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

Tory MPs have a knack for crass behaviour. Does anyone remember David Cameron and his slimy sidekick George Osborne turning up at the Paralympics in 2012, having just announced swingeing cuts to benefits.And then there was Iain Duncan Smith proudly announcing that he thought benefits were generous and would easily be able to manage on £57 Jobseeker’s Allowance for a week ? Of course he could, because he knew that after a week he would go back to his nice comfy lifestyle and not have to worry about the long term knock on effect of only having £57 week !! The man was the architect of some of the most savage benefit cuts centred on the most vulnerable claimants, and at the same time as he was preaching austerity, he was busy having his (or was it his wife’s) estate declared a farm so they could claim EU subsidies. The likes of him and Bottomley should try living as a disabled person, confined to a wheelchair and living on the benefits they so gleefully cut to the bone - and not just for a week either, but for long enough to ram it home how quickly things deteriorate when you’re stuck with it long term. £80k - meagre ? God help us all !!

Jesus

Framilode

The salary is only a small part of what they get. I read his expenses were £154,000 last year tax free. This includes all sorts of allowances for food and travel. They alsohave all the subsidised facilities at the Palace of Westminster.

Nobody makes them become an MP. They choose to do so.

Their salaries are just pocket money.

Most of everything else is paid for, food, living expenses, mortgage etc.

Yep.
A lifestyle choice.
People usually have lots of opinions on those.

The salary is only a small part of what they get. I read his expenses were £154,000 last year tax free. This includes all sorts of allowances for food and travel. They alsohave all the subsidised facilities at the Palace of Westminster.

Nobody makes them become an MP. They choose to do so.

Sorry, forgot to quote - referring to the Question Time man, of course

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50514656

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.

Yes you are all right about living on benefits for a month, it’s not long , let’s try a year so we include a winter, Christmas, birthdays and summer holidays. Do you think that might work

Alegrias1

I think we're giving the Question Time guy too much credit.

IIRC correctly, he knew that some people earned a lot more than £80k so on £80k he couldn't be in the top 5%. For instance, somebody on £100,000 is earning more than 5% more than he is, so....

You don't have to tax your memory Alegrais. I quoted what he said earlier but here it is again.

"I’d like to call out Labour as liars," he told Burgon. The man said he was "not even in the top 50%" and claimed that every doctor, accountant, solicitor in the country earned at least £80,000. The the top 5% “don’t even work because they’re rich – they’re not employees,” he added."

As I said, he muddled earnings with income.

To be honest, I brought it up because I wonder about what people's perception of where they sit in the earnings or income scales are. Do we generally think people are "a bit like us" just a little higher or lower?

Lucca

There is something upthread about headteachers earning over £100k. Which they do but your ordinary rank and file teacher most certainly does nit earn anything like that !

Indeed! And they'll lose tax, NICs, pension contributions and, for most of them, student loan repayments. And I wouldn't mind betting they work longer hours than Mr Bottomley.

There is something upthread about headteachers earning over £100k. Which they do but your ordinary rank and file teacher most certainly does nit earn anything like that !

PippaZ

growstuff

Yes, I do remember him Pippa. It always amazes me that people in the top decile or so think they're so poor.

But he "was only" in the to 5% salary wise. He wasn't wrong in saying that many people had so much more from what is usually termed unearned income.

He certainly wasn't poor but was aware he worked for every penny he earned, unlike some who live on the earnings of assets.

I agree. It's certainly the case that the richest are those with assets, which are often not taxed at the same rate as earned income, which is a scandal. In that respect, he was correct, but if I remember correctly, he wouldn't accept that he was in the top 5% (or whatever it was) of earners.

Rosie51

^let any MP as part of his induction live for a month on UC or as a disabled person.^ unfortunately I don't think it would teach them as much as you'd hope. You can put up with the most dreadful things if you know it's time limited and a one-off. Add into the equation not having to replace the children's shoes, outgrown clothes, broken household equipment or any number of not every week expenses and they'd just go away with a false idea that it's doable.

I think you are right, there are some right smug people on that rich house, poor house program which I try not to watch

If he’s struggling that much I’ll happily swap incomes with him.

Managing year in, year out - robbing Peter to pay Paul.
That is living in poverty.

Rosie51 - I know what you mean and I agree. The people who have tried living 'homeless' for a week, or on benefits for a month or so have barely scratched the surface of what the reality is for people for whom it's an everyday grind year on year.

I think we're giving the Question Time guy too much credit.

IIRC correctly, he knew that some people earned a lot more than £80k so on £80k he couldn't be in the top 5%. For instance, somebody on £100,000 is earning more than 5% more than he is, so....

let any MP as part of his induction live for a month on UC or as a disabled person. unfortunately I don't think it would teach them as much as you'd hope. You can put up with the most dreadful things if you know it's time limited and a one-off. Add into the equation not having to replace the children's shoes, outgrown clothes, broken household equipment or any number of not every week expenses and they'd just go away with a false idea that it's doable.

ayse

I know for a fact that not all accountants earn £80k pa.

I agree with the posters here that all income should be taxed and additionally should be further stepped whilst reducing indirect taxation such as vat and fuel tax. In that way those with small or moderate incomes would keep more of their earnings and outgoings would reduce a little. Indirect taxation is a very unfair method of taxation in my opinion as it is paid equally by all.

As for Peter Bottomley with his three houses and private income in addition to his MPs salary, he has no right to complain. It disgusts me when so many people are wondering how they are going to manage this winter.

He certainly doesn't have a right to complain but then I can't think that I ever thought he would think reasonably.

growstuff

Yes, I do remember him Pippa. It always amazes me that people in the top decile or so think they're so poor.

But he "was only" in the to 5% salary wise. He wasn't wrong in saying that many people had so much more from what is usually termed unearned income.

He certainly wasn't poor but was aware he worked for every penny he earned, unlike some who live on the earnings of assets.

Yes like granntactivist after my divorce and with two young children also lived on partial benefits and lived hand to mouth, it was a real struggle that took many years to pull myself away from. I am now a retired Citizen Advice advisor but still keep my hand in by helping those who struggle for whatever reason, because I HAVE BEEN THERE and that is nobody in this government has experienced, let any MP as part of his induction live for a month on UC or as a disabled person.

One of his three homes is a block of six flats, so presumably he has income from 7 properties that are let, plus the increase in value as assets and he has a home he lives in himself.

Then he gets paid 82k plus 15k expenses pa, which if you have that much wealth is hardly a slap in the face with a kipper guvnor. I'm not sure if expenses are tax free either or if he has other income

Poor sod

Perhaps all aspiring MPs should qualify to stand for election by living for a year on the same rate as Universal Credit, or by living on a minimum wage salary. Maybe then they will have some understanding of the lives of the majority of people they go on to represent.

Following my divorce I was briefly on benefits as a single parent with three young children to support. I can make a sixpence do the work of a shilling, but my determination not to go one penny into debt meant that there were times when I literally lived for days at a time on toast whilst I was on benefits. My children were fed and clothed by the goodwill of the local church and wonderful friends.

I very quickly moved out of the system, but the experience has shaped my understanding of the mental and emotional strain that comes from living on an income that is never enough. I now work (unpaid) with people who are already struggling to survive financially and for whom life is about to get even tougher - and it breaks my heart because I truly fear that some of them won't make it and will kill themselves.

I was going to say wordsfail me but they don’t. What a disgusting, insensitive remark to make when so many people are struggling and using food banks. But what do expect from a serving member of a government that is without morals. AND this came on the day that my gd who works as a full time career , her husband, part time worker and very young son had to leave their accommodation for emergency housing because they could pay the rent, which had gone up,

Perhaps they could go and pick fruit in their summer holidays. Plenty of vacancies.