geoffrey_prime wrote:
I really dont understand the repeated view being expressed on this board, that a millionaire should not be entitled to claim expenses.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my problem is not with a millionaire claiming expenses, but with a millionaire claiming expenses out of the public purse while insisting that taxes are too high because inefficient public services are frittering away resources unnecessarily.
Just before this expenses furore kicked off, the tory mantra was all about "expenditure restraint" when it comes to public money.
George Osborne made a remarkable statement just over a month ago, for instance. He called for a reassessment of the pay deals that had been negotiated for teachers, nurses and police -- suggesting that it might have been OK for them to expect above-inflation increases during times of economic boom, but:
"Public sector pay needs to reflect the prevailing economic conditions. We need to look at these three pay deals the government came up with. They may be very inflexible at a time when the economic conditions are changing very quickly." (source)
I don't have an argument with that statement, taken at face value. If a nation sees a significant drop in available tax-income, then expenditure will eventually need to reflect this.
But the same people preaching restraint for those paid £30k, are busy picking up £100k paycheques and wondering how best to flip their unnecessary second home in order to avoid capital gains tax.
George Osborne, for instance, remortgaged his house (i.e. took a big lump sum from the bank in return for an increase in mortgage payments) then flipped the house so that the taxpayer paid the increased mortgage.
That's known as milking the system. And milking the system while insisting that everyone else exercise restraint, is hypocrisy bordering on corruption.
