Commission looking into pay scales
No
Not sure what the end result of this review process will be? However, I will say that I was very pleased to see that the commission is looking into the elimination of the $22,000 tax-free allowance --- a perk which all MLAs, but not regular NB taxpayers, have enjoyed for decades.
According to the CTF's John Williamson, if the allowance were to be lumped into the base salary and adjusted for tax, their salaries would end up being around the $80,000 range --- a ballpark figure.
According to the CTF's John Williamson, if the allowance were to be lumped into the base salary and adjusted for tax, their salaries would end up being around the $80,000 range --- a ballpark figure.
Now I know some individuals will be hot under the collar when they see the [increased] figure, but I for one will not. I've always said that legislators in NB deserve salaries which are fairly competitive to that of the private sector. Furthermore, how can I complain when it appears that the provincial review board is content on bringing more transparency and accountability into the system. It's a win-win for taxpayers and MLAs. No more free lunches or perks.
11 Comments:
Ahh, but the soup is so good.
Uh huh, and if pigs could fly they'd be jet fighters. What's the difference between a tax free allowance and upping their pay scale?
Look at what an MLA does. There is NOTHING in the private sector that is even close. Last year MLA's only worked about a third of the year, how many private sector workers do that?
An MLA reads documents and talks to people. Hey, so do you and I and we do it for FREE. So there's a private comparison for you. The pay scale of a university prof at STU is about $56 grand, they 'talk to people and read documents. So these guys make out like bandits.
It's always interesting because the 'private' comparisons are always hand picked to be people who make MORE money, that's a coincidence.
However, let's look at a comparison. In New Hampshire for all state decisions with a population fairly close to NB's, they have 400 representatives. Each of those people make $400 a year. That means the decision making process for the entire state is $16,000 dollars-less than one fifth what it costs for ONE MLA.
And take a look at what they do. They pass FAR more legislaiton, in New Brunswick they pass the least legislation of ANY province I've come across. Far less than Nova Scotia and nowhere near Ontario (which makes SOME sense although many are the same 'issues' no matter how many people are involved).
Of course that's the big difference. SOME in canada think decisions should be made by 'career politicians', whereas some think they should be made by regular folks just doing their duty. Those are two very different views on governing. I have a feeling if we had a referendum on that, I know which side would come out ahead. But thats not a bad idea...
It would only be fair to have MLAs taxed on all their income, just like the rest of us. In that way they might truly feel the impact of the tax increases they seem so happy to grant to fund all their promises and pet projects.
I also think that 80 grand a year is a very good wage for an MLA, on par with other senior management in the province - if its all taxable. Perhaps it may entice those of higher caliber to run for office.
anonymous: LOL!
mikel: with all due respect, an MLA's work is not just confined to law making in the legislature. There are other responsibilities which you have to take into acount such as town hall meetings, door to door canvassing/fundraising, local AGMs, caucus retreats, meeting with groups in their riding and special events and holiday celebrations (which they have to attend).
Plus, they are subject to extreme public scrutiny (under the media microscope), unlike many private sector employees and managers. I mean, come on, how many CEOs do you know that are scrutinized for paying too much for a haircut? (i.e. John Edwards)
Let's just say, I had the priviledge to speech write and advise three MPs in Ottawa and I can say without any reservation that a week in politics (when hectic) is like two months to half a year in the private sector. For the record, during the third reading of the Clarity Act, my boss and I basically slept (for three days straight) in the office as there was a marathon filibuster in the house.
Not to mention, I've worked for some really great private companies in Ontario in my day, and none of them compare to the kind of commitment required from employees or advisors of a politician. How they depict Josh Lyman on the show the West Wing is really not that far off from what really goes on during a typical day in parliament. (I think they are alot busier than that in US politics)
But, as I said before, 80k is a fair wage IMHO for the work being done.
kit: I couldn't have said it any better as it is essential that our public officials follow the same type of rules and tax laws as the constituents they represent. In other words, they should not be subject to perks and handouts via our tax dollars.
However, that doesn't mean the premier or an MLA shouldn't have security or drivers when at work, however, it should fall under departmental expenses and the public should have access to that info upon request. (with a $5 dollar fee of course)
For the record, it is much more relaxing now that I am no longer an MP lacky/boot licker or card carrying member of any political party. I think all the knife wounds in my back are almost healed. ;-)
I think a lot of MP and MLA theft is motivated by the lack of compensation they receive for their duites as well as the sour atmosphere which puts too much pressure on them. How else can you explain the theft of a ring by Swen Robinson a few years back?
If their duties are found to be more taxing then they were in 1980, then surely they should get a raise for their efforts.
It's also good to see that their entire income will be subject to taxation and not just a portion of it. I can't believe it took this long to look into that. Although, we are in New Brunswick after all.
"For the record, it is much more relaxing now that I am no longer an MP lacky/boot licker or card carrying member of any political party. I think all the knife wounds in my back are almost healed..."
And yet you blog... and so I am drawn to make a comparison with Warren Kinsella, who seems to find so perverse joy in keeping his wounds festering...
I concur with departmental expenses for security, drivers and such... But I would be cautious about making the salary too generous, otherwise it might attract too many lawyers...
ellen: I'm not sure that warrants stealing a $10000 dollar diamond ring from a small independent jeweler.
anonymous: the only thing you could argue against a pay raise is that the amount of surrounding MLA staff may have possibly increased? Which makes their duties less taxing.
kit: LOL! I'm definitely a sucker for punishment. However, I can't complain that much as most NB bloggers are pretty damn civil, not to mention, most of the kook bloggers can be found answering their own posts/comments sometimes. They know who they are.
First, we're talking about provincial politicians, NOT federal ones. How many filibusters have you EVER seen at the legislature?
And like I said, do you think that those representatives in New Hampshire don't have to do every one of those things? In fact far far more. And of course we know they have staffs to handle most of the bureaucratic stuff.
I'm not saying anything about commitment. I'd put money on it that Abel Leblanc would do the same thing for $400. If he wouldn't, I could line up plenty of New Brunswickers who would.
Let's talk about the other issues:
town hall meetings- when was the last time you ever heard of your MLA having a town hall meeting? Perhaps they occasionally do, but it certainly isn't printed in the paper. I think those are pretty rare, but would love to see some evidence. Even in those cases you are talking about three hours of talking in an evening.
door to door anvassing/fundraising-this is almost NEVER done by MLA's. They have staffs and party volunteers that take care of this. About the only exception would be around election time.
local AGMs - don't know what that is
caucus retreats, meeting with groups in their riding and special events and holiday celebrations-we can lump those together as 'sitting around talking'. Lots of people go to every holiday celebration, because they're FUN. Retreats are very rare, and once again, none of that 'stress' is there, hell, Harper threw the press out of the tory one in PEI.
And as for pressure and scrutiny, quick, name five MLA"s that have been mentioned in the media who aren't in Cabinet? Hell, who ARE in Cabinet. There is virtually no scrutiny. In fact, as I found out the hard way, without actually going to the Legislative library, you can't even find out how individual MLA's voted on any specific piece of legislation. It's not in media, its not available on governments website.
Most of these people are (unfortuantely) completely invisible, and of course powerless. I don't think a single private members bill even got past first reading.
It's usually the opposite, usually these MLA's are running around doing ANYTHING that might get media notice because media pays so little interest in the legislature. I'd put money that a good percentage of voters wouldn't recognize their MLA and the street.
Again, this isn't badmouthing anybody, this is simply addressing the financial aspect of it. Take a look at Switzerland, easily the most democratic country in the world, their representatives don't even get an OFFICE. They certainly aren't 'professional politicians'.
So politicians in the US are under FAR more scrutiny and certainly go to every one of those events and have duties exactly the same as mentioned above, plus they also pass about five times as much legislation. But I think that says it all if you say that 'more money will bring in a higher caliber of person'. I'm not sure if current politicians should be insulted by that. For 80 grand that really makes me wonder who exactly ISN"T running because its not enough money...maybe Jim Irving?
Just to put a little perspective on this, I'd like to use an example I know something about from Charles website. He and Tim helped get Doherty elected. Mostly on poverty issues. It's now been almost a YEAR of the liberal government and the new residential tenants act has never been proclaimed. It is STILL not law. All Graham has to do is put a signature on it. And yet virtually nobody approaches MLA's on this. I talked to Tim and he mentioned how one day he saw Doherty in the streets and Tim pointed out a bar that had VLT's readily in view, something against the law, and Tim said Doherty told him there was nothing he could do. And that was against the law.
So for the flip side of this argument go over to Spinks where there's a guy arguing that the entire SYSTEM is broken. The point is not about work, nobody is saying they are slackers, we simply don't know. However, there are people who I can guarantee you have every bit as much 'stress' in their life from being addicted to drugs, not having enough food, having to work 12 hours a day, and on and on and who make a hell of a lot less money for a hell of a lot more work than standing around chatting with people at holiday events.
Maybe if they earned the 'average' wage then they would have been less inclined to have the highest tax increase hit those with average wages rather than those who earn 70 and up.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home