tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post3214157187725490805..comments2024-02-24T08:45:36.112+00:00Comments on TheFatBigot Opines: Capital gains in the trough, an answerTheFatBigothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-20572278448025362332009-04-09T00:25:00.000+01:002009-04-09T00:25:00.000+01:00Fine idea, Mr Dan. Mr Pete, I don't know whether ...Fine idea, Mr Dan. <BR/><BR/>Mr Pete, I don't know whether any have paid for cutlery and the fluffy drip-collecting mat around the loo in recent times, but it wouldn't surprise me if some have. It rings a vague bell that a displaced old Tory sold the stuff from his London flat in 1997 and gave the proceeds to charity, somehow I doubt he also gave the flat away. <BR/><BR/>I also saw that report from Guido. It's really quite depressing to know they think in that way. Since he, presumably, ran up the air miles in his official capacity one might have thought it appropriate to use them on future official flights. But no. Oink oink.TheFatBigothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-61771429146112386472009-04-08T14:16:00.000+01:002009-04-08T14:16:00.000+01:00Via Guido:...MP who boasted he had 400,000 airmile...Via Guido:<BR/>...MP who boasted he had 400,000 airmiles as a result of junkets and wouldn’t have to pay for his family holiday.<BR/><BR/>Don't miss a trick, do they?<BR/><BR/>(If they worked as hard for us as they do for themselves maybe we wouldn't be in quite as bad a situation...)Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02523286791950565630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-56824822297880288802009-04-08T12:06:00.000+01:002009-04-08T12:06:00.000+01:00"The honest ones will donate them to a charity sho..."The honest ones will donate them to a charity shop or pay the Treasury a rough estimate of their value."<BR/><BR/>I wonder if this has happened in recent times...Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02523286791950565630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-75391464587224587362009-04-08T07:48:00.000+01:002009-04-08T07:48:00.000+01:00Perhaps a better solution would be to do what the ...Perhaps a better solution would be to do what the FCO does for its officers posted abroad: maintain a stable of appropriate houses owned and maintained by the Crown and let MPs whose constituencies are an uncommutable distance from Westminster live in them while they are serving Members.<BR/><BR/>This way MPs don't have to faff around with expenses and the taxpayers' money used to buy and maintain the properties goes into a tangible asset with a (potential) return rather than disappearing into the black hole of MPs' own pockets.Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-7907546345566979542009-04-08T03:01:00.000+01:002009-04-08T03:01:00.000+01:00Mr Mous, I chose "resulting trust" rather than "im...Mr Mous, I chose "resulting trust" rather than "implied, constructive or resulting trust" (which, I think, would be the other legally permissible option) because (i) this is not a technical legal blog so I wanted to keep things uncomplicated and (ii) in the context of an "employer" (yes, I know that's not strictly accurate) paying for a house for an "employee" I think it is accurate in law. <BR/><BR/>I'm a great fan of Baroness Hale and Stack v Dowden is one of her finest moments. In para 69 of her speech I think she vindicates my use of "resulting trust" in this context. Lord Walker might disagree (see paras 31-32 of his speech), but I can claim the support of Lord Neuberger (paras 106 and 117).TheFatBigothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255526385076528633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-3740841660399076412009-04-08T00:32:00.000+01:002009-04-08T00:32:00.000+01:00TFB, yet again, Land Value Tax rides to the rescue...TFB, yet again, Land Value Tax rides to the rescue. <BR/><BR/>It would keep house prices low and stable (so there would be neither gains nor losses) and no temptation for MPs who all own second and third homes to desperately try to reinflate the house price bubble out of naked self interest (and at huge cost to the productive economy). <BR/><BR/>In economic terms, you'd own the bricks and mortar and rent the location from society in general, i.e the society that creates the location value in the first place.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6382255864661846735.post-46912116104423502082009-04-08T00:03:00.000+01:002009-04-08T00:03:00.000+01:00The law imposes what is known as a resulting trust...<I>The law imposes what is known as a resulting trust</I><BR/><BR/>Baroness Hale would <A HREF="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/17.html" REL="nofollow">beg to differ</A>. Though it's still unclear how far that goes beyond cohabiting couples, see <I>Laskar v Laskar</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com