NationStates

I've recently been thinking about the idea of paying the highest officials, such as prime ministers or presidents, sums of money rivalling those given to high-ranking CEOs or celebrities.

Generally, heads of state receive the sort of money that can be outranked by good managerial positions - for example, the US president gets $400k a year, which is outranked over 21:1 by the average Fortune 100 CEO's $10.5 million.

However, this can be a disincentive to run for president or prime minister for the brightest leaders - why run the country and earn a manager's salary, when you can run a corporation and earn a CEO's salary?

Singapore is a country that has applied this idea and is paying its PM over $2.2 million (ca. USD 1.7 million). It is also a high-ranking economy that rose from barely anything, although the role of that salary is debatable.

And what do you think? Should highest officials be paid such sums?

I think that the salary is not that important for such people - they're more looking for power, although raising it would be a good experiment.

No, if anything it should be lowered.

Elected politicians should have a livable wage, nothing more. Their duty is to serve their country, not make a career out of their position.

Heh

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkenendenorm

(Semi) public officials in NL are discouraged from earning more than 130% of a minister's salary.

I don’t think it’s the salary that draws people to the job of President of the United States or Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It’s all about the power. Many people would do either job for free.

The blAAtschApen wrote:Heh

https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkenendenorm

(Semi) public officials in NL are discouraged from earning more than 130% of a minister's salary.

One of the British prime minister’s other titles is ‘Minister of the Civil Service’ and as such I certainly think they should be the highest paid civil servant. An example from my home town: a guy who ran the council for 6 months then got fired got paid £600k - roughly 4x the PM’s pay.

Canadensia wrote:No, if anything it should be lowered.

Elected politicians should have a livable wage, nothing more. Their duty is to serve their country, not make a career out of their position.

And this way they're easily bribable by foreign countries.

No, public officials should earn decently enough to not have money as a concern to be corrupt relative to their responsibilities. Hence why former POTUSes still get paid. To ensure their financial stability in order that money is not a concern.

No, their job is to serve and to lead. The point is not to make a quick buck. Leaders shouldn't make tons of money off the backs of the people they serve. Plus, how could a President/Prime Minister/etc. come close to understanding the plight of their nation's poor and middle class if they are raking in millions? Leaders shouldn't make tons of money off the backs of the people they serve. Furthermore, the "disincentivizing" argument doesn't make sense, as, as some people have already noted, the money is not the incentive to run for office in the first place.

Roosevetania wrote:No, their job is to serve and to lead. The point is not to make a quick buck. Leaders shouldn't make tons of money off the backs of the people they serve. Plus, how could a President/Prime Minister/etc. come close to understanding the plight of their nation's poor and middle class if they are raking in millions? Leaders shouldn't make tons of money off the backs of the people they serve. Furthermore, the "disincentivizing" argument doesn't make sense, as, as some people have already noted, the money is not the incentive to run for office in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that "this job pays $10 million, that pays $400k" is quite a factor.

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Canadensia wrote:No, if anything it should be lowered.

Elected politicians should have a livable wage, nothing more. Their duty is to serve their country, not make a career out of their position.

And this way they're easily bribable by foreign countries.

No, public officials should earn decently enough to not have money as a concern to be corrupt relative to their responsibilities. Hence why former POTUSes still get paid. To ensure their financial stability in order that money is not a concern.

That's what firing squads are for.

Eh, I'm fine with them having a decent wage, but anything over $100,000.00 is excessive, be it an annual salary, pension or otherwise. Especially considering how most already have substantial stock assets and large personal fortunes prior to assuming office.

Sure.

Raise the wages of the heads of government to a million.

In my country, at least, the level of pay for President, for Congress etc, I believe it is adequate.

Federal judges are well paid.

This is in order to prevent corruption.

It is not a complete answer, but it does help.

Which state police were most likely to take a bribe from those they stopped or interrogated?

Those in Oklahoma (where the teachers are also so badly paid)

Which state has the lowest pay for state troopers?

One guess.

Only if they have been performing well, and the proper legislators approve. Good presidents should be rewarded for their efforts.

I don't think, as other stated, that they're here for the money.

To take an european example : most French head of state and ministers have gone through prestigious school like the ENA (Ecole Nationale de l'Administration) or HEC (Hautes Etudes de Commerce). They could have gone in the private sector, as CEOs or advisors and they would have made a tremendous amount of money in a very short time. If they decided to focus on politics it's because it doesn't matter to them : what they truly are after is either power for the sake of it or defending and promoting a political vision.

There should be no officials that “high”.

No one to corrupt business, no one for foreign threats to bribe, no one to blame society’s faults on.

1. While being quite insignificant for the overall fiscal dimension, I think that those added millions would be better spent in educational facilities. It's just plain waste of money;
2. Singapore has repressive civil liberties and most of its economic progress was brought by Lee Kuan Yew (who was effectively an autocrat);
3. Last but not least: "Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after ten years, power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I can not respect someone who does not see the difference." -- Frank Underwood
tldr: Politicians aren't there for the money, and nor is anyone running for POTUS I suppose.

The people running the country are doing one of the most important jobs in the country. So it follows that they should be among the most highly compensated.

The blAAtschApen wrote:

Canadensia wrote:No, if anything it should be lowered.

Elected politicians should have a livable wage, nothing more. Their duty is to serve their country, not make a career out of their position.

And this way they're easily bribable by foreign countries.

No, public officials should earn decently enough to not have money as a concern to be corrupt relative to their responsibilities. Hence why former POTUSes still get paid. To ensure their financial stability in order that money is not a concern.

Considering how foreign countries and corporations can afford to pay in bribes, that's a losing fight anyway.

Anyway, civil servants, especially the top offices, should be well paid because, assuming they live up to the standards, it's a hard, stressful job, with lots of responsibilities.

Ifreann wrote:The people running the country are doing one of the most important jobs in the country. So it follows that they should be among the most highly compensated.

They already are, with power. As Kissinger once said, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Eh, sure. Why not? Though as others pointed out, there are very few people indeed who are rejecting becoming president because of the pay.

Politicians at all levels should not be paid (including benefits) any more than the median income of their constituency.

Big Jim P wrote:Politicians at all levels should not be paid (including benefits) any more than the median income of their constituency.

That's stupid.

Ifreann wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:Politicians at all levels should not be paid (including benefits) any more than the median income of their constituency.

That's stupid.

Why? American politicians were supposed to be servants of their constituencies, and time in office were supposed to be just, that, service to the country. NOT the careers they have become.

High enough so that they don't have to rely on corruption for their sustenance, and no higher.

Big Jim P wrote:

Ifreann wrote:That's stupid.

Why? American politicians were supposed to be servants of their constituencies, and time in office were supposed to be just, that, service to the country. NOT the careers they have become.

Because it creates a financial incentive to jack up the median income, whether that benefits the people of the constituency or not. Because it would exclude people with high expenses from holding office.