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:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 21:59

longfingernails - the difference is, the orthopaedic consultant isn't banging on about fairness and shoulders. And making policies which don't raise any money but create unfairnesses in society and reduce families' income by 10% whilst others on double salaries keep it. (Oh yes, I am bitter about the way this has been done).

BeenBeta - in practice I know this would not work. But it feels so crooked the way this all works. Basically, if you're rich, you're protected. If not, they will screw you.

OP posts:
AuraofDora · 09/10/2010 21:58

but the two are not directly related..

all classes get benefits, they come differently packaged though..

the hand outs go to low, middle and high classes of society imho thus

  • in bog standard GIRO type benefits to a n unfortunate or l z bugger
  • inflated meddled in housing market that adds over inflated wealth to bricks and mortar generally
.. also pays big in housing benefit payments for at least part of the rent in many buy-to -let houses..state money direct to landlords, property owning and middle classes etc..
  • fancy accountants and their sharp bag of tricks, off shore earnings, non dom residency, lord ashcroft, no tax for me rupert murdoch etc.. for the upper class
BeenBeta · 09/10/2010 21:56

With the greatest respect. Its just a silly idea. No one expects David Cameron to have to pay for his phone call out of his own pocket when he is phoning another world leader if he is at his home (i.e No 10 Downing St).

longfingernails · 09/10/2010 21:56

LilyBolero

Should a rich orthopaedic consultant working in the NHS (a public sector employee just like David Cameron) pay for the computer she uses in the hospital, for looking at patient profiles? Whereas the NHS should pay for the computer of a relatively poor nurse?

That is basically what you are arguing for, and it is clearly absurd.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 21:48

But BeenBeta - it is a time of 'national hardship', 'we are all in this together' and it is for 'those with the broadest backs to bear the biggest burden'.

Perhaps this would be a good place to start. Means test them so that those who can afford to forgo expenses do so?

I am aware where David Cameron lives. I sent him a letter there today.

OP posts:
paisleyleaf · 09/10/2010 21:47

Isn't there some sort of social fund to help people get things like furniture/washing machine etc if they can't afford it. And they can only claim what is deemed to be the cheapest or average price for that item (say the going rate in Argos or something)?
I don't know a lot about it - but I'm sure there's something like that.
Anyway, I think the MPs should be able to claim at the same rate as that.

longfingernails · 09/10/2010 21:43

The scandal last year arose because MPs treated what should have been expenses as an alternative to salary.

The rules were ludicrously lax, but are now quite a lot tighter.

IPSA, from all accounts, is even worse than the Fees Office though - it costs £6m - more than was fiddled.

My solution would be to give each MP a credit card, a copy of the rules, and then to put all items, including full receipts, online. No expensive quango like IPSA - and transparency means that their local press will definitely keep them honest.

BeenBeta · 09/10/2010 21:42

No.

MPs claim office expenses for communicating with and dealing with constituents. It is their job. It is expenses claimed for work on our behalf. It is not their personal money.

David Cameron lives in 10 Downing St and it is his place of work.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 21:41

(note, I don't know exactly how the 'new' rules work, but I think it is wrong that absolutely loaded MPs get a penny in expenses. Surely they are there to enable people from poorer backgrounds to become an MP).

OP posts:
longfingernails · 09/10/2010 21:39

There is a massive difference between WORK money and PERSONAL money!

If I worked for a widget company, and made an international phone call to the widget manufacturers, then the business should pay for that phone call, not me. It shouldn't come out of my salary - whether I am a millionaire or I am on minimum wage.

Similarly, anything the MPs do in the course of their jobs (within reasonable limits, as they are funded by the taxpayers) should be paid for by their employer (namely, us). Of course, expenses budgets should be looked at hard to see whether they are achieving value for money. But to say that a rich MP is not entitled to as the same expenses as a "poor" MP (no such thing BTW) is ludicrous.

It is a completely different argument to saying that a rich councillor will lose child benefit, whereas a poor councillor will not. That is nothing to do with their work. All MPs are relatively rich, because they earn a very decent salary, and so all will lose child benefit.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 09/10/2010 21:39

As an example, Clegg has a salary of 160k. His wife has a salary estimated at 3-400k, or even more. Why should we pay to subsidise their mortgage interest payments?

Cameron is a multi-millionaire. We are already paying for TWO houses for him (DOwning Street and Chequers), plus expenses on his Oxfordshire house, (c21k) whilst he rents out his Notting HIll house for an estimated 72k per year. But it is wrong for people on a TOTAL salary of 45k to receive child benefit.

OP posts:
nellieistired · 09/10/2010 21:33

Where do I sign?