Politicians - Salaries

Anything Goes

Politicians - Salaries

Postby buttsie » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:23 am

Believe it or not some tribunal of experts in Australia has come to the conclusion our federal Politicans deserve a payrise of at least a AUS100,000+ a year because Public servants are paid more

Ministers deserve $100k pay rise: report
December 4, 2008 - 9:38AM
Source: ABC

A report from the tribunal which sets the pay of federal politicians says MPs and ministers should receive a hefty pay rise.

The Remuneration Tribunal's annual report shows cabinet ministers are being paid less than top public servants.

It is recommending they receive a pay rise of more than $100,000 a year.

Retired Liberal MP Bruce Baird has told AM that politicians' salaries should be boosted to ensure the best talent is attracted to parliament.

"If we want people who are competent and understand the various strategies that the Government should follow, then I think we need to have people who are well-trained with appropriate background experience - both in the academic and professional business community - and pay them accordingly," he said.

According to the tribunal website, a federal parliamentarian's base salary is currently $127,060 per year.

A cabinet minister receives an additional 72.5 per cent ($92,118) on top of the base salary, bringing the yearly salary to $219,178.


Mr Baird says job-related stress is also putting quality people off from joining the parliamentary ranks.

"Well, certainly there's some very good quality people there, as we can see in the Federal Government, the Federal Opposition. But nevertheless there are, if you look at preselections within the Liberal Party, there are far less people that stand for preselections than we used to have.

"It's a combination of poor salaries, and quite often I talk to young people [who] say, 'look, I just can't afford it mate, the salaries are too low, I've got to look after my family, pay off the mortgage. I just can't do it when I see how much I'm paid in my career'."

"Then you have people who are ideological, who think, regardless, they want to put back into the community. But it's a tough call.

"And when you add to it the particular stresses and strains on individuals if something goes wrong - they're held up to ridicule for everyone to see. It's a situation that doesn't apply out in the private sector and careers can end spectacularly and the opportunities for further jobs are just totally diminished."

Mr Baird believes heads of governments have been unwilling to address the issue of politicians' pay because of the political flack when increases are paid out.

"Last time the Prime Minister said we can't pay anybody, we've got to lead the community, show restraint and no increases for any parliamentarian," he said.

"And in fact what happened is the business community continued to increase their salaries and the parliamentarians fell further behind.

"In Singapore they recognise the level of responsibility and pay them according to what is appropriate within the business community."
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby plop » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:15 am

Well, at least it isn't as members of the senate voting to approve a rise of their own salary... (that happened here sometimes) As if such a proporsal were going to be rejected :roll:

No offense, but I guess at the end is the same thing.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby maverick88 » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:56 am

plop wrote:Well, at least it isn't as members of the senate voting to approve a rise of their own salary... (that happened here sometimes) As if such a proporsal were going to be rejected :roll:

No offense, but I guess at the end is the same thing.


That happens here also....I wish I could vote myself a raise in pay.
"If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press" - Tim Russert
maverick88
 
Posts: 6127
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: United States - Wisconsin

Postby Kazuya » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:49 pm

maverick88 wrote:
plop wrote:Well, at least it isn't as members of the senate voting to approve a rise of their own salary... (that happened here sometimes) As if such a proporsal were going to be rejected :roll:

No offense, but I guess at the end is the same thing.


That happens here also....I wish I could vote myself a raise in pay.

In every other job, you are either paid an incentive wage or a working time wage. Imagine a world, where politicians are no longer an exception. When I look at the attendency lists of the politicians who are ought to represent me, I always ask myself, why are those people paid at all. The Bundestag has at least 598 members (currently it's 612).
Image
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:01 pm

Well, Kazuya. I wonder if their "work" in my name is worthful. But I guess you don't want me to become monarchist, right? :wink: Nevertheless, all questioning of their activities seems well grounded.

On the other hand, as someone who doesn't believe that anarchist is factible in the large scale -if you get what I mean, from "my" english- I think it is more likely for the world to become anarchist than for politicians being treated as anyone else. :roll: (The :roll: isn't meant about you)
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby Kazuya » Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:08 am

plop wrote:Well, Kazuya. I wonder if their "work" in my name is worthful. But I guess you don't want me to become monarchist, right? :wink:

Well, first I should make clear, that I as a great admirer of philosophers of the enlightment era, have a strong affection for the french revolutioners. Who have a pretty good track record of beheading autocratic leaders and politicians. On the other hand, if you have a closer look at the german history in the 18th century, you will notice that this periode is called the enlightened absolutism. Like Friedrich II, ruling the country as an absolutistic king, while at the same time sticking to the ideals of the enlightment philosophy. (Check out the works of Kant, Lessing or Klopstock to get an idea what the picture of a desirable society was)

So, if you are willing to think of yourself as my top servant, be my king. The only drawback is, that you would actually lose your head when you don't deliver to the expectations that I have. :wink: But well, tell me something that has no catch at all.
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:56 pm

If with "has no catch at all" you mean "no problems or flaws", I have no choices in this world. On the other hand...

There weren't many french revolutions, neither many other revolutions of that kind, so someone could be a king, even a bad king, and not to fonish beheaded. Oh, yes, there was Cromwell in England. But the French Revolution became the napoleonic empire, and England returned to monarchy.

"All for the people, but without the people". I read some six years ago a suppoused quote from Friedrich der Grose (I think that uses a doble point over the "o", but I can't find it now). As I didn't copy it, I will paraphrase: "It takes only some few minutes of rational thought to realize that the notion of a supernatural being as the creator of all that exist is unsustainable. But a stateman will prevent himself from showing disrespect to anything that his subdits consider important". Apparently,it took too long a time of rational thought to realize that german subdits held dear of their lives and possessions, because that rational and enlightened ruler wasn't too different from so called "believer" rulers when it was to declare wars. To my knowledge it was him who commanded to inscribe in the clasps -if that is the word- of the germans' uniforms the "Gott mits uns".

Just to be fair, the only -to my knowelge- sack or papal Rome was done by an army under Carlos, I of Spain and V of Germany. He didn't order such action, but didn't comdemned either, because the very catholic king was in war with the even more catholic Pope. But I say it to make clear that I suffer no delussions on self proclaimed "conffesional regimes"... neither in "humanist regimes"; both declare wars due to -with few words- greed. That is why enlightening, or iluminism, or enciclopedism, or Rousseau, or Voltaire or D'Alambert, isn't impressive to me.

A lot of "Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite" (apologizes if any french reads this, but the machine is "changed" and I can't find the accent) and later, as allways, "let's behead anyone who thinks in a different way, or is suspected to do so". And, obviously, the revolution is nothing but the intermediary between the monarchy and the empire -which guarantees even less liberties.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby Kazuya » Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:54 pm

plop wrote:"All for the people, but without the people". I read some six years ago a suppoused quote from Friedrich der Grose (I think that uses a doble point over the "o", but I can't find it now)

Firedrich der Große=Friedrich II. I'm quite familiar with this persons history and I don't think this is a quote from him.

plop wrote:As I didn't copy it, I will paraphrase: "It takes only some few minutes of rational thought to realize that the notion of a supernatural being as the creator of all that exist is unsustainable. But a stateman will prevent himself from showing disrespect to anything that his subdits consider important". Apparently,it took too long a time of rational thought to realize that german subdits held dear of their lives and possessions, because that rational and enlightened ruler wasn't too different from so called "believer" rulers when it was to declare wars. To my knowledge it was him who commanded to inscribe in the clasps -if that is the word- of the germans' uniforms the "Gott mits uns".

When I read this, I have the feeling that we are talking about different persons. And this can very well be the case, because quite a lot aristocratic leaders were named after their fathers, so there are many "Friedrichs", "Wilhelms" or "Karls" and so on. The unified convention is that the actual ruler of a certain country gets a number after his name. This number is always linked to the country. And I am only talking about the kings of Germany, which was at that time not a unified country. Friedrich der Große, is Friedrich II of Prussia. Friedrich was also the Count of Brandenburg. In the History of Counts of Brandenburg, there had been three other Friedrichs before him, so there he is Friedrich IV. So if you have a quote from Friedrich II, check if it is the King of Prussia and not some Count or Duke from somewhere else.

plop wrote:A lot of "Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite" (apologizes if any french reads this, but the machine is "changed" and I can't find the accent) and later, as allways, "let's behead anyone who thinks in a different way, or is suspected to do so". And, obviously, the revolution is nothing but the intermediary between the monarchy and the empire -which guarantees even less liberties.
I think you compare apples with oranges. The Monarchy and the Empire (If this is used as translation for Kaiserreich) are (partially) forms of government. The enlightment, is a philosophy, which was the founding for the french revolution. The ideals of the enlightment can be realized in an absolutistic monarchy or in a anarchists republic. It is not linked to a certain form of government.
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:19 pm

Well, I read the quote -that I only paraphrase) as coming from -in spanish- "Federico el Grande", they mentioned him as a german king or emperor -I said germna king, not king of Germany (But I am afraid I wasn't that clearin my former post. After all, it was Bismark who united the germans states. I don't remember when ruled Friedich der Grosse, but I am almost sure it was the XVIII century, while Bismarck was Chnacellor in the XIX. Could I say in the second half of it?) so I guess they were trying to point to Friedrich der Grosse. They claimed -in that book- that that king -or emperor, the difference isn't that relevant- started the Thirty Years war in order to expand his dominions, was fought by most of the europeans powers of that time, and at the end managed to keep all that he had before the wars -territorialy- and maybe some marginal gains. But possibly memories doesn't serve me well here.

I don't think that I am mixing apples with oranges, but quite possibly I am not expressing myself clearly. What I tried to say is that, as much as people complains about religions not fulfilling their humanitarians goals, I find the same sort of "faillure" in those attemps on good ways that denies any value or reality to the supernatural. Specially when they are "adopted" by politicians and rulers. That was the case with the "Ilustrated Absolutism"; those monarchs were quite entusiastic of reason, enlightening and all that, but the way they ruled wasn't that different.

On the other hand, I suppouse that at the end it will be a matter of differents (and irreconciliable) "weltaanschaung", but, even if obviously a politic isn't the same than an ideology or phylosophy, at the end those are things that together with economy and religion, can't ever be that separated. There are allways mutual influencies.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean "All for the people but without the people" as a quote from Friedrich II, but as a motto of Illustrated Absolutism.

Edit II: Ok, my mistake. That wasn't the Thirty Years war. And hey, it is impossible to locale Friedrich II in any part of XVIII century< he occupates it all! :wink:
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby Kazuya » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:47 pm

plop wrote:Well, I read the quote -that I only paraphrase) as coming from -in spanish- "Federico el Grande", they mentioned him as a german king or emperor -I said germna king, not king of Germany (But I am afraid I wasn't that clearin my former post. After all, it was Bismark who united the germans states. I don't remember when ruled Friedich der Grosse, but I am almost sure it was the XVIII century, while Bismarck was Chnacellor in the XIX. Could I say in the second half of it?) so I guess they were trying to point to Friedrich der Grosse. They claimed -in that book- that that king -or emperor, the difference isn't that relevant- started the Thirty Years war in order to expand his dominions, was fought by most of the europeans powers of that time, and at the end managed to keep all that he had before the wars -territorialy- and maybe some marginal gains. But possibly memories doesn't serve me well here.
Puh. I really hope your memorie doesn't serve you well. Because if the book you mentioned really says all those things, then it is garbage. And my advice would be to throw it away.

-Friedrich der Große (Friedrich II King of Prussia). He died in 1786 and we was older than 70 years, so he must have been born in 1710+x. He had never been a "Kaiser".

-Deutschland (Germany) didn't exists as a state or country at that time. What did exists was the "Heilige Römische Reich deutscher Nationen" (Holy Roman Empire of german Nations). Part of the HHRdN were for example austria, switzerland, bavaria, netherlands, brandenburg/prussia as well as parts of france and italy (). The HHRdN lastet for about 900 years and quite a lot happened. The Head of the HHRdN was a "Kaiser". There had been a Friedrich II of the HRRdN. But that was in 12hundred and. (Don't ask me for an exact date. The only thing that I can remember is, that under his rule even the city Jerusalem belonged to the HHRdN for some years). The kingdom of Prussia didn't even exist at that time.
The HHRdN is also called the "first" or the "old" Reich.

-Dreißigjähriger Krieg (Thirty years war) around one hundred years before Friedrich II, King of Prussia was born. Has absolutely nothing to do with him.

-Under Friedrich II King of Prussia, the country Prussia prospered while the HHRdN became weaker and weaker. The HHRdN ceased to exist in 1804.
In mayn ways, the HHRdN was the precursor of later Germany, but Germany as a national state, did not exist at that time.

-"Deutsches Kaiserreich" (German Empire) 1871-1918. At the time of the founding, Prussia had been a major player in european politics. The Kaiser of Germany, had also been the King of Prussia at the same time. The German Empire is also called the "second" or the "new" Reich. Austria-Hungary did not belong to the German Empire, although they were allies in the first world war.

-Bismarck was the Reichskanzler of the German Empire.

plop wrote:I don't think that I am mixing apples with oranges, but quite possibly I am not expressing myself clearly. What I tried to say is that, as much as people complains about religions not fulfilling their humanitarians goals, I find the same sort of "faillure" in those attemps on good ways that denies any value or reality to the supernatural. Specially when they are "adopted" by politicians and rulers. That was the case with the "Ilustrated Absolutism"; those monarchs were quite entusiastic of reason, enlightening and all that, but the way they ruled wasn't that different.

Friedrich II King of Prussia was the first german King who:
-abolished torture
-granted a free press, except for politics
-granted the freedom of religion, before that citizens had to follow the religion of their king
-built schools and introduced compulsory education
I'm a dude you don't know and I approve this message.
User avatar
Kazuya
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: KWh OT Ndl

Postby plop » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:09 am

(This post wasn't deleted, as was its content, due to my reluctancy to delete a pic of Natalie, meaning the one in the avatr. Please leave it this way. I am looking to you, Kazuya. Sure you know how to do that. :wink: And I like my ava more than yours :P :wink: :wink: )

Just in case, when I use the wink emo, either the text or its intention is a joke. Although, I hope you will understand that I prefer the pretty Nat's pic to the Historic pic of the actor playing the cinema version of the Victor Hugo's novel. :D
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela


Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests