Reply to: Question Time

[Cyberman]

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

Good email Tony !! What also makes me angry is mortgage interest relief. Cameron for instance gets 1,000 pounds a month from the taxpayer for this for his house in Oxfordshire. Blair got it for his 300,000 pound house that he deliberately remortgaged in order to buy his mansion in London. This tax free perk also needs to be stopped immediately.

[Cyberman]

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.

... but she deserves it more than most after her refusal to refund the money we paid for her garden enhancements. At least the Tories are repaying all dubious claims and have implemented an immediate frugal expenses policy for all of their own MPs. She absolutely refuses and shows up Labour for what they are !!

[CheeseSlice]

True but that doesn't quite do it for me. Every street should it's own politician hanging from a lamp post. Now there's retribution.

Lets not forget that only as far back as the 1800's, these offending politicians could have been named as traitors, and potentially hanged or hung-drawn and quartered. I'm fairly sure bankers would have been treated like this, with heads displayed on spikes over old-london bridge.

Although we're not that gruesome these days, their punishment certainly shouldn't be a slap on the wrist. Prison or at least a court hearing and severe fines/penalties are a minimum IMO. Some may demand worse.

[snaw]

Yep, but not in the sort of numbers I'd be hoping to foment.

Velvet revolution, anyone?

What, wrap our our pitchforks and sledgehammers in velvet cloth.

Saves time and money no cleaning the implements afterwards I suppose ...

[Menelaus]

IIRC from Devil's Kitchen, this has been done already

Yep, but not in the sort of numbers I'd be hoping to foment.

Velvet revolution, anyone?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Nice one! If we're helping with errors, here are a few I've spotted:

MPs
company's expense
taxpayers'

And furore has a e on the end.

I think this is a good idea and I'm thinking of doing something similar.

[Moscow Mule]

Is it? I thought it was client based. If that's the case, I may have fallen foul of the rules over the last few years.

How do they define same location? To remain within the rules, does your next client have to be x no. of miles away from your previous one in order to get a clean slate with respect to the 2 year rule?

It depends on if your journey changes significantly.

If you live in Luton and commute to client A in the City every day, then two years later change to Client B, then that isn't a significant change and you should stop claiming travel expenses - you actual expenditure hasn't changes (still a Zone 1 travel card).

Conversely, if you spend 2 years working at a client in Zone 4, then the client moves their offices to Zone 1 you get to reset the clock as your expenditure and journey has significantly changed.

[The Lone Gunman]

Is it? I thought it was client based. If that's the case, I may have fallen foul of the rules over the last few years.

How do they define same location? To remain within the rules, does your next client have to be x no. of miles away from your previous one in order to get a clean slate with respect to the 2 year rule?

It is general area.
If all your contracts were within the City of London then you have done it wrong.
There is no set difference, it is judged on a number of things. Rule of thumb is if you use the same motorway junction or railway station then you are probably at the same location.

[scooterscot]

Britain is not a democracy.

Hth.

Which kind of brings me full circle about my desire to vote.

We're all capitalists at heart just my currency is food not GBP, you should see my larder....

[scooterscot]

You got it right the first time : no alternative.

Revolution anyone?

me me me me

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Who's up for it?

We'll all wear V masks (as from V for Vendetta) and march on the Houses of Parliament.

IIRC from Devil's Kitchen, this has been done already

[wurzel]

I don't - I'm happy enough with the 2 years regarding a single client, but it is location based.

Is it? I thought it was client based. If that's the case, I may have fallen foul of the rules over the last few years.

How do they define same location? To remain within the rules, does your next client have to be x no. of miles away from your previous one in order to get a clean slate with respect to the 2 year rule?

[Pinto]

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

Nice one! If we're helping with errors, here are a few I've spotted:

MPs
company's expense
taxpayers'

[expat]

Crises : The British Political Class have been discredited - Parliament has no crediblity - 'democracy' is a sham

Solution : Put your trust in the New World Order

Jesus, I wish I thought that was funny

The history of countries that lost all faith in their politicians is not encouraging. As a guy on the BBC said, is this the week we became the Weimar Republic?

[expat]

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

What is the situation for one of us if we actually have to work regularly in 2 different locations for 1 single job? That is, I think, the reasoning behind MPs being allowed to buy and furnish 2 homes, as against just claiming subsistence expenses.

(I am ignoring the aspect that we think that our contracting as a whole is 1 single job, whereas the authorities seem to take it that a succession of contracts is a succession of independent jobs)