Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a year? : Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:15 pm  

Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended?

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:23 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? Why should he be any different to the any of the other greedy, tax-dodging, millionaire, benefit-scrounging expenses cheats.

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? Why should he be any different to the any of the other greedy, tax-dodging, millionaire, benefit-scrounging expenses cheats.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:30 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - Irrelevant. Did he commit fraud? - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year Irrelevant - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards Also irrelevant - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period Not sure what the policy is, but it does seem pretty generous I'll grant you. - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? No since it ended after 6 months. Whether this was overly generous or not is a worthwhile debate though

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ A few things to highlight: - In 2008/09 (the year the benefits scandal was exposed), IDS claimed over £98000 in expenses - Irrelevant. Did he commit fraud? - This is despite the fact he is on a salary of over £134000 a year Irrelevant - His wife is much richer than him and has inherited a lot of money, they live in a £2m 3 acre farmhouse with tennis court, swimming pool and orchards Also irrelevant - In 2009 while his wife was ill with cancer he took 6 months off work and was paid £68000 by the taxpayer to cover this period Not sure what the policy is, but it does seem pretty generous I'll grant you. - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? No since it ended after 6 months. Whether this was overly generous or not is a worthwhile debate though

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:47 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? Even worse and despicable than this is that cancer sufferers themselves would be time limited on ESA to 1 year and after that year they will be put onto JSA. Yes thats right, cancer sufferers have one year to "get better" then they're fit to work and will have to actively seek work or lose the benefit. The Lords overturned this and voted to give cancer sufferers unlimited time on ESA but this disgraceful governenment have said once it goes back to the Commons they will use an old 1700's law to overturn the decision. Words failed me at the time and they still fail me now.

sally cinnamon wrote: Interesting points made on this blog here: http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/ ... can-smith/ - His new proposals are that partners of cancer patients who have to take time off work to be carers should not receive 'open ended' support. Would being paid £68k for 6 months off count as open ended? Even worse and despicable than this is that cancer sufferers themselves would be time limited on ESA to 1 year and after that year they will be put onto JSA. Yes thats right, cancer sufferers have one year to "get better" then they're fit to work and will have to actively seek work or lose the benefit. The Lords overturned this and voted to give cancer sufferers unlimited time on ESA but this disgraceful governenment have said once it goes back to the Commons they will use an old 1700's law to overturn the decision. Words failed me at the time and they still fail me now.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:26 pm  

Hull White Star wrote:

Even worse and despicable than this is that cancer sufferers themselves would be time limited on ESA to 1 year and after that year they will be put onto JSA. Yes thats right, cancer sufferers have one year to "get better" then they're fit to work and will have to actively seek work or lose the benefit. The Lords overturned this and voted to give cancer sufferers unlimited time on ESA but this disgraceful governenment have said once it goes back to the Commons they will use an old 1700's law to overturn the decision.

Words failed me at the time and they still fail me now.

Words should never fail you when it comes to Tory Governments and sheer heartlessness. They have such a long track record of victimising victims and robbing the most deserving. If this lot could harness the air, there'd be people crawling along the pavements, past the 5-star restaurants in which the fatcats still gorge themselves, and wheezing their last few words... 'can you spare 50p for the gas meter?'

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:36 pm  

Chief Stinkwort wrote:

Words should never fail you when it comes to Tory Governments and sheer heartlessness. They have such a long track record of victimising victims and robbing the most deserving. If this lot could harness the air, there'd be people crawling along the pavements, past the 5-star restaurants in which the fatcats still gorge themselves, and wheezing their last few words... 'can you spare 50p for the gas meter?'

Let them eat cake springs to mind too.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:03 pm  

26k is more money than i take home
Do you think if MPs salary (and lets face it the expenses are part of that salary) was less it would make things better in Westminster, or worse?

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:26 pm  

I've long held the opinion that MP's should receive a stipend of £250k minimum.

In return they must undertake to perform no duties other than representing their constituents and possibly representing parliament. If they are called upon to perform duties other than representing their constituents, then they should receive expenses to cover any out of pocket costs. The £250k stipend includes any and all expenses they may incur if their business as an MP, so if they want to employ their wife or other family members, they can do so and pay them out of the £250k. Similarly, if they wish to own a second home, they are welcome to have one, they can pay the 2nd mortgage out of their £250k. The £250k stipend is also to cover travel between their constituency and parliament.

Oh, one more thing: their parliamentary working week will commence at 13.00 hours every Monday (bank holidays excepted) and end an 16.00 hours each Thursday. They then have all day Friday to attend to constituancy business. They should be aware though, a reasonable amount of overtime will be expected and will be unpaid.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:07 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I've long held the opinion that MP's should receive a stipend of £250k minimum.

In return they must undertake to perform no duties other than representing their constituents and possibly representing parliament. If they are called upon to perform duties other than representing their constituents, then they should receive expenses to cover any out of pocket costs. The £250k stipend includes any and all expenses they may incur if their business as an MP, so if they want to employ their wife or other family members, they can do so and pay them out of the £250k. Similarly, if they wish to own a second home, they are welcome to have one, they can pay the 2nd mortgage out of their £250k. The £250k stipend is also to cover travel between their constituency and parliament.

Oh, one more thing: their parliamentary working week will commence at 13.00 hours every Monday (bank holidays excepted) and end an 16.00 hours each Thursday. They then have all day Friday to attend to constituancy business. They should be aware though, a reasonable amount of overtime will be expected and will be unpaid.

This would rule Boris out (thankfully !!), who regards 250k as a bit oif pocket money.

[DaveO]

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:09 am  

IDS's inclusion of child benefit in the calculation is particularly nasty. You will have the situation where a family would be denied this benefit because having it would take them over the £26K threshold while a family with two people earning £40K will keep it even after the stupid legislation to remove it form higher rate tax payers.

What this shows is he clearly does not understand the concept of a universal benefit and does not know the difference between that and a welfare benefit. Getting the latter when you fall on hard times should not disqualify you from the former.