No prosecutions for expenses thieves
Discussion
Scotland Yard chiefs said it is "highly unlikely" that any MP could be successfully prosecuted over expenses claims.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090605/tuk-expenses-s...
I do not suppose this is a surprise, but it is clear there is one rule for government and one for everyone else. The funniest thing I read this week was the politicians who decried the BBC for not being open about the salaries of top presenters describing the secrecy about how public money was spent as disgraceful.
Pot and kettle methinks......
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090605/tuk-expenses-s...
I do not suppose this is a surprise, but it is clear there is one rule for government and one for everyone else. The funniest thing I read this week was the politicians who decried the BBC for not being open about the salaries of top presenters describing the secrecy about how public money was spent as disgraceful.
Pot and kettle methinks......
asbo said:
Let me ask one question; would you take advantage of a claims system if the office that approved your expenses allowed it?
Of course you would!
Would I claim for reasonable expenses? Yes. If I had a large house and could claim for cleaners and gardening if I was away a lot probably. But if I were prime minister and had No10 and Chequers would I claim for a cleaner on yet another property as McBrown did? No.Of course you would!
Would I claim for a mortgage I do not have. No.
Would I do what you appear to claim you would do and claim the full amount for anything whether I spent it or not?
NO!
It hardly matters, they are set up for life now. For those who are wondering why they are not that 'bovvered' read to the end.
[quote=Telegraph]
The Tragedy of MacBroon enters its final act
MacBroon cuts an increasingly ghoulish figure in Whitehall and, more importantly, on YouTube.
Published: 7:08PM BST 05 Jun 2009
Fair is foul and foul is fair as the Tragedy of MacBroon enters its final act. After years of brooding and plotting to get the top job, uneasy sits the crown on the head of our Caledonian anti-hero.
Haunted by his past – who would have thought the old Blair would have so much blood in him? – MacBroon cuts an increasingly ghoulish figure in Whitehall and, more importantly, on YouTube. Taxpayers sitting in the stalls could be forgiven for not knowing whether to laugh or cry.
Related Articles
*
Brown's fate could be sealed by Monday
*
MPs' expenses: Our politicians are agreed - it's everyone's fault but theirs
*
Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic
*
London could be big winner from US war on Wall Street
*
Hazel Blears resignation: brutal revenge of 'the chipmunk'
*
Paperbacks
As former sycophants flee from him, MacBroon has even managed to fall out with his trusty side-kick Banquo, the total banker Darling. Worse still, Jacqui Smith, the Second-Homes Secretary, wanders the ramparts of the Palace of Westminster, compulsively washing her hands of outrageous expenses claims. "Out, out! Damned porno film receipt! Is this a box room I see before me?"
Not even the supernatural powers of Mandy, MacBride and Campbell, the three witches, can save MacBroon. Now his fate seems sealed – just as it was in Shakespeare's original – with the appearance of retribution in the shape of two, slightly clueless English toffs; squires Cameron and Osborne.
It's the best show in town, even if it will cost us all a fortune in "resettlement grants" and "winding-up allowances". Before anyone sheds a tear for MPs who are relinquishing their seats rather than suffer further ridicule, let's consider the unique arrangements with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), which cushion their fall from public office.
Unlike any of their constituents, MPs have a contractual right to receive £30,000 tax free when they resign or get sacked by the electorate. Mike Warburton of accountants Grant Thornton explained: "Redundancy payments for anyone else cannot be tax-free when they are contractual rights or expected as custom and practice. They can only be tax-free up to £30,000 when they are made on an ex-gratia basis and are voluntary for the employer.
"By contrast, when MPs get a pay-off the first £30,000 is tax-free regardless of the fact that these resettlement grants are a contractual right set out in section 291 of the Income Taxes (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003."
Interestingly, resettlement grants can only be paid to MPs who leave at the end of a Parliamentary term. This may explain why even the most petulant politicians have yet to demonstrate their displeasure at the exposure of their expenses by flouncing out of the Chamber immediately.
Nor will these resettlement grants – which can exceed double the average wage – be the only cash comfort for MPs who insist they have done nothing wrong and now intend to resign their posts to prove it. Unlike the two million people who have lost their jobs in the economic crisis so far, MPs also enjoy a contractual right to a "winding-up allowance" of £42,068 tax-free.
A senior accountant who asked not to be named said: "This is supposed to be for the completion of outstanding projects which are necessary for MPs' Parliamentary duties – but it is difficult to think how they would spend £42,000 beavering around after they have been thrown out of office. The suspicion must be that most of the winding-up allowance goes straight into their pockets."
It is more than two months since I began reporting on how the tax treatment of MPs differs from that of their constituents. In this space on April 4, I wrote: 'Kind-hearted readers have asked why MPs don't spare themselves the embarrassment of relying on ridiculous expenses claims and merely vote for an equivalent pay rise.
"The answer is that our Parliamentary representatives enjoy a unique arrangement with HMRC. This renders many expenses and allowances tax-free, when even the most brass-necked backbencher could scarcely hope for their salaries to be treated so very differently from the hard-earned income of their constituents.'
MPs' mortgage payments, upon which any other employee would suffer income tax as a benefit in kind, are now widely seen to be the most valuable of these. No wonder, as we now know – courtesy of the Telegraph's sensational scoops – that some MPs could not resist second, third and fourth helpings.
The more you look at their fiscal privileges, the more you see. This week's European election may remind some MPs that section 294 of the Green Book renders all their travel expenses within the European Union tax-free. By contrast, HMRC would tax constituents who received these as expenses unless they could show they were "wholly, solely and necessarily" for the performance of their duties.
It is high time MPs were taxed on the same basis as the people they represent. Their extraordinary privileges have made them careless of the problems faced by their constituents. In just the same way, MPs' gold-plated pensions have insulated them from the crisis ordinary savers now face after £5 billion a year tax was taken out of our retirement funds.
But don't get me started on that again. Can Cameron and Osborne really rip up MPs' preferential tax treatment and pensions, putting them on all fours with the rest of us? It seems very unlikely. As unlikely as a black man in the White House. Or Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane and Downing Street.[quote]
[quote=Telegraph]
The Tragedy of MacBroon enters its final act
MacBroon cuts an increasingly ghoulish figure in Whitehall and, more importantly, on YouTube.
Published: 7:08PM BST 05 Jun 2009
Fair is foul and foul is fair as the Tragedy of MacBroon enters its final act. After years of brooding and plotting to get the top job, uneasy sits the crown on the head of our Caledonian anti-hero.
Haunted by his past – who would have thought the old Blair would have so much blood in him? – MacBroon cuts an increasingly ghoulish figure in Whitehall and, more importantly, on YouTube. Taxpayers sitting in the stalls could be forgiven for not knowing whether to laugh or cry.
Related Articles
*
Brown's fate could be sealed by Monday
*
MPs' expenses: Our politicians are agreed - it's everyone's fault but theirs
*
Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic
*
London could be big winner from US war on Wall Street
*
Hazel Blears resignation: brutal revenge of 'the chipmunk'
*
Paperbacks
As former sycophants flee from him, MacBroon has even managed to fall out with his trusty side-kick Banquo, the total banker Darling. Worse still, Jacqui Smith, the Second-Homes Secretary, wanders the ramparts of the Palace of Westminster, compulsively washing her hands of outrageous expenses claims. "Out, out! Damned porno film receipt! Is this a box room I see before me?"
Not even the supernatural powers of Mandy, MacBride and Campbell, the three witches, can save MacBroon. Now his fate seems sealed – just as it was in Shakespeare's original – with the appearance of retribution in the shape of two, slightly clueless English toffs; squires Cameron and Osborne.
It's the best show in town, even if it will cost us all a fortune in "resettlement grants" and "winding-up allowances". Before anyone sheds a tear for MPs who are relinquishing their seats rather than suffer further ridicule, let's consider the unique arrangements with HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), which cushion their fall from public office.
Unlike any of their constituents, MPs have a contractual right to receive £30,000 tax free when they resign or get sacked by the electorate. Mike Warburton of accountants Grant Thornton explained: "Redundancy payments for anyone else cannot be tax-free when they are contractual rights or expected as custom and practice. They can only be tax-free up to £30,000 when they are made on an ex-gratia basis and are voluntary for the employer.
"By contrast, when MPs get a pay-off the first £30,000 is tax-free regardless of the fact that these resettlement grants are a contractual right set out in section 291 of the Income Taxes (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003."
Interestingly, resettlement grants can only be paid to MPs who leave at the end of a Parliamentary term. This may explain why even the most petulant politicians have yet to demonstrate their displeasure at the exposure of their expenses by flouncing out of the Chamber immediately.
Nor will these resettlement grants – which can exceed double the average wage – be the only cash comfort for MPs who insist they have done nothing wrong and now intend to resign their posts to prove it. Unlike the two million people who have lost their jobs in the economic crisis so far, MPs also enjoy a contractual right to a "winding-up allowance" of £42,068 tax-free.
A senior accountant who asked not to be named said: "This is supposed to be for the completion of outstanding projects which are necessary for MPs' Parliamentary duties – but it is difficult to think how they would spend £42,000 beavering around after they have been thrown out of office. The suspicion must be that most of the winding-up allowance goes straight into their pockets."
It is more than two months since I began reporting on how the tax treatment of MPs differs from that of their constituents. In this space on April 4, I wrote: 'Kind-hearted readers have asked why MPs don't spare themselves the embarrassment of relying on ridiculous expenses claims and merely vote for an equivalent pay rise.
"The answer is that our Parliamentary representatives enjoy a unique arrangement with HMRC. This renders many expenses and allowances tax-free, when even the most brass-necked backbencher could scarcely hope for their salaries to be treated so very differently from the hard-earned income of their constituents.'
MPs' mortgage payments, upon which any other employee would suffer income tax as a benefit in kind, are now widely seen to be the most valuable of these. No wonder, as we now know – courtesy of the Telegraph's sensational scoops – that some MPs could not resist second, third and fourth helpings.
The more you look at their fiscal privileges, the more you see. This week's European election may remind some MPs that section 294 of the Green Book renders all their travel expenses within the European Union tax-free. By contrast, HMRC would tax constituents who received these as expenses unless they could show they were "wholly, solely and necessarily" for the performance of their duties.
It is high time MPs were taxed on the same basis as the people they represent. Their extraordinary privileges have made them careless of the problems faced by their constituents. In just the same way, MPs' gold-plated pensions have insulated them from the crisis ordinary savers now face after £5 billion a year tax was taken out of our retirement funds.
But don't get me started on that again. Can Cameron and Osborne really rip up MPs' preferential tax treatment and pensions, putting them on all fours with the rest of us? It seems very unlikely. As unlikely as a black man in the White House. Or Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane and Downing Street.[quote]
Oakey said:
What a load of b
ks.
so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
I believe they are saying that as they didn't know it wasn't fraud.ks.so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
So I take it this is the new line to be used by defence lawyers.
"I'm sorry my client didn't know, so he can't be prosecuted."
elster said:
Oakey said:
What a load of bks.
so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
I believe they are saying that as they didn't know it wasn't fraud.ks.so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
So I take it this is the new line to be used by defence lawyers.
"I'm sorry my client didn't know, so he can't be prosecuted."
You have to show intent for fraud- those so far identified have straight away blamed it on mistake or oversight or have actually just claimed what they are allowed under the loose 'rules'.
Do you not think officers would love to be able to act on this? I would suggest they have approached the cps who have no doubt said it wont go anywhere.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
elster said:
Oakey said:
What a load of bks.
so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
I believe they are saying that as they didn't know it wasn't fraud.ks.so in the case of the MP who continued claiming for a mortgage he'd paid off 18 months previously you're honestly telling me that isn't an act of fraud?
So I take it this is the new line to be used by defence lawyers.
"I'm sorry my client didn't know, so he can't be prosecuted."
You have to show intent for fraud- those so far identified have straight away blamed it on mistake or oversight or have actually just claimed what they are allowed under the loose 'rules'.
Do you not think officers would love to be able to act on this? I would suggest they have approached the cps who have no doubt said it wont go anywhere.
If this was a company then there would be several people facing charges. Which out of less than 700 people is a significant percentage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff