The PAC Report

Largely politicians grandstanding in ignorance.

I have particularly liked the way they go on about how HMRC must be independent, seen to be independent and impartial, then insist that HMRC shouldn\’t keep the tax matters of individuals (personal or corporate) confidential from politicians.

Politicians who would, never, ever, be anything less than entirely impartial when in possession of detailed information about the tax affairs of an individual (whether corporate or personal).

Imagine, as an example, what Chuka Baby would do if he had access to the details of bank taxation. Actually, no need, given the way he lied/dissembled/completely misunderstood for political grandstanding reasons when he was told about Barclay\’s corporate taxation payments.

4 comments on “The PAC Report

  1. I don’t see why corporations should enjoy any tax confidentiality at all.

    Privacy, the right to a private life, is a natural right of natural persons. I can’t see any argument for extending it to corporations, especially plc’s who have to account publicly for every penny spent and received anyway.

  2. I thought the PAC recognised a difference between individuals and corporations:

    ” There is less justification for keeping tax information about large corporations confidential than information about individuals”

    Either way, if there are questions about a state agency how can it be scrutinised or held accountable if it won’t answer questions?

    Keep in mind this is an organisation that hasn’t followed its own rules.

    Sadly, there is no legal means (AFAIK) to stop politicians lying or people believing what they want to believe.

  3. “Pechorin // Dec 20, 2011 at 10:19 am

    I don’t see why corporations should enjoy any tax confidentiality at all.

    Privacy, the right to a private life, is a natural right of natural persons. I can’t see any argument for extending it to corporations, especially plc’s who have to account publicly for every penny spent and received anyway.”

    I can. Companies are just a group of people coming together. Since they have privacy in their separate dealings, why shouldn’t they have privacy in their dealings together?

    Obviously it’s the state’s right to make lack of privacy a condition of limited liability, but I don’t see why it should do this.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.