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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Jesus

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 !!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So to sum up; he is a Tory bastard.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

Love this!!

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.