Leicestershire's MPs' expenses are revealed

“It is nice to see,in these days of austerity,that some of the expences are going on employing more staff.Same as count von count soulsby.He got his wife and daughters on the payroll !”

“Just to prove that MPs get preferential treatment over taxable benefits, in the news recently.. . http://tinyurl.com/8vnb3o5

"The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa), which was set up later that year to oversee the altered system..... , In response to a Revenue and Customs (HMRC) inquiry, it said MPs had a right to hire an accountant to fill in expenses forms and tax returns on their behalf and that the cost of doing so - up to £5,000 a year - should not be taxed".

I have to fill out my own expenses and my own tax return, or I have to pay somebody out of my own pocket to do it for me. Otherwise it would be taxed as benefit-in-kind”

“graydjames... you are wrong, expenses can be a taxable benefit. If I had a second home that was funded by my company it would be classed as a taxable benefit and I would be taxed accordingly. If I was claiming over £150K in expenses I would expect to be closely scrutinised by the MHRC. MPs are able to claim expenses of the value that would not be allowed buy the HMRC without incurring benefit in kind tax for the ordinary worker. That is a FACT.”

“@ leicester;

I do not lead anyone, least of all SPS (and anyway I'm in the county, just work in the city)...”

“Unfortunately it's not only MPs, councillors and others employed directly or indirectly by the gov-ernments (that means taxpayers etc.), that to put it bluntly are on the fiddle. It's all those that claim unwarranted or excessive expenses, even if they own the business lock stock and barrel. Often it's not just a case of illegally avoiding tax but of hiding truth, real income, profit, true balances, values and defrauding shareholders etc.

Undeclared income by its very nature must be hidden and disposed of underhanded, be it via bribes of any sort, including so called "corporate hospitality perks" actually costing more than can be re-vealed or warranted. This undeclared income is also a tool to in effect defraud others (suppliers, customers, creditors, the courts etc.). Then there is a question of how, where, when and what the hidden income will be used for. The corruption and evils of money laundering are immense, costly to all and not just in monetary terms either.

Obviously the fact that MPs and others could with seeming immunity, claim such expenses indi-cates that they have reason to believe it a common sustainable fare and moral business practice.

As a shareholder, I most certainly do not accept that any company I involve myself with, should be involved with bribes, any form of corruption or otherwise immoral dealings. Those that advise me on such matters appear to believe me naïve with unpractical expectations of modern business needs. If this is so and most seem to believe it is, then expenses above, a publicly set amount, should be open to public scrutiny if any faith is to be retrieved in the public or business sector. This should include all corporate bodies as well as individuals.

PS Furthermore all those on the taxpayers pay-roll as representatives, should have to declare earn-ing from other sources, because their electorate could well consider such incomes as bribes or evi-dence of pecuniary interests. That would thin them out a bit.”

“4_stroke said:

"It never ceases to amaze me that the expenses that MPs can claim are not subject to benefit-in-kind tax that the rest of the population would have to pay. It's a tax loophole that they all benefit from."

This is wholly and entirely incorrect.

No one pays tax on expenses that they claim wholly, exclusively and necessarily for the purposes of their employment. If the expense is reimbursed to the employee, by the employer, then, unless there is a dispensation in place, it must be declared as a benefit in kind; but then the employee is able to make an equal claim for the same amount as a deductible expense.

The only time tax would arise is if the employer has refunded an expense that is not legitmately incurred in the performance of duties. There are few employer's who would make such a payment.

Have in mind that the salaries that MPs pay to their staff are themselves taxable. It would be a pretty strange state of affairs if the MP had to pay tax on money reimbursed to him or her which was to pay their staff a salary which was itself taxed.”

“@ leicester; "Would you like to comment on the comments by peter 20101 and 4stroke"...

Gladly. You will notice that their comments are with regard to the article and relate to the MP's concerned and their expenses. Neither the report, nor their comments make reference to any council leaders or underlings, so are relevent in the context of the discussion...

I have for a long time been critical of all our local authorities, not a defender as you suggest (read my notes on topics like transport policy or planned works in the town, for instance), but do find constant accusations of the council being responsible for all and sundry wearisome, especially when it's nothing to do with them. MP's expenses have nothing to do with SPS and his cronies...”

“Keith Vaz, not available for comment, why on earth not? That must be a first!!”

“I find it concerning that MP's "seem" to be able to employ staff as and when they like and perhaps at rates set by themselves. Maybe there is a process, I don't know, but this seems very open to abuse - family members, friends, people who perhaps do not even exist (going on previous reported lack of morals from MP's).

Hopefully there is a central process that is not mentioned here as otherwise surely they are voted as individuals and work that is required to be done that cannot be handled by 1 person should go to a central committee who then "approve" requirements and pay direct to a national standard of pay (which is also more efficient).

250 emails a day including junk is a typical work day for me and its not like I can employ anyone to do it for me.”

“It seems that Austerity and cost efficency is not in these guys vocabulary, with their average increase in expenses of over 33% (exc Jon Ashworth, as not figures are shown for his predecessor's claims).

these range from 61% increase for Mr Dorrell, 47% increase for mr Garnier, 38% for Mr Bridgen, 35% for Mrs Kendall, 28% for Mr Vaz right down to 18% for Mr Tredinnick

It may be seen as employing people, but I would like to employ more staff if I could be paid for it in full

The differences are quite stark and questions need asking why the culture remains that you should claim for as much as you can - as clearly none of these MP's are saving any monies in these difficult times

I make the total claimed for the period as £1.4m on top of their salaries/additions of £672k - so these guys get paid and claim for than £2m

Expenses scandal was swept under the carpet, some MP's (none of these) who were found to have been guilt of "mis-claiming" are now coming back into cabinet and they all get circa 33% increases to their "office" turnover

Cushy jobs for the rich in the clubs of each of their parties”