TroughGate - Is there any good news ?

[dang65]

The trouble I have is that if they've designated "flat 1" as their primary residence to HMRC and at the same time have designated "flat 1" as a "second home" for the purposes of claimable expenses.

But the HMRC thing only actually matters when it comes to selling your home doesn't it? It's all about CGT. While you're still living in both homes, it's pretty much irrelevant, even if there is some kind of rule. The claimable expenses are not directly related to this, or else the whole thing would be run by HMRC and they would only have one home listed as primary residence.

As for immorality... this is just basic paper shuffling to get the best available deal. Everyone does it. I bet even the Pope has an accountant checking out his best options for tax payments.

[dang65]

That's a primary issue for me, they get tax free allowances paid by the public purse to pay for things that HMRC would prosecute us for as criminal tax evasion.
We can't even offset the costs against tax let alone get the tax man to pay for the whole lot and to add insult to injury they keep the benefits and sell on at an untaxed profit.

Quite frankly much of what I've seen revealed is nothing short of fraud and the only reason they can get away with it is because the arrogant buggers set the rules for their own benefit.

Well, (I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, just for a change) the fact is that the expenses are a benefit of the job, at the moment. Many companies pay for their employees to, say, relocate or to rent a property while they still keep their own house (and probably let it out while they're away). The fact that it's "tax payers' money" means that it's more sensitive, but it's tax payers' money that pays for Top Gear presenters to drive supercars to Monte Carlo, or for members of the armed forces to go on skiing trips or learn to drive rally cars, or for teachers to go on training courses etc etc.

As Tony Benn pointed out the other day, it's only a couple of decades ago that only those with private means could afford to become MPs, and every expense was paid for by them personally. The current situation has a lot of infuriating examples - I dunno, gold plated bathroom taps, or personal security guards - but really all that needs is for the rules to be adjusted, which they've said they are going to do anyway. These allowances were only introduced a few years ago, so they should be due for review anyway.

[swamp]

Many companies pay for their employees to, say, relocate or to rent a property while they still keep their own house (and probably let it out while they're away).

You can receive up to £8k to relocate but you have to actually move. Anything over is BIK.

Your company can rent a property for you which you are unable to commute to, but that's subject to the two year rule and you can't rent out your real home in the meantime.

[Board Game Geek]

It's certainly easy to criticise the MP's, who are taking advantage of the opportunities they created for themselves.

However, humans are opportunistic by nature, and I wonder how many of the voters would have done exactly the same thing, given half a chance ?

I think we should be informed of which MP's have NEVER submitted anything for expenses.

At the least, it implies that they have scruples. At the most, they are so well off that they don't need to.

However, even rich people are greedy and if they are rich and still not claiming, then they have a conscience at least.

[dang65]

You can receive up to £8k to relocate but you have to actually move. Anything over is BIK.

Your company can rent a property for you which you are unable to commute to, but that's subject to the two year rule and you can't rent out your real home in the meantime.

You say that as if those aren't perks of a job though. They are. You're entitled to them, and you'd be daft not to take them. The fact that the schoolteacher down the road doesn't get relocation money when she has to move 300 miles away to get a job is unlikely to give you sleepless nights.

Honestly, people who stick to their own moral codes are all well and good, but it is up to the individuals. We're all free to walk past a charity collector on the street, or to not give up our seat to an old lady on the tube. The "good" MPs are getting praised, and there's their reward, but it seems pretty hypocritical to rage on about the others because they have "low morals".

[Cyberman]

So having the taxpayer pay 22,000 pounds for you to fix your rising damp in Southampton while they struggle to pay their bills and die of hypothermia is fine because you are an MP. I see.

[expat]

It's certainly easy to criticise the MP's, who are taking advantage of the opportunities they created for themselves.

However, humans are opportunistic by nature, and I wonder how many of the voters would have done exactly the same thing, given half a chance ?

I wouldn't, and I expect, no I demand, that they don't.

I am opportunistic, but I know the difference between right and wrong, and I don't do what is wrong, even if I have the opportunity.

Please tell me that you know that there is a difference between right and wrong.

[Board Game Geek]

Please tell me that you know that there is a difference between right and wrong.

Oh god yes indeed.

If I was an MP, I'd keep my snout well out of the trough, because I'd make it my business and personal vendetta to expose others who do, and to do that you need to be above reproach yourself.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm starting to think there are two main points here.

Firstly is a semantic one. The word expenses is wrong and it really gets peoples backs up. Like 'I claim expenses every week and I coulnt claim THAT stuff, so why should they'. They need a more appropriate word.

Second is the moral point. They should only be able to claim for stuff that facilitates their being able to to the job as an MP.


Third, they need a rule book and a scrutineer to tell them when they cross the line on number two

[expat]

Oh god yes indeed.

If I was an MP, I'd keep my snout well out of the trough, because I'd make it my business and personal vendetta to expose others who do, and to do that you need to be above reproach yourself.