MPs at it again - Channel 4

Graham_Devon

Andy_L wrote: »

becasue:

a. it makes no difference to the cost to the taxpayer if they rent from another MP or a private landlord

I don't think you quite get what the programme was about. Did you watch it?

MP 1 owns a house on Street 1. He has amortgage and get's his mortgage interest paid for him. His mortgage interest costs £600.

MP 2 owns a house on street 2, just round the corner. He has a mortgage and get's his mortgage interest paid for him. His mortgage interest costs £500.

Therefore, in the above scenario, the cost to the taxpayer is £1,100 a month. No one really takes much issue.

---

MP 1 speaks to MP2, and they decide to mutually rent their houses to each other. MP 1 now lives on street 2, paying rent to MP 2 at a rate of £1,600 a month.

MP 2 now lives on street 1, paying rent to MP 1 at a rate of £1,600 a month.

The total cost to the taxpayer is now £3,200 a month. An increase to the taxpayer of £2,100 a month.

MP 1 is now pocketing £1,000 a month profit. MP 2 is now pocketing £1,100 a month profit.

You see this as acceptable?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You see this as acceptable?

It isn't of course but it's a great demonstration of how the laws of unintended consequences work and why people should be careful what they wish for.

Simple solutions to complicated problems put together in haste are rarely effective.

Andy_L

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't think you quite get what the programme was about. Did you watch it?

MP 1 owns a house on Street 1. He has amortgage and get's his mortgage interest paid for him. His mortgage interest costs £600.

MP 2 owns a house on street 2, just round the corner. He has a mortgage and get's his mortgage interest paid for him. His mortgage interest costs £500.

Therefore, in the above scenario, the cost to the taxpayer is £1,100 a month. No one really takes much issue.

---

MP 1 speaks to MP2, and they decide to mutually rent their houses to each other. MP 1 now lives on street 2, paying rent to MP 2 at a rate of £1,600 a month.

MP 2 now lives on street 1, paying rent to MP 1 at a rate of £1,600 a month.

The total cost to the taxpayer is now £3,200 a month. An increase to the taxpayer of £2,100 a month.

MP 1 is now pocketing £1,000 a month profit. MP 2 is now pocketing £1,100 a month profit.

You see this as acceptable?

If its a fair rent for the property then yes, if its an inflated rent then no

The MP with a mortgage would also have been claiming for fixtures & fittings, maintaince, reapairs, insurance etc ( everything except the capital repayment) which would close the gap between the 2 amounts

What are the alternatives? (some) people wanted to stop MPs claiming mortgage interest. This is the natural result.

Alternatives are that they both sell, pocketing any capital gain & then both rent form a private sector landlord for that £3200/mth or both rent out their properties (pocketing the mortgage profit/future capital gains) and rent from a private landlord, again for £3200

Don't get me wrong, its a PR disaster (& they should be kicked out for not being media-savvy enough to realise what would happen when the story got out) but I have no moral issue with what they are doing. I blame those who changed the rules in such a cack-handed fashion

bo_drinker

Did anyone actually believe that after the expenses fiasco that things would really change?? if you did then you are deluded, there are goal posts they have moved, in favour of mp's there are hoops so they jump through them. We are being fleeced by the people who run the country including the bankers and we are P155ing money into europe at an alarming rate. We will never sort the problems out here at this rate. We are being treated like mugs and expected to take it lying down. As I said before they are a bunch of lying cheating thieves one step ahead of the rest of us. C U N T S !!!!!!!!!

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But they wouldn't have to pay their own accomodation.

The point seems to be getting continually blurred, purposely. No ones asking them to pay for their own accomodation. People are saying, if they wish to have something over and above a 1-2 bed flat, then they can pay for it.

I don't see how anyone can not take issue with MPs renting to each other in the same area purely to take the most they can from the taxpayer.

Well at the moment they get a housing allowance of £20,000pa I think, and you'd do well to get much more than a 2 bed flat in anywhere in London that anyone would want to live. Maybe you could reduce it to £17,500, wouldn't achieve much.

I don't care that much if two MPs buy houses and rent them to each other actually - as long as the rent isn't deliberately inflated then it makes no odds to me who the £x amount of rent is being paid to.

chewmylegoff

robmatic wrote: »

What qualifications do you need to be an MP? How many of our 650 MPs have an important role?

A cabinet minister should be well remunerated but what about a backbench MP who does nothing else but turn up occasionally and vote in accordance with the party whip?

Absolutely. So halve the number of MPs and double their salaries.