| Around £2000 (~$4000) expenses claim by politician for a sofa. This is an epic pisstake of the taxpayer. |
|
|
|
Asked 4 years ago
by SpangeNW  United Kingdom |
|
About
Muppet.
|
| 5 Points |
About 20 years ago Martha Layne Collins was the Governor of Kentucky. She purchased a home tanning bed (at the expense of the taxpayers) for her use in the governor's mansion. Since it was a fairly new technology at the time, it was a damn expensive piece of equipment. People went nuts. The media encouraged everyone to call the governor's mansion to reserve your "free time" on the taxpayer tanning bed. She ended up giving it up claiming she didn't understand what all the trouble was about. (lol)
Harass the bastard for your free 'sitting time' on the couch.
That's a spectacular idea! Think I might demand the right to view the flat screen TV with surround sound another politician got too :)
It's too easy to rag on them this reason. I suppose she had a budget for office decorating and the the right to decide how to spend it. For that much money I hope she got a very nice sofa from a high-class dealer. In itself, it's insufficient reason to get upset. Did you think she wasn't going to spend her allotted budget, or should I be mad because I wasn't allowed to choose the sofa?
I must respectfully disagree that it's no reason to get upset. When we are being told that cancer treatments are too expensive to justify, when people in the principality can't afford to buy one home let alone a second one because they are priced out by holiday homers, when we can't have flood defences because they are not cost effective, I find myself getting very, very upset that someone would abuse the priviledge of office to purchase an exorbitantly expensive sofa and then bill the taxpayer. Another politician used his entire "second home allowance" despite the fact his main home is only 17 miles away. We don't pay taxes to put expensive furniture in people's crash pads.
Apparently you do. But this is not abuse, unless there are more facts available than stated. You just would prefer that your judgment be used instead of theirs. Almost every politician gets some budget to spend redecorating, but you want them to let you decide what to buy. That won't work. You're just bound and determined to gripe about any decision that doesn't go your way. Are you going to let us decide how you get to spend your budget?
It's not about me throwing my toys out of the cot, it's that our taxes are being spent on frivolities. This sofa isn't for her office, it's for her home. I don't expect the taxpayer to decorate and furnish my home, why should they be any different? Hell, if it was for her office it's still far too much money and the allowance they have is way too high.
The annual income for an AM is roughly double the average income of people in Wales - assuming no bonuses for extra duties they take on - they can afford to decorate out of their own wallets. Their allowance for their homes is just under half of the average annual salary in Wales - if only everyone were to have so much money to dispose of as they wished. If I have no right to feel that that is a ridiculous and frivolous spending of taxpayers money when people are dying from cancer because they wont pay for treatment then I must have been mistaken when I thought this was nominally a democracy.
Three quarters of a million, I think of how many surgeries that would pay for, how many roads could be resurfaced, how many computers could be installed in schools - but instead it's paying for 60 dickheads to sit on posh chairs and watch a nice big flatscreen TV. It's not about me "getting my way", it's about the government shafting the people and then laughing while we pay for their extravagances.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyGood point, they are delicate types indeed those politicians.
He could be a friend of Max Mosley, in which case a comfy sofa would be a must ;-)
Ouch...good point!