margaret beckett

[alan-r]

she said that the large food bill she put a claim in for was for eating out when they had to sit extra time in parliament?
look at the parliament web site there's a very good cafeteria in there,a lot cheaper and by the looks of it as good as upmarket eating places

[New Judge]

All the politicians who currently have their expenses claims currently under the microscope have provided what, in their view, are perfectly good reasons why they have claimed for what they have. (Apart from those that have made �genuine errors� such as claiming mortgage payments for a mortgage that has been repaid, or reimbursement of full council tax payments when only 50% was paid).

That is the main problem that these revelations have uncovered. MPs simply do not understand that many, many people incur necessary expenses in the course of their work and they are rightly reimbursed (after receipts and reasons for the expenditure are produced). Many more incur the sort of frivolous expenses as some of those highlighted and they would not dream of claiming for them (or at least, if they did, they would get short shrift from their employer).

MPs simply do not understand this. They have become enmeshed in a culture where claims are made because they can be made, not because they should be. Even more damning, it seems that devious manipulations such as �flipping� are employed to maximise those payments when the �Honourable� Members should be doing all they can to minimise their claims.

[lynbrown]

Your point on "genuine errors" is to my mind at the hub of some of the problems. I do genuinely believe at least some of the errors made were genuine mistakes, we all make mistakes. But what about benefit claimants who also make genuine errors? Are they ever given the benefit of the doubt? Can anyone on AB give an example of a claim made in good faith that was found to be wrong and the claimant subsequently told " Dont worry, no charges, its a genuine error"??

[fredpuli47]

In a way, maybe, Zac. The MPs expenses are obviously paid by the taxpayer. But a justified business expense is deductable from income, thereby reducing the tax liability by reducing the amount on which the taxpayer is taxed.That is a 'loss' to the Revenue. The difference here is not in the principle but in the practice. If I were to claim for much of what the MPs claim the Revenue would never allow it as a justified business expense. What's more, the Revenue is very hot on identifying benefits in kind. If an employee or business proprietor is getting anything free from the business, the Revenue is likely to translate that into money terms and count that as part of the taxable income. A great deal of what these MPs get or claim is benefit in kind and should be taxed as such.

None of this comes as any great surprise. The MPs wrote the rules and the Revenue treats them as a special case.It has been a way of giving MPs a pay increase without the public being aware of the fact..

The food in the restaurant that MPs use on the premises is excellent, by the way (and comparatively cheap).