Why do people not look at the rented property as an income stream which is what many people do.
I smell jealousy which is understandable if your poor but that's life!
Boris Johnson uses a bike but could use a tax payers car! Should we give him cash back?
Company car owners! How many leave there own cars at home to wear out the company car on a private long drive.
Other MP's have other jobs (jack straw) others make money out of property!
To much jealousy!
Company car use is (heavily!) taxed and is often a contractual benefit.
I think you're referring to rented properties being private business arrangements which would be fine had these MPs not claimed expenses in relation to their mortgage interest on these properties.
Company car use is (heavily!) taxed and is often a contractual benefit.
I think you're referring to rented properties being private business arrangements which would be fine had these MPs not claimed expenses in relation to their mortgage interest on these properties.
Mp's will pay tax on rent earnings. The bottom line is its legal and the perk of the job!
Vote UKIP if you want a party with morals. And look what they did when recently someone was fiddled her expenses! Booted her out!
Many of them are such parasites and the whole system needs a shake up.
If I remember correctly, some are also cross renting out their London houses to each other in order to claim more off the taxpayer. All within the rules of course!
Mp's will pay tax on rent earnings. The bottom line is its legal and the perk of the job!
As do I, but the taxpayer hasn't helped me to buy the property!
Not a perk as the purpose of MPs expenses is to ensure that they are not out of pocket due to the need to reside within a reasonable distance of Westminster which is perfectly fair and reasonable. When you have an MP like Simon Danczuk however, who represents an economically depressed area and trumpets his supposedly working class credentials at every opportunity, claiming over £200k in expenses over a year on top of a generous salary (all "within the letter of the rules" I should add), one wonders whether the rules are fit for purpose.
Mp's will pay tax on rent earnings. The bottom line is its legal and the perk of the job!
Vote UKIP if you want a party with morals. And look what they did when recently someone was fiddled her expenses! Booted her out!
Bet UKIP would not be booting people out AFTER the GE for fiddled expenses, the before and after event. All MPs are and all parties are just as bad. Anyone who think ukip MPs would be any differant are kidding themselves.
As do I, but the taxpayer hasn't helped me to buy the property!
Not a perk as the purpose of MPs expenses is to ensure that they are not out of pocket due to the need to reside within a reasonable distance of Westminster which is perfectly fair and reasonable. When you have an MP like Simon Danczuk however, who represents an economically depressed area and trumpets his supposedly working class credentials at every opportunity, claiming over £200k in expenses over a year on top of a generous salary (all "within the letter of the rules" I should add), one wonders whether the rules are fit for purpose.
The taxpayer should own an accommodation block, block of flats, whatever, close to Parliament. MPs can stay there whilst in London and walk to the office. After all, aren't we looking for ways to cut public spending.
Look at central London prices for property this size, add on the cost of redevelopment, plus the ongoing costs (would be a security nightmare for a start) - I don't see this being cheaper, except maybe in the seriously long term.
Besides, "MPs build themselves swanky new Westminster hotel" isn't going to improve their public image any.
Mp's will pay tax on rent earnings. The bottom line is its legal and the perk of the job!
Vote UKIP if you want a party with morals. And look what they did when recently someone was fiddled her expenses! Booted her out!
If UKIP were totally moral and wanted to do right by everyone, they would be steaming ahead towards Number 10. All of the well-known parties have their flaws, as in, policies that aren't exactly fair or whatever.
Look at central London prices for property this size, add on the cost of redevelopment, plus the ongoing costs (would be a security nightmare for a start) - I don't see this being cheaper, except maybe in the seriously long term.
Besides, "MPs build themselves swanky new Westminster hotel" isn't going to improve their public image any.
Plenty of Government buildings becoming redundant around London. Convert them into flats. I am sure it would be cheaper than the taxpayer helping to buy a private house for each new MP that comes along.
For a start an MP's home is in their constituency, because they are supposed to represent the people in the area where they were born and grew up in. They should receive no money for that at all.
As for somewhere to stay while they are down in London, I don't know why the Houses of Parliament doesn't just take out an account with Premier Inn, or Travel Lodge, or any other economy hotel. They could just build one near Westminster in a converted office block with guaranteed customers and extra security. If it was a government building the hotel company gets a building for free.
Why should the taxpayer pay for a mortgage, which is effectively paying the MP a higher wage as they will own the property without paying for all of it?
This is why the system was changed. MPs can no longer claim for mortgage payments.
Plenty of Government buildings becoming redundant around London. Convert them into flats. I am sure it would be cheaper than the taxpayer helping to buy a private house for each new MP that comes along.
This no longer happens. MPs can now only rent a place or claim hotel expenses.
Plenty of Government buildings becoming redundant around London.
That doesn't mean they're "free" though, does it? How much would we be losing by not selling them off?
the taxpayer helping to buy a private house for each new MP that comes along.
As already pointed out, that isn't what happens under the current rules - hence the story. The MPs don't own properties which are currently being bought with taxpayers' money - they own properties to which the taxpayer previously contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) under the old rules, and for which they can no longer claim mortgage expenses.
Bet UKIP would not be booting people out AFTER the GE for fiddled expenses, the before and after event. All MPs are and all parties are just as bad. Anyone who think ukip MPs would be any differant are kidding themselves.
Of course, UKIP MPs themselves are not whiter than white in this regard. Carswell has not covered himself in glory claiming £650 for a "love seat" (link) and Mr Farage has form for allegedly questionable claims.
Classic example of the unintended consequences that so often result from rushed and ill thought out solutions to problems....even more likely to happen when the solution is required to be one that will still a baying mob.
MPs play fast and loose under old second homes rules (flipping them etc)...so because they were claiming the mortgage interest (not the principle or the whole re-payment) we ban that.
Result...they still have the second homes we helped pay for...they rent them out probably for MORE than the cost of principle + interest...then move to AN Other place we are still paying for.
So now the original second home earns them an additional income as well as us paying for the official/new/different second home.
IOW the old expenses system ends up as a "buy to let" set up...not much different went you think about it to "Help to Buy Scheme" or "Help To Buy ISA"...all of which amount to taxpayer funded housing subsidy.
Though TBH and when you think about it...how is us paying to subsidise a few MPs any different or any worse than paying to subsidise the house buying of thousands of people?
;-)
Lovely balance on your post - you don't come across as bitter at all.
So just to get this right - Jim Murphy liar, Angus MacNeill good guy and forced to do this even though he didnt want to?
Personally I would have a law that banned every one of them from standing for election but from your post it looks at though you would exempt Mr MacNeill from the list - why?
Because of his statement? If Jim Murphy had made the same statement you would have been on here saying he was just saying that and lying to protect his job..
Because he is a honourable man? Oh yeah, so he is!
I hope the voters in the constituencies of the 46 vote them out - every one of them, no exceptions.
Jim Murphy was contacted by the paper to explain his actions and he refused to do so.
Thanks for hunting down an anti McNeil story though, I didn't know he'd had a three in a bed sex romp eight years ago. Naturally I now see the light, realise that means he's now lying about Westminster rules around accommodation, and think he should be lynched, the animal.
Jim Murphy was contacted by the paper to explain his actions and he refused to do so.
Thanks for hunting down an anti McNeil story though, I didn't know he'd had a three in a bed sex romp eight years ago. Naturally I now see the light, realise that means he's now lying about Westminster rules around accommodation, and think he should be lynched, the animal.
So because MacNeill gave a worthless quote to a newspaper that makes him innocent and because Jim Murpy didn't that makes him guilty?
Didnt hunt down the MacNeill story, remember it from the time it happened. It was an example that MacNeill has form for being deceitful and that he is not necessairly the innocent that you portray him.
I think all 46 should not be allowed to stand in the election or should be booted out. Do you share that view or just the 45 excluding MacNeill who obviously by giving a worthless quote to a newspaper is exempt?
So because MacNeill gave a worthless quote to a newspaper that makes him innocent and because Jim Murpy didn't that makes him guilty?
Didnt hunt down the MacNeill story, remember it from the time it happened. It was an example that MacNeill has form for being deceitful and that he is not necessairly the innocent that you portray him.
I think all 46 should not be allowed to stand in the election or should be booted out. Do you share that view or just the 45 excluding MacNeill who obviously by giving a worthless quote to a newspaper is exempt?
Until Murphy explains his actions, which he's refused to do so far, then yes, I think he's "guilty" (a weird way of saying it btw, none of them have committed crimes or even broken rules from what I can see, they've nothing to be "guilty" of).
If you think McNeil is lying about Westminster rules (because it follows that someone who has sex three in a bed will naturally be lying to a newspaper about how the expenses system works) then you need to explain why/how his excuse doesn't wash. You cant just say his quote to a paper is "worthless" because he had sex eight years ago, or you're gonna look pretty damn biased yourself
I don't think any of them should be booted out over this, I think the system which allows them (or encourages them, if you believe the filthy sexually active man) should be booted out
Until Murphy explains his actions, which he's refused to do so far, then yes, I think he's "guilty" (a weird way of saying it btw, none of them have committed crimes or even broken rules from what I can see, they've nothing to be "guilty" of).
If you think McNeil is lying about Westminster rules (because it follows that someone who has sex three in a bed will naturally be lying to a newspaper about how the expenses system works) then you need to explain why/how his excuse doesn't wash. You cant just say his quote to a paper is "worthless" because he had sex eight years ago, or you're gonna look pretty damn biased yourself
I don't think any of them should be booted out over this, I think the system which allows them (or encourages them, if you believe the filthy sexually active man) should be booted out
I think both of them have manipulated a system - one has made no comment and one had made a worthless quote. None of the two of them are any different in my eyes,
I was not the one who called Jim Murphy a liar (post number 3 in this thread) and then used the quote from Angus MacNeill to then blame the system. They both did the same thing - how can one be a liar and one a victim of circumstance?
Why does his excuse not wash? - Forced to take the money, yeah right - he could have brought it to the attention of the press at the time. A quote once he has been found out doesnt wash.
My reference to his hotel room scandal is purely to show that he is not the innocent that you have portrayed him as. He has form for being deceitful, he didnt mention the issue with his expenses at the time and when caught blames it on the system.
As for biased - I didn't call one a liar and then blame the system for the other. That was you and that very clearly showed your bias in this.
No surprise Cappa, bitching about other parties but defending your precious SNP at all costs...
Ah, VDU Buster who claimed she wished she'd joined this site before the ref to heap more hatred on the SNP lol. Loving the unionist utter seethe, it's like the evil SNp have eaten your hamster. What's funny is I genuinely think you don't see the irony in your post.
I think both of them have manipulated a system - one has made no comment and one had made a worthless quote. None of the two of them are any different in my eyes,
I was not the one who called Jim Murphy a liar (post number 3 in this thread) and then used the quote from Angus MacNeill to then blame the system. They both did the same thing - how can one be a liar and one a victim of circumstance?
Why does his excuse not wash? - Forced to take the money, yeah right - he could have brought it to the attention of the press at the time. A quote once he has been found out doesnt wash.
My reference to his hotel room scandal is purely to show that he is not the innocent that you have portrayed him as. He has form for being deceitful, he didnt mention the issue with his expenses at the time and when caught blames it on the system.
As for biased - I didn't call one a liar and then blame the system for the other. That was you and that very clearly showed your bias in this.
Jim Murphy IS a liar. Do you want chapter and verse of the lies he's told in public, cos I'll be happy to give you them. I don't pretend I'm not biased, it's pretty obvious you are too.presumably we're all on a politics site because we're for/against something?
Jim Murphy IS a liar. Do you want chapter and verse of the lies he's told in public, cos I'll be happy to give you them. I don't pretend I'm not biased, it's pretty obvious you are too.presumably we're all on a politics site because we're for/against something?
And Angus MacNeill isn't? I am sure if I look I will find plenty of lies from Mr MacNeill.
It is fairly obvious that post number 3 on this thread by yourself was calling Jim Murphy a liar around this.
Then post 10 you blame the system as you then realise that a SNP person is involved.
Company car owners pay tax for this purpose, plus generally can't claim privately used fuel.
My cousin gets a fuel card from his company, and it's accepted he can use it for all of his local fuel requirements, so long as he uses a particular petrol station. The only times he has to pay for fuel is if he travels out of the area. To be fair, he does most of his miles for work, and is required to be on call, or standby a lot, so it's just as much about convenience as cost.
They should only be able to claim for a one bedroom property, with any spares rooms paid for out of their own pockets - like they tell those on benefits who are also funded by the taxpayer have to.
That's fine for MPs who live fairly close to London, so can make it to their real home every weekend, or during the week if hours allow. It's fair that MPs with longer commutes might have family come to visit from time to time.
IMO, there should be three levels of claim.
The MPs whose constituencies are furthest away, who might struggle to get home every weekend can expect a reasonable home away from home, with a decent office and a spare bedroom.
MPs who would typically stay in London four nights a week, but could get home of an evening if required, can have a modest, but comfortable one bedroom flat of their own.
The MPs whose constituencies are in the normal commuter reach of London should be allowed to stay over in certain circumstances, but in state owned one bedroom flats or have an allowance for a modest hotel room.
You could argue over the boundaries for each category, but it should be based on reasonable travel times, frequency of train services, and the anti-social hours they work. MPs from Cornwall, Shetland and remote parts of Yorkshire would be the first category. Norwich, Reading and Birmingham might be category 2, while I'd expect places like Guildford to be in category 3.
Security is important too, which is why I have some reservations about simply sticking them all in a block of flats.
And Angus MacNeill isn't? I am sure if I look I will find plenty of lies from Mr MacNeill.
It is fairly obvious that post number 3 on this thread by yourself was calling Jim Murphy a liar around this.
Then post 10 you blame the system as you then realise that a SNP person is involved.
One word for that - pathetic.
Actually I wasnt, I've been lied to directly by Jim Murphy during his wee wander around scotland shouting at folk. I will happily call him out for that whenever he pops up in a thread or in a scandal. How can I be saying he's a "liar around this" when he hasn't even made any kind of statement whatsoever?!
Are you even reading the thread or just eager for a fight? If it's the latter which I suspect then THAT'S what's pathetic. I knew McNeil was named and had released a statement from before the first post as I saw the story and article on another forum before there was a thread here. So your wrong again in your embarrassing attempts at working out when and where I "realised" things.
Although to be fair I think the most pathetic thing seen on this thread so far is your digging up an eight year old sexual encounter to try and suggest that someone's unrelated comment on an unrelated matter is "worthless". Talk about bias
Comments
And I don't think you like MP's earning money
Company car use is (heavily!) taxed and is often a contractual benefit.
I think you're referring to rented properties being private business arrangements which would be fine had these MPs not claimed expenses in relation to their mortgage interest on these properties.
Mp's will pay tax on rent earnings. The bottom line is its legal and the perk of the job!
Vote UKIP if you want a party with morals. And look what they did when recently someone was fiddled her expenses! Booted her out!
If I remember correctly, some are also cross renting out their London houses to each other in order to claim more off the taxpayer. All within the rules of course!
As do I, but the taxpayer hasn't helped me to buy the property!
Not a perk as the purpose of MPs expenses is to ensure that they are not out of pocket due to the need to reside within a reasonable distance of Westminster which is perfectly fair and reasonable. When you have an MP like Simon Danczuk however, who represents an economically depressed area and trumpets his supposedly working class credentials at every opportunity, claiming over £200k in expenses over a year on top of a generous salary (all "within the letter of the rules" I should add), one wonders whether the rules are fit for purpose.
Bet UKIP would not be booting people out AFTER the GE for fiddled expenses, the before and after event. All MPs are and all parties are just as bad. Anyone who think ukip MPs would be any differant are kidding themselves.
Well become an MP then if that's what you want
Look at central London prices for property this size, add on the cost of redevelopment, plus the ongoing costs (would be a security nightmare for a start) - I don't see this being cheaper, except maybe in the seriously long term.
Besides, "MPs build themselves swanky new Westminster hotel" isn't going to improve their public image any.
If UKIP were totally moral and wanted to do right by everyone, they would be steaming ahead towards Number 10. All of the well-known parties have their flaws, as in, policies that aren't exactly fair or whatever.
Plenty of Government buildings becoming redundant around London. Convert them into flats. I am sure it would be cheaper than the taxpayer helping to buy a private house for each new MP that comes along.
This no longer happens. MPs can now only rent a place or claim hotel expenses.
That doesn't mean they're "free" though, does it? How much would we be losing by not selling them off?
As already pointed out, that isn't what happens under the current rules - hence the story. The MPs don't own properties which are currently being bought with taxpayers' money - they own properties to which the taxpayer previously contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) under the old rules, and for which they can no longer claim mortgage expenses.
Of course, UKIP MPs themselves are not whiter than white in this regard. Carswell has not covered himself in glory claiming £650 for a "love seat" (link) and Mr Farage has form for allegedly questionable claims.
MPs play fast and loose under old second homes rules (flipping them etc)...so because they were claiming the mortgage interest (not the principle or the whole re-payment) we ban that.
Result...they still have the second homes we helped pay for...they rent them out probably for MORE than the cost of principle + interest...then move to AN Other place we are still paying for.
So now the original second home earns them an additional income as well as us paying for the official/new/different second home.
IOW the old expenses system ends up as a "buy to let" set up...not much different went you think about it to "Help to Buy Scheme" or "Help To Buy ISA"...all of which amount to taxpayer funded housing subsidy.
Though TBH and when you think about it...how is us paying to subsidise a few MPs any different or any worse than paying to subsidise the house buying of thousands of people?
;-)
Jim Murphy was contacted by the paper to explain his actions and he refused to do so.
Thanks for hunting down an anti McNeil story though, I didn't know he'd had a three in a bed sex romp eight years ago. Naturally I now see the light, realise that means he's now lying about Westminster rules around accommodation, and think he should be lynched, the animal.
So because MacNeill gave a worthless quote to a newspaper that makes him innocent and because Jim Murpy didn't that makes him guilty?
Didnt hunt down the MacNeill story, remember it from the time it happened. It was an example that MacNeill has form for being deceitful and that he is not necessairly the innocent that you portray him.
I think all 46 should not be allowed to stand in the election or should be booted out. Do you share that view or just the 45 excluding MacNeill who obviously by giving a worthless quote to a newspaper is exempt?
Until Murphy explains his actions, which he's refused to do so far, then yes, I think he's "guilty" (a weird way of saying it btw, none of them have committed crimes or even broken rules from what I can see, they've nothing to be "guilty" of).
If you think McNeil is lying about Westminster rules (because it follows that someone who has sex three in a bed will naturally be lying to a newspaper about how the expenses system works) then you need to explain why/how his excuse doesn't wash. You cant just say his quote to a paper is "worthless" because he had sex eight years ago, or you're gonna look pretty damn biased yourself
I don't think any of them should be booted out over this, I think the system which allows them (or encourages them, if you believe the filthy sexually active man) should be booted out
I think both of them have manipulated a system - one has made no comment and one had made a worthless quote. None of the two of them are any different in my eyes,
I was not the one who called Jim Murphy a liar (post number 3 in this thread) and then used the quote from Angus MacNeill to then blame the system. They both did the same thing - how can one be a liar and one a victim of circumstance?
Why does his excuse not wash? - Forced to take the money, yeah right - he could have brought it to the attention of the press at the time. A quote once he has been found out doesnt wash.
My reference to his hotel room scandal is purely to show that he is not the innocent that you have portrayed him as. He has form for being deceitful, he didnt mention the issue with his expenses at the time and when caught blames it on the system.
As for biased - I didn't call one a liar and then blame the system for the other. That was you and that very clearly showed your bias in this.
Ah, VDU Buster who claimed she wished she'd joined this site before the ref to heap more hatred on the SNP lol. Loving the unionist utter seethe, it's like the evil SNp have eaten your hamster. What's funny is I genuinely think you don't see the irony in your post.
Jim Murphy IS a liar. Do you want chapter and verse of the lies he's told in public, cos I'll be happy to give you them. I don't pretend I'm not biased, it's pretty obvious you are too.presumably we're all on a politics site because we're for/against something?
And Angus MacNeill isn't? I am sure if I look I will find plenty of lies from Mr MacNeill.
It is fairly obvious that post number 3 on this thread by yourself was calling Jim Murphy a liar around this.
Then post 10 you blame the system as you then realise that a SNP person is involved.
One word for that - pathetic.
I may be biased but I can be objective, can you?
That's fine for MPs who live fairly close to London, so can make it to their real home every weekend, or during the week if hours allow. It's fair that MPs with longer commutes might have family come to visit from time to time.
IMO, there should be three levels of claim.
The MPs whose constituencies are furthest away, who might struggle to get home every weekend can expect a reasonable home away from home, with a decent office and a spare bedroom.
MPs who would typically stay in London four nights a week, but could get home of an evening if required, can have a modest, but comfortable one bedroom flat of their own.
The MPs whose constituencies are in the normal commuter reach of London should be allowed to stay over in certain circumstances, but in state owned one bedroom flats or have an allowance for a modest hotel room.
You could argue over the boundaries for each category, but it should be based on reasonable travel times, frequency of train services, and the anti-social hours they work. MPs from Cornwall, Shetland and remote parts of Yorkshire would be the first category. Norwich, Reading and Birmingham might be category 2, while I'd expect places like Guildford to be in category 3.
Security is important too, which is why I have some reservations about simply sticking them all in a block of flats.
Actually I wasnt, I've been lied to directly by Jim Murphy during his wee wander around scotland shouting at folk. I will happily call him out for that whenever he pops up in a thread or in a scandal. How can I be saying he's a "liar around this" when he hasn't even made any kind of statement whatsoever?!
Are you even reading the thread or just eager for a fight? If it's the latter which I suspect then THAT'S what's pathetic. I knew McNeil was named and had released a statement from before the first post as I saw the story and article on another forum before there was a thread here. So your wrong again in your embarrassing attempts at working out when and where I "realised" things.
Although to be fair I think the most pathetic thing seen on this thread so far is your digging up an eight year old sexual encounter to try and suggest that someone's unrelated comment on an unrelated matter is "worthless". Talk about bias