Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


32 percent rise


21 Jan 2013 10:28PM
Should MP's get a 32% pay rise?

Well there are arguments too both sides of this. One is that you get out what you put in, and the pay should reflect the work, the other is I like many others work bloody hard to penny's, and the only reason I ever get a pay rise is because the minimum wage has gone up, and they have to pay me more by law.

Regardless 32% is a stupid amount. We are in a recession some people have had to accept salary cuts just to keep their job. Plus I think if pay rises are to be handed out the emergency services who risk their life's saving ours should be at the top of that list.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

collywobles e2
10 3.4k 9 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 8:41AM

Quote:And they pay for their own accommodation, socialising/entertaining, and 'incidentals' like members of their family as secretaries, stationery etc, like everyone else has to. If I got a job in another city, my new employer wouldn't be expected to foot the bill for my 'lifestyle'.

Maybe they should have to attend 'work' (the House of Commons) a minimum amount too, and do their constituency work in their own time.



Most people who have their own business employ family and friends so Politicians are no different.

Employers do foot the bill when people travel or live away on company business, again this is no different to Politicians who live in one place and work in another, now I'm not talking here about a Politician who lives on a train ride from Westminster but those who live a long distance from London. In these cases its not unreasonable for them to claim expenses for accomodation and food.

Finally I do think Politicians are underpaid they earn not much more than someone on a reasonable clerical bank job in London, I think 100K would be sensible for the amount of hours they put in

Politician bashing is as popular as bashing the bankers but if you get underneath the headlines they work hard and long and many on here couldn't hack it.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 8:56AM
I would have less problem with them being paid more if they were governed by the same rules that everyone else is: full receipts for expenses, no blanket 'expense' payments which for anyone else would be taxable if they could not fully justify they were incurred for the job, if partners are working as secretarial/admin the pay must be in line with the work done etc etc. If I were to go on a business trip, and stopped for a meal I would not be allowed to claim it on expenses if I am within 20 miles from home (Lord knows what would happen if I tried to claim a 5-star hotel as well!): this is is only a company requirement because if the taxman audited the books they would accuse the company of colluding in 'payment in kind' that avoids tax and it would go down on my list as unearned income. But when it comes to an MP who lives in London, that is deemed to be alright.
As someone has said, their permitted (and untracked) running expenses almost exceeds their salary.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 8:58AM

Quote:Employers do foot the bill when people travel or live away on company business, again this is no different to Politicians who live in one place and work in another,


Employers do foot the bill but the employer also decides whether or not you go on the trip, is it purely business and will it be of value to the company. MPs decide for themselves and usually come to the conclusion that they will learn the most about everyday life it they visit Bali for a week, calling at Dubai on the way back to spend their expenses wisely on duty free goods to avoid paying tax over here. Then the business trip, unauthorised, ends up with a final three days bash in Amsterdam to 'wind down' in readiness for the next sleeping period on the back benches. Sleep is necessary before they dash off to Australia for a spell of 'Bush tucker' in the Jungle, being paid 50,000 for "Creating greater exposure to my constituents."

Tough life
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 9:10AM

Quote:Then the business trip, unauthorised, ends up with a final three days bash in Amsterdam to 'wind down'


More companies now are stopping their employees tagging weekend breaks to the end of a business trip because using the flight out to avoid the employee paying for it could look like subsidised travel (a taxable perk). Yet again, the MPs seem immune to the taxman's rules.
lemmy e2
7 2.0k United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 9:56AM

Quote:I think 100K would be sensible for the amount of hours they put inl


Yes, I agree, 90-100k and expenses strictly on a reimbursement basis. My MP is a minister, a good MP and works hard. What kind of person would you get for the lowly salary and living in a barracks that some suggest here? Like it or not, the truth is that most MPs are well educated and hard working. Some are not and should be weeded out - they do have to reapply for their jobs every 4 or 5 years, after all.

I wonder how many people, if their employer told them there was an allowance for a car of 10,000 per annum without bills, would not claim it? Maybe everyone, apart from MPs, is the angel they want MPs to be?

We should not do the so English thing and tar everyone with the same brush. If we want to improve the state of our government we need thought and planning, not invective, emotion and knee jerk.
brian1208 e2
11 10.6k 12 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 10:03AM

Quote:Then the business trip, unauthorised, ends up with a final three days bash in Amsterdam to 'wind down'

More companies now are stopping their employees tagging weekend breaks to the end of a business trip because using the flight out to avoid the employee paying for it could look like subsidised travel (a taxable perk). Yet again, the MPs seem immune to the taxman's rules.



Back to the '70's again when there was a Foreign Travel Allowance Restriction and any week-end attached to foreign business travel had to be declared as either Allowable or Non-allowable. If the week-end was in the middle of a continuous period of work it was allowable, otherwise it became a taxable "Perk"

I was spending a lot of time overseas in that period and ended up being investigated by the taxman as a result (they were checking up on the company not me, I just happened to get in the way). It was the most stressfull 9 months of my career.

Wouldn't it be good if they applied the same rigour to the travel arrangements of our MP's Wink

(In my case, at the end of the invstigation it turned out I had overpaid on my tax so I got around 200 back - a tidy sum in those days )
Sooty_1 e2
4 1.3k 203 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 10:23AM
The government don't send the mp to work in any area, usually. They are free to choose the constituency they run for, and they choose ones where there is a vacancy. Why can't the party provide a flat for them to live in, as opposed to subsidies for buying second homes?
Why do mps feel the need to travel extensively? It's not helping their constituents. If they could claim back only receipted expenditure for personal expenses incurred while actually on party business, and they were limited in amount, that would be a start.
I have travelled extensively, and the last few years have been limited to 25 a day for expenses, including food. Hotels were capped at around 75 per night, and all receipts have to be submitted for audit with the claim and kept for a couple of years. That does not allow a great deal of luxury. Why do mps need more though?
Maybe each party should be given a proportion of the cash, and the mp employed by them, rather than central government. It might be in each parties' interest then to check the spending of their members.
collywobles e2
10 3.4k 9 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 12:02PM

Quote:Why can't the party provide a flat for them to live in,


Makes no difference who or where the flat is - someone has to pay for the MP who lives perhaps 100 miles from Westminster.


Quote:personal expenses incurred while actually on party business, and they were limited in amount, that would


They are


Quote:I have travelled extensively, and the last few years have been limited to 25 a day for expenses


Then you must work for a very mean company. My expenses when I travelled the world were generous, the only thing I could not claim for ws a night in a bar drinking, however I could claim wine and beer with a meal and 5 star hotels.

Sooty from what you have said in your last post I think you are just jealous that you are not allowed to claim as much as you would like.


Quote:Maybe each party should be given a proportion of the cash, and the mp employed by them, rather than central government. It might be in each parties' interest then to check the spending of their members.


Who ever employs them its the tax payer in the end who foots the bill. You cannot have a government on the cheap, if you pay peanuts - you get monkeys.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 1:40PM

Quote:someone has to pay for the MP who lives perhaps 100 miles from Westminster.


Part of the scandal is, though that MPs whose constituency is in London get to stay in accommodation in Westminster. If a business rep lived in East London and he was donig a visit in west london the chances of him getting a hotel room on company expenses is nil.

Quote:
My expenses when I travelled the world were generous


In most cases we are not talking travelling the world, we are talking about expenses within the UK.


Quote:My expenses when I travelled the world were generous, the only thing I could not claim for ws a night in a bar drinking, however I could claim wine and beer with a meal and 5 star hotels.

It would be interesting to know when that was - the taxman has become ever tighter on taxable perks and look at the context of a trip. A lowly rep travelling to E Europe would have far less latitude than a Director whose perceived status would require a higher level of accommodation, especially if entertaining in the evenings. A major driver is of course how much the company is willing to pay but tax is ever more a factor.

However, as I say, the level of expenses is not really the problem with me but the rules by which they play.
lemmy e2
7 2.0k United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 1:51PM

Quote:However, as I say, the level of expenses is not really the problem with me but the rules by which they play.


I was used to business class travel and four star hotels and the company paid for wine and good restaurants, too. It was a perk of being a well thought of photographer in journalism - if you weren't well thought of, there were different rules.

The point was, we were on a fixed (if high) salary but regularly missed weekends off, days off, bank holidays and often holidays themselves. This was covered by the lifestyle and expenses. It worked for me. And it was OK with the tax man because it was reimbursement.

I guess the difference is that it is the money of a commercial company and not tax payers' - and a company that paid not a penny more than it had to for anything, including staff.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 2:28PM

Quote: they do have to reapply for their jobs every 4 or 5 years, after all..


Well not quite, there are some constituencies where if a horse was entered as a candidate for the Labour Partyat an election - it would win.
lemmy e2
7 2.0k United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 2:33PM

Quote:Well not quite, there are some constituencies where if a horse was entered as a candidate for the Labour Partyat an election - it would win


True but the voters could still change it if they wanted to. The MPs are lucky to have sheep for voters, though.
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 4:00PM

Quote:True but the voters could still change it if they wanted to. The MPs are lucky to have sheep for voters, though.


I suppose one of us could do as much as TOUCAN do, but those MPs who go SWANNING about to the back benches then start LION down need voting out.
lemmy e2
7 2.0k United Kingdom
22 Jan 2013 4:23PM

Quote:then start LION down need voting out.


Ok but let's not badger the ones who don't mind a bit of aardvark. An MP may be a bit of a boar and his lifestyle a bit deer but it would be otter madness to vote him out over five or six squid if he used it for a good porpoise.

Nevertheless, if an MP is willing to work at a locust, crab him while you can, eel panda to the voters even if they do grouse about him a bit.

No more from me, I promise Sad

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.