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

[LilyBolero]

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?

Where do I sign?

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.

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.

(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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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).

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!

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

lol

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.

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?

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.