Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I agree with Sacha.And if absolutely all living expenses are paid, with no salary, wouldn't the volume of rorts simply multiply?
I don't see what's wrong with MPs earning a good salary. The majority of them work long hours and make enormous sacrifices in terms of family and social life.
-
I don't have a particular problem with the salaries earned by our MPs. And most ministers would probably be able to earn a lot more if they were in the private sector.
And most of the expenses being claimed seem reasonable. But there appear to be a couple of examples where, potentially due to some trickery and clever structuring, ministers are able to claim large sums of puiblic money.
I have no difficulty with someone structuring their affairs so as to minimise their tax liability, so long as it's legal. But when that structuring allows someone to claim large amounts of money from the public, it becomes a potential problem.
I still don't know how all the expenses rules work, but it sounds odd to me that a minister can own a house in Wellngton and get paid to rent another. Or can put a house in another entity's name and claim he doesn't "own" it. Again, I've no problem with that if English is doing it to minimise tax liability. But is that why he did it? There's something that smells about the whole thing.
I'd also be interested to know what the practice was under the previous government. Labour MPs are not openly attacking English, which makes me suspicious.
-
I caught a bit on the news about English's trust.
It sounds like he removed himself as trustee and beneficiary, in order to fit within the expenses rules. I'm not sure who the beneficiaries of his trust now are: probably his kids and maybe his wife. Key has apparently claimed English didn't make the changes to take advantage of the expenses rules. Can anyone else see the Tui billboard?
I'm not sure what the expenses rules state, but if he's managed to retain the power of appointment over who the other trustees are he's probably still effectively in control of the trust, and thus the property.
Which suggests it's a pretty easy thing to get around the rules.
I know these expenses rules are probably complex, as are the issues raised by them, but I still feel a lingering unease about our paying English's mortgage. Especially at a time when he's telling others to tighten their belts.
-
What Craig said (second comment).
Let's avoid the cheap shots about Holmes' family.
-
Coherent doesn't mean accurate. If you are interested I've written about it here.
-
Might have been more convincing had his analysis of section 59 not been so flawed.
-
we can all have a big 'stimulus' party
Sorry man, no can do. I don't do that shit any more.
-
(I wonder if I can draft a member's bill for that...?)
Any chance of adding Michael Fay to your Bill?
-
I wonder if Privacy-Gate will die a quick death now one of the women concerned has told Checkpoint she really doesn't care about the privacy issues. Because some of the stuff in the blogosphere has got silly.
The Standard has even managed to find a Weatherston angle to the story.
And apparently some bloggers are posting Privacy Act disclaimers on their post out of genuine fear. I thought it was a joke...
-
Here's another version, inspired by Anita's good work: