Prime ministers' salaries internationally

gizmo555

Interesting table from The Economist website. Even after the much trumpeted pay cuts for politicians, Brian Cowen's salary is still enormous compared to, for example, David Cameron's, which is 34% lower. Because he's worth it, no doubt . . .

owenc

yes i was quite surprised about that aswell when i looked at it , i was expecting a really high amount. The queen has also shocked me when i seen that she was only paid a very small amount compared to other countries which were quite poor.

Sulmac

owenc wrote: »

yes i was quite surprised about that aswell when i looked at it , i was expecting a really high amount. The queen has also shocked me when i seen that she was only paid a very small amount compared to other countries which were quite poor.

Uh, the British Queen isn't a "political leader", so she's not the one covered by that table - the Prime Minister is.

Besides that, the British Monarchy is the most expensive in Europe, costing six times that of the Spanish one.

bryanw

Also interesting is that by rearranging the list, ordered just by the actual salary amount you get:

Singapore
Hong Kong
Kenya
United States
France
Ireland
Australia
Germany
Japan
South Africa
New Zealand
UK
Taiwan
Canada
South Korea
Indonesia
Israel
Russia
Argentina
Poland
China
India

So we actually move up to 6th place in that list instead of 11th, with only two western countries above us.

doctorwu

According to Colm McCarthy(An Bord Snip),every TD when (wages,expensives,secterial allowances,getting out of bed money,etc, etc, etc,) is taken into account every one of them earn more than Barack Obama.

ANXIOUS

doctorwu wrote: »

According to Colm McCarthy(An Bord Snip),every TD when (wages,expensives,secterial allowances,getting out of bed money,etc, etc, etc,) is taken into account every one of them earn more than Barack Obama.

I'm going to call BS on that. Can you link it please?

Nijmegen

If you want to deal with overpaid quango CEO's you first have to look at the likes of our TD's and ministers. They increased their salary together. And as we've seen with Bertie, and other former ministers and TD's, there's no shortage of jobs for the lads after your consituents have tossed you - go on a lecture tour, take up a few board memberships to help get access to the halls of power, etc etc.

The safest way to ensure your future? Become a TD for 1 term, and screw your constituents after election. Chase the money.

dlofnep

That list looks all over the place, what's the ranking based on if it's not salary? Salary compared to GDP or?

gizmo555

dlofnep wrote: »

what's the ranking based on if it's not salary? Salary compared to GDP or?

Exactly - ratio of salary to per capita GDP.

who the fug

feelingstressed wrote: »

You don't say which Queen.

I don't know how much the Queen of England is allocated by parliament.
But they own huge estates of land, there are one of the biggest landlord in the country so get a lot of income from that

No she does not, income from the Crown estates goes to the HM Treasury, not to her.

Riskymove

doctorwu wrote: »

According to Colm McCarthy(An Bord Snip),every TD when (wages,expensives,secterial allowances,getting out of bed money,etc, etc, etc,) is taken into account every one of them earn more than Barack Obama.

they may, when everything is taken into account, earn more than his basic salary...but


....he gets a house, a jet, 24/7 security, a huge number of staff, limos, etc

Nijmegen

Riskymove wrote: »

they may, when everything is taken into account, earn more than his basic salary...but


....he gets a house, a jet, 24/7 security, a huge number of staff, limos, etc

He runs the worlds most powerful country. We're a banana republic with 4.5 million people and a military of 12,000.

Riskymove

Nijmegen wrote: »

He runs the worlds most powerful country. We're a banana republic with 4.5 million people and a military of 12,000.

thats a different discussion and I dont disagree generally.....I am simply making a point about the comparison made which is not 'like for like'

including allowances for TDs suggests they are straight forms of income for that TD, when in reality it funds the hiring of staff, operation of an office, phone bills etc

I am pretty sure US politicians get similar allowances

on a general note, most US national politicians are already extremely wealthy to begin with, the salary is, frankly, an irrelevency to attracting people to the job of President or their ability to live.

Nijmegen

Riskymove wrote: »

thats a different discussion and I dont disagree generally.....I am simply making a point about the comparison made which is not 'like for like'

including allowances for TDs suggests they are straight forms of income for that TD, when in reality it funds the hiring of staff, operation of an office, phone bills etc

I am pretty sure US politicians get similar allowances

on a general note, most US national politicians are already extremely wealthy to begin with, the salary is, frankly, an irrelevency to attracting people to the job of President or their ability to live.

Quite true. President Obama is a millionaire. His wife, funnily enough, working in a private law practice was the main breadwinner of the house.

But one ought to also argue that someone should be attracted to public service to service the public. Why can Joe Higgins live on the average industrial wage for his salary?

The salary is the salary. The expenses to run an office are another matter, and should be looked at with intense scrutiny, but excluding expenses our politicians are still extremely well paid.

There is another argument that if you pay them poorly, say a mere 40 or 50k a year, they'll take bribes and so forth.

If they do, then we need to crack down and feck them in jail. Simple as.

A public servant who comes for the money is not someone I want to be a public servant.

Riskymove

Nijmegen wrote: »

Why can Joe Higgins live on the average industrial wage for his salary?

he takes that as his salary but he also takes the allowances afaik

he is free to live his life the way he wants to

excluding expenses our politicians are still extremely well paid.

TD is around €90,000 (not sure if thats before the pay cuts) I think....definitely well paid but hardly extreme

A public servant who comes for the money is not someone I want to be a public servant

well people give out about the numbers of teachers in Dail, lack of business people etc

I think its clear that money is not high enough to attract many business people so that is an issue

Jaysoose

I think it is fair to say that the performance of this current taoiseach does not warrant this level of renumeration.

Comparisons to barrack etc just muddy the waters as he does indeed get a much better package overall and people will use this as some sort of justification for Cowens salary.

At the end of the day responsibility for the economy/country stops at cowens door and as its in a complete mess he is being rewarded with a salary that he does not deserve and the numbers dont stack up but then nothing will change.

Wolfe Tone

Politicians should not be given a salary, but should have their expenses paid.

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Politicians should not be given a salary, but should have their expenses paid.

With due respect, that would ensure that a negligible amount of people run, and it would also dis-incentivise work on their part. Just look at most County Councils. The vast majority of local reps work under the system you have proposed, and the most they will ever do for you is send you a leaflet of "activities" (usually stuff that most of the community was at, or they were obliged to attend) when they feel their seat is in difficulties.

National Legislation is a full time job, if done properly, and cannot be reduced to a system of expenses if you want people to enter politics.

Wolfe Tone

Het-Field wrote: »

With due respect, that would ensure that a negligible amount of people run, and it would also dis-incentivise work on their part. Just look at most County Councils. The vast majority of local reps work under the system you have proposed, and the most they will ever do for you is send you a leaflet of "activities" (usually stuff that most of the community was at, or they were obliged to attend) when they feel their seat is in difficulties.

National Legislation is a full time job, if done properly, and cannot be reduced to a system of expenses if you want people to enter politics.

Politicians in Britain were not paid until the 1912 parliament act I believe.

The lack of financial incentive would help filter out corruption I believe. People would go for the right reasons.

Cookie_Monster

Riskymove wrote: »

....he gets a house, a jet, 24/7 security, a huge number of staff, limos, etc

how is that different to here?

Riskymove

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how is that different to here?

.....but the cost of those allowances should be added to Obama's salary if you want to try and compare

FYI

TDs dont get a car or driver, they dont get a state operated home, their own plane, security etc

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Politicians in Britain were not paid until the 1912 parliament act I believe.

The lack of financial incentive would help filter out corruption I believe. People would go for the right reasons.

I really dont think we can use early 1900s Britain as a yardstick.

Furthermore, if you think corruption is bad at national level, you should just look at County Council level. These men get no salaries, yet they make decisions in the name of every vested interest known to man.

The problem is, the role of a full time legislator must be paid. There is nothing corrupt in being paid an honest wage for performing a public service. The corruption sets in where extraordinary financial gain is made through shady deals etc

Wolfe Tone

Het-Field wrote: »

I really dont think we can use early 1900s Britain as a yardstick.

Furthermore, if you think corruption is bad at national level, you should just look at County Council level. These men get no salaries, yet they make decisions in the name of every vested interest known to man.

The problem is, the role of a full time legislator must be paid. There is nothing corrupt in being paid an honest wage for performing a public service. The corruption sets in where extraordinary financial gain is made through shady deals etc

Well how do you decide? I believe the current system is in line with the private sector?

petethebrick

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Politicians in Britain were not paid until the 1912 parliament act I believe.

The lack of financial incentive would help filter out corruption I believe. People would go for the right reasons.

I worked on a project last year which involved gathering a range of data on world leaders from all countries. The most interesting comparison was that of the leaders salary to the average CEO salary in each country. This is also the measure used to justify the large salaries of certain leaders including our own here in Ireland. The difference is that in other countries the people who land key government positions have the credentials to justify their salary unlike here where many of our elected representatives are ex-pub landlords for example. I believe financial incentives for leaders are important but that so too is being adequately qualified for the job.

Wolfe Tone

petethebrick wrote: »

I worked on a project last year which involved gathering a range of data on world leaders from all countries. The most interesting comparison was that of the leaders salary to the average CEO salary in each country. This is also the measure used to justify the large salaries of certain leaders including our own here in Ireland. The difference is that in other countries the people who land key government positions have the credentials to justify their salary unlike here where many of our elected representatives are ex-pub landlords for example. I believe financial incentives for leaders are important but that so too is being adequately qualified for the job.

Thats why for thousands of years people have argued that democracy doesn't work, the qualified people are not elected.

Even the ancient Greeks thought that(eg Plato's "Republic")

bamboozle

our minister's are as well paid as most European heads of state. Our junior minister's are as well paid as most European heads of state.

the scary thing is these salaries have been reduced at least twice since the recession has kicked in.

After the 24 or so pay rises Bertie enjoyed during his tenure Cowan started off on a taoiseach's salary of circa 320k

Nijmegen

Riskymove wrote: »

he takes that as his salary but he also takes the allowances afaik

he is free to live his life the way he wants to



TD is around €90,000 (not sure if thats before the pay cuts) I think....definitely well paid but hardly extreme



well people give out about the numbers of teachers in Dail, lack of business people etc

I think its clear that money is not high enough to attract many business people so that is an issue

I know he takes the expenses also. But his wage is that of an average soul.

90k is excessive, considering that it is 3 times the average wage. It is the salary of a high level manager in an organisation, and a TD has no responsibilities but to shuttle around passport applications and vote according to the party whip.

For any other jobs, they get paid even more.

Plus, their pension pot is amazing.

bryanw

I think there is every reason to expect accountability in respect of the salaries of public representative or leaders, but as mentioned by others you need to pay TDs and ministers a realistic salary to attract those who have credentials. The salary should take into account the size of the organisation being run or the value that the public place upon the task with which we set TDs to do, and also balance that against what similar countries pay their elected representatives. For this reason, I would be in favour of putting more emphasis on the salary and less on the perks and expenses, many of which could feasibly be paid from salary.

You need to always take into account that people will pursue a way of life that best suits their desires and those of their family. If they see themselves as being better off doing something else other than public life, they will do that.

Also, regarding Joe Higgins... as I see it, Joe Higgins is in receipt of a full salary plus expenses. He may choose at the end of the day to take with him the average industrial wage, but the remainder he gives to his party. He therefore chooses what to do with the money, i.e. he spends it. View that as you like, but I see it as a misrepresentation of what he portrays himself as doing.

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well how do you decide? I believe the current system is in line with the private sector?

It should be benchmarked against politicians pay from countries of a similar size and style.

Furthermore, I would question your belief that politicans should not recieve payment beyond expenses. Given that Doctors, Lawyers, accountants etc all perform a key public service, then surely they shouldnt be paid, and should simply be entering the profession for benevolent reasons ?

Frogeye

my 2 cents...

I'd pay the top man ten times what he is getting now as long as he was right for the job. I'll put it this way, if we had been paying our leader 3million a year and he was of a high enough intellect and ability that he avoided this whole recession it would have been money well spent and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was none of this political salary level talk when we were all playing the property game and winning pre 2008. Now we are on the wrong side of the propery game, we are sore losers. The issue isn't the pay levels, its the quality of the people involved. As a country we are past the days when Pub landlords and teachers were good enough to run our affairs. We have great people in Ireland we just need to direct them towards politcs. Not a very attractive option now.

to compare the leaders of different countries salaries is BS. Obama might get less than cowen but they probably spend 100 times his salary on all the security and other shi"te that follows him around. We pay pat kenny more than we do cowen.

We need to focus on how we get the right people into the job not how much we pay them.

Shea O'Meara

Riskymove wrote: »

well people give out about the numbers of teachers in Dail, lack of business people etc

They have advisors, also even the keenest financial expert may not make a good minister for defence/environment etc. For example, if Ahern as Finance minister couldn't be bothered even holding a bank account, (for reasons I won't drag the thread into) assuming his accounting 'qualifications' are legit, too many teachers isn't really a problem and it's unlikely we will get many politicians seated with qualifications suited specifically to their role.

Riskymove wrote: »

I think its clear that money is not high enough to attract many business people so that is an issue

I've said before, money should not be a motivational issue for someone wanting to work for the betterment of society.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Thats why for thousands of years people have argued that democracy doesn't work, the qualified people are not elected.

Even the ancient Greeks thought that(eg Plato's "Republic")

Only allowing academics vote/run isn't very democratic also not everybody can afford to be an academic.