The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Mps Fiddling Wxpenses!
14 Answers
MPs are allowed a second home yet people on benefits are not allowed a spare room ............... We're all in this together, yeh right!!!!
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by saintpeter48. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Given that MPs fufill a sort of dual role- representing their constituents and sitting in Parliament to debate issues that shape legislation that affects the Nation, they need a home both in their constituency and one close enough to Parliament.
I have no problem with them being reimbursed for a property close to Parliament, for instance - that seems fair enough.
I do have a massive issue with many of them "flipping" their main home designation, so that they can furnish and maintain properties at the taxpayers expense,or subsidise family members at the taxpayers expense, or effectively building a property portfolio and making large profits at the taxpayers expense.
There are some serious issues here; At what geographic distance does it become untenable to commute to Parliament and hence require a second home?
Personally, I think we should bite the bullet - buy or commission the building of several apartment blocks, offering good security and 2/3 bedrooms, then tell MPs they can live there where they will pay a subsidised rent, or they pay for their own accommodations entirely out of their own pocket.
I have no problem with them being reimbursed for a property close to Parliament, for instance - that seems fair enough.
I do have a massive issue with many of them "flipping" their main home designation, so that they can furnish and maintain properties at the taxpayers expense,or subsidise family members at the taxpayers expense, or effectively building a property portfolio and making large profits at the taxpayers expense.
There are some serious issues here; At what geographic distance does it become untenable to commute to Parliament and hence require a second home?
Personally, I think we should bite the bullet - buy or commission the building of several apartment blocks, offering good security and 2/3 bedrooms, then tell MPs they can live there where they will pay a subsidised rent, or they pay for their own accommodations entirely out of their own pocket.
//Personally, I think we should bite the bullet - buy or commission the building of several apartment blocks, offering good security and 2/3 bedrooms, then tell MPs they can live there where they will pay a subsidised rent, or they pay for their own accommodations entirely out of their own pocket. //
I agree, except bearing in mind they have a home elsewhere to maintain, I think they should live in an apartment block close to parliament rent free. Every businessman gets his hotels paid for - and that is all this really should amount to.
I agree, except bearing in mind they have a home elsewhere to maintain, I think they should live in an apartment block close to parliament rent free. Every businessman gets his hotels paid for - and that is all this really should amount to.
Everyone is allowed a second home or a spare room.
The difference is that if you are on benefits you are discouraged from having spare capacity by being penalised and money being witheld.
MPs supposedly need 2 homes. One in their constituency and one at their place of work (London). They also claim travel expenses for commuting between them. The whole set up is an invitation to abuse. You have London MPs having second homes in Brighton paid for by the taxpayer, and you have Scottish and Northern MPs living in their constituency homes for one day a week but the taxpayer paying for that and the six days it is empty. They are pisitively encourage to participate in this charade because if they work the system they can gain financially from it.
Perhaps MP should be put up in their constituencies by someone on benefit who has a spare room?
The difference is that if you are on benefits you are discouraged from having spare capacity by being penalised and money being witheld.
MPs supposedly need 2 homes. One in their constituency and one at their place of work (London). They also claim travel expenses for commuting between them. The whole set up is an invitation to abuse. You have London MPs having second homes in Brighton paid for by the taxpayer, and you have Scottish and Northern MPs living in their constituency homes for one day a week but the taxpayer paying for that and the six days it is empty. They are pisitively encourage to participate in this charade because if they work the system they can gain financially from it.
Perhaps MP should be put up in their constituencies by someone on benefit who has a spare room?
buy or commission the building of several apartment blocks, offering good security and 2/3 bedrooms.
I think the argument against this is one of security- such a building could become a terrorist target- but I've never really understood the objection since it would be no more of a target than the House of Commons.
I don't think MPs from any party -Labour, Tory, Liberal, SNP -would support the removal of all expenses. In fact it would probably mean only the really affluent, or thiose already living in London- could afford to serve as MPs.
I think the argument against this is one of security- such a building could become a terrorist target- but I've never really understood the objection since it would be no more of a target than the House of Commons.
I don't think MPs from any party -Labour, Tory, Liberal, SNP -would support the removal of all expenses. In fact it would probably mean only the really affluent, or thiose already living in London- could afford to serve as MPs.
Naomi : You just said that on another thread, and I'll repeat what I said there. People on benefits are allowed a spare room but not at the expense of the taxpayer.
as a landlord neither I not any other LL has one bed-room stock.
as for subletting... naomi you sublet a lot do you ?
Oh and by the way - this is my first post on the subject
as a landlord neither I not any other LL has one bed-room stock.
as for subletting... naomi you sublet a lot do you ?
Oh and by the way - this is my first post on the subject
People on benefits are allowed a spare room but not at the expense of the taxpayer.
Unless they're MPs, which is the point of the question.
http://
You have to sympathise with Miller - apparently she's in the position of a carer, living with a disabled mother
http://
No, hang on - mum's her childminder, along with the au pair:
http://
and obviously you'd need a spare room for the childminder.
Unless they're MPs, which is the point of the question.
http://
You have to sympathise with Miller - apparently she's in the position of a carer, living with a disabled mother
http://
No, hang on - mum's her childminder, along with the au pair:
http://
and obviously you'd need a spare room for the childminder.
The 'elephant in the room' is that for many years independent bodies have rationalised that MPs should have a much higher salary.
Because that was feared by MPs as being unpopular with the electorate, there was an informal leniency built into the expenses system as compensation.
Clearly a very unsatisfactory and dishonest situation all round.
Because that was feared by MPs as being unpopular with the electorate, there was an informal leniency built into the expenses system as compensation.
Clearly a very unsatisfactory and dishonest situation all round.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Shopping & Style5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.