How stupid do you have to be to become an MP?
Discussion
Do they really have such low IQ's as to not see how they are completely in the wrong over these expenses.
take the latest - Bill Cash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/807353...
Despite actually owning a second home in London, Bill thought it would be nice to let his son stay there rent free, whilst claiming £15k to rent another flat (off his daughter).
Bill, I'll spell it out for you. You are NOT entitled to claim for renting a second home in London if you already OWN a second home in London. What you have done is simple. You've defauded the Tax payer so your son can live in London rent free. WHY CANT YOU SEE this Bill? Is it because you've got the IQ of an inbred?
Fekin retards. Paying the money back is not an acceptable answer either. He needs to answer to a judge.
take the latest - Bill Cash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/807353...
Despite actually owning a second home in London, Bill thought it would be nice to let his son stay there rent free, whilst claiming £15k to rent another flat (off his daughter).
Bill, I'll spell it out for you. You are NOT entitled to claim for renting a second home in London if you already OWN a second home in London. What you have done is simple. You've defauded the Tax payer so your son can live in London rent free. WHY CANT YOU SEE this Bill? Is it because you've got the IQ of an inbred?
Fekin retards. Paying the money back is not an acceptable answer either. He needs to answer to a judge.
Tony*T3 said:
Do they really have such low IQ's as to not see how they are completely in the wrong over these expenses.
take the latest - Bill Cash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/807353...
Despite actually owning a second home in London, Bill thought it would be nice to let his son stay there rent free, whilst claiming £15k to rent another flat (off his daughter).
Bill, I'll spell it out for you. You are NOT entitled to claim for renting a second home in London if you already OWN a second home in London. What you have done is simple. You've defauded the Tax payer so your son can live in London rent free. WHY CANT YOU SEE this Bill? Is it because you've got the IQ of an inbred?
Fekin retards. Paying the money back is not an acceptable answer either. He needs to answer to a judge.
So why have the Police not arrested anyone yet over such a blatent act of fraud and obtaining money under false pretences, oh! sorry! forgot is it similar to Mandelsons escapade a few years ago.take the latest - Bill Cash. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/807353...
Despite actually owning a second home in London, Bill thought it would be nice to let his son stay there rent free, whilst claiming £15k to rent another flat (off his daughter).
Bill, I'll spell it out for you. You are NOT entitled to claim for renting a second home in London if you already OWN a second home in London. What you have done is simple. You've defauded the Tax payer so your son can live in London rent free. WHY CANT YOU SEE this Bill? Is it because you've got the IQ of an inbred?
Fekin retards. Paying the money back is not an acceptable answer either. He needs to answer to a judge.
It's not actually stupidity.
It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
Don said:
It's not actually stupidity.
It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
I work for one of the big IT companies. Every expense has to have pre-approval. I have to pay for everything myself and claim back. I have to have every reciept. Nothing slips past them. I wouldnt claim for anything that was absolutly necessary and above board. If I was caught doing something dodgy I'd be out the door toot suite.It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
Tony*T3 said:
Don said:
It's not actually stupidity.
It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
I work for one of the big IT companies. Every expense has to have pre-approval. I have to pay for everything myself and claim back. I have to have every reciept. Nothing slips past them. I wouldnt claim for anything that was absolutly necessary and above board. If I was caught doing something dodgy I'd be out the door toot suite.It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
esselte said:
Tony*T3 said:
Don said:
It's not actually stupidity.
It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
I work for one of the big IT companies. Every expense has to have pre-approval. I have to pay for everything myself and claim back. I have to have every reciept. Nothing slips past them. I wouldnt claim for anything that was absolutly necessary and above board. If I was caught doing something dodgy I'd be out the door toot suite.It's culture.
They see that Second Home allowance as part of their salary and the whole "claims" thing is simply the mechanism necessary in order to be paid it.
They've been given this impression by the Fees Office and the Speaker and the entrenched System and it's been around for years.
The problem is that the legal definition of what the allowance is and is not is at variance with their cultural definition. Which is why they seem so bemused that the public is getting cheesed off.
If they'd been consultants working for one of the Big Few (not five anymore is it?) they're expenses would have been very carefully monitored for legality and HMRC rules...but like as not they'd have been just as high in many cases. It costs a lot living away from home in reasonable comfort.
But the expenses as salary thing is indefensible. Which is why it looks so damn bad.
Although Don makes a good point, he ignores the fact that some M.P's claimed nothing, others took roughly what's reasonable, while some were extremely creative in their accounting.
All were part of the same culture.
The public therefore concludes that, culture or not, legal or not, it demonstrates a lack of morality and good judgement.
When you are the highest tier in power, you cannot appoint someone over them without them ceasing to be the highest tier. You invite the new overseer to exert undue influence.
All you can do is appoint moral people to the job and let their morality guide them.
Once they demonstrate that we were mistaken in judging them to be moral, they must go.
All were part of the same culture.
The public therefore concludes that, culture or not, legal or not, it demonstrates a lack of morality and good judgement.
When you are the highest tier in power, you cannot appoint someone over them without them ceasing to be the highest tier. You invite the new overseer to exert undue influence.
All you can do is appoint moral people to the job and let their morality guide them.
Once they demonstrate that we were mistaken in judging them to be moral, they must go.
Frankly I am once again astonished by the lack of financial acumen displayed by the general public and PH in particular.
This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
esselte said:
You've not quite grasped the difference between "expense" and "allowance"
If something is an "Allowance" you have to have got it agreed with HMRC. Usually it's things like £5 lunch allowance, £10 per day food allowance. We once got the Revenue to agree we could pay our employees in the States $17 a day - without receipts. That's the key thing - the revenue agrees that you can't make a profit out of it and no receipts are required. Usually your accountant negotiates such a "dispensation" for you and it is quite specific.An expense can be for any amount you like provided it is wholly and exclusively made in the pursuit of your business and you can prove this with a receipt.
The whole "allowance" thing here would appear to be a guideline as to the maximum you should incur wholly and exclusively in pursuit of the business of Parliament with respect to Accomodation costs in either your constituency or London.
Those MPs who treated it as such have nothing to fear.
Those who treated it as a pot of gold to be emptied into their bank account have HMRC to fear. Just because a payment is "within the rules" in no way means it is legal. Those who have broken the law will pay in due course as the Revenue will come after them.
It is quite different to have behaved within the rules, and within the law but made "morally indefensible" claims.
Personally I think a lot of MPs are genuinely victims of a system that should never have come about and, when details of their claims are made public, will be unfairly treated.
There again there have been some systematic troughers who deserve to go.
Out of six hundred MPs or more I'll bet it's less than fifty that are forced to stand down.
walm said:
Frankly I am once again astonished by the lack of financial acumen displayed by the general public and PH in particular.
This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
My thoughts, on this very specific case, exactly.This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
walm said:
Frankly I am once again astonished by the lack of financial acumen displayed by the general public and PH in particular.
This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
Some of us just don't want our money given to an MP so they can have a second home in London - when they already have a second home in London. It's our money for God's sake.This man owned a flat in London.
If he had lived there remortgaged it and put the cash in the bank and then claimed for the interest on the mortgage, then none of you whingers would have a leg to stand on.
If he had SOLD the flat and kept the money and rented from his daughter; again you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
WHAT HE DID IS EXACTLY THE SAME, from a financial perspective.
He kept his flat.
Like plenty of other MPs kept money in the bank, or second homes in Spain, or lots of stocks - as an investment or to help his son or WHATEVER.
He needed a place to live in London and so he found one and rented it at a fair market rate.
(OK from his daughter, who cares? And yes, I would.)
Listen carefully, because this is the hard bit:
JUST BECAUSE AN MP IS RICH, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD BE PAID LESS!!!!!!!
This is a horrific double standard on behalf of all the whingers.
Why should one MP who owns a flat be FORCED to use it, while another gets to live rent free??
That is ridiculous.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff