Daily Chat! Saturday 16th of May***Happy Saturday!***

Toto

Doomcow wrote: »

its not benefit fraud if its within the rules

bareing in mind that they / their predecessors wrote the rules.

nothing wrong with it - we are the ones who voted them in so if anyone is to blame then its we the plebs.

all in all its a tiny amount in comparisson to GDP.

it isn't within the rules to claim for mortgage payments on a mortgage which is already paid off.

Doomcow

well, if you could claim for a free house in london which when you sold it would net you hundreds of thousands of pounds - wouldnt you do it too?

skint_spice

did you hear the MP the other night trying to justify his trouser press? it is apparently important that he looks smart for work... don't many of us have to look smart for work. he did admit it smacked of Alan Partridge...

skint_spice

Doomcow wrote: »

well, if you could claim for a free house in london which when you sold it would net you hundreds of thousands of pounds - wouldnt you do it too?

I wouldn't claim for a mortgage I didn't have - EVER!

Toto

skint_spice wrote: »

I don't agree with that Toto - why should the MPs from the highlands have to incur expenses that inner london MPs wouldn't have? they would either end up out of touch with their constituents or not sitting in the house very often.
the current system isn't working and seems mad but they MUST sort it out soon surely?

Then their salary should take their distance into account. We have London weighting so why not have allowances built into a salary for the extra travel. They don't need to have great big houses in london, what's wrong with a hotel?

MPs are supposed to be serving their constituents and the country, not fleecing it for every penny they can get.

beanielou

Toto wrote: »

it isn't within the rules to claim for mortgage payments on a mortgage which is already paid off.

Sooooo agree Toto

Doomcow

Toto wrote: »

it isn't within the rules to claim for mortgage payments on a mortgage which is already paid off.

true, and for that they need a slap on the wrist, repay their debt if you wish - handle it in much the same way as any other internal dispute.

because they are MPs, doesnt mean that things should come down on them any more harder than on normal people.

they all get paid too much anyway - it should be an honor to be a politician - pay should be standard, but the beenfits good. like im sure all this wouldnt have come such a surprise and such a "shock" if politicians were paid 21 - 25k/ year max

Buffythedebtslayer

skint_spice wrote: »

I don't agree with that Toto - why should the MPs from the highlands have to incur expenses that inner london MPs wouldn't have? they would either end up out of touch with their constituents or not sitting in the house very often.
the current system isn't working and seems mad but they MUST sort it out soon surely?

I think they should work out expenses per mile? or total distance travelled plus over night stays and daily expenses. the nearer you are the less money you get.

I don't see any need to buy a second home, all MP's should get a certain amount to cover renting a place in London. It should be realistic and non- negiotable.

beanielou

Doomcow wrote: »

well, if you could claim for a free house in london which when you sold it would net you hundreds of thousands of pounds - wouldnt you do it too?

In short~no actually.
Hard as my life is I still have some morals.

skint_spice

Toto wrote: »

Then their salary should take their distance into account. We have London weighting so why not have allowances built into a salary for the extra travel. They don't need to have great big houses in london, what's wrong with a hotel?

MPs are supposed to be serving their constituents and the country, not fleecing it for every penny they can get.

I think that's the system for MSP's and hopefully what they will bring in here too.

They aren't all fleecing the system though and it's nice to see there are some honest men/women amongst them but it's sad they seem to be in the minority.