MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer

[darreni]

I'm surprised the MPs homes are not now owned by a ltd co & then rented back to the MP, or is there a rule preventing this?

[Moonhawk]

It's the double standards that grate.

We recently had to buy a second property for work - and got absolutely no help whatsoever. We got no tax relief on the mortgage payments, couldn't claim any of the runnings costs or commuting costs between the two properties as a tax write off or an expense - FFS we didn't even get a discount on our council tax. Nothing.

To top it off - when we come to sell the flat we'll be subject to capital gains too (something which MPs have also managed to avoid).

Why do MPs get so much help with this stuff - but then don't legislate to make the same provisions for normal workers who find themselves in similar positions (i.e. having to rent or buy property away from home in order to work).

Surely what's good for the goose.......Is it any wonder that MPs are accused of not being in touch with the people.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 28th March 12:39

[NicD]

They take their cue from Animal Farm.

[eccles]

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.

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.

No, we stopped paying for his second home, so now he rents it out.

So he's still got the home the tax payer funded, but because the rules changed, we now don't pay for it. So he gets to keep this home, and all the value it increases, while we pay his rent in another property?
Shame he couldn't be made to sell the property, and use the money to pay his own rent.

[MartG]

Terry Pratchett had a good idea about politicians

When an MP is elected he is immediately arrested and put in prison, where he serves his term of office

[BlackLabel]

Gordon Brown spent £732 on 250 refill cartridges for his favourite black pens shortly before stepping down from the Commons.

[walm]

Shortly = 3 months.
And he returned the unused ones.

I think we may have reached the bottom of the barrel now.

[Zoon]

walm said:

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???

Because scenario 2 doesn't exist in the instances where people get wound up. They are using expenses to pay for a mortgage on a house they should be living in to conduct parliamentary business but are instead renting it out to profit from a buoyant London property market.

[Ari]

ClaphamGT3 said:

If you want to stop this sort of thing, someone has to sort out the 30-year fudge of MP pay.

Pay them a rate that reflects the importance of what they do but stop all expenses and make earning external income whilst drawing a parliamentary salary an offence. They make their own housing and pension provisions and when they leave office they can do what they like but if they use their parliamentary connections for financial gain they are disbarred from all political office for life.

The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;

Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m

Oh come on!

You're talking about people that literally cannot behave like grown ups!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c615nmm6IGw

Spend two minutes watching this and then tell me that you see these braying idiots as justifiable recipients of six figure salaries.

[anonymous-user]

Ari said:

Oh come on!

You're talking about people that literally cannot behave like grown ups!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c615nmm6IGw

Spend two minutes watching this and then tell me that you see these braying idiots as justifiable recipients of six figure salaries.

Wow. Do you think the chamber is fairly watertight? I'm thinking we lock the doors and flood it.

[walm]

Zoon said:

Because scenario 2 doesn't exist in the instances where people get wound up. They are using expenses to pay for a mortgage on a house they should be living in to conduct parliamentary business but are instead renting it out to profit from a buoyant London property market.

Holy 2012 stalking, Batman!

In any case, I think you are wrong.
If they have the mortgage paid on a property they rent out when they CLAIM they are living in it - that's clearly wrong.

But scenario 2 does exist - here's Channel 4 splashing it: http://www.channel4.com/news/mps-expenses-46-claim...
"46 MPs claim expenses (for rent) in London despite owning property in London."

What on earth is wrong with that.
That would be like my employer saying that my colleague who doesn't own a place in London can have his rent paid but because I saved up and bought a place, I have to pay my own mortgage.
In other words - he gets free accommodation while I have to pay for it.

So for MPs anyone who doesn't have London property gets rent paid but those who do have it can'r rent it out and live somewhere else and get their rent paid - they have to live in their existing property.
That is blatantly unfair.

[Legend83]

Ari said:

Oh come on!

You're talking about people that literally cannot behave like grown ups!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c615nmm6IGw

Spend two minutes watching this and then tell me that you see these braying idiots as justifiable recipients of six figure salaries.

Isn't the point though that an objective of changes such as these would be to attract a better quality of candidate for political jobs in the future?

[Foppo]

You want to have a look what goes on in Brussels.One big party by these bureaucrats.

All having a good time with jo public tax money.Politics is a sleazy business look how Farage is sidelined.You rock the boat and you go.

[MartG]

I've never understood why they get so much for a 2nd home in London - why don't they book into a B&B or Travel Lodge like every other poor bugger who has to work away from home ?

[Zoon]

walm said:

Holy 2012 stalking, Batman!

In any case, I think you are wrong.
If they have the mortgage paid on a property they rent out when they CLAIM they are living in it - that's clearly wrong.

But scenario 2 does exist - here's Channel 4 splashing it: http://www.channel4.com/news/mps-expenses-46-claim...
"46 MPs claim expenses (for rent) in London despite owning property in London."

What on earth is wrong with that.
That would be like my employer saying that my colleague who doesn't own a place in London can have his rent paid but because I saved up and bought a place, I have to pay my own mortgage.
In other words - he gets free accommodation while I have to pay for it.

So for MPs anyone who doesn't have London property gets rent paid but those who do have it can'r rent it out and live somewhere else and get their rent paid - they have to live in their existing property.
That is blatantly unfair.

You misread what I wrote. I said in the instances where people get wound up.
My local MP claimed expenses on his constituency home when he was also claiming expenses for a property in London. I have no problem with one property but two is wrong. He also paid back a sizeable sum for expenses claimed on his garden, some 140 miles away from parliament.

With regards the second property situation, it's like claiming hotel expenses for staying away whilst still living at home. It's unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers money.

Edited by Zoon on Thursday 11th June 16:38

[Justayellowbadge]

Zoon said:

Because scenario 2 doesn't exist in the instances where people get wound up. They are using expenses to pay for a mortgage on a house they should be living in to conduct parliamentary business but are instead renting it out to profit from a buoyant London property market.

That's exactly not what they are doing.

[Zoon]

Justayellowbadge said:

That's exactly not what they are doing.

I'm not sure if the rules have changed, but it's certainly what they were doing.

[Justayellowbadge]

Zoon said:

Justayellowbadge said:

That's exactly not what they are doing.

I'm not sure if the rules have changed, but it's certainly what they were doing.

Nope. They were able to claim the mortgage on expenses, but not rent it out.

The rules changed and they can only now claim to rent. So they do.

Some had bought London homes. Without being able to claim it any longer, that could be several thousand a month on the mortgage. So they rent it out as they cannot afford to keep it any other way.

Plenty of ordinary hard working people have had to rent property out when they could either not sell it or afford to keep living in it themselves.

It's a good headline, but a non issue.

[walm]

Zoon said:

You misread what I wrote. I said in the instances where people get wound up.

I am not 100% sure what you mean, sorry.

I gave you an example of people getting wound up (Channel 4) where it is exactly my scenario 2.

I think you are just giving other examples of when people get wound up!

[ralphrj]

Justayellowbadge said:

Zoon said:

Justayellowbadge said:

That's exactly not what they are doing.

I'm not sure if the rules have changed, but it's certainly what they were doing.

Nope. They were able to claim the mortgage on expenses, but not rent it out.

In Zoon's defence I think that prior to the expenses scandal there was a way for MPs to exploit the mortgage/rent claim.

If an MP rented a second home in London they could claim the rent.
If an MP bought a second home in London they could claim the mortgage interest.

However, if an MP already owned a second home outright then they couldn't claim anything.

In order to get around this some MPs were:

1. Re-mortgaging second homes they already owned outright, claiming the mortgage interest on expenses and using the equity released to buy a third house which they then rented out.

2. Let out the second home and bought or rented a third, then claimed the mortgage interest/rent on expenses.