UK Mps get 10% payrise after freezing public sector

[K. A. Pital]

They get housing allowance. 74k is a lot if housing (rent) expenditures are covered. Hell, work 4 years with this wage and you could save around 200k. That is something few people have without indebting themselves for life, the poor ones.

[Starglider]

They get housing allowance.

Inner London MPs do not get it. They get a 2400 GBP annual bonus instead, which I forgot about.

74k is a lot if housing (rent) expenditures are covered.

The entire point of housing allowance is that it pays for a second home, because MPs need to live in their consituency and London. The cost of the primary home (in the constituency) still has to be covered by the MP. If they do not have a second home, they don't get the housing allowance, although they do get a travel allowance instead.

Hell, work 4 years with this wage and you could save around 200k.

MP take home pay after mandatory income taxation will be 50,246 GBP following this pay rise. So they could save 200K in four years if they had no housing, food, utility, council tax, insurance, education or leisure expenditures. Presumably in your world people on the medium wage will automatially have 17K to save or enjoy themselves with per year, as the only expenditure is income tax.

There are copious instances of fraud by MPs, but they all involve expenses and/or outright bribery, and lower base salary is hardly going to help with that.

[K. A. Pital]

MP take home pay after mandatory income taxation will be 50,246 GBP following this pay rise.

The income taxation makes them lose just ~33% of the wage? That's quite generous. Well, maybe not 200k, but 150k. Normal median take-home pay stood at what, 25k? Like, half of an MPs take-home pay.

Note I'm not arguing for a lower salary. I provided the example of Denmark, which scores first in Corruption Perceptions Index. MPs there earn more than average citizens, and the proportion is almost the same as in the UK. In fact, the MP income is also similar (80k EUR). But they are not corrupt.

Maybe there is something wrong with... I don't know, MPs?

[Starglider]

Well, maybe not 200k, but 150k.

That's still living on 12,500 per year. The UK minimum wage is 11,500 per year, and the left is constantly complaining that it is unliveable, especially for families. So yes, MPs could save 150k in three years, if they live in (and subject their family to) minimum wage conditions. That isn't even possible in most areas of the country, as people who are actually on minimum wage get housing benefit, whereas as we have just seen MPs do not get any assistance for their primary residence. No one sane is going to live under those constraints and given the amount of stress and long hours the job already entails, I don't think anyone could actually do a good job under those conditions.

Back in the real world, MPs are usual married, for a combined income of 100K GBP ish, on which you can reasonably save 30K ish per year while also paying a mortgage on an average family home outside of London and living costs for a family of four (assuming you do not buy new luxury cars or anything else extravagent). 4 years = 120K GBP, which is nice to have, but only in the 'covers one major family disaster e.g. care home fees or a few years of unemployment' sense. No one is going to retire on that amount, not unless they move to a much cheaper country.

Maybe there is something wrong with... I don't know, MPs?

Yet the masses continue to vote for them. The same masses that you claim to exalt.

[K. A. Pital]

Back in the real world, MPs are usual married, for a combined income of 100K GBP ish, on which you can reasonably save 30K ish per year

Hey, rich and entitled, try this: with an after-tax income of 25K EUR annual savings equal 15K. Yes, it's possible. Just as it's possible to save 2K with an income of 200 USD over several years. I've done it myself - with a family of two, nothing less. Retire? Savings? One disaster? You are talking to someone who knows most workers don't have any savings at all, much less "120k".

[Starglider]

Hey, rich and entitled, try this: with an after-tax income of 25K EUR annual savings equal 15K. Yes, it's possible.

Without specifying where, that is meaningless. You could live very well on that, in Romania. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the question of an appropriate salary to get the best possible candidates for the UK legislature. Even if such candidates are prepared to put themselves through poverty for the job, they generally won't put their families through it.

[madd0ct0r]

I would question that we currently have the best possible candidates, also that a 10% pay increase on an already very comfortable salary would change that.

[K. A. Pital]

In Romania, the average wage in large cities is below 500 EUR. How the hell can one get an after-tax annual salary of 25k? That's plain impossible.

What is, however, ridiculous is you calling 74k per year "poverty". Fucks sake, people have to save around two years to buy a simple car that costs 20k Eur. And... that's not poverty, just your typical working class life. An MP could buy a car after working a few months.

You've never seen poverty, spoiled as you are.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the question of an appropriate salary to get the best possible candidates for the UK legislature.

A bunch of money bags remain a bunch of money bags in any case.

[Starglider]

What is, however, ridiculous is you calling 74k per year "poverty".

You need to get more fluff posts in between if you want to lie so obviously. We're still on the same page of the thread, so readers only have to scroll up to see the actual argument : you made a throwaway comment about saving some money, and it turned out to be double the amount MPs could reasonably save even if they self-imposed poverty. I repeatedly pointed out that this was this was a theoretical and irrelevant situation.

You've never seen poverty, spoiled as you are.

You have zero knowledge of my financial history, but unlike you I am not going to derail the thread humblebragging about it.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the question of an appropriate salary to get the best possible candidates for the UK legislature.

A bunch of money bags remain a bunch of money bags in any case.

Once again you retreat from data into empty emotive statements. I guess it's an improvement that you aren't currently threatening to murder anyone, but still, enough of this. This salary determination was made by a panel of unelected civil servants. Your ideal economic model is unelected civil servants, who you imagine to be infallible and impartial, controlling every aspect of the economy and indeed people's lives. Thus the economic decisions of committies of unelected civil servants cannot be questioned, thus you cannot object to whatever they pay MPs, QED.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem, Stas, is that in the nature of things legislators are subject to being fired on short notice.

I forgot to dispute this. UK governments have a five year term. There is typically plenty of speculation about the election date, and typically a couple of months of campaigning. I would not call it short notice. In fact I'd say a 4 year garunteed job is pretty fantastic, and plenty of time for the prudent to save

The reason I say 'short notice' is that they go from "I might or might not keep this job" to "I am definitely losing this job right now" very abruptly.

Now, for someone whose salary is at the median, I'm sure "how about we pay you a lot more than you make now, for five years, and maybe fire you at the end of that time" sounds good.

The catch is, many MPs come from professions that make more than the median income anyway (e.g. lawyers), and this is arguably not a bad thing. You would WANT your MPs to have a level of talent comparable to that of highly skilled elite individuals, not comparable to the average Joe. If you don't give them a salary comparable to what elite professionals are already making, then:

1) People who have elite professional talent will not want to seek public office, for financial reasons. People who already make fifty or a hundred thousand pounds a year tend to have expenses commensurate with that salary, such as mortgages and school tuition. Those expenses don't automatically go away because you're a public servant.

2) MPs are unable to participate in the high-end public life of their own capital city (in which case they are more vulnerable to bribery, in the form of cheaper access TO that public life).

It's just not realistic to take the people who, in terms of political power, are by design among the top 0.001% of your entire nation, and pay them a salary that doesn't even put them in the top 10%. No society has ever functioned that way, including nominally classless utopias- because in an alleged classless utopia I can assure you that the people responsible for making laws receive perks that are well beyond what the common citizen could expect.

I would question that we currently have the best possible candidates, also that a 10% pay increase on an already very comfortable salary would change that.

It wouldn't.

The question is:

Are we debating whether MPs deserve a raise, or are we debating whether MPs deserve high salaries? In my opinion, the answers to those questions are "no" and "yes."

[ArmorPierce]

Ran the numbers... Saving $200K over 4 years is possible if you throw it mostly in investments and market increases at average rate of return of 10%... leaves you with about $600 a month.... Is that sustainable out there?

[K. A. Pital]

Sorry, Starglider, but if ordinary people can save 60% of after-tax income from a low sum, by the standards of what is being discussed here, your 30% savings norm is just full of shit. Receiving 100k does mean you can save a lot more than 30k with proper planning - and not through "self-imposed poverty".

As for the "unelected servants", my view is that politicians deserve nothing better than the workers they represent. If they get more, that means they are fat cats already. But you are arguing that fat cats get less corrupt, the more money they get.

In Italy, MPs get 5 times the median. Nuff said.

[madd0ct0r]

The question is:

Are we debating whether MPs deserve a raise, or are we debating whether MPs deserve high salaries? In my opinion, the answers to those questions are "no" and "yes."

I'm pretty sure my OP stated that MPs shouldn't be getting a raise, especially when they've just locked that for other public servants.

[blowfish]

As for the "unelected servants", my view is that politicians deserve nothing better than the workers they represent. If they get more, that means they are fat cats already. But you are arguing that fat cats get less corrupt, the more money they get.

That would work in an ideal world where exceedingly talented politicians work particularly hard for normal pay because they feel a duty to their country/their voters/their area of responsibility. We are, however, operating in a world where people are often assholes, and generally at least unwilling to be entirely selfless.

[AniThyng]

As for the "unelected servants", my view is that politicians deserve nothing better than the workers they represent. If they get more, that means they are fat cats already. But you are arguing that fat cats get less corrupt, the more money they get.

That would work in an ideal world where exceedingly talented politicians work particularly hard for normal pay because they feel a duty to their country/their voters/their area of responsibility. We are, however, operating in a world where people are often assholes, and generally at least unwilling to be entirely selfless.

If only there were a way to let everyone taste real power/responsibility and realize how hard it is to actually have such without causing permanent damage along the way...

[blowfish]

As for the "unelected servants", my view is that politicians deserve nothing better than the workers they represent. If they get more, that means they are fat cats already. But you are arguing that fat cats get less corrupt, the more money they get.

That would work in an ideal world where exceedingly talented politicians work particularly hard for normal pay because they feel a duty to their country/their voters/their area of responsibility. We are, however, operating in a world where people are often assholes, and generally at least unwilling to be entirely selfless.

If only there were a way to let everyone taste real power/responsibility and realize how hard it is to actually have such without causing permanent damage along the way...

Waiting for Tropico 4 to go on Steam sale?

[Pinjar]

Emotionally I don't want MPs to be paid anything but I do want good government. If evidence shows that higher wages lead to lower corruption and better government then they should be paid higher wages.

I suspect that MPs in the UK culture need to be paid slightly less than "equivalent jobs in industry" (which is a bit ridiculous as there are none directly comparable but I hear it often anyway) in order to get people with an understanding that they are doing a public service rather than mercenaries doing the job because it has high pay.

MPs having second jobs is probably not all bad, or at least ideally would not be. I know that having connections with an industry you are trying to regulate can be problematic but at the same time insider knowledge is surely useful and it’s not like MPs actually regulate directly anyway they vote on legislation and unless on a quango have very little real power. You are essentially paying for their opinion and that should be as informed as possible.

My understanding of the most recent MP that lost his seat and drank himself to death was that he was indeed in politics as a public service and that it was his entire life. No amount of money is going to compensate for losing your seat in those circumstances.

[madd0ct0r]

Emotionally I don't want MPs to be paid anything but I do want good government. If evidence shows that higher wages lead to lower corruption and better government then they should be paid higher wages.

I suspect that MPs in the UK culture need to be paid slightly less than "equivalent jobs in industry" (which is a bit ridiculous as there are none directly comparable but I hear it often anyway) in order to get people with an understanding that they are doing a public service rather than mercenaries doing the job because it has high pay.

I don't think any evidence of that has been presented in the thread. There's been arguments from commonsense, and rebuttals pointing at Italian MP pay, but nothing by way of a broader overview.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, here is the evidence that corruption is not directly correlated to the pay level of MPs in a given country.

I am pretty sure that Denmark is not the worst of the worst, despite having the same ratio as the UK. Further upping of MP salaries serves no worthwhile goal.

[madd0ct0r]

ok. that graph is from here: http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... much/13820
but sadly they don't give a data table. If you can sort that I'll have a go.

Public sector corruption scores are probably best got from here: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, Starglider, but if ordinary people can save 60% of after-tax income from a low sum, by the standards of what is being discussed here, your 30% savings norm is just full of shit.

Almost no "ordinary person," which I assume means "someone making near the median income," that I've ever heard of saved anywhere near that amount of money.

As for the "unelected servants", my view is that politicians deserve nothing better than the workers they represent. If they get more, that means they are fat cats already. But you are arguing that fat cats get less corrupt, the more money they get.

I will say this:

People seek out rewards. It is a fundamental aspect of human nature.

People who have the ability to accomplish their goals effectively tend to get whatever rewards they seek out. Not always, since there are factors like luck, historical circumstance, and so on, in play. But there is a correlation.

If you create a situation where people in offices of political power are significantly less rewarded than people in elite professional positions... one of two things can happen.

1) A lot of the most able people who you would actively want to put into political offices will avoid political office, because the rewards are low.

Or...

2) People will accept that the financial, social, and other rewards of public office are low... in which case the only 'reward' they get from their job is power. The only people who voluntarily go into government will be those who don't really care about their living conditions as long as they have power. Those who derive pleasure from the exercise of power in and of itself. And those are not the people you really want in charge.

Either way, the quality of government goes down. Either the only people who seek public office are those truly hungry for power, or at the very least a lot of the most intelligent and able candidates will decide not to bother.

Now, this is only one of several mechanisms in play. But it IS in play. As far as I know, every society with a legislature, or with some other governing body of a few hundred persons who make laws, invariably finds that this body is either paid on the same scale as that society's elite professionals... or that this body is only ever occupied by people who were already independently wealthy to begin with.

[K. A. Pital]

With an after-tax income of 1,9k per month I was able to save 1k. The other 9 hundred went for rent and every other expense imaginable. One full dependent, no children, no other income. Tiny apartment. Lots of planning, but no "poverty" - as I have seen what real, "eat today and then worry about tomorrow" poverty is. Now, that is a digression, and maybe I am too harsh, too prejudiced by the horrific things people were subjected to at the market's mercy outside the safe First World cocoon. But by no means am I an "extraordinary person".

Now, to the point. I already provided good examples of Italy and Greece, where the highest in Europe MP wages, relative to the average wage, do not create a government free of corruption. Why, all things equal, some nations where MPs are poorer in an absolute as well as relative sense, score better in the corruption surveys? Maybe the answer is to actually make the MPs not corrupt? Frankly, I question the necessity of corruption. A man who is not starving, who can save a decent amount, is already beyond being pushed to corruption. Being corrupt is his or her voluntary choice.

Meanwhile, law enforcement is usually paid below average wage, resulting in deadly corruption.

[Simon_Jester]

With an after-tax income of 1,9k per month I was able to save 1k. The other 9 hundred went for rent and every other expense imaginable. One full dependent, no children, no other income. Tiny apartment. Lots of planning, but no "poverty" - as I have seen what real, "eat today and then worry about tomorrow" poverty is. Now, that is a digression, and maybe I am too harsh, too prejudiced by the horrific things people were subjected to at the market's mercy outside the safe First World cocoon. But by no means am I an "extraordinary person".

I will simply observe that poverty is defined in relative terms, not absolute terms.

I would imagine that the standard of what makes you 'poor' or for that matter 'moderately well off' in Rwanda is a bit different than the standard of what makes you 'poor' or 'moderately well off' in China, unsurprisingly so since China has a per capita GDP ten times higher. France, in turn, has a per capita GDP six or seven times higher than that, and again I suspect this contributes to a different definition of 'poverty.'

But we are both logical people, we are capable of recognizing facts. The vast majority of humans do not save or set aside 30% or 40% or 50% or more of their income, regardless of what that income is, unless they are literally making money so fast they can't think of ways to spend it all.

In managing to save roughly half your income, you may not be 'extraordinary,' but you are unusual, and if you expect an entire civilization to organize itself as though everyone in it worked just like you, then you are being foolish.

Now, to the point. I already provided good examples of Italy and Greece, where the highest in Europe MP wages, relative to the average wage, do not create a government free of corruption. Why, all things equal, some nations where MPs are poorer in an absolute as well as relative sense, score better in the corruption surveys? Maybe the answer is to actually make the MPs not corrupt?

This may well be a good counter to what someone else said, I do not know. But to counter my argument, you're doing the wrong thing.

My argument is not "MPs should receive huge salaries because it makes them less corrupt." My argument is "you can't have a functional parliament where the MPs receive a salary less than or equal to the median income in the country."

Meanwhile, law enforcement is usually paid below average wage, resulting in deadly corruption.

Agreed.

[K. A. Pital]

I will simply observe that poverty is defined in relative terms, not absolute terms.

Relative definition of poverty is important when baseline cost of living is also relative, such as that a higher income could still result in the same level of malnourishment or denial of basic necessities, such as living space, medicine, et cetera. It is not important (indeed, poverty doesn't even apply to) when we talk about people who collect over twice the average and possibly 2,5-3 times the median income.

The vast majority of humans do not save or set aside 30% or 40% or 50% or more of their income

Wrong. China had a household savings rate (depending on which statistics you trust) of 30% to 40% with, as one knows, very low incomes. China is the largest industrializing power and I suspect it reflects not just itself but all of developing Asia, which is the most populated region in the world. So the vast majority of humans outside the First World safety cocoon do save - I'd like to see me proven wrong on this...

I am not positively sure that such a savings rate existed in the developed world at an approximately the same stage of development, but quite probably so. The current zero-savings, and often below-zero household value, current infatuation with mindless consumerism and the necessity of debt slavery even for the very basic things, such as a house (otherwise known as "mortgage") is designed by the capitalist machine. It is a product of endlessly hammering people with CONSUME NOW propaganda, making them - at a time when the continuation of one's life has never been more secure! - spend at their limit and even well beyond their means. Indeed, the constant expansion of the market was impossible without hammering the savings rate down even from the modest figures of the late 1980s...

In managing to save roughly half your income, you may not be 'extraordinary,' but you are unusual, and if you expect an entire civilization to organize itself as though everyone in it worked just like you, then you are being foolish.

I am not foolish. The fools are those who have negative or zero net worth. That's about a quarter of your country's citizens, right? But your country does not represent "civilization". Neither does it represent the "right way" of doing things.

Maybe a savings rate of 30% to 50% is not really sustainable in the long run under capitalism unless one has very strict financial discipline and actively rejects the media's call to CONSUME more.

But what I do know is that if I can live a quite normal middle-income life while my savings rate stays at 38-40%, I can certainly see that no actual harm will come to the people earning a net salary five times as high. Unless they harm themselves by becoming corrupt and being promptly voted out of office to drink themselves to death, or actually get caught and rot in prison.

My argument is "you can't have a functional parliament where the MPs receive a salary less than or equal to the median income in the country."

Maybe not. But should it wildly exceed the average full-time wage? And if so, why? The average full-time wage is already a very decent income, usually higher than median, and in no way could be ever described as "poverty". Norway doesn't seem a terribly bad place. Spain isn't the worst of the worst either.

[madd0ct0r]

Stas, that last image is from 2011. I think the ratios have actually got worse since.

still, using those ratios and the 2012 corruption stats (not the latest, but closest to the given ratio time period)