Viewing Thread:
"So all this Government spending..."

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.

....And yes, I'm pleased that Garin disagreed with Garin too :-)

This is what the average taxpayer gets according to the tax office's website

So you get tax relief on the cost of travel and subsistence costs, strictly for business journeys only. If I understand that, then bringing your family along with you is not tax allowable, so if your employer pays that allowance to you, you pay tax on it. You don't get it for free.

So why should MPs be paid their expenses for family to go on day/week trips with them out of the money we pay in taxes to our under-funded NHS, schools, army, etc, when you and I aren't treated the same?

I don't think MPs should get extra to cover family/work balance. They're paid more than I am and my family/work balance isn't considered by my employer. They are already paid more to do their jobs.

I know you are mainly playing the devil's advocate here Garin (as you do), but what I am suggesting (ignoring any stats - as they are for demonstration purposes only to help make a point).

On the point of MPs taking their families with them, I always thought their second homes were mainly for themselves and perhaps a mistress ;p. But seriously, why do they need to take their families? If we suddenly opened up a space project where some astronauts were launched on a sixth-month space mission, would they be able to have their families with them (I know it isn't likely that would happen, but again, I am trying to demonstrate a point).

Even on the point of hotels, if they can have their families with them, I've not witnessed being sent to a single bed hotel when I've travelled, so a hotel would be an ideal solution - everything paid in house, less collecting of receipts etc. and hopefully that will cause less scandal as less things will be scrutinised over.

Good point Hippyman. How far should it be allowed to go?

hippyman wrote:
> I know you are mainly playing the devil's advocate here Garin (as
> you do), but what I am suggesting (ignoring any stats - as they
> are for demonstration purposes only to help make a point).

So saying MPs spend 90% of their time away from parliament was an example for demonstration purposes? Bizarre.

> On the point of MPs taking their families with them, I always
> thought their second homes were mainly for themselves and perhaps
> a mistress ;p. But seriously, why do they need to take their
> families? If we suddenly opened up a space project where some
> astronauts were launched on a sixth-month space mission, would
> they be able to have their families with them (I know it isn't
> likely that would happen, but again, I am trying to demonstrate a
> point).

And what point is it you're trying to demonstrate? That since you can highlight one job that doesnt accomodate second homes/families etc. that every job or role in public service shouldnt?

Not every job/role in the public service does. That's a fact. And why should they anyway? Would you like it if your taxes being used to pay for a family trip meant that you couldn't have life saving treatment in hospital because the organisations that are supposed to get the funding from our taxes are losing out to MPs claims for holdays for their families?

And again, it's only MPs that get them paid for them. Taxpayers would have to pay tax on anything paid by their employer for family to accompany them on 'business' trips as the expense isn't wholly necessary to do the job.

And since when was a claim for dog food or manure a job expense for an MP? Nobody pays taxes to look after pets in my street, nor to have their gardens fertilised.

Or am I missing the point?

Garin wrote:
> And what point is it you're trying to demonstrate? That since
> you can highlight one job that doesnt accomodate second
> homes/families etc. that every job or role in public service
> shouldnt?

So on that reasoning - as I work for the government then I should be entitled to a second home? Or an extra payment for just turning up for work. We'd all love that, but why should MPs have a huge salary, free money to spend on whatever they want (with no real questions asked) and embezzle themselves in tax payers money and the rest of us can't, or am I missing the point?

EDIT: Just read your post Edgy, pretty much similar to some of the points I've just posted, so seems we're on the same wavelength. But to MPs, a clean moat is more important than a life-saving operation anyway.

Definately on the same wavelength.

Unless they change things so these expenses are claimable by all (whether public or private sector - no matter what their position) then why should they be able to have these things paid for with our money?

hippyman wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> And what point is it you're trying to demonstrate? That since
> you can highlight one job that doesnt accomodate second
> homes/families etc. that every job or role in public service
> shouldnt?
>
> So on that reasoning - as I work for the government then I
> should be entitled to a second home?

So first of all your reasoning was well heres one job that doesnt get a second home allowance therefore nobody should get one. Now we're at the other end of the extreme where since one job does get a second home allowance then every job should.
I suppose thats progress of a sort.

Or an extra payment for just
> turning up for work. We'd all love that, but why should MPs have
> a huge salary, free money to spend on whatever they want (with no
> real questions asked) and embezzle themselves in tax payers money
> and the rest of us can't, or am I missing the point?

If you dont know what the point is, I can only suggest you read your own posts again. You responded to my post questioning why MPs should have accommodation provisions for their families. I pointed out that its not unreasonable given whats available in the private sector for similar roles. Maybe your point is that MPs shouldnt be paid wages/benefits comparable to the amount of responsibility they have.

Yet MPs chose to take on that responsibility. They knew what the job would entail before they became elected MPs.

Yes, they have to travel a lot as part of their jobs. Well, saying that, there are northern-Irish MPs who have never taken their seats in the house of commons according to one of the TV news reports mentioned during this whole thing. Should they still get the second home allowance, which is used for those who travel to London to take their seats in the houses of parliament?

What about MPs who live within reasonable travelling distance, say an hour on either public or private transport. Many many people have to travel further to work lower paid jobs throughout the UK just to get by, but they're not allowed to claim additional allowances are they? So should MPs under the same conditions have that luxury? Because they have been claiming it. That's been one of the biggest items about this expenses argument that the papers have found out and made public.