The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Travel expenses are fine - reason being anyone no matter what their profession, can claim for work related business travel expenses. Or atleast, we can claim tax relief for them.
Hmmm...maybe I should be the forum bully. :-)
There are two or more sides to a discussion. Any less, and it's either critiscism, or a cult ;D
Garin wrote:
> You'd hope an MP would have something better to do than post > on some obscure internet forum.
Right answer!
I don't actually claim travel expenses myself, even though I am entitled to them. Too much hassle.
But as I can't seem to give my opinion without being overly-criticised for it, I shall leave this discussion as it stands.
> You'd hope an MP would have something better to do than post > on some obscure internet forum.
Right answer!
I don't actually claim travel expenses myself, even though I am entitled to them. Too much hassle.
But as I can't seem to give my opinion without being overly-criticised for it, I shall leave this discussion as it stands.
hippyman wrote:
> Well, fair is fair - I don't personally think anyone should have
> a second home allowance, especially as many people struggle to
> keep one home without any help from anybody.
Whats the difference between claiming expenses for travel and having a second home allowance?
You like examples apparently so... If its costing my employer £1000 a month in travel expenses for me. And they say given the amount of travel you're doing use that £1000 towards rent instead. Now you've already talked about claiming travel expenses yourself so I'm assuming you have no moral objections to that. What line has been crossed? Why is it suddenly unfair?
> And as Edgy said, it's their choice of job - if they didn't want
> the responsibility, then why take it?
The point being? Most people know what their job involves when they take it. Does prior knowledge mean theres no need for appropriate levels of pay or provisions for expense claims?
> But they don't act responsibly - and half of them I don't even
> think have any idea of what resposibilities they have.
Do YOU know what an MP's responsibilities are? Do you know how long they work, how much they travel and so on?
> Regardless of the argument of second home allowances (although I
> don't find them fair, I'll accept them), my main problem is the
> fact that the MPs are pretty much getting away with fraud. I've
> known people get the sack for adding a mile to their journey in
> travel expenses (the sack for a measley 35p) and there are some
> MPs claiming for mortgages that they've already paid off, with
> little or no charge.
Well I wouldnt argue with that really. It goes without saying I think that exploitation of whatever system is in place isnt right.
> Out of curiosity, are you an MP Garin?
You'd hope an MP would have something better to do than post on some obscure internet forum.
> Well, fair is fair - I don't personally think anyone should have
> a second home allowance, especially as many people struggle to
> keep one home without any help from anybody.
Whats the difference between claiming expenses for travel and having a second home allowance?
You like examples apparently so... If its costing my employer £1000 a month in travel expenses for me. And they say given the amount of travel you're doing use that £1000 towards rent instead. Now you've already talked about claiming travel expenses yourself so I'm assuming you have no moral objections to that. What line has been crossed? Why is it suddenly unfair?
> And as Edgy said, it's their choice of job - if they didn't want
> the responsibility, then why take it?
The point being? Most people know what their job involves when they take it. Does prior knowledge mean theres no need for appropriate levels of pay or provisions for expense claims?
> But they don't act responsibly - and half of them I don't even
> think have any idea of what resposibilities they have.
Do YOU know what an MP's responsibilities are? Do you know how long they work, how much they travel and so on?
> Regardless of the argument of second home allowances (although I
> don't find them fair, I'll accept them), my main problem is the
> fact that the MPs are pretty much getting away with fraud. I've
> known people get the sack for adding a mile to their journey in
> travel expenses (the sack for a measley 35p) and there are some
> MPs claiming for mortgages that they've already paid off, with
> little or no charge.
Well I wouldnt argue with that really. It goes without saying I think that exploitation of whatever system is in place isnt right.
> Out of curiosity, are you an MP Garin?
You'd hope an MP would have something better to do than post on some obscure internet forum.
pb wrote:
> I think the other thing to remember is that this is a small
> section of MPs who get these 'perks', I know a few local MPs who
> barely have enough money to pay for their current house, let
> alone get a second one.
>
> So it must seem even more unfair for them reading about those
> MPs who do get these (seemingly un-needed) extras.
A very fair statement - my local MP included. Actually he is the best we've had. Just hope he isn't fiddling - I'd hate to have my opinion lowered of him.
> I think the other thing to remember is that this is a small
> section of MPs who get these 'perks', I know a few local MPs who
> barely have enough money to pay for their current house, let
> alone get a second one.
>
> So it must seem even more unfair for them reading about those
> MPs who do get these (seemingly un-needed) extras.
A very fair statement - my local MP included. Actually he is the best we've had. Just hope he isn't fiddling - I'd hate to have my opinion lowered of him.
I think the other thing to remember is that this is a small section of MPs who get these 'perks', I know a few local MPs who barely have enough money to pay for their current house, let alone get a second one.
So it must seem even more unfair for them reading about those MPs who do get these (seemingly un-needed) extras.
The budget cap idea is great, a set amount to use for travelling and accomodation each year, which is in line with other businesses. Our office does this and so do many other London based firms.
Certainly nothing for furnishings or such like, though.
So it must seem even more unfair for them reading about those MPs who do get these (seemingly un-needed) extras.
The budget cap idea is great, a set amount to use for travelling and accomodation each year, which is in line with other businesses. Our office does this and so do many other London based firms.
Certainly nothing for furnishings or such like, though.
Garin wrote:
> 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.
Well, fair is fair - I don't personally think anyone should have a second home allowance, especially as many people struggle to keep one home without any help from anybody.
And as Edgy said, it's their choice of job - if they didn't want the responsibility, then why take it?
> Maybe your point is that MPs shouldnt be paid wages/benefits > comparable to the amount of responsibility they have.
But they don't act responsibly - and half of them I don't even think have any idea of what resposibilities they have.
Regardless of the argument of second home allowances (although I don't find them fair, I'll accept them), my main problem is the fact that the MPs are pretty much getting away with fraud. I've known people get the sack for adding a mile to their journey in travel expenses (the sack for a measley 35p) and there are some MPs claiming for mortgages that they've already paid off, with little or no charge.
Out of curiosity, are you an MP Garin?
EDIT: In response to Edgy's post - indeed, many of us do travel more than an hour to get to work - and the state of the bus service here, it's long winded and costs a fortune - no help from my employers, but then it's my choice to work as an ophthalmic science practitoner in Bristol City Centre.
> 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.
Well, fair is fair - I don't personally think anyone should have a second home allowance, especially as many people struggle to keep one home without any help from anybody.
And as Edgy said, it's their choice of job - if they didn't want the responsibility, then why take it?
> Maybe your point is that MPs shouldnt be paid wages/benefits > comparable to the amount of responsibility they have.
But they don't act responsibly - and half of them I don't even think have any idea of what resposibilities they have.
Regardless of the argument of second home allowances (although I don't find them fair, I'll accept them), my main problem is the fact that the MPs are pretty much getting away with fraud. I've known people get the sack for adding a mile to their journey in travel expenses (the sack for a measley 35p) and there are some MPs claiming for mortgages that they've already paid off, with little or no charge.
Out of curiosity, are you an MP Garin?
EDIT: In response to Edgy's post - indeed, many of us do travel more than an hour to get to work - and the state of the bus service here, it's long winded and costs a fortune - no help from my employers, but then it's my choice to work as an ophthalmic science practitoner in Bristol City Centre.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Page: