We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant
Comments
-
Spending on salaries isn't investment, it's spending.
Only spending on assets (schools, hospitals, roads for example) is investment.
It is if the people on the salaries are helping to build schools, hospitals and roads'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
It is if the people on the salaries are helping to build schools, hospitals and roads
But not if they're on hugely overinflated salaries like everyone in the public sector seems to be. When I come out of university, I had a choice. I could work in the public sector or the private sector. There was a choice of jobs, which were equivalent. If I worked in the private sector, I'd be getting £13k before tax. If I worked in the public sector, I'd be getting £20k.
There's too much waste in the public sector. I wonder is it possible to privatise our MP's and get their salaries cut a bit?Northern Ireland club member No 382 :j0 -
Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »But not if they're on hugely overinflated salaries like everyone in the public sector seems to be. When I come out of university, I had a choice. I could work in the public sector or the private sector. There was a choice of jobs, which were equivalent. If I worked in the private sector, I'd be getting £13k before tax. If I worked in the public sector, I'd be getting £20k.
There's too much waste in the public sector. I wonder is it possible to privatise our MP's and get their salaries cut a bit?
Strange, it was the opposite for me'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
My experience is that salaries are compressed in the public sector - higher at the bottom end and lower at the top.0
-
Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »There's too much waste in the public sector. I wonder is it possible to privatise our MP's and get their salaries cut a bit?
Interesting article in the Telegraph about under fire MP David Wiltshire.
'David Wilshire, the Conservative MP who paid more than £100,000 of expenses to his own company, has complained that he works “dangerously close” to working the minimum wage....
“I work 60 to 70 hours a week some weeks,” he said, according to various reports.
“When you look at what I earn, it comes dangerously close to working out as the minimum wage.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6352944/MPs-expenses-David-Wilshire-working-dangerously-close-to-minimum-wage.html
Even if someone on minimum working wage earned every single hour of every single day they still wouldn't get close to his salary: 24 x 365 x 5.8 = £50,800, not £65,000 and he clearly didn't work anywhere near those hours. Even if he worked 70 hours a week x 52 weeks a year x £5.80 that would still only be £21,112. Where do they find these people? Hardly endears them to the working poor.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
-
vivatifosi wrote: »Interesting article in the Telegraph about under fire MP David Wiltshire.
'David Wilshire, the Conservative MP who paid more than £100,000 of expenses to his own company, has complained that he works “dangerously close” to working the minimum wage....
“I work 60 to 70 hours a week some weeks,” he said, according to various reports.
“When you look at what I earn, it comes dangerously close to working out as the minimum wage.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6352944/MPs-expenses-David-Wilshire-working-dangerously-close-to-minimum-wage.html
Even if someone on minimum working wage earned every single hour of every single day they still wouldn't get close to his salary: 24 x 365 x 5.8 = £50,800, not £65,000 and he clearly didn't work anywhere near those hours. Even if he worked 70 hours a week x 52 weeks a year x £5.80 that would still only be £21,112. Where do they find these people? Hardly endears them to the working poor.
That's the problem with our MP's. They're so blinded by they're moats and !!!!!! films that they just can't see what the public really think of them. And they hardly work 60-70 hours a week either. Just go onto BBC Parliment and see how many of them are actually there at times. I've seen it where there were only 6 MP's in the chamber. Hardly a full time job, is it?
Oh, and that's up to 70 hours a week, but only for half the year. Remember the 4 months off in the summer, 3 at Easter and Christmas, 1 at Halloween, another in the spring etc... When do they ever work?
I don't feel I'm any better off for having a load of MP's living in luxury at our expense.Northern Ireland club member No 382 :j0 -
Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »That's the problem with our MP's. They're so blinded by they're moats and !!!!!! films that they just can't see what the public really think of them. And they hardly work 60-70 hours a week either. Just go onto BBC Parliment and see how many of them are actually there at times. I've seen it where there were only 6 MP's in the chamber. Hardly a full time job, is it?
Oh, and that's up to 70 hours a week, but only for half the year. Remember the 4 months off in the summer, 3 at Easter and Christmas, 1 at Halloween, another in the spring etc... When do they ever work?
I don't feel I'm any better off for having a load of MP's living in luxury at our expense.
The UK's mainstream media would be proud of you and your opinions.
I'm not in my office all that much, but it doesn't mean I'm not working. Obviously, a significant minority of MPs were greedy, out of touch morons and it needs to be sorted. But most of them, whether you agree with their stance or not, work pretty hard for a relatively low wage.
Living in luxury? I wouldn't touch what they do with a bargepole for £60k-odd a year.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards