tbtc
Veteran Member
The key difference is that it is the taxpayer who foots the bill for MPs expenses. MPs get a very good salary and no doubt could take a 'cut' of £75m without a great deal of hardship - plus this would go some way to showing to the general public 'we are all in it together'. Well at present, some of us are more 'in it' than others. Seems as if the expenses scandal had died down, until the Baroness Warsi story came up this week.
According to the link below, a typical MP has a salary of about £65,000 a year. Now that's about the same as my father does, he's a consultant for BT. According to the other link below, the boss of BT has a salary of £921,000, a £1.344 million cash bonus, £220,000 of pension payments and £20,000 of other fees, total pay package £2.51 million.
And they say MPs are paid too much. :roll:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP12-29
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/9288620/BT-boss-Ian-Livingston-gives-up-salary-increase-to-send-signal-over-fat-cat-pay.html
MPs really aren't paid that much, when you consider how many people are paid more than the Prime Minister.
To be an MP you need two houses (because you are representing your constituents as well as working in Westminster for most of the week), you need the money to run the two houses, you need to employ staff to deal with your correspondence/ schedules etc, you need to travel around a lot (train tickets aren't cheap, I think there was a thread about it on here - and you need to travel between Westminster and your constituents fairly often)... it's not a "normal" job.
Personally I'd rather pay MPs double what they get if it meant we got good ones (esp as that'd stop them cosying up to businesses etc to line their pockets).
The problem is that its easy to focus on the cost of a floating duck house and the tax on a £1 pasty, but we deal with bank bailouts/ millitary overspends that are so huge that we cannot comprehend the sums involved.