Pay Rise for MP's (£65,000)

dave4545454

chucky wrote: »

i have no problem with MP's getting a pay rise - they do a great job.

i don't think that a 1.5% increase is enough

agreed, they should be getting paid at least 5million a year each as they do such a magnificent job

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

if we want to attract mature intelligent independantly minded people who have proved themselves reasonable successful in a career then we need to pay MPs a lot more than 65k.


You don't have to be mature to be intelligent ,I know lots of "Intelligent" people who haven't an ouce of common sense in them.To be a good MP you need to understand the problems and lives of the people you represent and many clearly don't.

I would also point out that a substancial number of MP's earn £thousands from 2nd jobs.They tell us how hard they work for us,the long hours,late nights in the chambers etc etc etc and yet seem to find plenty of time for their other paid work.You only need to google it to find out how much extra they earn.Lets not forget all of the perks,employing family members,£400 per month on food(disgraceful),paying for a cleaner etc etc etc.........

If like you say we need "successful" people we need to pay them a lot more than £65k a year surely if they were succesful,mature etc they would be financially secure and not need the £65k?...

MP,s should NOT have 2nd jobs end off........ also Nepotism is rife, you don't need to be inteligent and have common sense or even an understanding of the lives of your constituents, you need to have friends in the right places to be an MP.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

if we want to attract mature intelligent independantly minded people who have proved themselves reasonable successful in a career then we need to pay MPs a lot more than 65k.


You don't have to be mature to be intelligent ,I know lots of "Intelligent" people who haven't an ouce of common sense in them.To be a good MP you need to understand the problems and lives of the people you represent and many clearly don't.

I would also point out that a substancial number of MP's earn £thousands from 2nd jobs.They tell us how hard they work for us,the long hours,late nights in the chambers etc etc etc and yet seem to find plenty of time for their other paid work.You only need to google it to find out how much extra they earn.Lets not forget all of the perks,employing family members,£400 per month on food(disgraceful),paying for a cleaner etc etc etc.........

If like you say we need "successful" people we need to pay them a lot more than £65k a year surely if they were succesful,mature etc they would be financially secure and not need the £65k?...

MP,s should NOT have 2nd jobs end off........

I think we need to start with the question ... 'what sort of people do we want to be MPs?'
and when look at the remuneration and rules that that would imply.

Personally I'm not too concerned about them having other jobs (as long as there is no conflict of interest) but if that were forbidden, then one have to consider whether a much larger salary would be needed to attract the 'right' mix of people.

As far as your point about being successful and mature is concerned then no I didn't have in mind people who had effectively retired because they had made their pile but maybe 40-50 year olds with successful careers in commerce, industry, education etc etc to whom a decent salary would be necessary.

leveller2911

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

I think we need to start with the question ... 'what sort of people do we want to be MPs?'
and when look at the remuneration and rules that that would imply.

Personally I'm not too concerned about them having other jobs (as long as there is no conflict of interest) but if that were forbidden, then one have to consider whether a much larger salary would be needed to attract the 'right' mix of people.


I am, we are constantly reminded by them how hard they work, the long hours in "The house", getting home late at night, the long drive back to their constituencies.......Where do they find the time to be directors and consultants of numerous companies???.....

I would agree with you that we need to decide on what we expect from the people who are suppose to represent us..;)

wolvoman

worldtraveller wrote: »

Do they? If they do, part of it will be taxable as a benefit. At 57p it's 17p per mile more than Joe Public can claim per mile from HMRC before being taxed as a benefit. Also, for Joe Public the 40p allowance only covers the first 10,000 miles, whereas the MPs get their 57p on the first 20,000 miles.

Also, unlike Joe Public they can claim for travel "between Westminster, home and constituency" (ie. commuting).

Other items you personally class as insignificant, all add up of course.

I don't think you live up to your username very well as you seem a bit vague on travel expense rules. You can only have 1 principal place of work. All MPs have two formal workplaces - Westminster and their home constituency. As a result they are entitled to claim for travel between them as it is their job. No difference to any other employee anywhere in the country.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

This is the problem with % payrises...

The more you earn the more attractive it is.

Mr.Brown_4

benb76 wrote: »

The "all animals are equal etc." is a very well known literary quote, the least you could do is get it right.

Yeah, snort.

"All animals are equal mostly, apart from horses obviously, and pigeons".

I love that series of programs he made, on Sky wasn't it? Animal Harm, it was called, a sort of play on words with the original screenplay which wasn't much of a success. But it was great seeing the pictures of injuries which animals can cause.

worldtraveller

wolvoman wrote: »

I don't think you live up to your username very well as you seem a bit vague on travel expense rules. You can only have 1 principal place of work. All MPs have two formal workplaces - Westminster and their home constituency. As a result they are entitled to claim for travel between them as it is their job. No difference to any other employee anywhere in the country.

You clearly haven't read my post properly. I never said that that they couldn't claim for travel between two places of work (eg. between constituency office & Parliament), which is allowable as a deductable expense. However, MPs are also allowed to claim for travel to/from their home to their places of work, which is not allowed as a travelling expense under HMRC rules.

For example, if they live outside their constituency they are able to claim for travel from their home to their consituency office, or Parliament and vice versa. Likewise, if they live in their constituency, they can claim for travel from home to their local office or Parliament and vice versa. This is not permitted for Joe Public under HMRC rules.

My office is in the same town as I live, around 10 miles from my home. I am not permitted to claim deductable travelling expenses for the 20 miles per day. MPs are, however, for a similar trip.

CLAPTON

leveller2911 wrote: »

CLAPTON wrote: »

leveller2911 wrote: »

I think we need to start with the question ... 'what sort of people do we want to be MPs?'
and when look at the remuneration and rules that that would imply.

Personally I'm not too concerned about them having other jobs (as long as there is no conflict of interest) but if that were forbidden, then one have to consider whether a much larger salary would be needed to attract the 'right' mix of people.


I am, we are constantly reminded by them how hard they work, the long hours in "The house", getting home late at night, the long drive back to their constituencies.......Where do they find the time to be directors and consultants of numerous companies???.....

I would agree with you that we need to decide on what we expect from the people who are suppose to represent us..;)

well, while I don't agree with you, in essense that's why I say we need to start with what we want from our MPs and work foreward.

In my view people can usefully do more that one thing; maybe paid maybe unpaid: one mans 'busy' is another mans idle; one person is quick and one slow and meticulous.

In the private sector quite a few busy chief execs manage to do other things too, non-exec in another comapny, chair charitable work, mentoring, supporting Prince Charles Trust, local round table etc etc. I don't see why that can't be true for MPs and anyway if it were a blanket ban it would probably stop many good people wanting to be MPs

RobertoMoir

I have no problem with MPs getting a pay-rise, to be honest, especially if it can be tied in with vastly curtailing the expenses they claim. A MP who gets paid £65k now and claims £60k in moat cleaning and pr0n watching subsidies and the like is more expensive than a MP who got paid £80k but could only claim a max of £20k expenses on top of that where those expenses were very tightly regulated and managed.

They are running the country after all. I'm getting more than half their salary to be a relatively minor (though admittedly very experienced and qualified) cog in a small part of the education machine. They work longer hours than I do and their decisions are far more wide ranging in scope and impact than mine.

The timing of this "news" from the independent review body could be a bit better though, lets be honest.