So here's a thought - if it is 'unfair' for the lower paid to pay tax to subsidise the 'better off', how about means testing the MP's expenses

[LilyBolero]

It is driving me mad when the MPs keep trotting out the 'it is unfair for people on lower salaries to pay tax to subsidise those on higher salaries'. For starters, they don't, higher paid people pay MORE tax and receive FEWER benefits (which I have no problem with, obviously that is as it should be), so the higher paid are subsidising the lower paid. But they have created a system where lower paid people (single income 45k, no child benefit) really ARE subsidising higher paid (dual income 88k, child benefit).

So, bearing this in mind, is it right that LOWER paid people should subsidise MPs expenses, many of whom are VERY wealthy. Take Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne. Three extremely wealthy politicians. Is it right that they each claimed the maximum 23k expenses? Surely this goes against the 'poorer paid not subsidising the higher paid' principle.

I believe the expenses are there to allow people from all backgrounds to be MPs. So how about means testing them?

We have just 650 people employed as MPs at the moment. For the hard work most of them do, the crap they take, the loss of privacy, the unsociable hours, the sheer responsibility (going to war?) etc., I don't think they get paid anything like enough. Expense allowances rose because their salaries were kept down for political reasons. Pay them a higher salary, reimburse legitimate (receipted) expenses the way anyone in business operates... and that would be fairer.

The problem arises because they make the decisions about themselves and everybody else. When your daily life is affected by a politician slashing things you rely on (and I'm not really talking about CB here, more public services, housing benefit, jobs, pensions) and you see them with fabulous wealth, and still dipping their hand in the pot (however legitimate the claim), it makes the 'We're all in this together' claim rather hollow.

DO you see? It's not about what's 'legal', it's about morality. Last night ds2 was sick after going to bed. We had to wash his sheets etc, so he came downstairs with us. We didn't have our tea, because we didn't want to eat it in front of him knowing we wouldn't allow him to have any.

Like it or not, they are not isolated in a Westminster bubble, and yes, they do difficult jobs, but so do a lot of other people, and some people would love to keep their jobs. It's about playing your part. And the reason it's different for MPs than for say, a doctor, is because THEY are making the decisions that will affect us all. And they are in a pretty weak position, having not won the election, and now breaking promises made before the election (We will not touch Child Benefit; We WILL VOTE AGAINST UNIVERSITY FEES RISES) - what will be next? My bet would be benefits for the sick, disabled and elderly.

Lily,

" I wouldn't support any benefit that was given unfairly, or taken away unfairly"

That pretty much rules out all universal benefits and I suspect all benefits are unfair to someone.

Chil - Agree - MPs don't get paid a 'market rate' of pay. That might be why there are so few from ordinary normal backgrounds.

I think it's quite wrong to say that just because someone has a few quid they cannot possibly understand how people with a lower income feel, think or behave. They're there to do a responsible job, stick up for their constituents and make big decisions to the best of their ability - and some of those decisions will not be popular. Yes, if they've got any sense, they will not disappear into the Westminster bubble but will stay visible and active for their constituents

It's neither immoral nor illegal to get a fair wage for a fair day's work or to be reimbursed for legitimate expenses. I don't accept that argument.

If MPs worked for minimum wage so that they could 'feel' what it's like to be poor... then the danger is we'd only get very wealthy people applying to run the country or we'd get politicians funded by external donations and beholden to their benefactors. I don't think that's a better picture.

You can live life expecting the worst of people and of the future (which you're doing) or you can at choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, the space to do their jobs and let their actions speak for themselves. I prefer the latter.

Believe me, I don't think the worst of people. I am rather tired though of being lectured by the Tories about how unfair things are fair, how we are better placed than others on higher incomes and must therefore have more burden placed on us, and that 'we are all in this together'.

It's simply tosh.

As it happens, I didn't claim the Health in Pregnancy grant - it took me by surprise as it wasn't there with my previous 3 pregnancies, and as we could already afford to eat healthily, I didn't claim it. I also haven't claimed the free prescriptions - as again, we can afford them.

'Fair' doesn't mean 'no-one loses'. The fairest decision making system we have is going with the majority preference ie. democracy. 7 friends vote for the Italian restaurant, 3 friends vote for Indian food... all 10 end up in the Italian. But even in that very simple and fair example, the minority whose wishes are ignored can easily feel aggrieved and unrepresented at the end.

At the moment, everyone's upset about something and that must mean everyone's feeling the pinch in some respect. Which is what the man said.

That is such a distorted way of looking at things. The child benefit thing is grossly unfair and raises no money. It is purely political to try and create animosity between the middle and lower incomes, so that when they slash the welfare, the middle say "It's your turn now, we've had our hit."

But it backfired, because what people actually said was "I'd have understood losing CB, what I don't understand is losing it when someone on DOUBLE my income retains it."

Not so fair now is it. Especially when they then threw in the idiotic married couples allowance which will wipe out any savings made.

What's more, if we go with the majority preference, Child Benefit should stay. Given that both Tories and Lib Dems said before the election that it would not be touched. Not 'we have no plans to touch it' but 'child benefit will stay as a universal benefit'.

" I also haven't claimed the free prescriptions - as again, we can afford them."

I'm sorry but it doesn't make you morally superior just because you turned down money to which you were entitled, any more than it makes me morally inferior for accepting my CTC even though I didn't need it to survive either. You could have taken that health in pregnancy grant and given it to the charity of your choice if you didn't need it for yourself. Never look a gift horse in the mouth etc.

Chil, I'm not claiming any moral superiority at all. The question was asked if I would refuse to claim a benefit that was unfair the other way around, and it's in answer to that - so, yes, I would not claim an unfair benefit.

I don't think anyone is morally wrong to claim a benefit they are entitled to UNLESS they are taking much needed things away from others, spouting 'we're all in this together' whilst dipping their hand in the pot for money they don't need, whether or not they're entitled to it.

Using the Italian restaurant analogy, it is much more like everyone contributing an amount to pay for the meal. Then it comes to handing out the change. One person is chosen to dole out the change, he says to 2 people 'you don't need the change', to another 2 'you do need the change, but I'm not going to give you as much as you were thinking' and then says 'I am entitled to take my share of the change' and helps themselves.

In fact, more than that, it's as if the group at the Italian restaurant have all put money in, they are discussing the tip. Dave has been nominated to organise this, he says to the 1st two people 'you have only 10p left in your pocket, I'll give you 2p out of the 'tip pot'. He says to the next 2 people "you have 40p left in your pocket, you get no money out of the change." He then says "I have £40 in my pocket, so I will take £1 out of the tip pot. I am entitled to this, and it's fair, because I did the sorting out of the money."