100k expenses for tory with 22 homes

nickiboop

OK so why can an MP not buy a buy to let property like hundreds of other people

for all we know he might have huge negative equity issues

also, while I agree that some of the things they have been claiming are completely wrong, who really thinks that if they (for the needs of the job) needed to spend some weeks in Scotland and some in London they shouldn't get compensated? I know they get paid more than most of us but running 2 houses is asking alot!

Cat695

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't get this.

Why does the story say "while collecting rent from another home".

Why des it not say "while collecting rent from his second home"?

He has 22 houses, and they just say "collecting rent from another home". Something doesnt add up here, and looks like some spin has been used to imply something?

The Housing Minister claimed the second home allowance while living in a grace-andfavour apartment and collecting rent from another property. Chancellor Alistair Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon have been slammed for doing the same thing.

Alistair and Hoon were slammed for collecting rent from the SECOND homes. Not just "a" home. So not the same thing.

Tha labour bloke, Ian may aswell say that because a tesco lorry driver has a 300k inheritance, he should pay for all the fuel to transport the tesco goods from warehouses to stores, instead of the company paying the fuel. It makes no sense.

The Tory haters don't want the truth to get in the way of a good story now do they!!

And I'm sure the PM actually made more money from his second home claims than this guy did.

Cleaver

nickiboop wrote: »

OK so why can an MP not buy a buy to let property like hundreds of other people

He can. But there should be a certain amount of good nature in claiming expenses: they should be for what you genuinely need, and if they guy has the resources to buy lots of houses he shouldn't need an allowance for another one. It's fairly obvious that he's a greedy sh*t.

In a weird quirk my contract has me as a homeworker, but my organisation's offices are only a mile or two away so I work there most days. Technically, I can claim a certain amount for my lunch every day as I am 'away from home'. I never, ever have because it's unethetical. I wouldn't be breaking the rules, but I'd feel like a complete sh*t in respect to all my colleagues who have to buy lunch every day. The MPs aren't breaking any rules, but they certainly aren't gaining any repsect. And if they don't understand respect, the system needs looking at.

Sorry, that was a bit of a ramble. The moral is: I pay for my own lunch. Hell yes.

chewmylegoff

this is just spin as far as i'm concerned. i went to canada for work last year - i could have easily afforded to pay the fare myself, but obviously i didn't, i claimed it back on expenses. expecting this bloke not to claim the second home allowance because he has an independent source of wealth is stupid. you wouldn't do it, so why should he.

not quite the same as pretending that your sister's spare bedroom is your main residence so you can get the taxpayer to pay your mortgage, is it.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Does he need the money? Hell no. Is he allowed to claim it under the rules? Yes. Same defence as Jacqui Smith et al.

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Does he need the money? Hell no. Is he allowed to claim it under the rules? Yes. Same defence as Jacqui Smith et al.

it's not the same defence actually.

jacqui smith pretends she lives somewhere that she doesn't, so that she can claim more. you're not actually allowed to pretend you live somewhere that you don't, so jacqui smith has broken the rules.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Does he need the money? Hell no. Is he allowed to claim it under the rules? Yes. Same defence as Jacqui Smith et al.

It's not.

Jacqui Smith is a totally different thing. The problem being naming her second home as the family home so she can claim things such as damn expensive fireplaces and power showers.

The others are renting out their second homes. This, does not say that.

Cat695

fatpig wrote: »

I suppose it makes a change from some sleazy Tory up Hampstead Heath with his trousers around his ankles.

But least he wasn't claiming money from the tax payer for it huh.

epz_2

fatpig wrote: »

I suppose it makes a change from some sleazy Tory up Hampstead Heath with his trousers around his ankles.

does anybody really care these days what an mp gets upto in bed these days apart from the papers?

chucknorris

I don't see where the story is here, the fact he owns some BTL properties is not linked to his expenses claim. Or have I missed something?