h1

More thoughts Re:David Laws

May 29, 2010

David Laws expenses story does deserve singling out.

This is an issue of definitions for accounting, definitions for accounting are fairly black and white, and to misrepresent your circumstances for accounting purposes is something which has a cost to the taxpayer. Offsetting fraudulent claims against unclaimed amounts isn’t really allowed on your tax return, or will the Treasury be making that change?

How the Chief Secretary to the Treasury conducts his relationship is irrelevant. In terms of accounting-he was, by definition cohabiting with someone-and if he doesn’t know the difference in relation to his personal finances, he shouldn’t be in charge of the nation’s.

*added later- As a country, we don’t appear to be able to think straight when homosexuality comes into the equation. We really need to get past it. That’s a reflection of us, and not a reflection on David

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Fair point in second paragraph. Think there’s still an issue around definition of spouse/partner in the rules but the Parlt Standards folk will decide on that.


  2. […] here to see the original:  More thoughts Re:David Laws « Deeplyflawedbuttrying's Blog Categories: Accounting, Finance Tags: Accounting, beneficial-move, Business, definitely-gain, […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: