News1 min ago
hazel blears MP
Why didn't Hazel Blears pay back all the profit she made on one of her second homes ,financed by taxpayers, not just the Capital Gains Tax.? She made a virtue of saying she is going to pay back the �14 K CGT but still pocketed the the other �63k.
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
She did not do so for the same reason that she claimed the �expenses� in the first place � to maximise the amount she could personally make from her position as an MP.
Ms Blears is one of the most irritating people in Parliament (and she has a lot of competition) and has absolutely no shame. Her website gives (what she considers to be) a rational explanation for her avoidance of CGT, but it is clear she has, almost certainly with the complicity of the "Fees Office", manipulated her addresses to gain maximum advantage.
It is also quite clear that, far from minimising the expenses her political duties bestow on the taxpayer, she was going to milk them for all she could. She even made a photo-call opportunity out of handing over a cheque for the repaid CGT. (It has still not been explained how this will be properly accounted for by HMRC. She needs to complete a new tax return as anyone normally making a payment without doing so will simply have that payment offset against future tax liabilities).
Enough has been said in recent days about this scandal, but Ms Blears must come at the top of the list of those continuing to protest that they �have done nothing wrong� by claiming expenses not properly incurred and by profiting from property speculation funded by the taxpayer.
Apparently the Prime Minister continues to provide her with his full support and urges her to continue with the �wonderful job� she is doing as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (whatever that might entail). That just about sums up his attitude to this series of outrages as well.
Ms Blears is one of the most irritating people in Parliament (and she has a lot of competition) and has absolutely no shame. Her website gives (what she considers to be) a rational explanation for her avoidance of CGT, but it is clear she has, almost certainly with the complicity of the "Fees Office", manipulated her addresses to gain maximum advantage.
It is also quite clear that, far from minimising the expenses her political duties bestow on the taxpayer, she was going to milk them for all she could. She even made a photo-call opportunity out of handing over a cheque for the repaid CGT. (It has still not been explained how this will be properly accounted for by HMRC. She needs to complete a new tax return as anyone normally making a payment without doing so will simply have that payment offset against future tax liabilities).
Enough has been said in recent days about this scandal, but Ms Blears must come at the top of the list of those continuing to protest that they �have done nothing wrong� by claiming expenses not properly incurred and by profiting from property speculation funded by the taxpayer.
Apparently the Prime Minister continues to provide her with his full support and urges her to continue with the �wonderful job� she is doing as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (whatever that might entail). That just about sums up his attitude to this series of outrages as well.
Quite agree, Jayne.
The root cause of this particular aspect of the problem is that the current system allows property speculation to be funded by the employer (in this case the taxpayer). I know of no other occupation where that would be permitted.
However, the notion that because only mortgage interest is being claimed it somehow makes it legitimate for them to trouser any profits they may make is fanciful and illogical. The mortgage is being serviced by the taxpayer and without it the purchase could not (and in many cases almost certainly would not) be made.
According to the rules behind which so many of them have sought shelter in recent weeks, the �Honourable� Members are assisted in such purchases solely to enable them to carry out their duties. Nobody else in the land is entitled to profit from such allowances or expenses and MPs simply fail to understand that by doing so they are bringing themselves in disrepute.
The root cause of this particular aspect of the problem is that the current system allows property speculation to be funded by the employer (in this case the taxpayer). I know of no other occupation where that would be permitted.
However, the notion that because only mortgage interest is being claimed it somehow makes it legitimate for them to trouser any profits they may make is fanciful and illogical. The mortgage is being serviced by the taxpayer and without it the purchase could not (and in many cases almost certainly would not) be made.
According to the rules behind which so many of them have sought shelter in recent weeks, the �Honourable� Members are assisted in such purchases solely to enable them to carry out their duties. Nobody else in the land is entitled to profit from such allowances or expenses and MPs simply fail to understand that by doing so they are bringing themselves in disrepute.
well on reflection I'll agree with JJ and NewJudge......no profit but also no loss seems fair, although if that became the norm if I was an MP I wouldn't bother buying a second home as there would be no investment value on my capital outlay. Perhaps the way forward would be a capped rental allowance - and if you wanted anything posher you paid the difference yourself.
Precisely, craft. They would see no appreciation on their capital investment and nor they should because the investment could not be made without taxpayer aid. Incidentally, I doubt many of them made much capital investment when they bought their �second homes�. Despite their apparent predilection for �honest mistakes� when completing their expenses claims few of them are stupid. I imagine most of those involved in speculation went for interest-only mortgages (therefore fully funded by the taxpayer) and paid minimal, if any deposits.
The answer to this problem is really quite simple. The taxpayer should fund the construction and upkeep of about 500 studio flats near to Westminster (MPs living within reasonable commuting distance of London � say about 40 miles � would not need supplementary accommodation). They had the ideal opportunity to do this when Chelsea Barracks were closed recently but chose, of course, to sell the site to property developers. These flats could be allocated to MPs for the duration of their service in the Commons and reallocated when they leave. (The current annual cost of MPs living allowances exceeds �10m so it would not take too long to recover the outlay).
The answer to this problem is really quite simple. The taxpayer should fund the construction and upkeep of about 500 studio flats near to Westminster (MPs living within reasonable commuting distance of London � say about 40 miles � would not need supplementary accommodation). They had the ideal opportunity to do this when Chelsea Barracks were closed recently but chose, of course, to sell the site to property developers. These flats could be allocated to MPs for the duration of their service in the Commons and reallocated when they leave. (The current annual cost of MPs living allowances exceeds �10m so it would not take too long to recover the outlay).
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Body & Soul6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
