MPs set for a 10% payrise

Original post by SotonianOne

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.

It should be easy enough (quite hard actually, but we've brought it on ourselves) to control the supply of housing in such a way that it is profitable. Houses are not costly to build in the present market as you can guarantee returns on them from rent and capital appreciation. Sure the very act of having a house-building programme will depress these returns but you can control this.

Rent controls obviously won't work as they are not a true supply-side solution. There seems to be this taboo on the right over the idea of just getting on and increasing the supply of homes, instead they try to make it look like they're solving the problem by actually pumping up the demand side - Help to Buy and the Help to Buy ISA.

Young professionals and students like ourselves have absolutely no business voting Conservative while they espouse such economically illiterate rubbish.

Read the article and the comments here, from that communist rag Forbes magazine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2014/02/02/in-worlds-best-run-economy-home-prices-just-keep-falling-because-thats-what-home-prices-are-supposed-to-do/

Of course, we can't become like Germany overnight, we've dug ourselves into a massive hole on this and made our economy so dependent on this pathetic rubbish, thanks to our collective delusion that you can create value while sitting on your self-satisfied middle-class arse, that trying to reverse it would cause a massive economic crash. But sooner or later some government is going to have to be brave enough to make moves towards dismantling our dysfunctional housing market.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 82

goape

15

Original post by Wellzi

No. It's dead wrong.

50 or 60 years ago, MPs had to have a second job because the salary was low, and that's because politicians should be in it for passion, and not wages. They should try having it increase at the average UK pay rise, greedy ßastards

Get real

Reply 83

Original post by Wellzi

No. It's dead wrong.

50 or 60 years ago, MPs had to have a second job because the salary was low, and that's because politicians should be in it for passion, and not wages. They should try having it increase at the average UK pay rise, greedy ßastards

If MPs have a second job, their constituency business is in real danger of becoming not much more than a hobby. We need people who are not only bright but who also dedicate their lives to their constituency and Westminster. Believe me, no politician is in it for the money - they can all, with their intelligence and industry, be earning easily two or three times what they are now if they were to work in journalism, business etc.

If we don't pay MPs well, they either take second jobs which means they don't put enough effort into their political jobs, or they have to be rich enough not to need any more money. That's toxic. Politics cannot be even more of a rich man's hobby than it is now.

Reply 84

Original post by The Marshall

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.

It's the opposite! If they earn more legally, wouldn't there be less of a need for corruption?

And they are not rich - remember these are people who could easily be earning multiples they earn now. They work all hours and essentially have two jobs - one concerning constituency matters and the other concerning Westminster. Of course they earn more than the average UK citizen, but they work much harder, are usually much more intelligent and educated, and live in a world where earning 70k is naff all.

Reply 85

Quady

20

Original post by ibzombie96

It's the opposite! If they earn more legally, wouldn't there be less of a need for corruption?

And they are not rich - remember these are people who could easily be earning multiples they earn now. They work all hours and essentially have two jobs - one concerning constituency matters and the other concerning Westminster. Of course they earn more than the average UK citizen, but they work much harder, are usually much more intelligent and educated, and live in a world where earning 70k is naff all.

Just to check, Miss Black could earn £140k+? Really?
How do they have two jobs? They have staff and Fridays to deal with consituency matters and have as much holiday time as teachers.

Reply 86

Wellzi

Original post by goape

Get real

Read "should"

Original post by ibzombie96

If MPs have a second job, their constituency business is in real danger of becoming not much more than a hobby. We need people who are not only bright but who also dedicate their lives to their constituency and Westminster. Believe me, no politician is in it for the money - they can all, with their intelligence and industry, be earning easily two or three times what they are now if they were to work in journalism, business etc.

If we don't pay MPs well, they either take second jobs which means they don't put enough effort into their political jobs, or they have to be rich enough not to need any more money. That's toxic. Politics cannot be even more of a rich man's hobby than it is now.

I don't actually expect them to have another job, I'm just illustrating the point. Of course they should be moderately well paid, but being able to decide their own wages is corrupt in of itself.

Reply 87

Original post by Quady

Just to check, Miss Black could earn £140k+? Really?
How do they have two jobs? They have staff and Fridays to deal with consituency matters and have as much holiday time as teachers.

Oh come on - of course I wasn't referring to the youngest MP since the 1600s; I was referring to the majority of MPs.

Their holiday time is consumed by business. If you are on the front bench or on an important committee, there is a real limit to how much free time you have and to how helpful staff can be (especially as lots of constituency matters require the MP's face).

Reply 88

Original post by Wellzi

Read "should"

I don't actually expect them to have another job, I'm just illustrating the point. Of course they should be moderately well paid, but being able to decide their own wages is corrupt in of itself.

'50 or 60 years ago, MPs had to have a second job because the salary was low, and that's because politicians should be in it for passion, and not wages.'

That sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement for MPs' second jobs to me...

They don't decide their own wages, by the way.

Reply 89

Anemone4Life

8

Original post by stemmery

What to do you think? Apparently David Cameron is opposed to this... Hmm

Reply 90

Wellzi

Original post by ibzombie96

'50 or 60 years ago, MPs had to have a second job because the salary was low, and that's because politicians should be in it for passion, and not wages.'

That sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement for MPs' second jobs to me...

They don't decide their own wages, by the way.

No, they're just given the option, and the increases are ludicrous.

Reply 91

Original post by Wellzi

No, they're just given the option, and the increases are ludicrous.

How are the increases ridiculous? How much would you like to see them earn?

Reply 92

Wellzi