29 February 2008

Thar's gold...

On that thar hill.

-- OTTAWA -- Members of Parliament are set to edge further into the top one per cent of Canadian income-earners with a $4,600 pay hike April 1 that will take their minimum salaries to $155,400 annually.
That's a lotta scratch for a 27 week work year.
"Being elected to Parliament is better than winning the lottery," said John Williamson, national director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. "The pay is already extravagant and it's been like that for a number of years now."
*


8 comments:

Anonymous said...

A run-of-the-mill executive at any number of companies in Canada could easily be making more than that, I know it sounds like a lot, it's a lot to me, but if the job pays too little then we'll only get schmucks who really can't cut it in the real world. Like NDP'ers.

Dave Hodson said...

I'll agree with 'anonymous' on this one. Sure, when you watch our politicians behave like little children, we like to question if they're really worth this much money. However, considering the responsibilities of their positions, and comparing their roles to similar positions in the private sector, their salaries are not unreasonable.

And if you don't adequately pay MPs, you'll never attract qualified people who are willing to put up with the crap they have to take. Hell, I'm not sure we're getting qualified people now. You'd never convince me to be an MP for that amount of money.

Lots of travel. Poor job security. With everything you do, you're pissing off somebody. Everything you say is documented in the media and your every move is watched. While Parliament only sits 27 weeks of the year, it's still a lot of time in the off-weeks, and you're basically on call all the time.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"anon says... but if the job pays too little then we'll only get schmucks"

yeah... because what we really need to attract... is more dopey law school graduates... and lord knows, they don't come cheap.

maybe you can compare the top tier guys like the prime minister to executives... but let's face it... the backbenchers are basically trained seals.

and let's not forget the fully indexed (7 times richer than average) pension you get... after 6 long years of indescribably brutal labour. a two term mp has hit the taxpayer-funded cash for life jackpot.

so guys... cry me a river... but you ain't gonna sell that stinker here.

*

Raphael Alexander said...

I'm going with Neo on this one [amazing, I know]. Overpaid stuffed automatons earning fat hockey player salaries. Don't like the low wages in public sector? Go to the private sector then. We don't need you.

$155 large to sit for 27 weeks with full expense accounts. Pigs. Trough.

Dave Hodson said...

Well, I'd hardly call $155K/year a "fat hockey player salary". A good salary perhaps, but not quite in the NHL territory.

Is the problem that they are being paid $155K for the job, or is the problem that they're just not doing the job they should be?

I think the latter.

Our backbench MPs should not be acting like trained seals, and they should be allowed to think for themselves. Our elected officials should not be behaving like little children.

I believe the job warrants the $155K, however, I just don't think the people who are currently in the jobs are necessarily filling their roles properly. That's the difference.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"dave hodson says... Our backbench MPs should not be acting like trained seals, and they should be allowed to think for themselves."

sorry dave... this is straight out of the "if your mother had wheels, she'd be a truck" playbook.

my answer would be... "they are and they don't"... and i want a freakin' refund.

over to you.

*

Dave Hodson said...

Neo, I don't totally disagree with you. I feel cheated too, because we simply aren't getting value for our money.

But I still say the position warrants the pay level. However, if a staff member in an organization isn't living up to the requirements of the boss (that's us taxpayers in this case), you don't say we're going to cut your pay by 50%, but instead you should fire their incompetent asses and replace them with people who can do the job well (I know, easier said than done in this case).

What do you think we should be paying MPs? $100K? $75K? $50K? Even less than that? If we did, nobody would want the job, and I expect we'd have an even bigger bunch of clowns in parliament than we already have.

I might suggest that we have too many MPs. If we cut the number by half, we would hopefully end up with, on average, a higher quality individual, and fewer of them will be mindless backbenchers that simply vote and speak the party line.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"dave hodson says... we should be paying MPs? $100K? $75K? $50K?"

hey, dave... i'm with you.

what kinda dumbass gets outta bed for less than a hunnert k, huh?

yessirree... gotta keep these guys wages in the top one percent... because it'd just be too embarrassing for canada when nobody decided to run for parliament anymore.

not to disillusion anyone here, but... backbenchers are cattle... extremely well-paid cattle, mind you... because that's how the parties (all of them) want it.

keep your head down, keep grazing, don't bother the stud bull... and you'll do just fine.

*