Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

Could you imagine something like this happening in your own country?

[quote:c7e37]
Bolivia leader halves his own pay
Bolivian President Evo Morales
Mr Morales says he wants to share the burden of the poor
The Bolivian new left-wing President, Evo Morales, has cut his salary by more than a half to a little over $1,800 (£1,012) per month.

The decision means that the salaries of all Bolivian public sector employees will be reviewed, as no official can earn more than the president.

Mr Morales said the money saved would be used to increase the numbers of doctors and teachers.

Mr Morales suggested that members of Congress should cut their salaries too.

During the campaign, Mr Morales had pledged to halve his own pay if elected.

The move announced after his first cabinet went beyond that, with a cut of 57%.

BBC South America correspondent Daniel Schweimler says many voted for Mr Morales believing that he was different from the more conservative politicians who have governed in the past.

The former llama herder and coca leaf farmer was inaugurated last Sunday as Bolivia's first indigenous president.

He has promised to fight corruption, introduce a new tax on the wealthy, and renationalise energy companies. [/quote:c7e37]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4652940.stm

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

The decision means that the salaries of all Bolivian public sector employees will be reviewed, as no official can earn more than the president.

Sucks for everyone else..

It would be nice, but in the US a lot of college presidents earn more than the president, dont even get me started on athletes.

thats pretty cool of him, but if everyone halves their salary, i think it would make the people who arent as honorable as him more susceptible to bribes and corruption.

South America is heading in the left direction. rock:

good to see there are some unselfish leaders out there who are willing to make sacrifices for the good of the people who elected them....thats something thats hard to come by these days.

After years of Dictatorships, and CIA interference.... they all deserve something better.

doesnt matter what direction they take, most countries in south america have never had a true democratic system - sooner or later a dictator will take over.

democracy/capitalism is not for everyone

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

Yep. That president is probably pretty well off and it won't hurt him ... or at least not be a tremendous sacrifice. But the little guy that is living paycheck to paycheck will suffer. (I'm assuming they will adjust more salaries than just the ones that are now higher than the president). So it is not really an unselfish act but a selfish, "hey look me at me! Ain't I great!" one. If he wanted to be unselfish he would pass a law that allowed his salary to be lower than others, at least temporarily.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

I beg to differ.... As you know, there are a lot of overpaid political officials even in the US, and Bolivia is no different. And im sure he wont be cutting the salary of his secretary's secretary who barely makes enough money to scratch a living. Im sure it applies to those that are well off. And doing something about it is better than doing nothing. People should be in politics because they genuinely want to better the lives of the people which they represent, not because of the money.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

Actually, I don't know any overpaid public officials. Most would make much more money in the private sector. Until 2001 the US President's salary had not changed in 32 years.

How can you be sure? And since we are assuming, I will assume that not too many elected officials in Bolivia are "well off" at least by US standards, unless their money comes from businesses outside of their office.

notice his name? mr. morales. i thought that was kinda ironic

politicians get too much money...good for him.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

[quote:aacd3]Actually, I don't know any overpaid public officials. Most would make much more money in the private sector. Until 2001 the US President's salary had not changed in 32 years.[/quote:aacd3] At the very least salaries should be standardized. Did you know the range of salaries for Governors of states of the US ranges from 60k-170k? Now if it were more like 80k-90k
not only would money be saved in the long run, but it would be a much more equal system.

[quote:aacd3]How can you be sure? And since we are assuming, I will assume that not too many elected officials in Bolivia are "well off" at least by US standards, unless their money comes from businesses outside of their office.[/quote:aacd3]True, but then again you can take 50,000 american dollars to russia and be extremely wealthy there. The point is they are overpaid by their standards and thats what matters.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

At the very least salaries should be standardized. Did you know the range of salaries for Governors of states of the US ranges from 60k-170k? Now if it were more like 80k-90k
not only would money be saved in the long run, but it would be a much more equal system.

[quote:82ea7]How can you be sure? And since we are assuming, I will assume that not too many elected officials in Bolivia are "well off" at least by US standards, unless their money comes from businesses outside of their office.[/quote:82ea7]True, but then again you can take 50,000 american dollars to russia and be extremely wealthy there. The point is they are overpaid by their standards and thats what matters.[/quote:82ea7]

yeah, but think of the consequences if you limit the salary. The smart candidates who would be successful would never run because they could make so much more money in the private sector. If you can at least offer them something that they can live a good life on, then they will be more willing to run for public office, otherwise, they have no incentive and all the smart and succesful people will be in the private sector.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

Oh my young padawon. The above statement shows that you are not wise to the ways of the real world. Why should every state be standardized? Each governor has different job responsibilites based on the laws of that sate. Every state is different in terms of population, tax revenue, etc. And to force them to pay a certain wage would infringe on the Tenth Amendment, which basically says that you can't tell them what to do unless it is specifically stated that you can in the Constitution.

And furthermore, why do you think 80-90 is the proper wage? I doubt the Governor of New York would think so. The 170M number seems better considering the responsibilities of the office. But if some state wants to pay 60, and they can get folks to take the job for that price, then more power to 'em.



Again, how do you know? Do you know what they make? Do you know what the average wage is in the country for folks with the proper education compared to what the government foks are making? My point is, don't rush to judgment with nothing more than a bias against government employees or the wealthy. You may be right in your assumption in this case, but I think you are going more on a feeling about the subject rather than the facts. Support your arguments with the facts Grasshopper and you will go far in life.

Re: Bolivia leader halves his own pay
 

[quote:8edbc]Oh my young padawon. The above statement shows that you are not wise to the ways of the real world. Why should every state be standardized? Each governor has different job responsibilites based on the laws of that sate. Every state is different in terms of population, tax revenue, etc. And to force them to pay a certain wage would infringe on the Tenth Amendment, which basically says that you can't tell them what to do unless it is specifically stated that you can in the Constitution.

And furthermore, why do you think 80-90 is the proper wage? I doubt the Governor of New York would think so. The 170M number seems better considering the responsibilities of the office. But if some state wants to pay 60, and they can get folks to take the job for that price, then more power to 'em.[/quote:8edbc]lol. Each governor has different responsibilities true, but they have fiarly similar responsibilities. My point being, it just isnt fair that two governors have over a 100k difference in their salaries. Can you honestly look me in the eye, and tell me that that is fair, grasshopper? And I think 80-90k is a very resonable salary, because it puts them in the upper/middle upper class, affords them enough money to live comfortable in most areas of the US, and because as stated before, people should be statesmen because they want to help the populace, not because they want to be wealthy.



[quote:8edbc]Again, how do you know? Do you know what they make? Do you know what the average wage is in the country for folks with the proper education compared to what the government foks are making? My point is, don't rush to judgment with nothing more than a bias against government employees or the wealthy. You may be right in your assumption in this case, but I think you are going more on a feeling about the subject rather than the facts. Support your arguments with the facts Grasshopper and you will go far in life.[/quote:8edbc]Do you know what the difference between the average statesman and the average school teacher, both paid by the government, both playing a key role in society? A pretty big one, ill tell you that much. lol, however, you are right. I am speaking from what I know and what I have observed, and I dont feel inclined to post articles backing up my every word. Now that would take all the fun out of arguing out on the interweb!

[quote:8edbc]yeah, but think of the consequences if you limit the salary. The smart candidates who would be successful would never run because they could make so much more money in the private sector. If you can at least offer them something that they can live a good life on, then they will be more willing to run for public office, otherwise, they have no incentive and all the smart and succesful people will be in the private sector.[/quote:8edbc]80-90k is pretty good, and good enough to live a comfortable life in most places in the US. I know plenty of very smart people who work in the private sector but get less than that. And as mentioned before, the incentive for politicians should not be the money. It should be the chance to help the people that voted them into office. Anybody who would not be willing to do the job for no money and just the bare necessities, food, shelter, etc, IMO does not deserve to be there. Am i saying we should provide them with just that? No. But if they wouldnt be willing to do it for just that, then that means they are thinking more about the money then they are about the people.

Trunks, I'm starting to get jealous of your naivete. If I had it I would be 30 years younger. ;)

I work with an office full of guys making 80-90K who spend all day surfing the web with their thumbs up their asses. Why would anyone want to take on a job with real responsibility for that kind of money? Most of our public servants make their money or come from money before serving the people.

As for Morales, he's a socialist who won election primarily because he opposed the US sponsored eradication of Coca. Different stroke for different folks, I suppose. His grand plan includes increasing taxes for the top 1% of wage and property owners. His supporters acknoledge that it will have a negligible affect on the economy but will be looked upon favorably by his base.

[quote:15bac]Trunks, I'm starting to get jealous of your naivete. If I had it I would be 30 years younger. ;)[/quote:15bac]lol.....not sure if thats a compliment but I will take it as such. Basically, I understand your reasoning, but just because thats the way things are done currently doesn't necessarily make it right.



[quote:15bac]I work with an office full of guys making 80-90K who spend all day surfing the web with their thumbs up their asses. Why would anyone want to take on a job with real responsibility for that kind of money?[/quote:15bac]Once again, because they want to help the people they govern. If they don't want to help the populace, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Money is completely beside the point. And considering they would be fairly well paid, I only see the monetary side as a bonus.