The independent tribunal that sets politician pay has determined to give federal MPs a 4 per cent pay rise, saying previous pay increases have been conservative.
A lot of people are probably going to jump on the bandwagon and say that it’s too much and that they’re out of touch - just remember that the CEOs of big companies get millions of dollars per year for significantly less work and managing less stress. While we may not agree that these particular politicians particularly deserve this pay - I don’t think it is unreasonable
I’m pretty sure the PM is getting about half the amount the VC at my university gets for a more important more stressful job, there’s just the cynicism of people voting to increase their own income (which I’m sure my VC does too). I always feel like politician pay should be based on the median income (like, starting at 80% going up to 250%) adjusted yearly or something. Not much reasoning, just idle thought on that though.
That’s a really good way to look at it, should certainly incentivise them to do better for Australians, but they might just go corrupt or take donations
And noting this, if %4 is all it takes to keep you out of the grasp of cronyism and corruption - take it.
But we need national legislated pay rise too because you bet your arse I’ll get 1-2% at best each year for a net -20% in relation to inflation over the last 5-10y.
If you give a greedy person $100 in the hope they won’t take a $200 bribe, they’ll have $300.
Usually, they’ll then try and manipulate people into giving them even more. “Well of course I took the $200. You guys only offered me $100. What did you expect?”.
So you buckle and offer them $300 to not take the $200 dollars. How much does the greedy person end up with? $500 of course.
What comes next? Manipulating the new lowest bidder of course! “Well of course I took the $300. You guys only offered me $200. What did you expect?”.
If they can take it all, they’ll take it all. If they can squeeze you for more, they’ll squeeze you for more.
There is never a point they will say “no, I already have enough”. The closest they ever come is concluding “If I take the $100 now, I won’t be able to take the $200 later”.
Thats why this stuff needs to be properly regulated and fiercely enforced.
Your not going to get rid of cronyism and corruption by the carrot alone though. I see that as a red herring to ease the passage of pay rises like these.
It is unreasonable for anyone to be earning that amount of money and the fact that others earn more should not be used as a justification. Particularly considering how many additional benefits politicians receive alongside their exorbitant salaries.
Personally I do want politicians to be earning enough that it stops being super easy to bribe them. If that means giving them a few million a year that’s fine, because it’s pocket change compared to the cost savings in terms of corruption.
The other side of this is that higher wages increasingly attract people fixated solely on personal wealth accumulation, who themselves are hardly immune to bribery. Are these the personalities we need in positions of power?
In first world countries, wages do not influence susceptibility to bribery.
In high-income countries, petty corruption is less common because wages are above subsistence level. Corruption in these countries, if present, involves more secret deals, brings about larger payoffs, and is more difficult to detect. Government wages will arguably be less effective to combat the latter form of corruption. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/higher-government-wages-may-reduce-corruption
The number itself isn’t unreasonable. Its the disparity and ‘quality of life’ differences that yeilds, that i think are the key issues. Such as personal agency in life choices.
The worst parts of poverty are often about the choice constraints imposed.
Well the point of adjusting rates is so people’s salary aggressively goes backwards and realistically the people at the top should sacrifice the most.
CEOs should probably just be banished though, legality has nothing to do with permissibility. Anyone that keeps those ludicrous salaries becomes a monster.
A lot of people are probably going to jump on the bandwagon and say that it’s too much and that they’re out of touch - just remember that the CEOs of big companies get millions of dollars per year for significantly less work and managing less stress. While we may not agree that these particular politicians particularly deserve this pay - I don’t think it is unreasonable
I’m pretty sure the PM is getting about half the amount the VC at my university gets for a more important more stressful job, there’s just the cynicism of people voting to increase their own income (which I’m sure my VC does too). I always feel like politician pay should be based on the median income (like, starting at 80% going up to 250%) adjusted yearly or something. Not much reasoning, just idle thought on that though.
That’s always been my take. That way if they want a pay rise just improve things for everyone and they get one
That’s a really good way to look at it, should certainly incentivise them to do better for Australians, but they might just go corrupt or take donations
And noting this, if %4 is all it takes to keep you out of the grasp of cronyism and corruption - take it.
But we need national legislated pay rise too because you bet your arse I’ll get 1-2% at best each year for a net -20% in relation to inflation over the last 5-10y.
Unfortunately, that’s just not how greed works.
If you give a greedy person $100 in the hope they won’t take a $200 bribe, they’ll have $300.
Usually, they’ll then try and manipulate people into giving them even more. “Well of course I took the $200. You guys only offered me $100. What did you expect?”.
So you buckle and offer them $300 to not take the $200 dollars. How much does the greedy person end up with? $500 of course.
What comes next? Manipulating the new lowest bidder of course! “Well of course I took the $300. You guys only offered me $200. What did you expect?”.
If they can take it all, they’ll take it all. If they can squeeze you for more, they’ll squeeze you for more.
There is never a point they will say “no, I already have enough”. The closest they ever come is concluding “If I take the $100 now, I won’t be able to take the $200 later”.
Thats why this stuff needs to be properly regulated and fiercely enforced.
Hey you raise some serious points.
My argument is “give them 4% but aggressively stamp out corruption”. As long as I get a legislated pay rise too in line with inflation.
Unfortunately, they get to decide what counts as corruption.
Your not going to get rid of cronyism and corruption by the carrot alone though. I see that as a red herring to ease the passage of pay rises like these.
It is unreasonable for anyone to be earning that amount of money and the fact that others earn more should not be used as a justification. Particularly considering how many additional benefits politicians receive alongside their exorbitant salaries.
Personally I do want politicians to be earning enough that it stops being super easy to bribe them. If that means giving them a few million a year that’s fine, because it’s pocket change compared to the cost savings in terms of corruption.
The other side of this is that higher wages increasingly attract people fixated solely on personal wealth accumulation, who themselves are hardly immune to bribery. Are these the personalities we need in positions of power?
In first world countries, wages do not influence susceptibility to bribery.
In high-income countries, petty corruption is less common because wages are above subsistence level. Corruption in these countries, if present, involves more secret deals, brings about larger payoffs, and is more difficult to detect. Government wages will arguably be less effective to combat the latter form of corruption.
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/higher-government-wages-may-reduce-corruption
No one should be earning (up to) half a million a year?
If I could augment your argument a little…
The number itself isn’t unreasonable. Its the disparity and ‘quality of life’ differences that yeilds, that i think are the key issues. Such as personal agency in life choices.
The worst parts of poverty are often about the choice constraints imposed.
Well the point of adjusting rates is so people’s salary aggressively goes backwards and realistically the people at the top should sacrifice the most.
CEOs should probably just be banished though, legality has nothing to do with permissibility. Anyone that keeps those ludicrous salaries becomes a monster.
About the same as I got, and I considered mine quite low.