Question Time

[BrilloPad]

All of them will.

Shame there's no alternatives, I think just now disillusionment with politicians must be at an all time high in this country.

Watched QT for the first time ni a long time last night.

Thing I came away with was this feeling that they're not sorry, and incredibly even feel a little hard done by (Plus the whole bollocks about paying them more, but they'd never vote for it themselves).

You got it right the first time : no alternative.

Revolution anyone?

[NotAllThere]

It'll probably be an Islamic revolution.

[BoredBloke]

I'm going to ask my MP how he can justify the 2nd home expenses

I'm about to send him...

With all of the furor surrounding MP’s expenses I’d like to know how MP’s can seriously justify the second home allowance and costs which get charged back to the public purse. I work through a limited company and like a MP I too have had to spend considerable amounts of time working away from home. Between 2000 and 2004 I worked in London, commuting down on a weekly basis. Unlike a MP there were strict rules, enforced by the Inland Revenue as to what I could and could not charge back to my company by way of expenses. I would have loved to have bought a flat and furnish it with all of the nice things I have at home but there is no way on this earth that I would be allowed to do so at my companies expenses. All items my company expenses for me have to be wholly and exclusively attributable to my business. A new TV or sofa for my 2nd home would not be seen as allowable. Why then are MP’s a special case? Why is it that I as a tax payer have very strict rules as to what my company can provide for me while working away from home while a MP seems to be able to replicate all their belongings at the taxpayers expense? Also it is interesting to note that after 2 years of working away from home all my expenses had to stop because the Inland Revenue rules dictate that if you are working in a single location for longer than 2 years then this becomes your primary place of work .

________________________________________

Feel free to add anything I have missed

[Zippy]

Just one thing I'd add Tony - You thieving barsteward.

[MrMark]

"Lessons will be learnt"

I've learnt there's a niche market in moat-cleaning. Could be my plan B!!!

[The Lone Gunman]

I'm going to ask my MP how he can justify the 2nd home expenses

I'm about to send him...

With all of the furor surrounding MP’s expenses I’d like to know how MP’s can seriously justify the second home allowance and costs which get charged back to the public purse. I work through a limited company and like an MP I too have had to spend considerable amounts of time working away from home. Between 2000 and 2004 I worked in London, commuting down on a weekly basis. Unlike an MP there were strict rules, enforced by the Inland Revenue as to what I could and could not charge back to my company by way of expenses. I would have loved to have bought a flat and furnish it with all of the nice things I have at home but there is no way on this earth that I would be allowed to do so at my companies expense. All items my company expenses for me have to be wholly and exclusively attributable to my business. A new TV or sofa for my 2nd home would not be seen as allowable. Why then are MP’s a special case? Why is it that I as a tax payer have very strict rules as to what my company can provide for me while working away from home while an MP seems to be able to replicate all their belongings at the taxpayers expense? Also it is interesting to note that after 2 years of working away from home all my expenses had to stop because the Inland Revenue rules dictate that if you are working in a single location for longer than 2 years then this becomes your primary place of work .

________________________________________

Feel free to add anything I have missed

You might want to check that for errors.

I would also lose the 2 year rule bit. In that particular case I think the MPs have a point.

I wrote to mine and also made the point that I could not claim costs on a property which I own (even partialy) and that I was laible for tax on BIKs if I used any of my expensed items for personal use so could not have the family over for weekends at my flat. The size of the flat was also questioned, but I can make allowances for MPs on these points due to the nature of their job.

You may also want to point out that legislation was changed when it was pointed out that although contractors operate within the tax law they are regarded as exploiting it to get away with paying less tax than they should.

[BoredBloke]

is it an MP or a MP? I thought it was an if the following word starts with a vowel. I had initially written it as 'an' but then changed it.

[The Lone Gunman]

is it an MP or a MP? I thought it was an if the following word starts with a vowel. I had initially written it as 'an' but then changed it.

I am not sure now.
A MP sounds wrong to me.
Where the hell do I find out.
I will look what the BBC writes.

[Menelaus]

Qt

Last night was extremely entertaining.

The MPs with the exception of Ming Campbell (who's so old any expression he might make would be lost amongst the wrinkles) managed to look shifty and untrustworthy at the same time and the scumbag at the end of the table (sorry, all journalists = scumbags) looked smug and self-satisfied, despite also looking shifty. I half expected a snakes tongue to come out of his mouth, I'm not sure why - he just looked reptilian.

Worryingly the only person on the programme who looked remotely composed and not like he was busily shafting the taxpayer was that purveyor of healthy comestibles (not) the CEO of McDonalds.

[BoredBloke]

"I would also lose the 2 year rule bit. In that particular case I think the MPs have a point."

I don't - I'm happy enough with the 2 years regarding a single client, but it is location based. Effectively it prevents me from taking another role with a different client if they happen to be based in the same geographical location as the last one. This is a problem if that geographical location happens to be London. It means that I can do 2 years in London claiming expenses, but if I want to continue claiming them, I have to get another in a different location for 6 months to reset the clock.

"I wrote to mine and also made the point that I could not claim costs on a property which I own (even partialy) and that I was laible for tax on BIKs if I used any of my expensed items for personal use so could not have the family over for weekends at my flat. The size of the flat was also questioned, but I can make allowances for MPs on these points due to the nature of their job."

Why? What is so special about their job which means that they can have an expensed property for personal use?