Expense claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

The reason the MPs and other politicians "get tarred with the same brush" is because they are aware of it, allow it continue, and remain mum about it until something like this happens and forces their hand.

---

I would suggest that quite a lot were unaware of it, and that it had never crossed their minds to claim for horse manure or lawnmower repairs. The ones who don't exploit the expenses system are blameless here and have a right to be annoyed at those who do. And there have been unsuccessful efforts to clean up the system, which have failed because of a lack of will in certain quarters.

Now we hear these absurd apologies which don't just mean 'sorry', but 'sorry that we got caught', and ridiculous comments from those tied up in the scandal saying that they 'made a mistake' in claiming for whatever, when they knew full well what they were doing. But this is not a majority of MPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

So, what's the most extravagant thing you've ever managed to claim?

---

I've been pretty good over the years. But if it's legal and allowed, I take (full) advantage of it. That's all I'll admit to. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I'm more like Mark and tend to not claim things I consider insignifigant or items I'd purchase anyway.

The last few temp jobs I have worked paid what is called a "per diem" which is a fixed amount of tax free money paid for every day worked as long as it doesn't run longer than a year. With a per diem you can't claim expenses unless they run over the per diem amount. Taking my 26 foot camping trailer and setting up in a small park where the electric, water, and cable tv hook ups are provided for $20.00 a day for 14 days while being paid $100.00 per diem....well, Sweetie and I don't go through $80.00 of food per day. The per diem is paid in addition to your regular wage or salary. It's a nice way to go.

---

I used to get paid "per diem". That mind you was for my travels to work and back. Then when it came to tax time i decided to enter all the work gear ect i bought..it was a waste of time..it only came to around $1000. $4000 short of what i needed, so decided to drop it from the taxes

I think the BIG problem in the UK is that a large body of MP,s are greedy,and the general public who pay their salaries are now fed up of it.I believe David Cameron is embaressed by it all,and is now telling members of his party to pay the money that they OVER claimed back.
I have NEVER claimed for anything that was not due to me,and in many cases have stood the cost of lots of items out of my own pocket !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I would suggest that quite a lot were unaware of it, and that it had never crossed their minds to claim for horse manure or lawnmower repairs. The ones who don't exploit the expenses system are blameless here and have a right to be annoyed at those who do. And there have been unsuccessful efforts to clean up the system, which have failed because of a lack of will in certain quarters.

Now we hear these absurd apologies which don't just mean 'sorry', but 'sorry that we got caught', and ridiculous comments from those tied up in the scandal saying that they 'made a mistake' in claiming for whatever, when they knew full well what they were doing. But this is not a majority of MPs.

---

I can understand secret intelligent projects and the like being kept out of the public eye. But to intentionaly shield reimbursements for expenses incurred while doing the public's business is wrong and a fertile breeding ground for rats. To go along with the practice of keeping expenses secret is the same as condoning the abuse of the privilege. To not realize or even suspect that a confidential reimbursement system is open to abuse at the least and being abused in reality exhibits a level of naivety high enough that should prevent one from holding public office. Expense reimbursement should always be a public record.

Every time one of these bozos refers to themselves as a "public servant" I just want to toss my cookies. How many servants do you know that make more money and enjoy greater benefits than the master of the house and are allowed to keep operating expenses secret from the master of the house?

Public they are, servants they are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by driveace

I think the BIG problem in the UK is that a large body of MP,s are greedy,and the general public who pay their salaries are now fed up of it.I believe David Cameron is embaressed by it all,and is now telling members of his party to pay the money that they OVER claimed back.

---

Let's not forget that he himself is going to have to pay money back that he claimed for the vital Parliamentary requirement of having wisteria removed from his chimney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

I can understand secret intelligent projects and the like being kept out of the public eye. But to intentionaly shield reimbursements for expenses incurred while doing the public's business is wrong and a fertile breeding ground for rats. To go along with the practice of keeping expenses secret is the same as condoning the abuse of the privilege. To not realize or even suspect that a confidential reimbursement system is open to abuse at the least and being abused in reality exhibits a level of naivety high enough that should prevent one from holding public office. Expense reimbursement should always be a public record.

Every time one of these bozos refers to themselves as a "public servant" I just want to toss my cookies. How many servants do you know that make more money and enjoy greater benefits than the master of the house and are allowed to keep operating expenses secret from the master of the house?

Public they are, servants they are not.

---

I don't like your usage of the word 'they'. It is, for the reasons I gave above, totally wrong to tar all MPs with the same brush over this, just as it is totally wrong to say that all bankers are s for what they've done to the global economy. Plenty of them are not to blame and in no way culpable. As I said, I should imagine it would never have crossed the minds of many to claim for such things. The outrage being shown by the likes of Kate Hoey and Norman Baker, which was absurdly criticised by the Speaker, is genuine and not just meant for media consumption.

I think there is a lot of truth in this comment from The Times: 'At the heart of all this lies decades of political cowardice, where governments and MPs have conspired to repress MPs' basic pay, the visible part of their remuneration, in the belief that voters will never understand large pay increases for MPs and to give nods and winks to making good the pay deficit by a soft and exploitable — and until now — largely invisible expenses regime.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

I used to get paid "per diem". That mind you was for my travels to work and back. Then when it came to tax time i decided to enter all the work gear ect i bought..it was a waste of time..it only came to around $1000. $4000 short of what i needed, so decided to drop it from the taxes

---

In my situation, the per diem (usually $80.00-$120.00 per day) more than covers trailer parking fees, all gasoline used including to and from home, meals, laundry service, any additional tools or equipment I might buy, my cell phone and wireless internet connection device. All without the bother of keeping receipts and still making a tidy profit on the per diem funds. If at all possible, I try to find a park next to a lake so Sweetie can swim every night. I've gotten to the point where I don't take jobs that don't offer a per diem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I've been pretty good over the years. But if it's legal and allowed, I take (full) advantage of it. That's all I'll admit to. :)

---

Same here, I take every expense, no matter how insignificant. I also work out of my home so I claim any and every expense I legally can. I used to be like some others here, and not worry about some out-of-pocket expenses, but that changed when I was fired one day because my new boss decided he didn't like me, even though I poured my heart and soul into making the company a success.

Ultimately, it was better for my career to be somewhere else, but since then I have claimed all legitimate expenses no matter how insignificant be it a $.50 toll or a $.10 pencil. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't like your usage of the word 'they'. It is, for the reasons I gave above, totally wrong to tar all MPs with the same brush over this, just as it is totally wrong to say that all bankers are s for what they've done to the global economy. Plenty of them are not to blame and in no way culpable. As I said, I should imagine it would never have crossed the minds of many to claim for such things. The outrage being shown by the likes of Kate Hoey and Norman Baker, which was absurdly criticised by the Speaker, is genuine and not just meant for media consumption.

I think there is a lot of truth in this comment from The Times: 'At the heart of all this lies decades of political cowardice, where governments and MPs have conspired to repress MPs' basic pay, the visible part of their remuneration, in the belief that voters will never understand large pay increases for MPs and to give nods and winks to making good the pay deficit by a soft and exploitable — and until now — largely invisible expenses regime.'

---

If the public perception is that their representatives are paid too much, then a-perhaps they are right and b-they feel the service that they are receiving from their "servant" does not merit a pay raise.

Since the economic woes began, there has been much backlash against private sector executive salaries. If it is ok to believe a private sector person is overpaid for the job they do it is then ok to feel a public sector person is overpaid for the job they do. Both the government and private business have a hand in the current woes so the arguments about having to pay more to get the best wear a little thin.

For one "dedicated to a life of public service" an adequate compensation package ought to be enough. For one dedicated to a life of personal power and enrichment, well they need to stay in the private sector, if they can make it in an open evironment.

Until "they" take active steps to clean their own house and open their doors for inspection, then they get painted with the same brush. It was their choice to join the organization, they can always resign in protest of the action of their peers. But they won't.