Should the salaries of federal ministers be increased? (1 Viewer)

[gibbo153]

and in the end [Tasmanians] are still Australians.

Tasmanians are still a what now?

 

[lala2]

No, in fact, they should be decreased substantially. Or else, remove all the perks like subsidised/free travel, chauffeurs while in Canberra, etc. Politics should be a life of service to the community, not one of self-service, and this includes salary. Who needs $300k when you can live on $100k? And seriously, with the economy being how it is, people are getting retrenched and what not, so if they have to learn to survive on smaller (or no) income, so should our ministers.

 

[incentivation]

Imo it is absurd that NSW with its 7 million people has the same number of senators as Tasmania with only 0.5 million.

A perfectly valid protective measure IMO.

The allocation of resources and policy priorities would all be heavily (and unfairly) skewed towards the populated states. A surefire way to create greater animosity and rivalry between the states.

Our system works effectively, particularly when compared to other western nations. It would be inefficient to have more than one house that utilises proportional representation.

 

[impervious182]

TBH, I wouldn't mind proportional representation in the House, I'm just a fan of the current status quo.

Agreed, because it worked so well for Weimar.






Not.

Proportional representation in the House of Reps just wouldn't work, it would place too much power in the hands of smaller parties. These small parties already get funding depending on the amount of votes they get.

 

[Trefoil]

Agreed, because it worked so well for Weimar.






Not.

Proportional representation in the House of Reps just wouldn't work, it would place too much power in the hands of smaller parties. These small parties already get funding depending on the amount of votes they get.

Fuck off you moron, you know nothing about politics.

 

[impervious182]

Fuck off you moron, you know nothing about politics.

Whatever, you know nothing about politics, for the simple reason you can't even justify your position about supporting proportional representation.

The Reichstag (German parliament) during the Weimar Republic 1918-33 also used proportional representation. All that this did was make it difficult for the party in power to gain a majority without major compromise. As a result they had to do deals with the extremist parties.

Ever heard of the Nazis? Yeah, I thought so - dumbass.

 

[Trefoil]

Whatever, you know nothing about politics, for the simple reason you can't even justify your position about supporting proportional representation.

The Reichstag (German parliament) during the Weimar Republic 1918-33 also used proportional representation. All that this did was make it difficult for the party in power to gain a majority without major compromise. As a result they had to do deals with the extremist parties.

Ever heard of the Nazis? Yeah, I thought so - dumbass.

Did you just learn that at school? You must be so proud of yourself, learning about the history of Nazi Germany.

You look like a bit of a tool the way you come on here and randomly compare everything to the Nazis or a Weimar republic, though.

 

[townie]

not sure if they should be paid more, however i do totally reject this notion that we should pay more to attract better people, if somebody has two job options of politican and other, and they choose other just because it pays more, then frankly i wouldnt want them as a politician. however, if the argument rests on them being paid more commensurate with their responsibility and duties, then i'm fine with that (if it's a compelling argument)

 

[Will Shakespear]

plus, if you could be either a politician on 100k or an executive of some kind on 1m, then upping the politician's pay to 200k isn't going to make much difference

 

[impervious182]

You look like a bit of a tool the way you come on here and randomly compare everything to the Nazis or a Weimar republic, though.

You're really annoying. Instead of trying to act clever and snide, why don't you actually refute the points people have made in the post.

Instead of attacking the people who made the post, why don;t you refute the evidence. Personally, I think it's uncivilised to constantly be doing this and constitutes a lack of education and integrity.

Please feel free to actually reply to the content of the post, rather than trying to trivialise the argument.

 

[Trefoil]

You're really annoying. Instead of trying to act clever and snide, why don't you actually refute the points people have made in the post.

Instead of attacking the people who made the post, why don;t you refute the evidence. Personally, I think it's uncivilised to constantly be doing this and constitutes a lack of education and integrity.

Please feel free to actually reply to the content of the post, rather than trying to trivialise the argument.

Are you going to delete this thread, too, alexbores?

Because there's no point me having a rational discussion with you if you're just going to delete it again when you're proven wrong.

 

[impervious182]

Are you going to delete this thread, too, alexbores?

Because there's no point me having a rational discussion with you if you're just going to delete it again when you're proven wrong.

Trefoil, some times I wonder about your humour... but whenever I'm about to get mad at you, you surprise me again by doing something genuinely funny. lol. Like that.

I made one too though.

 

[Lentern]

No, in the words of Jim Hacker "Being an MP is a vast, subsidised ego trip.You need no qualifications, no compulsory hours of work, no performance standards. A warm room and subsidised meals for a bunch of self-opinionated windbags and busybodieswho suddenly find people taking them seriously
because they've got ''MP'' after their names. How can they be underpaid when there's about 200 applicants for every vacancy?

And I would have serious reservations about blithering nitwits like Laurrie Ferguson or Wilson Tuckey, both of whom have served on frontbenches potentially getting paid the equivalent of successfull attorney.

 

[impervious182]

If we decreased the pay, just imagine how much the quality of politicians would also decrease. Competition to become a politician would also worsen.

It's not solely about passion; Pauline Hanson showed us that. A politician also needs to have brains... Low pay does not attract clever people who want to make a difference, because politics is not the only way to bring about change. Instead they get attracted to jobs such as ones at the World Bank for example, and earn truckloads more.

 

[Lentern]

If we decreased the pay, just imagine how much the quality of politicians would also decrease. Competition to become a politician would also worsen.

It's not solely about passion; Pauline Hanson showed us that. A politician also needs to have brains... Low pay does not attract clever people who want to make a difference, because politics is not the only way to bring about change. Instead they get attracted to jobs such as ones at the World Bank for example, and earn truckloads more.

Competition worsening? Peter King and Malcolm Turnbull, both Rhodes scholars with the political abilities to make John Howard look like Laurrie Ferguson, fought tooth and nail for preselection-IN A MARGINAL SEAT!

 

[impervious182]

Competition worsening? Peter King and Malcolm Turnbull, both Rhodes scholars with the political abilities to make John Howard look like Laurrie Ferguson, fought tooth and nail for preselection-IN A MARGINAL SEAT!

Malcolm Turnbull is already rich though, so the money wouldn't be the incentive for him anyway.

 

[brasileira]

hells no

 

[08er]

short and logical answer: no