More on the "expenses" of MP,s

Most of the MP's have missed the crucial point. It is not just that they are clearly working the system but that the system is fundamentally flawed.

When we pay their mortgage repayments, when we buy their furniture, they end up owning it. That is why renting is a more satisfactory option, their is no financial gain for the MP.

It is not as complicated as they wish to pretend and flipping is clearly fraudulent if there is no change in circumstances. Charles Clarke changed when he became a minister, the point being that he now felt that he was spending more time in London. That is probably genuine. It is also plausible that if an MP has children and when they leave home they might well change their main place of residence. However the number of times that that will occur will be rare.

Again the issue with Ian Gibson, he probably felt he owned the flat so letting his daughter stay there was no problem. If you had a flat in London most parents would not feel they had done anything wrong by letting family members use it at no cost. The converse would be true, if you charged them that would seem very unkind as a parent.

Clearly legitimate & reasonable expenses should be allowed but funding the purchase of property is not reasonable.

Another important point is that what is reasonable for a "second" home. No one needs a house with a moat or a duck island for their "second" home. In my view that is also fraudulent. But is all part of a culture of greed and mutual support. Most communities stick together, doctors don't like reporting on other doctors, lawyers are reluctant to admit that their colleagues are cheating. It is the same with MPs, that is why we need an outside group BUT they must not be part of the "great & good" because they are part of the same community.

more on why public expenditur is good!

One of the more stupid arguments gong around, like many common arguments it sounds good but but with a moments thought is obviously rubbish, is that it is wrong becuase our children will be paying for it and that is wrong,

Why is it wrong, simply because that will still be getting the benefit. As I commented in my eralier note, we still enjoy the parks built 80 years ago so even the great-grandchildren are getting benefit from that public expenditure.

So if we spend money on a cross-rail link now, hopefully people will still benefit from it in 100 years time. So if they are still benefiting from it does it matter. In times of crisis we spend to preserve the future and often the future ends up paying but that seems fair.

Public Expenditure and the depression

I have just been reading Sidelski's one volume biography of Keynes and have read the stuff about the great crash & depression that followed. Listening to the right wing commentators nobody seems to have learned anything, I suppose it was nearly 80 years ago and all the young people writing don't know any proper history.

The whole point is that in times like this it is essential that the government keeps spending or the situation will spiral down and down. Many think that the unemployment after the great crash went on until the WWII and that was a great bout of public expenditure.

Economies depend on money circulating and when things get bad, people stop spending, so less goods are sold and more people are out of work and the situation just gets worse. It becomes imperative for governments to borrow to spend. There is an argument that says that if the government is borrowing to fund public expenditure that takes money away from the private sector. That might well be true in the good years but not now. How many businesses are going to be borrowing millions for major works at the moment.

Those like David Cameron and the Liberals and, I am afraid, some in the government who are going on about cutting public expenditure are condemning millions of people to unemployment. It is essential to maintain public expenditure over the next few years. Those in what should be secure jobs need to feel they are secure so that they will not cut their expenditure.

It will lead to an increase in public debt and the government will owe money but it can be paid back over time. Even 40 years ago it was normal to borrow up to two or three times income to buy a house. My calculation that would be equivalent to a public sector debt requirement of 200% and we were not too worried. The current debt of the government is far to low to sustain the economy when the private sector has let us down so badly. It would also seem unfair to attack the wages and pensions of public sector workers for the failure of the private sector.

Expatriates & the Rich

Should people who live abroad have a right to vote and be considered as citizens? My answer is no! Part of the duties of citizens is to be active members of the community and pay the taxes which their wealth & income would entitle them to. The word entitle is good in this context as we should all want to contribute what we can to the community.

The recent rise in higher rates of tax on those earning over £150,000 to promise to leave the country. If people like Michael Caine and Andrew Lloyd-Webber resent paying tax why do they wish to be citizens of the UK, they are rich enough to leave the country and live anywhere they like and I am sure many countries would welcome them with open arms and offer them citizenship, so why not just go. If they want to stay in the club they should be play by the rules. Another of these so-called citizens is Sean Connery, a sort of honorary Scot, I say honorary Scot since he chooses to live in Switzerland for tax purposes. This does not seem to me to be very loyal but claims to be a Scottish nationalist, I would be ashamed of his support, but then the SNP is keen on Donald Trump.

The USA expects its citizens to pay tax to the USA wherever they live and so should the UK. Peoples feel that they can go and live anywhere in the world, not pay UK taxes and then come back when they feel they want and use all the facilities that those of us who stayed have been paying for for years. If you want to keep your citizenship then you should have to pay UK taxes.

Such ruling should also apply to people who move their companies to tax haven to avoid tax, that great British entrepreneur who has moved his companies to some off-shore island in order to reduce tax. In the meantime people suffer on his Virgin train lines.