The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Government's personal spending habits are all over the news at the moment (Tesco are probably taking notes to send them advertising) but a lot of it seems to be media hype again.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Everyone in a certain job with requirements to relocate or travel should have expenses paid by their company. The main differences here seem to be that it's tax payer's money and that a few MPs seem to be claiming for more than they should (or for odd things).
This, of course, should come as no surprise. We all realise that some people, given a position of power, will try to sneak through any system in order to get something for nothing, MPs especially.
So the question isn't really whether they should be spending this money (obviously not in many cases reported) but should there really be so much fuss and surprise about what's been going on?
Also, how would you regulate MP's spending?
I'd first give them a budget cap so they can only spend up to an agreed amount, then give them a stricter set of rules across the board so it's fair and above board.
Page:
Ideas about hotels & apartments are a little unrealistic I think. Theres 650-ish MPs and you'd have to make provisions for their families as well. Not even sure you could find the space in London to build so much in reasonable distance of parliament.
I have some sympathy for MPs over this actually. I've lived under a similar expenses system myself and in general they are a nightmare. Basically having to audit your life every week, keeping every receipt, working out whether you can expense it and then creating reports to go with expenses codes etc. Its hours of work every week. So if you've got MPs saying they just chuck everything in an envelope and submit it, I can well believe it because I've been there and done that.
Ironically I think Gordon Brown got it right in the first place, give them a flat rate, and base it upon attendance if necessary.
The time and expense of trying to account for every penny doesnt justify the end result in my opinion. Its going to cost £600k a year to have an independent body oversee the current one. Thats close to a £1000 for every MP. I think thats a small hint thats its current format isnt workable.
Machie wrote:
> I mean seriously who doesn't notice an extra £800 a month in
> their accounts.
People who earn considerably more than £800 a month.
I have some sympathy for MPs over this actually. I've lived under a similar expenses system myself and in general they are a nightmare. Basically having to audit your life every week, keeping every receipt, working out whether you can expense it and then creating reports to go with expenses codes etc. Its hours of work every week. So if you've got MPs saying they just chuck everything in an envelope and submit it, I can well believe it because I've been there and done that.
Ironically I think Gordon Brown got it right in the first place, give them a flat rate, and base it upon attendance if necessary.
The time and expense of trying to account for every penny doesnt justify the end result in my opinion. Its going to cost £600k a year to have an independent body oversee the current one. Thats close to a £1000 for every MP. I think thats a small hint thats its current format isnt workable.
Machie wrote:
> I mean seriously who doesn't notice an extra £800 a month in
> their accounts.
People who earn considerably more than £800 a month.
YH wrote:
> EDIT - "Expect more from me"? You must have changed
> your name, as it's not one I recognise yet you seem to have an
> idea about me. Interesting.
Not really - I have nothing to hide - I've changed from Doglatto/Borat/Erowid - just couldn't find a name I wanted to stick with.
The smiley face doesn't make a comment light-hearted, it's like the common practise of people saying 'I'm not being funny but ...' before coming out with how they really feel. It's still daft to compare what could at worst be described as theft, with the rape of children. And it's that sort of comparitive ridiculous hype that the media are pushing. Where do we draw the line and say "OK, this is wrong, and needs to be addressed" ... and move on?
They screwed up, we know they screwed up, they know we know they screwed up - and I think it's safe to say that in future, they won't dare claim for even a sandwich without thinking about the possibility of scandal. So why are the media still bringing up fresh expense reports daily? Because it sells chip papers.
> EDIT - "Expect more from me"? You must have changed
> your name, as it's not one I recognise yet you seem to have an
> idea about me. Interesting.
Not really - I have nothing to hide - I've changed from Doglatto/Borat/Erowid - just couldn't find a name I wanted to stick with.
The smiley face doesn't make a comment light-hearted, it's like the common practise of people saying 'I'm not being funny but ...' before coming out with how they really feel. It's still daft to compare what could at worst be described as theft, with the rape of children. And it's that sort of comparitive ridiculous hype that the media are pushing. Where do we draw the line and say "OK, this is wrong, and needs to be addressed" ... and move on?
They screwed up, we know they screwed up, they know we know they screwed up - and I think it's safe to say that in future, they won't dare claim for even a sandwich without thinking about the possibility of scandal. So why are the media still bringing up fresh expense reports daily? Because it sells chip papers.
Heh, ok about the smiley face thing. I'll take your advice, and move on.
As for the expenses. I think it's right that it was brought up, and now that it is out in the open, I think it makes sense to find out how widespread these practices are.
However, should this be front page every day? Probably not. Are there more important things going on in the world? Certainly.
It's about striking a balance.
EDIT - "Not really - I have nothing to hide - I've changed from Doglatto/Borat/Erowid - just couldn't find a name I wanted to stick with."
I never said you did have anything to hide, just didn't recognise the name is all. No harm done :-)
As for the expenses. I think it's right that it was brought up, and now that it is out in the open, I think it makes sense to find out how widespread these practices are.
However, should this be front page every day? Probably not. Are there more important things going on in the world? Certainly.
It's about striking a balance.
EDIT - "Not really - I have nothing to hide - I've changed from Doglatto/Borat/Erowid - just couldn't find a name I wanted to stick with."
I never said you did have anything to hide, just didn't recognise the name is all. No harm done :-)
Garin wrote:
> Ideas about hotels & apartments are a little unrealistic I
> think. Theres 650-ish MPs and you'd have to make provisions for
> their families as well. Not even sure you could find the space
> in London to build so much in reasonable distance of parliament.
But 90% of time the MPs aren't in Parliament at all. So that wouldn'tbe so much of a problem. Even if it is using certain hotels in the vicinity - still would work out cheaper than second home allowances.
And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to take the family away - so why should they?
I do get where you are coming from with the hassle of collecting receipts, but if you really want to claim everything back, it is a necessary thing. Hate doing it myself when travelling about on courses/research studies, but it does curb your company spending expenses.
> Ideas about hotels & apartments are a little unrealistic I
> think. Theres 650-ish MPs and you'd have to make provisions for
> their families as well. Not even sure you could find the space
> in London to build so much in reasonable distance of parliament.
But 90% of time the MPs aren't in Parliament at all. So that wouldn'tbe so much of a problem. Even if it is using certain hotels in the vicinity - still would work out cheaper than second home allowances.
And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to take the family away - so why should they?
I do get where you are coming from with the hassle of collecting receipts, but if you really want to claim everything back, it is a necessary thing. Hate doing it myself when travelling about on courses/research studies, but it does curb your company spending expenses.
Bottom line is ....
Do any of you have any respect for any MP now?
Do any of you have any respect for any MP now?
Spot on Hippyman SPOT ON!!!!!
Ive been following this thread but up until now i couldnt be arsed to post a reply as i hate to type the obvious.
Some of the MP's have taken rip off britain to a whole new level.
At the end of the day most people are guilty of claiming more than they should in one way or another but its done within reason, someone claiming £11,000 for a mortage that he forgot he'd already payed off down to claiming £2 for dog food is simply taken the tax payers for mugs.
As for collecting and sorting receipts, well that is no probs at all.
I have to collect sort and hand in my receipts every 3 months to the VAT man. If im a day late i recieve a £1000 fine, if there is discrepences i get investigated and picked up on everything. So why is it so hard to apply the same practice to MP's expenses?
Times are hard at present and i have several friends who have lost their jobs, 1 has been out of work for 11 weeks now and has a wife and child to support, he still has to phone the job club everyday chasing up his claim and after 11 weeks he still has not recieved a penny. Another has been out of work for 9 weeks and has a wife with MS to support, but due to him joining the job club and claiming benefits they have stop his wifes disability allowance due to the change of circumstances, yet after 8 weeks he has not recieved a penny either.
While these honest working class people beg borrow and struggle the MP's who we employ make £1000s of profit by buying and selling 2nd homes with our money that they didn't need in the 1st place.
I live in cambridgeshire and have friends that travel to London, Birmingham, Hull etc every day in vans, then spend 8hrs digging holes before they embark on a 2hr+ drive home, only to arrive home after a 14hr day to find their children asleep in bed. Should we provide these honest working class people with a second home?
At the end of the day fraud is fraud, we all push it at times but if we're caught we pay the price, benefits will stop immediately with an investigation to estimate how long we're been doing it. You may be arrested and put in prision as the goverment tv advert clearly states.
Maybe we should look in to providing accommadation for MP's that live more than 150mile from westminster and i dont see why that should be a problem to sort out, after all, we soon found room and started building accommodation for 1000's of athletes.
Dont forget we're all in hard times due to these MP's, the goverment has been borrowing our money to invest in to our banks just to pay back our money that they borrowed, resulting in billions of debt, what a load of shight......
WHERE'S THE ****ING MONEY GORDON...!!!!
Sort out the culprits, Suppend them with out pay, make them pay it all back, while we decide wether we want to employ them again!
Infact just make Richard Branson Prime Minister
Ive been following this thread but up until now i couldnt be arsed to post a reply as i hate to type the obvious.
Some of the MP's have taken rip off britain to a whole new level.
At the end of the day most people are guilty of claiming more than they should in one way or another but its done within reason, someone claiming £11,000 for a mortage that he forgot he'd already payed off down to claiming £2 for dog food is simply taken the tax payers for mugs.
As for collecting and sorting receipts, well that is no probs at all.
I have to collect sort and hand in my receipts every 3 months to the VAT man. If im a day late i recieve a £1000 fine, if there is discrepences i get investigated and picked up on everything. So why is it so hard to apply the same practice to MP's expenses?
Times are hard at present and i have several friends who have lost their jobs, 1 has been out of work for 11 weeks now and has a wife and child to support, he still has to phone the job club everyday chasing up his claim and after 11 weeks he still has not recieved a penny. Another has been out of work for 9 weeks and has a wife with MS to support, but due to him joining the job club and claiming benefits they have stop his wifes disability allowance due to the change of circumstances, yet after 8 weeks he has not recieved a penny either.
While these honest working class people beg borrow and struggle the MP's who we employ make £1000s of profit by buying and selling 2nd homes with our money that they didn't need in the 1st place.
I live in cambridgeshire and have friends that travel to London, Birmingham, Hull etc every day in vans, then spend 8hrs digging holes before they embark on a 2hr+ drive home, only to arrive home after a 14hr day to find their children asleep in bed. Should we provide these honest working class people with a second home?
At the end of the day fraud is fraud, we all push it at times but if we're caught we pay the price, benefits will stop immediately with an investigation to estimate how long we're been doing it. You may be arrested and put in prision as the goverment tv advert clearly states.
Maybe we should look in to providing accommadation for MP's that live more than 150mile from westminster and i dont see why that should be a problem to sort out, after all, we soon found room and started building accommodation for 1000's of athletes.
Dont forget we're all in hard times due to these MP's, the goverment has been borrowing our money to invest in to our banks just to pay back our money that they borrowed, resulting in billions of debt, what a load of shight......
WHERE'S THE ****ING MONEY GORDON...!!!!
Sort out the culprits, Suppend them with out pay, make them pay it all back, while we decide wether we want to employ them again!
Infact just make Richard Branson Prime Minister
hippyman wrote:
> But 90% of time the MPs aren't in Parliament at all. So that
> wouldn'tbe so much of a problem. Even if it is using certain
> hotels in the vicinity - still would work out cheaper than second
> home allowances.
I'm eager to learn about this figure of 90%, is it published somewhere? Or is it your own personal research of 650 MPs in which you have established their locations for 365 days a year.
> And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm
> on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to
> take the family away - so why should they?
And are you the benchmark for who should get offered what? The last time my partner was asked to travel, they offered to pay for me to go too. So maybe I should be the benchmark.
If you are expected to travel and be away from your family for extended periods then yes family would be a consideration. In that sort of job you'd expect to get some sort of recompense towards maintaining your family life. Its not unusual in the private sector for those sort of roles, why should MPs be any different.
> But 90% of time the MPs aren't in Parliament at all. So that
> wouldn'tbe so much of a problem. Even if it is using certain
> hotels in the vicinity - still would work out cheaper than second
> home allowances.
I'm eager to learn about this figure of 90%, is it published somewhere? Or is it your own personal research of 650 MPs in which you have established their locations for 365 days a year.
> And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm
> on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to
> take the family away - so why should they?
And are you the benchmark for who should get offered what? The last time my partner was asked to travel, they offered to pay for me to go too. So maybe I should be the benchmark.
If you are expected to travel and be away from your family for extended periods then yes family would be a consideration. In that sort of job you'd expect to get some sort of recompense towards maintaining your family life. Its not unusual in the private sector for those sort of roles, why should MPs be any different.
I have to disagree with Garin.
As Andy Hamilton said on HIGNFY, the MPs knew it was a rotten system and they've been itching to get rid of it for years,
They can barely bring themselves to milk it for every penny they can get.
;P
As Andy Hamilton said on HIGNFY, the MPs knew it was a rotten system and they've been itching to get rid of it for years,
They can barely bring themselves to milk it for every penny they can get.
;P
Yeah, I disagree with Garin too!
hippyman wrote:
> And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm
> on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to
> take the family away - so why should they?
LIVERPOOOOL!! :D
> And why would family provisions have to be considered. When I'm
> on a 2-week course in Liverpool, I'm not offered the chance to
> take the family away - so why should they?
LIVERPOOOOL!! :D
Page: