We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
MPs at it again - Channel 4
Wookster
Posts: 3,795 Forumite
Its on now.
Personally I think MPs should be paid a decent salary and the expenses policy should be aligned to those of multinational corporates, where individuals do not benefit from the expenses policy.
It seems like the current flavour is for property owning MPs to rent out their properties whilst taking another property at the expense of the tax payer. It seems that 27 MPs have gone into this arrangement. Not exactly edifying behaviour from our lawmakers.
Personally I think MPs should be paid a decent salary and the expenses policy should be aligned to those of multinational corporates, where individuals do not benefit from the expenses policy.
It seems like the current flavour is for property owning MPs to rent out their properties whilst taking another property at the expense of the tax payer. It seems that 27 MPs have gone into this arrangement. Not exactly edifying behaviour from our lawmakers.
0
Comments
-
Its on now.
Personally I think MPs should be paid a decent salary and the expenses policy should be aligned to those of multinational corporates, where individuals do not benefit from the expenses policy.
It seems like the current flavour is for property owning MPs to rent out their properties whilst taking another property at the expense of the tax payer. It seems that 27 MPs have gone into this arrangement. Not exactly edifying behaviour from our lawmakers.
I'd wholeheartedly agree with this Wookster. With one addition, I'd also switch their overly generous final salary pensions to a money purchase arrangment.
I'm enjoying the programme.
0 -
Its on now.
Personally I think MPs should be paid a decent salary and the expenses policy should be aligned to those of multinational corporates, where individuals do not benefit from the expenses policy.
It seems like the current flavour is for property owning MPs to rent out their properties whilst taking another property at the expense of the tax payer. It seems that 27 MPs have gone into this arrangement. Not exactly edifying behaviour from our lawmakers.
I agree; MPs ought to have expenses comparable with normal companies expenses
no multinational (or indeed any other company ) would expect you to fund two residences in different cities from your own resources.
the fact that you had a BTL in one city would surely be disregarded.0 -
I'm guessing here...but why doesn't the government buy or build blocks of flats in the right locations for MP's.
Accommodation is sorted then...0 -
I'm guessing here...but why doesn't the government buy or build blocks of flats in the right locations for MP's.
Accommodation is sorted then...
Apparently it would become a terrorist target with so many MPs in one location.
So say the MPs.....who all sit in one room in the commons week after week...doh.
In truth, the government own enough buildings in London which could be converted. There was an article the other day stating the government won't sell this property as it will effect the local market, due to the amount they have.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »
In truth, the government own enough buildings in London which could be converted. There was an article the other day stating the government won't sell this property as it will effect the local market, due to the amount they have.
'an article' ..very definitive but
gosh, has no-one thought about selling a bit at a time?0 -
I read somewhere that they wanted to, but couldn't get planning permission
In which case why doesn't the Secretary of State call the scheme in and approve it him/herself (a bit like they do with the expenses)..Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
We all know the answer....because they have their snouts in the troff. I don't know many who will change rules to make themselves worse off, for seemingly little, if anything in return.
MPs live in another world. Under no circumstances in any other business would you get what MPs do. But honestly, why would they change? What's really in it for them? Absolutely nothing but a lot less priveleges.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards