MPs Period property expenses

[skier-hughes]

I'll shoot em or pour boiling linseed oil over em

 

[Feltwell]

The arrogance displayed in this interview has to be heard to be believed:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8062205.stm

 

[Hatster]

I have to admit to being quite curious about Nick Clegg's bargain kitchen - where did he get his £2600 kitchen from, and does it look good? I think we should be told, so the voters can get bargains too.

 

[JoceAndChris]

MPs receive £64,766 per annum.

I think that's pants, considering how hard they work.

Of course I don't condone their actions, but I think Government Officials should receive around 100k as a decent salary- that would avoid all this necessity to fiddle.

 

[Schoolmarm]

They should get less. That way we know they are doing the job for the right reasons.

Like, just bus fare and a free cup of tea.

 

[biffvernon]

It's a very important job. They should be paid as much as anybody. It's everyone who earns more than £64,766 who should get less. That's still more than double the maximum I have ever earned so I know it's far more than anyone needs.

(My MP, Peter Tapsell, has just said in the local newspaper that he has never claimed anything he should not have and doesn't even need his salary - what with his personal fortune and extra-parliamentary earnings. Do we want only rich people to be MPs?)

 

[JoceAndChris]

It would be pretty impossible to manage in London or the South East on £64, 766.

When a one bed garden flat in a good area is at least 300k... and transport around £100 a week if you have to use taxis... and private school fees 10k per year because the state schools are so AWFUL, and Biff, are you just going to scrap an ecomomy heavily dependent on luxury goods? No more Marc Jacobs handbags?

I don't feel that much sympathy towards MPs, but this new anti capitalist stance that everyone's suddenly taking is driving me :evil:

 

[Schoolmarm]

Do we want only rich people to be MPs?)

Of course

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Admittedly it was 12 years ago, but I "managed" in London on £16,800 p.a., having previously "managed" in Lincoln on £9,800

 

[Moo]

But you were lucky enough to be able to use buses or the tube (or even a bicycle?), so you didn't have to take taxis (or pay school fees?) did you, Gareth?

 

[JoceAndChris]

:shock:
You can't have had many nights on the Chateau Petrus and snorting coke in Soho then. If I had my way COs would be paid far far more than they are. And be given a nice big rectory to live in to set a good example to the rest.

I admire your Communist asceticism, Gareth and Biff, but as an honorary member of the North London Jewish Princess Brigade I'm obliged to stand up for a life of decadence: not just merely "managing". Me and my spendthrift friends will just have to prop up the poor economy as best we can.

How are all these period properties and their repairs to be paid for, without high earners? Why are people so keen to bash bonuses and high salaries, when these very bonuses and salaries pay builders' wages? If we had received Chris' full salary last year (we lost 2/3 due to recession and companies going under) we'd have Biff here now, and would have put a lot more wealth into Lincolnshire.

 

[Feltwell]

I don't object to MP's receiving a fair salary (and actually £65k is an awful lot of money but not when compared to many private sector positions), nor do I object to the second homes, where they actually need them. But I do object to the taking the p*** on expenses, when they are **supposed** to be elected at least partially for their sense of judgement and fair play. They do after all know full well what the renumeration will be when they decide to stand in the first place.

A 2nd home due to work commitments should be just that - a comfortable, secure, appropriate place to rest and work whilst in London. If they want a grand pad then fine, but the reimbursement should cover a modest flat in an OK area. And if the commute is an easy one then why is a second home required at all?

Claiming that your 15 bedroom mansion is actually your 2nd home and the moat needs cleaning / trees need surveying / ducks need an house building on public funds is not on.

The shame of it is is that the actions of the few that have grabbed the headlines and no doubt tarnished the reputation of the many that do not take liberties. The unbelievable arrogance displayed by the likes of Anthony Steen on my link above rubs off on all of them, especially those in the same party.


Ohh dear, I'll get off my soapbox now. :|

Edit - I should clarify - I don't think £65k is unfair at all for what they do, and I have nothing against high earners. It's the few that seek to profiteer from a scheme that is supposed to cover only expenses necessary to do the job that I resent. I wouldn't object if they earnt more than £65k, compared to many private sector posts that you could deem to be "equivalent" it's not a high salary at all.

 

[Pford75]

In a progressively taxed society like ours, I really don't understand the vilification of high earners (who in most cases have worked honestly for the salary they earn and have to justify their value to their employers, shareholders or customers).

I don't begrudge the tax I pay (even with the 25% rate increase next year), I see it as the price I pay to be a responsible member of society. My "unneccesary" salary contributes the tax which helps to pay for the schools and hospitals and even helps to pay for some to sit on their backsides all day. I'm sure you've heard of the Laffer curve....which demonstrates that increasing tax beyond a certain point will actually have a negative impact on tax revenues.

If I were restricted to a 'standard', Government-approved salary...then I'm not sure that I would be willing to spend so much of my time away from my kids and working long into the night....where do I sign up for that whiskey-tester job?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Well said, Feltwell, and Pford. Hear hear.

I'm still to devise a suitable death penalty for those that sit on their backside at our expense, though... :twisted:

 

[biffvernon]

It would be pretty impossible to manage in London or the South East on £64, 766.

:lol:

Maybe MPs should be paid the nation's median wage? It would incentivise a smaller weatlh spread.

 

[Flyfisher]

In a progressively taxed society like ours,

This is something I've never really understood. If I earn twice as much as someone else then I'm quite happy to pay twice as much tax; but what's the justification for paying more than twice as much? And while I'm on my high horse, why should rates/council tax be based on property values, i.e. something that has little bearing on one's ability to pay. Surely income-based tax is the only fair way of paying for such things?

I'm intrigued by some of the former Eastern European countries that have introduced flat-rate taxation systems and wonder if it would work here. Give everyone a high tax-free allowance of, say, £10k then tax them x% on the rest of their income, where x would be around 26% according to some of the scenarios I've read. No multiple tax bands or other allowances or, benefits. Just keep it simple.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

FF - a nice idea in theory.

However, many individuals "earn" their income in non-standard, PAYE-able ways, which needs taxing. The rich find ways to offset or avoid income and thus the flat-tax. Capital gains would be an untaxed income in a flat-rate system - as would all of the snazzy finance products that got us into the current mess in the first place. Companies would avoid personal income tax, so you need a corporate tax also. And so the list goes on.

In order not to unduly overburden the law-abiding middle class tax-payer (the easiest target for collecting tax revenue), you need to find ways to tax all of our other wealth/wealth generation in a broadly equitable way. And once you start down that route, you're very soon taxing hearths, windows, and ships...

You could I suppose abolish everything except a sales-tax on every financial transaction, which is then hard to avoid. But it's not progressive, and you'll soon have half the country bartering in sheep, beer, or logs in order to avoid the tax.

In short, I guess a complex economy can't avoid a complex tax system if it wants to be broadly progressive. What gets my goat is the massive increase in stealth taxes that Labour have imposed on "my" kind of people - hard-working, professional, middle income earners who play by the rules.

 

[JoceAndChris]

It would be pretty impossible to manage in London or the South East on £64, 766.

:lol:

Maybe MPs should be paid the nation's median wage? It would incentivise a smaller weatlh spread.

I'm glad I amuse. :wink: I've got London friends struggling on that figure... and they don't live in any kind of luxury.

At the time we were house hunting our one bed gdn flat was valued at 350k, it was 420k to have a 2 bed in the same street. They were awful. We wanted a 3 bed house. That was 1.2 million in Highgate, and about 800k in Crouch End and Muswell Hill. We'd have needed a combined salary of 130k to make it work. Of course it's cheaper further out; it's also pretty grim.

We were forced out of London (yay, I love it here anyway), as were all our friends when they wanted to start families. Most of them have gone to places like Tring. 64 k (before tax, obviously) goes nowhere if you spend about 1500 a month on a mortgage, then there's car/ tube, childcare school fees etc etc

I think we're very spoiled in Lincs, Biff, and our quality of life probably better than those on higher salaries in London.

 

[Flyfisher]

FF - a nice idea in theory.

However, many individuals "earn" their income in non-standard, PAYE-able ways, which needs taxing. The rich find ways to offset or avoid income and thus the flat-tax. Capital gains would be an untaxed income in a flat-rate system - as would all of the snazzy finance products that got us into the current mess in the first place. Companies would avoid personal income tax, so you need a corporate tax also. And so the list goes on.

Not just a theory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4155907.stm
The rich only find loopholes to avoid taxes because the current laws are far too complex. Income might arise from all sorts of sources but that must be declared on a tax return anyway. And why would corporation tax be required - a 'rich' company would then have more money to invest in future developement and growth and could afford to pay its employees more, which would generate more (flat-rate) tax revenue. The owners of the company can only benefit when they pay themselves, at which point they, too, pay income tax. Income tax and sales tax (VAT) must surely be the only truly fair ways to levy taxes as they are based on one's ability to pay.

Of course, legions of accountants and tax consultants would be out of a job . . . .

 

[DaveBrigg]

I 'survived' in the South East (well, Reading actually) on a lot less than £64,000, although we were lucky to buy a 3 bed terrace before property prices became stupid. Our local MP turned up on our doorstep one evening, with no election in sight, as he toured the street asking if anyone had issues they wanted to discuss. He's still the MP, and was singled out for not claiming a penny of the second home allowance, preferring to commute every day instead, so it can be done.

There is the argument of course that it was high wages, allied to a shortage of housing in the region, that led to the increase in property prices in the first place. When people have spare cash to sink into property, the price just increases.