MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer
Discussion
petemurphy said:
this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.
What's laughable is how out of touch some people are with whether 66k per annum is a lot of money or not! These people are public servants. Compared to the people they serve, 66k is a serious amount of money. And with current allowances most will be getting significantly more. Cabinet ministers (the ones who really make the calls) already get paid much more seeing them in the top 1% very easily.
As for the London angle, property aside it's not really that much more expensive to live here than anywhere else. Moreover, plenty of people on a lot less than 66k cope perfectly well without having taxpayer subsidised house purchases, the capital gain on which goes in their own pockets with little tax to pay...
Fittster said:
Why an earth do you think that a back bench MP is important? They don't make any decision, they are a best social workers for their constituency. I'd drop their salaries to the average for the area that they are elected to represent so they have a feel for the people who put them in place.
There's more to parliamentary work than turning up to go through the lobbies. Most will be working in parliamentary committes, framing legislation, negotiating the detail of bills, engaged with task forces and working groups on particular issues etc etc. A back bench MP will excert a great deal of influence over the government of the country by means other than how he/she goes through the lobbiesMurph7355 said:
What's laughable is how out of touch some people are with whether 66k per annum is a lot of money or not!
These people are public servants. Compared to the people they serve, 66k is a serious amount of money. And with current allowances most will be getting significantly more. Cabinet ministers (the ones who really make the calls) already get paid much more seeing them in the top 1% very easily.
As for the London angle, property aside it's not really that much more expensive to live here than anywhere else. Moreover, plenty of people on a lot less than 66k cope perfectly well without having taxpayer subsidised house purchases, the capital gain on which goes in their own pockets with little tax to pay...
i refer you to this:These people are public servants. Compared to the people they serve, 66k is a serious amount of money. And with current allowances most will be getting significantly more. Cabinet ministers (the ones who really make the calls) already get paid much more seeing them in the top 1% very easily.
As for the London angle, property aside it's not really that much more expensive to live here than anywhere else. Moreover, plenty of people on a lot less than 66k cope perfectly well without having taxpayer subsidised house purchases, the capital gain on which goes in their own pockets with little tax to pay...
"The figures I suggested are based on balancing the need to prevent anyone feeling dis-barred because the can't afford to do it however great their talent and commitment with the need to prevent people going into it for the money.
The current salaries are a complete farce: we pay the PM about the same as an associate in a law firm, a junior partner in a big surveying firm, an Exec Director in a local authority or the head teacher of a reasonable sized comp. "
and personally i dont buy the fact they are "public servants" maybe they / we need government to be run like a well oiled company
Murph7355 said:
What's laughable is how out of touch some people are with whether 66k per annum is a lot of money or not!
These people are public servants. Compared to the people they serve, 66k is a serious amount of money. And with current allowances most will be getting significantly more. Cabinet ministers (the ones who really make the calls) already get paid much more seeing them in the top 1% very easily.
As for the London angle, property aside it's not really that much more expensive to live here than anywhere else. Moreover, plenty of people on a lot less than 66k cope perfectly well without having taxpayer subsidised house purchases, the capital gain on which goes in their own pockets with little tax to pay...
Not a chance in hell I would tolerate everything that goes with being an MP for 66k.These people are public servants. Compared to the people they serve, 66k is a serious amount of money. And with current allowances most will be getting significantly more. Cabinet ministers (the ones who really make the calls) already get paid much more seeing them in the top 1% very easily.
As for the London angle, property aside it's not really that much more expensive to live here than anywhere else. Moreover, plenty of people on a lot less than 66k cope perfectly well without having taxpayer subsidised house purchases, the capital gain on which goes in their own pockets with little tax to pay...
oyster said:
2 options:
1. Pay them a lot more
2. Insist the 2nd home allowance can only be used for RENT of a 2nd property in central London.
The public can choose which.
(2) won't work. Wife buys house, rents to husband MP (or vv).1. Pay them a lot more
2. Insist the 2nd home allowance can only be used for RENT of a 2nd property in central London.
The public can choose which.
Convert the bar at the HoP into dorms
Or, seriously, do as companies do with their employees - preferred hotels supplier list with a cap on the cost of a room - I think a cap that's influenced by HMRC rules. Ditto travel, overnight stay etc etc allowances. There are pre-defined rules for all of this set by the HMRC that if private company owners don't stick to, they risk sanction. Why MPs have different rules is beyond me (other than to line their own pockets). Live by the sword...
Justayellowbadge said:
Digga said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Not a chance in hell I would tolerate everything that goes with being an MP for 66k.
As far as I was aware it is a vocation, not a career and always has been.petemurphy said:
i refer you to this:
"The figures I suggested are based on balancing the need to prevent anyone feeling dis-barred because the can't afford to do it however great their talent and commitment with the need to prevent people going into it for the money.
The current salaries are a complete farce: we pay the PM about the same as an associate in a law firm, a junior partner in a big surveying firm, an Exec Director in a local authority or the head teacher of a reasonable sized comp. "
and personally i dont buy the fact they are "public servants" maybe they / we need government to be run like a well oiled company
If people potentially earning 3x the national average feel disbarred from becoming an MP, they are doing it for the wrong reasons - it's a vocational role and cannot be compared with law firm employees (for example) in the same way that nurses, teachers etc can't readily be. Like JAYB I wouldn't do the job either. But not because of the money."The figures I suggested are based on balancing the need to prevent anyone feeling dis-barred because the can't afford to do it however great their talent and commitment with the need to prevent people going into it for the money.
The current salaries are a complete farce: we pay the PM about the same as an associate in a law firm, a junior partner in a big surveying firm, an Exec Director in a local authority or the head teacher of a reasonable sized comp. "
and personally i dont buy the fact they are "public servants" maybe they / we need government to be run like a well oiled company
I generally agree with the "well oiled company" approach, BUT there are unfortunately many factors that make that impractical (if it were a well oiled company, pretty much all benefits payments would be scrapped - a nice thought, but not implementable).
I would favour only having proven successful sector experts in cabinet positions and paying them accordingly, but backbench MPs? Nope. They are there to represent the views of their constituents. And the further detached they become from them, the less able they are to do that job. How many people in places like Redcar, or Wolverhampton earn even close to 66k (plus expenses)?
A new study of German MPs says:
The average politician earns more than the average voter, even after controlling for observed characteristics which are commonly identified to affect earnings. Depending on the estimation method and the respective specification applied, the politicians’ wage gap is 70–90% compared to the full sample and declines to 40–60% compared to citizens with an executive position. Hence, we show that the widely used claim that politicians would earn significantly more in the private sector is not confirmed by our data.
Does this apply to the UK? Granted, German MPs earn slightly more than their UK counterparts: the median MP in this data gets £73,000 whilst British MPs get £65738. It's unlikely that British MPs are greatly more skilled than German ones. And their pay is more than twice the median wage of 40-49-year-olds. Even if we apply a graduate premium of 25% to the median wage of 40-somethings, we get a salary of just over £36,000. Which suggests MPs are 80% overpaid.
You might object here that this ignores unobservable facts which affect earnings. It could be that MPs’ ambition, self-control and capacity for enduring dull work and duller people would cause them to earn big money outside politics. But that requires evidence that there are huge returns to non-cognitive skills.
This raises the question. If MPs were paid no more than their experience and qualifications would suggest (say, £40,000), how would it change our politics? Would it really cause many talented would-be MPs to pursue other careers? And would this be a serious loss anyway?
source
The average politician earns more than the average voter, even after controlling for observed characteristics which are commonly identified to affect earnings. Depending on the estimation method and the respective specification applied, the politicians’ wage gap is 70–90% compared to the full sample and declines to 40–60% compared to citizens with an executive position. Hence, we show that the widely used claim that politicians would earn significantly more in the private sector is not confirmed by our data.
Does this apply to the UK? Granted, German MPs earn slightly more than their UK counterparts: the median MP in this data gets £73,000 whilst British MPs get £65738. It's unlikely that British MPs are greatly more skilled than German ones. And their pay is more than twice the median wage of 40-49-year-olds. Even if we apply a graduate premium of 25% to the median wage of 40-somethings, we get a salary of just over £36,000. Which suggests MPs are 80% overpaid.
You might object here that this ignores unobservable facts which affect earnings. It could be that MPs’ ambition, self-control and capacity for enduring dull work and duller people would cause them to earn big money outside politics. But that requires evidence that there are huge returns to non-cognitive skills.
This raises the question. If MPs were paid no more than their experience and qualifications would suggest (say, £40,000), how would it change our politics? Would it really cause many talented would-be MPs to pursue other careers? And would this be a serious loss anyway?
source
Interesting question Fittster.
As far as the executive role of MP and specifically those in government, let us not forget that they make decisions with the advice and (generally) assistance of Whitehall, and unlike many private sector roles where advice can be minimal if, indeed it exists at all.
As far as the executive role of MP and specifically those in government, let us not forget that they make decisions with the advice and (generally) assistance of Whitehall, and unlike many private sector roles where advice can be minimal if, indeed it exists at all.
thinfourth2 said:
petemurphy said:
this - 66k is laughable in london for people that are in charge of the whole country. mind you if paid a proper salary they need to be there all the time not having a massive summer break.
But they aren't inchargeThey merely vote as they are told to by the chief whips
I'd prefer it if the whole lot were on profit sharing
5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.
That might motivate them a bit more then buying votes
king laugh?thinfourth2 said:
I'd prefer it if the whole lot were on profit sharing
5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.
That's actually a pretty neat idea. I bet we'd reduce the budget deficit in pretty short order under that regime. I'd like to incentivise them to keep cutting taxes as well though. Maybe tax their salaries at the same proportion as the tax take of total GDP.5% of all tax excess gets split amoungst the MPs.
Pay them minimum wage they should be in it to help the people not the money. Perhaps increasing the number of MP and allowing for 'part time' MP's who also hold down a job, run a small business etc. I dont believe we want career politicians but want to encourage the man on the street to do it for a few years as a way of putting something back into society.
Get ex hospital matrons (the battleaxe been around the block types) to oversee and administer the expenses.
Get ex mid-level to senior NCO's to make sure they are doing what they need to do (time wise, not falling asleep in the commons, not being paid to drink in the commons bar, not fiddling their time sheet etc)
Any fraudsters need to be caught and dealt with to the full extent of the law.
Get ex hospital matrons (the battleaxe been around the block types) to oversee and administer the expenses.
Get ex mid-level to senior NCO's to make sure they are doing what they need to do (time wise, not falling asleep in the commons, not being paid to drink in the commons bar, not fiddling their time sheet etc)
Any fraudsters need to be caught and dealt with to the full extent of the law.
mrmr96 said:
Whilst they set the tax rates? Are you having a fking laugh?
They may set them, but they don't materially influence the overall take (mid-30% GDP). Their tweaks just change who gets hit most.king laugh?The only way they could realistically gain a surplus would therefore be to make cuts...
Odie said:
Pay them minimum wage they should be in it to help the people not the money. Perhaps increasing the number of MP and allowing for 'part time' MP's who also hold down a job, run a small business etc. I dont believe we want career politicians but want to encourage the man on the street to do it for a few years as a way of putting something back into society.
Get ex hospital matrons (the battleaxe been around the block types) to oversee and administer the expenses.
Get ex mid-level to senior NCO's to make sure they are doing what they need to do (time wise, not falling asleep in the commons, not being paid to drink in the commons bar, not fiddling their time sheet etc)
Any fraudsters need to be caught and dealt with to the full extent of the law.
Have you met any local councillors? Get ex hospital matrons (the battleaxe been around the block types) to oversee and administer the expenses.
Get ex mid-level to senior NCO's to make sure they are doing what they need to do (time wise, not falling asleep in the commons, not being paid to drink in the commons bar, not fiddling their time sheet etc)
Any fraudsters need to be caught and dealt with to the full extent of the law.
Digga said:
petemurphy said:
thinfourth2 said:
Are cabinet ministers on 66K?
nope they get 135k but in 2010 there were 372 civil servants earning over 150k
role that some councils have done away with it altogther.Why not set a minimum wage for MPs, and allow their constituents (or a panel taken from a cross section of their constituents) to award 'pay rises' once a year over and above the minimum, based on their performance as an MP.
That'd focus some minds on what being an MP is actually supposed to be about, it might also make them a bit more inclined to spend time among the people they purport to represent, too.
Provide a decent standard of accommodation in the capital and an Oyster card (someone mentioned the Olympic village - good idea, they then have to endure the daily commute with the rest of us), they can buy and furnish their constituency home with their salary, like the rest of us.
Travel will be by standard class train ticket or a mileage allowance in line with what's available to the rest of us that work (25p a mile I think, in my company).
Meals/drinks in the House of Commons, make them eat the same as hospital patients and school children are given, might improve the standard of catering in those institutions.
I'm sure there's more.
That'd focus some minds on what being an MP is actually supposed to be about, it might also make them a bit more inclined to spend time among the people they purport to represent, too.
Provide a decent standard of accommodation in the capital and an Oyster card (someone mentioned the Olympic village - good idea, they then have to endure the daily commute with the rest of us), they can buy and furnish their constituency home with their salary, like the rest of us.
Travel will be by standard class train ticket or a mileage allowance in line with what's available to the rest of us that work (25p a mile I think, in my company).
Meals/drinks in the House of Commons, make them eat the same as hospital patients and school children are given, might improve the standard of catering in those institutions.
I'm sure there's more.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff