THE proposal has been put forward that MPs should get a pay rise of £12,000-a-year to raise their income to £74,000 a year.
All increases in income paid to the very poor in the form of benefits are income related. The higher the absolute base income, the lower the level of benefit paid, ie, it is income related.
Surely the same principle should be applied to MPs. Many MPs have other jobs that bring in additional income.
Surely the principle of income-related benefit (increase in salary) should be applied at Westminster as elsewhere in the economy. This would mean that, if the other job brings in more than £10,000 a year, there should be no increase in their remuneration.
How many people outside politics can hold and be paid for more than one whole-time job? If it means that the MP gives up his or her other job to qualify for the rise, this will be no bad thing since it would mean that the MP has more time to devote to his or her duties in the House of Commons, which is after all the primary job to which they were elected.
Some MPs are millionaires. In this case, even if they have no other second job, they would be in the same position as other citizens applying for benefits with an unearned income, for example from savings, and this would make them ineligible for the increase in the basic MP’s salary.
(Dr) Evan Ll-Lloyd