MPs set for a 10% payrise
Scroll to see replies
Everyone needs to chill out. This is going to happen one way or another. We decided after the scandal to give all MP pay power to Ipsa, this is what they've decided. If they don't like it, MPs can donate any money they feel they do not deserve to charity, the same as anyone else.
There will be NO NET INCREASE OF BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER. The Ipsa people keep saying this and yet at best newspaper articles say this in the final line. The increase in money is coming from a reduction in the amount of expenses they can claim. There's no net change to how much money is given to MPs.
There will be NO NET INCREASE OF BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER. The Ipsa people keep saying this and yet at best newspaper articles say this in the final line. The increase in money is coming from a reduction in the amount of expenses they can claim. There's no net change to how much money is given to MPs.
Original post by SotonianOne
Are you saying poor people are so unintelligent they don't know how to commit crime properly??
No, just that poor people don't have access to the sort of environments where crime is easy to get away with. The crimes poor people commit, like mugging, are easier to prove than the ones rich people commit, like embezzlement, and are more easily seen as proper crimes because they have an obvious victim. The notion of white-collar crime is not exactly an esoteric one.
Then one level above even that you have the crimes of the oligarchy of a country, which they simply legitimise by lobbying to open more loopholes or ensure the loopholes they are already exploiting stay open.
Original post by SotonianOne
I'm asking why have a general 1% rise for all public sector workers.
Firstly public sector workers include MPs so you can't freeze them and give them a rise at the same time.
Secondly I don't see why the recently revealed NHS execs getting 150k a year should get a 1.5k/3k pay rise..
What needs to be urgently realised is that the country can't continue to give everyone in the public sector pay rises even if the economy is in recovery, quite contrary, it shouldn't! Private sector pay has been absolutely stagnant for the last 8 years and I don't see why the Public sector should compete with the private sector ...
Wages of public sector workers cost this country 200 billion. That's almost 30% of the UK Public spending .. yet we are on the brink of increasing wages for public sector workers faster than the market can keep up. That's not how a government should work.
I would give it at least another 2 or 3 years. That's the economic truth. Anything less is political meddling for votes. The country can't handle this.
Sure, it may seem like additional 400 pounds per worker is a good compensation, some would probably even want more, but 400 pounds per worker is at a cost of 2 400 000 000, that's 2.4 billion, and that's more than the increase in taxation from economic growth.
There simply is not an economic case for a public sector pay rise in 2015 (according to some, not even 2016). At most I would simply cap the pay rise to those earning below the second tax band of 40%, which is around 32k, anyone earning below it can get a 1 - 3% pay rise (around 500m) and anyone above that has to "suffer" for another year, but that's being generous and undoing the great work of achieving economic growth in the first place.
Firstly public sector workers include MPs so you can't freeze them and give them a rise at the same time.
Secondly I don't see why the recently revealed NHS execs getting 150k a year should get a 1.5k/3k pay rise..
What needs to be urgently realised is that the country can't continue to give everyone in the public sector pay rises even if the economy is in recovery, quite contrary, it shouldn't! Private sector pay has been absolutely stagnant for the last 8 years and I don't see why the Public sector should compete with the private sector ...
Wages of public sector workers cost this country 200 billion. That's almost 30% of the UK Public spending .. yet we are on the brink of increasing wages for public sector workers faster than the market can keep up. That's not how a government should work.
I would give it at least another 2 or 3 years. That's the economic truth. Anything less is political meddling for votes. The country can't handle this.
Sure, it may seem like additional 400 pounds per worker is a good compensation, some would probably even want more, but 400 pounds per worker is at a cost of 2 400 000 000, that's 2.4 billion, and that's more than the increase in taxation from economic growth.
There simply is not an economic case for a public sector pay rise in 2015 (according to some, not even 2016). At most I would simply cap the pay rise to those earning below the second tax band of 40%, which is around 32k, anyone earning below it can get a 1 - 3% pay rise (around 500m) and anyone above that has to "suffer" for another year, but that's being generous and undoing the great work of achieving economic growth in the first place.
If we tackled the cost of housing, everyone would get a massive effective pay rise. But no, asset-wealthy people need a way to make money out of nothing because they're mostly too thick to know how to make it themselves through generating real value.
If you are whinging about stagnation in private sector pay, well, maybe these private sector workers should have unionised and been able to argue for a fairer share of the profit they create.
Why do we always have to drag everyone else down to the lowest common denominator? Can't we raise the private sector workers up instead?
Original post by Quady
If dentists didn't work for the public sector they'd earn less? 
Depends on the system we set up rather than the NHS? If its an insurance based scheme then no as they would simply overcharge. But if it was merely a fee based system which you find in emerging countries, then yes they would.
If MP wages are higher, perhaps more school students would be interested in Politics?
Original post by scrotgrot
If we tackled the cost of housing
Yes
Spend money on houses so they cost less, there would be more money for pay rises
Spend money on pay rises so they can afford housing
...
Both are considerably costly and you can't handle the 'cost' of either. The only way to give people a pay rise is to decrease their pension and the only way to decrease the cost of housing is through rent control. Neither is desirable.
Original post by Bill_Gates
Depends on the system we set up rather than the NHS? If its an insurance based scheme then no as they would simply overcharge. But if it was merely a fee based system which you find in emerging countries, then yes they would.
Why'd they earn so much when it was a fee based system before?
Original post by Quady
Why'd they earn so much when it was a fee based system before?
insurance system - earn more
nationalised system - earn more
fee based system (free market) - earn less
Original post by SotonianOne
I'm asking why have a general 1% rise for all public sector workers.
Firstly public sector workers include MPs so you can't freeze them and give them a rise at the same time.
Secondly I don't see why the recently revealed NHS execs getting 150k a year should get a 1.5k/3k pay rise..
What needs to be urgently realised is that the country can't continue to give everyone in the public sector pay rises even if the economy is in recovery, quite contrary, it shouldn't! Private sector pay has been absolutely stagnant for the last 8 years and I don't see why the Public sector should compete with the private sector ...
Wages of public sector workers cost this country 200 billion. That's almost 30% of the UK Public spending .. yet we are on the brink of increasing wages for public sector workers faster than the market can keep up. That's not how a government should work.
I would give it at least another 2 or 3 years. That's the economic truth. Anything less is political meddling for votes. The country can't handle this.
Sure, it may seem like additional 400 pounds per worker is a good compensation, some would probably even want more, but 400 pounds per worker is at a cost of 2 400 000 000, that's 2.4 billion, and that's more than the increase in taxation from economic growth.
There simply is not an economic case for a public sector pay rise in 2015 (according to some, not even 2016). At most I would simply cap the pay rise to those earning below the second tax band of 40%, which is around 32k, anyone earning below it can get a 1 - 3% pay rise (around 500m) and anyone above that has to "suffer" for another year, but that's being generous and undoing the great work of achieving economic growth in the first place.
Firstly public sector workers include MPs so you can't freeze them and give them a rise at the same time.
Secondly I don't see why the recently revealed NHS execs getting 150k a year should get a 1.5k/3k pay rise..
What needs to be urgently realised is that the country can't continue to give everyone in the public sector pay rises even if the economy is in recovery, quite contrary, it shouldn't! Private sector pay has been absolutely stagnant for the last 8 years and I don't see why the Public sector should compete with the private sector ...
Wages of public sector workers cost this country 200 billion. That's almost 30% of the UK Public spending .. yet we are on the brink of increasing wages for public sector workers faster than the market can keep up. That's not how a government should work.
I would give it at least another 2 or 3 years. That's the economic truth. Anything less is political meddling for votes. The country can't handle this.
Sure, it may seem like additional 400 pounds per worker is a good compensation, some would probably even want more, but 400 pounds per worker is at a cost of 2 400 000 000, that's 2.4 billion, and that's more than the increase in taxation from economic growth.
There simply is not an economic case for a public sector pay rise in 2015 (according to some, not even 2016). At most I would simply cap the pay rise to those earning below the second tax band of 40%, which is around 32k, anyone earning below it can get a 1 - 3% pay rise (around 500m) and anyone above that has to "suffer" for another year, but that's being generous and undoing the great work of achieving economic growth in the first place.
Why can't the country give rises to public sector employees while the economy and tax receipts are growing?
Why shouldn't the public sector compete with the private sector? Unless you think there isn't a link between pay and performance I guess. The boss of HMRC is accountable for revenue greater than any business in the world (about a third higher than Wal Mart). Yet is paid penuts. The guys at the Treasury and BoE get sod all compared to their private sector counterparts, why on earth would the good ones build their careers there?
Faster than what market can keep up? The private sector wage bill rise is massively outstripping the public sector.
Whats the increase in taxation from economic growth? Are you ignoring 40% of that £2.4bn will be going straight back to HMT anyway?
The 40% band is at £42k btw.
Original post by Bill_Gates
insurance system - earn more
nationalised system - earn more
fee based system (free market) - earn less
nationalised system - earn more
fee based system (free market) - earn less
Yeah, so why when it was fee based prior to the NHS did dentists earn so much?
Original post by Quady
Yeah, so why when it was fee based prior to the NHS did dentists earn so much?
data?
you would have to break up the monopoly on the education side too.
Original post by Quady
Why can't the country give rises to public sector employees while the economy and tax receipts are growing?
I'll give you a job. I'm sure you know that the more more you have in your bank the more money you get in interest. So get a bank account with 4% monthly interest, but increase your monthly spending by 6%. You'll last, for a couple of years. Then it's bankruptcy.
Original post by Quady
Why shouldn't the public sector compete with the private sector?
Unfair competition
Financial advantage
Inefficiency
Cost to taxpayer
Original post by Quady
The boss of HMRC is accountable for revenue greater than any business in the world (about a third higher than Wal Mart). Yet is paid penuts.
He does not take any decisions. He's there to ensure smoothness in operations. Why should someone who makes no decisions have a six figure pay packet? He has lower decision making power with that money than a supervisor in Debenhams.
Original post by Quady
The guys at the Treasury and BoE get sod all compared to their private sector counterparts, why on earth would the good ones build their careers there?
BoE isn't public sector
Original post by Quady
Faster than what market can keep up? The private sector wage bill rise is massively outstripping the public sector.
Yes, but not for the services provided by the public sector. Wages for accountants are skyrocketing, but what value does that information have when deciding on the wages for nurses?
Private sector nurses, such as those employed by BUPA, have had lengthy pay freezes. BUPA is unable to compete with the government.
Original post by Quady
Are you ignoring 40% of that £2.4bn will be going straight back to HMT anyway?
I am fairly sure that the majority of public sector workers are below the 40% threshold and therefore the tax will be far smaller.
By the way, no one in this country pays 40%, that's not how tax works. Someone on a 100k only pays ~29% tax.
Original post by Quady
The 40% band is at £42k btw.
Minus P/A is 32k. P/A isn't taxable.
Original post by stemmery
What to do you think? Apparently David Cameron is opposed to this... Hmm
Some do, like ours - we have a fantastic MP who I (and I'm sure many of my constituents) would be happy for him to have 100k plus.
Whereas the utterly useless do not (e.g. Diane Abbott, Dennis Skinner, etc.). Shame you can't differentiate between the two in terms of salary.
Original post by SotonianOne
I'll give you a job. I'm sure you know that the more more you have in your bank the more money you get in interest. So get a bank account with 4% monthly interest, but increase your monthly spending by 6%. You'll last, for a couple of years. Then it's bankruptcy.
Unfair competition
Financial advantage
Inefficiency
Cost to taxpayer
He does not take any decisions. He's there to ensure smoothness in operations. Why should someone who makes no decisions have a six figure pay packet? He has lower decision making power with that money than a supervisor in Debenhams.
BoE isn't public sector
Yes, but not for the services provided by the public sector. Wages for accountants are skyrocketing, but what value does that information have when deciding on the wages for nurses?
Private sector nurses, such as those employed by BUPA, have had lengthy pay freezes. BUPA is unable to compete with the government.
I am fairly sure that the majority of public sector workers are below the 40% threshold and therefore the tax will be far smaller.
By the way, no one in this country pays 40%, that's not how tax works. Someone on a 100k only pays ~29% tax.
Minus P/A is 32k. P/A isn't taxable.
Unfair competition
Financial advantage
Inefficiency
Cost to taxpayer
He does not take any decisions. He's there to ensure smoothness in operations. Why should someone who makes no decisions have a six figure pay packet? He has lower decision making power with that money than a supervisor in Debenhams.
BoE isn't public sector
Yes, but not for the services provided by the public sector. Wages for accountants are skyrocketing, but what value does that information have when deciding on the wages for nurses?
Private sector nurses, such as those employed by BUPA, have had lengthy pay freezes. BUPA is unable to compete with the government.
I am fairly sure that the majority of public sector workers are below the 40% threshold and therefore the tax will be far smaller.
By the way, no one in this country pays 40%, that's not how tax works. Someone on a 100k only pays ~29% tax.
Minus P/A is 32k. P/A isn't taxable.
Sure, but increase your monthly interest by 2% and your spending by 1.8% and you won't.
The public sector is inefficient yet is unfair competition? Interesting.
Fair enough, weird they have to go to the PAC and defend doing tax deals with Vodafone costing the country a few billion.
Sure, But it does matter for the accountants. Likewise the wage rises in private sector nurses. Could you link me up on BUPA pay freeze?
20%+ income tax 12% NI 5% pension (after tax relief) 9% student loan = 40% roughly, certainly won't be under it and thats just on direct taxation.
When you're giving a pay rise only the marginal rate matters.
You should've said £32k taxable pay then.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Quady
Sure, but increase your monthly interest by 2% and your spending by 1.8% and you won't.
Which means that we increase our deficit, because 2% of revenues is 13.2 billion while 1.8% of spending is 13.3 billion.
There's an 80 billion pound deficit, don't ignore it.
Original post by Quady
The public sector is inefficient yet is unfair competition? Interesting.
It is unfair competition in the form that the government has virtually unlimited money, whereas a private firm has to give up some of it's ownership or go in severe debt to be on the same level of the same project as the government.
It is inefficient because nothing ran by the government is ever efficient, bar their own finances for personal use. Corporations try to minimise costs, governments try to maximise welfare. One increases efficiency the other decreases it.
"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program" - Milton Friedman
Original post by Quady
Fair enough, weird they have to go to the PAC and defend doing tax deals with Vodafone costing the country a few billion.
Why is that weird? In your own words, he is accountable for that money, so he goes to those public committees. I would call those more "debates" rather than being "defensive"
Original post by Quady
Sure, But it does matter for the accountants. Likewise the wage rises in private sector nurses. Could you link me up on BUPA pay freeze?
Tried looking, couldn't find an article or information on their webpage.
Original post by Quady
20%+ income tax 12% NI 5% pension (after tax relief) 9% student loan = 40% roughly, certainly won't be under it and thats just on direct taxation.
Student loans aren't taxation, and I'm not sure but I think NHS takes on tonnes of apprenticeships, plus not all uni students go through SLC.
Then there's also the tradition that most of the highest paid people in NHS are those from high income socioeconomic groups so I doubt they'd take a loan at all..
Original post by Quady
You should've said £32k taxable pay then.
But that's what the 40% band means...
Original post by Reluire
Look at it this way: if they're paid more, we can expect more of them and hold them accountable to an even higher degree.
Really....? This only seems to work as an argument in theory. In every other sector of work I can possibly think of, the more people earn, the less accountable they become. If you can explain just how exactly we could hold them more accountable I might be swayed...
for what exactly hell to the no...
Of course not. They already have enough money in their bank accounts. Raising any more money would be absurd! Its the trigger for massive corruption on a large scale.
Original post by stemmery
What to do you think? Apparently David Cameron is opposed to this... Hmm
who gives a ****, get rid of the monarchy system where the queen is being babysitted and living the high life. then most of that money can help other issues with priority. politics man -_-. poor David does more work and doesn't earn his fair share of sweets
Original post by abc:)
Really....? This only seems to work as an argument in theory. In every other sector of work I can possibly think of, the more people earn, the less accountable they become. If you can explain just how exactly we could hold them more accountable I might be swayed...
I think you're right to a large extent, but MPs are in a unique position in that they're tax-funded civil servants and they're constantly under the media spotlight. It's easier to hold them to account than it is to hold someone like Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, to account. Why? Because we all know David Cameron, Michael Gove, Theresa May, our local MP etc. Do we all know Simon Stephens? I didn't until I looked up the CEO of the NHS.
As far as the private sector goes, I think you're completely right. It's why bankers essentially own this country.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How can I ask for a pay rise
- ACA exam qualified salary
- What are the chances - resitting year 10?
- BBC: Tory donor accused of racist remarks about Diane Abbott
- volunteering for politics and international relations
- Why does disability discrimination seem to be so common in academia?
- NHS Payrise
- Why do Northern universities have more northerners and vice versa for southern?
- worst university..
- April 2023 Home Office- Asylum and Human Rights – Executive Officers
- Tory MP William Wragg admits to leaking phone numbers in ‘honeytrap’ scandal
- Will I get into trouble
- how to become a government minister?
- UK politics AUA (Ask Us Anything) – no question too simple!
- How to get work experience with an MP?
- Is Rishi Sunak an even worse PM than Liz Truss?
- Maths edexcel vector question
- Politics work Experience
- How to get an A* in Politics?
- Politics or History?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 2 weeks ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
