Expense claims

Our papers are once again full of details regarding MPs' expenses claims (at least the ones which aren't fixating on an inflatable orange slapper and her tone-deaf soon-to-be ex-husband).

This time it's the Conservatives' turn in the spotlight and they're doing nothing to dispel the stereotype of out-of-touch toffs, the claims including maintenance on swimming pools, tennis courts, a chandelier and that most basic of essentials - a moat.

Now I guess we've all (ahem) exaggerated the odd expense claim here and there - whether it be claiming for a couple of extra miles on a journey or sticking that spare laptop battery down as an essential work item. Or is that just me? :erm:

When I relocated for an old job I managed to convince them that I needed four months in a rather sy hotel while I was searching for somewhere to live, and when I found a property I convinced the company that I'd need a burglar alarm fitted; but beyond that I've always been fairly straight with my claims.

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

tbh I usually end up under claiming for most things. As I can't be bothered to keep the receipts or just don't think it's worth it.

For example last weekend I went to Leeds for a work meeting. The train fare cost me £2.50 return because I was already staying on the outskirts of Leeds. I could have claimed it, but I didn't, because, well what's £2.50?!

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.

There's a rather good video of Stephen Fry giving his take on this on the BBC website which I actually find myself agreeing with.

There are around 700 MP's, most of them are going to have claimed something 'ordinary people' would find 'ridiculous' on expenses, and I get the feeling the Daily Telegraph is going to drag this out as long as possible in an effort to sell papers. Frankly, I already find it rather silly, especially as the paper leading this furore is owned by a pair of petty tax-evaders. (Look up the recent elections on the Channel Island of Sark to see what I mean)

It's my understanding that most of what MP's have claimed for isn't illegal under the current rules, and hasn't directly affected the way they do their job. I accept a number of cases with mortgage 'flipping' probably do verge on fraudulent and they should be dealt with, and the rules tweaked to ensure it doesn't happen again. But this sudden hand-wringing about it all is getting a bit tedious. It's as if some people have only just woken up to the fact the Parliamentary Tory party is full of people who actually DO have the money to own moats and chandeliers..

Where I work you can't get away with claiming stupid expenses. As a manger I vouch all mileage, travel, parking, subsistence and any other sundry items that the staff working on my clients are submitting for reasonableness. My expenses are in turn vouched by the partner relating to each particlar client. I'll change expenses if someone is having a laugh in terms of mileage but I rarely have to do it. We also have to provide a minimum of 25% of petrol receipts to back up mileage claims and anything else will not be accepted if you don't have a receipt.

Although MP's are taking the Mick when it comes to what they are claiming they aren't the only ones. My clients are just as bad. For example I recently had a car dealership with a fixed asset addition in the year of around £3500 for a ride on lawnmower. To which I then had to ask the question of where is the grass? The accountant then pointed out of the window to a 30m long strip of grass that was about 1m wide which hardly required more than a strimmer to cut in about 15 minutes. When I said that I wanted to physically see it I was told it was at the directors house.

The example above is just the tip of the iceberg although I have to say there are a few exceptions by some of my clients such as football clubs and motor sports teams but then again that's only because they get quite alot of tax investigations and can't get away with anything. I suppose for everyone else it's fair game if they can get away with it and the same applies to MP's.

I had to travel to Israel for work some years ago, for a couple of weeks. The idea was we were given an allowance each day. Basically the software company were generous enough to pay all our meals, so I bought some Oakley sunglasses at the airport, but the receipt was in hebrew so I said one person paid each night as I knew no-one would be able to read it...

I have never claimed for anything inappropriate - even when I was working for an MP! I too probably end up a bit out of pocket most of the time, but it's my choice to go on reporting trips for which I claim, and I enjoy it.

The MPs' expenses story really disgusts me on a number of levels, I have to say. The point above about the Barclay brothers who own the Telegraph is an excellent one. The idea of anybody being lectured at by a paper owned by them when it comes to probity and integrity is simply laughable. MPs deserve to have some assistance in the provision of accommodation in London, because not all of them can afford to purchase somewhere close to Westminster when they are first elected, having been teachers, social workers or whatever. There is also the fact that MPs are all being tarred with the same brush, which is most unfair. The one I was employed by for three-and-a-half years, and many others, are extremely hard-working people. The same goes for their staff, who, if the MP is as busy as he or she ought to be, are largely overworked and underpaid. Forget the notion of MPs and their staff doing nothing during the long summer recess - in my experience, it's nonsense.

But, as ever, there are quite a few rotten apples in the basket, and some of the claims made, not to mention the responses to them, beggar belief as far as I'm concerned. Many of the items claimed have nothing to do with improving the ability of any individual to do their job of being an MP, and this is where the line should be drawn. Yes, you may need to have some gardening done at your primary residence as notified to the Parliamentary authorities, but how the hell can an expenses claim for that gardening work ever be justified? The same goes for bath robes, boilers, mock Tudor beams and all the other items mentioned thus far. Are those MPs who have claimed for such things suggesting that everybody in work follow suit, and ask their employers to pay for household items? There is no special justification for MPs being able to do so, and they should not be allowed to.

And as for this business of 'flipping' your designated primary residence from one to another, or making money through the sale of a property whose purchase and running costs were funded whether in part or in full by Parliament - well, I think it's utterly disgraceful and totally indefensible.

For me, the most incredible comment to come out of all of this is from the Conservative MP for Peterborough, Stewart Jackson: "The pool came with the house and I needed to know how to run it. Once I was shown that one time, there were no more claims. I take care of the pool myself. I believe this represents 'value for money' for the taxpayer." Here's a radical idea, Mr Jackson, in the name of giving everyone 'value for money': why not f*** off out of Parliament in favour of someone who doesn't believe that making an expenses claim for being shown how to use a swimming pool is an acceptable use of the public purse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

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

---

A trip to Hawaii... :erm:

I only ever claim for fuel when I actually decide to use my own car, and I'm not even one of those people who go somewhere on the way to work but claim as if it was from the office.

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.

If your neighbor is robbing banks and you have knowledge of it and keep quiet about it, just what brush would you prefer to be tarred with?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

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.

---

This is true at present, and I would agree, but historically I believe that MPs have probably been paid too little for doing what is, if you do it properly, a highly demanding job. Neither are MPs' staff salaries sufficient given the workload that can be heaped upon them. Having done the job, I think I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

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.

---

So even if the public perception of most MPs is incorrect, it doesn't matter? Based on personal experience, I consider this to be unfair. And what good would resigning do? I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. Why leave the bad ones in the job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is true at present, and I would agree, but historically I believe that MPs have probably been paid too little for doing what is, if you do it properly, a highly demanding job. Neither are MPs' staff salaries sufficient given the workload that can be heaped upon them. Having done the job, I think I know.

The private sector is also demanding, and I would say more so than the public sector. I was once an officer in a small corporation. We started it with all the money we had and could borrow and by selling shares to anyone we knew that we could talk into taking a risk. For two years we managed to stay afloat, accounting for every penny that went out the door. The employees were paid well within their jobs, benetifts were decent, but the officers were taking only enough pay to survive. Our shareholders had hoped to sell their shares back to the corporation after a year but we weren't in a position to buy them out. In addition, we paid for and presented an independant audit of the corporation at each shareholders meeting which were held once a year. It came together at the end of the third year and we were able to buy our relieved shareholders out with considerable dividends to themselves. The officers also finally started getting a pretty decent paycheck. In the fourth year, we sold out to a larger corporation in the same business, that wanted to expand into the territory. Some of the employees that had elected to take shares instead of their full pay did quite well for themselves at the sale. Of course, it could have gone the other way and we could have lost everything. Making that company work took a whole bunch o 16 hour days and 7 day weeks so I know about demanding. Better yet, I know about demanding when it's your butt on the line.



So even if the public perception of most MPs is incorrect, it doesn't matter? Based on personal experience, I consider this to be unfair. And what good would resigning do? I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. Why leave the bad ones in the job?

---

It's not about fair, it's about tarring with the same brush and it's no different than hang out with "the wrong crowd". You may be the biggest angel in the world but if you hang out and run with thugs, you're seen as a thug. If this is unfair and it bothers you then change it or get out. Along those same lines, most people have a dim view of outlaw motorcycle clubs but for the life of me, I can't recall one outlaw biker convicted of sexual abuse of a child or child abuse. I'm gonna google the biker thing. But I can recall many teachers, coaches, parents, stepparents, priests, etc convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Brockman

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

---

Trip to Amsterdam just last week (conference).

I have to admit though, I'm always being chased by my boss to claim expenses for any expenditure when away on business. She's right, however there are times I feel I would have spent the money regardless of being away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is true at present, and I would agree, but historically I believe that MPs have probably been paid too little for doing what is, if you do it properly, a highly demanding job. Neither are MPs' staff salaries sufficient given the workload that can be heaped upon them. Having done the job, I think I know.

---

True, but claiming expenses for £750 TV from John Lewis is equivalent to passing buckets of urine.

When I had to see a client north of Toronto I always set it up for early on a Fri. afternoon. Meeting over I just headed up to my parents' place on a lake for a slightly longer weekend. Also charged mileage for total round trip up and back Sun. night.
If I had to go overnight anywhere I made sure I booked a good motel and ate well.
Only expensed booze if client was drinking. If on own or just with another employee did not expense booze.

Admittedly I have been to America twice at taxpayers expense. But both times I was attending a long and very boring 4 day conference. So believe me I 'paid' for those trips, if not in cash :p

http://www.yodasarmpit.com/pics/recession.jpg