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.

Coming back to the OP, I don't think we should cap MPs wages, because it's an important job and we don't want it limited to those with private means.

However, given that the rest of the country's state employees have to be accountable and give value for money, I don't see why the MPS shouldn't have to either.

Why carry on paying them expenses to purchase second homes? Why not just buy up/rent properties in London that belong to the country and which MPs and their families can stay in free of charge while serving the country for example.

How is it that people that work have to calculate where they can afford to live and accept that shelf stackers aren't going to live in the same street as doctors whereas non-workers are bleating on that they may not be able to live where they want to?

I think that is the fundamental point isn't it Hammy?

FWIW I agree.

The problem is that not all of the unaffordable places in the country are in London.

There are reasonable, decent areas all around the country that fall outside of the bracket for LHA and so people are already excluded from these. There is a bit of a risk of ghettoising areas.

So they need to tackle that at a societal level.

If anything, MPs pay should be raised and the expenses system scrapped. If MPs (not cabinet) were paid a basic rate of, say, £90k then that would probably be about right.

As has been said, if you lower MPs pay you end up in a situation where only the rich can afford to be an MP. Regardless of what you may think of them, the vast majority of MPs work very long hours (debates into the early hours of the morning for example) and work bloody hard. Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule, but that is the way human nature works.

Rent control is the answer to the housing benefit problem.

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

this ^^ spot on

How would that work then AvengingGerbil?

How in a free democratic society do you control rents and force landlords to rent to people who get HB when they could get more rent from a family who doesn't get HB?

Im sure we can find 600 bright motivated people to be MP's for 26K a year. I'd do it. We could save the country a fortune!

You'd be happy to work 7 days a week, sometimes 18 hour days, commuting back and forth to London for 26k a year???? I doubt it very much!

well currently I Care 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 17p an hour so yeah. And given the numbers unemployed I expect lots of people would like the chance to earn that much.

To those of you who think that this is a good idea, can you give me some details about this cap? How many people will it effect? Where do they live? What are their reasons for not wanting to move? How much is this cap going to cost to implement and how much will it save?

£26 thou after tax and NI is a bloody good wage. I live in the 'affluent' South East and looking through the jobs section of the local paper you would be hard pressed to find a job offering that kind of wage.
Granted, you may get some WTC or possibly some HB if you are earning the £15,000 I see most commonly advertised as a wage down here, but as we have one or two large towns where the rent is cheap, most properties are in the picturesque rural villages or market towns, and rents are certainly not cheap there.

I agree with the benefits cap, but also agree that Mps shoudl have their wages capped to about 40K, and their expenses massively cut down. I think their main house should be paid for by them and the second house should only be a studio for them, and should only be paid for if it is more than a two hour commute. I also do nto think they should be able to employ relatives, or use the fact finder tours as holidays.

But if you are not working and the state hands you the average wage then I do not see what you have to complain about, who says if you got a job you woudl get that wage?

"LMAO at all the 'just move to a cheaper area' posts

From what I can see the places with cheap rent have few jobs available"

Well the families with 26K in benefits haven't managed to find a job in a high expense area. Since they aren't serious about looking for work does it matter where they live.

There are jobs, but very few jobs pay the equivalent of 26K tax free.

MPs do an important job and I think its fair they are paid on a par with doctors.

niceguy2,
in Denmark rents are capped, and there are strict rules in place in many areas about owning a property and not living there. They also have apartment complexes, many builts decades ago where ther eis a sort of co-op. You buy the flat for a small amount, and then pay part of the overall building smortgage (and have joint responsibility for repairs of the main building i.e roof). You cannot really make a profit on these as they generally have to be sold for the same amount that you bought it. It cuts out greedy landlords, and stops peopel buying properties as an investment from overseas and then leaving it empty as happens in London. However putting these rtule sin London would cause choas now, so I think it is best to let market forces dictate rent. landlords need to be able to rent out their properties, and they will have to lower their prices as so many of them in central London are dependent on people receiving housing benefit.

There was a woman on TV last night bleatign that is was cruel the government might cap her benefits because she might have to move to an area where she does not know anyone. What did she intend to do if the only job she could find was out of the area, refuse to take it? What about when companies (and the civil service) relocate, people working there have to either move or take voluntary redundency. Why is that OK?

really tired,
Plus it is possible to commute. Even if you work in knightsbridge you could live somewhere cheaper and commute in, that is what huge amounts of people do. There is a reason why the tube is so busy in the mornings.

Commuting costs could make the difference between surviving and not being able to eat when you're earning NMW. The further the commute, the higher the cost. High commuting costs affect everyone and can bring hardship to middle earners as well as low income earners, which is why we should be addressing commuting costs, not benefit caps.

And yet again: the 26,000 cap ONLY APPLIES IN LONDON. It is nowhere near that much over the rest of the country.

Solution:

Family rent a grotty flat or even a modest house in Luton. You can get in London by greenline or train if you want to visit friends.

www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-22744136.html

There is work in luton, but it pays less than 26K. Most the jobs are grotty and low paid or a single mother can carry on living on benefits.

But Kelly, obviously people on low incomes are already commuting. I know the DM wants people to think Mayfair is full of benefit scroungers but those are really exceptional cases. Most people on benefits are already living in cheaper areas and commuting. My point is that telling them to move even farther out to save a bit on rent doesn't always make sense, because commuting will cost even more.

We lived in a small 2BR in Zone 2 south london, my DH could cycle or bus to work. We could have saved a bit on rent going farther out but then he would have to train or tube, which is ridiculously expensive.

I would have fewer problems with benefit cuts if they would do something anything! about the high cost of rent and transport. That's where most benefit money is ending up after all, in the pockets of landlords and rail companies.

The majority of people on benefits in the UK are getting nowhere near the cap. This benefits cap is not going to the save govenant much money because so few benefits claiments are over the cap. Its more about sending out a signal that no able bodied family should get more in benefits than the average wage.

"I would have fewer problems with benefit cuts if they would do something anything! about the high cost of rent and transport. That's where most benefit money is ending up after all, in the pockets of landlords and rail companies."

Benefits money does not end up in the nads of rail companies as people on the dole do not need to commute! The answer to the high cost of rent is to move else where.

I agree that rail fares are crippling, but working people pay their own rail fares.

Also, the longer the commute, the more you have to pay in childcare.

An annual train ticket from Luton to London is £4484.00 - which is a big chunk of 26k.

YANBU. I agree with people here saying £26k is enough to live on, so I think it's plenty for MPs too, most of whom have partners who also work, inherited money or houses, and don't actually work that hard at all (whoever believes they do is delusional). I also think there should be a maximum wage in the private sector, as it's ridiculous what some get paid for doing work which is really no harder than being a SAHM as a single parent to an under-5 or an older disabled child (who would be affected by the benefits cap).

'Benefits money does not end up in the nads of rail companies as people on the dole do not need to commute! The answer to the high cost of rent is to move else where.'

The majority of people who receive benefits do work. So commuting is a consideration and moving not always the best option.

so if the cap is £26,000 in london, what is it elsewhere?

If we remove HB from the equation, what does that make the cap?

the LHA caps are
?£250 a week for a one bedroom property (including shared accommodation)
?£290 a week for a two bedroom property
?£340 a week for a three bedroom property
?£400 a week for a four bedroom property

so max amount for housing benefit would be £20,800, which would leave a family £5,200 which is £100 per week for a big family, assuming they are big if they are in a 4 bedroom house (and thats not including council tax) for utilities/food/etc.

It kind of illustrates where most of this money is actually going - into the pockets of the landlords.