Should our politicians release their tax returns to public scrutiny?

[msj]

While reading about Trump flopping on his pledge to release his tax returns, for which I am somewhat mixed and sympathetic on, I have to agree with Mitt Romney's concerns found here: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-12/time-for-donald-trump-to-release-his-tax-returns

Specifically:

It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service....While not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.

Now, before BC_2004 comes here to complain his constant complaint about leading off Canadian topics with American references (for which I ask other posters discipline to focus on the topic and ignore him) I think this raises some interesting questions for our Canadian politicians.

Generally I have leaned towards privacy on this matter in the past.

Paul Martin, of course, raised many questions as finance minister given his extensive holdings and connections with government.

Although most of the criticisms were ridiculous since many people do not understand the intricate details of how taxes work this is a double edged sword since it is easy for a politician to muddy the waters to hide what is truly going on.

In 2016 this is further complicated with the reality of Panama Papers and other leaks we will see in the future.

Inevitably we will find our politicians involved in anonymous foreign entities which will raise questions as to if the proper taxes have been paid and the proper forms filed (and if not, whether or not the rules of voluntary disclosure are being adhered to without favouritism).

So, some questions:

Is this a matter of privacy?

Should our politicians be forced to release all tax returns for all and any affiliated tax entities they are involved in?

What process should be use to do this to balance public scrutiny against privacy?

Would creating a public database to show all related entities between certain politicians (based on position, eg. Prime Minister, Cabinet, Opposition leader(s) etc) and related corporations/trusts/partnerships allow Canadians to data mine it for possible conflicts?

Or would it be better to bring it in house and have some kind of public oversight committee review these things on a regular basis?

Finally, how would this impact the talent pool for our public servants?

Would it weed out only the conflict of interest ones or would it lead to too many decent people unwilling to serve at higher levels as to avoid such scrutiny?

[The_Squid]

It would be unimportant and petty to pour over a politician's tax return. The petty jealousy that people feel towards anyone who has what they don't have (like we see for the PM and his family) is sickening. We don't need more faux fodder for this forum.

[Smallc]

It would be unimportant and petty to pour over a politician's tax return. The petty jealousy that people feel towards anyone who has what they don't have (like we see for the PM and his family) is sickening. We don't need more faux fodder for this forum.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Big Guy]

You want privacy - stay in the private sector. A released tax return tells the public objectively about the finances of those who are applying for the job of representing them. A tax return may verify (or put at question) a potential candidates views.

Don't want to do this? - don't run for office!

[Smallc]

You want privacy - stay in the private sector. A released tax return tells the public objectively about the finances of those who are applying for the job of representing them. A tax return may verify (or put at question) a potential candidates views.

Oh please. It'll be used as a stick to beat them with. If they're rich, they get attacked. If they're poor, they get attacked. As long as they're breaking the law, we shouldn't care.

[Hal 9000]

They should maybe be reviewed by an independent non-bias source, but the public shouldn't claim the right to know anybody's financial standing.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Hal 9000

[bush_cheney2004]

So, some questions:

Is this a matter of privacy?

Should our politicians be forced to release all tax returns for all and any affiliated tax entities they are involved in?

No....that would be "American style" politics...and we know that Canada would never stand for that. Just ask Sophie....

Tax returns are private financial information...even in Canada!

This is a very serious topic for Canadian public and private interests and Canadian law (e.g. Income Tax Act, Privacy Act, Access to Information Act)....copying that which is done in foreign countries like the United States would cause more harm than good.

Edited May 15, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Big Guy]

Oh please. It'll be used as a stick to beat them with. If they're rich, they get attacked. If they're poor, they get attacked. As long as they're breaking the law, we shouldn't care.

I suggest that the issue may then be looked at differently by voters. You do not care, I care. I assume that you would take a candidates word on their finances and charity contributions, and if you agreed with their policies then you would vote for them. If a candidate would refuse to reveal their tax returns then I would assume that they are hiding something and that is another reason why I would not vote for them.

[Hal 9000]

I suggest that the issue may then be looked at differently by voters. You do not care, I care. I assume that you would take a candidates word on their finances and charity contributions, and if you agreed with their policies then you would vote for them. If a candidate would refuse to reveal their tax returns then I would assume that they are hiding something and that is another reason why I would not vote for them.

I would more concerned with the idea that a politician is paid extreme amounts of money for speaking engagements, yet she won't release the transcripts of what she spoke on.

[Moonlight Graham]

It would be unimportant and petty to pour over a politician's tax return. The petty jealousy that people feel towards anyone who has what they don't have (like we see for the PM and his family) is sickening. We don't need more faux fodder for this forum.

The point of releasing tax returns isn't about pettiness or jealously. It's about transparency and accountability for electoral candidates who voters must decide are worth voting for, and can be trusted to work in the public's interest while in office. Tax returns reveal sources of income, and that can reveal conflicts of interest.

I would be very weary of forcing a candidate to release their tax returns. That doesn't mean wanting to see them is "petty", especially for a candidate like Trump who is running on his business acumen, or a person like Bernie Sanders who is running on his integrity and reigning in Wall Street. It would be nice to see where a billionaire POTUS "eventual nominee" is getting his money, and how much taxes he's actually paying etc. Trump is no dummy, I'm sure he's running every legal tax avoidance scheme in the book, and he knows this might not look good for his populist appeal, not to mention that he's almost certainly not worth near as much as he claims he is....or if he is, a ton of the wealth is sitting in some Caymen Island account somewhere where he doesn't have to put his investment capital gains back into the US economy via taxes like the rest of Americans do.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is also none of America's business what Canadian public or private individuals are doing with their finances or tax returns. Nobody in the USA cared about Justin Trudeau's tax returns.

[Big Guy]

They should maybe be reviewed by an independent non-bias source, but the public shouldn't claim the right to know anybody's financial standing.

I look at a campaign as an individual applying for the job to represent me in government. Having a tax return would objectively give me a lot of information about the candidate. I would also like to know their marital status, criminal background, religion, sexual orientation, their educational and work background, why they want the job and why they feel they would do a better job than the other candidates.

Some of these may be privacy issues for the candidate and/or other voters. But if/when I cast my vote, I would want as much information as possible. If the candidate refuses to provide that information then I will make a decision based on what I know and what that person will not share.

You may be outraged and disagree (or not) but my vote is precious to me and not to be given easily.

You may have whatever criteria you desire. I will not question your criteria so please show mine the same respect.

[Moonlight Graham]

Oh please. It'll be used as a stick to beat them with. If they're rich, they get attacked. If they're poor, they get attacked. As long as they're breaking the law, we shouldn't care.

We should care about conflicts of interest.

Ie: George W. Bush and his family had business dealings with the Bin Laden family and the upper echelons of the Saudi government and oil business elites prior to 9/11, then let a ton of them fly out the US immediately following 9/11, including members of the Bin Laden family. Should we care? Sometimes it's good to beat politicians with a stick depending on the reason.

They should maybe be reviewed by an independent non-bias source, but the public shouldn't claim the right to know anybody's financial standing.

I agree.

[Moonlight Graham]

I look at a campaign as an individual applying for the job to represent me in government. Having a tax return would objectively give me a lot of information about the candidate. I would also like to know their marital status, criminal background, religion, sexual orientation, their educational and work background, why they want the job and why they feel they would do a better job than the other candidates.

Religion and sexual orientation are certainly not the business of any employer.

[Hal 9000]

I look at a campaign as an individual applying for the job to represent me in government. Having a tax return would objectively give me a lot of information about the candidate. I would also like to know their marital status, criminal background, religion, sexual orientation, their educational and work background, why they want the job and why they feel they would do a better job than the other candidates.

Some of these may be privacy issues for the candidate and/or other voters. But if/when I cast my vote, I would want as much information as possible. If the candidate refuses to provide that information then I will make a decision based on what I know and what that person will not share.

You may be outraged and disagree (or not) but my vote is precious to me and not to be given easily.

You may have whatever criteria you desire. I will not question your criteria so please show mine the same respect.

First off, i'm never outraged - I find the term all too hyperbolic in nature.

And, most of the other things you can't or shouldn't be able to ask if you were an employer. Could you imagine the "outrage" if you asked any liberal about their sexual orientaion?

Edited May 15, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Smallc]

I suggest that the issue may then be looked at differently by voters. You do not care, I care. I assume that you would take a candidates word on their finances and charity contributions, and if you agreed with their policies then you would vote for them. If a candidate would refuse to reveal their tax returns then I would assume that they are hiding something and that is another reason why I would not vote for them.

I like Hals idea.

[Smallc]

We should care about conflicts of interest.

Ie: George W. Bush and his family had business dealings with the Bin Laden family and the upper echelons of the Saudi government and oil business elites prior to 9/11, then let a ton of them fly out the US immediately following 9/11, including members of the Bin Laden family. Should we care? Sometimes it's good to beat politicians with a stick depending on the reason.

Many times, a conflict of interest breaks the law.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ie: George W. Bush and his family had business dealings with the Bin Laden family and the upper echelons of the Saudi government and oil business elites prior to 9/11, then let a ton of them fly out the US immediately following 9/11, including members of the Bin Laden family. Should we care? Sometimes it's good to beat politicians with a stick depending on the reason.

This had nothing to do with tax returns, and it had nothing to do with Canada. So no worries....

[TimG]

Paul Martin, of course, raised many questions as finance minister given his extensive holdings and connections with government.

I don't see how tax returns are relevant to anyone for any purpose other than knowing how much money a politician makes. If they have assets in anonymous corporations it does not show up on a T1 and it is those kinds of associations that people are looking for. Once you go beyond the politician and start looking at the books of private companies that may be shared with other people you are potentially asking that people who do business with a politician agree to have their finances disclosed publicly. I see that as a big ask.

What is more important is a declaration of financial of interests. I would say that independent auditors should be employed to verify that the declaration is complete as they are able to determine. That would be more useful than a T1.

Edited May 15, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Religion and sexual orientation are certainly not the business of any employer.

I disagree - but I agree that an employer has no right to request that information.

As an employer in my roles in government controlled agencies, I did follow the law and had to be prepared to explain to the successful and unsuccessful candidate the reasons for my decision and have those reasons documented in case of appeal.

In choosing my representative I make my decision in secret and have no obligation to explain my choice to anyone.

[Big Guy]

First off, i'm never outraged - I find the term all too hyperbolic in nature.

And, most of the other things you can't or shouldn't be able to ask if you were an employer. Could you imagine the "outrage" if you asked any liberal about their sexual orientaion?

Would I not have to have asked them their political affiliation before asking their orientation? I would assume that a liberal (or most informed people) would be outraged if their political affiliation was requested during a job interview and I would never have the opportunity for the second question.

[Moonlight Graham]

Many times, a conflict of interest breaks the law.

Yes, sometimes not though.

Hillary Clinton now famously got paid by Goldman Sachs to make a "secret" speech for them that the public can't even read the secret transcripts for. Lawful, but anyone's business? Trudeau got paid for speeches by different organizations as a sitting MP, anyone's business?

[Smallc]

Yes, sometimes not though.

Hillary Clinton now famously got paid by Goldman Sachs to make a "secret" speech for them that the public can't even read the secret transcripts for. Lawful, but anyone's business? Trudeau got paid for speeches by different organizations as a sitting MP, anyone's business?

I would say both of those were inappropriate, and actually should be against the law.

[msj]

I don't see how tax returns are relevant to anyone for any purpose other than knowing how much money a politician makes. If they have assets in anonymous corporations it does not show up on a T1 and it is those kinds of associations that people are looking for. Once you go beyond the politician and start looking at the books of private companies that may be shared with other people you are potentially asking that people who do business with a politician agree to have their finances disclosed publicly. I see that as a big ask.What is more important is a declaration of financial of interests. I would say that independent auditors should be employed to verify that the declaration is complete as they are able to determine. That would be more useful than a T1.

I have claimed in the OP for all entities which would include corporate, trust, and partnerships.

As a T2 and T5013 have schedules showing ownership and related parties (and a T3 shows beneficiaries and trustee relations) the tax department already has that information to the extent that it is being honestly reported.

The CRA, however, would not care if there is a relationship between Mr. Politician who has a partnership XYZ LP where one of the partners is Ms. Paperbagfullofmoneyandohshehasacompanythatjustgotagovernmentcontract (a long name to be sure).

That is where the public interest comes in hence my idea, as specifically mentioned in the OP, to allow an agency or the public to data mine cross relationships by name between entities.

This does not necessarily provide any financial information to the extent that the entities are privately owned.

As for anonymous corporations, well if it is a foreign affiliate (so if I own 10% or more of the shares of a foreign corporation ) then not only does any income show up on a T1 return (unless the company meets the definition of being inactive) but that person also must report certain information to the tax department on the T1134 form.

So, yes, I think if any Canadian resident politician ends up being found on a list of Panama Papers or such then we would be asking questions about his/her tax returns and whether tax evasion has occurred. I doubt the privacy shield would be effective other than used as a defence by stupid partisans.

But that would be after the fact. To require such disclosure before hand would compel most people to ensure their affairs are in order before seeking higher office (except for the truly scummy ones who would double down and try to become more secretive).

But I do like the idea of independent auditors or some agency that considers interrelationships between entities and politicians.

[eyeball]

Anyone else notice how a government's efforts to penetrate their citizen's privacy as deeply as they can seems to be matched by the effort made towards keeping their own affairs as secret as possible? That should be our first clue to how topsy turvy the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed is - an entirely unsustainable situation that can only worsen where resources and opportunities narrow.

I'm convinced that something as simple as outlawing in-camera lobbying would go a long way towards quelling a lot of the public's distrust of people in power because of the way it would directly interfere in the cozy relationships people in power have with the wealthiest interests in their constituencies.

Far more robust institutions of accountability that can audit, validate and verify the veracity of the people in positions of power is definitely the proper direction to go in. These should of course include more serious legal consequences like jail time and stiff fines for knowingly sidestepping the monitoring process.