Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 8:40:44 GMT
Parliament shouldn't rely on charity A 91k salary is hardly charity. It is if the person could otherwise earn £500k outside parliament
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 7, 2024 15:16:56 GMT
A 91k salary is hardly charity. It is if the person could otherwise earn £500k outside parliament A person earning 500k doesn't need a monetary incentive to do good. A person earning 500k and seeking another 91k is probably doing it for the wrong reasons.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 7, 2024 22:25:36 GMT
Nah
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 8, 2024 6:30:31 GMT
Nah isn't much of an answer. I do worry that the reason our parties lurch from left to right of the middle ground is because they attract those with opinions formed by their wealth or poverty. We need steady people running the country, not those with an axe to grind or driven by self interest.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 8, 2024 8:56:39 GMT
Your post was ridiculous, just green eyed jealousy that some people really are worth £500k a year (or more)
Our parties lurch a bit because our electorate lurch even more
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 8, 2024 17:08:57 GMT
Your post was ridiculous, just green eyed jealousy that some people really are worth £500k a year (or more) Our parties lurch a bit because our electorate lurch even more Sorry but I'm one of those dreadful champagne socialists. I have no objection to earning good money. Still nothing like making it personal to shut down an argument. So much easier than having to think.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 8, 2024 22:22:35 GMT
Why did you post 'A person earning 500k and seeking another 91k is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. ' then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2024 23:37:32 GMT
Why did you post 'A person earning 500k and seeking another 91k is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. ' then? Because that is likely to be true, unless he were to give up earning 500k elsewhere whilst serving full time as an MP. And why have you plucked that 500k figure out of the air anyway? You have still not addressed the point about where the extra quarter billion to pay for it is to come from, presumably us, which in your false reality world can only be avoided by letting them earn it themselves as well as working as an MP. Problem is, the job ought to be a full time one on behalf of us and the current pay plus expenses is enough for most to live comfortably, whilst the kind of people who think it is peanuts are over-represented enough already so fewer of those would be no bad thing. It should not be a job that someone goes into for the money but something someone does as a calling, a public service. Your obvious desire to make it all about money will attract people for the wrong reasons, which there is too much of already.
|
|
|
Post by totheleft on May 8, 2024 23:53:48 GMT
I'n my opinion compulsory voting is a no No.
The point of a Democracy is also the freedom to vote .
Not being Awful but could you imagine the likes of Acoholics or Class A drug addicts having the right to vote .
Or them who have lost there menatal state Being forced to vote
It's a no no.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 9, 2024 6:09:28 GMT
Why did you post 'A person earning 500k and seeking another 91k is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. ' then? Let me explain myself. A person earning 500k a year and deciding they could use their skills to help the country by serving in the government. Good. A person earning 500k a year taking the role as MP to increase that income to 591k a year. Bad.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,591
|
Post by Steve on May 9, 2024 9:31:00 GMT
Why did you post 'A person earning 500k and seeking another 91k is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. ' then? Let me explain myself. A person earning 500k a year and deciding they could use their skills to help the country by serving in the government. Good. A person earning 500k a year taking the role as MP to increase that income to 591k a year. Bad. Well first of all that isn't the case we're considering. We're debating your proposal that someone earning £500k a year should give all that up to earn £91k as an MP. But anyone on £500k that chose to give up a huge chunk of their time (fairly judged by their constituents) to also be an MP should get that MPs salary
|
|
|
Post by Zany on May 9, 2024 14:39:28 GMT
Let me explain myself. A person earning 500k a year and deciding they could use their skills to help the country by serving in the government. Good. A person earning 500k a year taking the role as MP to increase that income to 591k a year. Bad. Well first of all that isn't the case we're considering. We're debating your proposal that someone earning £500k a year should give all that up to earn £91k as an MP. But anyone on £500k that chose to give up a huge chunk of their time (fairly judged by their constituents) to also be an MP should get that MPs salary I had no idea the thread was limited. But in any case I agreed with you that it needn't be the only job. What I was saying is that it should be a vocation not a nice earner. Its one of only a few jobs where its very important but also difficult to measure quality and effectiveness. A surgeon might take the job just for the money, but their performance is still measurable.
|
|