Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnick | Hacker News Reader

Per Wikipedia:

"As of 1 July 2019, Australia's prime minister is paid a total salary of $549,250. This is made up of the 'base salary' received by all Members of Parliament ($211,250) plus a 160 percent 'additional salary' for the role of prime minister."

I can say it doesn't seem to stop people helping out their mates or avoiding the tough issues on the job over here at least.

View on HN

I do wonder what the long term outlook on that is. Politician is an extremely unstable job, so that $210k base for a job you might only have for four years (and then not exactly drop out into a lucrative field like IT) probably doesn't feel like a lot.

They get pensions too. Those things most people used to get.

The idea is that sets them up because going back to working as a butcher or something would be a bit weird after being a national public figure. The reality is they do speaking engagements and join boards as well, raking it in.

https://www.crikey.com.au/2019/09/02/australian-mps-pay-afte...

Apparently it was changed so it's not quite as generous now, maybe someone can decode and summarise the current rules.

As the article says, pensions proper only apply to MPs elected before 2004. Now it's a superannuation scheme.

All former UK prime ministers are entitled to an allowance of up to £115,000 a year to cover the costs of their ongoing public engagements. This can continue for decades. In the first 10 years after Tony Blair left office, he collected £1,077,888 which is quite close to the maximum.

In addition, former prime ministers can still remain members of Parliament if they get re-elected for that role, as is the case with Theresa May.

It's not like these people just pop in to be the prime minister of Australia for a brief four years then go back to pulling coffee shots at their low paying hospitallity jobs.

The overwhelming majority of Australian politicians are career bureaucrats of one form or another.

It'll take me five years of 60 hour weeks in a noise dirty dangerous environment to earn what the PM makes in a year.

For most people, $400k in the bank feels like a lot, and that's assuming you aren't also milking travel allowance, food allowance, Comcar, etc.

Also our pollies get a very generous superannuation contribution of 12% of their salary.

They're set for life as long as they understand money.

drop out into a lucrative field

Paid speaking engagements appear to be fairly lucrative for former politicians.

Sure provided you greased the right palms when you were in office and towed the right lines.

That's what the higher salaries supposedly avoid, you are less beholden to moneyed interests. I think the reality is that people often get accustomed to money and seek more of it unless there is a true downside.

Singapore has a very similar mindset on political salaries, and they are much higher even than the Australian PM. But as an outsider with one foot in due to family, it seems that they are culturally very anti-corruption after living near their neighbours which makes it work better.

Politicians should not be allowed to hold private property while in office. Have all their holdings liquidated when they get in power, at reasonable market rates, and have them put in a national fund used for things like pensions, from which they are allowed to withdraw a fraction depending on their projected life expectancy.

They then have a very large incentive to keep the country solvent and working well for the future. It's rather more urgent for someone to keep public hospitals running well when they can't afford to use private ones. The same is true for public transport, housing and all other goods.

And if a fraction of the population won't be willing to ever run for office again: so much the better. Do you want politicians running the country who expect that their tenure would see it become worse?

You think people should have to sell all their personal possessions to become a politician?

I don’t get why people expect this kind of ludicrous flagellation of politicians. Do you want monks or normal people?

I'd prefer monks or normal people over ruthless lobbyists for vested interests.

If we don't insist on completely absolving themselves of vested interest, there's no way we can get close to ensuring our politicians are free of conflicts of interest.

At present in Australia for example we have at least one politician whose brother owns a failing/failed coal mining company, and that politician is pushing a coal-fired green energy future.

If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it.

> If you want to run the country you should be willing to put your money where your mouth is, since you expect the rest of us to die for it.

Do you have this attitude in all fields?

Researchers who want a job in a lab to tackle a disease should only get it if they agree to be infected with the disease so they work harder, maybe?

Police officers have to agree to be robbed once a month so they experience being a victim? That could be another one.

To check they’re putting their money where their mouth is, right?

We give politicians the power of life and death over us, they should be held to a higher standard. If you can't stop being greedy enough to give up your 7 mansions and get paid their equivalent in cash as everyone else who has to work and depend on a pension I don't see why you should be trusted with bombing Syria for the umpteenth time. It would almost look like you're doing it to get your shares in Raytheon a bump (something I thank Joe for since my shares in murder inc have done wonderfully since his election).

Doctors on the other hand don't go around cutting legs off for our own good. Do try and understand that last sentence, it would be dreadfully boring if you said the same thing for a third time.

If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate?

What are you offering to get these higher standards? Sounds like you want to punish them rather than reward them for trying to lead?

> Do try and understand that last sentence

Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this?

> If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate?

The top comment suggests that higher compensation by itself doesn't help solve the problem.

> If you want a higher standard why aren’t you willing to compensate at a higher rate?

They will be, but they only gain new wealth at the same rate that everyone else in the country can. No more insider trading for congress, or anyone else elected.

>Not sure why you’ve decided to be snarky like this?

You were being very boring, and now it turns out that you didn't even understand the first thing I said. A pointless debate that's been a waste of time all around. Do better next time.

> You were being very boring

You’re just being personally abusive now for some reason. I've flagged you.

That's even more boring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com