# 30% wage rise to politicians



## tech/a (1 December 2011)

Un believable

I've cut 4 staff
The others are on 4 day weeks
I'm working 6 days and paying myself the same as my staff.

These guys give themselves 30% through an independent committee
Who are of course paid by the Govt.

Public servants can't get 3%
Do you think Qantus staff will get 30%??

Stinks these buffoons are a joke!


----------



## robz7777 (1 December 2011)

Not bad considering they spend less time working than uni students spend at uni.. 

They have certainly lost touch with reality trying to get this through without anyone noticing now. People are getting sick and tired of the government gravy train and supporting all the idiots aboard who provide nothing in terms of forward thinking and planning for the future!


----------



## namrog (1 December 2011)

Completely unjustified.

I bet there won't be much opposition to that .....!!!


----------



## Bill M (1 December 2011)

tech/a said:


> Un believable
> 
> I've cut 4 staff
> The others are on 4 day weeks
> ...



100% agree, low life useless bastards, should be like everyone else.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 December 2011)

I'm not so much against a pay rise, i'm against all the perks they still get to keep. They make a song and dance about axing a couple perks but they still get a full pension when they 'retire'


----------



## sptrawler (1 December 2011)

Absolute disgrace, well Julia has sorted how she copes with the increased cost of living they have brought about.
She can't understand what people are complaining about. I can hear her now.
"Timmy how much does that put my indexed pension up, this is a dodle".

All she has to do now is keep everyone elses pay rise below 3%, can't have inflation short changing her can we. LOL LOL LOL.

Priceless just priceless.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2011)

This is the perfect chance for Tony Abbott to say he will repeal this when he gets in to power. With his record is should be easy to do. Can't wait to see his response. LOL


----------



## Boggo (1 December 2011)

Julia Gillard was visiting a Sydney primary school and the class was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asked Ms Gillard if she would like to lead the discussion on the word 'tragedy'.

So our illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a 'tragedy'. A little boy stood up and offered "If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playin' in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy". "Incorrect" said Gillard. "That would be an accident".

A little girl raised her hand "If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everybody inside, that would be a tragedy". 'I'm afraid not' explained Gillard "that's what we would refer to as a great loss".

The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Gillard searched the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?"

Finally, at the back of the room, little Johnny raised his hand and said "If a plane carrying you and Mr Rudd and Mr Swan and Mr Garrett was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile and blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy".

"Fantastic" exclaimed Gillard "and can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?" "Well" said Johnny "it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss and it probably wouldn't be a **cking accident either!"


----------



## Knobby22 (1 December 2011)

Hey, that was a reworked George Bush joke!


----------



## Boggo (1 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Hey, that was a reworked George Bush joke!




I figure that because Julia now gets paid more than the US president she can also have the jokes (in addition to those that surround her)


----------



## tech/a (1 December 2011)

Bill M said:


> 100% agree, low life useless bastards, *should be like everyone else*.




We are!!!!
Low Life useless Bastards!


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 December 2011)

tech/a said:


> Un believable
> 
> I've cut 4 staff
> The others are on 4 day weeks
> ...




This is the Austerity we had to have.....

As some wag on another forum suggested, perhaps the Guillotine should be re-introduced. It may serve some purpose? But who would man it? (5 million hands shoot up... )


----------



## barney (1 December 2011)

:shoot::horse::rippergun


----------



## Logique (1 December 2011)

http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html
(The Complete Works of George Orwell - Animal Farm, Ch 10)

"For once Benjamin consented to break his rule, and he read out to her what was written on the wall. There was nothing there now except a single Commandment. It ran: 
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL 
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS 

After that it did not seem strange when next day the pigs who were supervising the work of the farm all carried whips in their trotters. It did not seem strange to learn that the pigs had bought themselves a wireless set, were arranging to install a telephone, and had taken out subscriptions to John Bull, TitBits, and the Daily Mirror.

It did not seem strange when Napoleon was seen strolling in the farmhouse garden with a pipe in his mouth-no, not even when the pigs took Mr. Jones's clothes out of the wardrobes and put them on, Napoleon himself appearing in a black coat, ratcatcher breeches, and leather leggings, while his favourite sow appeared in the watered silk dress which Mrs. Jones had been used to wear on Sundays.."


----------



## Suers (1 December 2011)

I dont know why my post was removed...

Whoever nuked it should actually read the content.

and again



> Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.




On topic, not spam, dont censor the members :aus:


----------



## Julia (1 December 2011)

Suers said:


> I dont know why my post was removed...
> 
> Whoever nuked it should actually read the content.
> 
> ...



As I recall recent rehashing of this, there were allegations only.
If you can demonstrate that charges were ever made, then please provide a link to this.

Anyone can make allegations about anything.

I detest Ms Gillard and her policies but also detest the furthering of political malice for its own sake.

There has been some suggestion that this 30% pay rise will be accompanied by the axing of the Gold Pass for travel by retired politicians.  If that were to happen, the principle would be more fair, especially if some of the gold plated pensions were also trimmed.  However, I won't be holding my breath for any such offsets to this.

30%!!   ****** unbelievable.

Meanwhile


> Business Breaking News
> Australia lowest among OECD disability rankings
> 
> * From: AAP
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 December 2011)

tech/a said:


> Un believable
> 
> I've cut 4 staff
> The others are on 4 day weeks
> ...



I keep hearing these statistics that unemployment is 4. something percent and yet everywhere I look there's bad news about the economy and that includes everything from the state of government finances to your business which, if I recall correctly, is related to civil construction in Adelaide. 

Something doesn't add up here - and I trust what I'm seeing with my own eyes ahead of these statistics about which I am increasingly suspicious.

As for the pay rise, the only way any normal person gets 30% in one go is if they (1) were seriously underpaid previously and this is now being corrected (2) change careers or (3) work longer hours. Nobody in the real world gets a 30% rise to keep doing the same job which was already quite well paid to start with.


----------



## prawn_86 (1 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for the pay rise, the only way any normal person gets 30% in one go is if they (1) were seriously underpaid previously and this is now being corrected (2) change careers or (3) work longer hours. Nobody in the real world gets a 30% rise to keep doing the same job which was already quite well paid to start with.




It is very rare but i was lucky enough to get a 28% payrise last year when i was already on >50k. It does mean i wont be getting another major one for a while though.

If only we could just all vote for our own raises hey?


----------



## joea (1 December 2011)

Hi.
Well I just certainly do not understand you people who post.
We have our politicians doing a great job of running our country.
I have have heard many, many times how the nations around the world are just plain envious of our country's economics. I have heard many, many times how our treasurer has made exactly the correct decisions to save our country from an economic slump.

So shame on you people who would deny them a itty, bitty pay rise.

No doubt there will be a new tax out in the new year, to cover it.

Or will Hockey, Robb and Abbott be able to find the savings to cover it, in their budget, when(and if) they are elected.

joea
                                                                            lol...lol....lol...lol
I just love politics.!!!!!!!!!  must be the wine??


----------



## LifeChoices (1 December 2011)

tech/a said:


> Un believable
> 
> I've cut 4 staff
> The others are on 4 day weeks
> ...




I confess I haven't read the entire thread, but this came up in discussion today at work, and it was an overwhelming consensus from about 15 staff who earn between $30 - 70k that our politicians deserve to get this increase. 

Personally, $400K sounds fine for a prime minister of our country.


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I confess I haven't read the entire thread, but this came up in discussion today at work, and it was an overwhelming consensus that our politicians deserve to get this increase.




Of course they do


----------



## prawn_86 (1 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I confess I haven't read the entire thread, but this came up in discussion today at work, and it was an overwhelming consensus that our politicians deserve to get this increase.




They would deserve the increase if their pays weren't so heavily back-ended with perks and pensions once they quit. If they just got a salary and nothing else (aside from the usual super) then sure, pay them 500k a year, but untill ALL the perks are gone, why should they be earning 6 figures?


----------



## LifeChoices (1 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Of course they do




The overwhelming argument in favour was that we'd all want 10x our wage if we had to put up with randoms  around Australia subjecting us to constant public criticism on a daily basis.

If you compare their income to many CEOs of our major institutions, who've also managed to achieve very little - I'd say its a fair income.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> The overwhelming argument in favour was that we'd all want 10x our wage if we had to put up with randoms  around Australia subjecting us to constant public criticism on a daily basis.
> 
> If you compare their income to many CEOs of our major institutions, who've also managed to achieve very little - I'd say its a fair income.



 Would you have the same opinion if their incomes were based on the results of their presumed activities?    Why on earth should they earn more for taking Australia into an economically and socially depressed position?

And, if you're so enthusiastic about them getting such a pay rise, are you taking into account all the post-retirement perks as Prawn so properly points out?

If you are looking for a pay rise in your job, are you not expected to have provided clear evidence of good performance first?


----------



## LifeChoices (1 December 2011)

Julia said:


> Would you have the same opinion if their incomes were based on the results of their presumed activities?    Why on earth should they earn more for taking Australia into an economically and socially depressed position?
> 
> And, if you're so enthusiastic about them getting such a pay rise, are you taking into account all the post-retirement perks as Prawn so properly points out?
> 
> If you are looking for a pay rise in your job, are you not expected to have provided clear evidence of good performance first?




What we need to do, and what I can't be fagged doing now, is to pull out a spreadsheet of all the under performing blue chip companies in Australia and compare their profits to the CEO's incomes over the past year/decade.

I think you are living in a bubble if you think running a country is any different.

I will put this question back to you:

What do you think is a fair income for an under performing leader of our country?


----------



## sptrawler (1 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> What we need to do, and what I can't be fagged doing now, is to pull out a spreadsheet of all the under performing blue chip companies in Australia and compare their profits to the CEO's incomes over the past year/decade.
> 
> I think you are living in a bubble if you think running a country is any different.
> 
> ...




I suppose the question is, how much does the member of parliament do and how much is done by the public servants.
Wayne Swan knew about as much about treasury, as my ar$e knew about snipe shooting. 
Not his fault but how many of these politicians, that are voted in from say a musical background, have any idea about finances or pink batts.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2011)

> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...uge-pay-increase/story-e6freon6-1226210702704



The proposed rise will mean Julia Gillard is paid more than Mr Obama.

Let's remember that she has almost nothing in expenses - accommodation, meals, travel all paid for.  No pesky rises in electricity bills as a result of the carbon tax to worry her.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (2 December 2011)

Don't really see why people are blaming Gillard specifically. Abbott is more than happy about this. In reality they are both just as bad as one another.


----------



## LifeChoices (2 December 2011)

Julia said:


> The proposed rise will mean Julia Gillard is paid more than Mr Obama.
> 
> Let's remember that she has almost nothing in expenses - accommodation, meals, travel all paid for.  No pesky rises in electricity bills as a result of the carbon tax to worry her.




Why does that bother you that much?

I honestly don't understand why you spend the time bickering and whining, about someone else's good fortune. I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt. AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.

So freaken what if she earns more than you think she's worth.


----------



## Bill M (2 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I honestly don't understand why you spend the time bickering and whining, about someone else's good fortune. I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt. AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.



It isn't that I don't think. The problem is that 30% is a massive increase. May mate is bus driver in Sydney, they had to negotiate for over a year to get a 3% wage increase and then they had to give away something to get it. The pigs in the trough cartoon above with the pollies suits them very well. Why does 99% of the population have to fight so hard to get so little while these useless jokers grant themselves 30% increases just like that, for free? Something is not right in this country. Abbott was on TV last night saying "oh we have respect the remuneration tribunals decision" yes of course you do you goose, it's the pigs in the trough the lot of them.


----------



## qldfrog (2 December 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Don't really see why people are blaming Gillard specifically. Abbott is more than happy about this. In reality they are both just as bad as one another.




I agree with you on one point, Abbott could win a lot of credo by publicly raising the hell out of this and declaring he and his party will give 10% back to salvation army or similar

Both main parties in Australia are completely unrelated to australians and votes demonstrate it but our political system with preferences is a nightmare for democracy and we pay the price every day.
I feel entitled to winge when a non elected person so called representative is messing my country and getting personal benefits from the whole deal


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.




Might have been wonderful, BUT for one small thing....

She WAS NOT ELECTED INTO OFFICE BY THE MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIAN VOTERS.

She was "installed" by the Greens.

In the eyes of many, she HAS NO MORAL MANDATE. 

Funny how some people's memory fades.


----------



## joea (2 December 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Don't really see why people are blaming Gillard specifically. Abbott is more than happy about this. In reality they are both just as bad as one another.




Yep.
I have been watching and waiting and of course Abbott has been blamed for the pay rise as well. He has to have broad shoulders this fellow, because he has been blamed for "all and sundry" since Labor came into office.

Jokes aside, we will now see the productivity of the Labor party in operation.
That is:: How quick they pay rise will be passed, implemented and processed into the bank account's of the MP'S.
Don't stand too close, as you will get pulled along in the slip stream.
joea


----------



## Bill M (2 December 2011)

joea said:


> I have been watching and waiting and of course Abbott has been blamed for the pay rise as well.



And so he should be! If he was any kind of decent politician he would have said something like "I think the tribunal has got it wrong this time and we will not be supporting it". But no, he came out and said "we have to respect the tribunals decision" OINK OINK, here little piggy, that's all they are the lot of them, the cartoon above says it all.


----------



## Bill M (2 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Of course they do




Love the cartoon Calliope, says it all.


----------



## DB008 (2 December 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> They would deserve the increase if their pays weren't so heavily back-ended with perks and pensions once they quit. If they just got a salary and nothing else (aside from the usual super) then sure, pay them 500k a year, but until ALL the perks are gone, why should they be earning 6 figures?





^This.

Free flights around the world, massive payouts, massive pensions, the list goes on...


----------



## dutchie (2 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.




Unfortunately she has put the idea of another female Prime Minister back 200yrs.


----------



## lindsayf (2 December 2011)

Yes great cartoon- and Mr Abbott aka 'Mr No' has finally found an issue on which he is willing to take a bipartisan approach on.  Isnt that refreshing.


----------



## basilio (2 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> I confess I haven't read the entire thread, but this came up in discussion today at work, and it was an overwhelming consensus from about 15 staff who earn between $30 - 70k that our politicians deserve to get this increase.
> 
> *Personally, $400K sounds fine for a prime minister of our country*.




Good to see some balance in this discussion.

There would be many Public Servant department heads who earn more than the PM. Successful  self employed business people would also do well both directly and indirectly As for business there seems no limit. On a practical basis how little would you pay politicians to act on our behalf ?

I also think the headline figure of 30% is a misrepresentation.A number of allowances were withdrawn ie study trips O/S.  And Parliamentary wages were frozen in 2008 during the last GFC.


----------



## Boggo (2 December 2011)

basilio said:


> There would be many Public Servant department heads *who earn* more than the PM.




Who earn more or who get paid more


----------



## Julia (2 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> Why does that bother you that much?



Considering Ms Gillard's global responsibilities compared to that of the US President, it's laughable that she should be paid more.  Especially as her policies are not even original thought, but rather the orders of the Greens which she adopts as the price of their continuing to support her tenure.



> I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt.



Really?  Why?  She has done nothing so far imo that prompts me to regard anything about her as positive.



> AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.



Her gender is irrelevant or should be.   She has broken a fundamental promise in instituting a carbon tax which is going to seriously disadvantage this country.



> So freaken what if she earns more than you think she's worth.



It's not about what I think:  it's about all the politicians happily accepting such a massive pay rise when all we have heard in the last several weeks is that cut backs have to be made so the government can  fulfil the purely political aim of achieving a tiny surplus.  (I'll believe it when I see it).  Government departments have to make cuts which will inevitably result in reduction of public services.

So how reasonable is it that in such an austere environment, the politicians should get 30%!!!



Bill M said:


> \ Why does 99% of the population have to fight so hard to get so little while these useless jokers grant themselves 30% increases just like that, for free? Something is not right in this country.



Exactly.



qldfrog said:


> I agree with you on one point, Abbott could win a lot of credo by publicly raising the hell out of this and declaring he and his party will give 10% back to salvation army or similar



Great point, qldfrog.  It's just amazing that Abbott & Co cannot appreciate the kudos in the community by taking a stand on this which is fundamentally moral.



> I feel entitled to whinge when a non elected person so called representative is messing my country and getting personal benefits from the whole deal






Bill M said:


> And so he should be! If he was any kind of decent politician he would have said something like "I think the tribunal has got it wrong this time and we will not be supporting it". But no, he came out and said "we have to respect the tribunals decision" OINK OINK, here little piggy, that's all they are the lot of them, the cartoon above says it all.



Yes, agree.



dutchie said:


> Unfortunately she has put the idea of another female Prime Minister back 200yrs.



 +1.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2011)

Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.

Lots of people can mow lawns or drive a courier van. Therefore the pay is relatively low.

Very few people have the talent and public appeal to actually sell millions of albums or make every movie a smash hit. Successful singers and actors therefore make a lot of money.

Plenty of people could do it, but very few actually want to be a sex worker. Therefore they make reasonable money.

Last time I checked, there was no shortage of people willing to enter politics with many spending large amounts of their own money attempting to get elected. Supply clearly exceeds demand, suggesting that wages do not need to be excessive. That said, there is of course the "pay peanuts and get monkeys" argument, but likewise there is the reality that paying excessively attracts those who are motivated only by personal gain to an occupation where this is not a desirable personality trait.

I'd say that 3 x average full time earnings is a reasonable income for a state premier so that's somewhere approaching $200,000. Ministers and Leader of the Opposition perhaps 2.5 times average earnings.

For a Prime Minister I'd say perhaps 5 times average earnings or around $300,000. Ministers and Leader of the Oppositon 2.5 times. Those figures assume zero other benefits other than 9% compulsory super, vehicle for official duties only, phone for official use only etc. 

For a general run of the mill backbencher with no specific responsibilities I'd say that pay ought to be set by legislation to equal average full time earnings.

By paying sensible wages, we'd get people in politics who actually want to make real change rather than ending up with a bunch of people who, like many CEO's, are in it for nothing other than personal gain.


----------



## sptrawler (2 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.
> 
> Lots of people can mow lawns or drive a courier van. Therefore the pay is relatively low.
> 
> ...




Very well put Smurph, especially the comment about paying excessive amounts doesn't mean you end up with the right people. 
History has shown us some professions that used to be a calling, are now attracting a much higher relative salary. But haven't necessarily attracted better people as can be seen by outcomes.


----------



## Tyler Durden (2 December 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Simple supply and demand should answer the question of salary.




I was thinking something along the same lines. That is, if our politicians were to look for work in the private sector, how much would corporations be willing to pay them?


----------



## IFocus (2 December 2011)

I think our poly's are under paid

Simple test is how good are the current crop

Monkeys / peanuts etc

Fu(king useless, we have  photo opportunity Doc No on one side and Swan on the other  both sides pay more and demand quality. 

BTW I get more than an MP that passes law on what I can and cannot do hows that possible?


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> BTW I get more than an MP that passes law on what I can and cannot do hows that possible?




Ergo, you are not being paid peanuts, therefore you are not a monkey?


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2011)

IFocus said:


> I think our poly's are under paid
> 
> Simple test is how good are the current crop
> 
> Monkeys / peanuts etc



Get rid of the big money from politics generally and then there will be some chance that you, I or others who actually want to do a good job could actually get elected. 

The way it stands now, you need $ and the right backers to have anything more than a remote chance of actually being elected. To a very great extent, the Australian people only get to vote for those candidates favoured by a select few. That's not particularly democratic...


----------



## Knobby22 (3 December 2011)

The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.




The cricket captain has to be qualified for the job. Gillard was put there by the faceless men. Politics is not about salary. It is about power and influence. The money will come later.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.



How many people can play cricket at top professional level?

How many people can implement the decisions and speak to the media based on what they are told by an army of advisers? 

I'd expect that there is perhaps one or two people at most on this forum who would be able to successfuly do the job of Australian Cricket Captain. But there would be plenty who could undertake the basic functions of Prime Minister - the days when politics required actual knowledge are long gone, replaced by a paid army of thousands of bureaucrats who make the actual decisions.

Ask the Minister for Health some decent medical questions and they won't have a clue.

Ask the Minister for Resources and Energy to explain how the power grid actually works and you'll get a blank stare.

Ask the Minister for this, that or something else to rely on their own knowledge of the subject in detail and you'll find they don't actually have any real knowledge. The odd exception perhaps, but not many.

30 years ago you might have got sensible answers based on actual knowledge of specific subjects and that is why those people ended up with Ministerial responsibility for specific areas. But these days they are virtually all career politicians with little knowledge of anything except politics itself, hence the massive reliance on paid advisers who do the actual decision making. 

To be Captain of the Australian Cricket Team you need to know how to play cricket at professional level and you need to know how to lead others to perform. To be a politician you need to know how to toe the party line, draw attention to yourself and so forth. Some management and public speaking skills would be useful but these are relatively common skills in the general community compared to professional sporting ability. Supply and demand - there are more people with the ability to follow orders from the party and with basic management skills than there are who can play criket at top professional level whilst also leading others, hence the pay relativity is not unreasonable.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.




The cricket captain has to be qualified for the job. Gillard was put there by the faceless men. Politics is not about salary. It is about power and influence. The money will come later.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (4 December 2011)

LifeChoices said:


> Why does that bother you that much?
> 
> I honestly don't understand why you spend the time bickering and whining, about someone else's good fortune. I think you have to give our prime minister's the benefit of the doubt. AFAIC She has earnt her position, she has spent considerable time getting to where she is now, and has fought many battles. I think it's a wonderful achievement for a woman to become our first prime minister.
> 
> So freaken what if she earns more than you think she's worth.




She, like every other leader we have had, has failed to address any of the major and serious problems facing our country.

She is a complete puppet of the mining industry - allowing them to set their own taxes rates at whatever they want.

What hard work? She hasn't done **** for me nor any other Australian who isn't filthy rich.



Tyler Durden said:


> I was thinking something along the same lines. That is, if our politicians were to look for work in the private sector, how much would corporations be willing to pay them?




That depends to what extent they would still be able to influence policy.


----------



## gav (6 December 2011)

I thought this cartoon was very fitting...


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Australian Cricket captain gets paid twice the amount the Prime Minister will get paid.



As it should be with all vocal chord related jobs. I can't believe how many wind bags out there want buckets of money for sitting on their @#$& talking all day. Oh that's right, it's a cerebral contribution.


----------



## Logique (7 December 2011)

gav said:


> I thought this cartoon was very fitting...




So it is Gav. The pollies have shown that they are out of touch, and have lost a lot of moral authority and intellectual credibility with this decision. 

Your average backbencher simply isn't worth $195k plus electorate allowances, plus indexed pension, plus travel perks. It's an insult to everyday Australians. That big bad Peter Slipper, he likes the allowances the MPs say - pack of hypocrites.


----------



## joea (15 December 2011)

joea said:


> Yep.
> 
> Jokes aside, we will now see the productivity of the Labor party in operation.
> That is:: How quick they pay rise will be passed, implemented and processed into the bank account's of the MP'S.
> ...




Yeah!! Pay rise goes through today to  boost the politicians "Christmas Spending Spree".
Its marvelous what they can achieve when they agree on something.
No doubt Bob will buy a "six pack of trees" instead of the single one he had budgeted for.

joea


----------



## johenmo (15 December 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> She, like every other leader we have had, has failed to address any of the major and serious problems facing our country.




The primary focus is on re-election so 3 years becomes 1 - 2 years for any unpopular decisions.  2 years is not long enough to solve some of our problems, hence little action.

The remuneration should reflect the level of responsibility of the role - whether they perform is something else to be dealt with.  I would rather see more salary $ for them and strip away the hidden costs - post Prime Ministerial freebies, free travel, etc etc, swap their super to an accumulation fund like many others, no election funding, unsubsidised meals.  Some of these would then extend to the public service.

I look and see the $$$$ paid to sports people.  Despite the skill levels required for cricket, it doesn't in my mind rate close to real work.  Professional Sports people are overpaid, and overworshipped.  

Having said all that I think the pollies do a crappy job but I wouldn't do it for 10 times what they get - it's not a pleasant role.  But the overall package increase should not exceed the average for Australians.


----------



## prawn_86 (15 December 2011)

johenmo said:


> Professional Sports people are overpaid,




I disagree. In fact i think that sports are one of the few examples of free market mechanisms (despite salary caps for some sports). Sports people get a % of revenue their sport generates. That revenue is generated through demand and purchasing of advertising, memberships, sponsorships, TV viewing, crowds etc etc

Sports people are paid as much as the market dicates they can be paid. IE if the AFL make $1b pa from their 'clients' their frontline 'workers' then get about 25% of that. How is that being overpaid?

At least sportstars have to keep performing, unlike politicians or CEOs who can just vote for their own remuneration. Maybe we should have a total spend salary cap for boards and politicians...


----------



## joea (15 December 2011)

johenmo said:


> I look and see the $$$$ paid to sports people.  Despite the skill levels required for cricket, it doesn't in my mind rate close to real work.  Professional Sports people are overpaid, and overworshipped.




Well I would rather watch Casey Stoner going down the straight at 300KLM/HR, than 
watch Julia Gillard doing the "chicken dance" in question time.
So maybe that has something to do with it.

Actually while I am at it, they should ban any political TV exposure of our politicians 6 weeks before Christmas. We would then have a better festive season.
joea


----------



## johenmo (18 December 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> I disagree.
> At least sportstars have to keep performing, unlike politicians or CEOs who can just vote for their own remuneration. Maybe we should have a total spend salary cap for boards and politicians...






joea said:


> Well I would rather watch Casey Stoner going down the straight at 300KLM/HR, than watch Julia Gillard doing the "chicken dance" in question time.
> So maybe that has something to do with it.
> 
> Actually while I am at it, they should ban any political TV exposure of our politicians 6 weeks before Christmas. We would then have a better festive season.
> joea




There will be disagreement on this - sport is strong in our society.  Don't get me wrong, I like watching sport but when entertainers (non-vital service) get more than people in a vital service, and I'll use nurses as an example then that's when I think that societal values are skewed.

Sure, if they have it as a career then they need to get paid.  They are professionals rather than amateurs.  This is part of the reason why a day at the footie, cricket, soccer (pick yr country) is getting closer to being beyond the reach of "average" people - and I have heard this complaint in different countries.

Nicolas Anelka just signed to a Chinese club @ 300K per week, said the news.  "Anelka’s contract is said by local media to be a lucrative $300,000 per week, which will involve advertising, as well as soccer commitments. It comes out to 7.7 million dollars a year. Some wonder where the funds are coming from, but it’s obvious now China is making itself a presence in the soccer transfer market."

Yeah yeah I hear it's a drawcard and makes more profits etc etc.  But it's a self-fulfilling upward spiral that generates ever increasing payouts.  Ditto the CEO bandwagon - the NAB boss signed a contract where he is to get 12 months pay if he is fired.  Smart him, but what sort of moron woudl sign that.  "Stuff up and we'l send you on your way with 12 months pay".  But that's a whole new thread!!

Nope - a guy who kicks a ball around ain't worth 7.7 mill per year.  He's just as entertaining at 100 or 150K per year.  


Prawn - salary cap for pollies and boards is a great idea.

Joea - I'd rather  watch a non-painted wall dry than watch that chicken dance.  No taxpayer funding for pollie funding woudl be a great saving.


----------



## Tisme (4 January 2016)

http://morningmail.org/age-entitlement-ends-except-politicians/


----------



## luutzu (4 January 2016)

Tisme said:


> http://morningmail.org/age-entitlement-ends-except-politicians/




Is that why some friends of ours are drafting their political speeches to gain political office?


----------



## Tom32 (5 January 2016)

The rort around this imo is that the older pollies are on a guaranteed super payment. The new are on guaranteed contributions like the rest of us. 

When this change occurred under Howard the new and old got a higher wage (quite rightly for the new without access to the old super). The olds however indexed to the new wages got higher guaranteed payments by about 30pc.

This has also occurred in other old state super schemes like teachers.

Don't know how they fix it though?


----------

