TDs to keep bonus payments despite budget vow

zootroid

A LARGE group of senior TDs will keep their generous €6,400 annual bonuses, despite Finance Minister Brian Lenihan's Budget promise to scrap the payments.

Mr Lenihan's controversial measures to curb politicians' pay are far from clear-cut, the Irish Independent has learned.

Contrary to Mr Lenihan's Budget speech last week, the long-service payments will not be scrapped for all Oireachtas members, allowing 66 TDs to keep the €6,400 bonus payment.

A row is also brewing over a reduction in the number of Oireachtas committees after their chairmen insisted that enough savings had already been made with cuts to their allowances.

The revealing of the fine print on the long-service increment payments is the latest flaw in Mr Lenihan's Budget announcements on politicians' pay, which were supposed to show the public they were not the only ones suffering the pain.

In his speech, Mr Lenihan said the Government had decided to "introduce a number of additional changes to the remuneration of deputies and senators".

"Deputies will no longer receive long-service payments or increments," he said.

TDs are paying the public sector pension levy and the income levy and expenses and mileage rates are also being cut.

But the Department of Finance confirmed that the scrapping of long-service increments would only apply to those who would be entitled to the payment in the future, and the bonus would not be taken off those already receiving it.

At the moment, 66 TDs are getting a payment of €6,391 a year for 10 years' service and six TDs are receiving €3,198 for seven years on duty.

The removal of these payments would effectively have amounted to a pay cut of 6pc for the long-serving TDs.

Instead of all these payments going, as Mr Lenihan clearly indicated, a group of 26 TDs will lose out on a prospective €3,000 pay rise next month.

"This will apply to new additions to the long-service increments, while the existing holders of the LSI payments may continue to receive the payments but can volunteer to surrender it," a spokesman said.

The planned increased payments to the 26 TDs, simply because they held on to their seats in the general election, sparked a furore after it was revealed last month.

But the latest flaws undermine the Government's attempt to show the political system was being hit by the economic downturn.

Several elements of the politicians' pain aspect of the Budget have loopholes attached:


The halting of ministerial pensions cannot be done legally at this time, so it is not clear if all TDs will definitely be forced to give them up.
Nobody can say when the number of Oireachtas committees will be reduced.
The Department of Education does not know when teacher-TDs will be banned from pocketing the difference in pay when a substitute is employed.

Although the reduction of junior ministers was not announced by Mr Lenihan, the ministers due to be sacked next week are expected to get severance payments, meaning there will be little saving to the taxpayer this year.

Mr Lenihan's spokesman said there was no question of the measures outlined by the minister in the Budget not proceeding.

"These will all be coming into effect and they still stand," a spokesman said.

The long-service increments are not being taken off other public servants and are only being halted for TDs, the spokesman added.

The Government is going to change legislation to reduce the allowances paid for holders of Oireachtas committee positions.

The allowances paid to chairs will be halved to just over €10,000 and the payments to whips and vice-chairs will be abolished.

But the plans to reduce the numbers of Oireachtas committees have hit a snag.

Mr Lenihan is leaving it up to the Houses of the Oireachtas to sort this out.

The body in charge of running Leinster House, the Oireachtas Commission, has proposed a reduction in the committees to 15 from the current 23.

But the chairmen of the committees disagree, saying the cuts in allowances will save €700,000 and the same committees should be left in place until the next general election.

Fianna Fail TD Noel O'Flynn, the chairman of working group of committee chairs, said the committees should be allowed to get on with their work.

Widespread

"There was widespread agreement, from speaking to a number of committee chairmen, that they have accepted the allowance cut of 50pc and there is a saving of €700,000. They see no reason now to change the current structures of committees," he said.

The Government still seems to be intent on reducing the numbers of committees, but this is dependent on whatever changes come with the junior minister reshuffle.

"No decision will be taken until the Taoiseach has announced his line-up of junior ministers," a spokesman for Government Chief Whip Pat Carey said.

Meanwhile, the Government's plan to scrap ministerial pensions for TDs and senators who are currently serving in the Oireachtas has hit a legal snag.

The Attorney General has advised the Cabinet of legal problems in introducing the measure in the middle of a Dail term.

Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and other sitting TDs receiving the pensions will most likely end up being asked to 'volunteer' to give up the payments.

Thirty-one TDs and senators will lose out on a pension fund of €750,000 a year following the axing of ministerial pensions to sitting politicians.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-to-keep-bonus-pay-despite-budget-vow-1710159.html

The part I put in bold is the one that annoys me the most. I can't see Bertie giving up his pension. It's just another case of one law for politicians, and another for everyone else. Absolutely sickening.

hallelujajordan

zootroid wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/tds-to-keep-bonus-pay-despite-budget-vow-1710159.html

The part I put in bold is the one that annoys me the most. I can't see Bertie giving up his pension. It's just another case of one law for politicians, and another for everyone else. Absolutely sickening.

Well, not really . . . If I compare my pre-budget take home to my post-budget take home and do the same with most of the TD's I think I'll find that most of them have taken as big a hit (or bigger) than I have. . I agree that there are some areas that require straightening out (eg axing ministerial pensions, sorting out the TD-Teacher issue) but our politicians are a very easy target to attack and the revenue saved by most of the issues described above is really small compared to the scale of the problem . .

As for the long-service benefit, I absolutely think that it is appropriate that if someone gives up such a significant period of their life to politics there should be an extra level of remuneration (many companies in the private sector reward such loyalty in a very similar way). . In what other career do you have to reapply for your position every 5-7 years ?

zootroid

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Well, not really . . . If I compare my pre-budget take home to my post-budget take home and do the same with most of the TD's I think I'll find that most of them have taken as big a hit (or bigger) than I have. . I agree that there are some areas that require straightening out (eg axing ministerial pensions, sorting out the TD-Teacher issue) but our politicians are a very easy target to attack and the revenue saved by most of the issues described above is really small compared to the scale of the problem . .

As for the long-service benefit, I absolutely think that it is appropriate that if someone gives up such a significant period of their life to politics there should be an extra level of remuneration (many companies in the private sector reward such loyalty in a very similar way). . In what other career do you have to reapply for your position every 5-7 years ?

The revenue saved maybe small in comparison to the problems the country faces, but gestures like this will re-assure the public that they are feeling the pain as well, and may go a long way to bringing in extra taxes or cutting welfare payments or the cost of the public sector. Add to that the fact that we are supposed to be living in a country with a progressive tax system, so this should be the case anyway.

The issue of ministerial pensions and ex-teachers still holding onto their positions and pay difference should never have happened in the first place. What other jobs are there where you can work and still claim a pension? In the real world, if you change career, thats it, you've made your choice, live with it.

I have been working in the private sector 4 years now, and I have never heard of anyone receiving payments out of loyalty. The most I've heard is maybe a big retirement party because the person has been with the company for 40 years.

To me, this smacks of making promises to the public on budget day (which everyone will take notice of) and then not following through with it.

hallelujajordan

zootroid wrote: »

I have been working in the private sector 4 years now, and I have never heard of anyone receiving payments out of loyalty. The most I've heard is maybe a big retirement party because the person has been with the company for 40 years.

For most people who work in the private sector salaries increase by a number of factors including promotions, inflationery increases and increases that recognise performance and length of service. While they may not be labelled as loyalty payments, this is exactly what they are . . some companies also give specific loyalty payments in one form or another (in my company we get an extra days holidays for each of the first five years of service) . . Many public companies recognise loyalty with the award of shares or stock options . . The reality is that there are financial benefits to sticking with a company long term . . I think it is appropriate to have a similar recognition of loyalty to TD's who give up a period of their life to represent the public.

zootroid wrote: »

To me, this smacks of making promises to the public on budget day (which everyone will take notice of) and then not following through with it.

I don't disagree with this but thats politics, and politicians will stretch their promises as much as they can get away with . . we, the electorate get to exercise our judgement on such behaviour on election day . . however it's not the same as saying there is one law for them and another for the rest. . There is an expectation in Ireland that politicians should suffer more than the rest of us . . I think that is unfair and I think it is important that we continue to recognise the important job that our politicians do and the sacrifices they make.

alegrabaroque

These people are supposed to be public servants who care about their people, this is not a private company. A tiny cut in their so overly bloated pay doesn`t go even half far enough. They need to half current pay full stop and even then they will be getting ten times more than the common man on the street. It should have been obvious to any thicko that what they were suggesting in the budget would have legal issues. Our politicians are not competant simple. It seems like a lot of the messures were trying to deflect away from themselves desperately. We need to do something, but I`m as bad as everyone else I`d love to do it but am shy to put myself out there. How are we going to get the right people to go up?

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

These people are supposed to be public servants who care about their people, this is not a private company. A tiny cut in their so overly bloated pay doesn`t go even half far enough. They need to half current pay full stop and even then they will be getting ten times more than the common man on the street. It should have been obvious to any thicko that what they were suggesting in the budget would have legal issues. Our politicians are not competant simple. It seems like a lot of the messures were trying to deflect away from themselves desperately. We need to do something, but I`m as bad as everyone else I`d love to do it but am shy to put myself out there. How are we going to get the right people to go up?

Rhetoric like this just drives me nuts . . Who is the common man on the street that is earning 10% of the average TD salary ? You gotta be kidding me . .

Running a country is a serious business . . and it requires serious businessmen with serious skills . . The common man on the street cannot run the country and we will get businessmen (or women) to do it on the average industrial wage. . I am not saying that we have the right people there now but that is down to us, the electorate ! We need to put the right people in place and we need to be willing to pay the appropriate amount of money to get the right people. .

Would love to know who you believe are "the right people"

oh well

hallelujajordan wrote: »

As for the long-service benefit, I absolutely think that it is appropriate that if someone gives up such a significant period of their life to politics there should be an extra level of remuneration (many companies in the private sector reward such loyalty in a very similar way). . In what other career do you have to reapply for your position every 5-7 years ?

Politicians aren't giving up a significant period in their life, they have decided to take a career change, they put themselves forward for a job and they got it. Its the same as anyone who decides to change job. I can't see why they should receive a long service payment after just 7 years of service. Its not the norm in private sector - there are some companies who do have schemes, but not the majority. partner got a dinner voucher recently after 15 years service - hardly the same thing.

ednwireland

what gets me is didnt mccreevy bring the long service benefits in, in an budget surely they can be taken away in a budget
but to tell you the truth this is what i expected big headlines which will never come to fruituion, but the wholesale carnage in front line services will continue, werent ambulances withdrawn in dublin due to lack of funding. our td's should be ashamed.
running the country is a serious business but how come our guys are paid twice what our european neighbours are ? do they have worse people running their countries ?

csm

Since when is being a businessman/woman a requirement to being a public representative?

I agree that you must pay over the odds to attract competent people to the posts. However, I also believe that there are too many extra expenses available to TDs (and far too many TDs, but that's a different debate). I had never heard about the TD/teacher issue until this thread but that is an outrageous example of public representatives being more worried about lining their own pockets than providing a service to the public. I presume that it was introduced some time ago by their predecessors but it cannot be seen in any other light than an opportunity to take money off the state without providing anything in return. Why hasn't it been sorted out? Why do they continue to be in receipt of it? That should be stopped tomorrow.

Things like this are insignificant in relation to an entire economy but how can you entrust someone to spread the 'pain' evenly across all sectors of society when they are slow to remove even the most unfair of expenses from their own pay packets?

In terms of this 'loyalty' bonus, I think it is fair to remove it from those due to receive it but not from those already receiving it. I also think it is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer in the first place and should never have been introduced. I don't buy the argument that TDs 'give up' a part of their lives to altruistically serve the people. They apply for a post that they know is not permanent. They are paid well. They receive generous expenses. They do the job and, if they wish to, they can re-apply during the next election. If missing out on the 6k 'loyalty' bonus means that they are unwilling to re-apply, then they were the wrong person to serve the people in the first place.

What the previous poster is looking for in the 'right people', and what I and probably the whole of the electorate is looking for, is people with a clear sense of right and wrong. People with a clear belief in morality and a clear idea of how to lead us out of this economic crisis. Right now the impression is that all we have is a group of people who are looking to turn things around, but without hurting themselves or their colleagues too much in the process. People have lost faith in Irish politics.

hallelujajordan

csm wrote: »

What the previous poster is looking for in the 'right people', and what I and probably the whole of the electorate is looking for, is people with a clear sense of right and wrong. People with a clear belief in morality and a clear idea of how to lead us out of this economic crisis. Right now the impression is that all we have is a group of people who are looking to turn things around, but without hurting themselves or their colleagues too much in the process. People have lost faith in Irish politics.

I agree with much of what you say but this is the piece that I have most trouble with in this entire debate. . .

From a financial perspective the take home pay of all politicians has been hit as much (or more) than the rest of us. . . We have an expectation that they take a greater hit than the rest of us which is entirely unfair . . . There are some ridiculous elements to their compensation that need to be removed and I agree, should be removed tomorrow but I don't think long-term service benefit is one of them and I don't think that on balance our politicians are grossly overpaid relative to our expectations of them.

peasant

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Running a country is a serious business . . and it requires serious businessmen with serious skills . .

... and instead we got a shower of moneygrabbing, sly, backhanded, deceitful, overpaid and incomptetent ...teachers & solicitors.

Well done us :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan

peasant wrote: »

... and instead we got a shower of moneygrabbing, sly, backhanded, deceitful, overpaid and incomptetent ...teachers & solicitors.

Well done us :rolleyes:

but we chose them . . . hopefully we can be cleverer the next time but we dont have a good track record . . how many family dynasties continue to be represented in Dail Eireann !

Phonehead

The fundamental problem with our system is that we have people receiving salaries which they clearly are not qualified to receive. Our salary system is there to attract the best and brightest yet we have found ourselves being led by Teachers, Farmers and other ex Public Servants. No insult to teachers but do they even study economics at an advanced level in teaching college, from what I remember, to teach in primary school as long as you can count the fingers on your hand that’s half the battle? The main problem is our brightest and best are in the Private Sector working from 8 AM to 8 PM, where are these people going to get the time to go out and start a political career? Also what employer is going to allow you take a few months off come election time? Unfortunately we are saddled with a system where our best and brightest will never end up leading the country, don't ask me what system would change this

csm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

but we chose them . . . hopefully we can be cleverer the next time but we dont have a good track record . . how many family dynasties continue to be represented in Dail Eireann !

This I agree with whole-heartedly and is something I believe can be solved (or at least helped) by a reduction in the number of TDs. People can get elected by a couple of thousand votes and that is too few. Many of us personally know that many voters. Certainly if you include close family members and the voters they know. If you reduce the number of TDs you raise the number of votes needed and then politicians need to reach beyond their own social circle and must become truly representative of their own region.

You also cut the cost of the Dail as a whole without reducing the pay for each of its members. Meaning the taxpayer gets better value for money without having to risk missing out on competent politicians through lack of proper pay.

I think you are broadly correct in saying that our politicians are not overpaid. I'm not sure how they compare to other nations in terms of ratio of average salary to TD salary but I wouldn't expect it to be drastically different. My problem is the appearance of abusing expense accounts. Appointing well-paid research assistants who can be your spouse. Massive transport/accommodation/make-up bills (was it E25k for Ahern one year?). Did you know that TDs have civil servants assigned to them in government departments so that they can fast-track their constituent's dealings? So if you have a problem and, say, need advice on applying for some form of benefits, you can often get through quicker if you speak to your TD rather than go through the department itself. Then come election time the TD knocks on your door and says "Remember that favour I did for you last year?"... Not a monetary payment, true, but a nice helping hand all the same.
(In the interests of clarity, that was something I heard second hand through my father who was talking to a TD last year. I don't know the details myself.)

Getting back to the topic, the expenses issues need to be cleared up. At the moment they appear to be just another way to make a few quid, instead of a reimbursement of actual costs incurred. Of course TDs need to attend Dail Eireann and provide services in their own constituency and that incurs expense, but if you just reimburse for any and all costs they submit then you run the risk that they consider the pot to be a never-ending source of money to be used however they like. Reduce the number of expenses that can be claimed. Simplify the system. Make it more transparent.

These things are easy to do technically but not easy to do politically. You would not be popular amongst your colleagues, I suspect. You might be popular among the electorate but up until now we have all accepted incompetence or the whiff of corruption amongst our representatives, so the imperative to answer to the people has not been there. If we continue in this fashion then having a set of bumbling liars to lead us is our fate and we would deserve it.

csm

Phonehead wrote: »

The fundamental problem with our system is that we have people receiving salaries which they clearly are not qualified to receive. Our salary system is there to attract the best and brightest yet we have found ourselves being led by Teachers, Farmers and other ex Public Servants. No insult to teachers but do they even study economics at an advanced level in teaching college, from what I remember, to teach in primary school as long as you can count the fingers on your hand that’s half the battle? The main problem is our brightest and best are in the Private Sector working from 8 AM to 8 PM, where are these people going to get the time to go out and start a political career? Also what employer is going to allow you take a few months off come election time? Unfortunately we are saddled with a system where our best and brightest will never end up leading the country, don't ask me what system would change this

I don't agree with this.

Having a public representative who can come from any corner of society is a wonderful thing and something I hope we never lose. We can't expect all our ministers to be experts in their ministry from the get-go. What we can expect is that they appoint expert advisers (who can come from the private sector), gain a balanced understanding of all the issues at hand and then then make decisions accordingly. To reverse your argument, what economist will understand all the issues that a farmer deals with without speaking to the farming community themselves?

Yes, many of our best end up working long hours in the private sector. That is their choice and our private sector needs people like that. However, I don't agree that our system prohibits a talented young person from becoming involved in politics and pursuing it as a career. Our problem is more that we don't respect the position of TD. It has become something that leaves a bad taste in our mouths, rather than something that should be aspired to.

alegrabaroque

I take it you have political aspirations or are in politics since your defending their ridiculous remuneration.
Who do you think are the right people?
I think its people like me, 28 female, I would happily work every hour god sends for the average country wage. If you are passionate about something you`ll nearly do it for free, and you should be passionate about this. Maybe the bloated wage packets are attracting the wrong people? I`m not smooth or diplomatic but I`m hard working and honest and would like to genuinely improve things.
They should feel honoured to be part of their countries government its not something everyone has the chance to do. They`re not five year olds they shouldn`t need a bualadh bos for doing the job!
And it is suppose to represent the public not just the educated or business man but everyone. If you take people from all economic and social backrounds you`ll have a greater pool of resources to make better decisions?!

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

I take it you have political aspirations or are in politics since your defending their ridiculous remuneration.
Who do you think are the right people?
I think its people like me, 28 female, I would happily work every hour god sends for the average country wage. If you are passionate about something you`ll nearly do it for free, and you should be passionate about this. Maybe the bloated wage packets are attracting the wrong people? I`m not smooth or diplomatic but I`m hard working and honest and would like to genuinely improve things.
They should feel honoured to be part of their countries government its not something everyone has the chance to do. They`re not five year olds they shouldn`t need a bualadh bos for doing the job!
And it is suppose to represent the public not just the educated or business man but everyone. If you take people from all economic and social backrounds you`ll have a greater pool of resources to make better decisions?!

No involvement in politics right now . . . and yes, I do have political aspirations. . I think I would make a good politician . . I have a strong business background . . I run a department in my organisation with a headcount of over 350 people, a budget of about 35M and deliver a gross margin of about 60%. . I'm good at what I do and I think I have a lot of skills that would make me a good politician. However, my current salary is higher than the average TD, I would have to take a significant pay cut to go into politics and with no long term guarantees this just does not make any sense . . It is for these reasons that people like me won't ever go into politics and we will be left with the usual . . . teachers, solicitors and family dynasties. . .

I don't believe that honest commitment and hard work are all that is required to run a government. We need people with communication skills, negotiation skills, decision making skills, leadership skills . . and like any business we have to be willing to pay the right salaries to get the right people.

ninty9er

zootroid wrote: »

I have been working in the private sector 4 years now, and I have never heard of anyone receiving payments out of loyalty. The most I've heard is maybe a big retirement party because the person has been with the company for 40 years.

I started a part time job at age 16 on €6.35.
Minimum wage rose the following month to €6.98 so I got a rise to €6.98
The following March I moved to a different depatrment and got an increase to €7.42 then after 12 months an increment to €8.96 then partnership payment to €9.10ish, then another increment to €9.72. Eventually, when I left after 4 years my base rate was €12.04.

These loyalty payments are quite commonplace. Work was in the retail sector.

The Raven.

alegrabaroque wrote: »

I take it you have political aspirations or are in politics since your defending their ridiculous remuneration.

A good conclusion !

I would happily work every hour god sends for the average country wage. If you are passionate about something you`ll nearly do it for free, and you should be passionate about this.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. If one has to be paid a huge, inflated salary to be attracted to the job, then it is obvious that one is only in it for the money, rather than out of a genuine desire to devote oneself to the job.

Maybe the bloated wage packets are attracting the wrong people?

They most certainly are! Bloated wage packets, perks, and power, which inevitably lead to corruption.

The Raven.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I would have to take a significant pay cut to go into politics and with no long term guarantees this just does not make any sense . . It is for these reasons that people like me won't ever go into politics and we will be left with the usual . . . teachers, solicitors and family dynasties.

The only thing that I agree with here is in regard to ‘family dynasties’. That situation seriously needs to be addressed. However, it seems to me that you are implying that you are better qualified to be a politician because you earn more than a ‘teacher’ or a ‘solicitor’, and that they are somehow inferior. Perhaps you would care to explain?

I don't believe that honest commitment and hard work are all that is required to run a government. We need people with communication skills, negotiation skills, decision making skills, leadership skills . . and like any business we have to be willing to pay the right salaries to get the right people.

Of course all these skills are necessary together with honest commitment and hard work. However, I have noticed before, in relation to other specialised fields, that businessmen tend to see things primarily from a business point of view. As a whole, the government is not in essence a ‘business’, but economics are an important element. Therefore it requires a wide variety of people from different professions and other walks of life.

hallelujajordan

The Raven. wrote: »

The only thing that I agree with here is in regard to ‘family dynasties’. That situation seriously needs to be addressed. However, it seems to me that you are implying that you are better qualified to be a politician because you earn more than a ‘teacher’ or a ‘solicitor’, and that they are somehow inferior. Perhaps you would care to explain?

No, not inferior at all (nor did I ever imply such) and I don't think it is relevant how much I earn (other than to explain why I would not go into politics) . . but I do believe that we need more business and leadership experience in politics. . this comes from time, training, exposure and experience, none of which are provided in the roles detailed above. . If you think about it, politicians are put into positions where they have to lead people and make important decisions with no formal training . . . how sensible is that ?

The Raven. wrote: »

Of course all these skills are necessary together with honest commitment and hard work. However, I have noticed before, in relation to other specialised fields, that businessmen tend to see things primarily from a business point of view. As a whole, the government is not in essence a ‘business’, but economics are an important element. Therefore it requires a wide variety of people from different professions and other walks of life.

I disagree . . I think our country, and our economy is the biggest and most important business there is and needs to be run as such . .

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

If you are passionate about something you`ll nearly do it for free, and you should be passionate about this.

Yes, but this altruistic notion ignores the reality of the society we live in and the fact that most people will not 'do it for the country' . . Most people are trying to build a career, to live a better quality of life and to build a better future for them and their children. . . It's just not real !

alegrabaroque

Hallelujajordon was in a similar position to yourself 3rd in line in a private company which I worked my way up in. I was passionate about it but when I realised how corrupt it was and that I had no hope of changing it, because all they cared about was money, I left. Its nothing to do with money for me. You need food, clothes and shelter not a merc and a three story mansion. If we had a clear message to politicians that you shouldn`t do this for the love of money maybe we wouldn`t get polished so and so`s who spend a portion of our money on spin, camera, makeup and lighting to make them look good.
Are you seriously arguing that every person suitable to run the country is earning above the current wage, I don`t believe that. And besides theres a lot of these people who are economic and business consultants, they are advisors, their opinion should be an element but its not the whole picture. Why is there not more sociologicts, I don`t think you could argue that they`re over paid and they would be a vital element in government?

alegrabaroque

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, but this altruistic notion ignores the reality of the society we live in and the fact that most people will not 'do it for the country' . . Most people are trying to build a career, to live a better quality of life and to build a better future for them and their children. . . It's just not real !

Said I would do it for the average wage. This would mean that by doing my job well my wage would go up, I think thats fair. Pay linked to job performance - not a novel concept to you in the private sector.

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Hallelujajordon was in a similar position to yourself 3rd in line in a private company which I worked my way up in. I was passionate about it but when I realised how corrupt it was and that I had no hope of changing it, because all they cared about was money, I left. Its nothing to do with money for me. You need food, clothes and shelter not a merc and a three story mansion.

I respectfully disagree. . I have neither Merc nor Mansion but I have a quality of life that is driven by a salary and that I do not want to sacrifice and (perhaps unfortunately) I think more people are like me than are like you. .

Are you seriously arguing that every person suitable to run the country is earning above the current wage, I don`t believe that. And besides theres a lot of these people who are economic and business consultants, they are advisors, their opinion should be an element but its not the whole picture. Why is there not more sociologicts, I don`t think you could argue that they`re over paid and they would be a vital element in government?

I love the way arguments get so skewed on boards . . . I never argued that every person suitable to run the country is currently earning above the average wage, and I do not think the salary that anyone is on today is necessarily a reflection of their skills or experience. However, what I would continue argue is that we need more skills, experience and leadership ability in government and to attract this we need to make sure that the remuneration is attractive.

alegrabaroque

Clearly I ment merc and a mansion as a methaphor for a lifestyle which you say you couldn`t do without. You are not right for government simple you care more about money as observed by your choice to stay in your lucrative private sector position.

Wouldn`t it be hilarious if it was banking...bet it is?lol

alegrabaroque

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No involvement in politics right now . . . and yes, I do have political aspirations. . I think I would make a good politician . . I have a strong business background . . I run a department in my organisation with a headcount of over 350 people, a budget of about 35M and deliver a gross margin of about 60%. . I'm good at what I do and I think I have a lot of skills that would make me a good politician. However, my current salary is higher than the average TD, I would have to take a significant pay cut to go into politics and with no long term guarantees this just does not make any sense . . It is for these reasons that people like me won't ever go into politics and we will be left with the usual . . . teachers, solicitors and family dynasties. . .

I don't believe that honest commitment and hard work are all that is required to run a government. We need people with communication skills, negotiation skills, decision making skills, leadership skills . . and like any business we have to be willing to pay the right salaries to get the right people.

I didn`t say above average I said above the Gov current wages which is what you said above that the right people, like you, won`t go because of the pay cut.

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Clearly I ment merc and a mansion as a methaphor for a lifestyle which you say you couldn`t do without. You are not right for government simple you care more about money as observed by your choice to stay in your lucrative private sector position.

Wouldn`t it be hilarious if it was banking...bet it is?lol

No, I'm not a banker . . I'm a scientist and you have twisted the argument entirely in the opposite direction . . . now you are saying that anyone with any sort of capitalist ideas has no place in government . . . We could have the left-right debate here, but I don't have the energy for it . . . and history has shown that socialist economics do not work . .


And, btw I don't care more about money . . I simply recognise its importance . .

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

Said I would do it for the average wage. This would mean that by doing my job well my wage would go up, I think thats fair. Pay linked to job performance - not a novel concept to you in the private sector.

No . . I fully agree with the concept of performance related pay and it is fully contrary to your concept of needing "food clothes and shelter"

So, you want a job in government that will provide you with "food clothes and shelter" but also one that allows your wage to increase so that presumably you can buy nicer food, nicer clothes and bigger shelter . . . if your performance continues to improve, your salary, I presume will continue to improve and you will get closer and closer to your metaphoric Merc and Mansion !

alegrabaroque

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No . . I fully agree with the concept of performance related pay and it is fully contrary to your concept of needing "food clothes and shelter"

So, you want a job in government that will provide you with "food clothes and shelter" but also one that allows your wage to increase so that presumably you can buy nicer food, nicer clothes and bigger shelter . . . if your performance continues to improve, your salary, I presume will continue to improve and you will get closer and closer to your metaphoric Merc and Mansion !

No if I`m not mistaken I said in line with the average wage so I would be inline with everybody else and the cost of living, thats it. Even during the boom the average person couldn`t afford those things thats why their extrordinary from others perspectives.

And you neglected the question of whether or not your a banker so I now think maybe you really are whereas the first time I was joking....

hallelujajordan

alegrabaroque wrote: »

No if I`m not mistaken I said in line with the average wage so I would be inline with everybody else and the cost of living, thats it. Even during the boom the average person couldn`t afford those things thats why their extrordinary from others perspectives.

And you neglected the question of whether or not your a banker so I now think maybe you really are whereas the first time I was joking....

Make up your mind . . in line with the average wage and the cost of living is not the same thing as increasing relative to performance. . in fact it is the opposite. . your political theories seem confused !

And if you care to read the thread thoroughly you will note that I confirmed my occupation already (not that it is relevant in any way to the discussion !)