Lets be honest, why would you care about promotion when you're getting that amount of money for free. Also, yes it is at the companies discretion, but I think you'll find that any company that doesn't want to be flagrantly embezzled by all of it's staff (i.e. any company not run by you obviously) would sack them, let the criminal court system do it's worst before preceeding to sue them, just to push the point home that anyone stealing it's money will be dealt with.

You seem not only to have a limited perception of the way the world works, but also to have seemingly no ethical threshold between right or wrong, almost as if, just because people have got away with it, that makes it OK.

Frankly I feel sorry for you.

. . . . . and what is that sensible level.

Would You have them get higher expenses for renting a property, for instance? Travel expenses? Perhaps they should all go into travel lodges as has already been suggested - remember someone on the RM in Travel lodge thread suggested it would cost several hundred thousand a year per person.

Another on this thread was paid to visit the cinema occasionally when He was away from home, and given beer money - should this happen?

Originally Posted by The_Big_Show

Frankly, why would you care about promotion when you're getting that amount of money for free. Also, yes it is at the companies discretion, but I think you'll find that any company that doesn't want to be flagrantly embezzled by all of it's staff (i.e. any company not run by you obviously) would sack them, let the criminal court system do it's worst before preceeding to sue them, just to push the point home that anyone stealing it's money will be dealt with.

You seem not only to have a limited perception of the way the world works, but also to have seemingly no ethical threshold between right or wrong, almost as if, just because people have got away with it, that makes it OK.

Frankly I feel sorry for you.

Thank You SOOOO much for Your sympathy

Originally Posted by Sven

. . . . . and what is that sensible level.

Would You have them get higher expenses for renting a property, for instance? Travel expenses? Perhaps they should all go into travel lodges as has already been suggested - remember someone on the RM in Travel lodge thread suggested it would cost several hundred thousand a year per person.

Another on this thread was paid to visit the cinema occasionally when He was away from home, and given beer money - should this happen?

....more importantly what is the 'appropriate' rate to pay your own family for doing work that is hard to account for! The devil is in the detail but the general rules need setting out so they are clear and auditable. If it makes financial sense to do something then by all means justify it, the idea of going into travel lodges is I feel a little dramatic in the same way that Kerry McCarthy got a little stroppy when people suggested about MPs blocks or quarters akin to that which we in the foces live in!

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Sven, having looked at what you posted I am a little concerned that you stated what would become a LibDem policy yet missed the part where I mentioned a 'sensible policy' or was that an oversight on your behalf?

The term "sensible policy" is subjective. Some on here would have MPs claim no expenses and would call that sensible.

As I said, Lib Dem policy is to limit the employment of family members to one - and for them to be paid at appropriate rates - and for receipts to be needed for all expenses over [and here I must be vague since my memory has let me down since Simon Hughes spoke of it] a certain amount (almost certainly single figures)

So you can't go firm on a 'sensible policy' yet can pay your family 'appropriate rates' both equally general terms I think you will agree? I'm sorry Sven but if there were a sensible policy and it was set out with realistic terms and conditions then no-one of any extreme point of view could reasonably argue against it! For example there is no reason why an MP should be able to claim for a TV licence yet there plenty of sense for an MP to be able to claim a reasonable MMA (type allowance) or be given a rail warrant to travel between their constituency and London. No one is going to say that a member of the cabinet should not have an entertainment allowance for official business but they should pay for their own personal meals at all other times?

When a Pad was on a course, did He pay food and accommodation? If MPs were not needed to stay in London they would not incur the costs of living in the capital, including food.

Do businessmen staying in hotels get expenses for their food?

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Sven

. . . . . and what is that sensible level.

Would You have them get higher expenses for renting a property, for instance? Travel expenses? Perhaps they should all go into travel lodges as has already been suggested - remember someone on the RM in Travel lodge thread suggested it would cost several hundred thousand a year per person.

Another on this thread was paid to visit the cinema occasionally when He was away from home, and given beer money - should this happen?

....more importantly what is the 'appropriate' rate to pay your own family for doing work that is hard to account for! The devil is in the detail but the general rules need setting out so they are clear and auditable. If it makes financial sense to do something then by all means justify it, the idea of going into travel lodges is I feel a little dramatic in the same way that Kerry McCarthy got a little stroppy when people suggested about MPs blocks or quarters akin to that which we in the foces live in!

Again, memory doesn't serve me well but it may well have been local government rates - it certainly was already worked out rates of pay. This vagueness is not due to policy but as I have said, my own poor memory.

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Sven, having looked at what you posted I am a little concerned that you stated what would become a LibDem policy yet missed the part where I mentioned a 'sensible policy' or was that an oversight on your behalf?

The term "sensible policy" is subjective. Some on here would have MPs claim no expenses and would call that sensible.

As I said, Lib Dem policy is to limit the employment of family members to one - and for them to be paid at appropriate rates - and for receipts to be needed for all expenses over [and here I must be vague since my memory has let me down since Simon Hughes spoke of it] a certain amount (almost certainly single figures)

So you can't go firm on a 'sensible policy' yet can pay your family 'appropriate rates' both equally general terms I think you will agree? I'm sorry Sven but if there were a sensible policy and it was set out with realistic terms and conditions then no-one of any extreme point of view could reasonably argue against it! For example there is no reason why an MP should be able to claim for a TV licence yet there plenty of sense for an MP to be able to claim a reasonable MMA (type allowance) or be given a rail warrant to travel between their constituency and London. No one is going to say that a member of the cabinet should not have an entertainment allowance for official business but they should pay for their own personal meals at all other times?

When a Pad was on a course, did He pay food and accommodation? If MPs were not needed to stay in London they would not incur the costs of living in the capital, including food.

Do businessmen staying in hotels get expenses for their food?

In the big bad world of PAYD you pay whether you are a pad or a singlie on course.

Also, Sven a businessman staying in a hotel is a little different to someone whose job entails and allows for living in 2 locations. A businessman does not get a living/2nd home allowance while he is away on business. An MP is given a 2nd home and as such such act as if it were their home - that is they pay for food and other normal living expenses.

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Originally Posted by Sven

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Sven, having looked at what you posted I am a little concerned that you stated what would become a LibDem policy yet missed the part where I mentioned a 'sensible policy' or was that an oversight on your behalf?

The term "sensible policy" is subjective. Some on here would have MPs claim no expenses and would call that sensible.

As I said, Lib Dem policy is to limit the employment of family members to one - and for them to be paid at appropriate rates - and for receipts to be needed for all expenses over [and here I must be vague since my memory has let me down since Simon Hughes spoke of it] a certain amount (almost certainly single figures)

So you can't go firm on a 'sensible policy' yet can pay your family 'appropriate rates' both equally general terms I think you will agree? I'm sorry Sven but if there were a sensible policy and it was set out with realistic terms and conditions then no-one of any extreme point of view could reasonably argue against it! For example there is no reason why an MP should be able to claim for a TV licence yet there plenty of sense for an MP to be able to claim a reasonable MMA (type allowance) or be given a rail warrant to travel between their constituency and London. No one is going to say that a member of the cabinet should not have an entertainment allowance for official business but they should pay for their own personal meals at all other times?

When a Pad was on a course, did He pay food and accommodation? If MPs were not needed to stay in London they would not incur the costs of living in the capital, including food.

Do businessmen staying in hotels get expenses for their food?

In the big bad world of PAYD you pay whether you are a pad or a singlie on course.

That's why I asked in the past tense - what about the businessman scenario? Certainly my friend and fellow air trooper did when He was something big in food exports - but then, He was something of a big-wig in a multi-national.

Originally Posted by Horridlittleman

Also, Sven a businessman staying in a hotel is a little different to someone whose job entails and allows for living in 2 locations. A businessman does not get a living/2nd home allowance while he is away on business. An MP is given a 2nd home and as such such act as if it were their home - that is they pay for food and other normal living expenses.

I believe that businessmen are offered lucrative relocation expences. And don't soldiers get help with their mortgages (although I know little about the latter)?