Alvise Pérez highlights MEPs' tax-free €350 daily allowance
Alvise Pérez criticizes the tax-free €350 daily allowance paid to MEPs for attendance. The European Parliament has banned filming in corridors.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
The tax-free €350 daily allowance received by Members of the European Parliament
A tweet by Alvise Pérez has once again highlighted one of the most opaque items in the European Parliament's budget: the €350 daily allowance that MEPs receive to cover accommodation and subsistence during sessions in Brussels or Strasbourg. This non-taxable amount is paid simply for signing the attendance register, though full payment requires voting. According to the complaint, the institutional response was to ban recordings in access corridors, further fueling the debate on transparency.
What exactly are the €350 daily allowances?
It is not strictly "black money": it is a regulated flat-rate allowance exempt from income tax due to its nature as travel expenses, similar to allowances for deputies and senators in Spain. European regulations state that MEPs must sign an attendance register to claim it, and if they miss more than half of the nominal votes in a plenary session, the amount is reduced to €175 per day. The allowance does not cover weekends or days without sessions.
The controversy is not new. Over a decade ago, cases were documented where MEPs flew to Brussels in business class, claimed the allowance, and returned to Spain without attending the session. What has changed now is the messenger: an MEP denouncing the system from within who also donates his own salary.
The calculation causing outrage: €350 for signing and voting
The daily amount, combined with a schedule of around twenty session days per month, results in a monthly supplement that can exceed €4,900, according to calculations by critics of the system. This is added to the basic MEP salary and other allowances. Comparison with the Spanish regime is inevitable: national deputies also receive non-taxable allowances, with supplements exceeding €2,000 for those residing outside Madrid.
Some argue the problem is not the amount, but the perverse incentive: in the private sector, absence is punished; in institutional politics, attendance is rewarded with extra pay. They argue the result is that the base salary effectively becomes pay for not working, while the allowance becomes the reward for showing up.
The ban on filming in corridors: what lies behind it?
The measure attracting the most attention is the European Parliament's decision to ban recordings in access corridors, according to complaints spread on social media. For some, this is a defensive reaction to scrutiny; for others, a simple institutional security rule. The fact remains that the institution legislating on transparency for others has shielded itself against cameras within its own premises.
The paradox does not go unnoticed: while traceability is demanded from companies and citizens, attendance registers and allowance claims are managed via signed forms. There is no camera recording them. And now, not even in the corridor.
The Spanish context: non-taxable allowances and opaque salaries
Spain's Income Tax Law (Ley 35/2006), Article 17.2 b), states that amounts paid for holding office to Spanish MEPs, deputies and senators of the Cortes Generales, members of regional legislative assemblies, city councilors, and members of provincial councils are considered employment income. In other words, it is not black money: it is income exempt due to its nature as representation and travel expenses.
This technical distinction does not calm public opinion. The perception is that there is a political caste assigning itself opaque supplements while preaching austerity. Each time a case emerges, public disillusionment grows.
What is known and unknown about Alvise's complaint
Alvise Pérez's tweet denounces the tax-free €350 daily allowance and the filming ban but provides no additional documentation beyond the public complaint itself. There is no independent audit confirming the money trail or the exact number of MEPs claiming the full allowance. Nor is there an open judicial investigation into these facts.
What is verifiable is the European Parliament's regulation: the allowances exist, are non-taxable, and are claimed by signing and voting. The debate, therefore, is not about whether the mechanism exists, but whether it is legitimate for it to exist without effective citizen oversight.
The conversation stalls at the same point as always: some demand eliminating the supplement and keeping only the base salary; others recall that Brussels is expensive and that without the allowance, many could not afford two residences. Meanwhile, the corridor remains without cameras.
A tweet by Alvise Pérez has once again highlighted one of the most opaque items in the European Parliament's budget: the €350 daily allowance that MEPs receive to cover accommodation and subsistence during sessions in Brussels or Strasbourg. This non-taxable amount is paid simply for signing the attendance register, though full payment requires voting. According to the complaint, the institutional response was to ban recordings in access corridors, further fueling the debate on transparency.
What exactly are the €350 daily allowances?
It is not strictly "black money": it is a regulated flat-rate allowance exempt from income tax due to its nature as travel expenses, similar to allowances for deputies and senators in Spain. European regulations state that MEPs must sign an attendance register to claim it, and if they miss more than half of the nominal votes in a plenary session, the amount is reduced to €175 per day. The allowance does not cover weekends or days without sessions.
The controversy is not new. Over a decade ago, cases were documented where MEPs flew to Brussels in business class, claimed the allowance, and returned to Spain without attending the session. What has changed now is the messenger: an MEP denouncing the system from within who also donates his own salary.
The calculation causing outrage: €350 for signing and voting
The daily amount, combined with a schedule of around twenty session days per month, results in a monthly supplement that can exceed €4,900, according to calculations by critics of the system. This is added to the basic MEP salary and other allowances. Comparison with the Spanish regime is inevitable: national deputies also receive non-taxable allowances, with supplements exceeding €2,000 for those residing outside Madrid.
Some argue the problem is not the amount, but the perverse incentive: in the private sector, absence is punished; in institutional politics, attendance is rewarded with extra pay. They argue the result is that the base salary effectively becomes pay for not working, while the allowance becomes the reward for showing up.
The ban on filming in corridors: what lies behind it?
The measure attracting the most attention is the European Parliament's decision to ban recordings in access corridors, according to complaints spread on social media. For some, this is a defensive reaction to scrutiny; for others, a simple institutional security rule. The fact remains that the institution legislating on transparency for others has shielded itself against cameras within its own premises.
The paradox does not go unnoticed: while traceability is demanded from companies and citizens, attendance registers and allowance claims are managed via signed forms. There is no camera recording them. And now, not even in the corridor.
The Spanish context: non-taxable allowances and opaque salaries
Spain's Income Tax Law (Ley 35/2006), Article 17.2 b), states that amounts paid for holding office to Spanish MEPs, deputies and senators of the Cortes Generales, members of regional legislative assemblies, city councilors, and members of provincial councils are considered employment income. In other words, it is not black money: it is income exempt due to its nature as representation and travel expenses.
This technical distinction does not calm public opinion. The perception is that there is a political caste assigning itself opaque supplements while preaching austerity. Each time a case emerges, public disillusionment grows.
What is known and unknown about Alvise's complaint
Alvise Pérez's tweet denounces the tax-free €350 daily allowance and the filming ban but provides no additional documentation beyond the public complaint itself. There is no independent audit confirming the money trail or the exact number of MEPs claiming the full allowance. Nor is there an open judicial investigation into these facts.
What is verifiable is the European Parliament's regulation: the allowances exist, are non-taxable, and are claimed by signing and voting. The debate, therefore, is not about whether the mechanism exists, but whether it is legitimate for it to exist without effective citizen oversight.
The conversation stalls at the same point as always: some demand eliminating the supplement and keeping only the base salary; others recall that Brussels is expensive and that without the allowance, many could not afford two residences. Meanwhile, the corridor remains without cameras.
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (155 replies).
More summaries
-
Alvise votes for Chat Control: mistake or strategy?
Alvise Pérez voted in favour of Chat Control 1.0 in the European Parliament. Only 314 of 720 MEPs rejected the measure. Mistake or controlled-opposition strategy?
-
Alvise: from anti-politics rhetoric to a seat in the European Parliament
Alvise Pérez arrives at the European Parliament and the immunity attached to the seat is the key question: does it shield him from his pending court cases?
-
Sánchez's daughter attends €46,000 school in Brussels
One of Pedro Sánchez's daughters attends a private school in Brussels costing €46,000 a year, raising questions about his €90,000 public salary.
-
Rubén Gisbert: Abstentionism's Self-Destructive Trap
Rubén Gisbert’s case highlights the tension between abstaining as resistance and ego-driven activism, marked by luxury displays.
-
Tourist falls 300 metres to her death in the Dolomites while taking a photo
Michelle Alejandra Rubio-Leiva, 36, fell 300 metres at Forcella Pordoi in the Dolomites while looking for a photo spot. More than 80 people have died in the range this year.
-
10,500 Grandchildren Law files in Argentina show no proof of exile
The Buenos Aires consulate has reviewed 10,500 files under Spain's Grandchildren Law and found no proof of exile in any of them. Spain's Supreme Court is demanding the list of those affected.