MP's fraudulent expense claims: Debt written off.

[Gwylan]

When you reach a certain level it becomes actually worthless to pursue small amounts. Compare to the story of the Midland Bank realising it cost them huge amounts in overtime having tellers go over every transaction to find a few missing pence per day in the cash desks; multitudes more than they were losing. They stopped.

I remember when working for the Alliance in 1980, spending pretty much an entire day chasing a discrepancy in an account of someone who had just died. It was a tiny amound (about 70p IIRC) that eventually I traced to a payment made in something like 1955, having spent several hours rummaging round a basement looking at old records. I thought at the time, my hours could have been better spent, glad there's some sort of common sense in the finance sector

 

[Nibble]

It's not so much that they've been written off, I can understand the cost and time involved in retrieving the money. Having said that would it be so difficult to simply deduct the amounts from their salary? It's what would happen to the average person if they owed money to the government.

No, what gets my goat is the very fact the MP's have willingly ignored the fact they have duped the taxpayer in the first place and then simply had the moral bankruptcy to never bother paying it back.

 

[Cian]

It is irrelevant if it is 1% or not, it is stealing taxpayers money. They are clearly not honest individuals. The odd error, ok, but there are loads of them! They need a different system, maybe paying it themselves and then claiming it back up to a maximum they can not exceed.
Otherwise what is to stop them just claiming a few hundred here and there as they know it won't be followed up?

Its 26 MPs out of 650; the amounts involved are tiny compared to the overall amount paid out.

Would you rather then spent more taxpayers money getting it back? It'd be significantly more, you aren't going to get a staff member for £2,100 a year.

 

[Cian]

That is exactly why they need a different system. It is being abused in a way they know they will get away with. They are supposed to represent the people not steal from them!
Also, why would it cost so much to make them pay it back? They clearly know who owes what already. How can it cost much to just deduct it from their next pay packet?

These are all disputed claims. Disputes require someone to work through them. That isn't free.

Its £3 per MP per year. That isn't enough to consider "abuse" and they've just given themselves rather a lot higher payrise than that, if you want something to rally against.

 

[Cian]

Yes that is distasteful as well. The effort to dispute the claims should come from the MPs after their appalling track record. Just take the claims and then let the MPs do the leg work to claim it back.

Who do you expect them to dispute them to? A person or persons are required for this.

You are not going to find a cost-neutral way or even a minorly loss-making way to get them back. There is a damn good reason they've been written off.

 

[Cian]

Just stick them on a desk of someone who already deals with them. They can then get around to it eventually when/if they have time.
Ok it will be slow but that will only help stop them claiming for stupid things.

So you've no workable suggestion then.

I imagine you'd be spitting fire if your employer refused to pay an expense that you claimed was legitimate as they were going to "get around to it eventually", seeing as you've got yourself so worked up over this case of the media making a huge issue of bog all.

 

[Nibble]

If any of us claimed expenses at the workplace that were unreasonable our employer would have a strong case for gross misconduct. If they were a sympathetic employer who simply ticked you off and asked you to pay it back and you simply ignored their request and never paid it back you'd likely be sacked.

 

[Cian]

If any of us claimed expenses at the workplace that were unreasonable our employer would have a strong case for gross misconduct. If they were a sympathetic employer who simply ticked you off and asked you to pay it back and you simply ignored their request and never paid it back you'd likely be sacked.

They're disputed amounts, not proven false expenses. Vast, vast difference.

There is a good reason these have been written off - they're not doing it to be nice, they're doing it to save money.

 

[Triggaaar]

Hands up on here who's had money that they owed to the Government written off?

I've had parking charges and a speeding penalty written off, because they couldn't be bothered to argue with me anymore. I'm sure there are plenty on here who can empathise with them

 

[Nibble]

They're disputed amounts, not proven false expenses. Vast, vast difference.

There is a good reason these have been written off - they're not doing it to be nice, they're doing it to save money.

Well I for one would rather my tax money goes to investigating the claims rather than paying for some money grubbing MPs' 39 quid breakfast or moat cleaning. If rather spend the money and make an example of them , thus saving money in the long run because they may realise they won't get away with it than see them potentially steal.

 

[Cian]

Well I for one would rather my tax money goes to investigating the claims rather than paying for some money grubbing MPs' 39 quid breakfast or moat cleaning. If rather spend the money and make an example of them , thus saving money in the long run because they may realise they won't get away with it than see them potentially steal.

How much are you willing to spend to "make an example" of what is roughly £3 per MP, then?

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

Until there's an itemised bill for all to see, I'd be happy with those totals. Because it certainly doesn't seem like they're spending it on Ducks again.

 

[Nibble]

How much are you willing to spend to "make an example" of what is roughly £3 per MP, then?

In this instance, whatever it takes. I firmly believe if they are made to account for their indulgences it will prevent MP's spending our money without a though in the future and I also don't imagine it will make a huge difference to my tax bill. In short, I'd rather spend the money investigating these MP's than paying for their breakfast.

 

[Danny-Boy]

If any of us claimed expenses at the workplace that were unreasonable our employer would have a strong case for gross misconduct. If they were a sympathetic employer who simply ticked you off and asked you to pay it back and you simply ignored their request and never paid it back you'd likely be sacked.

Ask Gus...

 

[Cian]

In this instance, whatever it takes. I firmly believe if they are made to account for their indulgences it will prevent MP's spending our money without a though in the future and I also don't imagine it will make a huge difference to my tax bill. In short, I'd rather spend the money investigating these MP's than paying for their breakfast.

You really have no sense of proportionality.

 

[Nibble]

You really have no sense of proportionality.

Just looking at the long term saving. Believe me, my approach would save the taxpayer money in the long run. Plus, I believe in a firm, unwavering principle that MP's are employed to serve the citizens of the UK. If they go off that course they MUST be held to account regardless of cost. FAR more money is wasted elsewhere by those employed to uphold our interests. If they do not wish to pursue the debts then sack them. Cheap, effective and send out the RIGHT message to those thinking of over salting the bacon.

 

[Cian]

Just looking at the long term saving. Believe me, my approach would save the taxpayer money in the long run.

Not unless you've invented a new form of mathematics to go along with it, it won't.

The "long term saving" is going to be, at best, the current amount written off per year plus inflation plus any any % increase in the number of MPs. The costs involved in your approach would continue to be vast multiples of that every year.

 

[Nibble]

Not unless you've invented a new form of mathematics to go along with it, it won't.

The "long term saving" is going to be, at best, the current amount written off per year plus inflation plus any any % increase in the number of MPs. The costs involved in your approach would continue to be vast multiples of that every year.

You've missed the point comprehensively.

 

[Cian]

You've missed the point comprehensively.

Your social crusade isnt part of the point, but pissing money away after tiny debts is government waste itself

 

[Nibble]

Your social crusade isnt part of the point, but pissing money away after tiny debts is government waste itself

I see your point, and it's totally valid in my opinion. Let me put it another way. I think we would save money in the future by spending a bit of money clamping down on abuse of the expenses facility now.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm just saying that's what I think.