74 grand a year are they worth it

[handypandy]

In the grand scheme of things, Its not the salary that bothers me. I wouldn't say that it is excessive in comparison to other professional incomes. What does bother me, is the ad hoc 'consultancy' payments they receive from the business world and exactly what they do for it.

 

 

 

.

[manxbiker]

Work for Council pays more

 

 

 

Assistant Director, Capital Projects & Property

 

 

 

Salary £80000 - 95000 per year +

 

 

 

Employer Royal Borough of Greenwich

[Phanerothyme]

I don't think its unreasonable.

[taxman]

Whilst I intensely dislike the thought of defending MPs, I believe the justification is that they haven't had a pay increase in a few years (three?) and that the proposed percentage increase is therefore still an effective pay cut measured against inflation.

 

Urgh. Feel dirty now.

 

Lots of other people haven't had pay increases in the last few years.

 

This year where I work there was a 1% pay rise for most people after a three year pay freeze, although some got nowt.

 

As well as the general state of the economy and the public purse one of the reasons given for not increasing pay more, or increasing pay scales, was that we do not have any problems recruiting new entrants, therefore the wages we offer must be OK.

 

I feel the same about MPs. There are 8-9 applicants for every position going at an election so they can't complain that people aren't willing to work for what they are currently offering.

 

I don't mind a slight increase in their basic salary as long as a lot of the perks, benefits and expenses are cut back.

 

I've heard the argument that the reason so many of them scam their expenses is to make up for their low basic pay and that by increasing the pay it will mean that they won't need to commit expenses fraud or claim for every duck moat, electricity bill or new TV going. That seems a poor excuse to me.

 

There could also be a general cull of MPs in my opinion. A lot of them are just lobby fodder.

[NorthernStar]

It cuts against the grain for me to say this but I do believe that people who hold that position do deserve it, its just a crying shame that most of our politicians are typically disgusting individuals that don't deserve the right to hold such positions.

[purdy]

It's IPSA that set the pay etc. for MP's. Some of the MP's are saying they don't want the increase ?? Clegg for eg. say's he will not take it.

However, backbenchers say they deserve more.

Regardless of the fact that it takes effect in 2015 it is wrong when most of the uk have not had that sort of % increase in the last 5-10 years.

 

Unless the economy is booming by 2015 and we are all enjoying the fruits

of success there will (and should be) a public backlash.

 

I wonder just how "independent" IPSA are?

 

There is a very simple answer. As the increase doesn't take effect until after next election vote for the candidate who says he will do the job for less.

[andrejuan]

Well yeah, but try getting by without the fire brigade.

Or nurses.

Or education.

Or roads.

Or aqueducts.

 

Wait...

 

My point is, they are cutting the services instead of cutting fat cat salaries

and ridiculous pensions etc.

The whole system is being abused and we the public have to put up with cuts

in services.

We need a public sector, we had a great public sector, but those employed

will kill the goose that laid the golden egg I fear.

 

Well done BTW, you got me started

 

But for me it ends here.

[Phanerothyme]

There is a very simple answer. As the increase doesn't take effect until after next election vote for the candidate who says he will do the job for less.

 

The problem then becomes that the only people who can afford to be MPs are the landed gentry and independently wealthy.

 

It's precisely this kind of scenario that the whole idea of paying MPs at all was devised to avoid.

 

If it's true for banks, one would imagine it should be true for parliament - you get the best talent with the highest pay packets.

[purdy]

The problem then becomes that the only people who can afford to be MPs are the landed gentry and independently wealthy.

 

It's precisely this kind of scenario that the whole idea of paying MPs at all was devised to avoid.

 

If it's true for banks, one would imagine it should be true for parliament - you get the best talent with the highest pay packets.

 

What you say is completely true but 50% of the population are below average intelligence and such reality won't matter a jot to them.

 

Mention an MP is paid £67 grand or whatever they go spare. Mention a union leader gets paid twice as much and that's fine.

[Nagel]

I don't think its unreasonable.

 

£74,000 isn't unreasonable for an MPs work, but it's an 11% increase at a time when many other people are only getting 1% or nothing that will grate with the public.

 

There was a time when MPs were very poorly paid considering the position and I remember earning as much as Mrs Thatcher was getting when she was PM.