Jacqui Smith?

tr3mor

maninthestreet wrote: »

The Government is pursuing an individual out of spite and malice, and areprepared to introduce new laws solely to deal with this issue. They've lost the plot.

Nope.

It takes the newspaper headlines away from Brown's shortcomings. And the public fall for it. Bloody idiots.

:mad:

SGE1

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is mounting evidence from people that this is not the case. only one neighbour has "stood up for her". 3-4 others in the street are all of the same opinion.

It's a shame she will not allow the security logs to be shown, as she "does not feel the need". As it would clear up a hell of a lot.

Are you seriously suggesting her "second home" is the one she goes to, where her family are, where she spends all time shes not at work, where her family live, her children go to school, she spends christmas, and she will live in once she has finished working?

Funny that, everyone else who has two places considers their main home as the family home. Must be the rest of us that are wrong?

Anyway, I just wondered why it went so quiet, so quick!

Interesting that you suggest home is where her family is. Given that she's living with her sister and all.

And the rules are evidently about where she spends most of her time. I'd wager the woman works quite a lot, and doesn't much visit her constituency office.

Can't imagine that she'll want to stay at her sister's for much longer now though, given that her nosey neighbours have been stalking her every move. They sound like reaaaally nice people.

Graham_Devon

SGE1 wrote: »

Interesting that you suggest home is where her family is. Given that she's living with her sister and all.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

I nearly spat out my orange juice at that! Thanks! :rotfl:

Oh, damn, thats some serious spin you got going there!!

brazilianwax

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting her "second home" is the one she goes to, where her family are, where she spends all time shes not at work, where her family live, her children go to school, she spends christmas, and she will live in once she has finished working?

Funny that, everyone else who has two places considers their main home as the family home. Must be the rest of us that are wrong?

I have a similar set up as MPs/Cabinet Ministers. I work in London (4 or 5 days a week) and go home to Wales for weekends.

Depends how you class 'main home'. I spend the vast majority of my time in a rented flat in London, but 'home' is my house in Wales.

The taxman considers my flat to be my 'main home' and my London office to be my 'workplace' as I'm there most of the time.

It's a completely exhausting and very unglamorous way to live, so I do feel for them. I haven't followed the story closely. Has she claimed £100k+ per year? I can't see how she'd manage that! £25k a year is actually more like it.

brazilianwax

SGE1 wrote: »

And the rules are evidently about where she spends most of her time. I'd wager the woman works quite a lot, and doesn't much visit her constituency office.

They usually hold a constituency surgery once a week. They try to do that on Fridays, but if not most will hold them on Saturdays.

Graham_Devon

brazilianwax wrote: »

I have a similar set up as MPs/Cabinet Ministers. I work in London (4 or 5 days a week) and go home to Wales for weekends.

Depends how you class 'main home'. I spend the vast majority of my time in a rented flat in London, but 'home' is my house in Wales.

The taxman considers my flat to be my 'main home' and my London office to be my 'workplace' as I'm there most of the time.

It's a completely exhausting and very unglamorous way to live, so I do feel for them. I haven't followed the story closely. Has she claimed £100k+ per year? I can't see how she'd manage that! £25k a year is actually more like it.

Claimed 116k or something over a period of years, not per year.

But this isn't the same as your setup, where you pay for 2 places. She will be getting one paid for through expenses. She claims for her own mortgaged home on the expenses, not the house share in London.

So would be like your employer giving you an expenses allowance because you need to be in one place, but you using that allowance to pay for your own, mortgaged "home".

That's what she is doing. Paying herself for her place in London, and putting her main home outside of London through expenses.

There is no way on this earth you would get away with that for tax purposes.

brazilianwax

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Claimed 116k or something over a period of years, not per year.

But this isn't the same as your setup, where you pay for 2 places. She will be getting one paid for through expenses. She claims for her own mortgaged home on the expenses, not the house share in London.

So would be like your employer giving you an expenses allowance because you need to be in one place, but you using that allowance to pay for your own, mortgaged "home".

That's what she is doing. Paying herself for her place in London, and putting her main home outside of London through expenses.

There is no way on this earth you would get away with that for tax purposes.

TBH I'm not sure it's that big a deal. If she's entitled to claim up to (say) £25k per year because she has to live in 2 places does it matter which place she states is the second home?

My expenses allow me to have a larger house than I would if I had to cover all of my London costs myself. It costs me a lot to be in London (I can't claim for much), but having more of my own money (than if I were paying 100% of the costs for 2 properties) means I can spend it in Wales instead.

My expenses don't pay directly for my home, but they help indirectly!

Graham_Devon

brazilianwax wrote: »

TBH I'm not sure it's that big a deal. If she's entitled to claim up to (say) £25k per year because she has to live in 2 places does it matter which place she states is the second home?

When it's taxpayers money, and shes claiming 20k a year, for what is essentially a house share, out of taxpayers money, I think personally it's wrong.

Thats suggesting basically that house share with her sister is costing her roughly £1700 per month in rent.

And thats me being generous, as actually, shes not there 12 months of the year.

If she was claiming for the house share in London, she would not be able to claim so much, so shes maximising, at our expense.

ad9898_3

Jacqui Smith ??, another example of snout firmly in the trough, is she playing by the rules ??, we will wait and see, however even if she is, to bend the rules to a point where you are saying a room in you're sisters house is your main residence and the home where your husband and children are isn't, is a joke that isn't funny.

Nothing more than I'd expect from a morally bankrupt government.

lostinrates

I'm not making a judgement or comment on the rights and wrongs of this situation, I'm just interested in why the court of public appeal isn't hearing this and as a consequence what the juristiction of the new court of public opinion is?