Hezbollah Vows To Continue Resistance...
News2 mins ago
I don't understand.
25 Answers
Why is the Home Secretary Jacqui (sp) Smith's residences in question? Why should it matter to anyone how many houses she has? Or have I missed the point!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. 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.
You are missing the point. She owns a family residence in Worcestershire yet claims that her permanent residence is part (one room) of her sister's house in London.
Unless she has a separate lease on this, I don't see how it holds water. She is probably paying some 'rent' to her sister but how the hell does constitute a 'permanent residence with all the cost that typically are incurred.
She is then able to claim humungously large amounts of money for the Worcestershire home as a 'second home'.
The whole system stinks. What other category of employee in the UK is able to claim such large some sums tax-free? There are thousands of staff up and down the country that live in one part of the country and work in another. I am not aware of any such tax-free perk that they enjoy.
Unless she has a separate lease on this, I don't see how it holds water. She is probably paying some 'rent' to her sister but how the hell does constitute a 'permanent residence with all the cost that typically are incurred.
She is then able to claim humungously large amounts of money for the Worcestershire home as a 'second home'.
The whole system stinks. What other category of employee in the UK is able to claim such large some sums tax-free? There are thousands of staff up and down the country that live in one part of the country and work in another. I am not aware of any such tax-free perk that they enjoy.
It's about time that halls of residence were provided with for MPs while in London instead of allowing them to claim for whatever they feel like. Regardless of whether she is exploiting the rules or working within the rules, she must see that what she is doing is morally wrong.
The system of 2nd homes is to ensure that, for constitutences outside London, there is a fair opportunity for all sections of society to be able to represent them and that the cost of staying in London to be present in the House is not a barrier.
Not for some extra salary enhancing scheme to have your house and furnishings paid for while you give your sister digs for a few nights a week.
I say send her to the tower - or at least make her pay it back.
The system of 2nd homes is to ensure that, for constitutences outside London, there is a fair opportunity for all sections of society to be able to represent them and that the cost of staying in London to be present in the House is not a barrier.
Not for some extra salary enhancing scheme to have your house and furnishings paid for while you give your sister digs for a few nights a week.
I say send her to the tower - or at least make her pay it back.
Because many MPs live well away from London they often have two houses, one where they "live" (Scotland, Yorkshire, Birmingham or whatever) and one in our around London.
They can designate one as their "main" home (where they spend most of the time), and one as their "second home".
They can then claim expenses on that "second" home, to help them with the cost of maintaining two homes.
Jacquie lives with her husband and family in Redditch.
When in London she stays in a room at her sisters house, BUT DECLARES THIS AS HER MAIN HOME.
So because the house she lives in in Redditch is her SECOND home she can claim expenses on it.
In the last 2 years she has claimed over �100,000 expenses on this family home in Redditch (paid for by you and I and all tax payers).
If and when she stops being an MP, or if she decides to move house, we will have all paid over �100,000 to improve her house and make it worth more.
How on earth she can declare a room in her sisters house in London as her main home defines belief and I consider her actions bordering on the criminal.
Another example of "snouts in the trough" for MPs.
I hope she loses her seat in the next election.
They can designate one as their "main" home (where they spend most of the time), and one as their "second home".
They can then claim expenses on that "second" home, to help them with the cost of maintaining two homes.
Jacquie lives with her husband and family in Redditch.
When in London she stays in a room at her sisters house, BUT DECLARES THIS AS HER MAIN HOME.
So because the house she lives in in Redditch is her SECOND home she can claim expenses on it.
In the last 2 years she has claimed over �100,000 expenses on this family home in Redditch (paid for by you and I and all tax payers).
If and when she stops being an MP, or if she decides to move house, we will have all paid over �100,000 to improve her house and make it worth more.
How on earth she can declare a room in her sisters house in London as her main home defines belief and I consider her actions bordering on the criminal.
Another example of "snouts in the trough" for MPs.
I hope she loses her seat in the next election.
Slight correction: The HMRC website gives the tax free sum receivable under the " rent a room" scheme as �4,250 ( not �4,800 as I said), which it was throughout the period we are here concerned with. If the receipts from the lodger exceed that, the taxpayer gets the first �4,250 free and treats the excess only as taxable profit.The room must be part of the taxpayer's main residence and let as living accommodation not e.g an office. So there's a fair chance that the sister collects rent for the room and claims just over �80 a week of it, over a year, tax free.We therefore subsidise her letting of a room to her sister, Jacqui Smith.
Why would someone refuse a "grace and favour" home.
Remember all the fuss about Prescott? that's why!
The point is she's very unpopular (especially with the Mail the Express etc.) They smell the chance to whip up trouble and that's the point - see the responses above.
The rules are an MP gets to state whic is their main and which is their secondary home. Up to a few years back sh'ed not have had a choice and she would have *had* to declare it this way around.
You won't see these two facts given prominance because this is just a basic mud-slinging exercise.
Indeed even the Tory MP who referred the situation to the priviledges comittee was careful to to accuse her of wrong-doing preferring just to say she had "Questions to answer".
If annie is looking for fraudulent politicians she'd be better asking Cameron.
He had two last year alone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-108519 9/Cameron-kicks-senior-Tory-MEP-facing-fraud-p robe-half-million-pound-expenses-scandal.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article4069524.ece
Rather desperate to draw attention away in that area I'd suspect
Remember all the fuss about Prescott? that's why!
The point is she's very unpopular (especially with the Mail the Express etc.) They smell the chance to whip up trouble and that's the point - see the responses above.
The rules are an MP gets to state whic is their main and which is their secondary home. Up to a few years back sh'ed not have had a choice and she would have *had* to declare it this way around.
You won't see these two facts given prominance because this is just a basic mud-slinging exercise.
Indeed even the Tory MP who referred the situation to the priviledges comittee was careful to to accuse her of wrong-doing preferring just to say she had "Questions to answer".
If annie is looking for fraudulent politicians she'd be better asking Cameron.
He had two last year alone
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-108519 9/Cameron-kicks-senior-Tory-MEP-facing-fraud-p robe-half-million-pound-expenses-scandal.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article4069524.ece
Rather desperate to draw attention away in that area I'd suspect
How is that that there no shortage of volunteeers for the job of MP every 5 years then?
It's high time all this ridiculous business about expenses for MPs was squashed flat. An additional flat sum of money for running a parliamentary office is fine. MPs get a salary of �63k per annum, Cabinet Ministers get over �140k per annum. Increase the 63 to 75 and have done with it. Everything else is repayable on submission of receipts, the same as every other mortal has to operate - and the same as HMRC rules dictate.
It's high time all this ridiculous business about expenses for MPs was squashed flat. An additional flat sum of money for running a parliamentary office is fine. MPs get a salary of �63k per annum, Cabinet Ministers get over �140k per annum. Increase the 63 to 75 and have done with it. Everything else is repayable on submission of receipts, the same as every other mortal has to operate - and the same as HMRC rules dictate.
She's exploiting a loophole in the system to make money off the taxpayer, which ethically she isn't entitled to, but legally she is.
The reason no-one in parliament is making much of a fuss about it, and the reason the loophole exists in the first place is because they've all got their snouts in the same trough. It's like when Blair was caught selling peerages (allegedly). The Tories didn't have much to say about that either because they'd all been doing it for years (allegedly).
The reason no-one in parliament is making much of a fuss about it, and the reason the loophole exists in the first place is because they've all got their snouts in the same trough. It's like when Blair was caught selling peerages (allegedly). The Tories didn't have much to say about that either because they'd all been doing it for years (allegedly).
Latest Posts
Home & Garden3 mins ago
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
