Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Hazel Blears is paying back capital gains tax to the Inland Revenue - isn't that techincally an admission of tax evasion? As for claiming for expenses that they can do but know that in reality they shouldn't - isn't that similar to benefit fraud?? In both events, if it was a member of Joe Public rather than pay it back, we'd be fined and sent to prison. As for the bloke who claimed for the fine he received for non payment of council tax....... She was caught utterly red handed - couldn't have been worse if she'd been found in the bank vault with a bag labelled swag and a black and white stripped jumper and a mask. Of course she and all other involved (including the 1 or 2 the police are actually looking at) will get away with it. But yes that is the big problem, most anybody else would have been at best sacked and at worst facing criminal proceeding for doing what average MPs have been doing for years. What's worse is instead of saying "it's a fair cop, guv" they tried their best to rebury it (with their failed attempted to exempt it from the FOI act), only now after everything are they finally beginning to do the "right thing" for utterly the wrong reasons (self-preservation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 How Nick Clegg pushed expenses claims to the limit: MPs' expenses Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader who has championed the reform of MPs’ expenses, claimed the maximum allowed under his parliamentary second home allowance. By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent Last Updated: 8:59AM BST 13 May 2009 Nick Clegg: claimed £23,083 in one year Photo: Heathcliff O'Malley As well as submitting regular claims for food, gardening, furniture and decorating at his constituency home in Sheffield Hallam, Mr Clegg put in his telephone costs, including several international calls to Colombia, Vietnam, and Spain. Records seen by The Daily Telegraph show that Mr Clegg regularly claimed at or just below the maximum possible under the Additional Costs Allowance, which may be used by MPs to run a second home. Related Articles Nick Harvey gets £30 a month to watch TV sports on TV Vince Cable asked for backdated payment Julia Goldsworthy’s spending spree as deadline loomed Chris Huhne, a millionaire but you buy his HobNobs Lembit Opik wanted £2,500 for a plasma TV Menzies Campbell's £10,000 bill for flat overhaul Last year, he had his expenses docked after exceeding the £23,083 maximum by more than £100. His office manager wrote to the Commons fees office: “This month’s claim takes Nick over the allowance total (just).” The disclosure came as Mr Clegg made a series of high profile media appearances criticising the allowances system. “People will just simply despair that all politicians look either ridiculous at best or corrupt at worst,” he said. Mr Clegg has also frequently made play of the issue of MPs’ expenses during regular clashes with Gordon Brown. Last month, he stormed out of a meeting with the Prime Minister in protest at their inability to agree a system. Within six months of being elected to Parliament in 2005, Mr Clegg bought a house in his constituency and began charging monthly interest repayments of £1,018 on the £279,000 mortgage on his expenses. He also submitted the stamp duty, land registry and legal costs, totalling £9,244.50. Over the following months, he fitted the house with a £2,600 kitchen, and had £5,857.63 worth of decorating done. He claimed for carpets, a laminate floor, tiling and sanding, curtains, blinds, curtain rails and repairs to a garage door. After a shopping spree at IKEA in 2006, he submitted claims for items including cushions costing £4.99, a £2.49 cake pan and £1.50 paper napkins. The following July, Mr Clegg had £680 worth of gardening carried out, including work to “build small wall in rose garden”, followed by £760 for the repair of his garden path. He wrote to the Commons fees office: “When I bought the house the garden had been neglected for years and was very overgrown. The work undertaken was to deal with this and get the garden back into a position where it can be maintained easily going forwards.” He then employed a gardener to work for four hours a week, submitting claims for £260 a month. In a form covering the period Aug 2 to Dec 13, 2005, Mr Clegg submitted a claim that included £1,657.32 for food. Last summer, the Liberal Democrat leader said the pressures of the financial crisis had forced his family to stop shopping at Ocado, the online retailer that distributes groceries from the Waitrose supermarket. The claims also include two bills for the Liberal Democrat leader’s home phone in Sheffield, one for £105.88 and the other for £121.56. These detailed four calls to Colombia, including two mobile phones, three to Vietnam, including two mobiles, and 21 calls to Belgium, including six mobiles. Apparently he was one of the biggest critics of the expenses scam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Julia Goldsworthy’s home spree as deadline loomed: MPs' expenses Julia Goldsworthy, the Liberal Democrat local government spokesman, spent thousands of pounds on expensive furniture just days before the deadline for using up parliamentary allowances. By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor Last Updated: 9:44AM BST 13 May 2009 One of Britain’s youngest MPs made the claims, including a rocking chair and sofa bed, in March 2006 - shortly before she bought a London flat. The public finances also met the cost of stamp duty, legal and surveying fees for the property. She has since moved and now rents out the flat. Related Articles Andrew George's daughter used expenses flat Menzies Campbell's £10,000 bill for flat overhaul Nick Clegg pushed expenses claims to the limit Nick Harvey gets £30 a month to watch TV sports on TV Vince Cable asked for backdated payment MPs' expenses in depth Miss Goldsworthy, 30, who is regarded as one of the party’s rising stars, was elected to Parliament in 2005. The records disclose that for the first year that she was an MP she lived in a house jointly owned with her sisters. During this period, she claimed more than £300 a month for mortgage interest costs. She also made claims to help cover council tax, utility bills, cleaning, insurance and large food bills. In March 2006, Miss Goldsworthy bought a flat in the same house and costs totalling more than £3,000 associated with the purchase were billed to the taxpayer. The monthly mortgage interest on the flat was more than £900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Tony Blair re-mortgaged his constituency home and claimed almost a third of the interest around the time he was buying another property in London Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 How Nick Clegg pushed expenses claims to the limit: MPs' expenses Apparently he was one of the biggest critics of the expenses scam. Best place for a hypocrite to hide is out in front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Tony Blair re-mortgaged his constituency home and claimed almost a third of the interest around the time he was buying another property in London Blair was getting some shit for this long before this current stuff, him and Cherie certainly set the tone for the "take whatever we can" political class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...sexpensesvideo/ Nice bits of video of the main culprits looking sheepish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. Most have 2nd and 3rd jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? Edited May 13, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) MPs expenses: The best of the begging letters Many of the expenses claims submitted by MPs were accompanied by begging letters in which they use a variety of bizarre excuses for why they need money to do up or refurbish their second homes. Here is a selection of what was said in some of them. By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter Last Updated: 1:29PM BST 09 May 2009 "From a natural justice perspective I feel a justifiable exception would be the fairest manner to deal with the current situation" – letter from Labour MP in 2006 on why he should be allowed to claim for a £3,100 Sony 40 inch TV "I object to your decision not to reimburse me for the costs of purchasing a baby's cot for use in my London home...Perhaps you might write to me explaining where my son should sleep next time he visits me in London?" – letter from Labour MP in Nov 2004 Related Articles Greg Barker: The £320,000 profit on flat bought with taxpayer help "The work surfaces are no longer hygienic and the sink unit, which is an old brown plastic double bowl, is scratched and very ugly" – letter from Conservative MP justifying the £5,347.36 cost of his new kitchen at his flat in 2007 "Ref: claim for lounge corner unit: if you feel this is excessive can I say that due to size and layout of the room a normal three-piece suite will not fit. This 'corner group' fits perfectly" Labour MP writing to the fees office in August 2006 "Old flat. Facilities out of date. Decrepit. Health reasons. Update. Living in slum. On advice, called in contractor. Recommended kitchen and bathroom replacement" – note made by official in fees office of conversation with Labour MP who had claimed £12,400 for work to his flat "I would be very grateful if (the expenses) could be paid in the last round of the year on Friday. Otherwise I might be in line for a divorce!" – letter from Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary in 2005 after making a single claim of £16,500 on his London flat. "Reducing the payment by over £1,000 affects my cash flow. Please expedite the payment" – letter from Tory MP whose expenses payment had been reduced by the fees office "I appreciate you are under severe pressure... but, as I explained on the phone, I am away for two weeks and I don't want to leave my family destitute" – letter from Labour MP to fees office[size="3"][/size] Edited May 13, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? The average salary is 65k http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm So the average expense claim per year is 235k per MP? Er, no, its not. Private interests are utterly irrelevant. Cant believe you and Parky (seemingly intelligent) would invoke private interests in a discussion on appropriate benchmarked remuneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Been done to death on here but I agree with what Fop has previously said about the lack of transparency being the problem. I also wouldn't blame individuals too much. The problem here is the system. You can't expect people to work within the spirit of something and not abuse loop holes. Human nature, whether you like it or not. Virtually everyone would do the same under the same circumstances. I'm not saying that makes it right but the system needs an overhaul rather than a witchhunt. You have to wonder how it took so long to become the issue it has become though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? Most have directorships and consultancies for each the base level of payment is around 25k a year for about 10 days work. Some take fees for a myriad of other stuff and it is rumoured fees for going on telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 Been done to death on here but I agree with what Fop has previously said about the lack of transparency being the problem. I also wouldn't blame individuals too much. The problem here is the system. You can't expect people to work within the spirit of something and not abuse loop holes. Human nature, whether you like it or not. Virtually everyone would do the same under the same circumstances. I'm not saying that makes it right but the system needs an overhaul rather than a witchhunt. You have to wonder how it took so long to become the issue it has become though. In this case I'd have to disagree. It's the people....Cunts to a man/woman. Need shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22497 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. Most have 2nd and 3rd jobs. I'd go along with what Chez says and ban them from taking another job, that seems reasonable. I know I will get attacked for 'relevance' by Fop but I'm fairly sure other countries' political systems are much more corrupt than this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? Most have directorships and consultancies for each the base level of payment is around 25k a year for about 10 days work. Some take fees for a myriad of other stuff and it is rumoured fees for going on telly. Not quite sure what the problem is with doing a little bit of work for lots of money within the private sector. Apart from the green-eyed monster, obviously, which is clearly partly at play here. It would surely be worse if it was taking up vast amounts of their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted May 13, 2009 Author Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? The average salary is 65k http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm So the average expense claim per year is 235k per MP? Er, no, its not. Private interests are utterly irrelevant. Cant believe you and Parky (seemingly intelligent) would invoke private interests in a discussion on appropriate benchmarked remuneration. Not when it takes up their time when they should be MPing supposedly. Shall we perhaps have a gander at their voting records? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Been done to death on here but I agree with what Fop has previously said about the lack of transparency being the problem. I also wouldn't blame individuals too much. The problem here is the system. You can't expect people to work within the spirit of something and not abuse loop holes. Human nature, whether you like it or not. Virtually everyone would do the same under the same circumstances. I'm not saying that makes it right but the system needs an overhaul rather than a witchhunt. You have to wonder how it took so long to become the issue it has become though. In this case I'd have to disagree. It's the people....Cunts to a man/woman. Need shooting. I think you've missed my point really. I'm not saying they aren't unpleasant. I'm saying people will get away with what they're allowed to get away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Tax evasion is a red herring too when you benchmark their salaries. If they claim 40k per year, they should be getting 60k and paying tax instead. The debate is about what they should earn, not whether they game a system. Is gaming a system really that outrageous when the absolute package is no higher than some bloke who runs a hospital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? The average salary is 65k http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm So the average expense claim per year is 235k per MP? Er, no, its not. Private interests are utterly irrelevant. Cant believe you and Parky (seemingly intelligent) would invoke private interests in a discussion on appropriate benchmarked remuneration. Yes it is, it's not just those expenses that they get. By the time you factor in all the other benefits, the tax breaks and tax free issues and other perks, it comes to equalling an effective salary of ~£300,000 for most MPs. The £65,000 "wage" is a complete and utter decoy (as it is intended to be). Also like Fop said the £300,000 is NOT including any private interest they may have (NOT INCLUDING). Ridiculous? Yes, but that's how it is. Fop notices you avoided answering: Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 I know I will get attacked for 'relevance' by Fop but I'm fairly sure other countries' political systems are much more corrupt than this one. Possibly, but does that make it "ok"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22497 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 The same 'anger' dynamics at play here as during the Ross/Brand affair. I'd like to see MP's on a basic wage of 200k, as thats at least what their market value is. A Dr. (GP) earns 100k in the UK and they look after what? 2000 people? If you benchmark salary versus responsibility in the public sector in the UK, adjust the salary upwards for the expenses claimed, uprate to the 'target taxable salary' required to earn the tax free expense, they are still underpaid for what they do. What are we outraged at? The 'gaming' of a system? Or the absolute level of money earned by MPs? As the latter can easily be benchmarked against other public sector employees with far lower work burdens and far less resppnsibiity. Yet again, the media drive an incoherent debate in the UK. That would be a significant pay cut. If they just got that (as Fop's said most are on ~£300,000 effective salary, with many breaching £400,000+ - not including their private interests, just what they are getting for being MPs). Outraged? Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? The average salary is 65k http://www.parliament.uk/faq/members_faq_page2.cfm So the average expense claim per year is 235k per MP? Er, no, its not. Private interests are utterly irrelevant. Cant believe you and Parky (seemingly intelligent) would invoke private interests in a discussion on appropriate benchmarked remuneration. Yes it is, it's not just those expenses that they get. By the time you factor in all the other benefits, the tax breaks and tax free issues and other perks, it comes to equalling an effective salary of ~£300,000 for most MPs. The £65,000 "wage" is a complete and utter decoy (as it is intended to be). Also like Fop said the £300,000 is NOT including any private interest they may have (NOT INCLUDING). Ridiculous? Yes, but that's how it is. Fop notices you avoided answering: Are you saying tax evasion by democratically elected officials is ok? Got any links to verify what you're stating there Fop? It sounds like you are talking cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6702 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Hazel Blears is paying back capital gains tax to the Inland Revenue - isn't that techincally an admission of tax evasion? As for claiming for expenses that they can do but know that in reality they shouldn't - isn't that similar to benefit fraud?? In both events, if it was a member of Joe Public rather than pay it back, we'd be fined and sent to prison. As for the bloke who claimed for the fine he received for non payment of council tax....... She was caught utterly red handed - couldn't have been worse if she'd been found in the bank vault with a bag labelled swag and a black and white stripped jumper and a mask. Of course she and all other involved (including the 1 or 2 the police are actually looking at) will get away with it. But yes that is the big problem, most anybody else would have been at best sacked and at worst facing criminal proceeding for doing what average MPs have been doing for years. What's worse is instead of saying "it's a fair cop, guv" they tried their best to rebury it (with their failed attempted to exempt it from the FOI act), only now after everything are they finally beginning to do the "right thing" for utterly the wrong reasons (self-preservation). I'm fucking disgusted at their whiter than white 'look at me, i'm being good and paying it back' attitude and the half-arsed apologies they're all making... They've been totally found out - would they have apologised had they not been caught? Would they fuck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Tax evasion is a red herring too when you benchmark their salaries. If they claim 40k per year, they should be getting 60k and paying tax instead. The debate is about what they should earn, not whether they game a system. Is gaming a system really that outrageous when the absolute package is no higher than some bloke who runs a hospital? Tax evasion is tax evasion (in this case on buying and selling properties), does it matter how much you are earning? Are you now saying it's ok so long as you think you aren't being paid enough? That wouldn't actually surprise Fop given your usual views, but it is a surprising admission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now