Comments on: MPs’ Expenses

By: L Stevenson

L Stevenson — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:28:00 +0000

I am not a tax expert but my understanding is that the inland revenue guideline allowance of 40p does not apply to MPs and the 57p claimed by them is tax free! I heard an MP on the radio trying to justify this by saying that they have to purchase their own car and Joe Public gets help from the employer to buy a vehicle. This is absolute nonsense, I, like all of the many people I know in business who claim the 40p mileage allowance, bought our own car! As I say, double standards at its worse!

By: Monty

Monty — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:39:43 +0000

Is there a suggestion that the MPs do not have to pay a taxable benefit on the excess of the mileage allowance over 40p?

If they get the full 57% tax free it would be scandalous rather than just contemptible.

By: L Stevenson

L Stevenson — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:07:08 +0000

Double standards! MPs can claim 57p per mile for first 20,000 miles, Joe Public 40p for first 10,000 miles!Can someone please explain how an MPs car is more expensive to run than mine?
As for \xA3100k being used to employ staff and offices! How many MPs employ spouses therefore keeping a substantial portion of these expenses within their own income? It should also be noted that they do not have to produce receipts for expenditure below \xA3250!

By: B Jenner

B Jenner — Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:05:13 +0000

What I cant understand is how come MPs can claim 57p per mile expenses, yet Joe Public are told by the Inland Revenue that 40p a mile is quite sufficient!

By: sedger

sedger — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:12:19 +0000

I’m getting a little tired of the presentation of this story by the BBC - "for the first time these figures are revealed etc"

This just isn’t true. The scheme of allowances is a public document - a good start - but more than that - a number of MP’s have been publishing their financial information in a report to constituents - see www.alan-whitehead.org.uk - why aren’t they given credit for this - why do they have to be damned with the majority.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:16:38 +0000

\xA3100k for a secretary, researcher, constituency office, weekly flights/train ticket back to constituence, accomodation in London during the week … really isn’t that bad. A better question would be, why is it so little? Wouldn’t it be better to give then some more for researchers and staff so that they could actually have a clue what they are talking about for a change?

By: Uncarved Block

Uncarved Block — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:15:17 +0000

Wouldn’t get away with what JMS? I know of plenty of people who work in the city who have expense accounts far bigger than the figures being quoted in the press for MPs.

The press also fail to point out that around \xA3100k of these ‘expenses’ is spent on employing staff and running the constiuency office. This is vital to enable MPs to do their job i.e. serve their constituents.

I have no doubt that some MPs will have questions raised about where their expenses go but I don’t think you’ll find any of it spent on lap dancers and hookers to entertain foreign businessman - which happens in the private sector all the time.

By: JMS

JMS — Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:38:44 +0000

You would never get away with this in the private sector. It is such an abuse.
You have all lost touch with the man in the street.