MPs overpaid by £11,000 already according to the public

Galaxy1987

I have no problem with them getting a pay rise, but I object to it when everyone else is struggling to live with their income versus inflation.

Most tax payers have not had a wage rise in some years due to the cuts made by the the government so why should they be able to get a rise when it is part of their job to ensure that the company runs smoothly in allowing people to live out with poverty.

The increase in salary would pay for approximately 350 nurses across the country. In my opinion nurses are needed more than MP's need wage rises.

Andy_L

Soubrette wrote: »

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.?

look at the examples HMRC give

"provided with a four bedroom house for herself, her husband and two children. A single employee in equivalent circumstances would only have been provided by her employer with a two bedroom flat.

..part of what the employer provides is not a necessary expense ..... Relief should be limited to the provision of a two bedroom flat"

"Her employer rents for her a six bedroom house in Chelsea at a rent of £5,000 per week.

In some cases there may be a business need for accommodation on this scale, but it will have to be clearly established. Otherwise you should restrict relief to the cost of accommodation ... attributable to the employee's necessary attendance at the temporary workplace"

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim31838.htm

Its not an all-or-nothing "wholly, exclusively and necessarily work related" deal as far as HMRC is concerned such that the mearest sliver of non-work related action means no relief for the stuff that is work related

Considering that they are limited to £17.4k in rent I don't see them getting more than a 2 bedroomed flat in London for that anyway. So they will be forking out of their own pocket if they want a family home

Soubrette wrote: »

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?

As far as HMRC is concerend, they are treated the same as the rest of us.

Soubrette

Thanks AndyL, I appreciate the info.

Interestingly I had a conversation with HMRC a few years ago, my partner was a computer consultant and he had the licence to a database language that he was expert in. The licence was rather a lot of money but he felt it was a worthwhile investment.

The data he used for his programmes was the household budget figures (because he could easily check if his programmes were working properly.

HMRC insisted that as he was using the database for his own private use because he used his own household figures then it was not a work expense. HMRC stressed that all claimed expenses had to be wholly for work related items, it was then that they gave me the example of someone joining someone else on a business trip - it stopped being a business trip and became a private trip with some business thrown in, as such not a claimable expense.

Have things changed or was I speaking to a bit of jobsworth?

Andy_L

Soubrette wrote: »

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.

You wouldn't be able to claim the "few [extra]days down there for fun" or the cost of the 2nd set of meals but you could claim milage and the hotel room assuming double occupancy wasn't more expensive than single

You seem hung up on "wholly, exclusively and necessarily work related" when HMRC do not impose that criteria for travel expenses
Again, an example from HMRC:

"Travel expenses: general: introduction: expenses do not have to be wholly and exclusively incurred: example
An employee has to travel to New York on business for two weeks. While she is there she has a free weekend and spends it taking a break in Boston. The cost of her flight to New York and any other necessary travelling expenses are deductible. They have been necessarily incurred in travelling to a temporary workplace. The fact that the break in Boston means that the travelling expenses have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for business does not matter.


http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM31811.htm

Andy_L

Soubrette wrote: »

Thanks AndyL, I appreciate the info.

Interestingly I had a conversation with HMRC a few years ago, my partner was a computer consultant and he had the licence to a database language that he was expert in. The licence was rather a lot of money but he felt it was a worthwhile investment.

The data he used for his programmes was the household budget figures (because he could easily check if his programmes were working properly.

HMRC insisted that as he was using the database for his own private use because he used his own household figures then it was not a work expense. HMRC stressed that all claimed expenses had to be wholly for work related items, it was then that they gave me the example of someone joining someone else on a business trip - it stopped being a business trip and became a private trip with some business thrown in, as such not a claimable expense.

Have things changed or was I speaking to a bit of jobsworth?

Quite possibly, or they simply didn't understand their own rules

Soubrette

AndyL, I am prepared to bow to your superior knowledge and curse the idiot I spoke to who cost us no small amount of time as my partner had to spend a few weeks building a large self consistent database. :mad:

Plus the business trips I could have gone on :cool:

Still such is life

SCO

MP's are civil servants, civil servants get a 1% pay rise, so why are MP's getting 11%?

I am against a pay rise for them 66k is more than enough for an MP, dont forget most of them say they are not in it for the money.

The only way i would agree to a 10k increase is if expenses were axed, subsides were axed, second home allowance was axed, basically they get their salary and live on it like the rest of us.

SCO

Hasty1991 wrote: »

Obviously, this.

It's quite maddening how 'the public' love to bash MPs' pay. We need talented individuals and it is silly to stagnate pay unnecessarily.

are you forgetting the country is nearly bankrupt and they have cut benefits to the poorest in society?

Were all in it together i remember someone saying, yet they get 10% more pay rise than the 'normal' civil servants.

I would be extatic if i got 66k.

Hiccups_2

Here are figures from the Ipsa report on how MPs' salaries compare with those of their counterparts in other countries. (See table 4 in annex A.)

These are basic salary figures for July 2013, expressed in pounds sterling.

Spain - £28,969
France - £56,815
UK - £66,396
Sweden - £69,017
New Zealand - £74,154
Germany - £78,979
Ireland - £79,566
Norway - £87,964
Canada - £100,166
United States - £114,660
Australia - £117,805
Italy - £120,546

Italy has the highest paid politicians but has also gained a reputation for being (one of) the most scandal ridden and corrupt.

Figures for the average population served by each elected parliamentary representative by country (thousands).

Australia - 132.7
Canada - 105.5
France - 104.7
Germany - 136.7
Italy - 92.2
Japan - 265.2
Mexico - 210.0
Spain - 155.2
UK - 91.5
USA - 673.6

We have the highest number of elected parliamentary representatives relative to the population served of all OECD nations.

This figure is eclipsed when you also take into account the House of Lords by which token the UK becomes the only country with over a thousand parliamentarians (actual figure: 1259) with our nearest rival Italy having 945 parliamentarians.

When you take a closer look at the figures, it seems we are on the road to emulating Italy.

Naf

I think the only way to attract a decent calibre of MP is to actually make it possible for a decent person to get elected in the first place.
By paying lots of money and having expenses to boot, you're attracting greedy people - and are at risk of them saying anything just to get elected and get that salary. Sounds rather familiar to me.
And before anyone says that they could earn much more in a similarly demanding role in industry - no they couldn't because you can't get there without years of working your way up corporate ladders & showing that you actually can do the job - not just what you say you can do.
Unfortunately part of the problem is that people just aren't free to vote for an MP they actually want or trust. There is absolutely no way I could vote for a Tory - even if they were my best friend, I just abhor their policies. I might well think that my friend is the best person for the job locally; but the risk of what they could do (what they do do, as proven time and time again) centrally means I could never put my vote for them.
The point of the government is to act and speak on behalf of the people of this country; it is therefore imperative that they be representative of the people, and that they understand the situation and circumstances of the people. At 100k, even without expenses, there is no way they can understand to even the slightest degree how their whimsical flights of fancy with policy changes actually affect people. I see no justification whatsoever to pay them more than the national average; and am very much in favour of a salary set at minimum wage, based on a 35-40hr week. Expenses are not paid and then claimed back, special 'public purse' charge cards are used for their travel (where it is more than 2 hours - just like how far you're expected to go if claiming JSA) & accommodation (standard class, max. 3 star). They pay for all of their own food. The rest of us have to do this, why shouldn't they?
Where their wages are insufficient, they then claim through the benefit system exactly as anybody else does - and they do it themselves; no special secretaries to ensure their benefit claims go smoothly, no jumping queues, no special treatment of any kind. That way they truly can empathise with the poorest of those who they represent, and only then can they truly represent them.