Yellow Bear Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 18 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: I don't know in Rachel Reeves case, but many MPs 'employ' members of their family. Employing a spouse I can understand provided they actually work but any more should be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 58 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said: Employing a spouse I can understand provided they actually work but any more should be banned. In all cases pls. I know some who employ their own children. Acting is one of the permitted employments for children. It's simply another tax dodge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 Nepotism should not be allowed. 1 piggy in the family is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said: For 2022 - 23 she claimed; Accomodation - £17,626.99 Dependant travel £174.24 MP Travel £3,904.76 Office costs £23,357.33 Staff travel £2,816.00 Staffing £218,568.05 So a total of £266,447.37 - not an inconsiderable sum of taxpayer's money. Source https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-staffing-business-costs/your-mp/rachel-reeves/4031 My Labour MP’s expenses Accommodation £23,299.76 MP Travel £5,796.85 Office Costs £23,287.45 Staff Travel £730.58 Staffing £219,699.27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, Yellow Bear said: Based on Lloyd's estimated average wage at least 5 It’s not MY estimate, that’s the official average Uk wage (https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/business/average-uk-salary-by-age/#:~:text=pay measures up.-,Earnings on the up,of 6.2% compared to 2022. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 28 minutes ago, shaun4860 said: My Labour MP’s expenses Accommodation £23,299.76 MP Travel £5,796.85 Office Costs £23,287.45 Staff Travel £730.58 Staffing £219,699.27 It would appear Reeves expenses are in keeping with other MP expenses then in that case? Considering the level of responsibility I am amazed the wages are ONLY £86,584. It sounds like a lot to the average working man on £36k or less, until you are making that sort of money and realise you’re not suddenly a millionaire overnight. I believe US senators are paid $174,000 (£136,294). Other EU counties appear to pay more (although not significantly) although many have a much lower cost of living vs the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 39 minutes ago, shaun4860 said: My Labour MP’s expenses My original comment was in relation to her claim that she was getting 'short' despite a good salary and a husband with an even better salary. People sometimes think that they have to do a lot of travel, maintain two homes, have staff to answer the mailbag etc. ALL MPs take a lot more that the salary to cover those things, my point being that the 'total package' has a substantial 'bottom line'. Rachel Reeves is probably very typical in how much she claims, but it was she claiming that see was 'short'. The relation to the Junior Doctors position (where they also claim to be short) is that maany people who most of us would consider have substantial funds (salary and expenses etc.) still claim they are short - not just Junior Doctors and MPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: My original comment was in relation to her claim that she was getting 'short' despite a good salary and a husband with an even better salary. People sometimes think that they have to do a lot of travel, maintain two homes, have staff to answer the mailbag etc. ALL MPs take a lot more that the salary to cover those things, my point being that the 'total package' has a substantial 'bottom line'. Rachel Reeves is probably very typical in how much she claims, but it was she claiming that see was 'short'. The relation to the Junior Doctors position (where they also claim to be short) is that maany people who most of us would consider have substantial funds (salary and expenses etc.) still claim they are short - not just Junior Doctors and MPs. 9 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: My original comment was in relation to her claim that she was getting 'short' despite a good salary and a husband with an even better salary. People sometimes think that they have to do a lot of travel, maintain two homes, have staff to answer the mailbag etc. ALL MPs take a lot more that the salary to cover those things, my point being that the 'total package' has a substantial 'bottom line'. s Many MP's have significant costs associated with doing the job (travel, answering mail bag, two locations is all part of the role). They should get expenses to cover this. Like Doctors there are not enough prepared to do the work for the poor salary. That said going short is relative. Doctors are also expected to pay for their own training which they need for the job. That can;t be right. My daughter just forked out £1400 for GP training exam, £700 for a skin analyser, it's endless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 19 minutes ago, oowee said: My daughter just forked out £1400 for GP training exam, £700 for a skin analyser, it's endless. It's not just doctors that have business expenses, they are all tax deductible. It costs to run a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 29 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: It's not just doctors that have business expenses, they are all tax deductible. It costs to run a business. His daughter is an employee, not a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 26 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: His daughter is an employee, not a business. Then why is she paying busness costs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 Just now, Newbie to this said: Then why is she paying busness costs? Because that’s the way it’s gone. That’s exactly the point Grant / Oowee is making. Ifs happening in many sectors. Why are teachers having to buy their own class room supplies? Why are tradesmen having to buy their own tools as employees? A mechanic / technician was on the radio the other day saying in his 30 years working as a mechanic they now have to supply all their own tools / equipment despite wages not rising and with things being more advanced the cost of the tools is now very significant. All the while big businesses declare record breaking profits. Absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 14 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Because that’s the way it’s gone. That’s exactly the point Grant / Oowee is making. Ifs happening in many sectors. Why are teachers having to buy their own class room supplies? Why are tradesmen having to buy their own tools as employees? A mechanic / technician was on the radio the other day saying in his 30 years working as a mechanic they now have to supply all their own tools / equipment despite wages not rising and with things being more advanced the cost of the tools is now very significant. All the while big businesses declare record breaking profits. Absurd. Then they should submit a self assessment and claim it off their Tax. If employees are taking on business expenses, then they should be tax deductible. If they can't then something has gone drastically wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 Seems you can... https://taxscouts.com/expenses/what-expenses-can-i-claim-as-a-paye-employee/#:~:text=If you pay your salary,eligible to claim them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Newbie to this said: Seems you can... https://taxscouts.com/expenses/what-expenses-can-i-claim-as-a-paye-employee/#:~:text=If you pay your salary,eligible to claim them back. Of course they can but its still a further deduction from the inadequate salary paid for the skill set employed. Why should they have to pay for costs associated with the delivery of their employment? Why should they have to buy the tools for the benefit of delivering their employers business? Add in the student debt repayments of around £50k and you can see why they are asking that there salary is reinstated to the level it was when training was started. Put yourself in their shoes and you can see why many want out, either private or abroad, as soon as they have finished the tie in period. This in turn puts further pressure on the working conditions having to cover unreasonable shifts. I remember my daughters first four month post in charge of the Covid ward at Coventry Uni Hospital doing 12 hour shifts four days on the trot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 25 minutes ago, oowee said: student debt repayments of around £50k 50k THEY NEVER HAD and never see as it comes out of pay before tax!!! I had a loan and had to pay it back but I NEVER owned that money, never saw it and never saw the repayment as it went before my pay cheque hit my bank account, non argument. They knew the rates of pay when they started studying and they knew the loan repayment. We have had it very easy with artificially low interest rates for years. Now a still low 5-6% internet rate and costs going up a bit seems to have bought out wild hysteria. I am sure you remember when interest rates ( around 15% ) and other costs were alot higher than they are now. I personally feel the biggest issue with this is that the ones paid the high salaries are the ones sat behind desks rather than those on the front line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 13 hours ago, ShootingEgg said: 50k THEY NEVER HAD and never see as it comes out of pay before tax!!! I had a loan and had to pay it back but I NEVER owned that money, never saw it and never saw the repayment as it went before my pay cheque hit my bank account, non argument. They knew the rates of pay when they started studying and they knew the loan repayment. We have had it very easy with artificially low interest rates for years. Now a still low 5-6% internet rate and costs going up a bit seems to have bought out wild hysteria. I am sure you remember when interest rates ( around 15% ) and other costs were alot higher than they are now. I personally feel the biggest issue with this is that the ones paid the high salaries are the ones sat behind desks rather than those on the front line. When they started training the salaries were a lot higher hence the current pay claim to get back to where they started. Whatever the salary rates it's evident they are not sufficient hence the shortage of practitioners. I personally feel we cannot afford the NHS that we want. We have to pair back the service to one we are paying for. Hard choices that we are unable to make. Thinking along those lines there are millions of people paying £100 a month for private health. The NHS as a result is subsidised by a massive outsourced health scheme paid for by those who go private. I guess even the NHS that we have currently would need a 50% increase in funding (just a guess) to provide what we currently have if it provided for the many millions that go private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 On 11/01/2024 at 11:43, Lloyd90 said: Thats a real low way to negotiate with a workforce, emotional blackmail. Fire crews Ambulance crews Doctors They don't work , people die, it's a fact. 31 minutes ago, oowee said: personally feel we cannot afford the NHS that we want. We have to pair back the service to one we are paying for. Hard choices that we are unable to make We can afford to send billions to Ukraine, 3rd world countries ? But e can't afford the NHS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 On 02/01/2024 at 20:13, ditchman said: the NHS too many hanger on's too many "non" jobs unchecked buying beds full of people who should be in care homes left wing pressure group management im sure you can all can come up with a few other things This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 3 hours ago, Rewulf said: Fire crews Ambulance crews Doctors They don't work , people die, it's a fact. So why don’t the Government negotiate with them instead of offer them subpar pay deals? By the very same logic, the Government are killing people by failing to come to a reasonable pay offer. All of the above you have listed have been on strike in the last years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 4 hours ago, Rewulf said: We can afford to send billions to Ukraine, 3rd world countries ? But e can't afford the NHS? Different budgets and responsibilities. We spend money on roads, fireworks, Xmas lights / decorations, New Years fireworks, hosting events, etc, etc. Priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 To put it in perspective, I heard we were spending around 2.5 £B on Ukraine. The whole defence budget is around 52 £B We spend £182 £B on the NHS (inc social care) (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget) The NHS is VERY VERY expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 32 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: By the very same logic, the Government are killing people by failing to come to a reasonable pay offer. All of the above you have listed have been on strike in the last years. Not disputing that, but by your reasoning , they are using emotional blackmail to achieve their aims ? 23 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Different budgets and responsibilities. 23 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Priorities. Really ? The first responsibility of government is the good health ,prosperity and safety of its OWN subjects, and the people who employ them. 19 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: To put it in perspective, I heard we were spending around 2.5 £B on Ukraine. Thats just the latest tranche of (wasted) money, we have thrown nearly £10 billion at Ukraine. Thats a lot of wage increases. 21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: The NHS is VERY VERY expensive. Bloated, inefficient , badly managed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 4 hours ago, Rewulf said: We can afford to send billions to Ukraine, 3rd world countries ? Also seems we can police the Red sea and Suez, but can't police the channel. Back to the NHS, I wonder what are we going to do with all those unemployable big wigs once it goes private. Masses of unemployment, still their welfare cheques will probably be far less than their wages, so there's that....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Also seems we can police the Red sea and Suez, but can't police the channel. Back to the NHS, I wonder what are we going to do with all those unemployable big wigs once it goes private. Masses of unemployment, still their welfare cheques will probably be far less than their wages, so there's that....... It will be the "jobs for the girls" middle managers with "non jobs" created by managers for their "mates" that should be hit hardest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.