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.
MPs overpaid by £11,000 already according to the public
Comments
-
princessdon wrote: »I think it depends on the sector - my OH earns approx £90k, pretty average for his field and like myself is from a working class background as are most work friends. I'd never get that salary in public sector unless top brass with private education etc.
I do think MPS expenses should be what we can claim though, that is what I object to, not their salary
If you worked in a 2 places (Constituancy & Westminster) and employed your own staff/furnished your own office then you'd be able to claim similiar expenses0 -
A fairly unique set of skills probably not present in many other professions. In developing this skill-set, potential politicians become attractive to other areas of society and thus salary becomes an important issue. Do we want competent individuals to be poached by other sectors or do we make sure that we compensate them attractively within politics?
You're criticising the selection of candidates by individual parties, you're not giving the underlying system fair consideration. Parliament must attract the most competent (and arguably most dedicated) individuals that it can afford to. We (the people) deserve the very best to represent us at the top table. Salary does make a difference in attracting 'the best'. I doubt you'd have half as many doctors or lawyers if they weren't sufficiently compensated for their expertise.0 -
If you worked in a 2 places (Constituancy & Westminster) and employed your own staff/furnished your own office then you'd be able to claim similiar expenses
You might be able to claim for two offices but you wouldn't be able to claim for two homes - expenses for the rest of us have to be wholly, exclusively and necessarily work related. So if you were taking a business trip to Margate and I said, I'll join you and we'll spend a few days down there for fun - you can't (or perhaps more accurately, shouldn't) claim any of the trip as a business expense.0 -
dandelionclock30 wrote: »People do take pay cuts though to do something they feel strongly about. I was once talking to a Judge and he said that the had been previously a Barrister and had earned a lot more than his current role. However he said that he really wanted to be a Judge as he had done years as a Barrister and wanted a change.
We need people to be M.P who feel passionate about their communities and helping them. Not passionate about being as greedy and grasping as is possible for themselves.
Remember as well, that MPs often have second jobs, plus all the expenses etc.
This current grasping, does nothing to help their image of being greedy b s.
Perhaps if judges had to work the hours MPs do, for the same pay that MPs do and had to face elections every 5 years instead of having guaranteed employment for life then it'd be a relevant comparison
We live in a society that has considerable variation in wages. It's easy to attack an MP for earning £66k when so many people are earning <£20k but that isn't really a case against the wage. Many other professions earn considerably more than average incomes for easier work than an MP.
What I like about the proposal is that it cuts back on a number of the bizarre perks like golden goodbyes, some of the allowances and the incredible pension terms. Currently an MPs wage means very little because they get so much in the package and this begins to normalise it a little. I think such a large first increase was a very strange suggestion given the political climate. If they'd suggested the equivalent of 1% a year from the previous pay rise until the date (~4-5%) they could then look at it again once the economy is stronger.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
-
No but they were allowed to flip their homes - and then furnish as appropriate. They were also allowed to keep any profits on any house sale. You'd be hard pushed to get an expense like that through HMRC if you were a normal employee.
Were, they can no longer claim for mortgage interest.
As far as HMRC are consernd my understanding is that they don't care if an employee uses an accomodation allowance for rent/hotels/2nd mortgage or a camper van, they will still get their pound of flesh by way of stamp duty & CGT0 -
Some of the key skill requirements for a good MP (IMO):
1) Be available for and listen to your constituents.
2) Provide assistance to your constituents where you are able.
3) Be a voice for your constituents in parliament.
4) Be passionate about improving your constituency and the lives of the people in it.
5) Fight for local causes, especially when this involves detriment suffered as a consequence of a government decision.
6) Further to (5) - Possess the ability to put "party politics" aside and oppose your "own side" in order to best serve your constituents.
...
I think these are fine as a starter to the constituency role of an MP. But we also need people to fill Government, Opposition and Select Committee roles.
We need to add skills like an ability to lead change, to set legislation, to hold others to account, to look at the big picture, to get our country great again. For this we would be better served by MPs who have performed some decent big jobs before they become MPs - and who are perhaps spending their last ten years before retirement putting something back into the community.
I deplore the trend towards MPs who haven't done a 'real' job before they arrive at Westminster.0 -
I think MPs should be paid over £100k, and accommodation should be provided for them in London. With the work needed at Westminster I think we missed a great opportunity to move parliament out to the Olympic village.0
-
Were, they can no longer claim for mortgage interest.
As far as HMRC are consernd my understanding is that they don't care if an employee uses an accomodation allowance for rent/hotels/2nd mortgage or a camper van, they will still get their pound of flesh by way of stamp duty & CGT
Indeed but from HRMC's point of view - once you move your family in then that becomes something that is not being used wholly for work and is not a legitimate work expense.
Are you seriously trying to argue that MPs, even now, don't have a much more relaxed position when claiming expenses compared to the rest of us?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.5K Spending & Discounts
- 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 614.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.9K Life & Family
- 252.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards