How dare the politicians increase their own expenses, especially giving MPs 2.5k per child, when they are cutting child benefit to the rest of us?

I'm still trying to work out how (for example) a single parent with 3 kids on an income of £40k per annum could be classed as 'wealthy'...

I know there is a variety of opinion but does anyone else reading this think 'Chil1234' should admit their cynical political motivation for posting on this website. Come on, admit who your paymaster is.

well, pit it down to conscience. Why should any millionaire MP even claim
expenses?

That apart, it would help if they gave them 100 grand a year and said , get on with it. (no expenses)

Cameron could make a heathy gesture and say none of my millionaire MPs
will notclaim even a salary let alone expenses (why pile greed on top of greed?)
and then pretend you represent anyone other than yourself?

Roll salary and expenses up into one payment, around £250,000 a year, let MP's fund their offices, staff costs and own salaries out of that and publish the accounts.

why riddiculous. it is not and that way, anyone can be an mp if they so wish whilst saving the country millions and bringing the debt down. it's a win, win.
the nurse and doc example is riddiculous. however, if you are talking about millionaire Mp's then no, that is not riddiculous as they say we are in it together.

Means testing for expenses is ridiculous. Should a rich GP have to pay for his NHS computer, but a poor nurse not have to?

But expenses have to be related to strictly business activity, and totally transparent. Kids are not part of the business of being an MP. If they can't handle the lifestyle then they shouldn't apply for selection.

We certainly don't need IPSA. It needs to be abolished as fast as possible - if for no other reason, than to save some more money from the fat quango state.

Yup, I think that it is a good idea about Means testing - also take into account if they have a trust fund or and independently wealthy DH/DW.

My Dad used to work away from home a lot (plenty of people do) and for a lot less money than MPs get. He didn't get the massive holidays they get or money for his own children to visit - he also had to pay for his accomodation out of his own pay packet.

They are a bunch of whinging arseholes.

also, couldnt we tax their 'expenses', like they are going to tax our child maintenance? That would be 'fair'.

VERY good idea, lego. I'm sure they would enjoy filling in acres of forms and answering questions about how often their partner stays over.

maybe MP's should be means tested for expenses...see how much they like it . That way, millionaires won't get a penny more as they have been born lucky'done the right thing', and a poor single mum MP clould get help.

Don't politicians pay rent for properties like the Downing Street flat?

The median household income in the UK LilyBolero is circa £25k. The cut-off for poverty is set at 60% of the median - about £15k. HRT threshold is circa £40k. Plenty of people live beyond their means but that's hardly comparable.

Chil 45k with 2 children in London is far rom wealthy

I'm with the free family railcard for the lot of them group

loving dcs accommodation arrangements

How dare the politicians increase their own expenses, especially giving MPs 2.5k per child, when they are cutting child benefit to the rest of us?

Because they can, and better than that, we are responsible for giving them the power to do it

If you're in the HRT bracket you're therefore way above the median income and whereas 'wealthy' might not be strictly accurate, you are well beyond the breadline.... FWIW I don't think the travel allowance proposal will go through for a second - precisely because it's too politically sensitive. But if the expensive white elephant that is IPSA keep dithering about and don't put a reasonable system in place that means being an MP is an attractive option for non-millionaires, then we'll end up with something that's even worse than before.... and an even narrower selection of people in parliament than we currently do.

"if you're wealthy and will lose your CB in 2013"

I think the wealthy would concede that they can manage without CB but what about the not wealthy - single-income families, borderline HRT, who will lose theirs? They will be taking a massive cut in income.

I get it that some people think MPs do nothing all day, are a complete waste of time and should not expect to be paid at all. I also understand that if you're wealthy and will lose your CB in 2013 you might find it an affront that some minion of a public servant gets an allowance related to children. But, in my opinion, if we want more ordinary people to give up their normal day job to risk it all on the flip of a polling card, live in the harsh glare of public/press scrutiny, put up with being away from family, run two homes and do a decent job of work, then we should reward them fairly.

Otherwise the only people who will be attracted to the role of MP otherwise are people like the two mentioned earlier.... millionaire ex businessmen who don't much care what anyone thinks or someone so beholden to sponsors for their income that they're just plain bent.

but it's all legal so that's OK

do these people have no moral fibre?

"Mortgage interest is now only payable to MPs who had bought second homes under the pre-2010 expenses scheme, and only up until 31 August 2012"

so we are still paying Cameron c£20,000 a year for mortgage interest on his "cottage" in Oxfordshire?

Nice.

So we have longfingernails blaming labour (and there's me thinking that we had a Tory/Libdem government now)

And Chil saying that they have to have lots of extra money because being an MP is hard work.

Not like doctors, nurses, plumbers, policeman I guess who have it easy. It's ok for them to manage with just the one house and to travel 45mins to work but not the precious politicians.

I consider free milk and tea-bags a perk of my job.

We had to buy our own milk and tea when I worked in local government.

Chil but people working in the private sector are not funded by taxes. They are not funded by people who will be worse off as a result of recent government policy.

I understand your point but, really, for most people, these kinds of perks are unusual.