An oxymoron?

Post deleted.
Not that funny or clever really just involved a bit of strikethrough.

I think I can guess.


I don't necessarily blame Mr Benyon, but on one hand to say 'I have absolutely nothing to hide', then refuse to publish his tax returns is contradictory; he clearly has something to hide.

Why should he, do you publish yours even though you have nothing to hide ?. Or do you.

And whilst he may be a public servant paid through public funds and so 'should open up his tax return for public scrutiny' according to some folk, why shouldn't the same be true of headteachers? (who are in the £130k bracket) NHS Consultants? The Chief Constable? The local lollipop lady? (while we still have one)

Because they (I) am not in government presiding over cuts to the easy to cut. However, that wasn't my argument. I just simply challenge his statement; he clearly has something to hide even if it is not illegal.

By what criteria do you make the accusation that he has 'something to hide'?

Because he's hiding it!

Like I said, I don't blame him: he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. I would imagine his tax affairs could be politically awkward.

Small point, choosing not to disclose is not the same as 'hiding'.

I think it is.

It most definitely is not.

Unfortunately in this instance and by definition I think you're wrong. Failing to disclose isn't always hiding something, but in Mr Benyon's case I'm sure it is. It might not be something shady, but withholding information is hiding even if the reasons are valid. He said he has absolutely nothing to hide, well he evidently has.

I suspect that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Richard B's tax return apart from the fact that it would look remarkably similar to ours. We could then squeak our heads off because 'he's the richest MP in the Country'. Err, yes, simply because he's running the family firm; so in reality, it ain't his money. Unlike the avaricious individuals who effectively own the 'public companies' and leech out millions for so doing on the backs of us suckers who work for them. At least the family firms have some incentive to invest in the future. Anyway, all this 'show me yours' bit is very clever tactics, no one has noticed the debate has moved well away from the real issues with tax!

OK, let's see yours then, you haven't disclosed your earnings yet. You must be hiding something!

Correct I am, of course I have something to hide, which includes a contractual obligation not to disclose, but yet again, the right to withhold is not my argument.

Please get this point: I am not saying he's no right to withhold or hide information, only that he is ill advised to make statements he cannot fulfill, i.e. "I have absolutely nothing to hide"; he has.

Care to tell us what?

RB's problem here is that he is one of the richest politicians in Downing Street. While thats not his fault, do the public and his peers need to see he is worth multi millions? As long as he has been given the green light by HMRC in private, i am happy. Why should he reveal his personal information if he is squeaky clean?

The Tax office believe Google, Starbucks, etc, pay all the right tax and they are squeaky clean too.

I'm sorry, but are you actually reading my posts?

And I'd like to know what.

His tax summary!

RB must benefit from the EU. Loads of subsidy.
Look at my wad...
No wonder he wants us to stay in!