Jump to content


Would you claim expenses if it were legal but possibly not moral?

Recommended Posts

It's highly unlikely a taxi driver would have a villa in Marbella to give away and even if he did it would be his own and therefore nothing to do with the taxpayer.

 

Just answer the bloody question clever clogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you taint honesty with your cynicism?

Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.....how true!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets imagine a scenario.

 

You work for a company in Sheffield, and they advise you need to travel to an office in Rotherham for a Seminar. You are allowed to take a taxi, and claim the money back on provision of a receipt.

 

The taxi journey costs £20, and ends up being split between you and a mate who also happens to be working in Rotherham that day. The mate isn't fussed about claiming the money back.

 

Do you claim the £20 or £10 back? Or do you actually ask for a recipet for £25 and pocket the difference?

 

If you were a very decent person, you would put the expense in for yourself and your mate, and tell your finance department to cross charge that 10 pound to this mate's dept, so that it is all correct and just.

 

By doing this, you will have done the following:

- gave a decent budget for your manager to work with as a business

- gave an accurate of the tax claimable from your expense to the company

- gave your mate's money back

- you've saved your mate spending time doing the expense

- attributed to the correct figures as a company, especially if you are a PLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that you would have to pay for regardless of your job should come out of your own pocket. I have to either eat packed lunch or buy my lunch out of my own pocket pretty much everyday I am at work, and being away from the office doesn't necessarily change that fact for me.

 

 

Do you agree then that more money should be spent on investigating and prosecuting White-Collar crime, for example:

 

People who pay cash at a cheaper price as the Taxman never sees it

People who fiddle insurance claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, exploiting loopholes is fair game in normal working life, I've done it and I'm rather proud of some of them. However, they did not require dishonesty on my part (unlike your lying about taxi receipts example) so when my employers cottoned on, the loophole got closed and life went on.

 

But in this case, the ones responsible for closing the loopholes are the very ones exploiting them. The only people who have the power to make them stop is us - the public, and that is exactly what we are doing. There is no hypocrisy here, just the democratic process in action, it's all rather uplifting given how badly the same process has failed recently.

That's a very bad way to view it. It really demeans the system, and demeans what it is all about. Only do this until someone closes the loop? If that is the case, then you should go out and find a job which pays better.

 

I remember talking to my brother about this and his company, and even he looked down on those managers who try and squeeze everything out of the company. Exactly what do you think you are doing by doing that? Legally, you are there to work FOR the company, and for the company's good. Not to screw them over, and to cheat them out of money, which is not yours to begin with. If I was the CEO, and I found out that an employee slowly tapped tapped away from my cashflow, I think I would flip. If one person did that, maybe it does not look too bad, but if the sum of the total expenses are huge, you question why.

 

It's like letting a mouse into the warehouse and let them screw you over time and damages the stock.

 

For my bro, he worked in a comp who gave employee shares, and I am gobsmacked to see and hear even a middle-manager (who earn loads) does this, and that guy's reputation is pretty mean in giving something out of his pocket. I have no doubt that will and does get fizzled up to the top management level. My bro is pretty generous and not cheats his sub-ordinates, and I have done the same too with internal clients. A few quid a week is not going to break my bank, if it boosts morale. Cos we are all in it together. I really despise this "me me me" culture. I like the people I work with. They slave their guts out, and I slave mine out for them to continue slaving their guts out etc. :hihi:

 

I used to think that companies set people back, but to be frank, if you do not like your job, you can walk at any point in time. The companies are not your guardian, and they do not have you tied to a string. If you have the guts and the conviction to say "sod em", then good for you.

 

I have never been in a company like the one I am in now. A lot of it makes sense, and a lot of the people are pretty decent overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My ability to claim expenses are very strictly controlled with limits on how much can be claimed for pretty much everything and strict guidance on when such an expense can be claimed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the MP's on this one.

 

If I did have a free hand on claiming just about anything I don't think I could take it anywhere near the extremes MP's have. I would only claim for the things that I actually need to do my job.

 

Anything that you would have to pay for regardless of your job should come out of your own pocket. I have to either eat packed lunch or buy my lunch out of my own pocket pretty much everyday I am at work, and being away from the office doesn't necessarily change that fact for me.

 

Where people work for private employers claims should be at the discression of the company as the claims will eat into their profits rather than the public purse. Of course where a private employee is claiming expenses from a public sector organisation, that organisations rules should apply.

 

I haven't really read my paper yet which had this all plastered across the pages. I've been meaning to.

 

Well, from my understanding is that, some MPs live away from home. So therefore they are seen as working out of (their own designated) office or abroad. Under these circumstances, they can and are leglly able to claim for this. I don't know where the legal documents to back up on this are. For your daily routine to the designated office which you are expected to work in. You cannot claim anything for this. As it is your own choice to have agreed to work at that place to begin with when you sign your employee contract.

 

Some colleagues have to work abroad, and the company had a duty to provide the accomodation and some kind of amenties to do this. So they do not spend something out of their own pocket for work.

 

 

For the MPs, they should at least gave it some effort to actually keep their own expenses in check, or to consolidate trips together and so forth. Even if they cannot do this themselves, they should pay someone, or get some form of electronic tools to do it. It looks pretty darn bad when it is public's money which we are talking about, and showing them to be so inefficient.

 

The UK's expense claims look pretty bad in comparison to the US! It makes a mockery of the bloomin system. You work your guts out so that people can beless efficient. Maybe we should change the law like the US, and reduce the rate of pay for MPs, so that at least they are doing it for the people, and not for them. I was quite shocked to hear the pay of Obama. Even President get less pay than the top CEO in the US. I find it staggering.

Edited by Bago
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is exactly the point most people are missing. If you were told the rules and then followed them you haven't really done anything wrong. That seems to be what lots of them have done. Some may have claimed for things that weren't allowed and they should be criticised . It seems though that it is the rules that are wrong not the MPs actions in the majority of cases.

OMG. Do you know what this looks to me? It looks pretty bad in my eyes because they have no understanding about public spendings and the money that they can or cannot claim. Which makes them look pretty bad as politicians. To be honest, expense claims are very simple. (Every employee in a company have the power to claim an expense. As long as the expense is a legitimate one legally.) There should not be a designated list at all, cos it is all legally binding. Unless you are saying that an individual should not make themselves aware of the laws.

 

There comes a cut off point when you have to say to yourself, how much should you need to know as an employee. Expenses should be one of those, and if you are unsure of it, then you should not put in the claim anyway, cos it looks pretty bad. Most people who is not set out to claim and cheat their employers would just let it be. They have a finance dept which they can consult if they are unsure.

Edited by Bago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I've just been onto the Vatican and the Pope says that "Saint Banana.man" has got a certain ring to it and would be a wonderful example to us all in these morally dubious times.

 

Unfortunately the rules of canonisation state he has to be dead first, so it would appear we may have to crucify him.

 

Well it seems to me that you are having a good go at doing just that.

 

Its seems that lots of people, not just on here, are just wanting to take the usual British attitide of just mocking and making jokes about the situation.

Well thats fine, we do need a good sense of humour; but do we really need our members of Parliament to be so immorale and basically greedy?

 

I would join a united front, to form a party based on the morals of the MPs who have not made such greedy claims. Is there sight of any site of such a movement taking shape, probably not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone takes advantage of the perks of the job they are in. I don't think we should be shocked at the costs that MPs get, quite frankly they don't get paid a huge amount for what they do (sorry but they don't!) and so must do it for some personal reasons.

 

There is a difference between stealing fraud and using every penny you are entitled to. I got a meal allowance when i claimed expenses so i used it, my wages weren't that great and it was a perk of my job. Sometimes I'd get stuff from marks and spencer and eat the rest of the food later in the day. I still kept within my allowance, it's just i chose not to go to a restaurant. If I'd been paid to go somewhere and i wasn't working the day after, I'd stay on and use my ticket to come back the following day, or stop off and see a friend on the way back. I used to collect privilige points from some of the hotels and use these to have nights away for myself. How many of you buy the tea and coffee for work and put the nectar points on your own card?

 

The job I'm in now... none of those sorts of perks at all but i suppose i get unlimited matchmakers at Christmas. :rolleyes:

 

Personally I think the system should be that they can claim up to a certain amount - and just like you spend your money how you like, they can spend that amount how they like. I'm not 100% sure how it works at the moment but I think the big outrage is a bit silly, these people aren't the sort who would shop at Lidl anyway so why compare them to someone who does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As ever MPs are getting a hard time from the outraged moral guardians of our society, but I would be extremely surpised if, given the same opportunity, those screaming in indignation wouldn't do exactly the same thing if given the opportunity.

 

So, what would you do? Frankly if I were able to I would manipulate the system for every penny I could get.

 

But I can't, so I don't.

 

Well I wouldn't. I prefer my self respect to money.

 

The heart of the problem is that for the last 30 years we have lived in a capitalist society where an attitude of greed and 'I Me MINE' is encouraged. What we need is a return to Socialism. Socialism puts people first, capitalism puts money first.

 

I know which I prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edna: I don't think anyone would put you in the same category as the MPs by doing what you did, Edna. Have you actually read some of the expense claims which have been put through? It is not because the situation is that they overspent in a legitimate way. They have taken steps to manipulate the system for their own gain. Which I think any employer would indeed throw the book at you for doing so. The two is not in the same category.

 

I am also the same. When I first started out in my first job. I used to use the same travel ticket to London, and come back on a different day, so I get to see my sister. The ticket is already bought. My hours, I signed it as the exact time that it would take me to do this. Fair to the company, in terms of hours. Fair to the client, cos we charge those hours. Ticket is paid. Finance gets their tax correct. Extra for me, so I get to see her for a few hours.

 

Even now sometimes I am on a trip out for the office. I don't always claim lunch or meals. Cos I know we're trying to be frugal at the moment. At times, I even choose the cheaper of the option if I really wanna eat! Other times, I don't make it hard for the local manager, cos I order which goes to my departmental budget, and I can see that his local team may dislike that. Sometimes I don't even eat. If I can smuggle my own food through custom officers, then I would! Other times, when I've had a bad day, I go and buy food from M&S and bloomin charge the company for this. Cos I cannot cook that night by the time I get in at 8pm. (I think in a day out, you're entitled 3 meals day.)

 

A lot of the exaggerated expense claims by the government is that they manipulate the system. e.g. using one home to remortgage and finance another? Wrong. Cos the money is unclear, and in reality, what goes with which house need to be accounted for. Maybe they should put back the money to the other house and make money for the government! Hey. How about that?

 

Another example is: a claim on a second home when his commute is only 12 miles. I find that outrageous too. He should not have taken this option at all. Or maybe increased his parking and mileage on his car, which is more than reasonable. He is spending more than he is looking for cuts.

 

With that attitude, no wonder the government got whacked big time.

 

I know not everyone is like that, and I think that many managers shield their sub-ordinates pretty well.

 

I've seen managers sometimes go way out of their own to treat their staffs to meals to boost morale, (especially when you know you're going through a tough phase and you need everyone on board with you). Or some managers would absorb the cost cos their own staff overspent at the Christmas party budget or something like that. If it reaches top management, it looks pretty bad. Yet, you want to do well by your team, so what do you do as a middle-manager? In reality, everybody should take responsibility for their own part. If they did not know, then fine, they can ask. If I didn't know, I normally ask. The last thing you want to do, is to put somebody else in a pretty bad situation.

 

A lot of the claims for the MPs are beyond ettiquettes, and I can see that there is already damage to the person which did he processing of these expenses too. I read the outcome and think that it is not entirely his fault if he has already done the best he could in raising the issue. I'm just sadden to see that he moved because he made noises. That is really bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I wouldn't. I prefer my self respect to money.

 

The heart of the problem is that for the last 30 years we have lived in a capitalist society where an attitude of greed and 'I Me MINE' is encouraged. What we need is a return to Socialism. Socialism puts people first, capitalism puts money first.

 

I know which I prefer.

lol. No. I don't see some people being so inscrupulous has anything to do with the political system. HK is said to be a capitalistic society, and people even spend to keep the system afloat. However, you still don't see people cheating their way in. The story about my brother, is based in HK. I think managers in his company normally get mocked by their sub-ordinates if they encourage them to claim every single thing. Well, I feel bad for my brother, because this global big company went bankrupt.

 

Believe it or not, if this kind of attitude exists and you do not tighten your finances or tolerance level well, it can and does have a ripple effect, and it affects the company's finance as a whole. Why would anybody do that to the company which they want a job with? It makes no sense!

 

I see it as bad seeds. It is not about the system that governs the people. If the people do not want to be governed, then they can say "no". There are choices in life. You cannot blame someone else for your own wrong-doings.

Edited by Bago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.