depending on their income? Is it going to improve your life in any way?

Do you go around at the moment asking people what they earn?

dxhound2005

mrolston wrote: »

I have long believed that things should be much more transparent when it comes to money and those people who are supposed to be public figures. I honestly don't know how to balance things between making stuff transparent without causing problems on the security level at a national level. Many politicians are able to spend money on nearly anything they want, and I don't recall being able to access salaries and the income of those in power. I would also be curious to see what tax advantages they receive, or even take for themselves, and a transparent financial structure would allow us to know exactly what they are earning, and where they are spending.

How much effort did you put into trying to access the salaries of those in power. Did you try the internet?

http://www.nospinireland.com/Politicians.html

shedweller

awec wrote: »

What anyone earns is no business of yours.

If i'm paying his or her wages and lavish pensions then it most certainly should be my business.

awec

shedweller wrote: »

If i'm paying his or her wages and lavish pensions then it most certainly should be my business.

The thread is about making EVERYONE's income public.

But I don't think every public sector worker deserves to have their income made public, even if we are paying it.

Rabelais

shedweller wrote: »

If i'm paying his or her wages and lavish pensions then it most certainly should be my business.

Through taxes you are paying for the wages of nurses, teachers and police officers. We already have an idea of their pay scales. Do you think we should know exactly how much they make?

Again, how would this be published?

king_of_inismac

Emmie Steep Boy wrote: »

There can only be one definition of transparent and I gave it. As for a physical definition, that's a new one on me?

Relax!

Definition From Webster (words can have more than one meaning you know ):

Transparent: readily understood d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices

king_of_inismac

Cydoniac wrote: »

Read 1984 and find out

I take your point (and read 1984 in my youth).

I guess my question (which I don't know the answer to) is when does hiding the truth (at a societal level) have a benefit?

KyussBishop

Interesting idea. Norway doesn't seem to have a large instance of property crime, from what I can tell (probably due to having a functional police service), so it seems to be a safe policy over there - here though, I would worry that it'd been a pretty useful list for people looking to commit burglaries, by targeting specific people/houses based on income/wealth.

dxhound2005

KyussBishop wrote: »

Interesting idea. Norway doesn't seem to have a large instance of property crime, from what I can tell (probably due to having a functional police service), so it seems to be a safe policy over there - here though, I would worry that it'd been a pretty useful list for people looking to commit burglaries, by targeting specific people/houses based on income/wealth.

Doesn't seem from what you can tell and probably a functional police service (whatever that means), safe policiy over there. I think you're just making it up from the top of your head. There is no mention in any of the links about anything to do with property crime or the police service.

Setun

Interesting point made MangoSalsa but ultimately I think it would be of most benefit to marketing companies rather than a self-regulating system for the taxpayer. Take a look at the debate coming out this week after the UK government announced that the NHS would sell public medical data - who gets the data? University researchers trying to cure cancer? Or health insurance companies wanting to squeeze more profit out of patients?

I would certainly support transparency for any individual or organisation that is funded by public money - in fact, I thought that was the case already! There is a website for US-based charities that explains the admin costs/donations etc info - http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Would be fantastic to have a similar system in Ireland.

It's worth remembering that there have been other controversies over the last few years regarding Irish charities. Anybody remember the Irish Red Cross and Noel Wardick? Worth re-reading, I'm astounded that the whistleblower's identity was revealed by Google/UPC, and consequently fired from his position at the charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Red_Cross#Controversies Plenty of chat in the Dail I'm sure, but was there any reform in the end?

KyussBishop

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Doesn't seem from what you can tell and probably a functional police service (whatever that means), safe policiy over there. I think you're just making it up from the top of your head. There is no mention in any of the links about anything to do with property crime or the police service.

? I had Googled this before posting, to read up on it, and it doesn't seem to be bad:
https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=13644

I'm not trying to rebut the idea, I think greater transparency is a good idea, just (at this current moment in time, for Ireland), maybe it'd be usable by burglars; just a random potential drawback that I could think of, don't know how much of a real issue it would be.

dxhound2005

Setun wrote: »

Interesting point made MangoSalsa but ultimately I think it would be of most benefit to marketing companies rather than a self-regulating system for the taxpayer. Take a look at the debate coming out this week after the UK government announced that the NHS would sell public medical data - who gets the data? University researchers trying to cure cancer? Or health insurance companies wanting to squeeze more profit out of patients?

I would certainly support transparency for any individual or organisation that is funded by public money - in fact, I thought that was the case already! There is a website for US-based charities that explains the admin costs/donations etc info - http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Would be fantastic to have a similar system in Ireland.

It's worth remembering that there have been other controversies over the last few years regarding Irish charities. Anybody remember the Irish Red Cross and Noel Wardick? Worth re-reading, I'm astounded that the whistleblower's identity was revealed by Google/UPC, and consequently fired from his position at the charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Red_Cross#Controversies Plenty of chat in the Dail I'm sure, but was there any reform in the end?

There are a lot of individuals funded by public money, the Social Welfare budget alone is over €20 billion. And then you have the likes of farm payments from the EU going to people like Michael O'Leary. If there is going to be a transparent system then every one of those should be made available along with earnings details of workers.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/more-two-million-people-ireland-1936590

The Department of Social Protection’s annual report showed 2.3 million people collect some form of weekly benefit.

Joan Burton’s figures reveal 1.5 million individuals get financial help from the Government on top of 600,000 families.

Czarcasm

Like any procedures put in place to curb underhanded behaviour, people will just find more ingenious ways to get around these procedures and hope they don't get caught, or, when they do get caught - just brazen it out and then carry on.

Invasion of privacy is the biggest stumbling block to this idea. As much as people find corruption reprehensible, they're not prepared to compromise on their privacy in the hope of preventing it. There needs to be much stiffer penalties put in place when public servants are caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but for the average person on the average industrial wage, there's no advantage to be gained from them disclosing how much they earn, nor how much tax they pay on just their occupational income alone.

Rabelais

My Dad wouldn't rent a bedsit to mango salsa based upon the availability of such information.

Annasopra

Rabelais wrote: »

My Dad wouldn't rent a bedsit to mango salsa based upon the availability of such information.

Right ok. Thanks for the tip not to rent a crappy bedsit.

o1s1n

mango salsa wrote: »

why?

Imagine going to a job interview for a higher role in another company where the interviewer already knows your current salary as they can just look it up online.

You'd lose a hell of a lot of your leverage.

Awful awful idea.

Son Of A Vidic

Emmie Steep Boy wrote: »

Actually if something is transparent you can't see it. Light passes straight through it so you see the object beyond it. So calls for transparency are misguided.

That explains it, so we are actually a very transparent little nation.

martingriff

mango salsa wrote: »

The situation about charities has got me thinking a lot about the issue of transparency. There are always calls for wages of politicians, civil servants and people working for charities to publish their salary details. At the moment income inequality is ironically and bizarrely enough being debated in Davos at the World Economic Forum.

Anyway I think that we in Ireland should have a similar system to Norway. Make everyones income and tax details publicly available.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/in-norway-everyones-income-is-public-and-so-is-tax-paid/242386/

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/10/20/tax-lists-bared-for-public-review/

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/04/want-to-know-what-tax-transparency-looks-like-look-at-norway/

Individual people as Person A may not be know but civil service pay grades are very public and politicans. Yes expenses are not and should be

Annasopra

Bambi wrote: »

imagine it,

a nation of curtain twitchers salivating at the prospects of knowing their neighbours/friends/colleagues financial details while petrified at the idea of everyone knowing their details too, finance wise.

Do Norwegians act like that?

Tabnabs

o1s1n wrote: »

Imagine going to a job interview for a higher role in another company where the interviewer already knows your current salary as they can just look it up online.

You'd lose a hell of a lot of your leverage.

Awful awful idea.

And you can look at what the existing person in that role is receiving so you know what you're in for. Works both ways...

Annasopra

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Why do you think this?

For various reasons

1 I think it is good to have openness and transparency in society
2 I agree with the Norwegian logic behind this - that tax is your contribution to the society that enables you to get that income and part of your obligation is that others have the right to see how you meet your social obligations.
3 I don't actually see why there is any right to privacy on what taxation people pay

Tabnabs

mango salsa wrote: »

Do Norwegians act like that?

Oh sweet Jesus yes! They all nosey in on what their family, friends, neighbours and colleagues earn. The security is so open that I can put in details of people I know and find out what they earn. It's full disclosure and all the opportunities that affords.

It does ware off eventually, once you snoop initially, you're less likely to keep it up.

Seedy Arling

mango salsa wrote: »

For various reasons

1 I think it is good to have openness and transparency in society
2 I agree with the Norwegian logic behind this - that tax is your contribution to the society that enables you to get that income and part of your obligation is that others have the right to see how you meet your social obligations.
3 I don't actually see why there is any right to privacy on what taxation people pay

Norwegian logic is all well and good. Irish logic would be to have your house/business targetted by criminal elements to squeeze a few quid out of you. The only body that should be able to see that you meet your 'social obligation' is revenue. To suggest otherwise particularly in this country is ridiculous.

JuliusCaesar

Mint Aero wrote: »

Cool lets do that, you first

That's what everyone said about releasing details of how much houses ACTUALLY sold for. Lo and behold - property tax comes in and no more debate, no more doubts, it's just done.

If it's done for everyone, why not?

JuliusCaesar

Tabnabs wrote: »

And you can look at what the existing person in that role is receiving so you know what you're in for. Works both ways...

Already exists in the public service for example. You just need to know somebody's title (Assistant Principal, Teacher, Nurse, Sergeant etc) and you can look up the salary scale online.