MPs allowances

[johnny37]

Why all the fuss about this? If your employer gives you a perk you would be stupid no to take it. It should be taxed like any other perk. Whether it is moral or not is another issue.

[craft1948]

well johnny as long as you don't mind them getting YOUR money for ****** all it's okay then..............

[Admarlow.]

well maybe they shouldn't have been given this perk in the 1st place!

[johnny37]

Im not saying they are worth it. How many people in other jobs dont take perks if offered, as long as it is regulated and tax is paid? Change the rules by all means but it' s a bit sanctimonious for complaining about something which is perfectly legal.

[New Judge]

It is somewhat different, johnny.

The �second home� allowance (like allowances and expenses in all walks of life) is supposed to provide recompense for costs necessarily incurred as part of undertaking one�s work or duties. Indeed, in all businesses and organisations bar Parliament and the EU, the Inland Revenue insists on strict audits of such payments to ensure they are essentially incurred, proper, proportionate and properly receipted.

In the two high profile examples of the second home allowance recently exposed, it is quite clear that the expenses are not being necessarily incurred and they are not proper. In Mr McNulty�s case in particular he has no need for a second home and, on his own admission, rarely visits the premises which he calls his second home, which is actually occupied by his parents and which the taxpayer has funded to the tune of some �60k.

In the Home Secretary�s case she calls a room in her sister�s house her primary residence and claims a second home allowance for her main house where she spends most of her time with her husband and children.

There have been other examples of MPs calling a house their second home in order to claim the allowance, whilst classifying as their primary residence when it is sold to avoid Capital Gains Tax.

No other individual would get away with such subterfuge. This process is not being regulated properly and the allowances are not taxed. If they want to increase the public�s respect for them MPs should stop considering what they can do (i.e. what they can get away with) and what they ought to do before dubiously trousering vast sums of taxpayers� dosh.

[sandmaster]

In addition to New Judge's remarks, the Revenue keep a close eye on expenses reimbursements for most of us, and if they judge that there is a profit element they will tax you. That is to say you must be able to prove you have paid for expenses incurred in your employment and have been reimbursed that amount. In the case of MPs they are being reimbursed for costs that have not been incurred, and they are not being taxed on the 'profit'. Animal Farm comes to mind.

[paraffin]

johnny:

I don't think your ulterior motive for this post, an obvious but unsubtle attempt at a wind-up, will attract too many "outraged of Tunbridge Wells" replies.
Besides, it's old news and has already been discussed. Sorry, mate, but you've missed the boat.

[rov1200]

When these MPs put in these absurd claims don't the person who receives them query it on the expense form? They are just as complicit as the person making the claim.

[johnny37]

Thanks to all, especially NJ for putting me right!

[Richard1966]

I don't understand why they get an allowance. Wouldn't it be better for the Government to build/buy a block of flats in london that re used for MP's. Once they stop being an MP the flat is then given to whoever replaces them. Surely easier and cheaper.

[rov1200]

Quite agree Richard. An alternative would be to put them up in hotels or hostels. But as they pointed out on question time yesterday theres no need to stay in London for many that are claiming as they no longer work? unsocial hours.