Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

So here's a thought - if it is 'unfair' for the lower paid to pay tax to subsidise the 'better off', how about means testing the MP's expenses

37 replies

LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 21:32

It is driving me mad when the MPs keep trotting out the 'it is unfair for people on lower salaries to pay tax to subsidise those on higher salaries'. For starters, they don't, higher paid people pay MORE tax and receive FEWER benefits (which I have no problem with, obviously that is as it should be), so the higher paid are subsidising the lower paid. But they have created a system where lower paid people (single income 45k, no child benefit) really ARE subsidising higher paid (dual income 88k, child benefit).

So, bearing this in mind, is it right that LOWER paid people should subsidise MPs expenses, many of whom are VERY wealthy. Take Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne. Three extremely wealthy politicians. Is it right that they each claimed the maximum 23k expenses? Surely this goes against the 'poorer paid not subsidising the higher paid' principle.

I believe the expenses are there to allow people from all backgrounds to be MPs. So how about means testing them?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 14:29

In fact, more than that, it's as if the group at the Italian restaurant have all put money in, they are discussing the tip. Dave has been nominated to organise this, he says to the 1st two people 'you have only 10p left in your pocket, I'll give you 2p out of the 'tip pot'. He says to the next 2 people "you have 40p left in your pocket, you get no money out of the change." He then says "I have £40 in my pocket, so I will take £1 out of the tip pot. I am entitled to this, and it's fair, because I did the sorting out of the money."

OP posts:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 12:41

Chil, I'm not claiming any moral superiority at all. The question was asked if I would refuse to claim a benefit that was unfair the other way around, and it's in answer to that - so, yes, I would not claim an unfair benefit.

I don't think anyone is morally wrong to claim a benefit they are entitled to UNLESS they are taking much needed things away from others, spouting 'we're all in this together' whilst dipping their hand in the pot for money they don't need, whether or not they're entitled to it.

Using the Italian restaurant analogy, it is much more like everyone contributing an amount to pay for the meal. Then it comes to handing out the change. One person is chosen to dole out the change, he says to 2 people 'you don't need the change', to another 2 'you do need the change, but I'm not going to give you as much as you were thinking' and then says 'I am entitled to take my share of the change' and helps themselves.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 10/10/2010 12:19

" I also haven't claimed the free prescriptions - as again, we can afford them."

I'm sorry but it doesn't make you morally superior just because you turned down money to which you were entitled, any more than it makes me morally inferior for accepting my CTC even though I didn't need it to survive either. You could have taken that health in pregnancy grant and given it to the charity of your choice if you didn't need it for yourself. Never look a gift horse in the mouth etc.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 12:10

What's more, if we go with the majority preference, Child Benefit should stay. Given that both Tories and Lib Dems said before the election that it would not be touched. Not 'we have no plans to touch it' but 'child benefit will stay as a universal benefit'.

OP posts:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 12:09

That is such a distorted way of looking at things. The child benefit thing is grossly unfair and raises no money. It is purely political to try and create animosity between the middle and lower incomes, so that when they slash the welfare, the middle say "It's your turn now, we've had our hit."

But it backfired, because what people actually said was "I'd have understood losing CB, what I don't understand is losing it when someone on DOUBLE my income retains it."

Not so fair now is it. Especially when they then threw in the idiotic married couples allowance which will wipe out any savings made.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 10/10/2010 11:49

'Fair' doesn't mean 'no-one loses'. The fairest decision making system we have is going with the majority preference ie. democracy. 7 friends vote for the Italian restaurant, 3 friends vote for Indian food... all 10 end up in the Italian. But even in that very simple and fair example, the minority whose wishes are ignored can easily feel aggrieved and unrepresented at the end.

At the moment, everyone's upset about something and that must mean everyone's feeling the pinch in some respect. Which is what the man said.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 11:45

As it happens, I didn't claim the Health in Pregnancy grant - it took me by surprise as it wasn't there with my previous 3 pregnancies, and as we could already afford to eat healthily, I didn't claim it. I also haven't claimed the free prescriptions - as again, we can afford them.

OP posts:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 11:33

Believe me, I don't think the worst of people. I am rather tired though of being lectured by the Tories about how unfair things are fair, how we are better placed than others on higher incomes and must therefore have more burden placed on us, and that 'we are all in this together'.

It's simply tosh.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 10/10/2010 11:31

I think it's quite wrong to say that just because someone has a few quid they cannot possibly understand how people with a lower income feel, think or behave. They're there to do a responsible job, stick up for their constituents and make big decisions to the best of their ability - and some of those decisions will not be popular. Yes, if they've got any sense, they will not disappear into the Westminster bubble but will stay visible and active for their constituents

It's neither immoral nor illegal to get a fair wage for a fair day's work or to be reimbursed for legitimate expenses. I don't accept that argument.

If MPs worked for minimum wage so that they could 'feel' what it's like to be poor... then the danger is we'd only get very wealthy people applying to run the country or we'd get politicians funded by external donations and beholden to their benefactors. I don't think that's a better picture.

You can live life expecting the worst of people and of the future (which you're doing) or you can at choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, the space to do their jobs and let their actions speak for themselves. I prefer the latter.

jackstarbright · 10/10/2010 11:20

Lily,

" I wouldn't support any benefit that was given unfairly, or taken away unfairly"

That pretty much rules out all universal benefits and I suspect all benefits are unfair to someone.

Chil - Agree - MPs don't get paid a 'market rate' of pay. That might be why there are so few from ordinary normal backgrounds.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 10/10/2010 11:10

The problem arises because they make the decisions about themselves and everybody else. When your daily life is affected by a politician slashing things you rely on (and I'm not really talking about CB here, more public services, housing benefit, jobs, pensions) and you see them with fabulous wealth, and still dipping their hand in the pot (however legitimate the claim), it makes the 'We're all in this together' claim rather hollow.

DO you see? It's not about what's 'legal', it's about morality. Last night ds2 was sick after going to bed. We had to wash his sheets etc, so he came downstairs with us. We didn't have our tea, because we didn't want to eat it in front of him knowing we wouldn't allow him to have any.

Like it or not, they are not isolated in a Westminster bubble, and yes, they do difficult jobs, but so do a lot of other people, and some people would love to keep their jobs. It's about playing your part. And the reason it's different for MPs than for say, a doctor, is because THEY are making the decisions that will affect us all. And they are in a pretty weak position, having not won the election, and now breaking promises made before the election (We will not touch Child Benefit; We WILL VOTE AGAINST UNIVERSITY FEES RISES) - what will be next? My bet would be benefits for the sick, disabled and elderly.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 10/10/2010 09:12

We have just 650 people employed as MPs at the moment. For the hard work most of them do, the crap they take, the loss of privacy, the unsociable hours, the sheer responsibility (going to war?) etc., I don't think they get paid anything like enough. Expense allowances rose because their salaries were kept down for political reasons. Pay them a higher salary, reimburse legitimate (receipted) expenses the way anyone in business operates... and that would be fairer.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 23:41

That's an interesting point - as with that scenario, the single income pays more tax than a dual income earning the same amount. But I wouldn't support any benefit that was given unfairly, or taken away unfairly.

OP posts:
lucky1979 · 09/10/2010 23:14

LilyBolero - if there was a benefit for people with a SAHP and a higher rate tax payer in the family for a couple of thousands of pounds a year, would you refuse claim it because it wasn't fair on those poor people who aren't quite in the HRT bracket?

longfingernails · 09/10/2010 22:42

I am not averse to the idea.

Not one big block of flats - obvious issues there, but if the government just bought 600 ordinary houses in various parts of London, of various sizes - with MPs providing lots of input to ensure they were suitable - it wouldn't be so bad.

nowit · 09/10/2010 22:34

Perhaps it would be cheaper is we, the taxpayer, bought a giant boarding house in Westminster that all of the the MP's when on London based business, could stay in. Then their home in their constituency was one they paid for themselves Grin

Can you imagine how that would go down in the House of Commons?

lol

longfingernails · 09/10/2010 22:24

nowit In general, MPs took the piss with expenses.

I do think that paying mortgage interest is a bit unfair in principle - because the taxpayer is effectively underwriting an investment. Though it usually works out much cheaper than paying the equivalent rent - so I can't get overly outraged about it.

nowit · 09/10/2010 22:19

Expenses = what you pay out for work, you get back from your employer.
How can this be means tested?

My DH gets expenses, so do I. Each month he gets about £700, because that is what he pays out in petrol etc.
I get about £30, because that is all I payout.

Same should go for MP's. Means testing doesn't come into it, it is fairness and what is considered a work expense, surely?

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 22:11

longfingernails - yes, it's not a party-specific thing.

OP posts:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 22:11

And, what's more, I'm not the only person to have thought this - in the Times today there was an article musing on whether David Cameron should take home a PENNY of his salary. I wouldn't go that far, but I do think he ought to look at the breadth of his own (and his friends Clegg and Osborne)'s shoulders before lecturing us on ours.

OP posts:
longfingernails · 09/10/2010 22:09

nowit Of course the moats, porn, etc were all totally wrong - that was the whole reason it was such a scandal. The rules were lax, there was no transparency, the enforcement of the rules was non-existent, and over the years expenses had been used, via nods and winks, to cover for salary.

Those are all genuine issues - but none of it is remotely related to saying that expenses should be means-tested.

"Poor" Labour MPs fiddled just as much as "rich" Tory MPs (actually, even more). All the MPs who are being tried for fraud are Labour (though there is one Tory lord).

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 22:09

longfingernails - no, wouldn't have a problem with them being a tory voter.

If the Tories want people to be on board with their policies, they shouldn't announce lunatic policies with massive flaws in them, and then when they are pointed out, bleat on about fairness and broad shoulders.

I was resigned to losing the child benefit. I'd come to terms with that, I'm more than happy for someone worse of than me to get it. I'm not happy for a family on twice our income to get it, and to be told that we have 'broader shoulders and must take more of the burden' and that it is fair. Or that people cross about the policy are not realising the scale of the problem.

OP posts:
longfingernails · 09/10/2010 22:05

LilyBolero What if the orthopaedic consultant was (shock) a Tory voter? What if she believed in cutting child benefit for the well-off? Whereas the Labour supporting orthopaedic consultant next door could claim for the computer.

Your policy, then, seems to be to cut work expenses for people who you don't agree with policitally. Wow. Just wow.

Mind you, given that Labour have just selected Red Ed, I should probably stop being so surprised at the Soviet-style suggestions of their supporters!

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 22:02

AuraofDora - I disagree that the middle classes 'benefit' from house price rises. What the house price rises do is to stuff anyone who doesn't have a property. But if you have a house that has increased in value, you cannot cash in on that, because you need to live somewhere. And so if you sold your house you would need to buy another, which would also have risen in price.

I suppose it might help your children later on when you die, but then THEY need to buy a house, so it perpetuates.

I don't support the stupid house prices, just pointing out that just because your house has risen in price, it doesn't mean you can actually benefit from that, apart from the obvious of not being totally stuffed when you want to buy somewhere (which is why something needs to be done about house prices).

OP posts:
nowit · 09/10/2010 22:02

I work away from home, I get paid for the job I do. But when I accepted the job my DH and I decided that it was such a good job we would relocate.
I excepted the job and have been renting, paying a mortgage, travel expenses etc since as our house is not selling (not to mention missing my DH and DC's).

I do not claim this back, this was my decision. We really are on the breadline and our house is not selling, but this job is amazing, I love it and it WILL lead to better things.
Yes, we planned to relocate, unlike MP's but I do believe for the opportunity it brings it will be worth it. (no pain no gain etc)
'normal' people have to sacrifice and hope that it will lead to something great, MP's already have the something great, they can afford to pay.

Phone calls, stamps, tea & biscuits fine, but moats, washing machines and even, to a point, mortgage payments, no. IMHO