MPs' Pay
The point is that IPSA has looked at MPs' pay in isolation and you could make a convincing argument that other groups of workers have an equally good, if not better, cause - yet IPSA was not asked to look at their relative pay position.
Also, the vast majority of MPs are within the category of UK citizen who have mortgages, big mortgages in some cases, and will have benefited from the artificially low interests rates we have witnessed over the past five years.
So, their disposable income and standard of living may actually have improved since the big crash of 2008 - unlike many people who pay rent and/or live on a fixed income.
All of which means that until normal service is resumed in terms of public sector pay and collective bargaining is concerned - MPs will have to wait for their salaries to jump by £7,000 a year which is, of course, more than 25% of the average UK salary of @ £26,000 per annum.
The Scottish Parliament has already recognised which way the wind is blowing and has announced that Scotland will institute its own arrangements covering the pay of MSPs at Holyrood.
Good for the Scottish Parliament, I say, but I'd be more impressed with IPSA if it had a remit to reduce the number of MPs and get rid of the House of Lords - which has added an extra 130 new 'noble lords' in recent years, at huge taxpayer expense.
All In This Together (7 July 2013)
IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, is charged with the task of overseeing the pay and expenses of Westminster MPs - and the body was created, unsurprisingly, on the back of the great MPs' expenses scandal which threatened to destroy the reputation of the Mother of Parliaments.
Part of its remit is to look objectively, from time to time, about the pay of Westminster MPs - so that MPs no longer decide themselves what they are worth.
So far so good.
But IPSA has conducted a review of MPs salaries and is apparently due to recommend an increase from £66,000 to over £70,000 in 2015 - which is causing something of a stir.
Understandably, because any independent body looking objectively but in isolation at the pay of MPs - would be bound to conclude that they have lost out in recent years and 'deserve' a big pay increase to catch up.
Yet so what, since the very same argument could be made on behalf of just about any other group of workers you care to mention - particularly those in the public sector whose pay has been held down and/or frozen since the UK economy collapsed and pay restraint was imposed in 2010.
The only difference is that these public sector workers (most of them much lower paid than MPs) do not have an independent body like IPSA looking at the problem solely from their point of view - regardless of the wider economic and political circumstances.
So it's for these reasons that a big pay increase for MPs cannot be allowed to proceed - not because MPs don't deserve to be paid better - but because it would be outrageous to treat MPs more favourably than low paid workers until 'normal business' has been restored.
The same thing happened a few years ago when SLARC (Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee) was asked by Scottish Ministers to review the salaries of Scotland's 1200 or so elected local councillors.
Now at the start of the review the UK's economic recession was not really a factor, but by the end of the review it was clearly impossible to implement pay increases for councillors - while the pay of Scotland's council workers was being held down.
And that's the advice that SLARC gave to Scottish Ministers, in effect - here's the objective case for a pay increase but the wider circumstances and political realities make it impossible to proceed.
The politicians of course tried to paint themselves in a positive light by claiming that they were nobly refusing to accept a pay increase recommended by SLARC.
Although this was sheer nonsense, of course, especially given the fact that COSLA (the self-styled voice of Scottish local government) in its evidence to SLARC - argued that councillors should be awarded even greater pay increases and that their salaries should be linked to those of MSPs.
All of which means that MPs have no option but to put their ambitions on hold for a while - because as everyone knows 'we're all in this together' and that's not really part of IPSA's brief.
In recent weeks the Labour Party has shifted the focus of its political attacks on the Coalition Government.
No longer does Ed Miliband argue that the economy is stalling or flatlining - instead he says that the benefits of the economic recovery that appears to be slowly gathering pace are not being passed on to hard working families - and that the UK is experiencing a cost of living crisis.
Now clearly this is not true for everyone and while there may be people who struggle to pay their bills and/or put enough food on the table - lots of others are actually much better off because of the artificially low interest rates the country has been experiencing since 2008.
For example, anyone with a large mortgage may be thousands of pounds a year better off - even if they are in a job where the pay has increased very little, if at all, over the past few years.
So it stands to reason that the people facing a big hit to their standard of living has to be someone without a mortgage - someone who pays rent - because their housing costs will have gone up rather than down since the UK economy went from boom to bust.
All of which means that all this talk of a general cost of living crisis is untrue - and that a much fairer policy would be one which targeted help on citizens paying rent because they have not been fortunate enough to have been handed a big financial windfall - courtesy of nothing more than a sudden and fortuitous collapse in interest rates.
I heard someone on the radio yesterday complaining that he would be losing out to the tune of £240 per month - as a result of the government's planned changes to child benefit payments.
Now my heart almost bled as I listened to the chap claim (convincingly) that as a result of the unexpected drop in his income - that he might not be able to keep up his monthly mortgage payments.
Next my glass eye almost shed a tear as the poor man explained the terrible burden of having his company car taxed and treated - as an expensive benefit in kind.
'What kind of world do we live in?', I thought to myself - before quickly coming to my senses and dismissing his ridiculous claims as so much baloney and hot air.
Because as I've said before on the blog site anyone who has been paying a mortgage in recent years has very little to complain about - compared to lots of other fellow citizens at least.
For example workers in low paid jobs, people who rent instead of owning a property (via a mortgage) - or folks on a fixed income, such as pensioners.
The reason being, of course, that most people in these groups have little - if anything - to show for the artifically low interest rates which have greatly benefited UK mortgage payers in recent years - as can be seen from the previous posts below.
So my advice is simple - don't shed any tears for people losing out on child benefits because they earn more than £50,000 or £60,000 a year - because they don't need or deserve a hand-out of free money from the state.
Something For Nothing (17 July 2012)
I listened to a chap on the BBC the other day explaining how the artifically low interest rates - have been saving him £700 a month (net) on his mortgage for the past three years or so.
Now that's a fair old amount of money - in anyone's language - £8,400 in a single year or £25,200 over three years.
Or to put it another way - much more than the average salary in the UK - especially when you consider this is money in the chap's hand - net of tax and national insurance.
I've been banging on about this for a long time of course - as regular readers will know from previous posts on the blog site.
Yet so far at least - I've not heard a single politician remark on how unfair it is that so many people benefit so greatly - for doing absolutely nothing in return.
£20 Billion Windfall (5 January 2012)
I read something the other day - a claim by an organisation know as the Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) - of which I know very little.
Presumably it does what it says on the tin - seeks to speak up for families with children - because the FPI claims that average income of households with children will drop between 2011 and 2016.
By 4.2% would you believe or around £1,250 a year - depending on the exact income of the household in question.
But I say - so what - what does that have to do with the price of mince?
Because unless you factor in other things - such as how much some households have benefited from our artificially low mortgage rates - then the FPI's claim is completely meaningless.
I know some folks - some with others without children - who are saving hundreds of pounds every month necause of low interest rates - worth many thosuands of pounds a year.
So spare me all this special pleading from special interest groups - as ever they are concerned with their own narrow agenda - and have no time for the big picture.
And the big picture means big savings - not for everyone - but for those paying mortage interest when rates dropped like a stone - and the bigger the mortage the bigger some people's windfall.
Here's what I had to say on the issue in 2011 - no doubt the £20 billion figure now needs to be revised - in an upwards direction.
'All in this together' (September 15th 2011)
When people start urging us to take the view that 'we are all in this together' - it's time to stop and think.
Who's 'we'? - will do for a start.
The fact is that not everyone in the UK has been doing badly in these hard economic times - in fact people who are in a secure job and who have been paying a mortgage off - are doing very nicely thank you very much!
Compared to lots of other people anyway.
And just to demonstrate this point here's something I wrote back in March 2011 - arguing for a 'windfall tax' on the £20 billion that mortgage payers have saved in recent years - as a resul tof artificially low interest rates.
Now the people who are not part of this £20 billion windfall are - typically - the less well off and those on fixed incomes who rely on their savings - which produce little or no interest these days - to help pay the bills.
So why don't we hear any of this at the TUC conference - where delegates are good at telling everyone else what to do - but seldom come up with practical ideas for resolving problems.
A special windfall tax would recoup just some of the £20 billion that mortage payers have gained - simply through sheer luck - and it would seem to embrace the 'were all in this together approach'.
Which the present government and the trade unions both espouse - when it suits their own argument of course.
I imagine most union leaders are paying mortgages - because most live in private housing - and most will have benefited hugely out of the artifically low interest rates - we have witnessed in recent times.
Ironically the one union leader who would escape a special 'windfall tax' on mortgages - would be Bob Crow - who has been living in subsidised social housing in London for years.
But a windfall tax on mortgages would be redistribute income between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.
A windfall tax would be progressive because it would tax 'unearned income' - and would be likely to affect the majority of delegates this year's TUC.
In other words - a real life demonstration of solidarity - that we really are 'all in this together'.
Windfall Tax On Mortgages (March 4th 2011)
I read a remarkable statistic the other day - which made me stop and think.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has apparently calculated that the UK's artifically low interest rates in recent years - have meant an unexpected windfall of £20 billion to the nation's mortgage payers.
Yet another example of the old saying - 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good'.
In this case £20 billion to the good - and the bigger the mortgage - the bigger the killing people have made - without any effort or risk.
While those who can't afford or no longer need a mortgage (e.g. low paid workers and pensioners) - have lost out big time, comparatively speaking.
So I have a suggestion for the government and our policy makers.
Bring in a special windfall tax on mortgages which claws back some of this £20 billion - and use the money to reintroduce the 10p tax rate to help the low paid.
Low paid workers will spend the money - because they don't have a lot to start with - and that will help to boost the economy.
Readers will remember that the 10p tax rate was abolished by the 'man with a moral compass' - Gordon Brown - in one of his worst decisions as Prime Minister.
But here's a chance to right a great wrong - help the lower paid - boost our flagging economy - and with money that has simply fallen into people's laps by sheer luck - nothing else.
Part of its remit is to look objectively, from time to time, about the pay of Westminster MPs - so that MPs no longer decide themselves what they are worth.
So far so good.
But IPSA has conducted a review of MPs salaries and is apparently due to recommend an increase from £66,000 to over £70,000 in 2015 - which is causing something of a stir.
Understandably, because any independent body looking objectively but in isolation at the pay of MPs - would be bound to conclude that they have lost out in recent years and 'deserve' a big pay increase to catch up.
Yet so what, since the very same argument could be made on behalf of just about any other group of workers you care to mention - particularly those in the public sector whose pay has been held down and/or frozen since the UK economy collapsed and pay restraint was imposed in 2010.
The only difference is that these public sector workers (most of them much lower paid than MPs) do not have an independent body like IPSA looking at the problem solely from their point of view - regardless of the wider economic and political circumstances.
So it's for these reasons that a big pay increase for MPs cannot be allowed to proceed - not because MPs don't deserve to be paid better - but because it would be outrageous to treat MPs more favourably than low paid workers until 'normal business' has been restored.
The same thing happened a few years ago when SLARC (Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee) was asked by Scottish Ministers to review the salaries of Scotland's 1200 or so elected local councillors.
Now at the start of the review the UK's economic recession was not really a factor, but by the end of the review it was clearly impossible to implement pay increases for councillors - while the pay of Scotland's council workers was being held down.
And that's the advice that SLARC gave to Scottish Ministers, in effect - here's the objective case for a pay increase but the wider circumstances and political realities make it impossible to proceed.
The politicians of course tried to paint themselves in a positive light by claiming that they were nobly refusing to accept a pay increase recommended by SLARC.
Although this was sheer nonsense, of course, especially given the fact that COSLA (the self-styled voice of Scottish local government) in its evidence to SLARC - argued that councillors should be awarded even greater pay increases and that their salaries should be linked to those of MSPs.
All of which means that MPs have no option but to put their ambitions on hold for a while - because as everyone knows 'we're all in this together' and that's not really part of IPSA's brief.
Cost of Living (4 December 2013)
In recent weeks the Labour Party has shifted the focus of its political attacks on the Coalition Government.
No longer does Ed Miliband argue that the economy is stalling or flatlining - instead he says that the benefits of the economic recovery that appears to be slowly gathering pace are not being passed on to hard working families - and that the UK is experiencing a cost of living crisis.
Now clearly this is not true for everyone and while there may be people who struggle to pay their bills and/or put enough food on the table - lots of others are actually much better off because of the artificially low interest rates the country has been experiencing since 2008.
For example, anyone with a large mortgage may be thousands of pounds a year better off - even if they are in a job where the pay has increased very little, if at all, over the past few years.
So it stands to reason that the people facing a big hit to their standard of living has to be someone without a mortgage - someone who pays rent - because their housing costs will have gone up rather than down since the UK economy went from boom to bust.
All of which means that all this talk of a general cost of living crisis is untrue - and that a much fairer policy would be one which targeted help on citizens paying rent because they have not been fortunate enough to have been handed a big financial windfall - courtesy of nothing more than a sudden and fortuitous collapse in interest rates.
Free Money (8 January 2013)
Now my heart almost bled as I listened to the chap claim (convincingly) that as a result of the unexpected drop in his income - that he might not be able to keep up his monthly mortgage payments.
Next my glass eye almost shed a tear as the poor man explained the terrible burden of having his company car taxed and treated - as an expensive benefit in kind.
'What kind of world do we live in?', I thought to myself - before quickly coming to my senses and dismissing his ridiculous claims as so much baloney and hot air.
Because as I've said before on the blog site anyone who has been paying a mortgage in recent years has very little to complain about - compared to lots of other fellow citizens at least.
For example workers in low paid jobs, people who rent instead of owning a property (via a mortgage) - or folks on a fixed income, such as pensioners.
The reason being, of course, that most people in these groups have little - if anything - to show for the artifically low interest rates which have greatly benefited UK mortgage payers in recent years - as can be seen from the previous posts below.
So my advice is simple - don't shed any tears for people losing out on child benefits because they earn more than £50,000 or £60,000 a year - because they don't need or deserve a hand-out of free money from the state.
Something For Nothing (17 July 2012)
I listened to a chap on the BBC the other day explaining how the artifically low interest rates - have been saving him £700 a month (net) on his mortgage for the past three years or so.
Now that's a fair old amount of money - in anyone's language - £8,400 in a single year or £25,200 over three years.
Or to put it another way - much more than the average salary in the UK - especially when you consider this is money in the chap's hand - net of tax and national insurance.
I've been banging on about this for a long time of course - as regular readers will know from previous posts on the blog site.
Yet so far at least - I've not heard a single politician remark on how unfair it is that so many people benefit so greatly - for doing absolutely nothing in return.
£20 Billion Windfall (5 January 2012)
I read something the other day - a claim by an organisation know as the Family and Parenting Institute (FPI) - of which I know very little.
Presumably it does what it says on the tin - seeks to speak up for families with children - because the FPI claims that average income of households with children will drop between 2011 and 2016.
By 4.2% would you believe or around £1,250 a year - depending on the exact income of the household in question.
But I say - so what - what does that have to do with the price of mince?
Because unless you factor in other things - such as how much some households have benefited from our artificially low mortgage rates - then the FPI's claim is completely meaningless.
I know some folks - some with others without children - who are saving hundreds of pounds every month necause of low interest rates - worth many thosuands of pounds a year.
So spare me all this special pleading from special interest groups - as ever they are concerned with their own narrow agenda - and have no time for the big picture.
And the big picture means big savings - not for everyone - but for those paying mortage interest when rates dropped like a stone - and the bigger the mortage the bigger some people's windfall.
Here's what I had to say on the issue in 2011 - no doubt the £20 billion figure now needs to be revised - in an upwards direction.
'All in this together' (September 15th 2011)
When people start urging us to take the view that 'we are all in this together' - it's time to stop and think.
Who's 'we'? - will do for a start.
The fact is that not everyone in the UK has been doing badly in these hard economic times - in fact people who are in a secure job and who have been paying a mortgage off - are doing very nicely thank you very much!
Compared to lots of other people anyway.
And just to demonstrate this point here's something I wrote back in March 2011 - arguing for a 'windfall tax' on the £20 billion that mortgage payers have saved in recent years - as a resul tof artificially low interest rates.
Now the people who are not part of this £20 billion windfall are - typically - the less well off and those on fixed incomes who rely on their savings - which produce little or no interest these days - to help pay the bills.
So why don't we hear any of this at the TUC conference - where delegates are good at telling everyone else what to do - but seldom come up with practical ideas for resolving problems.
A special windfall tax would recoup just some of the £20 billion that mortage payers have gained - simply through sheer luck - and it would seem to embrace the 'were all in this together approach'.
Which the present government and the trade unions both espouse - when it suits their own argument of course.
I imagine most union leaders are paying mortgages - because most live in private housing - and most will have benefited hugely out of the artifically low interest rates - we have witnessed in recent times.
Ironically the one union leader who would escape a special 'windfall tax' on mortgages - would be Bob Crow - who has been living in subsidised social housing in London for years.
But a windfall tax on mortgages would be redistribute income between the 'haves' and 'have nots'.
A windfall tax would be progressive because it would tax 'unearned income' - and would be likely to affect the majority of delegates this year's TUC.
In other words - a real life demonstration of solidarity - that we really are 'all in this together'.
Windfall Tax On Mortgages (March 4th 2011)
I read a remarkable statistic the other day - which made me stop and think.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has apparently calculated that the UK's artifically low interest rates in recent years - have meant an unexpected windfall of £20 billion to the nation's mortgage payers.
Yet another example of the old saying - 'It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good'.
In this case £20 billion to the good - and the bigger the mortgage - the bigger the killing people have made - without any effort or risk.
While those who can't afford or no longer need a mortgage (e.g. low paid workers and pensioners) - have lost out big time, comparatively speaking.
So I have a suggestion for the government and our policy makers.
Bring in a special windfall tax on mortgages which claws back some of this £20 billion - and use the money to reintroduce the 10p tax rate to help the low paid.
Low paid workers will spend the money - because they don't have a lot to start with - and that will help to boost the economy.
Readers will remember that the 10p tax rate was abolished by the 'man with a moral compass' - Gordon Brown - in one of his worst decisions as Prime Minister.
But here's a chance to right a great wrong - help the lower paid - boost our flagging economy - and with money that has simply fallen into people's laps by sheer luck - nothing else.
