New Tory Sleaze

#1
I don't believe I'm highlighting a story from the Mail on Sunday, but will give some extra links to prove the provenence of the story.

Mr and Mrs Winterton are taking the p1ss out of Commons expenses by claiming for a property they bought outright and then placed into a trust in order to cheat the inheritance tax.

They are paying rent to the trust - to the tune of £21,600 - and then claiming it back from the House of Commons.

The Mail Story

The Wintertons reply
 
#2
This is beyond belief in a society where most people cannot afford to buy a first home. Many people from a poorer background cannot afford to buy their first homes and are having to move back in with their parents or live in shared accomodation due to the debt they have to pay back. We have a failing NHS that is in dire need of more money, whilst the likes of these two and many more from all political parties are swanning around with two houses and then still claiming more of our money.

MP's expenses should not only be a lot more transparent but they should be limited:

-rent for a second home in London, restricted to a certain amount so they can't all have huge houses in the best areas

-train journeys should be restricted to travelling normal class with the rest of us

-if they want a car they should pay for it themselves but can claim petrol to and from their constituency to Parliament; any other journey should have to be proven to be part of their work

-they already have subsidised meals in parliament (I have eaten there and know how cheap it is) so they cannot claim other meals


FFS they get paid a good wage, they should have to live off it like the rest of us mere mortals do!
 
#3
Are you hoping that someone will try to defend this scumbag in the way that you defend comparable Liarbore thieves?

Don't go holding your breath now...
 
#4
And they are doing nothing wrong, all of what they are doing is perfectly legal, just because you don't agree with it and it not "right" does not mean this is an example of tory sleaze.

Yes tax payers money could be better spent but that is not the fault of the claimants who are only playing by the rules, save your ire for the government who are the people that should be sorting this out, or are the people that matter in that government doing the same or similar.
 
#5
Another point I forgot to add was that these are the same ministers (the commons as a whole) that tried to abolish their own accountability under the Freedom of Information Act only a few months ago. Imagine how bad it could be without access to this type of information.

I have a feeling that there is a lot more to come.
 
#6
zippy483 said:
And they are doing nothing wrong, all of what they are doing is perfectly legal, just because you don't agree with it and it not "right" does not mean this is an example of tory sleaze.

Yes tax payers money could be better spent but that is not the fault of the claimants who are only playing by the rules, save your ire for the government who are the people that should be sorting this out, or are the people that matter in that government doing the same or similar.
Zippy have you been drinking too much........
Just because a shite system provides a gray-train does not mean you have to jump on and proffit all you can. MPs of all parties just take the pisss :x
 
#7
Interesting that story.....They put their House into the hands of a Trust, in order to avoid paying a claimed £280,000 inheritance tax on a £700,000 House. I don't see any problem with, any chance I find to avoid paying tax to that useless c**t Brown I'd have already taken it. And I very much doubt anybody else here would do otherwise.

In order to keep living in said House and keep the Trust legal, I presume they'd have to pay rent. In which case they're entitled to claim rent from the House of Common's Fees Office. Since they asked the Fee's Office to say if this was legit, and the Fee's Office ok'ed the deal, it's legit. Who'e fault is it then? The slimebags for trying to dodge paying tax that Neui labour only doubled from £300,00 to £600,000 cos Call Me Dave said a Neui Tory Government would? The Commons Fee's Office for being so slack with our cash? The Commons as a whole for being so greedy?
 
#8
There should be houses/apartments by now bought and paid for, for MPs to live in whilst in London.

Then they don't get anymoney at all.

Train fares to and from their real home, in their constituency.

A fixed amount given to their office. They can either pay for staff or keep the money if their wife does the work, no more scams. Which can also cover petrol and anything else they need.

They pay for their houses and private expenses from their own pocket (ie wages). Like we do.

Expenses can come from the office budget in most cases too. They can either attempt to get rich from the office budget (and no doubt lose the next election) or spend it.

And all this money in to the parties should stop too. It should be paid to the party who are then, by law, required to put it in to a central pot.

As for the messing in parliment.... 4 letters. PAYD.
 
#9
Why is everyone so amazed / surprised / outraged at this story about the Wintertons?
All politicos are as bad as each other. The only time that you will ever see them is when its time to make sure that they are not dislodged from the Gravy Train.
All we exist for is to ensure that their rather pleasant life style continues
 
#10
You may not like the way this MP has used the system to his advantage, but what he has done is LEGAL. Can you blame the man for wanting to avoid inheritance tax? Personally, I wish I could do the same! If as has already been said by Kitmarlowe, this was okayed following consultation with the Fees Office. I don't see how this non-story can be classified as "Tory Sleaze".

Possibly "Tory intelligent and legal use of the rules in place to his own advantage"...

If a single mother on the dole was legally claiming money in a similar way, would you be criticizing her for "sleaze"? Or would you be criticizing the system for allowing it?

Is this just another effort to smokescreen the truly sleazy goings on in the Labour Govt, by harking back to the pre 96 anti tory media frenzy?
 
#11
right-grumpy said:
zippy483 said:
And they are doing nothing wrong, all of what they are doing is perfectly legal, just because you don't agree with it and it not "right" does not mean this is an example of tory sleaze.

Yes tax payers money could be better spent but that is not the fault of the claimants who are only playing by the rules, save your ire for the government who are the people that should be sorting this out, or are the people that matter in that government doing the same or similar.
Zippy have you been drinking too much........
Just because a shite system provides a gray-train does not mean you have to jump on and proffit all you can. MPs of all parties just take the pisss :x
All I am saying here is that it's not illegal, so they have done nothing wrong, I haven't said that I agree with the fact that they have done it but if the rules of the game allow people to 'cheat' like this then the rules most definately need changing.

I just get a bit cheesed with some of the opinions on this forum that Tory = bad, and that anyone else can do no wrong, it is about time some people woke up to the fact that the Conservatives have not been in power since 1997 and as such the blame for the mess this country is in in general cannot be laid at their door.

Rules like the one that allow the Wintertons to cash in on a flat that they own outright should be changed but I rather suspect the won't be because most of todays politicians have their collective snouts in the same trough.

The matter of employing ones relatives as constituency secretaries etc is not in itself bad, paying your son £45k for stuffing envelopes most certainly is, I read a quote in the Telegraph at the weekend from an MP (not sure which one) and he said "where am I going to get a Cambridge graduate, with an encyclopeadic knowledge of my constituency, that is prepared to work unsociable hours for the wage I pay my wife". I believe that wage was somewhere in the region of £25K, Personally I dont find that unreasonable.

The term sleaze should be reserved for those profitting from their position as an MP such as cash for questions in the past i.e getting paid by outside agencies to use your time as an MP for their benefit.
 
#13
Exactly TMW.
I dont recall seeing a post by Sven getting pissy and outraged about liarbore sleaze.

The more I see of this blokes posts the more I beleive that this bloke writes for the Gruniad.

For me, the Wintertons have done nothing wrong. They wont see the money from the sale of the house, it will ahve gone to relatives presumably.

Tell me Sven, you ran for political appointment last year as a liberal and failed, I can see why as you are showing your true socialist colours now......will you be running for a Liarbore post next?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Legal it might be (unlike pretty much ALL the labliar scams they've been caught at, including a fcuking great war in Iraq), but it's still the lowest form of disgusting sleaze.

WE, not the gobment are paying for this 'freebie' they're taking. They should be chucked out of their jobs.
 
#15
Biped said:
Legal it might be (unlike pretty much ALL the labliar scams they've been caught at, including a fcuking great war in Iraq), but it's still the lowest form of disgusting sleaze.

WE, not the gobment are paying for this 'freebie' they're taking. They should be chucked out of their jobs.
How do you work that one out?

£21k for rented accn in the smoke doesn't sound unreasonable.

Its a smoke screen by the scum Liarbore gov activists (bit like Sven) to divert attention from their thieving scrotes.
 
#16
Doesn't any one find it strange that all these stories about the Tories start surfacing after yet another batch of NuLabor accolytes get caught playing fast and loose with the rules, and in general rules they themselves set up to make life difficult for the Tories. Just remember that NuLabor after Mandy had been found with his hand in the till twice sent him to Brussels where such activity was more acceptable.
 
#18
I can't help, after reading the reply from the Wintertons, that this is another ridiculous story from a ridiculous paper. The facts (as I see them):

The money they claim for their second home is the market rate, that is to say, the cost they would claim back for living in rented accomodation, and so there is no extra cost to the tax payer.

They make profit from the arrangement as they are renting the house from themselves. If they rented from someone else then that person would make the same profit. AND the Wintertons would then rent their house out to someone at the market rate and so make the same profit.

Does the fact that they make the profit make it immoral? Perhaps. But they make no more money than if they rented the property themselves and lived in another rented house EXCEPT for the fact that they pay less inheritance tax.

Which is a tax dodge that we'd all do if we could, as everyone hates inheritance tax.

And finally (opinion not fact):
MPs need to travel between their constituencies and London, and around the country to do their job. I don't pay to travel to a military course or to go recruiting, I get a hire car/rail warrant/MMA, and so should MPs.

Not having a second home in London would mean enlessly staying in hotels and so costing more.

MPs get paid well, but actually when you compare it to the pay of international business executives and top end civil servants its pretty fair, although I wouldn't want to see it going up. MPs in other countries get paid more.

On the issue of freedom of information immunity, well, the idea that they can avoid that is shocking and they deserve a slapping for thinking like that.

Sorry, I'm done now.
 
#19
The_Rocket_Man said:
I can't help, after reading the reply from the Wintertons, that this is another ridiculous story from a ridiculous paper. The facts (as I see them):

The money they claim for their second home is the market rate, that is to say, the cost they would claim back for living in rented accomodation, and so there is no extra cost to the tax payer.

They make profit from the arrangement as they are renting the house from themselves. If they rented from someone else then that person would make the same profit. AND the Wintertons would then rent their house out to someone at the market rate and so make the same profit.

Does the fact that they make the profit make it immoral? Perhaps. But they make no more money than if they rented the property themselves and lived in another rented house EXCEPT for the fact that they pay less inheritance tax.

Which is a tax dodge that we'd all do if we could, as everyone hates inheritance tax.

And finally (opinion not fact):
MPs need to travel between their constituencies and London, and around the country to do their job. I don't pay to travel to a military course or to go recruiting, I get a hire car/rail warrant/MMA, and so should MPs.

Not having a second home in London would mean enlessly staying in hotels and so costing more.

MPs get paid well, but actually when you compare it to the pay of international business executives and top end civil servants its pretty fair, although I wouldn't want to see it going up. MPs in other countries get paid more.

On the issue of freedom of information immunity, well, the idea that they can avoid that is shocking and they deserve a slapping for thinking like that.

Sorry, I'm done now.

Oh so it's OK if my parents put their house; which has the mortgage paid, into trust for myself and my brother. They then happen to get fired from their jobs and claim rent from social security. If it's OK for them it should be OK for us right?

It doesn't matter which party they stand for this type of action is deplorable.

I actually wrote quite a long post earlier about trusts and why we have them but how they are also abused by the rich but arrse when tits up on me and lost it.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
GordonBrown said:
Biped said:
Legal it might be (unlike pretty much ALL the labliar scams they've been caught at, including a fcuking great war in Iraq), but it's still the lowest form of disgusting sleaze.

WE, not the gobment are paying for this 'freebie' they're taking. They should be chucked out of their jobs.
How do you work that one out?

£21k for rented accn in the smoke doesn't sound unreasonable.

Its a smoke screen by the scum Liarbore gov activists (bit like Sven) to divert attention from their thieving scrotes.
21k rent for a property they still own because they run the trust, which they run for their own benefit, and they are the beneficiaries - and the tax-payer is paying the rent they are paying themselves into their own trust which is there to avoid death duties.

Which other way around can I explain this? :roll:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads