Now this whole anger at MP’s renting out their second homes whilst renting a property themselves isn’t really an issue in my opinion. Now we can all, I think, accept that the majority of MP’s need a second home of some sort to live in around the London area so that they can go to work in Westminster as well as working in their constituency.
Now if we go back to the situation in say 2005 there were MP’s that were taking advantage of the rules and bending them as much as they could without breaking them to maximise their ability to build up a property portfolio at the expense of the tax payers. Though they did nothing strictly wrong, it was an abuse of the system which ultimately led to the new system we have now. This stops an MP being able to claim for mortgage payments on second homes in and around London.
So MP’s now have 2 options to cover the cost of their accommodation in London they can rent a property or they can stay in a hotel and have the cost of that picked up by the tax payer (up to £200 a night). Which I think most of us would consider a reasonable alternative to the previous situation.
However we now have the problem of those MP’s who own a second home and who could live in them, but would be at a detriment to themselves if there is a mortgage on the property. As not only would they be paying for one on their main home in their constituency, like the majority of everyone else who owns a property; but they would also be paying for a second mortgage too.
Now if I and I am sure many of you, were in the position where you are faced with the position of being worse off financially you would do all you could to mitigate the financial loss to yourselves. Which in this situation would mean the obvious renting out the second property you own to cover the payments of your mortgage on it. Which then means, although you own the property and are renting it you are not making any profit on such as the rent pays the mortgage.
So to then subsequently claim rent for living in another property is not leaving you financially better off at the tax payers’ expense, but leaves you in the same position as every other MP claiming rent for a place to live in and around the London area.
So when I look at this hysteria about the whole situation I really think it’s a lot of fuss over nothing. Unless people can prove that beyond all reasonable doubt that these MP’s in question are actually making a profit from the state for what they are doing. Such as they own the property outright with no mortgage on them, then I would accept that they are playing the system in an immoral way. But to do such you would need the financial records of the MP’s doing it to show such and personally I am not sure how you would be able to get hold of those legally that easily. Also remember one of the key principles of English law that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, not by the media and mass hysteria.
Now if we go back to the situation in say 2005 there were MP’s that were taking advantage of the rules and bending them as much as they could without breaking them to maximise their ability to build up a property portfolio at the expense of the tax payers. Though they did nothing strictly wrong, it was an abuse of the system which ultimately led to the new system we have now. This stops an MP being able to claim for mortgage payments on second homes in and around London.
So MP’s now have 2 options to cover the cost of their accommodation in London they can rent a property or they can stay in a hotel and have the cost of that picked up by the tax payer (up to £200 a night). Which I think most of us would consider a reasonable alternative to the previous situation.
However we now have the problem of those MP’s who own a second home and who could live in them, but would be at a detriment to themselves if there is a mortgage on the property. As not only would they be paying for one on their main home in their constituency, like the majority of everyone else who owns a property; but they would also be paying for a second mortgage too.
Now if I and I am sure many of you, were in the position where you are faced with the position of being worse off financially you would do all you could to mitigate the financial loss to yourselves. Which in this situation would mean the obvious renting out the second property you own to cover the payments of your mortgage on it. Which then means, although you own the property and are renting it you are not making any profit on such as the rent pays the mortgage.
So to then subsequently claim rent for living in another property is not leaving you financially better off at the tax payers’ expense, but leaves you in the same position as every other MP claiming rent for a place to live in and around the London area.
So when I look at this hysteria about the whole situation I really think it’s a lot of fuss over nothing. Unless people can prove that beyond all reasonable doubt that these MP’s in question are actually making a profit from the state for what they are doing. Such as they own the property outright with no mortgage on them, then I would accept that they are playing the system in an immoral way. But to do such you would need the financial records of the MP’s doing it to show such and personally I am not sure how you would be able to get hold of those legally that easily. Also remember one of the key principles of English law that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, not by the media and mass hysteria.
RSS Feed