MP's expenses claims ..

[Fishtailparka]

Wait until they leak the MEP's expenses in more detail. It will knock this lot into a cocked hat.

[SmokeEm]

I still say that we'd all do it if we could and i still believe they don't get paid well for the job in the 1st place. I certainly wouldn't sit in parliment all day arguing for 60k. No thanks

[Smudger105e]

To add insult to injury, I believe these expenses are not taxable, which again is against what the rest of normal expenses are to anybody else in a regular job.

 

So to sum up, they get a decent wage, often have other jobs, get much of everything related to thier life outside work paid for, and do not pay tax on the extra expenses they get paid. How is this fair?

 

Expenses are not taxable to anyone, you have already paid the tax on them when you first earned the money. Allowances on the other hand are taxable, as they are an arbitrary amount intended to conpensate. Therefore if you claim petrol for your car as an expense, it is not taxable, if you claim mileage for your car, it would be taxable...

[JAY PS]

This is more than most of us can bear at the moment ,we have trouble paying bills like the rest of you but if its not on this shit going on

its second homes, its free wages to members of the family etc etc

Gordon Should go (Notice How Tony B has been so very quiet he milked us for years !) Sad thing is there is now no confidence in goverment they are just a bunch of crooks bigger than any armed robber or terrorist .

We give them money in tax and they are """""""ing wasting it on themselves or on some god for sake country that none of us would want to go to that will never be in a position to help themsleves .

 

I vote we get the ++++ out of europe and get somone in power to make this country an great place to be like it used to be (i was around in the 70s )

Send all the scroungers and imports home and close that stupid tunnel that allows more illegals over here everyday

 

Sorry bloods boiling a bit today

[sab6024]

I am of the opinion that the Members should only be allowed to claim for things they need to make their job possible and if they need a second home to be closer to work then so be it. But to expect the Tax payer to pay for swimming pools to be cleaned and light bulbs to be changed, well that's just not on.

 

I am in a job where I can claim expenses, I get my mileage paid and can also claim more from the Government (which I do!) I get paid 35p per mile by my employer and can claim a further 5p per mile from the HMRC for the first 10,000miles. I only claim for this as it brings my Tax code right up so not having to pay so much every month. So I suppose I can be accused of the same thing but on a much smaller scale. I can also claim for washing my own uniform and for shoes ( I don't claim for these though as I don't understand why washing a load of uniform is different to putting a normal white wash on )

[caprinerd]

i can understand the paying for the up keep for the house in the area they work but to have another house where a certain mp`s husband is living as thats where he works is robbing the tax payer in this case if this mp has 2 houses ok tax payers pay for the house is her work area but surely her husband or partner should pay for the up keep of the other house after all he`s living in it and working there, if he wasnt then the said mp wouldnt have to have the house.

[Vista]

i can understand the paying for the up keep for the house in the area they work but to have another house where a certain mp`s husband is living as thats where he works is robbing the tax payer in this case if this mp has 2 houses ok tax payers pay for the house is her work area but surely her husband or partner should pay for the up keep of the other house after all he`s living in it and working there, if he wasnt then the said mp wouldnt have to have the house.

 

The point is that MP's are required to work in two places, their local constituencies AND parliament, they therefore live in the same house as their partner in their local constituency and fund that themselves, and claim for the house near parliament. So as I understand it, in effect they do fund the first house themselves.

[pauln]

i can understand the paying for the up keep for the house in the area they work but to have another house where a certain mp`s husband is living as thats where he works is robbing the tax payer in this case if this mp has 2 houses ok tax payers pay for the house is her work area but surely her husband or partner should pay for the up keep of the other house after all he`s living in it and working there, if he wasnt then the said mp wouldnt have to have the house.

 

The point is that MP's are required to work in two places, their local constituencies AND parliament, they therefore live in the same house as their partner in their local constituency and fund that themselves, and claim for the house near parliament. So as I understand it, in effect they do fund the first house themselves.

 

Just trying to work out the details, the MPs can claim up to 24 grand for the upkeep of the London home. As I understand it it's been claims to blag their way up to this limit that is the issue or have they been making claims on top of this?

[Vista]

As I understand it it's been claims to blag their way up to this limit that is the issue?

 

That's my understanding (and objection) too, fairdo's claim for the 2nd home but stop ripping us off with stupid extras.

[caprinerd]

i can understand the paying for the up keep for the house in the area they work but to have another house where a certain mp`s husband is living as thats where he works is robbing the tax payer in this case if this mp has 2 houses ok tax payers pay for the house is her work area but surely her husband or partner should pay for the up keep of the other house after all he`s living in it and working there, if he wasnt then the said mp wouldnt have to have the house.

 

The point is that MP's are required to work in two places, their local constituencies AND parliament, they therefore live in the same house as their partner in their local constituency and fund that themselves, and claim for the house near parliament. So as I understand it, in effect they do fund the first house themselves.

 

the mp im refering to has two houses yes but one is near the area for her constituency and the other is no where near it or parliment so my point is ok but in this instance why cant the husband / partner pay for the repair of the house he lives in and uses on an every day basis instead of her claiming all the damp proofing as living expenses when she aint there for any long period of time

[jimbo]

i can understand the paying for the up keep for the house in the area they work but to have another house where a certain mp`s husband is living as thats where he works is robbing the tax payer in this case if this mp has 2 houses ok tax payers pay for the house is her work area but surely her husband or partner should pay for the up keep of the other house after all he`s living in it and working there, if he wasnt then the said mp wouldnt have to have the house.

 

The point is that MP's are required to work in two places, their local constituencies AND parliament, they therefore live in the same house as their partner in their local constituency and fund that themselves, and claim for the house near parliament. So as I understand it, in effect they do fund the first house themselves.

 

That's pretty much the gist of it. The fiddle comes when they swap around which house is registered as the first and which is the second. Then they sell it, make a profit on the back of the improvements paid for by expenses, and avoid paying capital gains tax. Then they swap it back!!!

[Mr Sam]

your dammed every way the country is fooked in every way shape and form and yes alot of it can be blamed on the goverment but at this point in time switching to the tories etc isnt going to change anything over night

 

ive still signed as mr Brown is a cock

[FredTransit]

To add insult to injury, I believe these expenses are not taxable, which again is against what the rest of normal expenses are to anybody else in a regular job.

 

So to sum up, they get a decent wage, often have other jobs, get much of everything related to thier life outside work paid for, and do not pay tax on the extra expenses they get paid. How is this fair?

 

Expenses are not taxable to anyone, you have already paid the tax on them when you first earned the money. Allowances on the other hand are taxable, as they are an arbitrary amount intended to conpensate. Therefore if you claim petrol for your car as an expense, it is not taxable, if you claim mileage for your car, it would be taxable...

 

Surely expenses are not part of your earnings (unless you are an MP)? So how have you paid tax on them when you first earned the money? I would have thought that if you get a payment in your wage packet or salary, it gets taxed?

[caprinerd]

they pay for work to be done on a house that has no connection with work they claim it back on living expenses and then claim their tax back on something someone else has payed for ...... yeah now that seems fair

[Stu_B]

I read today thet one MP was claiming expenses on a flat as a second home, then renting it to another MP who was then in turn claiming that £1000 a month back as expenses

[Stu_B]

Claire Short is one of the latest MP's in the spotlight

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051091.stm

 

I used to go out with her niece a few years ago, she went off to Uni in London & was living in this house for a while

[FredTransit]

At the end of the day, if they were working for a private company and was getting an expense account, coming out of company profits all well and good. But they are not, they are spending the country's money, IE our money. At the same time, they are getting a good salary and are not getting taxed on these expenses. I don't care if it's the system that's allowing them to do it, it's not right.

[SmokeEm]

I don't care if it's the system that's allowing them to do it, it's not right.

 

No-one has said it's right, only that we'd all do it given the chance.

 

Also, as I've said before - they are not well paid at all. Not considering the hours, time away and the grief from the voting public - buggered if I'd do it

[Vista]

I don't care if it's the system that's allowing them to do it, it's not right.

 

No-one has said it's right, only that we'd all do it given the chance.

 

Also, as I've said before - they are not well paid at all. Not considering the hours, time away and the grief from the voting public - buggered if I'd do it

 

It's the enormous responsibility that senior MP's have that I think they aren't well paid enough for.

 

MP's salary is £64,766 as of 1 April 2009

 

PM's salary £194,250 (including MP's salary of £63,291) from 1 April 2008

 

Now how much do senior bankers, solicitors, council figures get? A lot lot more that the PM.

 

Here you go, here are some salaries our council tax's were paying in 2005/2006

 

The highest earner in 2005-6 was Tom Scholes, chief executive of Renfrewshire council in Scotland, who received £233,029 - although this included a £113,015 redundancy payment.

 

A close second was Kent chief executive Peter Gilroy - who banked £229,999 - followed by Wandsworth's chief executive and director of administration Gerald Jones on £227,424.

 

 

Now how is it right that someone in charge of a district council gets paid more than the man at the helm of the whole country? (however misguided the current incumbent might be)

[SmokeEm]

My point exactly Scott

[richie_stix]

ahhh vista... we can always rely on you for a well thought out, articlulate, and well written answer (which normally are bang on the money too!) i have to agree with yours and smoke'ems points thus far!

[FredTransit]

Are you really seriously telling me that MPs are poorly paid? Plenty of people work far longer hours for far less. Some people commute to London from places like Leicester, at their own expense. They don't get any allowances to buy a plasma TV with, or even have a moat let alone get the money to clean it. I think you are missing the point in this, the rest of the country are struggling to pay the rent or mortgage, and some MPs are claiming money for mortgages they don't have any more. As for the system allowing them to do this, who exactly voted in or concocted this system? Was it you and me? No it was the very MPs it's benefiting.

[Stu_B]

Here it is in black & white

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8072031.stm

[Smudger105e]

Looking at that, I agree with Scott, an MP's salary (not salary and expenses) are not good considering the hours, commuting, responsibilty etc. It is OK compared to the average, but their position connot surely be described as 'average'.

 

Just because someone does lots of hours, doesn't necessarily mean they should be paid shed loads...

[Stu_B]

Looking at that, I agree with Scott, an MP's salary (not salary and expenses) are not good considering the hours, commuting, responsibilty etc. It is OK compared to the average, but their position connot surely be described as 'average'.

 

Just because someone does lots of hours, doesn't necessarily mean they should be paid shed loads...

 

£1100 a week inc expenses! I think that's bloody good. They wanted to be MP's... why? Because they want to make a difference & share a responsibility in the running of the country & peoples rights etc or cos they want to earn shit loads of money?!