Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare.
The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare.
The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much bigger, but that absolutely does not mean it can be wasted on "trappings" for the leaders. Each and every person still needs all the basic services, so at the end of the day, there is the same basic amount per person to spend.
Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as the president?" There are just far fewer things they feel the need to defend from.
You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.
Here's why people try to assassinate politicians:
#1 They're nuts (Hinkley, Czolgosz, Squeaky Fromme).
#2 They have some reason for doing so (Gavrilo Princip, Booth, probably Oswald).
There. Figured it out. As it happens, there are probably 100x as many nuts in the US as Uruguay, and probably 10,000,000 times more possible motives to kill the head of state/head of government/commander in chief/international celebrity who holds the US's highest office. Now you try and fix those two things.
You mean with care for the mentally ill, etc. like in developed countries?
I want to treat them, give them access to professional help - you know, care for them.
Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
Let's say you need a palace, a security detail, a motorcade, and a jet to have all of "the trappings" for the ruling family. If you assign some costs to these things, say $500k/yr for the palace, $1mm/yr for security, $500k/yr for motorcade, and $10mm/yr for the jet, you can figure out the annual cost -- $12mm/year in this example. So in a country with only 3.3 million people, that's $3.60/citizen/year for the ruling family to have their trappings. In a country with 310 million people, that would only be $0.038/citizen/year.
Even if you need more security, or a bigger motorcade, or a more expensive plane, you're still on the magnitude of pennies/person/year instead of dollars/person/year.
Anyway, you're missing the point. He doesn't have all of this by choice, not because Uruguay can't pay for it.
Let's say that a country can afford 0.01% of GDP (number pulled out of nether regions) for Presidential luxuries. That would mean that the US can spend about $1.5 billion/year on Presidential motorcades and airplanes and housing and so forth, while Uruguay could spend about $4.9 million. It's a vast difference.
While scale doesn't really matter for stuff like schools, firemen, and health care, it does matter here, because the President doesn't scale. It's one guy no matter how big and rich the country is, and if it's bigger and richer, then there's more to spend on that one guy.
Some (English) history of the parliamentary building is here, should you be interested: http://www.riigikogu.ee/index.php?id=37659
This is is a deliberate decision, not becasue of a lack of resources.
The more resources a country has, the higher the profile a target that head of state will be. Would a politically motivated group want to make a name for themselves or make a statement, they're more likely to attack a first world leader than a third world leader.
Domestic threats also likely scale at least linearly, and possibly more quickly, with population.
I think we overdo it with our post-9/11 security theater, seemingly more interested in full employment than meaningful improvements in the life of Americans, but I'm quite sure that large, rich nations' heads of state face greater threats than smaller, less wealthy nations.
The downside of "liberating" countries by invading them (or funding revolutions) and installing puppet governments is that some part of the population gets really annoyed with that.
I'd love to live in a world where every president could live without a human shield around them, not because they would be more accessible to their people (which would be a nice plus) but because it would be a symptom the world has become a safe place.