'Home flipping' was encouraged (by their in-house accountants) and within 'the rules', exactly what law have they broken?
Just as my accountants will encourage me to exploit any loopholes within our tax system.
MPs told to repay £1.35 million overclaimed expenses.
- Thread starter D_Hailsham
- Start date
'Home flipping' was encouraged (by their in-house accountants) and within 'the rules', exactly what law have they broken?
Just as my accountants will encourage me to exploit any loopholes within our tax system.
Sponsored Links
They will still get stung for Capital Gains Tax when they sell their second home. This is 18% of the profit made on the house, less an allowance which is currently £10,100.
If you want to see how much your MP has fiddled his expenses, look Here.
R
RedHerring
Not if they flip their homes back again before they sell them.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
It's a lie and deception. The house is NOMINATED but their situation doesn't change. That is fraud to my mind. Darling did it four times. Did he get the Pickfords van outside? Or was it just a tax fiddle?
Sponsored Links
However it is interpreted by the angry masses is irrelevant because like you Joe everyone will have an opinion.
Because it is MP's we are talking about then everybody feels they have a right to throw a stone. A similar uprising would occur if say it were estate agents or traffic wardens.
The upshot of it is, those that have claimed illegally will be prosecuted.
Those that have behaved legally albeit immorally will not.
Whether it is wrong or right in YOUR mind Joe is irrelevant.
R
RedHerring
I think the feeling of indignation come because the MPs are supposed to be the pillars of society. They make the rules for each of us to follow. And we suffer the consequences if we don't follow those rules.
Quite rightly, I feel that people are outraged when the MPs have exploited their position ( albeit within the rules) for financial gain. Whilst at the same time, looking for ways to reduce our opportunities for doing likewise.
They may have acted strictly wihin the rules, but it was hardly within the acceptable culture of our society.
The most outrageous part is when they claim it was not their fault, or it was an administrative error.
If anyone of us were responsible for staff who acted like that, or we claimed administrative errors, we would still be liable for the full consequences.
Quite rightly, I feel that people are outraged when the MPs have exploited their position ( albeit within the rules) for financial gain. Whilst at the same time, looking for ways to reduce our opportunities for doing likewise.
They may have acted strictly wihin the rules, but it was hardly within the acceptable culture of our society.
The most outrageous part is when they claim it was not their fault, or it was an administrative error.
If anyone of us were responsible for staff who acted like that, or we claimed administrative errors, we would still be liable for the full consequences.
B
Bodgeit and scarper ltd
hang em
its time the peasants were revolting
its time the peasants were revolting
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
If I live in a house and let the DSS pay my mortgage - can I nominate that as my residence then move in with my girlfriend? Mps can do it so why not Joe Public? I'm NOMINATING the house just as they do. Is that right or wrong?
hang em
its time the peasants were revolting
Peasants have always been revolting.
How is this comparable to an M.P.'s second home allowance?
An MP has loyalties to a constituency and to the the House of Commons. If these are miles apart then as part of their allowance an MP can claim expenses.
How does this fit in with your dss analogy. Are you saying that your gf is incapable of sharing your home or what?
I don't see where the necessity is here Joe?
This is a list of MP's expenses and how much they are to pay back....
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tP1-9pcD5gawFRZkzGN4_WA
Does any one really believe they would pay this back if it was obtained honestly.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tP1-9pcD5gawFRZkzGN4_WA
Does any one really believe they would pay this back if it was obtained honestly.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
What I'm saying is that an MP nominates his main residence then changes his mind to avoid tax then changes it back again. They even change the home status to get their own main residence renovated simply by saying it isn't their main residence - then later when it suits it IS their main residence again. Just as the scenario I gave you - it's not good enough to nominate it just to fiddle. They should have a flat that they can use when in the capital like the Aussies do. They don't own it or rent it - just use it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ministers-tens-thousands-flipping-homes.html
conny,
I think I read in the paper a few months back that all the bars in westminster allow smoking !!
If that's true, then doesn't that really make you sick.
hypocrites and robbing ******* !
I think I read in the paper a few months back that all the bars in westminster allow smoking !!
If that's true, then doesn't that really make you sick.
hypocrites and robbing ******* !
I agree.
I also think that they should be paid a basic no frills salary. But the salary would have to reflect the work load and status or else who would want to be an MP.
We could end up with uneducated chavs running the country, then what.
Yes they will, because what was their main residence becomes their second home, so that one becomes liable to CGT when it is sold. The original second home will be liable to CGT for the increase in value from time of purchase until it became the main home. You can only have one main residence at any time.
The tax calculation will be complicated as it takes into account how long each property has been your main home as well, as how long you have owned them.
Sponsored Links
