UK MPs want an annual £23,000 tax-free grant to hide expenses

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BoyBach, May 27, 2008.

  1. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4009899.ece


    I've just been reading this article on the Times website.

    I say they can have their grant if I can have a £23,000 grant to go to university. I hate these 'career' politicians. :mad:
     
  2. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #2
    I read about this in the paper. Unbelievable, they get forced to make public their expenses, so decide to just give themselves an annual bundle of cash each year instead. Wankers.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Snouts in the trough the lot of them. They had two options; clean up their act and publish expense details on Parliament's website (as the Scottish and Welsh parliaments do) or hide everything in a one off payment which means they don't even have to spend the money they claim in the first place. And look which one the thieving bastards took?

    Scum. Time for another mass clearout.
     
  4. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
    blood
    starting to
    boil
    must
    control
    the rage

    I love how the pious idiots voted for the Freedom of Information Act, and now that it's being rightly used to demand transparency from our elected MPs they try and find loopholes to get out of it :rolleyes:

    It's always been the case that those in power will be corrupted by it, and is why democracy has mechanisms in place to clear out the rotting scum that starts to accumulate. God I'm mad now :mad:

    :apple: breathe in, breathe out :apple:
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    They are massively underpaid in terms of what they are responsible for, so they deserve a massive pay-rise in salary terms alone. The chancellor and prime minister should both be earning well in excess of £1 million a year, giving them a 500% pay rise.

    The chairman of BP earns around 2 million a year as a base salary and that job has far less responsibility than the entire country. Even the chairman of the Co-operative bank, which is ethically run and has his salary chosen by a re-numeration committee including "man on the street" co-op members earns a base salary of £800k (source). Comparatively the Prime Minister earns less than £200k/year (source - PDF).

    And the the Co-operative banks managing director is only controlling an entity with £1 billion of revenue annually (source) compared to the government which controls £618 billion of revenue annually (source).

    EDIT: If all they are asking for is another £20k/year it is small peanuts to what they should be being paid.
     
  6. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    The Chairman of BP is working for a private for profit company. Those in gvt aren't. The BP Chairman is answerable to his shareholders, the gvt are answerable to us, and we ain't happy!
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Sure, but we'll never get anyone good to be prime minister for the current salary.
     
  8. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #8
    There are benefits later on in life if you've been PM, plus the whole thing of having real power. It doesn't pay fantastically while you're in office, but it certainly has it's "perks". Let's not make out they're hard done by.

    Never mind the fact someone wanting to be PM or an MP should be in it to change the country for the better, not purely for selfish financial gain </dream world>
     
  9. BoyBach thread starter macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #9

    Maybe I'm being a bit naïve and what-not, but I expect my local MP, and by definition the PM, to have entered politics to "do good" not because of the remuneration package or because it'll look good on their CV.

    I'm one seriously disillusioned voter. :(
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Of course, I'd like to think the same applies to anyone with power.

    If they are being paid 4x less than the CEO of the co-operative bank which is definitely a left of centre institution, and control 500x more money, as well as having a huge amount more responsibility something is very wrong.

    Them not being paid properly is what allows corporations to walk all over the governments (they have better people) and gives the rich undue influence over them, if the government figures are paid acceptably it gives them far less influence.
     
  11. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #11
    Bosses of banks make big bucks because the banks they're responsible for make big bucks.

    If the PM and MP's aren't happy with the salary of a minister and are just out for themselves, then they went with the wrong career path...or were just too stupid to make it in the City, and fell in to politics. Either way, it's no ones fault but theirs and it shouldn't be acceptable for them to try and pull s*** like this. Not least while the rest of the country is broadly being reamed for everything more than is tolerable.

    I can't honestly believe you'd defend them even slightly :confused:
     
  12. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #12
    The PM will get huge amounts of money later on in speech tours.

    Quite a few MPs have a second job such as being director of a small finance or legal company.

    If any of these people were working in a private company they would of been sacked for incompetence, and some would been in jail for corruption or other illegalities.

    Ideally these people should be in it because they are following there political ideals and working for the country. They are meant to represent the population.


    :mad:
     
  13. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Poor organisations always have someone incompetent at the top. The largest cause of that is down to them not being paid enough.

    Now its not the only cause, but if they aren't paid a suitable amount you'll never get anyone competent.

    Only by not rocking the boat of the corporations who will pay for that.

    They shouldn't have to supplement their income like that.

    And they should.
    I'd like to say the same about every person with power.
     
  14. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    He's a student and has paid little, if any, tax in his life so far. His attitude will change once he has a large chunk of his hard-earned pissed away every year by those who are supposed to be managing it for the good of the country.

    Unfortunately the committee represents all Parties so we'll have to storm Parliament to sort this one out (someone call Otis Ferry!) :p

    Seriously though this is yet another straw that will break the donkey's back come the general election.
     
  15. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #15
    Lets say every MP was paid a salary of £1 million a year tax free (EDIT: which is frankly excessive). Then as there are 646 MP's that would mean an expenditure of £646 million/year. Which is approximately 0.105% of the annual income of the country (see above figures).

    So that means on a salary of £30000/year (which is above average), say you pay 45% tax overall, which comes to £13500/year, that means I'd be paying £14.20/year for MP's, or under 4p/day.

    If £14.20/year is the additional cost for competent government I'm not complaining.
     
  16. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #16
    Never mind Otis Ferry, how about Guy Fawkes?

    *Gets carted off by Special Branch*
     
  17. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #17
    ^ Even the suggestion that MP's should be paid £1m per year is absolute madness. You hammer back to the fact that chumps in charge of private companies earn big, that still doesn't actually make them necessarily very good. It's the people under them that make them look good. Throwing high salaries around wouldn't solve a damn thing other than costing us even more, which they would need to find a new tax to pay for it.

    ...you're not a budding politician per chance are you?

    edit: christ, I just saw you said tax free too. what are you smoking, and can I have some lots.
     
  18. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #18
    Wait a minute...

    Eraserhead... are you the PM?
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    And it would be utter madness for more than the top people, it still wouldn't be expensive though which is my point. EDIT: The tax free was only to make the calculation easier as otherwise they'd be paying basically 40% of their salary themselves.

    The PM doesn't *want* to be paid that much as if he was he'd be expected to be good.
     
  20. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    What you're so obviously missing here is that higher pay does not equal greater competence. It just means higher pay.

    Take the management of Northern Rock as a recent example.

    QED.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    I'm clearly not convincing you. So lets try a little challenge. Name an organisation which is competently run with revenues of $2 billion/year or over where the leader/CEO/whatever is paid less than $500k a year.

    ;)
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    Personally I would do away with the centralised aspect of MP's salaries and have their constituents inspect them once a year for their competency in their job overseen by a new government office named Ofparl. We could then have league tables of MPs so that members of the electorate can see which areas are served by decent representatives and can make the right decisions as to where they want to live accordingly. If an MP doesn't come up to standard the entire country will know about it because the league tables will be publicly available and published nationally.

    After all, as MPs and government ministers are so keen to impose this system onto every other publicly funded profession they can't possibly object to it themselves, can they?
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    That sounds like an excellent idea.
     
  24. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #24
    If you do pay to much then people may consider the job just for the money.

    This situation of excessive spending has come from greed. Not all MPs are so greedy (I hope).

    This is what is bugging people so much. It is our money in tax that is meant to be spent on us in the form of health care, protection etc. The MPs are meant to be representatives of us as they are elected so it is like they are abusing their powers for personal gain.

    If a big company executive gets a big pay and you don't like it as a share holder you can withdraw support or as a customer it may put you of their products. There is some control were as with parliment there is less control, voting out will not sort the problem, its cross party.
     
  25. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #25
    I take it from the wink your aware of a company called Apple.
     

Share This Page