But, I guess that is left up to morality etc.

What I can say, just from working around provincial politicos the last few years, is that yes, quite frankly, most politicians are indeed decent people — when they very first enter the arena. The longer they stay, the more disconnect there is between their view on what reality is and what reality actually is.

Example in case: annual 10% pay raise.

But, we all know politics and politicians have been corrupt since the very first vote way back in days of yore. Accept it and move on.

Prime Minister
2010 Total take-home pay: $315,462
2000 Total take-home pay: $142,300
ANNUAL INCREASE: 8.3%

Senior Cabinet Minister
2010 Total take-home pay: $233,247
2000 Total take-home pay: $117,500
ANNUAL INCREASE: 7.1%

Junior Minister
2010 Total take-home pay: $214,368
2000 Total take-home pay: $$105,175
ANNUAL INCREASE: 7.4%

Speaker of the Senate
2010 Total take-home pay: $187,500
2000 Total take-home pay: $38,100
ANNUAL INCREASE: 17.3%

Leader of the Government in the Senate
2010 Total take-home pay: $207,800
2000 Total take-home pay: $68,200
ANNUAL INCREASE: 11.8%

Backbench MPs
2010 Total take-home pay: $157,731
2000 Total take-home pay: $68,200
ANNUAL INCREASE: 8.75%

Senators
2010 Total take-home pay: $132,300
2000 Total take-home pay: $68,200
ANNUAL INCREASE: 6.85%

Average Annual Pay Increase: +9.6%

Have the duties of ANY of the positions above changed so drastically that they require a MINIMUM 7% annual pay raise — PER YEAR?

How well does your ‘REAL WAGE’ pay cheque compare?

From Stats Can:
(*just for the sake of a quick-n-dirty argument; **latest stats)

2000 Married couple, one earner*: $47, 500
2007 Married couple, one earner**: $60, 300
ANNUAL INCREASE: 3.5%

2000 Unattached male earner*: $36,100
2007 Unattached male earner**: $43,600
ANNUAL INCREASE: 2.75%

Perhaps we should start using politician pay raises as the true measure of inflation. Just an idea.

(As an aside, CPI ‘00-’10 is +2.07% annually. But much more, of course, if you actually include all the stuff you use: fruit, vegetables, gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, mortgage interest, inter-city transportation, and taxes.)

(Feel free to e-mail me if you wish to debate further!)

Your first point is completely off topic. We are not discussing public servants but rather elected officials. Many of Canada’s elected officials are self made millionaires who enter politics for reasons other than money. Perhaps power is one reason but in today’s political climate there is very little power to be had. Again, I’ll remind you that this is 2009 and all politicians are subject to new world media scrutiny (www, blogs, 24/7 TV, etc). So yes there is still power that comes with the job…but the abuse of power that was once a huge perk has gone the way of the VCR.

Your second point sounds like sour grapes. Would you prefer that an internal firm did the study? $98K is a very good salary but it is not going to make you rich. In fact at $98K the very government that pays you this salary gets most of it back through various forms of taxation

And your last point…comparing someone with a B.A. in the private sector to a politician with a B.A. is like comparing a college professor with a PhD in English literature to a MD with PhD in neuroscience. Obviously they would not be paid the same simply because they hold the same ‘level’ of education.

The good news is that we rehire our politicians every 4 years so if you think that you could do better without being attached by the generous salary or the lure of power then I look very much forward to your campaign. Until then, I will continue to support our politicians and will save bashing them for times when they actually deserve it. Earning a decent wage is not one of those things.

1) How many non-degreed entrepreneurs work for the government?
My guess is an absolute zero. I’m not talking about private citizens on contract, but a Mon-Fri 35-hour work week stooge. Government simply does not provide a livable environment for the entrepreneurial spirit.

2) During the last round of B.C. provinicial gov’t top-tier raises, good ol’ preimier Gordo hired an “indiependent” firm to write a public report to support the raises. First off, the idea is just so wrong. Secondly, the report stated that “comparable” wages were seen in the private sector. Again, the example of my MLA, earning 213% more than someone in the private sector with “comparable” pedigree. Basically the joke of a report was just more waste of tax dollars.

3) As Tax Guy posted (#15): “If politicians get crummy compensation we get crummy politicians because those who are qualified won’t touch it. The salaries of the CEO of Royal Bank and BCE are both over $1 million, do you think the leader of a country should be paid on pay?”

Think the CEO of RBC or BCE have ONLY a Bachelor of Art degree? I doubt it. Try to get into RBC or BCE management with “not even a high school diploma”. Good luck. As well, those are private sector companies, their entire goal is to make as much money as possible. The perceived role of a politician is quite different. I’m not sure how you correlate the two.

In the end, it really is a futile and moot argument. Government has been a corrupt, self-serving entity ever since its birth. We might as well face the fact that an incredibly small (and most likely shrinking) degree of society enters into politics with the sole purpose of serving without ulterior motives (money, power, etc.).

15. Tax Guy @ Scott:

“Hate for politicians aside, let me ask another question: Do you want an unqualified dufus running for political office? The old adage “you get what you pay for” applies here.”

Really?
Hmmm…let’s see…my MLA has a BA = Bachelor of ARTS degree.
I repeat — ARTS.
How does that qualify him for anything, let alone a $98,000/yr job?

The 2006 Stats Can report, states the average earning for a B.C. resident with a B.A. degree is $46,000/yr; degrees above a B.A. earn $60,000/yr.

Huh?!? How does Mr. Politician manage to earn 213% MORE than an equally educated person? Oh right, he’s overpaid by the government…I mean, YOUR tax dollars!

Let’s see YOU try and finagle an almost-$100,000/yr private sector salary (plus perks) with a mere bachelor of ARTS degree. Good luck.

Is he the best person for the job? Probably not.
Is he the best POLITICIAN for the job? The most popular, for sure.

Yes, he is an “unqualified duffus” that ran for office and won — twice. But then again, so did Bush Jr., the guy who couldn’t make money with an oil well!

The weak theory of “you get what you pay for” is so grossly over-used by the government to justify their pay.

Incomplete argument, but I shall return!

I believe it would have been helpful if there was an indication as to how long each MP had held public office before landing a job in parliament. I would guess it takes quite a long time for most politicians to work there way up the ladder (starting perhaps with school boards, municipal politician, maybe even provincial politician).

Backbenchers earn too much, but other than that, it seems quite reasonable considering the responsibilities involved.

I personally don’t know any politicians so I could venture a guess as to how many deliver real value but it appears that, just as in the private sector, there are people who deliver more value than they are paid – and there are others on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Lior

If they didn’t tell you, the figure really has no context. Senior level civil servants pull down a good salary but many of them supervise much larger departments and budgets than their private sector counterparts.

As for the pensions, the better way to address the issue is pay more salary and offer a very small pension and impose term limits. That way, at least politicans know this is not a life-long job and they are acting as trustee for the public for short periods of time. The issue with large pensions is that it institutionalizes being a politician as a life-long job and your mandate no one is to serve the public but to get re-elected again. All institutions require fresh blood and new insight.

Thank you for giving us colourful descriptions about politicians. I do not like politicians, but I do not hate them as you. I view political power as a sewage treatment plant; it is a necessary evil, but those who work in there are stinky. That is why I distant myself from them, and low six-figure salary and $100,000+ /yr perks are acceptable to me. The politics is not a job for gentle people.

Back to the salary number, I have little knowledge about politics, but being a MP seems a financially poor decision. Advertising, operating office, and some research activities wouldn’t be cheap. The cost will be covered by reimbursement, and donation but it would not be completely free. I never heard any politician became rich without kickbacks, bribe, and pension.

For comparing Canada and U.S., how can we judge whether Canadian politicians overpaid or not? Maybe, U.S. politicians are grossly underpaid financially for their posts.

Philip

LOL, why do you think corporations run countries not governments..for this exact same reason, these guys get payed off in so many ways, regardless of salary. It makes no difference. The kickbacks are the reason most politicians are in the biz, when big corporations throw money at you , you do what they tell you..hence why consumers are constantly gouged and nothing ever gets done about it.

As fof the pension, I believe the government kicks in approximately $2.5 – $3 for every $1 the member contributes to the plan. My plan contributes $1 for $1 at work. so it is a lucrative benefit for them, but I don’t think it is out of line with executive pension plans across the country(lets not forget they are the executives of the government of Canada).