Politicians must be transparent with tax returns

Politicians do not have, shall we say, an exactly solid reputation for honesty.

Thus, given the power they wield over the citizens, and that we pay them, it is reasonable for the citizens to expect politicians to publicly and fully disclose their financial affairs.

America's Barack Obama and his wife recently placed their 2011 tax return in the public arena, something they have been doing for the past 12 years. Their joint income was $789674 (R6.16-million) on which they paid an effective rate of 20.5%.

Obama's likely opponent in the presidential elections later this year, Mitt Romney, had far more impressive numbers to declare in 2010 when he paid $3-million (R23.4-million) on income of $21.6-million (R168.5-mmillion) at an effective rate of 13.9%. Marginal rates in the US, before allowing for dividends, capital gains and carried interest, are normally 35%.

It seems that in the US the richer you become the lower your tax rates are. This might be one of the reasons why Americans work so hard and are willing to take risks and why so many people want to live there.

In London, the eccentric Boris Johnson has also revealed his tax return along with all other candidates for his position as mayor. Last year Johnson raked in £473280 (R5.96-million) and paid £213749 (R2.7-million) at a rate of 45%, ahead of our marginal rate of 40%. He receives £250000 (R3.15-million) for his column in The Telegraph. I am applying for a position there.

Johnson had an altercation over personal tax affairs with his mad Labour opponent, Ken Livingstone, who accused the mayor of lying about his tax affairs, whereupon the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor screamed at him: "You f...ing liar." Quite a sensitive matter, taxation.

In South Africa, elected representatives annually declare personal financial interests in a public form with details of shares, investments, property ownerships and gifts received. In a confidential section they must declare the same financial interests of spouse or spouses, as the case may be, and other dependants.

We have a worldwide reputation for corruption and perhaps the net needs to be widened to include tax returns and also to render disclosures by dependants open to public scrutiny.

In a recent comment on tax disclosure, Obama said: "I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for..."

We can also take our cue from India where the Supreme Court has ruled that transparency, such as complete financial disclosure by politicians, is a basic requirement of a democracy.

In their quaint, appealing bureaucratese the Indians hold that to "maintain the purity of elections and in particular to bring transparency in the process of election... The little man of this country would have a basic elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in parliament where laws to bind his liberty and property may be enacted."

This is an issue with which the Presidency, as it is grandly known, appears not to be seized. There was no response to two queries as to its feelings on the issue. Transparency is not their schtick, as they used to say in Yeoville.

Helen Zille's office said that "in principle she has no problem releasing her tax returns ... she makes the point that corrupt politicians are very unlikely to declare their corrupt earnings on their tax returns - the trick is finding out what money they do not declare".

• Presumably Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, commissioner Oupa Magashula and their intrepid team at SARS are hot in pursuit of such members of our political class.