HanoiVillan Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Risso said: Why? They earn a relative pittance. Do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 4 hours ago, LondonLax said: I doubt many people have £130k laying around in a bank account earning 1-2% interest. More likely I would expect his money to be invested in less liquid assists (like real estate or a private business). Maybe not cash but at least available in equities, OEICS or EFTS. My comment was merely surprise that it was his life savings. If i'd been an MP for over 20 years, earning what they do (which is decent compared to national average) plus expenses paid plus additional income they can earn then i'd be disappointed in myself if that is all I had to show for it and that I had to sell a business, use my life savings and remortgage a property to pay a £130k bill. I suppose some people manage money differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 This is an article from 2013. Quote Deputy speaker Nigel Evans cost public £416,800 since 2010, including £8,000 in expenses Conservative MP Nigel Evans, who today quit as deputy speaker of the Commons following eight charges of sexual assault, has cost the British taxpayer £416,856.22 since he assumed the post of deputy speaker in 2010. A freedom of information request by LondonlovesBusiness.com has revealed that Evans has claimed £7,806.22 in expenses since June 2010. The expenses were largely for trips representing Commons speaker John Bercow at international conferences and making use of government car services. Since 2010, Evans has earned £145,440 for his role as Deputy Speaker on top of a total £263,610 for being MP for Ribble Valley in Lancashire. Evans quit his post as deputy speaker after being accused of eight offences, including sexual assault, indecent assault and rape, against seven men between 2002 and 2013. https://londonlovesbusiness.com/deputy-speaker-nigel-evans-cost-public-416800-since-2010-including-8000-in-expenses/ So between 2010-2013 he earned over £400k yet struggled to pay a legal bill? I think @Dr_Pangloss was right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) Like almost everyone, politicians spend what they earn on their lifestyle. They aren’t going to be banking it all incase they need to for a legal bill. And doesn’t it suggest he has paid the bill using his savings? So that’s £130,000 savings. I think it’s pretty impressive to have that much to call upon tbh. Edited December 31, 2018 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 31, 2018 Moderator Share Posted December 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Genie said: Like almost everyone, politicians spend what they earn on their lifestyle. They aren’t going to be banking it all incase they need to for a legal bill. And doesn’t it suggest he has paid the bill using his savings? So that’s £130,000 savings. I think it’s pretty impressive to have that much to call upon tbh. Nope, he calls it his "Life Savings" but he actually sold a family business in order to pay. That's not his life savings it's a business he inherited, so his "life savings" were considerably less than the £130k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, Genie said: Like almost everyone, politicians spend what they earn on their lifestyle. They aren’t going to be banking it all incase they need to for a legal bill. And doesn’t it suggest he has paid the bill using his savings? So that’s £130,000 savings. I think it’s pretty impressive to have that much to call upon tbh. I think you would have a safety net and he did say he had his Grandfather's business to sell and a remortgage. It isn't entirely clear how he cleared it but I was just musing really about how some people spend what they earn and some don't. I'm probably more conservative and I do save a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Xela said: I think you would have a safety net and he did say he had his Grandfather's business to sell and a remortgage. It isn't entirely clear how he cleared it but I was just musing really about how some people spend what they earn and some don't. I'm probably more conservative and I do save a lot. You’re a single chap with no kids. I have a few grand in savings which I keep for a rainy day. If I earned twice as much I’d have a bigger house in a nicer area and a more expensive car plus go on better holidays. I wouldn’t save all the extra cash. Edited December 31, 2018 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, Genie said: You’re a single chap with no kids. I have a few grand in savings which I keep for a rainy day. If I earned twice as much I’d have a bigger house in a nicer area and a more expensive car plus go on better holidays. I wouldn’t save all the extra cash. True, not having kids does save me a lot! However I only have one income into my house. A lot of families have 2 incomes (not sure about your situation ) I'm different to you in that if I doubled my salary, I wouldn't change my lifestyle. Maybe a slightly bigger property. Nothing else would change. I'm not materialistic in that sense. To me, money is about giving me the freedom to retire as early as possible. If I can go at 50 or earlier, great. I don't want to be working at 65. Whether that happens I don't know, but it is the plan! I don't go without, i'm not some miser! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, Xela said: True, not having kids does save me a lot! However I only have one income into my house. A lot of families have 2 incomes (not sure about your situation ) I'm different to you in that if I doubled my salary, I wouldn't change my lifestyle. Maybe a slightly bigger property. Nothing else would change. I'm not materialistic in that sense. To me, money is about giving me the freedom to retire as early as possible. If I can go at 50 or earlier, great. I don't want to be working at 65. Whether that happens I don't know, but it is the plan! I don't go without, i'm not some miser! I’m more in the camp of enjoy it whilst you can. I’m not one for blowing loads on big brands but try and enhance day to day life as much as possible (currently about to go tobogganing at the snow dome with the kids) , off to Florida in a few weeks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 4 hours ago, Risso said: Why? They earn a relative pittance. Bwahahaha, no they don't! They might not have the kind of means to buy the watches and cars you do on their basic MP salary, but it's not a relative pittance!! Basic salary nearly 3x national average, plus ridiculous expenses and the ability to earn outside of being an MP. If you do well enough you also usually get a bung by way of a cushty board seat on a PLC you helped get fracking rights for or something. You global elites just don't understand the real world!! Anyway, the point is he's a massive word removed and thankfully Karma has given him a nice kick in the Betty's for being one. I'd like to see them all sacked and put on universal credit, maybe with a serious illness or two thrown in and let's see how they all get on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 He's the MP for Ribble Valley too. I could understand £73k not going too far if you're the MP for Chelsea, but it ought to go a bloody long way in rural Lancashire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2018 Calling an MPs salary a relative pittance is so far from reality as to be in another dimension. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 I'm torn. On the one hand, you'd think someone who's risen to be a member of parliament would otherwise be a relative high flyer in a decent career. Yes, it's a bit less than 3 times the average salary, but would someone earning the average salary have a chance at being an MP? You're not talking highly skilled work, or a position of great responsibility on £25k a year, typically. It's assistant manager in a supermarket or a fairly typical office role, even some grad schemes. MPs may have the potential to earn vastly more than an MP's salary if they were working in another occupation. On the other hand, Dianne Abbott. It's hard to think what kind of work she'd be capable of doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, Chindie said: Calling an MPs salary a relative pittance is so far from reality as to be in another dimension. Yep. It's 3x the average wage. I'd wager somebody on an MP's salary is in the top 5%-10% in the country. Add on their expenses and they're on big money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: Yep. It's 3x the average wage. I'd wager somebody on an MP's salary is in the top 5%-10% in the country. Add on their expenses and they're on big money. Add in the outside income and it's easily 6 figures and they are in the top 1% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, Chindie said: Calling an MPs salary a relative pittance is so far from reality as to be in another dimension. And most of them (the Tories, certainly) have other jobs (I say 'jobs', I mean sitting on the boards of various companies and collecting share profits), plus moolah for speaking engagements, etc. Add to that their expenses and some creative accounting to dodge taxes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, mjmooney said: And most of them (the Tories, certainly) have other jobs (I say 'jobs', I mean sitting on the boards of various companies and collecting share profits), plus moolah for speaking engagements, etc. Add to that their expenses and some creative accounting to dodge taxes. Exactly! They get a basic salary of £70k which involves so little actual 'work' that they can earn the same again and more via secondary 'employment'. I'd actually support them being paid considerably more if they did a full time job of it and were blocked from having additional employment/income. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2018 Indeed. They're on a significant salary, combined with a generous expenses policy, and can (and often do) have outside employment, which given who they are isn't cleaning or working in a call centre on the side. An MP is a considerably wealthy person, even at the bottom end of the ladder. If an MP is on a pittance, I'll gladly take a pittance. Completely divorced from reality. As an aside, I really, really think having MPs having other jobs is dodgy as ****. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted December 31, 2018 Share Posted December 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Chindie said: As an aside, I really, really think having MPs having other jobs is dodgy as ****. I totally agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 31, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 31, 2018 27 minutes ago, wazzap24 said: Exactly! They get a basic salary of £70k which involves so little actual 'work' that they can earn the same again and more via secondary 'employment'. I'd actually support them being paid considerably more if they did a full time job of it and were blocked from having additional employment/income. I'd make 'em clock in and out. And an hour for lunch. They work for us, supposedly. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts