Prime Minister David Cameron has urged the M Ps' pay regulator to "think again" after it confirmed plans for an 11% hike.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said salaries would go up from the current level of £66,000 to £74,000 after the general election in 2015.
It insisted that pensions will be curbed and other benefits trimmed to ensure the overall changes are cost-neutral.
But the Prime Minister repeated his thinly veiled threat to the body that he would not "rule out... taking action " if it presses ahead with the proposed rise, which is due to be confirmed after the 2015 election.
Mr Cameron told BBC WM: "This isn't a final recommendation. They should think again and I very much hope they do. I don't rule out, and I don't think anyone rules out, taking action if they don't modify this proposal."
Mr Cameron said: "What I have said is that we shouldn't rule anything out but I don't want to go back to a situation, if we can possibly avoid it, where MPs vote on their own pay.
"The whole point of this reform was to get this out of the hands of MPs. But, as I said in the House yesterday, we need a process and an outcome in which the public can be confident."
A one-off pay increase at a time of public sector wage restraint was "not on", he added.
Labour leader Ed Miliband and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have also spoken out against the proposed rise.
In a foreword to its report, the Ipsa board wrote: "We have a choice to make: either we say it is too difficult and ignore the issue for another number of years, or we address it with those sensitivities in mind.
"We choose the second option. We feel any other choice would be to abandon our responsibility, which Parliament gave us, to fix this problem once and for all.
"But we do understand the sensitivities. As we note above, we have committed that the reforms will not cost the taxpayer more.
"And, while we have concluded our review of the arguments and have resolved in favour of this package, we will conduct a review - as we are obliged by law to do - taking account of all the circumstances as they are in the summer of 2015."
Ipsa chairman Sir Ian Kennedy insisted that the package put together by the regulator could not be "unpicked".
"This is a package, a package of reforms," he said in a round of broadcast interviews. "You cannot unpick it. You can't say that bit we like and that bit we do not."
Sir Ian said the research done by Ipsa indicated that the overall package had "significant support" from the public.
Asked about the political backlash against the changes, Sir Ian said: "Part of the package is the part that they don't like, but the package as a whole has significant support from the public, for example. The public is in favour of changing the pensions..."
He added: "The public is far more sophisticated than a lot of people think they are. When we have done our work - and we have done the research and we have asked people - when they appreciate that the package is a long-awaited package of reforms and it won't cost the taxpayer a penny more, then they are more inclined to agree with it."
According to research carried out by ComRes for Ipsa in September, 66% of the public thought that the figure of £74,000 was too high, compared with 24% who thought it was about right and 4% too low.
When it was explained that the pay increase was being offset by trimming back expenses and pensions, 58% thought it was too generous, 28% about right and 3% not generous enough.
The original proposals from Ipsa in July were said to have an overall cost to the taxpayer of £500,000 a year, once substantial savings from moving to a less generous career average pension are included. The latest package removes that cost by increasing pension contributions slightly.
However, the watchdog has promised to reconsider curbs on MPs claiming TV licences and home contents insurance on expenses after receiving representations.
None of the party leaders is believed to have responded personally to Ipsa's consultation, although a Government response did warn that the rise was "well in excess of the awards for the rest of the public sector".
It would be for the watchdog, "not MPs or the Government, to justify this increase should it decide, following consultation, to implement a package which is so far removed from those established in the broader public sector", the response added.
Both the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) and Tory backbench 1922 Committee declined to express a view on the level of pay, stressing Ipsa's independence.
But the 1922 Committee called for all MPs leaving the Commons to be handed a resettlement grant of six months' salary, rather than the rate of two weeks for every year served proposed by Ipsa.
The PLP also suggested that politicians who stand down voluntarily should be eligible for the payoffs, instead of just those defeated at an election.
Both groups said members should still be able to claim £15 for dinner when the Commons sits later than 7.30pm.
The watchdog rejected the appeals.
In its consultation response, the Senior Salaries Review Body said it was "largely supportive" of Ipsa's package.
But it warned that there would be "resistance in some quarters to what appears to be a large salary increase at a time of low economic growth and continuing public sector pay restraint".
"We suggest that Ipsa will need to make a strong case for the increase, which might be more acceptable if staged," the SSRB added.
PCS union general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "For some MPs and the pay watchdog to claim the pay rise is being offset shows they still haven't grasped what is happening in the real world.
"Across the country people are being driven into poverty because of cuts to pay and social security. If they don't reject this inflation-busting pay rise, MPs will face a public backlash the like of which we haven't seen since the expenses scandal."
The TaxPayers' Alliance said Ipsa had demonstrated it was "not fit for purpose".
Spokesman Jonathan Isaby said: " This unaccountable bureaucratic monster of a quango, which was supposed to help restore public faith in Parliament after the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal, has in fact just succeeded in turning the clock back four years.
"It beggars belief that Ipsa felt it an appropriate use of taxpayers' money to run up a bill in excess of £70,000 on opinion surveys, citizens' juries and focus groups.
"But it is beyond contempt that Ipsa completely ignored the very research which showed the public to think that MPs' pay is currently 'broadly fair'.
"The body which ought to be representing the interests of voters and taxpayers has unceremoniously put two fingers up at the lot of us."