And this is why talk of basic pay to justify rises is so disingenuous.
There own figures say that the average MP earns £57k per annum in outside interests other than there MP's salary and they take £112K in expense allowances.
Thats well over £200k a year, on average. And yes, some expenses are out of pocket stuff like running their constituency offices but a lot is also food, clothing, heating TV's, sofas, spare bedrooms and lots of other things everyone else has to pay for out of their wages.
To be fair, expenses for heating, furniture etc are only paid for a second home if one is needed to to do the job.
Being an effective MP is a very demanding, time consuming job. Some work in the region of 70 hours a week I understand. Having other work is thus not conducive to being a "model" MP.
A salary in the region of £100k reflects the importance of the position they hold in society, and would guard against the temptation to cut corners by fiddling expenses. I do not believe it is relatively excessive.
But unnecessary when there is no shortage of people wishing to become MPs. And why would they need to "cut corners" on anything, given their current quite generous salary?
And this is why talk of basic pay to justify rises is so disingenuous.
There own figures say that the average MP earns £57k per annum in outside interests other than there MP's salary and they take £112K in expense allowances.
Thats well over £200k a year, on average. And yes, some expenses are out of pocket stuff like running their constituency offices but a lot is also food, clothing, heating TV's, sofas, spare bedrooms and lots of other things everyone else has to pay for out of their wages.
Our MPs are all well reimbursed, even before you take the final salary pension that's worth about £55K a year to someone who's sat two terms.
Sorry,I don't count expenses or pension as being part of an existing salary - which is the subject under discussion.
What food and clothing are you thinking of here, btw?
But unnecessary when there is no shortage of people wishing to become MPs. And why would they need to "cut corners" on anything, given their current quite generous salary?
Well, many of them are very rich so the salary to them is irrelevant. Do you want to go back to the days when it was only such people who could afford to stand?
At the other extreme, there is no shortage of people recruited to be cleaners on terrible wages. Does that mean they are paid enough?
I don't consider MPs' current salary generous in relation to their role in society.
Sorry,I don't count expenses or pension as being part of an existing salary - which is the subject under discussion.
What food and clothing are you thinking of here, btw?
You have to take everything as a package, the whole 'look at the basic wage' thing is simply a trick, I worked in the corporate world before I started my own business, and any employment contract I ever negotiated was about the package. Basic pay is a small matter, its what the package is worth that's important.
The pension alone is worth maybe £10k to £15k per year.
Food and clothing are allowed expenses for these guys, heating stables, as we've seen recently too, no worry about extra bedrooms in the tax payer funded homes for MP's. no sir, have 5 bedrooms if you want, the tax payer will foot the bill.They even get to decide which of their houses the tax payer funds. Usually the one with the biggest bill, as was the case of the current and last prime ministers when they didnt have the position.
In Westminster right now, there are more than 30 sitting MP's who made a sum greater than a quarter a million pounds selling off homes that were entirely funded by the tax payer until the mortgage funding was changed at the expenses scandal.
Osborne and the speaker being two.
They get plenty for their time.And their are plenty who give little back.
Well, many of them are very rich so the salary to them is irrelevant. Do you want to go back to the days when it was only such people who could afford to stand?
No, of course I don't. Why would you think that?
At the other extreme, there is no shortage of people recruited to be cleaners on terrible wages. Does that mean they are paid enough?
Probably not, but as with MPs it's a matter of supply and demand.
I don't consider MPs' current salary generous in relation to their role in society.
What I meant was that it's generous enough for MPs not to have any financial worries, as you seemed to be suggesting they might currently do.
It is disgusting!
They are the only public sector members getting pay rise when overs having pay freeze and pay cuts!
Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all tell us it is not good, yet they won't do anything about it!
It is disgusting!
They are the only public sector members getting pay rise when overs having pay freeze and pay cuts!
Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all tell us it is not good, yet they won't do anything about it!
What can they do, other than personally refuse the increase, if that's possible? It's been decided independently.
mps used to vote on their own salaries and despite independent bodies recommending rises and probably because of public reaction such as on here they have not always taken the rise now the pay body is fully independent a large rise is the result .
personally I believe most mps do a good I am however against the career politicians the so-called PPE mps.
also when you believe someone has it all it often is not like that if you walk a mile in their shoes
You have to take everything as a package, the whole 'look at the basic wage' thing is simply a trick, I worked in the corporate world before I started my own business, and any employment contract I ever negotiated was about the package. Basic pay is a small matter, its what the package is worth that's important.
The pension alone is worth maybe £10k to £15k per year.
Food and clothing are allowed expenses for these guys, heating stables, as we've seen recently too, no worry about extra bedrooms in the tax payer funded homes for MP's. no sir, have 5 bedrooms if you want, the tax payer will foot the bill.They even get to decide which of their houses the tax payer funds. Usually the one with the biggest bill, as was the case of the current and last prime ministers when they didnt have the position.
In Westminster right now, there are more than 30 sitting MP's who made a sum greater than a quarter a million pounds selling off homes that were entirely funded by the tax payer until the mortgage funding was changed at the expenses scandal.
Osborne and the speaker being two.
They get plenty for their time.And their are plenty who give little back.
Sorry, but I am speaking of salary here, not a later pension or expenses (the former having been changed and the latter more tightly regulated anyway).
This modern habit of including these in the earnings of the latest bête noire is misleading. It is misleading to do it with MPs, and it was equally wrong to do it with bankers (salary and bonuses should be taken into account with them, not expenses and pensions).
Again, what food and clothing are they allowed to claim for as a matter of interest?
I would be in favour of them getting a larger increase tbh, as long as expenses were scrapped/seriously tightened at the same time as the raise. I think its ridiculous that on such high wages to begin with, they still get a taxpayer funded credit card, whilst moaning that those on £70 per week are the scroungers.
It seems unfair to blame MPs for the (unwise) decision of an independent body which they have no control over.
Of course they have control, they set the body up in the first place. They're quite able to change the powers of said independent body if they wish. Of course, they won't.
Of course they have control, they set the body up in the first place. They're quite able to change the powers of said independent body if they wish. Of course, they won't.
The problem is that if MPs interfere, it will no longer be independent!
There are other independent pay review bodies that recommend pay increases for groups such as the Armed Forces, Doctors, Dentists, NHS staff, the Prison Service, Teachers and the Police but the Government doesn't seem to have a problem ignoring them on the grounds that irrespective of the validity of the recommended increase, "the country cannot afford it".
There are other independent pay review bodies that recommend pay increases for groups such as the Armed Forces, Doctors, Dentists, NHS staff, the Prison Service, Teachers and the Police but the Government doesn't seem to have a problem ignoring them on the grounds that irrespective of the validity of the recommended increase, "the country cannot afford it".
Exactly. It seems the one it can afford, and the one it can't touch, is the one which pays themselves. They have also gone to the extent of changing laws to ensure contracts can be changed.
There are other independent pay review bodies that recommend pay increases for groups such as the Armed Forces, Doctors, Dentists, NHS staff, the Prison Service, Teachers and the Police but the Government doesn't seem to have a problem ignoring them on the grounds that irrespective of the validity of the recommended increase, "the country cannot afford it".
Indeed i hope you get the picture IE the country cannot afford it unless the Powers that be agree.
Sorry, but I am speaking of salary here, not a later pension or expenses (the former having been changed and the latter more tightly regulated anyway).
This modern habit of including these in the earnings of the latest bête noire is misleading. It is misleading to do it with MPs, and it was equally wrong to do it with bankers (salary and bonuses should be taken into account with them, not expenses and pensions).
Again, what food and clothing are they allowed to claim for as a matter of interest?
Cost is cost is cost. If someone walks away with a substantial pension pot, how is that not part of the compensation? Only looking at part of the problem is my bête noire
Cost is cost is cost. If someone walks away with a substantial pension pot, how is that not part of the compensation? Only looking at part of the problem is my bête noire
Do you regard the value of your pension (estimated or otherwise) as part of your current income? E.g. niceguy has a salary of £30k and a future pension valued at £15k, ergo he is worth £45k? Some seem to be arguing such a thing on here.
If we are speaking of current earnings of any job/profession, it should be for actual salary and any bonuses, not expenses incurred in the carrying out of duties and a subsequent pension.
Personally I think the solution is to just treat MPs as if they were contractors and pay them all a flat amount that covers everything they need. No pension, no allowances, no expenses. I don't know the figures but I expect it would be something like £250k. MPs could then draw down whatever salary they felt was necessary after business expenses had been dealt with - though I would say they should expect to get around £75k
It would be completely transparent and end a lot of the current issues.
Comments
Agreed.
But unnecessary when there is no shortage of people wishing to become MPs. And why would they need to "cut corners" on anything, given their current quite generous salary?
Sorry,I don't count expenses or pension as being part of an existing salary - which is the subject under discussion.
What food and clothing are you thinking of here, btw?
Well, many of them are very rich so the salary to them is irrelevant. Do you want to go back to the days when it was only such people who could afford to stand?
At the other extreme, there is no shortage of people recruited to be cleaners on terrible wages. Does that mean they are paid enough?
I don't consider MPs' current salary generous in relation to their role in society.
You have to take everything as a package, the whole 'look at the basic wage' thing is simply a trick, I worked in the corporate world before I started my own business, and any employment contract I ever negotiated was about the package. Basic pay is a small matter, its what the package is worth that's important.
The pension alone is worth maybe £10k to £15k per year.
Food and clothing are allowed expenses for these guys, heating stables, as we've seen recently too, no worry about extra bedrooms in the tax payer funded homes for MP's. no sir, have 5 bedrooms if you want, the tax payer will foot the bill.They even get to decide which of their houses the tax payer funds. Usually the one with the biggest bill, as was the case of the current and last prime ministers when they didnt have the position.
In Westminster right now, there are more than 30 sitting MP's who made a sum greater than a quarter a million pounds selling off homes that were entirely funded by the tax payer until the mortgage funding was changed at the expenses scandal.
Osborne and the speaker being two.
They get plenty for their time.And their are plenty who give little back.
Probably not, but as with MPs it's a matter of supply and demand.
What I meant was that it's generous enough for MPs not to have any financial worries, as you seemed to be suggesting they might currently do.
They are the only public sector members getting pay rise when overs having pay freeze and pay cuts!
Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all tell us it is not good, yet they won't do anything about it!
What can they do, other than personally refuse the increase, if that's possible? It's been decided independently.
personally I believe most mps do a good I am however against the career politicians the so-called PPE mps.
also when you believe someone has it all it often is not like that if you walk a mile in their shoes
Sorry, but I am speaking of salary here, not a later pension or expenses (the former having been changed and the latter more tightly regulated anyway).
This modern habit of including these in the earnings of the latest bête noire is misleading. It is misleading to do it with MPs, and it was equally wrong to do it with bankers (salary and bonuses should be taken into account with them, not expenses and pensions).
Again, what food and clothing are they allowed to claim for as a matter of interest?
It seems unfair to blame MPs for the (unwise) decision of an independent body which they have no control over.
Of course they have control, they set the body up in the first place. They're quite able to change the powers of said independent body if they wish. Of course, they won't.
The problem is that if MPs interfere, it will no longer be independent!
Have a vote and if it passes, reject the payrise. This is the government we're talking about. The lot who're allegedly in charge of our country.
Oh noes! An independent body is forcing us to take an 11% pay rise. Woe is us..
Exactly. It seems the one it can afford, and the one it can't touch, is the one which pays themselves. They have also gone to the extent of changing laws to ensure contracts can be changed.
Isn't that a coincidence.
Indeed i hope you get the picture IE the country cannot afford it unless the Powers that be agree.
They'd steal the smell from your shit
Cost is cost is cost. If someone walks away with a substantial pension pot, how is that not part of the compensation? Only looking at part of the problem is my bête noire
Do you regard the value of your pension (estimated or otherwise) as part of your current income? E.g. niceguy has a salary of £30k and a future pension valued at £15k, ergo he is worth £45k? Some seem to be arguing such a thing on here.
If we are speaking of current earnings of any job/profession, it should be for actual salary and any bonuses, not expenses incurred in the carrying out of duties and a subsequent pension.
It would be completely transparent and end a lot of the current issues.