While agreeing with the thrust of what Jackart says about the MPs’ expenses issue, I do have one sticking point. It with this passage (my emphasis):
The problem is not immoral, avaricious politicians, who are subject to incentives, just like us, but the rules which allow them to claim that their sister’s spare room is a primary home, thereby claiming the second homes allowance for their first home. I would certainly make the same call, were I allowed to. And so would you. Yes. You would.
To which I responded; “No, I wouldn’t”. I stand by that. I would not because it is unethical.
Henry Crun thinks I am a fool:
Longrider, then sir, you are a fool. I am self-employed and claim the maximum allowed within the HMRC rules for travel, working away from home, subsistence, etc., and where required provide receipts to back it up.
Otherwise Gordon gets to tax that which is not written off as an expense. Far rather I have the money than have pissed up the wall on yet another bail-out, PFI scheme, or NuLabour advert.
Sigh… When I put expenses into my accounts they are monies spent on business. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Henry’s annoyance about where the tax will be spent, but I will not sauce up my expenses – using Jackart’s example; by adding a packet of fags to a petrol reciept, for instance – in order to minimise the HMRC’s take for two very good reasons: One, it crosses the line between avoidance (legal) and evasion (illegal) and, two; the HMRC have a fair idea about what is likely to be a reasonable expense bill for a given profession and I’ve no particular desire to be the subject of an investigation, thankyou very much. Oh, and the third reason; I cannot hold my servants up to ethical scrutiny if I am less than ethical myself, can I?
I have no problem with MPs claiming reasonable expenses. I spent two and a half years commuting from Bristol to London and currently commute from France to the UK, so am aware of the logistics of long distance travel. So, sure, reasonable expenses is fine with me. What I object to; along with others; is claims for expenses that have not actually been incurred, just because it is within the rules. Legal it may be, ethical it is not. Clear?
My main problem with focussing on expence fiddles is that it’s like getting Al Capone for tax fraud. MPs have debased democracy and conspired in an assault on civil liberties. Why are we excoriating them for what every other legislature in the world does?
Possibly because this is the way into the public consciousness. Civil liberties are not particularly high on peoples’ agenda, whereas fraud grabs their attention. Now that it has been grabbed, perhaps, just maybe, they will notice the other liberties taken by MPs. Well, there’s always hoping…
LR,
Jackart has form: see our conversation reported in the update to this post (and my response was the same as yours).
DK
I knew I’d seen that before, I just couldn’t recall exactly where.
>Possibly because this is the way into the public consciousness.
Yes.