MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer
Discussion
I wanted to make a point about the somewhat mad situation the MPs find themselves in.
Let's say you were successful in your previous career and have lots of savings.
Then you become an MP.
You keep all your savings in gold.
You are allowed to rent a place in London at tax payer expense (up to a limit).
So you do.
No problem - even the Daily Fail has nothing to complain about.
However, scenario 2 appears to get even the more sane frothing at the mouth.
Some of your savings are in gold.
Some of your savings are in a London property that you rent out.
You are allowed to rent a place in London at tax payer expense (up to a limit).
So you do.
What on earth is it about scenario 2 that drives people so insane???
Why should an MP limit their potential savings income because they choose to invest in property???
What if they own the property outright with no mortgage?
It seems everyone would say - well then - they can live there.
But that's not fair is it?
Why should one MP with savings in gold or indeed one with no savings at all get subsidised housing and the one who chooses to invest in property have their income cut dramatically??
You are suggesting penalising an MP for his choice of investments which is frankly stupid.
Let's say you were successful in your previous career and have lots of savings.
Then you become an MP.
You keep all your savings in gold.
You are allowed to rent a place in London at tax payer expense (up to a limit).
So you do.
No problem - even the Daily Fail has nothing to complain about.
However, scenario 2 appears to get even the more sane frothing at the mouth.
Some of your savings are in gold.
Some of your savings are in a London property that you rent out.
You are allowed to rent a place in London at tax payer expense (up to a limit).
So you do.
What on earth is it about scenario 2 that drives people so insane???
Why should an MP limit their potential savings income because they choose to invest in property???
What if they own the property outright with no mortgage?
It seems everyone would say - well then - they can live there.
But that's not fair is it?
Why should one MP with savings in gold or indeed one with no savings at all get subsidised housing and the one who chooses to invest in property have their income cut dramatically??
You are suggesting penalising an MP for his choice of investments which is frankly stupid.
walm said:
Let's say you were successful in your previous career and have lots of savings.
Then you become an MP.
your whole premise is wrong. we pay peanuts and get monkeys. who here would give a shit if it turned out the tax payer paid for churchills brandy and cigars? the point is we have a bunch of middle management dipshits who seem to spend more time concocting grubby little scams for a few grand than running the country. mp's expenses are a complete irrelevance compared to the monumental fvck up of a job they are doing with hundreds of billions of our money. i'd probably have more respect for them if they stole a few million but none of them have the balls. what needs to happen is that they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. start with a minimum age and the CV of every MP and candidate MP published on line. we start by weeding out the muppets with 3 o levels with no previous careersThen you become an MP.
fbrs said:
walm said:
Let's say you were successful in your previous career and have lots of savings.
Then you become an MP.
your whole premise is wrong. we pay peanuts and get monkeys. who here would give a shit if it turned out the tax payer paid for churchills brandy and cigars? the point is we have a bunch of middle management dipshits who seem to spend more time concocting grubby little scams for a few grand than running the country. mp's expenses are a complete irrelevance compared to the monumental fvck up of a job they are doing with hundreds of billions of our money. i'd probably have more respect for them if they stole a few million but none of them have the balls. what needs to happen is that they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. start with a minimum age and the CV of every MP and candidate MP published on line. we start by weeding out the muppets with 3 o levels with no previous careersThen you become an MP.
I have worked with some very clever, hard working, honest people in the companies I've worked for and who have worked for customers and suppliers and all of them earned less or about the same as MPs (a few maybe more) but with nothing like the expenses. You don't need to pay a massive salary to get good people - if they want the job they'll apply. Not all the best people are earning massive salaries.
George111 said:
We don't get people who steal and lie because we only pay them double or treble the average wage, the thieves are thieves to start with. They see politics as an easy win - little work, lots of expenses and no real chance of being caught out. How many of them would survive in a commercial organisation ?
completely agree. very few.ClaphamGT3 said:
JDRoest said:
rogerthefish said:
Building a travel lodge residence (not in the million pound an office style of portcullis house though) and one train ticket a week would put an instant stop to these parasites.
Agreed. Pay should be the UK average (UK does better, you get more, UK does worse, you get less), expenses should be limited to free postage and unlimited use of the 'hotel' laser printer (for constituency work), and we'll even throw in a free email address.MPs should be limited to 2, maybe 3 terms, Cabinet ministers an extra 2 terms, and PM 2 terms maximum. This would address all the people who think politics is a career, and get rid of stalwarts like the odious Wedgwood Benn, Ted Heath, and so forth, hanging round Parliament like a bad smell. It would also mean that Blair and most of his cronies have no option but to retire.
The ballot box is the mechanism for deciding how long a politician gets to serve not some arbitary formula
We need people in Parliament who have real life experience and considering that the stature of the House of Commons is so low these days, I'd say I was proved right. We need real people with real experience.
What exactly has someone like Diane Abbot brought to the Commons? What experiences has she called on to make any sort of judgement on anything?
Jinx said:
^^^Yep^^^^ I work in London. Live outside, don't even earn close to an MPs salary - make many times my salary for the company - pay my own travel (after income tax) . Do I claim any tax payers money? Of course I friggin don't.
The difference though is that MPs have to (or possibly the electorate expect them to) live in the constituency, so they need a home there. The hours the Commons sits can make travel to and from London difficult.I live outside London and commute in and pay for it out of my own pocket. However if I go to our Manchester office I claim the fare between Manchester and London.
You could argue that MPs main place of work is their constitutency office!
Chrisgr31 said:
The difference though is that MPs have to (or possibly the electorate expect them to) live in the constituency, so they need a home there. The hours the Commons sits can make travel to and from London difficult.
I live outside London and commute in and pay for it out of my own pocket. However if I go to our Manchester office I claim the fare between Manchester and London.
You could argue that MPs main place of work is their constitutency office!
I'd agree with that. If it weren't for the shenanigans with flipping properties etc.I live outside London and commute in and pay for it out of my own pocket. However if I go to our Manchester office I claim the fare between Manchester and London.
You could argue that MPs main place of work is their constitutency office!
Train fares and the like are not what get people annoyed. It's their ability to line their own pockets with subsidised (or more than fully paid for) properties at tax payer expense. Private sector employees are not allowed to do this. It is simply not right that government servants are.
Same rules for everyone. Simplest way forwards, and shows they are prepared to practice what they preach.
Chrisgr31 said:
The difference though is that MPs have to (or possibly the electorate expect them to) live in the constituency, so they need a home there. The hours the Commons sits can make travel to and from London difficult.
I live outside London and commute in and pay for it out of my own pocket. However if I go to our Manchester office I claim the fare between Manchester and London.
You could argue that MPs main place of work is their constitutency office!
And if you go to the Manchester office overniggt the company will foot the hotel bill, or if regularly then a company flat, that will be used by whichever employee needs it.I live outside London and commute in and pay for it out of my own pocket. However if I go to our Manchester office I claim the fare between Manchester and London.
You could argue that MPs main place of work is their constitutency office!
Paying your mortgage just would not happen - utter madness
JDRoest said:
We need people in Parliament who have real life experience and considering that the stature of the House of Commons is so low these days, I'd say I was proved right. We need real people with real experience.
What exactly has someone like Diane Abbot brought to the Commons? What experiences has she called on to make any sort of judgement on anything?
Same can be said of Cameron, Osbourne, Milliband.What exactly has someone like Diane Abbot brought to the Commons? What experiences has she called on to make any sort of judgement on anything?
Forty six MPs have claimed expenses for London rent or hotels despite owning a property in the capital, a Channel 4 News investigation has found.
article said:
Our investigation found many of the MPs bought their London properties with the help of the taxpayer when the previous expenses system allowed them to claim back mortgage payments.
But when those claims were banned following the expenses scandal they switched to letting out their properties, in some cases for up to £3,000 a month. They then started claiming expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.
But when those claims were banned following the expenses scandal they switched to letting out their properties, in some cases for up to £3,000 a month. They then started claiming expenses for rent and hotels in the capital.
article said:
Labour's shadow culture minister Chris Bryant claimed expenses of £35,350 in 2012/13 and 2013/14 to rent a London flat - despite already owning a penthouse in the capital. He bought the property in 2005, claiming around £1,000 a month in mortgage claims. But when the rules changed he let it out. Estate agent brochures show the two-bed apartment with a private lift and porter has since been marketed for rent for around £3,000 a month.
article said:
Jim Murphy, the Labour party leader in Scotland, owns a property bought with help from the taxpayer just two miles from the Palace of Westminster, which he let out. Over two years from 2012/13 he claimed £39,372 to rent another London flat for himself.
article said:
Liberal Democrat former defence minister Sir Nick Harvey bought a house in Lambeth in 2002 and claimed expenses to help him pay his mortgage. However, after mortgage claims were banned he moved out and let the house to tenants. He then rented a separate flat in the same area, and has charged the taxpayer £39,772 in expenses claims in 2012/13 and 2013/14.
BlackLabel said:
In other news, many people who aren't MP's but are paying the mortgage on a 2nd property also rent it out.anonymous said:
[redacted]
You're right. Which is why they are renting them out.Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
maffski said:
You're right. Which is why they are renting them out.
Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes lets take Jim Murphy.Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
We agreed as taxpayers to pay for a second home as his constituency is too far away.
What we are paying for though is a third home as his second is being rented out.
NoNeed said:
maffski said:
You're right. Which is why they are renting them out.
Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes lets take Jim Murphy.Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
We agreed as taxpayers to pay for a second home as his constituency is too far away.
What we are paying for though is a third home as his second is being rented out.
NoNeed said:
Yes lets take Jim Murphy.
We agreed as taxpayers to pay for a second home as his constituency is too far away.
Possibly, but why did we agree as taxpayers to pay for people like Andrew Lansley, who's constituency is south Cambridgeshire? Not exactly a million miles from London, as demonstrated by the thousands of his constituents who commute into London every day. We agreed as taxpayers to pay for a second home as his constituency is too far away.
Magog said:
NoNeed said:
maffski said:
You're right. Which is why they are renting them out.
Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Yes lets take Jim Murphy.Lets take Jim Murphy - he lives in his constituency, in Scotland, but for work sometimes has to stay in London. Should he pay for that himself?
The rules used to be that an MP could claim mortgage costs, so they bought houses. It was a nice earner for them and didn't really cost us anything as mortgages were usually cheaper than rent. The new rules say they can't claim mortgages any more so why should he pay for a second home in order to go to work?
Now the rules have changed should they all have been forced to sell homes they made mortgage claims on under the old system? What would that gain us?
What am I missing that makes his, and other MP's, actions wrong? Were not paying his mortgage. I could understand it if they were living in London before becoming MP's and moved out just to play the system, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
We agreed as taxpayers to pay for a second home as his constituency is too far away.
What we are paying for though is a third home as his second is being rented out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff