Oz Pollies Remuneration

[Aussiejeff]

Obama has frozen the remuneration of guvmint execs in his administration who are on >$US150,000.

Is it time our beloved Fed & State pollies swallowed their pride and either froze or reduced their remuneration to "do their bit" while the economy slides deeper into recession? Or do they deserve more?
I know what I want 'em to do!

It's time to vote!

 

[Happy]

I would love to see cap on $300,000 or $500,000 for anybody, after all Pollies are not as high in clouds with salaries 100 or 500 times the ordinary employee is obscene in my view.

And those geniuses created the mess we are in, so best example that you don't have to pay too much to get the job done right.

 

[GumbyLearner]

They definitely deserve less. Most of them know nothing about the lifestyle of the average person in the street that they are taxing the pants off. Australia is way overtaxed and way overgoverned. IMHO

 

[mattlaw]

I dont mind that they get paid more because if i was under as much scrutiny in my job everyday and every decision i made was torn apart then i would want to be compensated.

The only thing i dont like is if a politician works for say a certain period of time and then get fired they get a lifetime pension! Often ridiculous amounts indexed with inflation.

 

[disarray]

pay them more and get rid of the pensions / lifetime travel / staff and other perk money sinks they get till they die.

 

[Aussiejeff]

*bump*

I totally agree with the "get rid of perks" sentiment. I'd accept them having a 10% cut then

 

[auric]

just to compare...?

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate


Salary and benefits
The annual salary of each senator, as of 2008, is $169,300;[8] the President pro tempore and party leaders receive $188,100.[9] In June 2003, at least 40 of the then-senators were millionaires.[10] In addition to their salaries, senators' retirement and health benefits are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service.[9]

Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under CSRS was $60,972, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $35,952.[9]

In general, senators are regarded as more important political figures than members of the House of Representatives because there are fewer of them, and because they serve for longer terms, represent larger constituencies (except for House at-large districts, which also comprise entire states), sit on more committees, and have more staffers. Far more senators have been nominees for the presidency than Representatives. Furthermore, three senators (Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama) have been elected President while serving in the Senate, while only one Representative (James A. Garfield) has been elected President while serving in the House.

 

[Nyden]

Although I believe that as an example they should cut their pay - I don't believe the level of pay of anyone is ever 'obsene'. Do you notice how in boom times, shareholders are always commenting on how fantastic a CEO is, and how deserving they are of that 1 million dollar bonus at the end of the year ... ?

The truth is, the vast majority of CEOs are highly educated (have sacrificed years of working life to study), highly motivated, and have risen themselves to the top! The amount of responsibility these people have is often astounding - and responsibility should always be rewarded.

A great majority of all highly paid people are also under a constant spotlight. Look at movie stars, politicians, and yes - even company CEO's. We mere mortals (folks on ordinary pay) are allowed to mess up, we're allowed to go out and have a wild night - we have freedom. On the other hand - if a senator, or CEO is caught at a strip club, it's front page news! Never underestimate the monetary value of freedom.

 

[knocker]

Airhead sponges especially are esteemed leader.

 

[Julia]

The truth is, the vast majority of CEOs are highly educated (have sacrificed years of working life to study), highly motivated, and have risen themselves to the top! The amount of responsibility these people have is often astounding - and responsibility should always be rewarded.

So do you think 'responsibility' of itself should always be rewarded, even when the person in question has mightily stuffed up?
e.g. we've seen several instances of failed CEO's still getting massive bonuses.

 

[dalek]

pay them more and get rid of the pensions / lifetime travel / staff and other perk money sinks they get till they die.

In the case of pollies I agree with this kind of restructure .
In the case of company CEO's and senior management, packages should be simply structured to include a significant "at risk" component based on company performance, maybe in the order of 35%

 

[Aussiejeff]

In the case of pollies I agree with this kind of restructure .
In the case of company CEO's and senior management, packages should be simply structured to include a significant "at risk" component based on company performance, maybe in the order of 35%

Well, when you think about it, why shouldn't our pollies ALSO have a measurable "performance" clause in their "contracts" awarded by us to them - to serve US, the common people of Oz?

Perhaps a performance rating system on a sliding scale could be managed by an officially ratified independent polling agency, which could determine from regular, monthly, widespread public polls whether the OZ public feels it is doing a good job or not??

ie: If the public approval rating for the Government falls below 50% for 3 consequeitive months, the PM and ALL elected Government ministers shall have a 10% deduction in remuneration for the next 3 months, only to be reinstated to full remuneration (or the previous level) IF the subsequent monthly polls lift above the trigger point. If, say, opinion falls below 45% support for 3 consequetive months, the deduction would become 20%, below 40% it becomes 30% etc.

That oughta put (in effect) a ticking *bomb* under their backsides and encourage them to start taking REAL notice and CARE of the people, FOR the people! It will be in the pollies best interests, too

 

[Nyden]

So do you think 'responsibility' of itself should always be rewarded, even when the person in question has mightily stuffed up?
e.g. we've seen several instances of failed CEO's still getting massive bonuses.

Well, that's where things have gone somewhat astray. It's a basic rule that in order to have responsibility - you must also have accountability. So, I guess if a company fails, the CEO should lose out as well.

 

[Trevor_S]

Although I believe that as an example they should cut their pay - I don't believe the level of pay of anyone is ever 'obsene'. Do you notice how in boom times, shareholders are always commenting on how fantastic a CEO is, and how deserving they are of that 1 million dollar bonus at the end of the year ... ?

No matter the success of the company, as a shareholder I have always stated company executives are paid too way much. I also note businessmen like Warren Buffett and Gerry Harvey have also made similar statements.

In contrast, I also think politicians are paid way to little but I don't think paying them significantly more will attract a better calibre of person to the position. ie I disagree with the premise of this article in this instance.

The simple fact is, as the old adage goes, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

The catch 22 is that sort of person that wants to be a politician is the sort of person you don't want as a politician. To be "successful" by it's very nature you have to lie, cheat, misdirect and obfuscate. I am sure there are some politicians that aren't in the public eye that try and do a good job, the last one in my living memory that springs to mind is Ted Mack, (seeing how long ago that was, it seems to me that's a sad indictment on politicians) they will just never be involved in directing the country. HOWEVER, I think this is a fault of our democracy as it stands today more so then anything else.

As to CEO, salaries I personally think all company executives should be capped at 10 x the median wage of the comapny they manage. and they are only eligible for any bonus sytem available to all staff ie that's the MAXIMUM and I don't mean we should encourage obscure ways of circumventing it by obscene over paying for expenses . I also don't believe the argument you won't get a quality applicant if you cap it. The real people that take risk at companies are the shareholders, NOT the employee's be they executives or janitorial.

 

[gav]

Well, when you think about it, why shouldn't our pollies ALSO have a measurable "performance" clause in their "contracts" awarded by us to them - to serve US, the common people of Oz?

Perhaps a performance rating system on a sliding scale could be managed by an officially ratified independent polling agency, which could determine from regular, monthly, widespread public polls whether the OZ public feels it is doing a good job or not??

ie: If the public approval rating for the Government falls below 50% for 3 consequeitive months, the PM and ALL elected Government ministers shall have a 10% deduction in remuneration for the next 3 months, only to be reinstated to full remuneration (or the previous level) IF the subsequent monthly polls lift above the trigger point. If, say, opinion falls below 45% support for 3 consequetive months, the deduction would become 20%, below 40% it becomes 30% etc.

That oughta put (in effect) a ticking *bomb* under their backsides and encourage them to start taking REAL notice and CARE of the people, FOR the people! It will be in the pollies best interests, too

The guvmint could say "hmm, what shall we do to get ppl to like us more? I know, lets just put $2K in every single person's bank account". The majority of Australians will be happy, so the opinion polls go up. Pollies could resort to this or doing other things that will put Australia in an even worse position medium-long term, but they dont care because they'll have their payrise and be retired in a life of luxury long before that happens

 

[Happy]

So do you think 'responsibility' of itself should always be rewarded, even when the person in question has mightily stuffed up?
e.g. we've seen several instances of failed CEO's still getting massive bonuses.

Not to mention that often actions are questionable or simply dishonest with cooked books and more.

 

[Aussiejeff]

The guvmint could say "hmm, what shall we do to get ppl to like us more? I know, lets just put $2K in every single person's bank account". The majority of Australians will be happy, so the opinion polls go up. Pollies could resort to this or doing other things that will put Australia in an even worse position medium-long term, but they dont care because they'll have their payrise and be retired in a life of luxury long before that happens

DOH! Of course, you are right. I forgot that pollies are tempted by "populist" politiks!

Maybe tying their "perks" and super to years of service on a sliding scale starting at 3 years minimum to a maximum perks level at 25 years? At least that would be a reward system that would favour the most dedicated "career" pollies? The one term wonders would only get a tiny fraction of what they can get now. So, being a GOOD government and getting re-elected for more than one term would be very much in their own interests too.

 

[GumbyLearner]

DOH! Of course, you are right. I forgot that pollies are tempted by "populist" politiks!

Maybe tying their "perks" and super to years of service on a sliding scale starting at 3 years minimum to a maximum perks level at 25 years? At least that would be a reward system that would favour the most dedicated "career" pollies? The one term wonders would only get a tiny fraction of what they can get now. So, being a GOOD government and getting re-elected for more than one term would be very much in their own interests too.

Couldnt agree with you anymore AJ.
The Labour Party used to be ruled by the 'cream' of the working class, now its ruled by the 'scum' of the middle class! JMO of course

 

[Aussiejeff]

Great leaders lead from the front and by example.

For instance, how hard would it be for TouroKRudd to at least publicly have a crack at something like "I am donating 25% of my salary for the next 12 months to needy charities, and I would expect my fellow ministers to follow suit".

Yeah. I know. Hard times for our poor, underpaid pollies too.

Pretty bluddy hard I reckon.

:angry:

 

[doctorj]

I'm surprised to see that out of 27 votes cast, I'm the only one that thinks (some) pollies deserve considerably more...