To think that MP's should have their wages capped at £500 a week?

[ValarMorghulis]

No access to expenses as that is a perfectly acceptable amount to live on apparently.

They are of course usually managing a hand span big enough to house fingers in pies elsewhere so have additional income anyway.

I just find it infuriating that they are pushing through the £26k limit to benefits despite knowing that it will push thousands into poverty and homelessness, yet they recently voted to award themselves £20k payrises.

Regardless of the cap, I think MPs salary should be linked to median (not mean) household income. Maybe twice median income, or three times, whatever seems appropriate. But something that gives them an incentive to think about the typical citizen

I also think that they should be required to put any other household income into a blind trust for the duration of their time as MP. (To get round the fact that otherwise wealthy people wouldn't be affected.)

Thirdly, I would build or buy a large block of flats easily accessible to Westminster and allocate each MP a flat based on family size (of course those whose constituencies are in London might not wish to have one). Then there would be no issue about expenses, second homes or whatever. Every MP would have their own house in their constituency, and when in London would have their official flat.

At one point we thought we would have to move from where we live. Which incidentally is 2 hours from.both of our families but as dh is very specialised we have to live here really AMD suck up the high cost of living.

"That could mean moving away from jobs/family/childrens schools etc..."

Not from jobs, as I doubt many people with jobs will have £26k worth of top up benefits. Most of us live away from family and you know what, children will survive moving schools. There is cheap housing and good education outside London: trust me, the rest of England is not the deprived wasteland people make it out to be.

Oh, and the stuff about 'working hard'. Generally salary is based on what is needed to attract a suitable person to do the job - that's what competition is meant to be about in our great free market world.

I don't see any shortage of suitably qualified candidates queueing up to be elected MP. And I don't imagine the quality would fall if you implemented my suggestions either.

Moving further out of London may be cheaper if you can buy and/or have a car.

We found it not really much cheaper if you're renting and rely on tube/train.

And who lives in zone 1? Honestly, I don't know anyone who does. I'm talking about the difference between zones 2 and 4. I don't know why people assume that if you're complaining about high rents you must live in central London.

Like I said, we managed. I think it's doable. I just don't like the 'just move' answer, it doesn't always solve the problem.

Erm, I live in Derbyshire! And my son has sn, so moving school would be catastrophic for him and us.

As others have said, we need to set MP salaries at a level that relfects the job and no more than that.

If they were set at £26k a lot of well qualified people from less than wealthy backgrounds would not be able to do the job. I do not want only ealthy people doing the job of an MP. I do not want them taking jobs on the side as that brings conflicts of interest.

It used to be the case in the early part of teh 20th Century that MPs did not get paid excpet expenses but it was argued that a salary had to be paid to allow (especially Labour MPs) from less well off backgrounds to do the job.

That said, I think MPs get paid enough and we should perhaps set their wage as multiple of national average wage so we don't have this constant arguement about what they should be paid.

Dont be daft.

That wasnt to you Beta.

Let's put this in context, dh is an aerospace engineer, so he designs aircraft and flight critical systems. He takes home a few k over 26000 pa at the moment. As did I, when I ran the worldwide marketing for s multi national, managing multi million pound budgets. So it is hardly some base rate, low skill salary! I don't think MPs should be paid less, I don't think DLA should be reformed, but I think saying 26k after tax is a pittance is insulting, frankly.

£26k is not a small amount of money. It is nearly double of what my friend who works as store manager at Harr....ds earns. She cant afford to get married and have kids. So she doesnt. Earning a £26 "salary" for not working is not a pittance.

I did say on another thread, that moving is really not an option for some people. There may be people who are on the borderline and are coping with familial/local support. Without the support network, many of these people could go under and that will only serve to increase the benefit figures.

I really don't see the issue with moving away from family/schools. It's a compromise most people have to make.

If someone lost their job/took a paycut and could no longer afford to live in the area they live in, would you think they should stay and live beyond their means so their children didn't have to move school?

There are plenty of towns within commuting distance of london where the combined rent+train fare is far cheaper than renting a family home in London (I'm focusing on London because I'm guessing that's where these high rental costs are coming from)

I agree quint - the most I have ever earnt full time is £12k - as an administrator for a university. When dh and I got married 12 years ago he worked FT as an engineer and earnt £17k pa (average for this area) and I earnt £3k pa working p/t.

IMO all benefits should be mean tested (apart from CB which was is universal) as one family is not the same as another and does not have the same needs.

For exmaple, my son has sn but we are in the position that we can pay for his therapies privately (with the help of family). The idea that it is "easy" to get benefits is ridiculous!...I know people on the SN boards who have had to sell their house to pay for the care their child needs as the LA/NHS will not provide it!

Disgusting.

We all know people who "play the system". They always have and always will. That does not mean that they are the majority.

Please check out lubeys thread on this issue.

what i was trying to portray is the fact that they are attempting to sell the cap as a liveable amount. It isn't.

But £26k (or £35k salary) is the median income in the UK. So by it's very definition, there are many families out there who are living on less.

Ergo your claim that it's not a livable amount is simply laughable. As was your claim that MP's awarded themselves a payrise. I suggest perhaps you back up your claims with sources because right now you just sound ridiculous.

I'm not saying that a cap of £26,000 is unreasonable, but it is not £26,000 all across the country. The £26,000 includes housing benefit, which actually makes up the vast majority of it - certainly in London.

HB varies from region to region. Round my area for example, HB is capped at £112 a week for a three-bed house. There are three-bed houses around for that sort of price, but they are rare, highly sought-after and there are certainly not enough of them for all the people who rely on HB.

Once you take HB out of the equation, the amount of money benefit claimants are living on is not as high as people think.

The real 'crime' in this country is the cost of housing.

to come out with £26k after tax and NI, your salary would need to be £37k a year. That is more than I would earn if I went full time, yet we have bought a large 3 bed house in Sevenoaks (walking distance to the station and in the catchment for a very good school) on the understanding that if DH lost his job, I could afford to pay the mortgage, all the bills and generally keep the family - assuming I would only need to pay for 1 travel card and no childcare (if DH was unemployed, he is a high earning in a low security job). I would assume that any benefit claiment who didn't work would have no communting costs (so an extra £330 a month) or childcare costs.

Let's put it into perspective, how many people earn more than £37k a year? While MPs do, most of their researchers, PAs, and party workers won't.

People lack sympathy because a lot of people didn't realise it was that much. We think of people on benefits being 'poor' but for the majority of the country, £37k is 'wealthy' or at least 'doing well for yourself'. The average (before tax) wage is around £26k now, 'earning' that much above average makes you well off. And well off due to your own hard work is one thing, being well off due to mine is far less acceptable to me.

people need to:

A, lose their sense of entitlement. Benefits are there for people who need them, not for people who want them.

and B, stop being so bloody grudging about what other people earn. Someone earning 40, 60, 80, £150000 doesn't affect you, well actually it does because the more you earn the more tax you pay. Whereas people earning £26000 in benefits affects all of us in the long-term, because the amount of benefits paid out affects the government's ability to spend elsewhere where there is real need.

niceguy, £26,000 may be the median income, but £21,000 is thought to be a more realistic typical wage. I think it's worth remembering too that 75% of the country claims tax credits, suggesting that even those working full time on higher than average incomes still require tax credits in order to get by.

Again, the high cost of housing, transport and childcare are the main contributing factors. If we could get these down, the income needed to live off could be slashed, as could benefits.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

MP's are not paid enough in comparison to other professions with huge responsiblities /long hours/stress.

I"m a life long Labour voter, a product of a single parent who couldn't have survived without benefits and as much as it hurts me to say it I actually agree with the Tories on this on. £25k net is enough, you can't expect to live in a high rent area - sorry.

Do people really think like this?! So simplistically?! If I earn so little, so must everyone else?! Ugh. Jog on.

"The real 'crime' in this country is the cost of housing"
I agree. £26k is not a pittance, it is the median wage in the UK (pre-taxes it is £35k, which is again, not to be sniffed at). So surely the best idea would be to cap and to also review the cost of housing, what an insecure past time renting is (e.g. being told to move on 2 months, if they're being generous, notice) and the extent to which rents are regulated.

For e.g., we're renting from a private landlord who bought the flat about 10/15 years ago. Our rent is multiples what they pay for the mortgage and in fact, they didn't know how much to charge. The agency recommended raising the rent to £x amount after the last tenant moved out. I'm pretty sure a lot of the high rents originate with greedy letting agents. Have heard similar from other people looking to rent - a property will be advertised at £x per week, then an agency intervenes and suddenly (overnight, same property) it's being readvertised at £x+15%.

I really don't know a lot about the benefits cap (new baby, little time to read the papers or watch the news), but is the general idea to remove anyone poor from all the nice areas and pop them all into ghettos?

I think thats what it sounded like .......

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys. We need MPs not to be monkeys, we don't need welfare claimants not to be monkeys.

Unemployed people don't suddenly lose their jobs and say 'Way Hay lets all move to Westmnster!! Get luxury accommodation on the tax payer'

The Daily Mail and the Tories would have you believe the Unemployed are living in luxury homes with plasma tv's etc but this is not the reality. Some people want a bigger house and a garden and a garage so move away from central London - others remain in small flats with no gardens and shared bedrooms and stay close to family and friends. While in work they can pay their rent - some may need help such as road cleaners, retail staff, transport staff - these people need to be near their jobs. If they lose it how are they going to afford to move on min wage?

I don't know anybody who is long term unemployed living in central London (or anywhere) This is all Tory spin - please don't believe everything you hear - a lot of it is pure lies and propaganda. Divide and Rule is their game!