Dawlish Discussion

Bedroom Tax I wonder if IDS claims also

171 Views
12 Posts
User 4549
User 4549
13 Oct 2013 17:39

Early day motion 551    Snouts in the  trough  ?????

Main content

Follow this EDM by:

  •  

UNDER-OCCUPANCY PENALTY AND HON. MEMBERS' ALLOWANCES

  • Session: 2013-14
  • Date tabled: 09.10.2013
  • Primary sponsor: Galloway, George
  • Sponsors:

    That this House notes that under the bedroom tax more than 600,000 social tenants with spare rooms must either move or pay an average of £14 a week penalty; further notes that hon. Members with a spare room in their London homes can claim an additional allowance if a child or children routinely reside with them; further notes that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has ruled that they will still be eligible for the additional allowance if the child visits just once a month; condemns the 29 hon. Members who, while backing the bedroom tax, have claimed an additional £64,000 and a further 20 who claimed £37,000; and urges the Government to end this unfair allowance which can only reflect badly with members of the public

3 Agrees
roberta
roberta
13 Oct 2013 18:06

Wasting your time putting that on here, most of the posters are so up themselves and worship the tory party and hate the working class

3 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
13 Oct 2013 18:18

Just want to show how corrupt and self serving some MP's are. 49 members claim enormous amount of public money and yet vote for the bill by finding a way round it for themselves.

4 Agrees
roberta
roberta
14 Oct 2013 12:30

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/19                                                                                    heres another EDM I found which ties in with the above subject User

User 4549
User 4549
14 Oct 2013 12:45

Not one conservative supporter

1 Agree
leatash
leatash
14 Oct 2013 12:45

So out of the 49 how many are Conservative,Labour,etc would be nice to know.

DJ
DJ
14 Oct 2013 17:22

I think it is irrelevant which party they are or if they backed or didn't back the "bedroom tax", if any MP is claiming money for housing larger than 1 bedroom (and frankly why they can't put up with a studio apartment or bedsit I don't know) then they should not be allowed to do so.  I have no problem with MPs who live a distance from Westminster being given some financial help to be based in two locations for their job, but it should be a bare minimum not to give them a tax payer funded cushioned lifestyle.

2 Agrees
roberta
roberta
14 Oct 2013 17:48

I agree DJ, and Im sure theres an empty office block somewhere that could be converted for MPs into bedsits or studio appartments, and if they refused to move into them, take the allowance away. Austerity should apply to all

2 Agrees
User 4549
User 4549
14 Oct 2013 17:55

Its a bit like our new Police Commissioner who refuses to use the luxury apartment at Heavitree but to use public money to stay  somewhere else, I thought he was there to save money, it seems he gets rid of Police Offiicers but takes on more office staff at a cost of £104.000 per year. Does that make any sense? not to me.

1 Agree
roberta
roberta
14 Oct 2013 18:10

Another outrage!!! Get into public office and make a mockery of tax payers

1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
21 Nov 2013 17:01
1 Agree
User 4549
User 4549
21 Nov 2013 20:55

A link to a bit more of what our MP's think of us.

It's shocking but not surprising to learn that 169 MPs who voted to cut benefit cash from our country's poorest people were claiming a joint £3.2million for their own accommodation.

After all, we all saw MPs jeering in Parliament, laughing into the camera as victims of the Bedroom Tax gave their devastating testimonies of what life is like under their cuts.

The bedroom tax is both cruel and not for for purpose - and that the taxes paid on victims' income and benefits is used to provide 'spare bedrooms' for these jeering MPs says all we need to know about this system.



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-cruel-not-purpose-2827061#ixzz2lJclT11Y

1 Agree