MPs and CGT

I suspect they made an inspired guess, given that the MPs in question had flipped their main and secondary residences.

On this topic, I have to say that, though I hold no particular brief for Hazel Blears, she only did what most people would have done and that was to take advantage of a particular system. It's absolutely scandalous that Gordon should single her out as 'unacceptable' but allow another couple of MPs through without a murmur.

Many people would be regarded as idiots if they did not play to their advantage. For example, inheritance tax. There are many ways that you can take advantage of the rules to minimise your liability - it's called tax planning and is what accountants do every day. Only idiots or the uninitiated or the lazy do not take advantage of the rules. In fact, one Chancellor has said that IHT is a voluntary tax.

I think the MPs' rules should be changed, but she played to the rules as they were then.

Rob Graham

In message , robgraham writes

Except that we do not write the IHT rules where as they wrote their own rules then abused their position. Look at it from a company view point if you did what they did you would probably have been fired and then depending on how much it was possibly taken to court. They seem to think oops been caught oh well I will just pay it back and everything is OK.

She like many others instead of helping to reform the rules took advantage of the situation and abused the system. We have too many politicians and too many of them have been working the system for their own benefit, time for a complete rethink of the structure and rewards.

The system was there to be exploited. That's called 'using' the system, not 'abusing' it.

We live where privacy laws are rife, they create situations which might look like fraud. When we publish people's benefits and tax returns, like they do in the US, then I think we can complain about the MPs' expense claims.

While I have a lot of sympathy for your view, and I don't have any real defence for Hazel Blears, I've got a sneaking sympathy for her because of Gordon Brown's petulant treatment of her in relation to two other MPs who did the same thing and he says it's OK. He's appalling!!

Rob

In message , robgraham writes

I agree all those who made spurious claims should be treated the same, rather than picking on some for other reasons. The rules need a complete rewrite and those who have blatantly fiddled should be out.

In message , Fredxx writes

It was their system and they allowed it to be abused and exploited which is hardly the example of an Honourable Gentleman or Lady who is supposed to be leading the Country not milking it. Those that have been caught cheating deserve to be removed from office and possibly even prosecuted. If you fiddled your Company expenses and were caught, which many of them have been, you would be out on your ear and may have ended up in Court.

Some of these appear to look very much like deliberate fraud or perhaps these MP's are prone to making mistakes in which case they probably need replacing anyway.

There was bound to be someone who thought it OK to do it at the Tax Payers expense.

I'm just as concerned over the MPs allowable mileage rate, we mere mortals are only allowed 40p per mile for the use of our own car for business purposes, and things like the duty free bar at the House of Commons.

Perhaps we should pay MPs more, and give less in expenses. I see no reason given they have an office at the house of commons, why they need a second home. A rented one bedroom flat would be sufficient, or something more inline with barracks.

What is good is to see how privacy laws protect the likes of MPs from their excesses being known.

Ummm. Mileage allowances are one of the areas where MPs did clean up their act quite a bit (partly because of the blatant contrast there used to be with the HMRC rates). Members can now claim just the same as the statutory Approved Mileage Allowance Payments - ie 40p/mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25p/mile thereafter.

They do however get away without keeping detailed records for the first umpteen miles of constituency travel. See the "Green Book".

Except that there is no connection between "main home" for MPs expenses purposes and "main home" for CGT purposes.

Your PPR for CGT purposes may be any home that is permanently available for you use, it does not need to be the one that you usually live in and hence does not need to be the one that an MP has nominated as their main home for the purpose of their expenses claim.

This CGT crap is just newspaper spin. It has nothing to do with the "expenses scam"

tim

I've read the Green Book and it seems very reasonable in most cases.

I'm surprised to see that MPs can't claim for congestion charges.

My major concern is about second homes. I can understand an MP wanting to live in a large and beautiful main home but if they are going to live in a second home because of their parliamentary business they should show restraint. It would only need a booklet listing maximum claims allowed given location and size of family and the problem would be solved.