MP expenses.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point scoring aspect is obviously more important than the issue itself btw.

Chezzy's and Renton always do it and try to derail what is an otherwise interesting debate.

 

Rubbish, you quoted some random figure and I pulled you up on it. You then couldn't back that figure up with anything on the entire internet. And now you claim I've derailed the discussion?

 

I know my local MP quite well and although I haven't seen his bank account I know enough to suggest you're talking cobblers Fop. For the record, I think it's a pretty stressful and difficult job which should come with adequate renumeration. The present system obviously is not working or at the very least is not being seen to be working though, and needs changing. Simple.

 

 

 

Fop will ask you the same question that shut Chezzy up and made him turn tail and scuttle off:

 

 

Do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

Being an hour ahead of you, i went for my lunch you knobheed.

 

Going for a coffee and a fag now, so you can wait even longer.

 

Take your time, just remember it's this you have to answer:

 

As Renton said, thats a no. You've plucked 300k out the air.

 

I dont need google-fu to show you the benchmark either.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle2848044.ece

 

Believe what you want, it's exactly what they want you to do after all.

 

 

 

 

 

But do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

No, i said they didnt expense claim 235k on average, which is the difference between the average wage and the figure you plucked out yer arse.

 

 

So you accept that they do get other things besides the £65,000 and expenses that they get, you just disagree on how much extra they get. Good.

 

 

 

 

 

Now out of interest how much extra do you think they get on top of that £65,000 and expenses (not just directly, but in tax breaks/free etc., and indeed extra parliamentary work)?

 

135k

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7062525.stm

 

taking their total income to the 200k i think they should get paid anyway.

 

[ChezGiven 0]

And if they do extra parliamentary work, they should get more than the average.

 

Running the country >>>>> running a hospital.

[Renton 22497]

The point scoring aspect is obviously more important than the issue itself btw.

Chezzy's and Renton always do it and try to derail what is an otherwise interesting debate.

 

Rubbish, you quoted some random figure and I pulled you up on it. You then couldn't back that figure up with anything on the entire internet. And now you claim I've derailed the discussion?

 

I know my local MP quite well and although I haven't seen his bank account I know enough to suggest you're talking cobblers Fop. For the record, I think it's a pretty stressful and difficult job which should come with adequate renumeration. The present system obviously is not working or at the very least is not being seen to be working though, and needs changing. Simple.

 

 

 

Fop will ask you the same question that shut Chezzy up and made him turn tail and scuttle off:

 

 

Do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

It very much depends on the MP and their external interests. If you mean from the taxpayer though, then yes, obviously.

 

So you accept that they do get other things besides the £65,000 and expenses that they get, you just disagree on how much extra they get. Good.

 

 

 

 

 

Now out of interest how much extra do you think they get on top of that £65,000 and expenses (not just directly, but in tax breaks/tax free etc., and indeed extra parliamentary work)?

 

I actually meant to say no at that point!

 

 

In any case, if you bothered reading my earlier posts my suggestion is that the system is overhauled so they work full time on parliamentary and constituency issues without external consultancies etc, and they are adequately renumerated for this. Hopefully the good thing about this latest media sensation is that it will make this happen.

 

So you honestly believe that all MPs get is their basic £65,000 and expenses? Not a lot more Fop can say.

 

From the treasury? Yes, that's what I believe. You don't seem to be able to refute that from what I can tell. Are you suggesting there are 'secret' expenses on top of what the Telegraph found?

 

Just to be absolutely clear in this morass of your usual pedantry:

 

 

Are you saying MPs get no tax breaks, tax free benefits* and other perks of the job that other people don't get? Just their £65,000 + expenses?

 

 

*i.e. advantages, not DHSS

 

I'm being direct as possible. In monetary terms, they receive a salary and their expenses. They pay their taxes like the rest of us (some may employ clever accountants like many rich people do). I'm not sure what you are getting at but clearly you're worked up about something.

 

The question is simple enough:

 

Are you saying MPs get no tax breaks, tax free benefits* and other perks of the job that other people don't get? Just their £65,000 + expenses?

 

Yes or no will do.

 

(although frankly you've shown your ignorance with the tax comment already - do you fancy googling to see what taxes MPs get exemptions and breaks from? )

 

I've answered several time as clearly as I can. I admit I'm not an expert though like you clearly are with your frantic (unsucessful) googling to prove me wrong. It's not worth 'discussing' further tbh, I'll just agree to disagree.

[Renton 22497]

The point scoring aspect is obviously more important than the issue itself btw.

Chezzy's and Renton always do it and try to derail what is an otherwise interesting debate.

 

Rubbish, you quoted some random figure and I pulled you up on it. You then couldn't back that figure up with anything on the entire internet. And now you claim I've derailed the discussion?

 

I know my local MP quite well and although I haven't seen his bank account I know enough to suggest you're talking cobblers Fop. For the record, I think it's a pretty stressful and difficult job which should come with adequate renumeration. The present system obviously is not working or at the very least is not being seen to be working though, and needs changing. Simple.

 

 

 

Fop will ask you the same question that shut Chezzy up and made him turn tail and scuttle off:

 

 

Do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

Being an hour ahead of you, i went for my lunch you knobheed.

 

Going for a coffee and a fag now, so you can wait even longer.

 

Take your time, just remember it's this you have to answer:

 

As Renton said, thats a no. You've plucked 300k out the air.

 

I dont need google-fu to show you the benchmark either.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle2848044.ece

 

Believe what you want, it's exactly what they want you to do after all.

 

 

 

 

 

But do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

No, i said they didnt expense claim 235k on average, which is the difference between the average wage and the figure you plucked out yer arse.

 

 

So you accept that they do get other things besides the £65,000 and expenses that they get, you just disagree on how much extra they get. Good.

 

 

 

 

 

Now out of interest how much extra do you think they get on top of that £65,000 and expenses (not just directly, but in tax breaks/free etc., and indeed extra parliamentary work)?

 

135k

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7062525.stm

 

taking their total income to the 200k i think they should get paid anyway.

 

 

It's worth pointing out that that isn't a figure for a personal salary and includes office and staff costs.

[ChezGiven 0]

Has fop gone for his lunch?

[manc-mag 1]

Threads like this where you know for certain Fop isn't a WUM sadly-it really is just rambling mental illness.

[Fop 1]

The point scoring aspect is obviously more important than the issue itself btw.

Chezzy's and Renton always do it and try to derail what is an otherwise interesting debate.

 

Rubbish, you quoted some random figure and I pulled you up on it. You then couldn't back that figure up with anything on the entire internet. And now you claim I've derailed the discussion?

 

I know my local MP quite well and although I haven't seen his bank account I know enough to suggest you're talking cobblers Fop. For the record, I think it's a pretty stressful and difficult job which should come with adequate renumeration. The present system obviously is not working or at the very least is not being seen to be working though, and needs changing. Simple.

 

 

 

Fop will ask you the same question that shut Chezzy up and made him turn tail and scuttle off:

 

 

Do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

Being an hour ahead of you, i went for my lunch you knobheed.

 

Going for a coffee and a fag now, so you can wait even longer.

 

Take your time, just remember it's this you have to answer:

 

As Renton said, thats a no. You've plucked 300k out the air.

 

I dont need google-fu to show you the benchmark either.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle2848044.ece

 

Believe what you want, it's exactly what they want you to do after all.

 

 

 

 

 

But do you really honestly believe that £65,000 wage and expenses is all that MPs get? A simple yes or no will do.

 

No, i said they didnt expense claim 235k on average, which is the difference between the average wage and the figure you plucked out yer arse.

 

 

So you accept that they do get other things besides the £65,000 and expenses that they get, you just disagree on how much extra they get. Good.

 

 

 

 

 

Now out of interest how much extra do you think they get on top of that £65,000 and expenses (not just directly, but in tax breaks/free etc., and indeed extra parliamentary work)?

 

135k

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7062525.stm

 

taking their total income to the 200k i think they should get paid anyway.

 

 

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

[Fop 1]

And if they do extra parliamentary work, they should get more than the average.

 

Running the country >>>>> running a hospital.

 

In fairness the ~£300,000 did (IIRC) include average committee work, which is very well paid for the amount of hours it takes (which again is why they don't like those league tables).

 

Which is one of the reasons why a backbencher can be on nearly as much at a front bench minister.

[Renton 22497]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

[Fop 1]

I've answered several time as clearly as I can. I admit I'm not an expert though like you clearly are with your frantic (unsucessful) googling to prove me wrong. It's not worth 'discussing' further tbh, I'll just agree to disagree.

So in other words you haven't a fecking clue and are just disagreeing/WUMing because it's what you do. Fair enough.

[Fop 1]

Has fop gone for his lunch?

Unfortunately Fop can take an even longer one than yours.

[Renton 22497]

And if they do extra parliamentary work, they should get more than the average.

 

Running the country >>>>> running a hospital.

 

In fairness the ~£300,000 did (IIRC) include average committee work, which is very well paid for the amount of hours it takes (which again is why they don't like those league tables).

 

Which is one of the reasons why a backbencher can be on nearly as much at a front bench minister.

 

What 'committee work' is paid for and who pays it? Never mind league tables, have you any evidence at all to back up your claims? Genuine question by the way, you may be right but you're the first person I have heard talk about these mysterious payments. I would have thought the press would have been all over it if it were true given the present climate, why aren't they?

[Park Life 71]

Has fop gone for his lunch?

Unfortunately Fop can take an even longer one than yours.

[Renton 22497]

Has fop gone for his lunch?

Unfortunately Fop can take an even longer one than yours.

 

Receiving your daily injection of antipsychotics?

[Park Life 71]

And if they do extra parliamentary work, they should get more than the average.

 

Running the country >>>>> running a hospital.

 

In fairness the ~£300,000 did (IIRC) include average committee work, which is very well paid for the amount of hours it takes (which again is why they don't like those league tables).

 

Which is one of the reasons why a backbencher can be on nearly as much at a front bench minister.

 

What 'committee work' is paid for and who pays it? Never mind league tables, have you any evidence at all to back up your claims? Genuine question by the way, you may be right but you're the first person I have heard talk about these mysterious payments. I would have thought the press would have been all over it if it were true given the present climate, why aren't they?

 

The av directorship pays 25k a year for about a weeks worth of turning up and looking interested.

[Renton 22497]

And if they do extra parliamentary work, they should get more than the average.

 

Running the country >>>>> running a hospital.

 

In fairness the ~£300,000 did (IIRC) include average committee work, which is very well paid for the amount of hours it takes (which again is why they don't like those league tables).

 

Which is one of the reasons why a backbencher can be on nearly as much at a front bench minister.

 

What 'committee work' is paid for and who pays it? Never mind league tables, have you any evidence at all to back up your claims? Genuine question by the way, you may be right but you're the first person I have heard talk about these mysterious payments. I would have thought the press would have been all over it if it were true given the present climate, why aren't they?

 

The av directorship pays 25k a year for about a weeks worth of turning up and looking interested.

 

That's not paid for by the taxpayer though so is largely irrelevant. As I've said though I'd like to cut that nonsense out.

[Fop 1]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

[Fop 1]

Has fop gone for his lunch?

Unfortunately Fop can take an even longer one than yours.

 

Receiving your daily injection of antipsychotics?

WUMery.

[Renton 22497]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

[Fop 1]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

 

There's quite a few (although with people like yourself you can see why they've got away with this for so very long ), but frankly Fop's off for a 2nd lunch soon and it's always better to learn for oneself. (again if there's some list online )

[Renton 22497]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

 

There's quite a few (although with people like yourself you can see why they've got away with this for so very long ), but frankly Fop's off for a 2nd lunch soon and it's always better to learn for oneself. (again if there's some list online )

 

That's another no then.

[Fop 1]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

 

There's quite a few (although with people like yourself you can see why they've got away with this for so very long ), but frankly Fop's off for a 2nd lunch soon and it's always better to learn for oneself. (again if there's some list online )

 

That's another no then.

Yup, you'll have to get a bit of exercise yourself.

 

(surely you desperately want to "prove" Fop is making these MP tax issues up? )

[Renton 22497]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

 

There's quite a few (although with people like yourself you can see why they've got away with this for so very long ), but frankly Fop's off for a 2nd lunch soon and it's always better to learn for oneself. (again if there's some list online )

 

That's another no then.

Yup, you'll have to get a bit of exercise yourself.

 

(surely you desperately want to "prove" Fop is making these MP tax issues up? )

 

I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with you Fop but you're making it impossible. It's not about point-scoring for me, that's the truth. It's sad that's what it's all about for you though.

[Guest alex]

Yup that's still just claimed expenses though, still ignoring all the other tax breaks, tax free issues and other perks.

 

So how much on top of that £135,000 "wage" do you think?

 

 

Fop, so we're clear, are you talking about extra money from the treasury or from private sources? If you're referring to the former, then surely that must be nothing after their salary and expenses have been deducted, by definition?

 

You seem to be failing to grasp what Fop is describing.

 

If, for example, an MP gets a £XXXX tax exemption (that no one else gets), that works out (effectively) as an increase in their wage, as they are not paying for something everyone else does.

 

This is what Fop means by the utter opaqueness of the system, quite frankly probably MP's themselves don't full comprehend what they are pocketing.

 

 

 

 

 

Fop actually agrees with Chezzy in some respects about a higher wage and that's it (with significant or even complete restrictions on jobs and probably either an MP hotel or only being allowed to rent 2nd houses to stop the current property swindles), Fop just disagrees that a wage of £200,000 would currently be a step up for the average MP.

 

Okay then, can you describe what tax relief an MP is specifically entitled to which the rest of the population aren't? Again, I'm genuinely interested, because it just sounds like nonsense to me.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that sentence for the record.

 

There's quite a few (although with people like yourself you can see why they've got away with this for so very long ), but frankly Fop's off for a 2nd lunch soon and it's always better to learn for oneself. (again if there's some list online )

 

That's another no then.

Yup, you'll have to get a bit of exercise yourself.

 

(surely you desperately want to "prove" Fop is making these MP tax issues up? )

Another straight answer missing there from you btw Fop. You did ask.

[Fop 1]

Another straight answer missing there from you btw Fop. You did ask.

WUMery.

 

You never did provide an example in this thread.

 

I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with you Fop but you're making it impossible. It's not about point-scoring for me, that's the truth. It's sad that's what it's all about for you though.

Then get yourself educated, then we can actually have a discussion about it.