Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

How dare the politicians increase their own expenses, especially giving MPs 2.5k per child, when they are cutting child benefit to the rest of us?

55 replies

LilyBolero · 26/03/2011 16:38

Snouts in the trough and all that - they keep saying 'there's no money' - so how are they able to find extra to pay themselves more?

Every single one of them earns far more than our household income (and that's not counting their partner's income), yet they are awarding themselves up to 2.5k per child, whilst taking £3k per year from us. If I was an MP therefore I could claim TEN THOUSAND pounds a year for my children's travelling expenses.

OP posts:
Original poster
LilyBolero · 26/03/2011 18:06

Your friend is fortunate, and that is not typical at all. And if the company he was wioking for had finances like the current public finances, he would not have those perks. So why when there is NO MONEY and the rest of us are being squeezed further than we can actually cope with do the MPs who are well paid think this is reasonable? (and as it happens, some don't and are also outraged by this greed).

OP posts:
LegoStuckinMyhoover · 27/03/2011 00:24

yep. pure greed and selfishness. no we are not in this together. not by a long chalk.

Chil1234 · 27/03/2011 05:24

My friend may not be typical of run-of-the-mill workers because he's a very senior manager. But he is typical of other senior managers in similar industries. Like MPs he is in a role where, if he messes up, he could jeopardise much more than most of us. His company flat and car etc., may be 'perks' to you, but to him and to his company, they are the basics required to do his job properly. His company, like most commercial enterprises at the moment, is being squeezed to increase profits and reduce costs. His job - and the parallel with an MP could be drawn - is to save the company money and get the place running more efficiently. So if they pay him a few hundred thousand a year but he adds millions to the bottom line, he's earning his keep.

I'm sure some MPs can afford to be outraged. They're probably the ones with lots of money behind them already.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 27/03/2011 09:42

Chil, a couple of Tory MPs put it better than me...

"But Mark Field, Tory MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, said the increases ?fly in the face of the austerity message?.

?The idea that MPs are being given extra money for children when housing benefit claimants are being told ?I?m sorry, you are going to have to move to another part of the country? cannot be right,? he added.

Fellow Conservative Adam Afriyie, the MP for Windsor, who has led a campaign for a cheaper and simpler expenses system, said: ?It beggars belief that IPSA would introduce a special new payment for MPs with children which is unavailable to constituents and at a time when child tax credit is being cut.?"

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 27/03/2011 10:55

You mean Mr Afriyie who is worth £100m and Mr Field who sold his controlling share in his successful employment agency to his business partner in 2001? Like I say... two people who can easily afford to be MPs without any salary or extra payments at all. Totally understandable that they don't want too many penniless oiks entering the House of Commons.

Remuneration based solely on political messages and not on reality does no-one any favours.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 27/03/2011 12:15

There are plenty of other areas where they seem happy enough to 'only let a certain type of person' in - for example in having children now. Only those on benefits, or the super-rich will now be easily able to have children. For 'ordinary' people on 'ordinary' salaries, this is going to become harder and harder financially.

Yes, when there's money, expenses can be met. But when there is no money, it is unfathomable to give a family like our's a 5k pay CUT, but an MP's family (already earning more) a 14k pay RISE (once you gross it all up, and assuming same number of children).

OP posts:
BelleDameSansMerci · 27/03/2011 12:27

Chil but people working in the private sector are not funded by taxes. They are not funded by people who will be worse off as a result of recent government policy.

I understand your point but, really, for most people, these kinds of perks are unusual.

Meglet · 27/03/2011 12:34

I consider free milk and tea-bags a perk of my job.

We had to buy our own milk and tea when I worked in local government.

onagar · 27/03/2011 12:36

So we have longfingernails blaming labour (and there's me thinking that we had a Tory/Libdem government now)

And Chil saying that they have to have lots of extra money because being an MP is hard work.

Not like doctors, nurses, plumbers, policeman I guess who have it easy. It's ok for them to manage with just the one house and to travel 45mins to work but not the precious politicians.

Ponders · 27/03/2011 12:39

"Mortgage interest is now only payable to MPs who had bought second homes under the pre-2010 expenses scheme, and only up until 31 August 2012"

so we are still paying Cameron c£20,000 a year for mortgage interest on his "cottage" in Oxfordshire?

Nice.

Original poster
LilyBolero · 27/03/2011 12:43

Ponders, remember, he is also mortgage free on his London house, (which the press reported as being because he took out a bigger mortgage on the taxpayer-subsidised Oxfordshire one), and has 2 homes (Downing Street and Chequers) provided by the taxpayer, so he is able to rent out the Notting Hill home - market rent about 72k per year.

OP posts:
Ponders · 27/03/2011 12:49

but it's all legal so that's OK Hmm

do these people have no moral fibre?

Chil1234 · 27/03/2011 13:04

I get it that some people think MPs do nothing all day, are a complete waste of time and should not expect to be paid at all. I also understand that if you're wealthy and will lose your CB in 2013 you might find it an affront that some minion of a public servant gets an allowance related to children. But, in my opinion, if we want more ordinary people to give up their normal day job to risk it all on the flip of a polling card, live in the harsh glare of public/press scrutiny, put up with being away from family, run two homes and do a decent job of work, then we should reward them fairly.

Otherwise the only people who will be attracted to the role of MP otherwise are people like the two mentioned earlier.... millionaire ex businessmen who don't much care what anyone thinks or someone so beholden to sponsors for their income that they're just plain bent.

Ponders · 27/03/2011 13:09

"if you're wealthy and will lose your CB in 2013"

I think the wealthy would concede that they can manage without CB but what about the not wealthy - single-income families, borderline HRT, who will lose theirs? They will be taking a massive cut in income.

Chil1234 · 27/03/2011 13:25

If you're in the HRT bracket you're therefore way above the median income and whereas 'wealthy' might not be strictly accurate, you are well beyond the breadline.... FWIW I don't think the travel allowance proposal will go through for a second - precisely because it's too politically sensitive. But if the expensive white elephant that is IPSA keep dithering about and don't put a reasonable system in place that means being an MP is an attractive option for non-millionaires, then we'll end up with something that's even worse than before.... and an even narrower selection of people in parliament than we currently do.

Fresh2death · 27/03/2011 13:38

How dare the politicians increase their own expenses, especially giving MPs 2.5k per child, when they are cutting child benefit to the rest of us?

Because they can, and better than that, we are responsible for giving them the power to do it

Original poster
LilyBolero · 27/03/2011 13:44

If you are borderline HRT, and have 2+ children, you are BELOW average living standards. What's more, this is our situation and we would be BETTER OFF if dh quit his job, through the benefits we would get. We have calculated it, and it's about equally balanced until you take into account student tuition fees, and then we would be verymuch better off on benefits.

OP posts:
ilovecrisps · 27/03/2011 13:54

Chil 45k with 2 children in London is far rom wealthy

I'm with the free family railcard for the lot of them group Wink

loving dcs accommodation arrangements Shock

Chil1234 · 27/03/2011 14:07

The median household income in the UK LilyBolero is circa £25k. The cut-off for poverty is set at 60% of the median - about £15k. HRT threshold is circa £40k. Plenty of people live beyond their means but that's hardly comparable.

Northernlurker · 27/03/2011 14:07

Don't politicians pay rent for properties like the Downing Street flat?

LegoStuckinMyhoover · 27/03/2011 14:10

maybe MP's should be means tested for expenses...see how much they like it Grin. That way, millionaires won't get a penny more as they have been born lucky'done the right thing', and a poor single mum MP clould get help.

edam · 27/03/2011 14:13

VERY good idea, lego. I'm sure they would enjoy filling in acres of forms and answering questions about how often their partner stays over.

LegoStuckinMyhoover · 27/03/2011 14:17

also, couldnt we tax their 'expenses', like they are going to tax our child maintenance? That would be 'fair'.

TheCrackFox · 27/03/2011 14:32

Yup, I think that it is a good idea about Means testing - also take into account if they have a trust fund or and independently wealthy DH/DW.

My Dad used to work away from home a lot (plenty of people do) and for a lot less money than MPs get. He didn't get the massive holidays they get or money for his own children to visit - he also had to pay for his accomodation out of his own pay packet.

They are a bunch of whinging arseholes.

longfingernails · 27/03/2011 14:39

Means testing for expenses is ridiculous. Should a rich GP have to pay for his NHS computer, but a poor nurse not have to?

But expenses have to be related to strictly business activity, and totally transparent. Kids are not part of the business of being an MP. If they can't handle the lifestyle then they shouldn't apply for selection.

We certainly don't need IPSA. It needs to be abolished as fast as possible - if for no other reason, than to save some more money from the fat quango state.