On the news tonight there was an article about an MP who owns a flat outright in Londonbut has put it in trust so that the trust can charge them £21k a year rent, hence they can claim the rent back. They state that this does not cost the taxpayer any money as they could sell the flat and claim this money in rent.
This argument is fair enough to a point in that what they say is true, but is there not a point of conflict here?
Some years ago I was made redundant. I was forced to claim jobseekers for a while. At this time I was really struggling to make ends meet, but as I had a mortgage, rather than renting, I was given no help towards these living cost at all. So out of my £55 a week I had to pay my motgage (around £100) and council tax (around £20) which left me £65 a week in debt regardless of food bills etc. Yet if I was renting I would have all this expense covered. So would it have been possible for me to put my house in trust then put this expense on the taxpayer? I doubt it very much (but will look in to it in case it happens again!!).
In that instance I was lucky as I was made redundant and got my £55 a week straight away (woohoo) but I was told I was allowed to claim for 6 months then it would stop as my national insurance only covered 6 months. I have paid my national insurance since I was 16 and never claimed a penny back before, so how is it that I know people who have never worked and never contributed yet live a very comfortable lifestyle? A friend of mine quit his job as he found it unbearable to carry on and received nothing for 3 months!! He also had been in work all his adult life.
I've gone off on a tangent again!! sorry.
The point I was trying to make was that if you were on benefits and tried to claim rent on your own house (which has a mortgage and hence legit expenses to pay, such as if it was rented) you would be hammered for it. But it is legit for an MP to effectivley pay themselves £21k for doing the same thing without even having a mortgage to pay is fine.
Is it any wonder people try to fiddle the social with the role models they are given from parliament???
Housing costs
RE: Housing costs
It depends on your outlook on things although now its come to light they have spoke about changing the rules.
Personally every job ive had ive found ways to make it work better for me. From stupid things to taking the odd envelope or putting my post through the works postal system to other things which im not sure i should be saying on public forums
, obviously nothing to the extent of £21k a year but the more important job you have the more perks you get.
I know at the end of the day its our money but if they wouldnt have claimed it, i wouldnt be any richer and i very much doubt it would have been spent on anything that would have made my life any different, although i suppose it could have put an extra copper on the street fr a year but i doubt the police service would have been given £21k extra had he not claimed it.
Personally every job ive had ive found ways to make it work better for me. From stupid things to taking the odd envelope or putting my post through the works postal system to other things which im not sure i should be saying on public forums
, obviously nothing to the extent of £21k a year but the more important job you have the more perks you get. I know at the end of the day its our money but if they wouldnt have claimed it, i wouldnt be any richer and i very much doubt it would have been spent on anything that would have made my life any different, although i suppose it could have put an extra copper on the street fr a year but i doubt the police service would have been given £21k extra had he not claimed it.
RE: Housing costs
Having studies trusts a little in law I am aware there are loopholes which can be exploited. Some call it cheating the state, others working the rules and others just call it good financial management. I'm doing accountancy and finance and soon I will be learning how to make money and get around the system for myself. There is nothing wrong with it.
The social security in the UK is too high for the job-seekers (so called) and other forms of benefit-cheats. True there are many people genuinely who would love a job, but there a many more who won't get one. There is something wrong with the state system if it pays to be out of a job. In my opinion if a man can only get a job in a supermarket (nowhere near enough to keep a family on) the state should make up the rest. Deliberately becoming unemployed is bad for the economy and the state is far better off investing those genuinely in need and who are then going to be able to contribute something to society.
So if a man becomes redundant the state should help him pay his mortgage, providing he takes up a job when one is available. It may not be the one he wants, but at least it is an escape route. I believe the government is slowly waking up to these sort of things and slowly things are improving.
The social security in the UK is too high for the job-seekers (so called) and other forms of benefit-cheats. True there are many people genuinely who would love a job, but there a many more who won't get one. There is something wrong with the state system if it pays to be out of a job. In my opinion if a man can only get a job in a supermarket (nowhere near enough to keep a family on) the state should make up the rest. Deliberately becoming unemployed is bad for the economy and the state is far better off investing those genuinely in need and who are then going to be able to contribute something to society.
So if a man becomes redundant the state should help him pay his mortgage, providing he takes up a job when one is available. It may not be the one he wants, but at least it is an escape route. I believe the government is slowly waking up to these sort of things and slowly things are improving.
War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left.