From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Is it anything known how much do get MPs and MPPs?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:00:12 GMT

In article <charles.727569015@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>Based on the (drastically overstated) estimate that each MP receives
>>$200,000 (tax-free), the total cost for 282 MPs would be $56.4
>>million.
>
>>Your share of that lies somewhere between $2 and $4, depending on your
>>tax bracket.
>
>>I'm sorry, but the amount is NOT SIGNIFICANT, and the savings are not
>>even worth talking about.  On the scale of the overall government
>>budget, the probably $30 million that gets paid out to MPs is not
>>terribly significant.
>
>Then why ask for suggestions on how to improve the system through
>increasing their pay? 

When did I posit THAT causality?  I'd be interested in hearing
suggestions on how to improve the system PERIOD.

If it results in an increase in their pay, that may be acceptable,
depending on the other things that are happening.  If it results in
decreasing their pay, that also may be acceptable.  If the whole POINT
of a change is to change their pay, then that's probably NOT a real
improvement to the system.

>Oh ,by the way, $30 million is a very signifcant amount to most
>people that I know.

It is a "significant amount," if the TOTAL AMOUNT is imputed to ONE
INDIVIDUAL.

What is more relevant TO YOU?
a) That the computer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry? 
or
b) That you can get a job in the computer industry that pays $60,000
per year?

What is more relevant TO A TAXPAYER?
a) The total budget of the government?
or
b) How much the taxpayer pays to the government?

$30 million, as a "bald fact," void of any further context or other
information, does not imply very much.  Check out the recent thread on
"lying using misleading statistics" for another similar example.

The cost PER TAXPAYER is the point here.  There may be some symbolic
point to arguing over MPs salaries, but there's very little point from
a macroeconomic context.  The salaries have no detectable influence on
the economy.  Many other things that the government spends on DO have
TREMENDOUS influence on the economy.

>>To spend time figuring out how to save a few million dollars on MP
>>salaries would take away time from figuring out how to deal with BIG
>>ticket items.
>
>>Choose your favorite government "boondoggle."  Almost any of them of
>>them amount would individually to probably 100 times as much money as
>>could be saved on MP salaries.  Any $1B wastage is equivalent to the
>>pay for the MPs for a goodly 20 years.
>
>Symbolism. Although the savings is small in comparison, we must show
>that the elected leader is responsible for their actions. Since the
>result of their actions has been bankrupting us all, then they should
>receive a negative reward. This will send a message to all of the
>population that the free ride in government is over.

Fine.  You may find that "responsible" people will be less willing to
get involved in government.  You can't look at the "symbol" in
isolation from the overall impact on the running of the government.

>>There's a saying about "penny-wise, pound-foolish."  This is a case
>>where it applies.  People might feel "really good" about saving the
>>country a tax burden of about $5M per year, and not bother watching
>>for the other bigger problems.
>
>More the case of penny-foolish, pound-foolish. Raising a family has really
>taught me the worth of dealing with little as well as large problems.
>Funny how most of it apllies when you also deal with "adults".

When "pounds" are being wasted, I suggest that the focus be on THAT.
If you can't excise the MAJOR wastage, how can you hope to deal with
the "pennies?"  Our government hasn't had a history of dealing with
EITHER with much success.

Many of those that get rich do it by being BOTH penny- and pound-wise.
In their early days, they probably first learned to be penny-wise.
And then wound up having "pounds" to work with.

Our government hasn't learned EITHER, and it's too late to start over.
I'd prefer that they start with the BIG items.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Xref: sparky can.general:6369 soc.culture.canada:10344