MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer

[Deva Link]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The pay would probably need to be, as a minimum;

Back bencher £250k
PPS £350k
Junior minister £500k
Cabinet/leader of opp £750k
PM £1m

Good luck selling that to the general public!

[mrmr96]

Murph7355 said:

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.

The only way they could realistically gain a surplus would therefore be to make cuts...

I don't believe what you've said is true. In the short term they could certainly raise tax revenue. Eventually businesses would fold and wealth would leave the country if they got it wrong, but they'd be the next Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund by then, so they wouldn't care.

[Murph7355]

mrmr96 said:

I don't believe what you've said is true. In the short term they could certainly raise tax revenue. Eventually businesses would fold and wealth would leave the country if they got it wrong, but they'd be the next Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund by then, so they wouldn't care.

I didn't believe it either when Jacob Rees Mogg mentioned it on Question Time a few weeks ago. However a quick Google shows that he is spot on. It looks to have been floating around 36%-38% since the 70s. And I think it fair to say we've had all manner of different political slants on the tax system in that period.

Changes have only really changed the distribution of who picks up what.

[oyster]

Murph7355 said:

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).

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...

What pre-defined rules are these?

[anonymous-user]

Olympic village has some space - on jubilee line too iirc

[Digga]

oyster said:

What pre-defined rules are these?

?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf

[thinfourth2]

mrmr96 said:

I don't believe what you've said is true. In the short term they could certainly raise tax revenue. Eventually businesses would fold and wealth would leave the country if they got it wrong, but they'd be the next Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund by then, so they wouldn't care.

There would be a short term hiccup but in the long term the spending would go down.

Currently there is ZERO incentive for them not to borrow money in our name to buy our votes

[Murph7355]

Digga said:

oyster said:

What pre-defined rules are these?

?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf

Thank you digga

Oyster - presumably you don't run your own company, but if you do I'd have a read of that document. You don't want to get on the wrong side of HMRC as contrary to the belief that South America harboured escapees in the late 40s, I suspect Southend got its fair share too.

(Worthy of note is that duck houses and claiming expenses for 2nd residences don't figure highly in that document).

[anonymous-user]

petemurphy said:

pay them a proper wage?

If they don't like it they can fk off and do something worthwhile. If they're capable.

We would be better off with a lot fewer of them. Much better.

[randlemarcus]

Murph7355 said:

Digga said:

oyster said:

What pre-defined rules are these?

?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf

Thank you digga

Oyster - presumably you don't run your own company, but if you do I'd have a read of that document. You don't want to get on the wrong side of HMRC as contrary to the belief that South America harboured escapees in the late 40s, I suspect Southend got its fair share too.

(Worthy of note is that duck houses and claiming expenses for 2nd residences don't figure highly in that document).

Still nothing in there about caps on expenditure for hotel rooms. Most of that is imposed by some f&*kwit in Purchasing who brings in his own sandwiches for lunch, and specifies Travelodges because they give a nice rebate via the travel company.

[oyster]

Murph7355 said:

Digga said:

oyster said:

What pre-defined rules are these?

?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf

Thank you digga

Oyster - presumably you don't run your own company, but if you do I'd have a read of that document. You don't want to get on the wrong side of HMRC as contrary to the belief that South America harboured escapees in the late 40s, I suspect Southend got its fair share too.

(Worthy of note is that duck houses and claiming expenses for 2nd residences don't figure highly in that document).

I am fully aware of those rules as I have staff claiming for some of them all the time.

I cannot think of any legitimate MPs' expenses that fall foul of those HMRC rules. Can you?

[porridge]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This, they make up any perceived shortfall in income from other areas.

[DanDanDaan]

How about matching it to a police officers/nurse/teacher pay grade. Apparently they are all over paid. New MP's start on the bottom pay point. Each year of service goes up the equivalent a nurse/teacher/officer. Promotion to cabinet is like a jump in rank to sergeant.

Then give them free travel in the UK, second class. But like the police (who if using any free travel have to intervene in trouble) they can only use it if they are willing to chat to the general public / hold open sessions. If they want to be left alone they can pay their own fare. Add to this a room in a purpose built travelodge which has been suggested already and it is a winning plan.

This would mean a new MP would get 23k rising to 31k by the end of a parliament. Maxing out at 36k. Not a bad wage by any stretch.

Might get rid of a few in it for the money anyway. And to those saying that it would stop people from poorer backgrounds being an MP. I would jump at the chance to earn 36k. I wouldn't think sod that, all that sitting around, drinking subsidised drinks, making amazingly profitable contacts for my post political career, it's not for me.

[Digga]

oyster said:

I cannot think of any legitimate MPs' expenses that fall foul of those HMRC rules. Can you?

Except that, off teh top of my head, lunches - not allowed at all - and the fact that for us mere mortals, reciepts must be provided. We don't summon expense compensation merely on our say so.

[porridge]

randlemarcus said:

Still nothing in there about caps on expenditure for hotel rooms. Most of that is imposed by some f&*kwit in Purchasing who brings in his own sandwiches for lunch, and specifies Travelodges because they give a nice rebate via the travel company.

Right... so sensible business practice to not you spend time at the Ritz is wrong. And 'He' is the f&*kwit...

[oyster]

Digga said:

oyster said:

I cannot think of any legitimate MPs' expenses that fall foul of those HMRC rules. Can you?

Except that, off teh top of my head, lunches - not allowed at all - and the fact that for us mere mortals, reciepts must be provided. We don't summon expense compensation merely on our say so.

Lunches are allowed.
Receipts is a valid one. MPs should have to provide this.

[Digga]

oyster said:

Lunches are allowed.

Thanks, you're right.

And the reason I was so adamant was that an engineering firm we've done business with for decades got done by a tax inspector (sometime after 2000) for buying all the employees (and visiting clients )fish & chips every Friday lunchtime.... So either the rules changed or the guy was a class 1, grade A bd.

[ClaphamGT3]

DanDanDaan said:

How about matching it to a police officers/nurse/teacher pay grade. Apparently they are all over paid. New MP's start on the bottom pay point. Each year of service goes up the equivalent a nurse/teacher/officer. Promotion to cabinet is like a jump in rank to sergeant.

Then give them free travel in the UK, second class. But like the police (who if using any free travel have to intervene in trouble) they can only use it if they are willing to chat to the general public / hold open sessions. If they want to be left alone they can pay their own fare. Add to this a room in a purpose built travelodge which has been suggested already and it is a winning plan.

This would mean a new MP would get 23k rising to 31k by the end of a parliament. Maxing out at 36k. Not a bad wage by any stretch.

Might get rid of a few in it for the money anyway. And to those saying that it would stop people from poorer backgrounds being an MP. I would jump at the chance to earn 36k. I wouldn't think sod that, all that sitting around, drinking subsidised drinks, making amazingly profitable contacts for my post political career, it's not for me.

First of all, to compare the responsibilities and skills required of even a back-bencher with the jobs you mention is facile. They are important jobs and should be valued but to put them in the same league as framing our legislation, representing the people in Parliament, running the machinery of Government and ensuring that the will of the electorate shapes our domestic and foreign policy is absurd.

Secondly, if you start saying that politicians are going to be unpaid/paid expenses only/paid the minimum wage/paid a token salary, you're only going to get the following types of people going into politics:

• The independently wealthy (David Cameron)
• Those who have a spouse with a meaningful income (Tony Blair/Margaret Thatcher)
• Those who are too unemployable to get a meaningful job anywhere else (Gordon Brown)

I don't think that such a model leads to balanced, high quality representation of the people in parliament

[ClaphamGT3]

Deva Link said:

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

And we all know there are a number of instances where clearly it is the latter part of that statement which demonstrates what is currently 'wrong'. Locally, for example, the chair of the local HA earns more (salary is [i[over[/i] £200k) than the head of the borough council. Work that one out.

It's somewhat bizzare how high local council Chief Exec's have become, and it's such a vital role that some councils have done away with it altogther.

In fairness, most authorities that have removed their Chief Exec post have done so because its being combined with another organisation and many are finding it unworkable and re-instating the post.

A good Local Govt CX is well worth the money - Howard Bernstein/Paul Martin/Ged Fitzgerald etc. There is little sensitivity however between the pay of a great one and the pay of a sh*t one

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

oyster said:

Lunches are allowed.

Thanks, you're right.

And the reason I was so adamant was that an engineering firm we've done business with for decades got done by a tax inspector (sometime after 2000) for buying all the employees (and visiting clients )fish & chips every Friday lunchtime.... So either the rules changed or the guy was a class 1, grade A bd.

Under the current system that would be the case. No business reason for that except to increase the reward for your employees, hence a BIK.