Housing costs
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:32 pm
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???
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???