'What should we pay our MPs?' poll discussion

EdInvestor

Their current salary is quite adequate when you take into account their exceptionally generous pensions, better than all the rest of the public sector.If their salaries are to be raised, their pension scheme needs to be rationalised simultaneously.

Pont

werdna75 wrote: »

MPs claim they need paying a fortune so all walks of life can become MPs. Rubbish! They need recompense for the earnings they lose whilst representing our interests in parliament.

Pay an ex teacher a teacher's salary. Pay an ex lawyer a lawyers salary. That's all they were worth before. That's all they needed to live on before they became an MP. Then increase their salaries in line with the pay awards given to those professions.

People shouldn't become MPs to make money. It should be to represent their constituents. It shouldn't be a career it should be a career break, like jury service. Why do we need career politicians anyway?

As for second home allowances; what's wrong with the figure set by Westminster Council for Housing Benefit? That is surely enough to provide a home for someone in the Westminster area? Isn't it?

OK, MP's with extra responsibilities should be paid extra, perhaps in a similar way to teachers. 1 salary point for PPS up to 6 salary points for primeminister?

Outside earnings? Well if you aren't working full time as an MP you don't deserve the full pay of an MP. Let's structure it in the same way as tax credits or the benefits system. An MP loses £x of MP's income for every £1 he earns from outside work.

Fair, probably not. But probably the best way to get honest politicians who are there for the right reason.

I don't want a politician who wants to be a politician. I want a politician who wants to shake up the system, who wants to make my life better, who's not worried about losing his seat at the next election because his party doesn't support him. I want someone who will represent me what ever my polictical beliefs are, I want someone whose not in it for the money but instead for the future of my country. I want someone who will vote for what they think their constituents want and not what their party whip tells them to vote for.

Politics in general needs sorting out, from grass roots up. We as the people need to get more involved. That way our MPs would know what we want and that it isn't what we get given now. We don't get involved because we don't see the point as they rarely listen to what we want and rarely vote for what we want.

I want.......to vote for you!

CopperPlate_2

I voted for the 80k mark - there are obvious additional costs for MP's who live in the far reaches of the country, either through travel or overnight accom. costs, etc. so there may still be a need for 'expenses' (legitimate!) to be paid. You also want to make sure that you attract the right type of person to the job - if you pay peanuts, as they say (I'm not saying their current salary is peanuts though)...

As an aside, a Police Inspector's salary starts on around £44K and goes up to around £48k (£46k - £50k in London)[source: https://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/aio/688217]. It doesn't start at £54k as the table above shows - Superintendents start at this level; 2 ranks above an Inspector. Although still very good in the current climate - I'm just being picky...

poppy10_2

If we paid MPs a higher basic salary, they wouldn't need to make up the difference with dodgy expense claims.

In America senators get paid £112,000.

jackieb

I voted for £110k - the same as a GP. I don't agree with some MP's expense claims. They're appalling, and those MP's clearly have no conscience. But maybe if MP's had a more realistic wage, they wouldn't feel the need to play the system. £64000 isn't a huge amount - for some people on less it might seem to be, but really, after tax, NI and pension has been taken off, it's not.

andy40

As long as people keep on voting for the same old parties and the same old MPs then they will get the same old results.
If people really want change then DONT vote Tory or Labour.

purplegaily

At the moment, I don't want to vote for any of them. You don't know what you are getting for your money - or what they are taking to make up theirs.

Fair wages for a difficult job - made more difficult in these times. If wages are fair (I voted for current pay, but suspect from reading the other comments that I should have moved it up 1 bracket possibly 2), and expenses regulated, then the public would be far happier.

I would love to vote for MSE Martin if he ever had political ambitions - mind you, he's far too good to ever get voted Chancellor - he might get us back in credit!!

MakeitgoRIGHT

I think the main thing is the expenses/allowances, which run around the back of the salary sum. Those should all be accepted ONLY if they satisfy the same rule that applies for us: "Wholy necessary for the business" (something like that). ie a new kitchen or new plasma TV is partly for their own benefit and fails the test - no tax deduction for them!
Second home? For Joe Bloggs that would never wash with the taxman - you might get a tiny lodging allowance if working significantly far away from home (and a Commute to London of less that 2hrs is not significantly far away) but we don't get to buy a London flat tax free! or anything deducted.
Car allowance: why is their rate - something like 60p/mile higher than that of the general public, at 45p/mile? No reason at all.
There are loads of these things that all need to be brought into line with Joe/June Public.
The main thing is that they work for the UK Government - they are not the entity itself. They are no different to a PAYE person working for a Ltd Company. No different.

worldtraveller

The gold plated, index linked for life pension, that they continue to receive, unlike the vast majority in the private sector now, should be a major factor in determining their pay. MPs retiring today, on full 2/3rds final salary pension benefits, have a pension pot in excess of £1 million. That is based on a miniscule personal contribution rate of 10% of salary.

At the moment, an MP with 20 years’ service can retire with an income of £30,000 a year, index linked for life. A worker with an average private sector job would have to work for more than 60 years to earn the same pension built up by an MP with just 13 years’ service.

There needs to be an immediate reform in this inequitable situation, which is rapidly leading to a two-class retirement society - Those in the public sector having a comfortable retirement and those in the private sector who will largely lead a miserable existence.

If not, MPs & public sector salaries will need to fall, not rise, as the taxpayer cannot be expected to continue to fund this anymore without this reform.

talker

Why have MP's? CAB does the same job.
With 4 -6 referendums a year, peoples views could be implemented by civil servants, and members of Royal Family could represent the country at summits etc.