TroughGate - Is there any good news ?

[EternalOptimist]

Has anything good come out of all this ?

I like the way the MP's tried to block the FOI request by exempting themselves from the legislation, but were knocked back by the Lords.

I thought that was good, at least something is working properly. And the press, and the bloggers - that seems to be working well for us.

[Menelaus]

Has anything good come out of all this ?

I like the way the MP's tried to block the FOI request by exempting themselves from the legislation, but were knocked back by the Lords.

I thought that was good, at least something is working properly. And the press, and the bloggers - that seems to be working well for us.

Yep, rock on Paul Staines (Guido Fawkes)

[Moscow Mule]

Has anything good come out of all this ?

Not yet, but I'm looking forward to Hazel Blears being investigated for tax evasion. Or, at worst, being found guilty by the court of public opinion of not paying "her fair share".

[swamp]

Not yet, but I'm looking forward to Hazel Blears being investigated for tax evasion. Or, at worst, being found guilty by the court of public opinion of not paying "her fair share".

Hopefully this will kill off the "tax avoidance means not paying your fair share" line from the Treasury.

I love the favourite excuse from the Labour ministers: "it's within the rules". So is contracting and taking dividends, and profit sharing using your spouse. Doesn't stop us getting crucified by IR35, S660 etc.

[dang65]

I like the way the MP's tried to block the FOI request by exempting themselves from the legislation, but were knocked back by the Lords.

It's funny how so many people want to abolish the House of Lords and pull the UK out of Europe when almost every basic right we have left is only there because it has been defended to the death by the House of Lords, and any new rights we have are imposed on the government by Europe (e.g. removing innocent DNA from the database). I'm strongly in favour of keeping both and was using some very strong language at the telly the other day when that UKIP nonsense was being broadcast (though they have every right to broadcast it of course - for the time being).

Someone on the radio yesterday pointed out that, in the current climate, if this was France then we'd be looking at a New Republic by now, as the old one is so rotten (all parties included).

[Troll]

Wonder if I could get into the audience of Question Time and start throwing shoes at any fooking politician showing their faces

vote with your feet

[ASB]

I love the favourite excuse from the Labour ministers: "it's within the rules". So is contracting and taking dividends, and profit sharing using your spouse. Doesn't stop us getting crucified by IR35, S660 etc.

But it is within the rules. There has been no avoidance, no evasion, no nothing.

There is a specific bit of the ICTA which makes these payments tax free. The qualifying bit is that they are related to MP duties and that they are passed by the fees office.

Mind you, I'd quite like to be able to work under that set of rules.

[Moscow Mule]

But it is within the rules. There has been no avoidance, no evasion, no nothing.

Surely claiming allowances for a second home, then selling that second home as your primary residence (thereby avoiding CGT) is avoidance at the very least.

The rules seem complex, but "in the court of public opinion" she's going to be crucified - hopefully it will stop them from wheeling her out on QT for a while.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTax...ome/DG_4020890

[Alf W]

You wait until it comes out that some of them have been putting laptops for the kids through the books or claiming a new 50" flat screen TV as a 'Training' aid.

[ASB]

Surely claiming allowances for a second home, then selling that second home as your primary residence (thereby avoiding CGT) is avoidance at the very least.

[ducks]
Don't see a huge inconsistancy myself. If that property is capable of being a PPR then so be it - provided the relevant elections etc are made. This does NOT mean you have to live in it as your main private home. This is true for all people, MPs or not.

It is perfectly reasonable (given the rules) to claim second home allowances on a second property your happen to own which is not occupied as your primary residence - even if it is in fact your PPR.

Certainly the "done nothing wrong, it was within the rules" defence wears very thin. But that is more a question of what the rules actually are and the fact that such brazen explotation is possible.

It is, in my view, reasonable that the rules should allow an MP to be compensated for the additional costs - but redesignating a pre-exisitng second home simply for the purpose of cliaming full second homes allowances is seriously taking the piss - but within the rules.

I think the current rules were enacted in 2003 and they were a considerable relaxation on the previous rules.