On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> expenses?
> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
> paid enough to buy their own homes.

So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
description requires them to work in two different places that can be
many hours away from each other?
Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
on the other?

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:849d36ce-3753-4d00-bf8c-07367ad7cb97@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
>> expenses?
>> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
>> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>>
>> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
>> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's 
>> being
>> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> many hours away from each other?

Get organised maybe, many people work in more than 2 different places but 
they dont get free houses. We pay for them to have an office in their 
constituency, if they have to go to parliament, I am sure they can get there 
and back by train on the same day. If they are to lazy, which they are 
anyway, to travel home again, they can stay in a B&B. If thats not good 
enough, then they should piss off and get another job.



> Restrict them to just one location and not the other?

What are you on about? they either represent the area they were elected in, 
which is where they should be, or not at all. With all the free houses paid 
for by taxpayers, there should be loads of homes spare. Why not pass them 
on? or give them back when they leave office? Why should the tax payer keep 
footing the bill for massive perks like that?
Better still, why doesnt the council provide them with accomodation, when 
they leave office, pass it on to the next MP and so on. I bet you wouldnt 
see many of them accepting that offer.

On May 12, 10:48 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> > expenses?
> > I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> > Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> > You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
> > free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
> > paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> many hours away from each other?
> Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
> a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
> on the other?
>
> Martin  <><

Not profit from their expenses, no more 'flipping' and not using the
allowance to pay for extravagances or cover the cost of extraordinary
expenses to equally extravagant homes.

I have no problem with them being provided secondary accommodation,
otherwise.

On 13 May, 00:29, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:849d36ce-3753-4d00-bf8c-07367ad7cb97@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> >> expenses?
> >> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> >> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> >> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
> >> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's
> >> being
> >> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> > So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> > description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> > many hours away from each other?
>
> Get organised maybe, many people work in more than 2 different places but
> they dont get free houses. We pay for them to have an office in their
> constituency, if they have to go to parliament, I am sure they can get there
> and back by train on the same day. If they are to lazy, which they are
> anyway, to travel home again, they can stay in a B&B. If thats not good
> enough, then they should piss off and get another job.

OK, so how about government purchasing a hotel and putting them all up
in there while in London.
Room & breakfast only - the rest they can pay themselves. Security
could be handled easily.


>
> > Restrict them to just one location and not the other?
>
> What are you on about? they either represent the area they were elected in,
> which is where they should be, or not at all.

Yet they have to be both at parliament debating and voting on things.
And in their constituency, meeting with constituents, attending
meetings, and so on.
Two different locations to work in.


With all the free houses paid
> for by taxpayers, there should be loads of homes spare. Why not pass them
> on? or give them back when they leave office? Why should the tax payer keep
> footing the bill for massive perks like that?
> Better still, why doesnt the council provide them with accomodation, when
> they leave office, pass it on to the next MP and so on. I bet you wouldnt
> see many of them accepting that offer.

Can't offhand see the people of London, already short of housing,
agreeing to that.



Martin  <><

On 13 May, 07:51, "ghostwhist...@googlemail.com"
 wrote:
> On May 12, 10:48 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> > > expenses?
> > > I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> > > Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> > > You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
> > > free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
> > > paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> > So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> > description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> > many hours away from each other?
> > Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
> > a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
> > on the other?
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Not profit from their expenses, no more 'flipping' and not using the
> allowance to pay for extravagances or cover the cost of extraordinary
> expenses to equally extravagant homes.
>
> I have no problem with them being provided secondary accommodation,
> otherwise.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think on that we can quite agree.

Martin  <><

On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT), "mart2306@hotmail.com"
 wrote:

>On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
>> expenses?
>> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
>> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>>
>> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
>> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
>> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
>So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
>description requires them to work in two different places that can be
>many hours away from each other?
>Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
>a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
>on the other?
>
>Martin  <><

Make them subject to the very same rules as every other human being in
the UK.

Bunk beds in the basement of the HoP would be one option for dealing
with those who need to stay overnight.
-- 
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 13 May, 08:27, mogga  wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT), "mart2...@hotmail.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> >> expenses?
> >> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> >> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> >> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
> >> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
> >> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> >So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> >description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> >many hours away from each other?
> >Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
> >a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
> >on the other?
>
> >Martin  <><
>
> Make them subject to the very same rules as every other human being in
> the UK.
>
> Bunk beds in the basement of the HoP would be one option for dealing
> with those who need to stay overnight.
> --http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.ukhttp://www.holidayunder100.co.uk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Even better - have a health & safety audit of their working premises.
How many people are packed into a small room? How many are asleep in
seating? How are fire exits? Are smoking laws adhered to?
Their whiskey isn't too bad though, got a bottle I use occasionally in
cooking.


Martin  <><

"mogga"  wrote in message 
news:lhtk055vivlsd32tmbp4ntnb4eu2ao19vk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT), "mart2306@hotmail.com"
>  wrote:
>
>>On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
>>> expenses?
>>> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
>>> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>>>
>>> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they 
>>> got
>>> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's 
>>> being
>>> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>>
>>So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
>>description requires them to work in two different places that can be
>>many hours away from each other?
>>Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
>>a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
>>on the other?
>>
>>Martin  <><
>
> Make them subject to the very same rules as every other human being in
> the UK.
>
> Bunk beds in the basement of the HoP would be one option for dealing
> with those who need to stay overnight.

Thats it, or give them sleeping bags, those that are still awake that is. 
Most of them fall asleep on the benches anyway.

How do you make an MP work? Ans; dont vote for him.

On 13 May, 11:29, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "mogga"  wrote in message
>
> news:lhtk055vivlsd32tmbp4ntnb4eu2ao19vk@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT), "mart2...@hotmail.com"
> >  wrote:
>
> >>On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
> >>> expenses?
> >>> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
> >>> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>
> >>> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they
> >>> got
> >>> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's
> >>> being
> >>> paid enough to buy their own homes.
>
> >>So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> >>description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> >>many hours away from each other?
> >>Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
> >>a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
> >>on the other?
>
> >>Martin  <><
>
> > Make them subject to the very same rules as every other human being in
> > the UK.
>
> > Bunk beds in the basement of the HoP would be one option for dealing
> > with those who need to stay overnight.
>
> Thats it, or give them sleeping bags, those that are still awake that is.
> Most of them fall asleep on the benches anyway.
>
> How do you make an MP work? Ans; dont vote for him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well anyone who wants to get rid of an MP, sitting MPs can't
officially start campaigning until an election is called. Other
candidates aren't under the same limitation.
Start campaigning to get someone decent in - yourself, a mate, some
local decent guy, girl or in between.  :)

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 12 May, 22:12, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> Are you satisfied with they way MP's are supposedly paying back some
>> expenses?
>> I'm not, going back 4 years is not enough.
>> Paying back piddling amounts for furnishings and food is not enough.
>>
>> You will notice the greedy bastards are keeping the second homes they got
>> free. There is no talk about scrapping that little perk despite MP's being
>> paid enough to buy their own homes.
> 
> So what exactly do you want to do with a group of people whose job
> description requires them to work in two different places that can be
> many hours away from each other?
> Restrict them to just one location and not the other? Have them employ
> a 2nd person to represent them in one location while they concentrate
> on the other?
> 
> Martin  <><

I lived and worked away from home for the gov for over a year, my 
expenses for housing costs were a fixed rental figure which was intended 
to cover absolutely all accommodation expenses (rent, council tax, 
utilities etc) was £126pw (dropped to £100 if I shared the accom) pw. 
That was 11 years ago.  I doubt It would be above £200 now.

I didn't have to provide any receipts but could not claim for anything 
additional; no food, cleaners, moat drainage, horse shit, rug cleaning, 
bath plugs, porn, bath robes, helipad maintenance or gardeners.

By sharing with a colleague I got the flat £100 which easily met all the 
strictly accommodation bills.  When I first moved in I had to buy extra 
bedding pots pans and the usual nik naks but could claim nothing for 
these.  Throughout I maintained my home and there was negligible 
reduction in those bills as my then GF lived there.

Obviously the MPs are in London so costs will be higher but many seem to 
switch their 'second' home so they can claim maintenance/furnishings on 
their home!  oh and escape capital gains tax.

I don't give  a flying fuck if the rules (they wrote) allow this they 
are royally screwing the taxpayer and they know it.  They try to blame 
the clerks for not scrutinising the expenses but what difference would 
scrutinising them make if no rules were broken??  And I dare say any 
clerk daring to query a bath plug or pile of horse crap would probably 
be browbeaten by MPs.  They got rid of the last public servant who dared 
to question their antics (filkin).

A fixed amount per month which requires receipts, no extras and no 
claiming for the family home.  If they already live within 1.5 hours 
travel on public transport (one way) they get no housing costs.  I have 
to justify every expense I claim and provide receipts where applicable. 
  I am expected to keep my expenses to a minimum, no un-necssary travel, 
overnights etc so WTF shouldn't the MPs?

And wher is HMRC in all this, you cannot tell me furnishing a home every 
few years has no tax liability???


Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:guf8rd$t4r$1@news.motzarella.org...
> I lived and worked away from home for the gov for over a year, my expenses 
> for housing costs were a fixed rental figure which was intended to cover 
> absolutely all accommodation expenses (rent, council tax, utilities etc) 
> was £126pw (dropped to £100 if I shared the accom) pw. That was 11 years 
> ago.  I doubt It would be above £200 now.
>
> I didn't have to provide any receipts but could not claim for anything 
> additional; no food, cleaners, moat drainage, horse shit, rug cleaning, 
> bath plugs, porn, bath robes, helipad maintenance or gardeners.
>
> By sharing with a colleague I got the flat £100 which easily met all the 
> strictly accommodation bills.  When I first moved in I had to buy extra 
> bedding pots pans and the usual nik naks but could claim nothing for 
> these.  Throughout I maintained my home and there was negligible reduction 
> in those bills as my then GF lived there.
>
> Obviously the MPs are in London so costs will be higher but many seem to 
> switch their 'second' home so they can claim maintenance/furnishings on 
> their home!  oh and escape capital gains tax.
>
> I don't give  a flying fuck if the rules (they wrote) allow this they are 
> royally screwing the taxpayer and they know it.  They try to blame the 
> clerks for not scrutinising the expenses but what difference would 
> scrutinising them make if no rules were broken??  And I dare say any clerk 
> daring to query a bath plug or pile of horse crap would probably be 
> browbeaten by MPs.  They got rid of the last public servant who dared to 
> question their antics (filkin).
>
> A fixed amount per month which requires receipts, no extras and no 
> claiming for the family home.  If they already live within 1.5 hours 
> travel on public transport (one way) they get no housing costs.  I have to 
> justify every expense I claim and provide receipts where applicable. I am 
> expected to keep my expenses to a minimum, no un-necssary travel, 
> overnights etc so WTF shouldn't the MPs?
>
> And wher is HMRC in all this, you cannot tell me furnishing a home every 
> few years has no tax liability???

The regrettable thing is that the Ministry of Justice (aka Jack Straw) is 
trying to get through The Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 - 
this is calling for exemption for disclosure of the details of exepenses of 
members of both Houses:
http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/files/pdf/doc_2009_01_15_17_21_45_517.pdf

"2. Purpose of the instrument
2.1. This Order amends the entries for the House of Commons and the House of 
Lords in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the 
Act").  In respect of Members of Parliament it removes most expenditure 
information held by either House of Parliament from the scope of the Act.
2.2. Information relating to the total amount of expenditure incurred in 
respect of a member during any year (other than expenditure on security 
arrangements); remains within the scope of the Act."
http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/OutPut/Page2698.asp

There is a move by some MPs to put a stop to this new Order, according to an 
Early Day Motion earlier this year:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37516&SESSION=899

So much for parliamentary transparency!

Iain

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:

>> Better still, why doesnt the council provide them with accomodation, when
>> they leave office, pass it on to the next MP and so on. I bet you wouldnt
>> see many of them accepting that offer.
> 
> Can't offhand see the people of London, already short of housing,
> agreeing to that.

But would that not increase available houseing rather than reduce it?

~Inigo

On 14 May, 12:08, "King of the R.O.U.S.'s" <NG-
Stuff@_NOSPAMPLEASE_dotzyne.com> wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Better still, why doesnt the council provide them with accomodation, when
> >> they leave office, pass it on to the next MP and so on. I bet you wouldnt
> >> see many of them accepting that offer.
>
> > Can't offhand see the people of London, already short of housing,
> > agreeing to that.
>
> But would that not increase available houseing rather than reduce it?
>
> ~Inigo

Reducing council housing while leaving private housing to be sold or
not as the case may be.
Though there's something to be said for taking the crummiest homeless
hostel in London, preferrably somewhere with little parking around,
buying that and providing exactly the same facilities for MPs.
The sale of the hostel can be used to buy or build new hostel, MPs get
to experience a different sort of accomodation and the public is
happy.  :)

Oh, and maybe we'd hear less about 'homeless people have it good
already' from certain MPs.......

Martin  <><

Iain wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
> news:guf8rd$t4r$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> I lived and worked away from home for the gov for over a year, my expenses 
>> for housing costs were a fixed rental figure which was intended to cover 
>> absolutely all accommodation expenses (rent, council tax, utilities etc) 
>> was £126pw (dropped to £100 if I shared the accom) pw. That was 11 years 
>> ago.  I doubt It would be above £200 now.
>>
>> I didn't have to provide any receipts but could not claim for anything 
>> additional; no food, cleaners, moat drainage, horse shit, rug cleaning, 
>> bath plugs, porn, bath robes, helipad maintenance or gardeners.
>>
>> By sharing with a colleague I got the flat £100 which easily met all the 
>> strictly accommodation bills.  When I first moved in I had to buy extra 
>> bedding pots pans and the usual nik naks but could claim nothing for 
>> these.  Throughout I maintained my home and there was negligible reduction 
>> in those bills as my then GF lived there.
>>
>> Obviously the MPs are in London so costs will be higher but many seem to 
>> switch their 'second' home so they can claim maintenance/furnishings on 
>> their home!  oh and escape capital gains tax.
>>
>> I don't give  a flying fuck if the rules (they wrote) allow this they are 
>> royally screwing the taxpayer and they know it.  They try to blame the 
>> clerks for not scrutinising the expenses but what difference would 
>> scrutinising them make if no rules were broken??  And I dare say any clerk 
>> daring to query a bath plug or pile of horse crap would probably be 
>> browbeaten by MPs.  They got rid of the last public servant who dared to 
>> question their antics (filkin).
>>
>> A fixed amount per month which requires receipts, no extras and no 
>> claiming for the family home.  If they already live within 1.5 hours 
>> travel on public transport (one way) they get no housing costs.  I have to 
>> justify every expense I claim and provide receipts where applicable. I am 
>> expected to keep my expenses to a minimum, no un-necssary travel, 
>> overnights etc so WTF shouldn't the MPs?
>>
>> And wher is HMRC in all this, you cannot tell me furnishing a home every 
>> few years has no tax liability???
> 
> The regrettable thing is that the Ministry of Justice (aka Jack Straw) is 
> trying to get through The Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 - 
> this is calling for exemption for disclosure of the details of exepenses of 
> members of both Houses:
> http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/files/pdf/doc_2009_01_15_17_21_45_517.pdf
> 
> "2. Purpose of the instrument
> 2.1. This Order amends the entries for the House of Commons and the House of 
> Lords in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the 
> Act").  In respect of Members of Parliament it removes most expenditure 
> information held by either House of Parliament from the scope of the Act.
> 2.2. Information relating to the total amount of expenditure incurred in 
> respect of a member during any year (other than expenditure on security 
> arrangements); remains within the scope of the Act."
> http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/OutPut/Page2698.asp
> 
> There is a move by some MPs to put a stop to this new Order, according to an 
> Early Day Motion earlier this year:
> http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37516&SESSION=899
> 
> So much for parliamentary transparency!
> 
> Iain 
> 

I guess we'll just have to take their word for it that no rules are 
broken in future.

Mike

"Iain"  wrote in message 
news:7721qdF1dhdprU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
> news:guf8rd$t4r$1@news.motzarella.org...

> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>

The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard and 
lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them to fuck 
off.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Iain"  wrote in message 
> news:7721qdF1dhdprU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>> news:guf8rd$t4r$1@news.motzarella.org...
> 
>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>
> 
> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard 
> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them 
> to fuck off.

You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......

Mike

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> "Iain"  wrote in message 
>> news:7721qdF1dhdprU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Mike"  wrote in message 
>>> news:guf8rd$t4r$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>
>>
>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard and 
>> lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them to 
>> fuck off.
>
> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>

I think you will find there were rules broken and in any other walk of life, 
it would be classed as fraud.

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Niteawk wrote:
>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>
>>
>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard and 
>> lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them to 
>> fuck off.
>
> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......

Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being 
bent beyond all recognition.  I wonder how many more resignations there will 
be.  And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone can be 
eligible to join the club!

Iain

"Iain"  wrote in message 
news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mike"  wrote in message 
> news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>>
>>>
>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard 
>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them 
>>> to fuck off.
>>
>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being 
> bent beyond all recognition.  I wonder how many more resignations there 
> will be.  And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone 
> can be eligible to join the club!
>

I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid for. 
Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so can 
only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been 
claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules cover 
that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within 
the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they 
thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil 
service should make a note of that one for future reference.
What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of 
the law.

On 14 May, 22:34, Mike 
wrote:
>
> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> Mike

But wasn't it they who wrote them.

People find the cleaning of moats, the fitting of chandeliers, the
maintenance of helipads to be an objectionable use of taxpayer's money
whether or not the existing rules have been broken.

On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell them
> >>> to fuck off.
>
> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being
> > bent beyond all recognition.  I wonder how many more resignations there
> > will be.  And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid for.
> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so can
> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules cover
> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within
> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of
> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
profit.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell 
> >>> them
> >>> to fuck off.
>
> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being
> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid 
> for.
> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so 
> can
> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules 
> cover
> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within
> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes 
> of
> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
profit.

Martin  <><

++++++++++++

There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a 
Milage Allowance!
Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of 
petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a 
maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant 
possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free plus 
a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that generous.

On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > >> Niteawk wrote:
> > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > >>> them
> > >>> to fuck off.
>
> > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being
> > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> > > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
> > for.
> > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
> > can
> > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > cover
> > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within
> > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes
> > of
> > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> profit.
>
> Martin  <><
>
> ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> Milage Allowance!
> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
> maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
> possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free plus
> a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that generous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
less than a third of that in per week.
HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.

Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
mostly around town.
I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
50% or more better fuel economy than my car.

I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.

Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:c678f5f7-30c7-4ca5-8992-11a32c96e8f6@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > >> Niteawk wrote:
> > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a 
> > >>> bastard
> > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > >>> them
> > >>> to fuck off.
>
> > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is 
> > > being
> > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - 
> > > anyone
> > > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
> > for.
> > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
> > can
> > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > cover
> > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is 
> > within
> > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying 
> > they
> > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the 
> > civil
> > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the 
> > eyes
> > of
> > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> profit.
>
> Martin <><
>
> ++++++++++++
>
> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> Milage Allowance!
> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
> maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
> possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free 
> plus
> a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that 
> generous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
less than a third of that in per week.
HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.

Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
mostly around town.
I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
50% or more better fuel economy than my car.


I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.

Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.

Martin  <><

++++++++++++
How a company pays an employee is one thing, you are getting a wage, the MA 
claimed by a self employed person or company is a bit different, no profit.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
>  wrote in message 
> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> "Iain"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Mike"  wrote in message
>> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> >> Niteawk wrote:
>> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>
>> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
>> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell 
>> >>> them
>> >>> to fuck off.
>>
>> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>
>> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is 
>> being
>> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
>> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
>> > can be eligible to join the club!
>>
>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already 
>> paid for.
>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs 
>> so can
>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules 
>> cover
>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is 
>> within
>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the 
>> eyes of
>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> profit.
> 
> Martin  <><
> 
> ++++++++++++
> 
> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a 
> Milage Allowance!
> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of 
> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is 
> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You 
> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for 
> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been 
> that generous.
> 

HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the 
employee incurring a tax liability.  I've no idea what it is but I'll 
wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.

Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000 
miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set 
of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work. 
Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a 
few years there was other wear related repairs.  The extra tyres, 
servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres 
depreciation to consider.  All that said unless you drive a very 
uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.

When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be 
impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the 
case with the mileage I do.  A 20 minute journey by car would involve 
two buses and an hour or so.  Add the return journey and there's nearly 
an  hour and a half extra travelling.  The bus fare would also be more.

My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I 
wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined.  A colleague of 
mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming 
for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.

Mike

On 16 May, 15:55, "mart2...@hotmail.com"  wrote:
> On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in message
>
> >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > > >> Niteawk wrote:
> > > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> > > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > > >>> them
> > > >>> to fuck off.
>
> > > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being
> > > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> > > > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
> > > for.
> > > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
> > > can
> > > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> > > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > > cover
> > > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within
> > > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> > > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> > > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes
> > > of
> > > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > profit.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> > ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > Milage Allowance!
> > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
> > maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
> > possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free plus
> > a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that generous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
> economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
> I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
> less than a third of that in per week.
> HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
> miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.
>
> Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
> Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
> mostly around town.
> I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
> from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
> 50% or more better fuel economy than my car.
>
> I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
> mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
> councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
> Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
> say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
> able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.
>
> Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.
>
> Martin

Bear in mind Martin, some part of the 40p is also for the cost of
maintenance and other necessary expenses, not just fuel. And of course
setting it at a flat rate avoids the necessity of means testing (which
is often expensive in itself) and (from a governmental point of view)
rewards fuel efficiency, etc.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
>  wrote in message 
> news:c678f5f7-30c7-4ca5-8992-11a32c96e8f6@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Iain"  wrote in message
>>
>> >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > > "Mike"  wrote in message
>> > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> > >> Niteawk wrote:
>> > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>
>> > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a > 
>> >>> bastard
>> > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
>> > >>> them
>> > >>> to fuck off.
>>
>> > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>
>> > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is 
>> > > being
>> > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations 
>> there
>> > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - > 
>> > anyone
>> > > can be eligible to join the club!
>>
>> > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
>> > for.
>> > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
>> > can
>> > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have 
>> been
>> > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
>> > cover
>> > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is 
>> > within
>> > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying 
>> > they
>> > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the 
>> > civil
>> > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>> > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the 
>> > eyes
>> > of
>> > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
>> profit.
>>
>> Martin <><
>>
>> ++++++++++++
>>
>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
>> Milage Allowance!
>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
>> maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
>> possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for 
>> free plus
>> a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that 
>> generous.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
> economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
> I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
> less than a third of that in per week.
> HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
> miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.
> 
> Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
> Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
> mostly around town.
> I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
> from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
> 50% or more better fuel economy than my car.
> 
> 
> I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
> mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
> councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
> Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
> say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
> able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.
> 
> Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.
> 
> Martin  <><
> 
> ++++++++++++
> How a company pays an employee is one thing, you are getting a wage, the 
> MA claimed by a self employed person or company is a bit different, no 
> profit.

You're wrong there niteawk, a quick google brought this up:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/RATES/travel.htm

It seems they were much higher before 02/03:

http://www.emmerson-hill.co.uk/downloads/Mileage_rates.pdf

The 55p per mile was probably an old rate which if paid now would 
attract tax.

Mike

On 16 May, 21:06, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:c678f5f7-30c7-4ca5-8992-11a32c96e8f6@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in message
>
> >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > > >> Niteawk wrote:
> > > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
> > > >>> bastard
> > > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > > >>> them
> > > >>> to fuck off.
>
> > > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> > > > being
> > > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
> > > > anyone
> > > > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
> > > for.
> > > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
> > > can
> > > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> > > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > > cover
> > > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> > > within
> > > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
> > > they
> > > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
> > > civil
> > > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> > > eyes
> > > of
> > > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > profit.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > Milage Allowance!
> > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
> > maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
> > possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free
> > plus
> > a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that
> > generous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
> economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
> I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
> less than a third of that in per week.
> HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
> miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.
>
> Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
> Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
> mostly around town.
> I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
> from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
> 50% or more better fuel economy than my car.
>
> I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
> mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
> councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
> Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
> say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
> able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.
>
> Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.
>
> Martin  <><
>
> ﯯ뻻ﯯ
> How a company pays an employee is one thing, you are getting a wage, the MA
> claimed by a self employed person or company is a bit different, no profit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The MA claimed by a self employed person is against the tax. So 20% of
40p at the moment, or 8p per mile net.
Can be a profit, can be a loss, depending on fuel economy. What the
company claims is against tax payable.

For the employee (including company directors who are by definition
employees), a net profit can be made. Not a massive one, the 10k?
limit still applies after which the rate drops down.
But still a profit. Oh, and these MPs? Are they employed or are they
self employed?

Martin  <><

On 16 May, 21:17, Ste  wrote:
> On 16 May, 15:55, "mart2...@hotmail.com"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 May, 14:51, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > >  wrote in message
>
> > >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com.> > > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > > > "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> > > >news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > > > >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > > > >> Niteawk wrote:
> > > > >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > > > >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> > > > >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > > > >>> them
> > > > >>> to fuck off.
>
> > > > >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > > > > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is being
> > > > > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> > > > > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> > > > > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > > > I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already paid
> > > > for.
> > > > Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs so
> > > > can
> > > > only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> > > > claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > > > cover
> > > > that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is within
> > > > the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> > > > thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> > > > service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > > > What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes
> > > > of
> > > > the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > > profit.
>
> > > Martin  <><
>
> > > ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> > > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > > Milage Allowance!
> > > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is a
> > > maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You cant
> > > possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for free plus
> > > a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been that generous.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > May be greater for you. Though unless a car does very poor fuel
> > economy, the driver will tend to come off better.
> > I used to regularly get £60 a week in mileage allowance while putting
> > less than a third of that in per week.
> > HMRC does allow for profit making, though there is an upper limit (10k
> > miles?) to the claim at that rate. Never got close to that limit.
>
> > Lets see, 40p per mile. Fuel 93.9 last time I filled up, per litre.
> > Average mileage per litre just under 10 miles, about 40mpg as I'm
> > mostly around town.
> > I don't know about cars you've driven, but my car will allow a profit
> > from the mileage claim. Its an inefficient car I know, some will get
> > 50% or more better fuel economy than my car.
>
> > I don't think I've yet come across a company paying less than 30p per
> > mile (with the other 10p per mile claimable on tax return). Some
> > councils have been known to pay 55p per mile.
> > Even the most inefficient car I've driven, a Ford Galaxy (lovely car),
> > say £60 to fill up (depending on garage), doing 350 miles, would be
> > able to claim £140 at 40p per mile if its all for business usage.
>
> > Not make a profit? Looks like one to me.
>
> > Martin
>
> Bear in mind Martin, some part of the 40p is also for the cost of
> maintenance and other necessary expenses, not just fuel. And of course
> setting it at a flat rate avoids the necessity of means testing (which
> is often expensive in itself) and (from a governmental point of view)
> rewards fuel efficiency, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The maintenance is peanuts for most people. I get my car serviced
every year regardless of business mileage. I pay car insurance, road
tax and MOT every year regardless of business mileage.
Unless doing a very high mileage for business use, the extra mileage
the 40p covers won't have much impact. Might have to replace tyres a
few weeks earlier, might have components wear out a week or two
quicker. Or not.
Many people seem to change their car every once in a while so not
necessarily even having to replace things any earlier as car gets sold
on.



And yes, rewards fuel efficiency in the best way possible. In the
pocket.

Martin  <><

On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
>
> >  wrote in message
> >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> >> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >> >> Niteawk wrote:
> >> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> >> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
> >> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> >> >>> them
> >> >>> to fuck off.
>
> >> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> >> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> >> being
> >> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
> >> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
> >> > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> >> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
> >> paid for.
> >> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
> >> so can
> >> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
> >> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> >> cover
> >> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> >> within
> >> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
> >> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
> >> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> >> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> >> eyes of
> >> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > profit.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> > ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > Milage Allowance!
> > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
> > a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
> > cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
> > free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
> > that generous.
>
> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
> employee incurring a tax liability.  I've no idea what it is but I'll
> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>
> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
> few years there was other wear related repairs.  The extra tyres,
> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
> depreciation to consider.  All that said unless you drive a very
> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>
> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
> case with the mileage I do.  A 20 minute journey by car would involve
> two buses and an hour or so.  Add the return journey and there's nearly
> an  hour and a half extra travelling.  The bus fare would also be more.
>
> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined.  A colleague of
> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
many.  :)

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
> wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>>>  wrote in message
>>> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>>> "Iain"  wrote in message
>>>> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> "Mike"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>>>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a bastard
>>>>>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> to fuck off.
>>>>>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>>>> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
>>>> being
>>>>> bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations there
>>>>> will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - anyone
>>>>> can be eligible to join the club!
>>>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
>>>> paid for.
>>>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
>>>> so can
>>>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have been
>>>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
>>>> cover
>>>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
>>>> within
>>>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying they
>>>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the civil
>>>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>>>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
>>>> eyes of
>>>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
>>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
>>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
>>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
>>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
>>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
>>> profit.
>>> Martin  <><
>>> ++++++++++++
>>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
>>> Milage Allowance!
>>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
>>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
>>> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
>>> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
>>> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
>>> that generous.
>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
>> employee incurring a tax liability.  I've no idea what it is but I'll
>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>>
>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
>> few years there was other wear related repairs.  The extra tyres,
>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
>> depreciation to consider.  All that said unless you drive a very
>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>>
>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
>> case with the mileage I do.  A 20 minute journey by car would involve
>> two buses and an hour or so.  Add the return journey and there's nearly
>> an  hour and a half extra travelling.  The bus fare would also be more.
>>
>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined.  A colleague of
>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>>
>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
> many.  :)
> 
> Martin  <><

yep - wouldn't have doneit otherwise!!

Mike

wrote in message 
news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
>
> >  wrote in message
> >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> >> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >> >> Niteawk wrote:
> >> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> >> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a 
> >> >>> bastard
> >> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> >> >>> them
> >> >>> to fuck off.
>
> >> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> >> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> >> being
> >> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations 
> >> > there
> >> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - 
> >> > anyone
> >> > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> >> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
> >> paid for.
> >> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
> >> so can
> >> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have 
> >> been
> >> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> >> cover
> >> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> >> within
> >> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying 
> >> they
> >> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the 
> >> civil
> >> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> >> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> >> eyes of
> >> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > profit.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > ++++++++++++
>
> > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > Milage Allowance!
> > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
> > a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
> > cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
> > free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
> > that generous.
>
> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>
> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>
> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
>
> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
many.  :)

+++++++++++++++
You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as 
well?

Niteawk wrote:
> 
>  wrote in message 
> news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
> wrote:
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>
>> >  wrote in message
>> >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> >> "Iain"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> >> > "Mike"  wrote in message
>> >> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> >> >> Niteawk wrote:
>> >> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>
>> >> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a 
>> >> >>> bastard
>> >> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
>> >> >>> them
>> >> >>> to fuck off.
>>
>> >> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>
>> >> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
>> >> being
>> >> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations 
>> >> > there
>> >> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics - 
>> >> > anyone
>> >> > can be eligible to join the club!
>>
>> >> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
>> >> paid for.
>> >> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
>> >> so can
>> >> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have 
>> >> been
>> >> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
>> >> cover
>> >> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
>> >> within
>> >> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are 
>> saying >> they
>> >> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the 
>> >> civil
>> >> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>> >> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
>> >> eyes of
>> >> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
>> > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
>> > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
>> > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
>> > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
>> > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
>> > profit.
>>
>> > Martin <><
>>
>> > ++++++++++++
>>
>> > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
>> > Milage Allowance!
>> > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a 
>> tank of
>> > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
>> > a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
>> > cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
>> > free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
>> > that generous.
>>
>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
>> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>>
>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
>> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
>> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>>
>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
>> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
>> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
>> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
>>
>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>>
>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
> many.  :)
> 
> +++++++++++++++
> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free 
> as well?

Depreciation definitely comes into it if doing a lot of miles, even with 
my business miles now I still do below 10k pa so the depreciation is 
negligible but when I did 10k pa it was considerable I estimated (based 
on price guides) that for every £10k over the average it cost me £500 
off the used value.


Mike

On 17 May, 13:09, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
>
> > >  wrote in message
> > >news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com.> > > On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> > >> "Iain"  wrote in message
>
> > >>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > >> > "Mike"  wrote in message
> > >> >news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> > >> >> Niteawk wrote:
> > >> >>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>
> > >> >>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
> > >> >>> bastard
> > >> >>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> > >> >>> them
> > >> >>> to fuck off.
>
> > >> >> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>
> > >> > Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> > >> being
> > >> > bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations
> > >> > there
> > >> > will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
> > >> > anyone
> > >> > can be eligible to join the club!
>
> > >> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
> > >> paid for.
> > >> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
> > >> so can
> > >> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have
> > >> been
> > >> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> > >> cover
> > >> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> > >> within
> > >> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
> > >> they
> > >> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
> > >> civil
> > >> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> > >> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> > >> eyes of
> > >> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> > > Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> > > lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> > > what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> > > My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> > > tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> > > profit.
>
> > > Martin <><
>
> > > ﯯ뻻ﯯ
>
> > > There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> > > Milage Allowance!
> > > Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> > > petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
> > > a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
> > > cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
> > > free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
> > > that generous.
>
> > HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
> > employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
> > wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>
> > Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
> > miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
> > of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
> > Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
> > few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
> > servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
> > depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
> > uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>
> > When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
> > impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
> > case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
> > two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
> > an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
>
> > My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
> > wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
> > mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
> > for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>
> > Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
> many.  :)
>
> ﯯ뻻ﯯ뻻
> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as
> well?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You  already own the vehicle.
Mileage allowance is for using your own vehicle on employers business.

If you need to buy a vehicle solely for doing employers business you
might as well have a company vehicle. Cheaper all round.

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 17 May, 13:09, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>  wrote in message
>>>> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>>>> "Iain"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> "Mike"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>>>>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
>>>>>>>> bastard
>>>>>>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> to fuck off.
>>>>>>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>>>>> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
>>>>> being
>>>>>> bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> can be eligible to join the club!
>>>>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
>>>>> paid for.
>>>>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
>>>>> so can
>>>>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have
>>>>> been
>>>>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
>>>>> cover
>>>>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
>>>>> within
>>>>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
>>>>> they
>>>>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
>>>>> civil
>>>>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>>>>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
>>>>> eyes of
>>>>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
>>>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
>>>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
>>>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
>>>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
>>>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
>>>> profit.
>>>> Martin <><
>>>> ++++++++++++
>>>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
>>>> Milage Allowance!
>>>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
>>>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
>>>> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
>>>> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
>>>> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
>>>> that generous.
>>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
>>> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
>>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
>>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
>>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
>>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
>>> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
>>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
>>> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
>>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
>>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
>>> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
>>> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
>>> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
>>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
>>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
>>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
>>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
>> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
>> many.  :)
>>
>> +++++++++++++++
>> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as
>> well?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You  already own the vehicle.
> Mileage allowance is for using your own vehicle on employers business.
> 
> If you need to buy a vehicle solely for doing employers business you
> might as well have a company vehicle. Cheaper all round.
> 
> Martin  <><

Niteawk refers to the depreciation that the extra miles causes.

Mike

On 17 May, 19:34, Mike 
wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 17 May, 13:09, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>  wrote in message
>
> >>news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com..> >> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>>  wrote in message
> >>>>news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> >>>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>>>> "Iain"  wrote in message
> >>>>>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>> "Mike"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
> >>>>>>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
> >>>>>>>> bastard
> >>>>>>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> >>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>> to fuck off.
> >>>>>>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
> >>>>>> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> >>>>> being
> >>>>>> bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations
> >>>>>> there
> >>>>>> will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
> >>>>>> anyone
> >>>>>> can be eligible to join the club!
> >>>>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
> >>>>> paid for.
> >>>>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
> >>>>> so can
> >>>>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have
> >>>>> been
> >>>>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> >>>>> cover
> >>>>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> >>>>> within
> >>>>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
> >>>>> civil
> >>>>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> >>>>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> >>>>> eyes of
> >>>>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> >>>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> >>>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> >>>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> >>>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> >>>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> >>>> profit.
> >>>> Martin <><
> >>>> ﯯ뻻ﯯ
> >>>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> >>>> Milage Allowance!
> >>>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> >>>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
> >>>> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
> >>>> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
> >>>> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
> >>>> that generous.
> >>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
> >>> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
> >>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
> >>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
> >>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
> >>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
> >>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
> >>> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
> >>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
> >>> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
> >>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
> >>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
> >>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
> >>> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
> >>> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
> >>> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
> >>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
> >>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
> >>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
> >>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
> >>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
> >> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
> >> many.  :)
>
> >> ﯯ뻻ﯯ뻻
> >> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as
> >> well?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > You  already own the vehicle.
> > Mileage allowance is for using your own vehicle on employers business.
>
> > If you need to buy a vehicle solely for doing employers business you
> > might as well have a company vehicle. Cheaper all round.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Niteawk refers to the depreciation that the extra miles causes.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Unless doing a lot of mileage, depreciation for mileage for additional
use isn't going to be a great deal.
If you own a car and it does 7000 miles one year rather than 6000, how
much will it impact resale value?

We aren't talking cost of getting to normal place of work, we are
talking additional mileage on employers business. In my case that was
a trip to Manchester earlier this year and a trip to Stoke next month.
Total mileage for me on employers business (training courses in those
instances) is probably a bit over 250 miles for the year. With a 10
year old car, doing under 10k miles a year, depreciation in this
instance isn't even measurable for me.


A new car has a lot of depreciation built in by time, an old car has
little to depreciate anyway. How much depreciation will a bit of
additional use add on to depreciation thats already occurring?

Martin  <><

mart2306@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 17 May, 19:34, Mike 
> wrote:
>> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On 17 May, 13:09, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>>>  wrote in message
>>>> news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>>>  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Iain"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> "Mike"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
>>>>>>>>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
>>>>>>>>>> bastard
>>>>>>>>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> to fuck off.
>>>>>>>>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
>>>>>>>> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations
>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>> will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
>>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>> can be eligible to join the club!
>>>>>>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
>>>>>>> paid for.
>>>>>>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
>>>>>>> so can
>>>>>>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
>>>>>>> civil
>>>>>>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
>>>>>>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
>>>>>>> eyes of
>>>>>>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
>>>>>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
>>>>>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
>>>>>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
>>>>>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
>>>>>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
>>>>>> profit.
>>>>>> Martin <><
>>>>>> ++++++++++++
>>>>>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
>>>>>> Milage Allowance!
>>>>>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
>>>>>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
>>>>>> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
>>>>>> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
>>>>>> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
>>>>>> that generous.
>>>>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
>>>>> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
>>>>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
>>>>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
>>>>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
>>>>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
>>>>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
>>>>> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
>>>>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
>>>>> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
>>>>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
>>>>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
>>>>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
>>>>> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
>>>>> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
>>>>> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
>>>>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
>>>>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
>>>>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
>>>>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
>>>>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
>>>> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
>>>> many.  :)
>>>> +++++++++++++++
>>>> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as
>>>> well?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> You  already own the vehicle.
>>> Mileage allowance is for using your own vehicle on employers business.
>>> If you need to buy a vehicle solely for doing employers business you
>>> might as well have a company vehicle. Cheaper all round.
>>> Martin  <><
>> Niteawk refers to the depreciation that the extra miles causes.
>>
>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Unless doing a lot of mileage, depreciation for mileage for additional
> use isn't going to be a great deal.
> If you own a car and it does 7000 miles one year rather than 6000, how
> much will it impact resale value?
> 
> We aren't talking cost of getting to normal place of work, we are
> talking additional mileage on employers business. In my case that was
> a trip to Manchester earlier this year and a trip to Stoke next month.
> Total mileage for me on employers business (training courses in those
> instances) is probably a bit over 250 miles for the year. With a 10
> year old car, doing under 10k miles a year, depreciation in this
> instance isn't even measurable for me.
> 
> 
> A new car has a lot of depreciation built in by time, an old car has
> little to depreciate anyway. How much depreciation will a bit of
> additional use add on to depreciation thats already occurring?
> 
> Martin  <><

Not much at low mileages but I've just checked my current car, based on 
its actual miles and then added 10k and the drop in value was nearly £500.

TBH unless I was making a profit I wouldn't use my car, why should i 
risk damage, depriciation, extra wear and tear for nothing?

Mike

On 17 May, 20:01, Mike 
wrote:
> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 17 May, 19:34, Mike 
> > wrote:
> >> mart2...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 17 May, 13:09, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>>>  wrote in message
> >>>>news:693d430d-a5fa-466d-86c5-5c6a55fa7145@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> >>>> On 16 May, 21:17, Mike 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>>>>  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:62e458d9-7c9d-403a-ad3c-aeba5ab3429a@b1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> On 15 May, 12:08, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Iain"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:774dfhF1et3l8U1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>> "Mike"  wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:gui2os$gvg$1@news.motzarella.org...
> >>>>>>>>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> So much for parliamentary transparency!
> >>>>>>>>>> The way I see it is, they are saying you should fiddle like a
> >>>>>>>>>> bastard
> >>>>>>>>>> and lie like fuck, and if anyone wants to know your business, tell
> >>>>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>> to fuck off.
> >>>>>>>>> You seem to forget that no rules where broken ......
> >>>>>>>> Maybe no rules, per se, but clearly the spirit behind the rules is
> >>>>>>> being
> >>>>>>>> bent beyond all recognition. I wonder how many more resignations
> >>>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> will be. And this does not seem to be guided by party politics -
> >>>>>>>> anyone
> >>>>>>>> can be eligible to join the club!
> >>>>>>> I didnt know the rules covered claims for things that were already
> >>>>>>> paid for.
> >>>>>>> Also expenses are meant to cover what it costs them to do their jobs
> >>>>>>> so can
> >>>>>>> only be claimed in relation to their actual work. Some of them have
> >>>>>>> been
> >>>>>>> claiming for everything under the sun, somehow I dont think the rules
> >>>>>>> cover
> >>>>>>> that. Even though they are trying to tell us what they have done is
> >>>>>>> within
> >>>>>>> the rules, many are now saying it was an error, many more are saying
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> thought expenses were a means of increasing salary, the rest of the
> >>>>>>> civil
> >>>>>>> service should make a note of that one for future reference.
> >>>>>>> What they have done amounts to fraud. Ignorance is no defence in the
> >>>>>>> eyes of
> >>>>>>> the law.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>> Expenses payments aren't just to cover costs to do jobs.
> >>>>>> Many companies give mileage expenses, commonly 40p per mile but some
> >>>>>> lower (and claim extra in tax return) and some higher. Doesn't matter
> >>>>>> what the actual cost is, the company and tax office set the rate.
> >>>>>> My car runs for under 10p per mile in fuel costs,pay insurance, road
> >>>>>> tax and servicing anyway so no extra there. So travel for me makes a
> >>>>>> profit.
> >>>>>> Martin <><
> >>>>>> ﯯ뻻ﯯ
> >>>>>> There is no such thing as milage expenses, there is for tax purposes a
> >>>>>> Milage Allowance!
> >>>>>> Very often the cost of a journey in MA compared to the cost of a tank of
> >>>>>> petrol will be greater, HMRC does not allow for profit making, there is
> >>>>>> a maximum in ratio to the total cost of fuel and miles travelled. You
> >>>>>> cant possibly make a profit, that would mean you are getting petrol for
> >>>>>> free plus a few quid to spend in McDonalds. The tax man has never been
> >>>>>> that generous.
> >>>>> HMRC has a maximum pence per mile that employers can pay without the
> >>>>> employee incurring a tax liability. I've no idea what it is but I'll
> >>>>> wager it's over 40p mer mile as that was the max back in the early 90s.
> >>>>> Martin of course forgets about wear and tear, when I used to do 10,000
> >>>>> miles pa for work, most of it city and urban, I would get through a set
> >>>>> of front tyres and brake pads in a year, half of that due to work.
> >>>>> Servicing, instead of annual was every 6 mths and over the course of a
> >>>>> few years there was other wear related repairs. The extra tyres,
> >>>>> servicing and brake pads amounted to approx £700 pa at least and theres
> >>>>> depreciation to consider. All that said unless you drive a very
> >>>>> uneconomical car you should make a little over 20p per mile.
> >>>>> When employers pay mileage it usually because the journey would be
> >>>>> impractical by public transport or take longer, certainly that's the
> >>>>> case with the mileage I do. A 20 minute journey by car would involve
> >>>>> two buses and an hour or so. Add the return journey and there's nearly
> >>>>> an hour and a half extra travelling. The bus fare would also be more.
> >>>>> My milage claims are checked, sure I could pinch an extra few miles if I
> >>>>> wanted but it's not worth it even were I so inclined. A colleague of
> >>>>> mine was suspended and resigned before he could be sacked for claiming
> >>>>> for half a dozen journeys amounting to just over £100 that he never made.
> >>>>> Mike- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> Yes, 10k extra mileage on business use will add to your wear and tear
> >>>> costs. Though getting £4k tax free to pay for it will seem worth it to
> >>>> many.  :)
> >>>> ﯯ뻻ﯯ뻻
> >>>> You seem to be forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, is that free as
> >>>> well?- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> You  already own the vehicle.
> >>> Mileage allowance is for using your own vehicle on employers business> >>> If you need to buy a vehicle solely for doing employers business you
> >>> might as well have a company vehicle. Cheaper all round.
> >>> Martin  <><
> >> Niteawk refers to the depreciation that the extra miles causes.
>
> >> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Unless doing a lot of mileage, depreciation for mileage for additional
> > use isn't going to be a great deal.
> > If you own a car and it does 7000 miles one year rather than 6000, how
> > much will it impact resale value?
>
> > We aren't talking cost of getting to normal place of work, we are
> > talking additional mileage on employers business. In my case that was
> > a trip to Manchester earlier this year and a trip to Stoke next month.
> > Total mileage for me on employers business (training courses in those
> > instances) is probably a bit over 250 miles for the year. With a 10
> > year old car, doing under 10k miles a year, depreciation in this
> > instance isn't even measurable for me.
>
> > A new car has a lot of depreciation built in by time, an old car has
> > little to depreciate anyway. How much depreciation will a bit of
> > additional use add on to depreciation thats already occurring?
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> Not much at low mileages but I've just checked my current car, based on
> its actual miles and then added 10k and the drop in value was nearly £500.
>
> TBH unless I was making a profit I wouldn't use my car, why should i
> risk damage, depriciation, extra wear and tear for nothing?
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Making a profit or at least covering the cost, thats whats important.
Making a loss would be more problematic for most of us.

Martin  <><

wrote in message > - Show quoted text -

Making a profit or at least covering the cost, thats whats important.
Making a loss would be more problematic for most of us.

+++++++++++++++
Gone are the days when most companies used to supply company cars and 
changed them for new ones every year. Dont forget tax insurance and MOT. You 
are not making a profit, the employers is. When your car packs up, you are 
the one left with the bill to replace it, if you crash it or someone runs 
into you, no problem for the employer, 40p per mile is not a lot for running 
your own car into the ground.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
>  wrote in message > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Making a profit or at least covering the cost, thats whats important.
> Making a loss would be more problematic for most of us.
> 
> +++++++++++++++
> Gone are the days when most companies used to supply company cars and 
> changed them for new ones every year. Dont forget tax insurance and MOT. 
> You are not making a profit, the employers is. When your car packs up, 
> you are the one left with the bill to replace it, if you crash it or 
> someone runs into you, no problem for the employer, 40p per mile is not 
> a lot for running your own car into the ground.

It certainly won't pay to clear my moat and my old massage chair 
desperately needs replacing but it covers the cost of mileage and the 
consequent increase in servicing etc.

When I used to do 10k pa I would guess I made about £1k off the first 
4000 miles and maybe another £500 off the next 6000.

As foir accidents, well there's obviously an increased risk with 
increased miles and as a driver you have to weigh up the excess and loss 
of NCD.  I've had two accidents that req'd repairs at a garage (replaced 
a some minor bits myself) neither where my fault although one driver ran 
so I bore the cost.

I had one colleague who had to give up the driving as it was costing her 
too much and her husb. was going spare.  Five minor accidents in two 
years, having driven with her I can understand why, she gave blondes a 
bad name!

As a rule the DWP pushes staff towards public transport where possible 
and practical.  The DWP tends to encourage high mileage staff to use PUS 
cars, basically their equivalent of company cars.  I'm sure private 
mileage is allowed within limits.  There are all kinds of restrictions 
on using your own car such as 1k miles pa, 100 mile pd limit anything 
over that a hire car should be considered but there are certain exemptions.

Mike