Using the excellent online household income calculator service (external website) from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Blastland calculates how an average MP's income of just over £1,100 per week (comprising average expense claims of just under £300 per week and take-home salary at a shade over £800 per week) compares with that of the average UK citizen.
According to Blastland:
On salary alone, the MP's household [income] is above about 91% of the population - 55 million individuals. About 9% have household incomes higher than this. And lump them both together (salary and expenses) - our honourable member sits above about 96% of the population - 58 million individuals. A working partner would push them higher still.
He raises the interesting notion that the current expenses scandal might arise from a classic case of cognitive dissonance - while MPs are demonstrably better paid than the vast majority of the population, and should by all rights be aware of such, they might at the same time perceive themselves to be hard done by when compared to the stellar pay packets enjoyed by their peers in private industry.
Blastland puts this as follows:
I wonder if they found themselves in the expenses mess because, bluntly, they think they are poor. Perhaps they do feel poor compared with many of those they meet. MPs work hard and could probably earn more doing something else. So could many people.
- Thanks to my colleague David Shepherd for bringing this article to my attention via Twitter.
- UPDATE: Please see the Comments box below for a link to a very interesting blog post from one of our readers, discussing the relevance of what the IFS terms an "average wage", and seeking out more appropriate measures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). XpertHR also offers in-depth analysis of ONS pay data on our Official Figures pages (subscription required).
And of course, XpertHR offers a wealth of content on how to get expenses right (subscription required for each):
| Tweet |





Comments (1)
I think the "average salary" thing is a bit misleading - especially as it includes all part time workers, young people at the start of their working lives etc - I have done a bit more analysis of this on my blog:
http://danversbaillieu.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-relevance-of-average-wage.html
Posted by Danvers | June 2, 2009 1:13 PM
Posted on June 2, 2009 13:13