George Freeman, who left government role in November, said payments were now £2,000, up by £1,200
  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    32·
    9 months ago

    I wonder how he thinks his constituents manage, and how easy it would be for them to just quit and find a job paying over £120,000…

    Oh, who am I kidding, he’s probably never thought about them beyond how they could get him elected in the first place…

  • letsgo@lemm.ee
    191·
    9 months ago

    There’s more to the story than the headline. Separation costs from his wife (a lawyer), plus child maintenance, plus burnout from lots of different roles. It’s not just the mortgage payments.

    If I understand high salary taxation correctly, there are no tax bands above £100K and you just pay 40% on the lot, which makes his take-home net £6K/month, of which a £2K mortgage is one third. I’m managing OK with my mortgage being one third of my net takehome. But I don’t have an angry lawyer ex-wife and child maintenance to pay, or a stressful job.

    Maybe mortgage increases were the last straw for him. But they are not the only reason for him quitting.

    • cuicuit@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 months ago

      Actually the 100-120k bracket is effectively a 60% tax band as you lose your tax free allowance, then 45% on incomes over 125k. Compared to other members of that government that mostly earn through investments taxed at 20% (capital gains tax) he is doing a lot worse.

    • Talaraine@kbin.social
      13·
      9 months ago

      I mean you’re right haha, but while I hate to be that guy, this is from Britain, where ministers are members of government, not the church.

      • ares35@kbin.social
        6·
        9 months ago

        and he resigned months ago.

        there was an ex, two kids, and their education being paid for out of that salary, too.

        must be a slow news day or sumthin.

    • ivanafterall@kbin.social
      4·
      9 months ago

      I made the same mistake a few months ago. There was some emergency and a minister called for the closure of a whole region or somesuch and I had the same response. “What the fuck, Canadian pastors have way too much power. I thought it was bad in America.”

  • quindraco@lemm.ee
    101·
    9 months ago

    Who the hell wrote this? Emphasis mine.

    After leaving government, which he described as a “cruel mistress”, Freeman wrote in his blog that he now had the “greatest freedom of all – to speak and write and talk openly about what I’ve learnt”.

    On top of his MP’s salary of £86,584, he is now also free to take on lucrative second jobs, subject to the approval of the anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

    So which is it?

    1. He hasn’t left government, so he can still draw his salary. Another job would be a second job.

    2. He has left government, and inexplicably is still getting his salary despite being unemployed. Another job would be his first job.

    3. He has left government and isn’t getting his salary. Another job would be his first job.

    Which is it? I want to know exactly which lies I’m being told.

    • GhostMatter@lemmy.ca
      11·
      9 months ago

      He has left his post of Minister. He still is a Member of Parliament (MP). So now that he has less responsibilities, he can find another job to get more money, subject to approval.

      I’m not sure why being MP of the ruling party isn’t considered being part of the government. It might be a UK thing?

      • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        Ministers, also known as front benchers, are MPs which hold a portfolio in addition to representing constituents. You might have a minister for defence, a minister for education, a treasurer, etc. that minister is then the one responsible for working directly with the relevant department (e.g. department of education).

        Edit: oops, just realised you understand this, and this should’ve been a reply to the parent comment. Oh well.