Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  

Were Mp's Claiming Mortgage Interest On Interest Only Mortgages?

Recommended Posts

socialise the losses, MP keeps the profits.

If an organisation is paying the cost of an asset, the asset must, de facto, belong to the organisation, as well as any profits and losses.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were using interest only morgages, thats speculation in a market without having to use any of their own money.

Add to that their avoidance of Capital Gains Tax,

plus their authority to determine the nations housing policy,

and neglecting their duty to regulate the banks, particularly with regard to 100% mortgages.

And people wonder why they didn't see the financial crisis coming!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
dont just sit there, email some of the journos who've been writing about it

Happy to do that. Like who? how do you get their email address? Most of the time polite, innocent and foul language free comments on their blogs get deleted, or at best completely ignored.

Its been said lots of journalists read this site. Hope so.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, interest-only is a complete red herring here. In fact it makes a lot of sense for an MP who expects to keep a London pad for the years they're in parliament, then dispense with it.

But sure, take what opportunities you can to complain of the conflict of interest. C.f. http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/kleptocratic-rule/ :

I see little point in repeating here what the mainstream media are telling us daily, so I’ve not hitherto commented on MPs expenses. But a couple of extremely important points seem to have escaped the mainstream discussion. One is economic and has a bearing on the current crisis. The other is political, and goes back centuries, demonstrating the institutional contempt our parliament has for the idea that MPs represent their constituents.

To start with the economic one: MPs are supposed to declare their interests, and may be required to take steps to avoid conflicts of interest. For example, a minister trading in shares of companies likely to be affected by his/her decisions would be a clear conflict of interest. I’m not sure how far the rules go, but you get the point. Yet the parliamentary allowances encourages members to buy property at the taxpayer’s expense. It appears unsurprisingly to have turned a majority of MPs into property speculators, with a vested interest in ever-rising house prices. No wonder they cheered the bubble on, right to the point where it busted the banks!

The more fundamental point is perhaps most vividly illustrated by the story of Andrew Mackay and Julie Kirkbride. The two are married to each other and have a family, so one might suppose they live together whilst not at work. But he is MP for Bracknell, whereas she is MP for Bromsgrove. That’s two towns in altogether different parts of the country: only in the alphabet are they neighbours! We can infer that at least one (probably both) of them doesn’t live in or even near their constituency, and has no day-to-day contact with the people he/she purports to represent. Yet nobody in the mainstream media or political establishment sees that as anything out of the ordinary. Only their expenses have attracted outrage!

To my mind, anyone purporting to represent a constituency should, at the very least, live there. How else can they expect to get a true feeling for the day-to-day concerns of people there, and represent them? This implies that expenses for a second home should only ever be applicable to the MP spending time in London to attend Parliament: expenses for homes elsewhere are pure travesty. Yet the system holds non-Londoners in such contempt that our so-called representatives are not merely expected but required to live primarily in a distant city, whose interests and concerns are often altogether different to ours.

My first reform would be to hook MPs up to conduct normal parliamentary duties, such as attending debates, from an office in their constituencies. Business travel to London, as to other destinations, will of course be required a few times a year, but should be the exception rather than the rule. Normal hotel expenses, whether receipted or per diem, would then be appropriate for their time in London, and we (taxpayers) could save maybe 70-80% of the second-homes money while still paying them an ample £200/day.

Oh, and in a mild told-you-so vein, I should perhaps point to the second paragraph of my article from 16 months ago.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   326 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?

      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.