PERMISSIONS:
You may link to my blog but if you want to copy my article to your own blog, please give the following credit: From "Ampers' Rants" at www.ampers.me.uk. Thank you.

APOLOGIES
I have been over zealous with political comment lately so have now accepted the offer to assemble and write for two blogs on the WatchingUK website. The "Good News" blog is for items where we have benefited from the Brexit referendum vote and the "Bad News" blog is where others have tried to damage our chances of leaving the EU.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:
If you like what you see, why not subscribe to the blog? You can follow Ampers' Rants by adding your email address in the box below (left) Notifications are also shown in my Twitter account: AmpersUK.

Saturday, 9 April 2016

Prime Ministers' gratuity payments after office

Ex Prime Ministers, such as Major, Blair, Brown, and soon Cameron, to name but a few, get an annual fee of £115,000 every year for the rest of their lives.

I have heard that this was originally brought in as we cannot have an impoverished Prime Minister. It would be a major embarrassment to the country.

However, times have moved on, and these people now cash in their fame and can earn up to £10,000 a pop as speaking fees alone.

I would like to see a change in the law which could be facilitated by the Inland Revenue.

By all means keep the amount as it is at present, but not as a payment. It should be used to top up a PMs income to £115,000, rather than get this money no matter what the MP earns. Investment income and pensions should also be taken into account.

When a PM submits his tax return, and it has been verified by the Inland Revenue; if the gross amount is under £115,000 the Inland Revenue sends a top up cheque to bring the amount up to this figure.

As, nowadays, with guest appearances, book sales, speaking engagements, investment income and pensions, most ex PMs earn well over this amount; it will ensure no cost to the tax payer, at least until they reach retirement age. Many, on retirement, will earn this amount just in investment income and previous pensions.

This will not save an enormous amount, but will bring the ruling back to its original requirement of not having an impoverished Prime Minister.

Ampers

No comments: