poppet2 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 On the face of it it looks like she has taken out a big mortgage on a home, got the taxpayer to part-fund the interest payments then sold the home making a huge capital gain. Is that illegal? It's certainly morally repugnant but is it actually illegal? The general quietness about this across all the party benches suggests she won't be the only one. Very few MPs are actually sticking their head above the parapet on this one so a lot of them will be at it, snouts stuck in the trough. The rules state she is not to allow her parents to stay at the second home that we are paying for. Surprise, Surprise, the tax payer pays for her second home, which happens to be the biggest home, then she pockets the £1.2 million PROFIT made on the house. Disgraceful. If the tax payer pays for the mortgage, then the Profit should return to the taxpayer. ---------- Post added 08-04-2014 at 13:38 ---------- On the face of it it looks like she has taken out a big mortgage on a home, got the taxpayer to part-fund the interest payments then sold the home making a huge capital gain. Of which she has yet to pay Capital Gains Tax! How long ago did she sell that house? Why aren't HMRC on her doorstep? Next thing you know MPs will be claiming the`Rent to Buy' scheme, but then they don't need to! ---------- Post added 08-04-2014 at 13:44 ---------- She should be jailed like any other fiddler. It is an absolute disgrace that MPs are above the law. She has broken Parliamentary Law, not The Law. What do you expect if she is abiding by a`Thieves Charter?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Over 150,000 people have signed a petition in the last 3 days, stating she should either pay back the £45,000 or resign, personally I think she should do both along with some jail time for fraud, but that's just me. Now I realise this isn't a government petition so they aren't forced to raise the issue in the house and HMG can just ignore it if they choose, but if you want to add your name it's here http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/maria-miller-mp-either-pay-back-45-000-in-fraudulent-expense-claims-or-resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Over 150,000 people have signed a petition in the last 3 days, stating she should either pay back the £45,000 or resign, personally I think she should do both along with some jail time for fraud, but that's just me. Now I realise this isn't a government petition so they aren't forced to raise the issue in the house and HMG can just ignore it if they choose, but if you want to add your name it's here http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/maria-miller-mp-either-pay-back-45-000-in-fraudulent-expense-claims-or-resign. Totally agree. The petition doesn't go far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The rules state she is not to allow her parents to stay at the second home that we are paying for. Surprise, Surprise, the tax payer pays for her second home, which happens to be the biggest home, then she pockets the £1.2 million PROFIT made on the house. Disgraceful. If the tax payer pays for the mortgage, then the Profit should return to the taxpayer. ---------- Post added 08-04-2014 at 13:38 ---------- Of which she has yet to pay Capital Gains Tax! How long ago did she sell that house? Why aren't HMRC on her doorstep? Next thing you know MPs will be claiming the`Rent to Buy' scheme, but then they don't need to! ---------- Post added 08-04-2014 at 13:44 ---------- She has broken Parliamentary Law, not The Law. What do you expect if she is abiding by a`Thieves Charter?' If a taxpayer becomes unemployed, claims help with mortgage interest then goes on to make a big profit on their property further down the line then should they give some of the profit back? Just a scenario. I think Miller is despicable but just playing devil's advocate here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Surprise, Surprise, the tax payer pays for her second home, which happens to be the biggest home, then she pockets the £1.2 million PROFIT made on the house. Disgraceful. If the tax payer pays for the mortgage, then the Profit should return to the taxpayer. I agree, MP's should not be allowed to profit from the sale of homes that we bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Well, and the tactic is working. The wheels are churning. Government squeeze on the cutbacks. People complain that it is harsh. Fighting. Anger. Then newspaper report both side. Biting back would mean someone within government shall be sacrificed. Being made as the scapegoat. Relieve the tension. Globally we are not moving anywhere. It takes the heat of the economics. Distract this area, keep voters motivated by anger, and make them feel that they are making a difference, and getting them back in focus. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Dear Ms Miller. Embrace yourself. The witch is you, and you shall be hunted down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I agree, MP's should not be allowed to profit from the sale of homes that we bought. That would only apply IMO if the taxpayer was aware and complacent of her dealings in the housing market. If there's no incentive to profit then the likelihood the issue would disappear. If the issue hadn't been brought to light we'd still be in the dark and her speculation will no doubt have continued. She is employed to represent her constituents and government, not a property speculator. The issue of her speculating and making profits should not even be a consideration unless it's self financed. Not only the profits from the sale be seized but the house also, with an additional hefty fine and or prison. We really do need to kick this parasitic problem into touch. Profit is the result of her dealings, it's the "dealings" that should be eradicated. ---------- Post added 08-04-2014 at 15:54 ---------- Well, and the tactic is working. The wheels are churning. Government squeeze on the cutbacks. People complain that it is harsh. Fighting. Anger. Then newspaper report both side. Biting back would mean someone within government shall be sacrificed. Being made as the scapegoat. Relieve the tension. Globally we are not moving anywhere. It takes the heat of the economics. Distract this area, keep voters motivated by anger, and make them feel that they are making a difference, and getting them back in focus. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Dear Ms Miller. Embrace yourself. The witch is you, and you shall be hunted down. Sounds like you're almost apologising for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 ... Sounds like you're almost apologising for her. I am just a spectator watching the scene unfold in front of me. I am not even going to say things just to please others politically. I can indeed see it happen so easily. But then again, I am not going to put myself in a position whereby I need to scapegoat on her. Why am I judging her personally ? She tried to retaliate when being personally audited on her finances, which indeed is actually a very intrusive thing. Job or no job. It is not my role to judge her on how she handles her job. I think it is indeed unfortunate that she is now made a bigger case out of than the others. If anything, I certainly do think that it is not possible to know all rules, and policies within your job as a MP. It actually is quite funny for me to see here. On the one hand, the voters do not educate themselves at all in policies and government information, until someone like the newspaper actually pull out the facts and put together a story. On the other hand, when things like this is leaked, people then criticise, and as if they do so in a way to show that they too could have done her job. Of which obviously they couldn't, because there are a lot of rules within the role of an MP in terms of the administration never mind actually knowing your own constituencies' needs and a good understanding of the direction of the politics. No, I do not want to judge her. She is not and should not need to be carrying the entire political team on her single shoulder. Voters should not make her a scapegoat either for ALL politician's mistakes. Because if they are being fair, then they should not criticise and lump her mistake with the others and judge her of things she did not do. Is that fair ? I already mentioned that there is a flaw in the expense system already, so why should this not be changed? Then to scrutinise the MPs when they do get it wrong. Some I am sure deliberately lied and cheat the system, but I also do genuinely believe that some where stupid and overlooked mistakes. The question is should it be my role as a voter to do anything about that ? I am a voter, I am not on the committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 I am just a spectator watching the scene unfold in front of me. I am not even going to say things just to please others politically. I can indeed see it happen so easily. But then again, I am not going to put myself in a position whereby I need to scapegoat on her. Why am I judging her personally ? She tried to retaliate when being personally audited on her finances, which indeed is actually a very intrusive thing. Job or no job. It is not my role to judge her on how she handles her job. I think it is indeed unfortunate that she is now made a bigger case out of than the others. If anything, I certainly do think that it is not possible to know all rules, and policies within your job as a MP. It actually is quite funny for me to see here. On the one hand, the voters do not educate themselves at all in policies and government information, until someone like the newspaper actually pull out the facts and put together a story. On the other hand, when things like this is leaked, people then criticise, and as if they do so in a way to show that they too could have done her job. Of which obviously they couldn't, because there are a lot of rules within the role of an MP in terms of the administration never mind actually knowing your own constituencies' needs and a good understanding of the direction of the politics. No, I do not want to judge her. She is not and should not need to be carrying the entire political team on her single shoulder. Voters should not make her a scapegoat either for ALL politician's mistakes. Because if they are being fair, then they should not criticise and lump her mistake with the others and judge her of things she did not do. Is that fair ? I already mentioned that there is a flaw in the expense system already, so why should this not be changed? Then to scrutinise the MPs when they do get it wrong. Some I am sure deliberately lied and cheat the system, but I also do genuinely believe that some where stupid and overlooked mistakes. The question is should it be my role as a voter to do anything about that ? I am a voter, I am not on the committee. Sorry, I''ll amend my original statement. Sounds like you're almost apologising for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Sorry, I''ll amend my original statement. And you're making a scapegoat, and let her carry the burden of all the other mistakes of the current and previous governments. In any other walk of life, the idea of workers setting and approving their own allowances might appear bizarre. But constitutional expert Lord Norton said MPs are in a unique position. "Parliament is a sovereign institution - no-one else can tell MPs what to do," he said. "Because it is parliament that ultimately authorises all public spending - including MPs' salaries - they are bound to vote for their own salaries and allowances." Describing the current situation as a "conundrum" Lord Norton identified two characteristics of the current system - a lack of transparency, and the power MPs have to decide their own allowances. These always had the "potential" to generate the current controversy, he said. He suggests setting up a statutory body detached from the process to decide on the level of wages and allowances. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8044758.stm So in parliament, MPs are now squeezing out the weaker ones or the ones who they may actually have a personal agenda against, out them, and then let others deal with the hysteria of the voter's angst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.