Tory who voted for student loan hike ‘lives in Help To Buy home with interest-free mortgage’

Robi said:
I don't understand the second part of this comment? I admit that £39 is excessive (for an individual), but if he's working, therefore it is a business expense, what's the problem?

When I'm unable to use my kitchen or the office kitchen, i.e. working away or in a hotel, as a result of work related activities, I'll put breakfast through as a work expense. I think most people with an expense structure do the exact same. It's completely normal. The individuals salary is an irrelevant point.

If he put breakfast through as a work expense when he was actually not in work, then that's a different matter altogether.
Click to expand...

My work wont let me put food on expenses.. They come back with "You would have bought food anyway... why should we pay for it".... They seem to forget it costs more from a cafe than buying a sarnie on tesco...
 
Robi said:
I don't understand the second part of this comment? I admit that £39 is excessive (for an individual), but if he's working, therefore it is a business expense, what's the problem?

When I'm unable to use my kitchen or the office kitchen, i.e. working away or in a hotel, as a result of work related activities, I'll put breakfast through as a work expense. I think most people with an expense structure do the exact same. It's completely normal. The individuals salary is an irrelevant point.

If he put breakfast through as a work expense when he was actually not in work, then that's a different matter altogether.
Click to expand...
The problem is the excess. Having a £39 breakfast on your expenses, as a man in his position, appears to be somewhat taking advantage of things. 'Scrounging' even.

Of course, there could be a somewhat legit reason for such a pricey breakfast. It doesn't play well, though.
 
Diagro said:
My work wont let me put food on expenses.. They come back with "You would have bought food anyway... why should we pay for it".... They seem to forget it costs more from a cafe than buying a sarnie on tesco...
Click to expand...

cheesyboy said:
The problem is the excess. Having a £39 breakfast on your expenses, as a man in his position, appears to be somewhat taking advantage of things. 'Scrounging' even.

Of course, there could be a somewhat legit reason for such a pricey breakfast. It doesn't play well, though.
Click to expand...

If I put a £39 breakfast down on my expenses it wouldn't get approved and my boss would chuck a mental.
 
Sounds like BS to me, I was under the impression you had to have a repayment mortgage on Help to Buy.
 
Uther said:
Glad we're all in it together.
Click to expand...

flamingtext_com_MDUzMzM3MTMyMzk0.jpg
 
Tefal said:
outof curiosity how did he get an interst free mortgauge?

i cant see any actual reference to that
Click to expand...
He didn't. The 20% deposit the government loans you is interest free for the first 5yrs. Even The Mirror got that part right;
The Government will lend up to 20% of the cost of the home, and the loan is interest free for the first five years.
Click to expand...

There is a petition to sack him with not many supporters yet :p As much as I despise all of the Tory efforts to prop up the false housing market we have over here I can't quite get angry about this. It almost serves to prove the point that HTB is only good for making people borrow more money so that prices can keep on rising indefinitely. The fact that a Tory MP needs to do it, is proof that houses are too expensive -- something most people in government don't want to admit.

The fact that taxpayers fund this shenanigans is what people should get angry about.

Problem: "Oh look, houses are way overpriced"
Answer: "Let's make taxpayers fund loans from the government so people can afford them"
:rolleyes:
 
a1ex2001 said:
If I put a £39 breakfast down on my expenses it wouldn't get approved and my boss would chuck a mental.
Click to expand...

IDS is the equivalent of the CEO of a major corporation in terms of his level of responsibility. Do you think the CEO of a FTSE100 company gets in trouble for £39 breakfasts? Of course not. They also receive millions in remunerations.

The reality is our MP's our poorly paid relative to their level of responsibility. Given that most are highly educate, they could earn much more in the private sector.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
The reality is our MP's our poorly paid relative to their level of responsibility. Given that most are highly educate, they could earn much more in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Which most of them do while sucking in the MP pay check! There is also a difference between the CEO of a FTSE company and an MP one is supposed to represent his/her constituents and be accountable to them appearing so out of touch with the average person is no way to endear yourself to the electorate.

I do agree that they are under paid but I'm in favour of a system without expenses or salaries for family members they should be given a salary that covers all those things then they could choose to have a £39 breakfast without it appearing to be billed to the tax payer the vast majority of whom can't afford one.
 
They already do earn more in the private sector while putting minimal hours into their role as MP.

Paying them more would not benefit anyone and a few extra thousand would be a drop in a lake for most of these MPs.

You cannot treat the position of MP as any other job. MPs are elected and should be held accountable for their behaviour. Their actions should be under scrutiny of those who elected them, similarly how you are under the scrutiny of the people who promoted you.

Though i am also of the opinion that results matter more than moral character. I would rather have a motivated and effective individual who is out for personal gain than an idiot who means well. That said, we are not getting results.
 
Last edited:
Help to buy mortgages do come with interest, I don't understand why this story suggests they don't

I have a help to buy mortgage and the government has obught 20% of my property. After 5 years, they charge me interest on the 20% I have essentially borrowed from them. If I sell the property, they receive 20% of the value. If I don't sell the property and want to buy some of the 20% back, firstly it has to be done in 10% chunks, making it completely impossible, and secondly it's 10% of the current value of the property.

Deeply misleading story.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
IDS is the equivalent of the CEO of a major corporation in terms of his level of responsibility. Do you think the CEO of a FTSE100 company gets in trouble for £39 breakfasts? Of course not. They also receive millions in remunerations.

The reality is our MP's our poorly paid relative to their level of responsibility. Given that most are highly educate, they could earn much more in the private sector.
Click to expand...

But... They are public servants squandering tax payers money. So it doesn't apply in the slightest and this tired old analogy comes out so many times.

MOST people don't *OR SHOULDNT* enter politics because they want to make money they do it because they are philanthropistic and a decent human trying to help their fellows. But of course that rules out all Tories in a heartbeat.. Wakka wakka ! /controversial

Level of responsibility what a buzzword. If they do bad at their job and are advised bad, because that is all it comes down to, they lose it in the next shuffle and carry on regardless as an MP.

Some people need a reality check. :p
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Help to buy mortgages do come with interest, I don't understand why this story suggests they don't
Click to expand...
It's just a misleading headline, nothing new. The story doesn't even mention interest-free. I was quoting the Mirror which I thought was the link posted but obviously I was reading elsewhere :p

dirtychinchilla said:
If I sell the property, they receive 20% of the value.
Click to expand...
And we wonder why they are propping the market up :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom