Aussie PM earns more than the US president

[Super Nova]

Why does our PM earn more than the US president.

US President earn $400,000
Aussie PM earns US $403,712

Ok, currencies fluctuate but man, does he deserve to earn what he is getting.

Link here on the world leaders.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/savingan ... hp#image=1

[mantra]

Successive governments have given themselves very generous increases and bonuses over the years and of course the only party who ever opposes them is the Greens. The two major parties always agree on pay rises. They think because they're being paid less than a CEO of a multinational, they're underpaid.

[Rorschach]

Well that's bull yet again re the Greens mantra but hey you never seem to get those things right.

Since 2001, the president has earned a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

Honestly and the pay comparison varies due to currency fluctuations.
back in 2001 the POTUS was getting $579,979 AU. The PM has had pay rises since then.

As president, Bush made $400,000 and got additional money in various expense accounts. Cheney made $208,100 and also had expense accounts. In September 1999, President Clinton signed legislation that increased the presidential salary to $400,000, effective January 2001. The Constitution prohibits pay raises for sitting presidents. This presidential pay raise was the first since 1969, when the president's salary was raised from $100,000 to $200,000. Adjusted for inflation, $200,000 in 1969 would be worth $930,232 today. On top of the salary and expense accounts, both the U.S. president and vice president are given free housing with plenty of amenities. The White House has 132 rooms, 32 bathrooms, a movie theater, bowling alley, billiards room, tennis court, jogging track and putting greens. Bush also had use of Camp David, the presidential retreat. Cheney lived in Number One Observatory Circle, which has been the official vice presidential residence since 1974.

So what is your point exactly? that CEOs for various companies earn millions, which considering the responsibilities, would be waaaay out of whack with what Leaders of Countries are paid?

Yes they get a lot of money and in the case of the POTUS, money for life. Whereas on average, we schmucks have to live on much less.

[freediver]

All politicians should be paid more. People get this completely backwards for some reason. I always hear people say that politicians must "prove" themselves before they get a pay rise. Politicians get fired every few years. Offer more money and you will inevitably attract higher calibre people to the job. Most older, skilled politicians take a significant pay cut to become one. They are either in it for some other financial benefit (Clive Palmer springs to mind) or are ideologically driven. Why not simply try to attract people who are good managers? There is an enourmous amount of very boring work to be done. One bad managerial decision can cost the country 1000 times the salary of the person who made it, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot by expecting the country to be managed on the same income as someone running a medium sized business.

[Rorschach]

Anyone can be a pollie. You don't need to study or be qualified in anything.
You just need the backing of your local branch.

Many in Labor, for example; are Backbenchers just as payback for years of rusted-on service to the party.

Paying people like these more money is simply obscene.

[freediver]

Case in point. If that logic makes sense why not keep cutting their salary until we finally get someone more competent? If anyone can do it, does that mean we should settle for just anyone? Perhaps some kind of lottery among the unemployed?

[Rorschach]

Paying them more hasn't worked... IMO we are at the lowest point talent wise in our polity ever during my lifetime.

As for you cut wages strawman... puhlease, leave that crap with the other strawmen on Ozpol.

What we need are better quality pollies, more money clearly hasn't attracted them. In fact one would suggest that money is not a defining factor in what we need.

[freediver]

Paying them more hasn't worked... IMO

Well thanks for your opinion.

As for you cut wages strawman... puhlease, leave that crap with the other strawmen on Ozpol.

If your argument against paying them more is valid, why is it not also a valid argument for paying them less? Maybe running the country should be like a charity where we wheel in little old ladies with nothing better to do with their time. Or maybe we could make it part of the work for the dole scheme -> Hey go, go and build a park bench - and you, go and manage this billion dollar budget for a few months. After all, anyone can do it, right? No need for fancy degrees, experience, or natural talent?

What we need are better quality pollies

Insert any other word other than pollies, then explain how paying less for them (or in your case, refusing to pay more, which is obviously completely different) will help achieve that.

more money clearly hasn't attracted them

That obvious, is it? When I was a boy everything was roses and I didn't even need to pay attention to politics. Now suddenly parliament is full of idiots, in full colour motion picture glory.

In fact one would suggest that money is not a defining factor in what we need.

Money talks. BS walks.

[boxy]

Roach is working on the principle that if you make the position voluntary, only those privileged enough to have a trust fund would be willing to put their hand up

ie: super-privileged, private school wankers

[Rorschach]

Wrong again Poxy.... even I thought you wouldn't decline more mentally than you had earlier in the year... guess I was wrong.