How we pay multi million dollar politicians

Now that the world is standing up to take notice of this extraordinary feat maybe we should enlighten them on the hows and whys. The rest of the world, especially politicians, must be wondering how we could pay politicians this kind of salary and the people are happy and supportive of it. They may think that if they were to propose it in their own countries there will be immediate mass demonstrations and riotings in the streets. But we did it, and for so many years, it has become part of our system of good governance. For the likes of Obama, Brown or Sarkozy, who may want to think about how to go about convincing their electorates to pay them a few million dollars in salary, the following could be a useful guide. In the first place the country must be rich enough to be able to afford the million dollar salaries. And for America and the rich European countries, this is a given and not an issue. If the people were to quibble about it, just tell them that it would cost them each a hot dog a year. Very reasonable and affordable. The next point or the most important point is to convince the electorate that they must have the best talents to lead the country. And the only way is to pay them well. Otherwise they will want to become bankers and lawyers or be in Wall Street making hundreds of millions. Our slogan is pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Surely they would not want their parliaments and congresses to be filled with monkeys. This is a very powerful argument. The other important argument is human nature. People in position of power will by nature become corrupt. To stop them from becoming corrupt, pay them up front, and pay them well so that there will be no incentive to become corrupt. This is understanding nature and human weaknesses. Once these arguments are out of the way, work out a formula to make it objective. Peg the salary of the politicians to the 100 highest paid employee's salary in the private sector. But don't peg it to the top dog. That would be too excessive. Say pick the 49th person or 50th person's salary as the bench mark. That will look very reasonable. Now debate the formula in parliament and passed it into law. Then the salary package will become legal and legitimate. See, QED. Oh, there are some other conditions to make this formula successful. The ruling party must have an absolute majority to ensure its safe passage in parliament. As for street protest in case the ignorant electorate could not understand the brilliance of such a formula, ban them. Actually, the successful implementation of this million dollar salary package for politicians requires supertalents. Only supertalents have the ability to pull this through and be able to convince the people that it is good for them and the country. Actually no, you need exceptional supertalents. Better still if they are demigods and immortals.


Speedwing said...

Very interesting Redbean. Thanks for this information. Figures quoted are quite mind-boggling!!!

Anonymous said...

When you are ranked from No. 1 to No. 30 in the world, the red dot must be populated by very extraordinary politicians found nowhere else in the world.

No wonder they thought of the slogan 'City of Possibilities'. What will they think of shouting next? Maybe 'Out of this world' would be deemed appropriate.

Lost Citizen

IMHcase145823 said...

We lost what? 100 to 200 Billions?

So what's a few tens of millions?


rookielim said...

Redbean, I am truly impressed! Your analysis is detailed, precise and amusing.

I tip my hat to you!

redbean said...

i am just trying to make my post interesting to read. don't take it too seriously : )

Anonymous said...

tis wat uniquely singapore ment

Matilah_Singapura said...

There is no objective way to figure out what the "right amount" is to pay politicians in state office. All systems are ARBITRARY and it is IMPOSSIBLE to argue the objective case for pay scales.

In S'pore, the official line is to pay using the private sector as a guide. We've all seen how "successful" this line of reasoning is.

In the US, the Founding Fathers started off with the idea that govt should be autere and not be a big taxer and spender, and that public sector salaries should not be too high. We've also seen that the well-intentioned Founding Fathers were totally wrong. The US govt is now one of the biggest taxers and spenders in the world, but at least the president's pay is still considered "austere" by 1st world standards. That didn't change the fact that for the last generation (and more) US Presidents have been total fucking arseholes.

Let's take it from the 60's

1 JF Kennedy: Got the US into Vietnam

2 LB Johnson : Increased US involvement in Vietnam, massive money printing at home to fund the war and huge welfare programs.

3 Richard Nixon : take your pick

4 Gerald Ford : allow Nixon to get off scot free instead of sending the prick to jail

5 Jimmy Carter: Welfare statist extrodinaire. Ass-kisser of fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups. Big Taxer and Spender

6 Ronald Regan: first cut taxes from over 70% to around 20%. Later spent big bucks on all sorts of nonsense — interfering with other countries internal affairs, and raised taxes to crippling levels. Introduced religion back into politics, and into the public schools.

7 Bush ver 01. : Came in on "Read my lips, no new taxes". What did he do as soon as he took office? NEW TAXES. Has his own oil company, so he has many friends in the middle east, some of whom are enemies of the USA.

8. Clinton : 1st US President to admit using drugs. Likes the ladies. Sends of US Airforce/NATO to start wars to distract the public from his wandering penis. Has no problems using the US govt to kill Amrican citizens exercising their rights: Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge for e.g.

9. Bush ver. 2 : take your pick

10. Barrack Hussein Obama: extension of Bush ver 2, but better looking and more articulate. Will turn the USA into the USSA, Komrade.

So paying "austere" salaries doesn't guarantee that you'd get anyone useful, to say the least.

What is neglected in this debate is the idea of SELF GOVERNANCE.

In a republic, the people get to choose who will lead them and govern the country. Therefore whatever pay scales are stipulated is IRRELEVANT — you already know HOW MUCH your favorite candidate is going to be paid if you are successful in voting him or her into office.

Anonymous said...

it is true, if you like what you see, vote them in; if not throw them out. the choice is yours. quality comes with a price, no same.

Anonymous said...

Just like the premiums that comes with branded goods, you must not fuss about the compensations of these experienced hands that are steering our country.

If you like it cheap, well then no one stops you from voting in a different party of rookies to help guide you through this financial storm.

You get what you pay for.

Matilah_Singapura said...

To the anons:

The difference with the political process and buying stuff in the market is that you have to use your own money to buy in the market. You have to work to get that money, and whatever you earn has to go to pay for other things in your life as well. Therefore if you make an error in purchasing you lose on a personal level.

In the political process, you can vote or not vote and it wouldn't make a difference. You don't get as much choice as you do in a commercial store. You get a gaggle of candidates to choose from, and voting is "costless". If your favorite is promising the moon and stars it'll cost you nothing to vote for him or against him. Whoever wins the election is completely beyond your control.

However what you buy in a shop is completely within your control.

Anonymous said...

To me it is very simple. If you don't pay you will get monkeys to eat your peanuts which probably will run into billions, so what is there to pay a couple of millions to look after your billions.


redbean said...

hi marlin212, have not seen your post for a long time.

there is a price for everything. the price for sleeping and the price for being happy go lucky, and the price to believe that this is the best we can have.