[c312]

Originally Posted by Trunks

[quote:82ea7]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.

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.

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by Trunks

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Trunks

... The point is they are overpaid by their standards and thats what matters.

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.

[Trunks]

[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.

[Colonel]

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

[tomxtr]

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.

[Trunks]

[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.