MP's expenses

Why on earth the government don't just buy a nearby building and turn it into serviced studio flats for MP's I don't know; I would be happy for them to stay there rent free and during holiday periods when MP's aren't sitting the studios could be rented out as holiday lets to recoup some of the purchase costs or to pay for building maintenance. Then MP's could be reimbursed for travel and meals and there would be none of the opportunities for fiddling the public purse - either legally or otherwise.

When - I have to disagree about increasing pay and no expenses. Think about it - one MP lives within a short journey from Westminister, another lives in the South West or Scotland and has a very expensive journey to Westminister. Would that be fair? Whatever we decide to pay MPs, there should be a level playing field in terms of what they have left after necessary expenses such as travel to work and accommodation during the week. Of course we can say they are only paid standard rail fares and have to stay in a certain level of hotel but it would be fundamentally wrong surely for MPs ( like mine) who can live at home and have a 50 min commute into work to be left with a lot more disposable cash than an MP elsewhere who has to travel a long distance and then pay for a hotel as well

Good point durhamjen. Let's have half the profit back for the taxpayer.

The problem with "old" system, apart from rubber stamping expenses as far as I can see, was that it was set up to be a source of extra income in the first place. Because it was thought that the electorate wouldn't swallow a large pay rise, the expenses system was changed so that we ended up with the duck houses, cans of dog food etc. Worst of all, we ended up with the tax payer funding the interest on mortgages for second homes and the so-called flipping of which home constituted a second home in a very buoyant housing market. Incidentally, the duck house claim was rejected but, of course, it should never have been made in the first place.

I support durhamjen's point about the huge increase in value on the house Marie Miller bought, Leaving aside the fact that she didn't need a 2nd home to do her job, the fact she's making a huge profit on a property partly paid for by us, is outrageous.

I don't want to re-start a debate about the bedroom tax, or as some would call it, spare room tax - but honestly, talk about one rule for the wealthy, and another for the poor.

She is Shameless -

I am so annoyed by these self serving politicians. Even if she does resign, she will return and get another highly paid job or appear on celebrity nonsense shows. I have worked hard all my life. I am 60 and would have retired but apparently we can't afford my pension so I have to carry on working till 65. I have just got a letter from the tax office informing me that they gave me the wrong tax code in 2012 so I owe them £1200. This was PAYE which I trusted that they were competent enough at taking the right amount. I have to pay it back even though it wasn't my fault. She and all the others should go and try doing a real job.

Have you seen the house that Maria Miller has now bought for her million that she made on the other? Not in Basingstoke.
When they have a house that is partly paid for by the taxpayer, it is in effect, shared housing. Most housing associations say that if they pay half and you own half, they can clain half of the profit when you sell. I think that is what should happen here.

I was incensed to hear Nadine Dorries rationalise how the 'old' system worked, where MPs were told to 'claim for everything' and the expenses people would work out what could go through. Hence, so many expense 'errors' and Maria Miller's 'mistake' in her housing claim - what rot!

How can anyone morally put in a claim for things that have nothing to do with their job, like the loo seats, duck house, Horlicks etc and think that it would be ok for the taxpayer to cover the cost? Whether that was the system or not, they should be intelligent enough to understand that it's not ok to do it?

My expenses were tightly capped when I worked in the public sector and I didn't claim expenses that I would have incurred anyway, like short car journeys and 'out-of-pocket' expenses on overnight stays far from home. There will always be people who try to milk a system, but tax-payers don't expect to be paying MPs for the things that they have to buy from their weekly income, so why should MPs get away with it?

I heard a good suggestion that the number of MPs should be halved and their pay increased so they don't need to claim expenses.