'Would you spend an MP's expenses?' poll discussion

Blob

The pay rise that they have asked for is in excess of 60% are they then going to sanction all other public bodies to put in for a 60% payrise? If this happens then the economy of this country will go down the pan and inflation will rocket, post WW1 Germany style, is this what we/they want? I think not, if they can't do the job on the pay then to bad, the rest of us have to get by on what we earn so should they!

sh856531

This thread is full of utter bollock$.

There are 646 members of the commons and there are 742 members of the house of lords - many of whom don't get payed a salary at all.

Clearly, with 1388 individuals, there are going to be some people who take the !!!! a bit. But on the flip side there are going to be a certain number of people who are probably too generous - and do what I do which is not to claim all the things that I could claim for on expenses. I'm sure that there are a lot of MPs that just pay for stuff out of their own pockets because they've got better things to do than !!!! about with all the forms and regulations aimed at protecting the public purse.

The idea that even a significant proportion of them are corrupt is laughable. Just look at the £$%^ing who-ha that kicks off if there's even a sniff of something being not quite right.

If you think political corruption is bad in the UK, you need to get real and go live in Pakistan or india or some place like that. Then you'll understand what true corruption is about. The UK parliament isn't even in the same league

Best Regards

S

tracyn

pennypinchUK wrote: »

However, I'm probably one of the few people who think MP's salaries are too low.

I would agree. I once hoped to have a life in politics, and aspired to be Prime Minister one day.

Three things deterred me, two of which were the deal-breakers and are relevant to this discussion:
a) My partner doesn't want our family to be subject to the media scrutiny that MPs and their familes are often subject to. It is one thing for me to have opted for a career that negatively impacts me and me only, it is quite another to drag my husband and children into it.
b) MP's pay would not have afforded me the lifestyle I hoped for. And in fact, by the time I was 28 working in the telecomms sector in a professional office based role (with a whole 5 years work experience behind me), I was already out-earning MPs today.

As a taxpayer, I want the best and brightest talent out there representing me. At £63K I fear we are only getting those who cannot get a better job anywhere else.

MPs and their families should be rewarded fairly for the hard job they do. And abuse of allowances should not be tolerated. (By the way, I voted for option A, I would make every legitimate claim I was entitled to).

I know most people earning less than this will feel a bit miffed, but seriously, if you think you can do a better job than the ones we have currently for the same salary or less, then why don't YOU run for election next time?

rickbonar

No_Future wrote: »

Have you worked as a doctor? Do you have any idea of what the job is like and how many years of study and sacrifice go into becoming a doctor? Most doctors are not on 63k anyway. I'd hardly call doctors greedy. If you were truly money hungry, you wouldn't go into medicine! Not exactly the best paid career out there

Indeed I haven't worked as a doctor but I know a quite a number of people that work with and for doctors.
You say most doctors are not on 63k which is true but don't actually point out that they're on more than that.

see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7671701.stm

As for the cobblers about training ...it's the old chestnut isn't it?... plenty of jobs require as in depth training that last just as long with prospects of dismal pay at the end... I'd like to see if our GP friends would change places with a coal miner even if they were allowed to keep their present salary.

tracyn

rickbonar wrote: »

As for the cobblers about training ...it's the old chestnut isn't it?... plenty of jobs require as in depth training that last just as long with prospects of dismal pay at the end... I'd like to see if our GP friends would change places with a coal miner even if they were allowed to keep their present salary.

Um hello.... no disrespect to any coal miners out there - it is certainly unpleasant back breaking work. But there is quite a significant difference in the skills of a doctor versus that of a coal miner. And I know who I'd rather cut me open on the operating table.

Shall we just skip to the other thread complaining about the NHS now? Because surely none of this could possibly be related to each other..

julie2710

veloo wrote: »

.

Go become a banker! At least you won't be squirelling off the tax-payers.

Yes you will!!!!!!:rotfl:

sicandar

"plenty of jobs require as in depth training that last just as long"

Name a few please that get paid worse for similar training

For reference being a GP requires almost straight As at GCSE and A level,
5-6 years undergraduate,
2 year training to become a fully licensed Doctor,
then 3-4 years training in hospitals and surgeries to becomes a GP.
Each stage requires exams that become progressively harder and harder.
The total number of years if you are good and sail through all of these is about 10-12 years just to qualify as a GP

Then you have to find a partnership to get those wages listed above and at the moment that takes on average a further 2-5 years.

So please do let us know about these other jobs that are harder to attain and pay the same or less

soyabean

I've lost my job, my partner just managed to keep his. A firm he deals with have just lost 20% of their staff and the rest have taken a 15% pay cut.
As my partner said, " WHAT PLANET ARE THE MP'S LIVING ON WHERE THEY THOUGHT A PAY RISE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE?"

dizzie

Fact: As far as expenses are concerned, there are different rules for MPs compared with those applied to any other taxpayer!

Fact: When they get caught having got away with the most ridiculous of expense claims (which could not possibly be justified as necessary for the course of their work), most seem to get a slap on the wrists....the rest of us would have the Inland Revenue on our backs and face being fined/prosecuted!

Fact: MP's salaries are often just a small proportion of their whole income. Their positions often come with spin-offs...such as being offered a position on a company's board of directors....which is very lucrative for a small proportion of their time (I know that everyone has not held such a senior post as Tony Blair...but just look at his income portfolio now!)

Opinion: Most MP's are there purely for self-gain...nothing more, nothing less.

rickbonar

tracyn wrote: »

Um hello.... no disrespect to any coal miners out there - it is certainly unpleasant back breaking work. But there is quite a significant difference in the skills of a doctor versus that of a coal miner. And I know who I'd rather cut me open on the operating table.

Shall we just skip to the other thread complaining about the NHS now? Because surely none of this could possibly be related to each other..

The issue is about pay.. but do you remember the Bristol surgeons and the baby deaths cause by a number of incompetent Doctors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/636589.stm

With foreign doctors can you really trust their qualifications?

And what about bogus doctors that the medical profession doesn’t spot for over a decade and more?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/167117.stm


With doctors like this about you may as well be cut open by a miner,