Actually shocked at this...

I agree that it takes the mickey, but remember that MPs are people from all over the country who are expected to split their time between Westminster and their home constituency which could be anywhere, therefore the second home (which should always be in London imo) is a legitimate expense for them, as is reasonable improvements to that home.
 
scorza said:
I agree that it takes the mickey, but remember that MPs are people from all over the country who are expected to split their time between Westminster and their home constituency which could be anywhere, therefore the second home (which should always be in London imo) is a legitimate expense for them, as is reasonable improvements to that home.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but then why do they get to keep the house at the end of their parliamentary career when they no longer need it?
 
I can understand them needing a second home, like scorza has said, but I don't see why they can't rent. With the amounts listed as acceptable for MPs, it would be much, much cheaper for them to rent than to buy.
 
They should all be on Minimum Wage - They all thought it was a fair wage right?. The scum get enough perks from Businesses they have interests in and can legislate for without expenses from the Tax Payer. Biggest load of self-serving bandits there is. :mad:
 
Monkey Puzzle said:
Perhaps, but then why do they get to keep the house at the end of their parliamentary career when they no longer need it?
Click to expand...

Shrug, it's their mortgage at the end of the day. I guess the question is if a senior executive of a company is expected to split his time between two locations can he buy a property in the second location and claim his mortgage as a legitimate business expense while he is working there? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

I know at my company it's not been unknown for people to rent properties at a second location where they've been sent and get the company to pay the rent. But don't know if that extends to mortgages.
 
So if that article is to believed the total amount paid in expenses for 659 MPs in 2004 was £77,762,000? :eek:

That can only have climbed in the past few years if the standard salaries have jumped from £57,000 to £61,820.

I guess this is what happens when a "workforce" gets to decide its own remuneration?
 
I don't understand why they get these tax breaks. Why can't they pay exactly the same as everyone else for goods?

They are crooked as can be anyway so why are they getting the chance to do even more damage?

I can't believe I'm paying for this!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom