Should David Cameron be allowed to rent out his London home?

[LilyBolero]

David and Samantha Cameron are renting out their Notting Hill home, reportedly for an income of 72k annually. They are only able to do this because they are provided with a London home (Downing Street) at the taxpayer's expense. Should this be allowed? Should they have to pay rent on Downing Street? And should he still claim to be a member of the 'middle classes'?

My answers;
Yes, this should be allowed, IF they pay rent on Downing Street.
and
NO he should not claim to be a member of the middle classes!

runs - nor ruins, well maybe ruins but that was a genuine freudian

So sick of chippy rabble rousing anti DC threads.

chippy rabble?is that back fae chippy with a onion ring supper and a huff

edam - I don't understand your logic one little bit. Are rich people to be prevented from earning taxable income (to subsidise poor people) because relative disparity in income is unfair?

When you click on active it says:
should David Cameron be allowed to
The only sensible answer is NO, whatever the rest of the question. Unless it ends 'retire from politics and let someone else run our country.'

Presumably the Prime Minister's salary, which is not all that much considering the job, takes into account the accommodation thrown in. Just like if you have a company car you are taxed as if it's part of your salary.

You could compare him with a Vicar, who gets free accomodation to go with their job so that they can be readily available in the parish. Not all Vicars go into the priesthood from school, most had a life and a property before their vocation grabbed them, and they will need to find somewhere to live when they retire.* So they need to find some way of remaining on the property ladder, or making sure they can house themselves when the time comes. It's not selfish, just wanting security for their families and somewhere to live.

*The comedy stereotype of the frail and aged Vicar comes from the days when Vicars didn't have pensions and had to stay in the job till they died to keep a roof over their head; if they retired they had nowhere to go.

Edam - what I would really like to see is DC come on TV and talk to the nation.

He should explain that his pay was cut, that he will accept a pay freeze until he leaves office, that no one in the public sector will earn more than him, all public sector pay will be frozen like his and that all pay grades in the public sector will be rebased down in line with his pay cut which he has accepted.

Then challenge anyone who does not like it to go and talk to Gordon Brown who clearly agrees with him. Not much that Labour supporters can say really.

Bonsoir, two things. First, rich people don't 'subsidise' poor people. Decent rich people pay their taxes just like anyone else.

Second, Cameron isn't just any rich man. He's the prime minister. He has made decisions that will hurt the poor very badly indeed, and hurt ordinary families too. Specifically he has made decisions on housing and benefits that will leave people homeless. In that context, renting out his desirable Ladbroke Grove house to make oodles of extra cash is vulgar and offensive. He chose to make those decisions, he should live with the consequences as much as the rest of us have to.

Been - all in favour of limiting the inflated pay of some public sector chief executives. The chief exec of Birmingham council pays himself something in excess of £200k, IIRC, while running a social services department that has been castigated by inspectors and has left children to die.

There used to be this quaint concept called public service... would be nice if our politicians and leading bureaucrats had a clue what that was.

edam - not just the public sector but also at the top of the private sector too. Look at senior managment pay in firms, cutting pay of employees, shutting pension schemes, etc.

Just to put it into perpectuve for everyone. The current pay DC get s is £150k per year.

A graduate trader 4 years out of university can be earning that as basic pay in The City plus a huge bonus if they have a good year. That is also wrong. Just no one is that good.

Never been on favour of pay controls but at the top something has gone horribly wrong. I do not begrudge what DC gets but really there is no justification for many top salaries that run far higher than what DC gets.

No.For the same reason he should have paid to have his wisteria cut.Just because he can dosen't mean he shold[ehtics,morals etc].Heis a chav.and to disagree with an earlier poster it is only the wealthy etc that will be PM and part of the 'ruling classes'.DC and his wife have millions.

Riven - its normal in London.

Some people are asking that in Oxford.

Been - agree entirely. The gap between the pay of chairs, chief execs and board directors and the pay of their employees has been growing rapidly for two decades or so. Companies will claim they can only 'afford' a 1%, 2% or 3% pay rise for the people who actually do the work, but oddly enough 20% or more for the boss class.

If the guy at the top was worth ten times the average worker in 1982, what's happened to make the equivalent guy (because it usually is a man, still) worth 30 times today? Have bosses really performed that well? Not judging by the state of the economy...

And the City still needs radical reform. It's back to business as usual, with the same attitudes and culture that brought the world economy to its knees. A little more caution, a better understanding of risk, less unbridled greed and aggression would be better for all of us. And, given we are all underwriting the City, we are all entitled to have a say.

Surely, it's part of the "contract" of being a PM that they get to live in Downing Street and can do what they want with any proeprty they own?

And i'm pretty sure PM's do quite considerable crazy hours and need to be close to whitehall - hence living in Downing Street - it's more like a case of them moving to Downing Street and living in the office, IMHO.

Plus, it's not just him - like someone said earlier - all PMs get to do it. It's the Perk of the job.

PS. I'm ready to get slated for my view...!

If we prevented him from renting out his property as he lives in one that comes with the job does that mean we would have to stop all members of the armed forces living in forces property renting out their own properties too?

edam - in the UK, 75% of the population are net recipients of the taxation system, and 25% are net contributors. 75% of the population are subsidised by 25% of the population.

Cameron hasn't taken decisions to "hurt the poor". He has taken decisions to manage the country's economy. See above.

It bugs me for the same reason that the cuts to, for example, free swimming bug me. Within the context of his own words "We're ALL in this TOGETHER", he really means "You're all in this, I'm ok". Because his children get free swimming at Chequers, at the expense of...the taxpayer.

Bear in mind, Cameron was claiming £21,000 in mortgage repayments from the tax payer in expenses (though for his constituency house), and doesn't have a mortgage on his London home. I think he would have been well advised to not benefit further financially from his position, whilst everyone else is being squeezed, either by not renting it out, or by giving the income to charity, as a gesture.

Bonsoir - where do you get those figures from, exactly? Would like to see your source, please.

Cameron has indeed made decisions and the ones he has made hit women, children and the poor hardest. His party claims 'we are all in it together' but his actions show that to be a big, fat lie. And his government failed to carry out the legal requirement for a gender equalities assessment of his budget. So the Fawcett Society are seeking a judicial review, which should prove interesting.

And since you are in France, perhaps you could fill us in on the way the French government is handling the economic crisis?

(To add, that's 21k a year Cameron was claiming). Cameron the millionaire...

I have no idea where Bonsoir got her numbers from but she seems to be implying that means the rich are subsidising the poor.

In fact you might take a case where eg a middle income person worked and didn't claim benefits and died of a heart attack suddenly before retirement - they will be a net contributor while someone very wealthy accessing lots of tax loopholes and with a chronic condition requiring lots of treatment on the NHS will be a net recipient.

The figures may be correct but the picture they are being used to paint incorrect. Welfare benefits are not the only things paid for with taxpayers money.

What is the deal with chequers
Downing street plus privately owned home I can cope with, chequers I have a problem with

Chequers is often used for official functions out of London and PMs have used it to varying degrees over the years as a private country home.

Some a lot, but some hated it and hardly went there.

The provision of a grand London home for the Foreign Secretary bothers me more.