MPs set for a 10% payrise

Rich People 'More Likely To Lie, Cheat And Break The Law'

Original post by n00

In this case you have just countered every argument pro public education and welfare spending.

Reply 44

Original post by SBKA

MPs should get a pay rise, but the regulation surrounding how they 'make money on the side' also needs to be tightened up.

The only reason David Cameron and the other desperadoes are against this is because the majority of the public are against it.

I'm not quite sure Cameron who is a multimillionaire cares about an extra 12k a year.

Reply 45

Original post by ETRC

Quite a few MP's have said they want to give the 10% to charities to look nice not as their actual intention. The public sector should get a bigger rise than 1%

why?

Reply 46

Original post by ETRC

Quite a few MP's have said they want to give the 10% to charities to look nice not as their actual intention. The public sector should get a bigger rise than 1% and politicians should have a freeze on their pay till next election.

MPs are public sector employees... :/

And the 1% comparison is a bit daft, MPs don't get progression pay.

Reply 47

hollyxjay

16

Original post by ETRC

Quite a few MP's have said they want to give the 10% to charities to look nice not as their actual intention. The public sector should get a bigger rise than 1% and politicians should have a freeze on their pay till next election.

Best thing I have read on the situation!

Reply 48

scrotgrot

16

Original post by SotonianOne

In this case you have just countered every argument pro public education and welfare spending.

How so? Neither education nor receiving benefits makes people rich...

Reply 49

n00

14

Original post by SotonianOne

In this case you have just countered every argument pro public education

I have?

Original post by SotonianOne

and welfare spending.

Wait, what, how?

Reply 50

Original post by scrotgrot

How so? Neither education nor receiving benefits makes people rich...

His post said that rich people are much more likely to commit crime than poor people.

Since most of arguments pro-public education are to do with lowering inequality and that poor people are more likely to commit crime than others therefore educate them, the above counters this.

Reply 51

scrotgrot

16

Original post by SotonianOne

His post said that rich people are much more likely to commit crime than poor people.

Since most of arguments pro-public education are to do with lowering inequality and that poor people are more likely to commit crime than others therefore educate them, the above counters this.

I'm not sure that's the main argument for public education, or at least it shouldn't be. ..

Ever considered that rich and more educated people just learn how to better get away with it?

Reply 52

Original post by scrotgrot

I'm not sure that's the main argument for public education, or at least it shouldn't be. ..

Ever considered that rich and more educated people just learn how to better get away with it?

Are you saying poor people are so unintelligent they don't know how to commit crime properly??

Reply 53

a96clark

12

If you want the best people to go into politics, you have to pay them well...

E.g. If there were a really clever, talented person who could either go into the financial sector and earn >£500,000, why would he ever want to go into politics? If we want to attract the smartest people and have better calibre politicians next year, this is a good idea.

Comparing it to the 1% rise of the public sector is fair enough, but if we want better politicians, we need to raise their wages. We already have a good quality of public sector workers

Reply 54

Original post by a96clark

Comparing it to the 1% rise of the public sector is fair enough,

Not really, that 1% ignores the increment rise.

Reply 55

ETRC

17

Original post by SotonianOne

why?

why not make it 2%
1% seems like a joke even if it is a bonus on top- 1/100 does not look very good buy 1/50 seems like they doctors and teachers are valued

its just 1% is a weird number to have a pay rise

Reply 56

Original post by ETRC

why not make it 2%
1% seems like a joke even if it is a bonus on top- 1/100 does not look very good buy 1/50 seems like they doctors and teachers are valued

its just 1% is a weird number to have a pay rise

Since teachers/doctors get 4% rises after their progression pay rise, doesn't that make them seem even mroe valued?

Should the progression rise be reduced so they only get 2% overall?

Reply 57

Bill_Gates

21

Original post by a96clark

If you want the best people to go into politics, you have to pay them well...

E.g. If there were a really clever, talented person who could either go into the financial sector and earn >£500,000, why would he ever want to go into politics? If we want to attract the smartest people and have better calibre politicians next year, this is a good idea.

Comparing it to the 1% rise of the public sector is fair enough, but if we want better politicians, we need to raise their wages. We already have a good quality of public sector workers

met a few MPs this week.

1. They don't always tend to be smart (yes majority of them are millionaires, mostly small business owners, inherited wealth)
2. Public sector in general needs large reductions in pay, if we can pay dentists 100k per year, we can sure pay MPs a lot more

so it's all really relative. In the current over bloated public sector, MPs are underpaid. However conservatives are here to cut back the public sector, so rightly dave has gone against it.

Reply 58

Original post by Bill_Gates

2. Public sector in general needs large reductions in pay,

if we can pay dentists 100k per year,

If dentists didn't work for the public sector they'd earn less? :s-smilie:

Reply 59