Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 139026	2015-02-26 02:52:00	Are they worth it?	ruup (1827)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1395199	2015-02-28 20:31:00	He will do for those who were born here, aliens including englanders , like it or lump it. Oh he's doing for those who were born here all right and everyone else too, he's just not doing it for anyone's benefit but his own unfortunately.	gary67 (56)
1395200	2015-02-28 20:52:00	Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Give the man a break, I note that the left wing union leader Labour incumbent didn't refuse the raise let alone refuse all payment ... He doesn't take a salary because he has aquired millions in a way that one might question; ethically.	Cicero (40)
1395201	2015-03-01 06:30:00	One of the most stupidest ideas I have ever heard in my life along with chocolate kettles. What is wrong with having a choice of policy for each Government post? You may prefer National for its education policy, and Labour for Health, and NZ1st for Transport, for example. If a minister was doing a good job he would be undisturbed even if the Prime Minister was changed. Conversely, if a minister was not performing well a bi-election could be held to replace him/her. The party's would still exist with their policy's, and this policy would be implemented by the minister. The problem with this scheme is that a Government needs some sort of opposition to keep its feet on the ground, something like an Upper & Lower house.	mzee (3324)
1395202	2015-03-01 21:31:00	What is wrong with having a choice of policy for each Government post? You may prefer National for its education policy, and Labour for Health, and NZ1st for Transport, for example. If a minister was doing a good job he would be undisturbed even if the Prime Minister was changed. Conversely, if a minister was not performing well a bi-election could be held to replace him/her. The party's would still exist with their policy's, and this policy would be implemented by the minister. The problem with this scheme is that a Government needs some sort of opposition to keep its feet on the ground, something like an Upper & Lower house. This is amazingly, incredibly stupid. Think what'd happen if your suggestion was implemented (which, thankfully, it never will be). Each minister would promise the earth, and because they wouldn't need to justify spending as a party, there would be an immediate and huge increase in attempted spending. Why do I care if the country runs a deficit as education minister? Finance isn't held by my party, so I'll spend as much as I possibly can without caring. No parties collection of policies is perfect for any one person; but you vote on which set of policy you dislike least. That is a far better solution than your suggestion, which would be an utter disaster.	Nick G (16709)
1395203	2015-03-02 02:47:00	MPs aren't MPs for the money. What they should change is the yearly increases. Do it every 3 years so they don't subject themselves to the bashing od people who even think backbenchers do nothing.	nmercer (3899)
1395204	2015-03-02 07:19:00	And now John Key cancels the pay rises. Prime Minister John Key today announced an overhaul of the Remuneration Authority Act, tying MP salaries to those of the wider public sector, which will be passed under urgency. Mr Key says the decision was made after the Remuneration Authority’s latest determination which saw the total remuneration received by MPs increased by about 3.5 per cent. “That increase was neither necessary nor justified at a time when inflation is at 0.8 per cent,” says Mr Key. “While the decision was made independently of MPs, they should not be receiving increases which are disproportionate to the wider public sector.” Mr Key says the Remuneration Authority referred specifically to the criteria contained in the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 as the reason for the increases, therefore a law change was necessary. The change will take away the Authority’s discretion when setting MP pay. The sole criteria will now be the average public sector pay increase for the previous year	nmercer (3899)
1395205	2015-03-02 07:44:00	MPs aren't MPs for the money . What they should change is the yearly increases . Do it every 3 years so they don't subject themselves to the bashing od people who even think backbenchers do nothing . Well maybe you would be good enough to give us résumé of what these MP’s, any of them, have achieved for the $25,519,180 they have cost us in wages alone? We’ll ignore the free overseas travel, expenses and perks for now . :D “The total salary bill for the 121 Ministers and MPs will be $21,942,420 . They each are eligible for a 20% (of base MP pay) superannuation subsidy which is $29,560 each, so if all 121 take that up, that is an additional $3,576,760 bringing total remuneration to $25,519,180 . ”	B.M. (505)
1395206	2015-03-02 08:23:00	you pay peanuts you get monkeys. If you think a successful business person is going to go into politics to earn lots of money you are deluded. $150K is nothing. Being available 24/7, working 80 hour weeks for $80K. Good luck with your elected rep the only thing I would change is have a dual tier system of paying electorate MPs more than List MPs.	nmercer (3899)
1395207	2015-03-02 09:49:00	Arse-wipe Key should index MP's pay to the minimum wage. No increase in the minimum, no freaking pay rise. He won't of course, that would take principals and ethics, concepts completely alien to the Dear Leader. Once the twisty wee freak-show loses public confidence It'll be Heigh ho, off to Hawaii we go. Not soon enough in my opinion.	KarameaDave (15222)
1395208	2015-03-02 10:19:00	Arse-wipe Key should index MP's pay to the minimum wage. No increase in the minimum, no freaking pay rise. He won't of course, that would take principals and ethics, concepts completely alien to the Dear Leader. Once the twisty wee freak-show loses public confidence It'll be Heigh ho, off to Hawaii we go. Not soon enough in my opinion. Show me one politician who'd index it to the minimum wage, and I'll show you a liar ;)	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5