Should McAleese give up her salary entirely?

LookingFor

I'm beginning to grow a bit tired of Mary McAleese's warbling about society and how we're getting back in touch with our souls through difficult times etc., all while she sits on a big fat salary in a big fat house in the park.

I believe she has taken a 10% pay cut (?) and of course, being paid out of the public purse she will have the same pension levies applied as other public sector workers etc.

But does she really think this is enough as a symbol of her comiseration with those dealing more directly with the economic downturn?

To draw an analogy with a company..she would be something like a non-executive director or non-executive chairman. Even executive officers in troubled companies - at least those who're already rich - often take nominal salaries of just maybe 1 euro or dollar a year (e.g. Steve Jobs of Apple), in recognition of the trouble the company is going through, and because they simply don't need it.

At this stage, after over eleven years of a top-notch salary (currently over 270k per annum, I believe?), 4 of which came courtesy of an absence of public election, with expenses paid and the Aras to call her home, I think it's safe to say she should be financially secure for the rest of her days. During these 'troubled times', am I the only one thinking she should have volunteered to forgo her salary completely by now? At least for a year? That money could be well used to fund small business grants, for example, to help people literally on the front line who're trying to improve economic ouput.

segaBOY

As far as I know people who do nothing generally sign on the dole as they have no work....McAleese does't really do anything worthwhile....€210 a week anyone?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LookingFor

I mentioned the 10 per cent cut..though I didn't know her salary was that high, I thought it was under 300k :eek:

McAleese is no Jobs in terms of wealth, but she has made a small fortune out of her 11 years to date - what most would consider a decent lottery win - and she has many major life expenses taken care of (e.g. housing) while she is president. I very much doubt she needs her salary at this stage, particularly while she retains the other comforts of the presidency. She's also no Jobs from a relative responsiblity point of view..hers is a non-executive position.

I'm not suggesting she necessarily forgoe her salary permanently, but for now..? For a year? Two?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

So she can be president in the evenings and at weekends when she gets home after stacking shelves in Dunnes?

Great idea for a figurehead.:rolleyes:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

segaBOY wrote: »

As far as I know people who do nothing generally sign on the dole as they have no work....McAleese does't really do anything worthwhile....€210 a week anyone?

McAleese has some huge responsibilies. I certainly wouldn't like to see an Ireland without a president.

Ideally she should never have to invoke some of her powers but still they should be there.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't get in the way of the angry mob. Its all the public sectors fault, the Indo has spoken.

thebman

She's like a System Admin. When she's doing nothing, she's doing her job :P

When she has to do work, something must be wrong

jimmmy

segaBOY wrote: »

As far as I know people who do nothing generally sign on the dole as they have no work....McAleese does't really do anything worthwhile....€210 a week anyone?

That would be plenty for her. How much does her office cost us taxpayers ? A few million per year ? Between her salary / pension / cook / food / first class junkets abroad etc ? We pay her a lot more than most bigger counties pay their Presidents / Prime Ministers.

Riddle101

Yeah her and the rest of the government. I think everyone in the government should take a pay cut cause they surely ain't earning it. They're the highest paid politicians in Europe and America. They continually give themselves bonuses when they feel they've done a bit of work which is nothing really and 6 Weeks Christmas Holidays when your country is in ruins is not exactly and very good PR campaign. If good oul Eamon Dunphy can take it on the chin then so can the Politicians of Ireland and Mary McAleese

Captain-America

In fairness, McAleese is the President of the country. Removing her salary from her and her alone, would firstly be illegal. Secondly, it wouldn't look well internationally. Thirdly, people seem to be under the impression that she just sits at home all day doing nothing other than relishing in the fact she's president. She is President, she does have her duties.

And removing her salary from her for what, 3 years? That'd make a grand total of €975,000. That's not even a dent in terms of what the country has going on now. It'd just be foolish to consider it and would do more damage for the country than good.

LookingFor

1) I'm not suggesting her salary be removed from her. I'm suggesting she volunteer to forgoe it. I think it would make a strong statement, and actually would look very good for her internationally.

2) If she had to resort to stacking shelves at Dunnes Stores, then she's been very financially imprudent to say the least. She has, as I said already, earned a small fortune in her role to date. She should have little need for more. Particularly when so much of her current cost of living is taken care of (via the Aras etc.).

3) It is a drop in the ocean for public finances, true. I'm not suggesting it as some sort of solution to the public finance issue at all. But it's a symbolic thing, and would make her yammering on about the social implications of recession a bit more palletable. Plus, as I said, that money could go a long way for - say - some local small business startups, a few of whom could go on to employ more people and make an actual, tangible, contribution to the economy.

Establish a 'presidential' start-up fund, bankrolled by her salary. I'd do that in her position without hesitation.

murphaph

She could easily let a few rooms in the Aras. A B&B type thing with Mary doing full irishes in the morning. That's bring a few quid into the exchequer. Seriously though, given the rapidly declining situation, McAleese (and anyone else on 200k+ should be looking at a 25% pay cut at least.

gnxx

A gesture. A powerful gesture.

It is not about money at this level. We all know that Steve Jobs can take a hit on a years salary.

In Ireland, we get the far opposite in terms of gesture. For example, that Marx Brother character squandering €164,000 jetting around the world when a cheaper alternative existed.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

gnxx

One further point; it maybe a drop in the ocean but applied across the board, it is considerable.

For example, cost of HPV vacinations was 9.7 million. If we reduced salaries of elected officials by 10%, we could easily pay for this ... with change leftover.

Furthermore, if we see our leaders becoming more cost-conscious, maybe it would have a knock-on effect our the entire countries spending habits.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

DublinWriter

I have banged on for years that we do not need a President in this country.

Yes, we are a Republic, but the office of president was conceived in 1919 by Dev to be a counterweight to the non-execute function of the King of England during the treaty negotiations and has differed little ever since.

Dev stated that he felt more at home with the British parliamentary model than the American one.

It's a political bauble we can now ill-afford.

Riddle101

Captain-America wrote: »

In fairness, McAleese is the President of the country. Removing her salary from her and her alone, would firstly be illegal. Secondly, it wouldn't look well internationally. Thirdly, people seem to be under the impression that she just sits at home all day doing nothing other than relishing in the fact she's president. She is President, she does have her duties.

And removing her salary from her for what, 3 years? That'd make a grand total of €975,000. That's not even a dent in terms of what the country has going on now. It'd just be foolish to consider it and would do more damage for the country than good.

Maybe not take away all of her salery. Just lower it to a substantial amount that seems fit.

975,000 euros may not seem like much, but i'm sure some of that money would be able to cover some of Waterford Crystal's redudencies. That along with the politician's saleries

sceptre

LookingFor wrote: »

At this stage, after over eleven years of a top-notch salary (currently over 270k per annum, I believe?), 4 of which came courtesy of an absence of public election

The cynic would say that if you'd managed to get enough support from county councilors and if you're over 35, you could have run against her yourself. That no-one apparently believed that they could beat her isn't a crime she needs to be convicted of.

Berti Vogts

sceptre wrote: »

The cynic would say that if you'd managed to get enough support from county councilors and if you're over 35, you could have run against her yourself. That no-one apparently believed that they could beat her isn't a crime she needs to be convicted of.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that her pay level is appropriate.

By the way, 14 years is far too long for 1 person in the job imo. Surely we would be better off with two 5 year terms or a person restricted to one term of seven years?

markpb

Captain-America wrote: »

And removing her salary from her for what, 3 years? That'd make a grand total of €975,000. That's not even a dent in terms of what the country has going on now. It'd just be foolish to consider it and would do more damage for the country than good.

I don't understand this attitude. Why shouldn't TDs take a pay cut, it'd only be a few million overall. Why shouldn't the President take a pay cut, it would only be a quarter of a million.

All those little things add up to bigger savings both now and in the long term.

Captain-America

I know that, but I was under the impression that he wanted her salary to be removed from her.

Sangre

I think she has some important functions regarding the passing of law. She watches sheep over the executive and ensures any and all laws are constitutionally sound. It might be imprudent to have one house alone devise up and promolugate law without any supervision.

As has been mentioned, she doesn't do much until things get bad or the executive get out of hand. Ridiculously over paid though. However, it helps a lot if a president is a skilled lawyer, people who normally earn a lot. If the wage was a pittance the number of hopefuls and quality of candidiates could drop.

Pub07

This is one dumb thread. Im no fan of McAleese but why the hell should she give up her salary?

machintoshlover

Pub07 wrote: »

This is one dumb thread. Im no fan of McAleese but why the hell should she give up her salary?

+1 She should have the cut in her salary along with everyone else but nothing more.

oscarBravo

Pub07 wrote: »

This is one dumb thread. Im no fan of McAleese but why the hell should she give up her salary?

I suppose you could think of it as a process of national brainstorming: given enough stupid ideas, it's just possible a sensible one will emerge.

Not putting money on it, though.

Hmm.. We all earn salaries to pay for our day-to-day needs. Most of us are earning salaries below 70k (if we have jobs at all right now), and we're expected to have decent lives with it. But somehow i expect that the government ends up paying for many things in her life, which we would have to pay for ourselves with our own salary... So why is she on 300k?

Does she have to buy all the expensive clothes on her own? Did she buy her house or car from her salary? Are her living costs paid by her? Somehow i expect that she is receiving quite a bit more than just her salary in other "invisible" costs...

Pub07

Pub07 wrote: »

This is one dumb thread. Im no fan of McAleese but why the hell should she give up her salary?

Not give up her salary, but perhaps a major reduction? Like a salary of 100k which is still quite respectable....

Sand

I did a quick tot up today of the savings from TDs reducing their salaries from 100K to 70K and 20 ministers of state being slashed to 7 .... less than 5 million euro a year which is practically nothing in terms of the cost we face.

But its an important step that will show leadership and given the government some moral authority in terms of taking hard decisions with public sector pay. McAleese should reduce her salary to 70K or so [which is still very wealthy given the free house, free travel and so on], Similar measures should be taken across the civil service in all insitutions where the government has the power to enforce it. Its very hard to see what McAleese does to justify 300K or whatever shes on. Its very hard to see what our TDs do to justify 100K a year - if its a question of living standards, then what happened to the good old days when Haughey and Bertie had patriotic business men keep them in the style they were accustomed to?

However, it will never happen. Turkeys wont vote for Christmas. If the PS unions achieve anything with their grousing about stupid strikes, it will hopefully be forcing the government to impose pay cuts on political figures too. The unions will never allow pay cuts on the civil servants earning over 100K though. They know who they represent.

Riddle101

Pub07 wrote: »

This is one dumb thread. Im no fan of McAleese but why the hell should she give up her salary?

Eh because there is a recession on at the moment, and a lot of people are being made redudant and people are lots of other people are getting their saleries lowered, and oh yeah it would show that she is showing her support for others by giving it up so that it could go to something worthwhile. I don't know you tell me:(

Well personally I cant see what the TD's and others have done to merit such high wages... Its not as if they're doing a good job. Normal practice is to reward people for good work. Downscale the salaries for the TD's until they actually start doing something useful.

I heard an interview with Noel Dempsey (abt 3 weeks ago on radio 1) regarding the shortfall of funds for the building and maintenance of roads in Ireland, particularly the motorway from Athlone to Galway. He said that they would now be smarter with their money, and look for cheaper ways to build the roads. Apparently roads were cheaper to build now, and had been for some time.

Now.. Why the hell weren't they doing that when the economy was going good? There seems to be the same mindset across the board with all our politicians...