MPs still fiddling expenses to buy up houses.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sometimes, I just figure your'e having a giraffe on planet Hamish.

The cost isn't the same to the taxpayer either way. This is completely and utterly obvious.

While an MP can claim for mortgage interest, in this situation he can claim rent in it's entirity. Are you seriously suggesting that the mortgage interest element of their mortgage is the same cost as full blown rent in London?

What godly reason can you give that an MP would rent out his home, and move, to rent up the road? Other than profit?

Sometimes, I think you're a trolling genius, because surely nobody could be that dense.

But then I read it again, and realise you really didn't get it.

Remarkable.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sometimes, I think you're a trolling genius, because surely nobody could be that dense.

But then I read it again, and realise you really didn't get it.

Remarkable.

Go on then Hamish, explain it to us all.

You think the MPs are just moving up the road and then charging tiny rents to each other....for fun!?

You often say "you don't get it, you're so dense" and then run away not explaining. So explain.

Have a read Hamish...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9619333/Expenses-scandal-Labour-MP-made-thousands-letting-flat-to-fellow-member.html

Ms Riordan was said to have rented out her flat in London to Mr McKenzie for £1,560 a month. At the same time, she claimed £1,473 a month to rent another flat.

Ms Riordan’s mortgage on the flat rented out to Mr McKenzie is just over £500 a month, meaning she is making up to £1,000 a month on the deal, it was claimed.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Under the old system, an mp could claim for mortgage payments on their london house.

So they bought houses.

Under the new system they can only claim for rent, not mortgage payments.

So they now have a second house they cannot afford to live in.

The solution is obvious.... They have to rent out their house To someone else, and rent a place for themselves to live in, that they can now claim under expenses.

So the taxpayer is now paying their rent, to a private landlord. Makes no difference to the taxpayer who that private landlord is. They still pay the going market rent to someone.

Likewise they are renting out their house. Makes no difference who they are renting it to. So long as they achieve market rents.

Assuming that they are not achieving more than market rents, then it should make no difference at all to the taxpayer' the mp, or anyone else if it's to a stranger or another mp that they rent to.

Graham_Devon

Oh dearie me.

I really am lost for any other words.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh dearie me.

I really am lost for any other words.

Just to clarify, ou are saying they should not rent flats to each other, but to a stranger is ok?

Or are you saying they should not own a btl?

Or are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to claim rent as an expense?

Because it would be helpful to understand where your frothing is coming from.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Go on then Hamish, explain it to us all.

You think the MPs are just moving up the road and then charging tiny rents to each other....for fun!?

You often say "you don't get it, you're so dense" and then run away not explaining. So explain.....

This just has to be one of your best, Graham.

I know you're right that Hamish never explains, but that's because he knows you wouldn't understand the explanation.

In a sense, he's being kind to you, because he doesn't want to think of you staying up all night dribbling over working it all out.

As you know, I am probably not as "nice" as Hamish and therefore will give you a clue or two, so you will indeed stay up all night wondering why your posts keep us all so amused....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Just the absurd result of banning mp's from claiming mortgage payments for their london house......

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....While an MP can claim for mortgage interest, in this situation .....

What godly reason can you give that an MP would rent out his home, and move, to rent up the road? Other than profit?
.....

I'm off to bed now. The land of nod. I'll dream about Giraffes. Rhyming slang for Gaffes, but I expect you know that.

Loughton_Monkey

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

....I know you're right that Hamish never explains....

Whoops, Hamish. You did explain this time!

I expect that the 'frothing' is coming from not understanding your excellent explanation.

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sometimes, I just figure your'e having a giraffe on planet Hamish.

The cost isn't the same to the taxpayer either way. This is completely and utterly obvious.

While an MP can claim for mortgage interest, in this situation he can claim rent in it's entirity. Are you seriously suggesting that the mortgage interest element of their mortgage is the same cost as full blown rent in London?

The MPs who were buying with their £20k(?) accommodation allowance were not limited to claiming just the mortgage interest but all the other costs of running a 2nd home eg insurance, furniture, maintainance, repairs etc. Thus the total claim would be much the same (ie as close as they could get to that £20k) regardless of buying or renting

wymondham

Basically if it's legal then politicians will be up to it - it's human nature!

If it's not ethical etc then make it illegal and jail those who still do it.... the problem is most at the top are probably 'in on it' so change is unlikely!

I wish I had got into politics rather than get a job, life would be so much better!