Are our M.Ps worthy of a HUGE pay rise?

The problem there is how many actually believe that the pay rise is tax neutral, I for one do not, plus of course many MPs believe that they are entitled to a rise and would gladly accept it, only the furore is creating hesitation, the point being they obviously see it as a benefit, not as a rise to be paid for by losing elsewhere.

This argument and others is based on the premise that MPs decide their salaries whereas they no longer do as everyone should be aware.
Point the finger of blame at IPSA. In any case as has also been made clear the increase is tax neutral because the salary increase is offset by pension reductions and increased contributions.
So why all the fuss?

The real problem is this is not just about salaries, but the whole system which needs a total overall.

Certainly compared with many other occupations MPs are not overpaid, whether they are worth it or not is another matter, but how many jobs are out there were it appears that most of normal living costs become expenses and claimable?, how many are in a position were they can hire members of their own family at hefty salaries and the taxpayer picks up the bill? how many because of their position gain consultancy or director positions where ability has little bearing?

With MP’s renumeration I feel the situation is one were salary OK, but the perks brilliant, the revision claims to be a balancing between pay and perks, I for one have little faith in the real outcome.

MPs would be well advised to realise that they are not the best regarded group in the country, preaching austerity and cuts while taking hefty pay rises will not improve their standing.

“We’re all in this together!”

We’re all in it together, but some are more in it than others.

By all accounts, the proposed changes give a higher basic rate of pay, but a much smaller pension contribution. Net salary is the same, but they also lose some other benefits.

Slow news day!

Hang on Bruce, but didn’t Blair and his lot award themselves 2 Pension rises during their last couple of yrs whilst in power.?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Indeed so and it would seem the disease has afflicted many well outside this forum as well!

As quite often happens here, we get the tabloid headlines regurgitated as if they were the truth, rather than the slanted and alarmist snapshots that will sell papers and appeal to their readers’ prejudices.

Moggy

Indeed, as already observed in #13!! So the story is making fools of almost everyone, including senior members of the government……:rolleyes:

By all accounts, the proposed changes give a higher basic rate of pay, but a much smaller pension contribution. Net salary is the same, but they also lose some other benefits.

Slow news day!

The old uns are still the best Geoff….:o
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Hi All,
Still funny even though it’s an old joke.:highly_amused:

Geoff.

Do you mean, “What little we have left” of our Military assets?……….
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Yes, both of them !

I couldn’t agree more, S.F. however, hows about THEY pay US for having them in Power?………:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7

OK, a so called independant body thinks MPs should get a pay rise, but what do the employers think, hows about adopting the same attitude as so many employers do, yes you can have your pay rise, but the number of MPs must fall to keep within budget, or alternatively the bill for expenses and pensions must be cut again to fall within budget.

Any cut in numbers will not be an orchestrated boundary reshuffle which favours one party or another, but will require axing equally from all parties pro rata to current MPs,individual parties must then make arrangements to cover any area which loses it’s MP, will cause some problems sure, but certainly no more than the present government has achieved by simply axing public service jobs according to financial criteria with no concern for actual need.

Or they can have a pay rise on zero hour contracts, some would actually owe us money.

We pay their salaries so if the increase is indeed neutral and costs us no more then why the fuss?
More research required…..

It’s about Joe Bloggs, whoe’s pay increase has been limited to 1%, over the last few yrs, hearing M.P.s are getting an extra 11%. Whether we pay it or not, it is, in the present climate of austerity, morally wrong.

“Never in the field of human conflict, have so many suffered in the hands of so few”………………….Old Lincs Proverb.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Just as I originally thought. But I an now reading that it is tax neutral. Because MPs pension contributions are increased and retirement grants reduced. So why all the fuss if it is not costing the taxpayer more? More reading is required I think.

No they can’t refuse it but they can give it away. I wonder how many will?

It’s O.K. Chas we will soon be going to a place such as AVIS or” Rent YOUR SHIPS and Personnel here” shop, when we get dragged into another War or Conflict by the USA.:rolleyes:
Although France would charge us an arm and a leg to rent their A/C Carrier, and then if it’s only convenient for them.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Obviously.