The “grim” struggle of living on an MP’s *£81,932 salary* [angry]

£82,000, £82,000 - unbelievable ! I’m sorry but I would be living a life of luxury on that income. No wonder there is so much unrest at the moment. These people don’t live in the real world.

Will they give pensioners living on the basic a decent rise I wonder? No of course not it’s only the privileged who deserve a decent standard of living

Oh wouldn't I love the chance to struggle along on £80,000 plus? I take it Mrs. Bottomley is getting the same salary - or potentially a government pension, which MPs have ensured is very comfortable. She currently chairs a company - perhaps one of these £100,000 a year three days a week with lunch thrown in affairs. My heart bleeds.

It's not just the wages they get its all the expenses too. The rich and elite Government do not care about the every day worker or person on benefits. Also one minute NHS staff were all heroes, but they only get a 3%payrise yet the Government give themselves a 10% one.

look here, they are extremely good value

Most the lady MPs seem to buy phase 8 dresses and a matching jacket

though to be fair, i imagine suit would come under expenses

matalan sell perfectly reasonable suits

Don't forget the Labour Party MPs earn the same money. All politicians are well off. All of them have no idea of the struggles of the low paid or those who cannot work.

icanhandthemback

It was definitely a crass comment in the present circumstances but a lot of MP's do take a pay cut when they take the job and that doesn't always correspond with their outgoings. Without such people willing to do that, we won't get people with a political mind to do the job. It is a sad fact that the higher your position, the higher your outgoings. There is an expectation that MP's will dress and live the part. You only have to look at people like Michael Foot to see the slating they got when they wore an anorak rather than a decent looking coat!

It wasn't an anorak it was an expensive woolen duffle coat. He was an elderly man and it was a cold November morning. He needed to keep warm.

I think it's appalling that someone can bring up the subject of Michael Foot's coat after all these years.

What does living the part mean? Have they all got to live in Chelsea like Rees Mogg? Have they all got to shop at Fortnums or go to the best Saville Row tailors? Our revered PM certainly doesn't look as though he goes to a decent tailor and as for his sports gear - words fail me.

Love this!!

It is a sad fact that the higher your position, the higher your outgoings.
It depends on your job, but yes I agree here. It is how you want to be perceived by the public or your customers or even your mates. Tbe trappings sort of befit your higher status. But at the end of the day, it is all an act and pretty false.

It was definitely a crass comment in the present circumstances but a lot of MP's do take a pay cut when they take the job and that doesn't always correspond with their outgoings. Without such people willing to do that, we won't get people with a political mind to do the job. It is a sad fact that the higher your position, the higher your outgoings. There is an expectation that MP's will dress and live the part. You only have to look at people like Michael Foot to see the slating they got when they wore an anorak rather than a decent looking coat!

No, those are “expenses” that are reimbursed on top of their salaries.

The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2020 is £81,932. MPs also receive expenses to cover the costs of running an office, employing staff, having somewhere to live in London or their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) has set and administered MPs' pay since 2011.

I dont know if what i heard some years ago is true, but dont mps have to pay for their own secretaries, their constituency office etc etc largely out of their own wage?

The man was right and wrong.

Yes, he's right that it's unfair that some people have wealth they haven't earned and sometimes aren't taxed at the same rate. If he'd have stuck to that point, I would be agreeing with him.

In the other hand, he was wrong about Labour's lying - and that seemed to be his main point. An income of over £80k does put somebody in the top 5% of earners, so he was wrong to accuse Burgon of lying.

He was also spectacularly wrong to claim that he wasn't in the top 50% of earners. He would even be in the the top 50% of everybody, including those with unearned wealth. Therefore, he was wrong with the main point of his shouty claim.

But the reason the man from the audience didn't understand this was because we do not add income, or presumed income, from assets when talking about what people earn. I would guess many people never think about this - they just get on with life. He was objecting to the fact that what he has "earned" put him in a category, to which many whose income is "unearned" were exempted. The speaker was affronted by this.

It wouldn't matter who had said it - he sees it as a lie. As a statistic is a truth. As a way of seeing the entire population he saw it is inappropriate as a way of classifying wealth. He felt he had been imperfectly judged while others were not considered at all. This metric was, in his eyes, incomplete.

What we think of as just matters. It is when people don't feel justice that society breaks down.

PippaZ

Alegrias1

Of course I can. I'm not an idiot.

Shame he wasn't able to articulate it better, wasn't it? I also assume he was with the woman next to him who implied that the minister was lying about his income when he was a solicitor.

I am sure each and everyone of us will find some areas of knowledge more difficult to articulate Alegrais. If you set up a confusing system some people will be confused.

I have no idea about the woman next to the - builder, wasn't he - it didn't seem that relevant.

He's a professional motorbike rider and IT consultant. The latter surprises me because he doesn't seem very numerate.

So to sum up; he is a Tory bastard.

Alegrias1

Of course I can. I'm not an idiot.

Shame he wasn't able to articulate it better, wasn't it? I also assume he was with the woman next to him who implied that the minister was lying about his income when he was a solicitor.

I am sure each and everyone of us will find some areas of knowledge more difficult to articulate Alegrais. If you set up a confusing system some people will be confused.

I have no idea about the woman next to the - builder, wasn't he - it didn't seem that relevant.

Dinahmo

What he's not understanding is that if he top rate of tax increases for him, as someone earning over £80k everyone else who has income over £80k will also be taxed at the same higher rate regardless of whether it's earned or unearned.

What he's not understanding is that earning £80k pa puts him in the top 5% of earners, so Labour wasn't lying.

Alegrias1

Of course I can. I'm not an idiot.

Shame he wasn't able to articulate it better, wasn't it? I also assume he was with the woman next to him who implied that the minister was lying about his income when he was a solicitor.

She's his mother.

What he's not understanding is that if he top rate of tax increases for him, as someone earning over £80k everyone else who has income over £80k will also be taxed at the same higher rate regardless of whether it's earned or unearned.

Of course I can. I'm not an idiot.

Shame he wasn't able to articulate it better, wasn't it? I also assume he was with the woman next to him who implied that the minister was lying about his income when he was a solicitor.

Alegrias1

^a priori^ assumption: People who earn over £80,000 are in the top 5% of earners

42 seconds in: "I am not in the top 5% of earners"

1 minute 7 seconds in: Agrees that he earns over £80,000.

But you can see where he is coming from Alegrais - or perhaps you can't. It really is time we added asset income on to earned income and had a progress tax from bottom to top.