Quietly a 100 MPs get pay raises.

[Topaz]

About a 100 MPS receiving a e-mail from the Speaker saying their are getting a 2500.00 extra and bringing MP's basic pay to $160,200.00. Makes one wonder how much income taxes these MP's pay yearly or do they hide it off shore??? http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/03/28/mps-receive-16-per-cent-pay-increase-annually-salaries-now-%24160000/34200

[Smallc]

If everyone knows how much they make...how could they hide it?

[Smallc]

BTW, all MPs got a pay raise.

[shortlived]

see my http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22522-fiscal-restraint-my/ thread.

its not just MPs but ministers too.

oh and by my calculations about 1 in 10 to 20 MPs should be getting layoff notices according to 5-10% department cost reduction targets.

Such hypocracy out of this so called Harper Government, dare say I regime. The Hapa Regime. (too much salt in diet)

Edited March 30, 2013 by shortlived

[WWWTT]

Actually the MP's couldn't be laid off because it would be unconstitutional.

However,5-10% of their staff should be laid off!!!

And the conservatives(especially Harper) have the record largest number of staff!!!

WWWTT

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Who would not vote themselves a raise? The real question should be why do we let them do it and then complain about it?

[Michael Hardner]

A 1.6 percent race seems reasonable.

[Guest]

And it's the first one in 4 years, I think. Can't really complain.

Maybe that's where the drought money went.

[CliffStir]

Sorry, but based on their performance (all Parties and ALL MPs) they should be refunding the tax payer.

When ALL the people affected by our government's policies and activities get THEIR 'cost of living' increase THEN and ONLY then can they look at one for themselves.

These yahoos don't need the increase anywhere near as much as hundreds of thousands of Canadians do.

I think we have forgotten who the government is there to serve.

[Moonlight Graham]

A 1.6 percent race seems reasonable.

But it's a bit odd when they recently cut 20,000 federal public sector jobs in a austerity push, then give themselves raises not too long afterwards.

[eyeball]

I'm a little choked, especially in light of how much of the economic activity in my region that depends on Ottawa for licencing, permitting, regulating, managing etc etc has become so hollowed out.

It's eerie just how silent things are during working hours around this part of the coast. There was always a hum of activity with fish boats coming and going, noise emanated from fish-plants, machine shops and shipyards...distant chainsaws and whistle punks directing yarders, and the rumble of trucks, barges being loaded...construction crews hammering and sawing building things...now it always sounds like the middle of Sunday morning.

[Smallc]

But it's a bit odd when they recently cut 20,000 federal public sector jobs in a austerity push, then give themselves raises not too long afterwards.

.

Parliament is necessary. Some federal positions are not (then again, the same can be said of some federal ministers, but that's a different topic.

[Michael Hardner]

But it's a bit odd when they recently cut 20,000 federal public sector jobs in a austerity push, then give themselves raises not too long afterwards.

I believe those who are still hired will receive raises. No, it's not odd - eliminating redundancies and keeping up with the market, honouring agreements makes sense.

[Topaz]

When one looks at this, they hired many people when they first came and then gave themselves credit for the jobs going up and then those hired are now, being let go, so they can take credit for reducing government. As far as their wage increases being frozen and not they aren't so they are catching up..... many workers, probably haven't had a increase in pay for many years. Shame.

[Smallc]

When one looks at this, they hired many people when they first came and then gave themselves credit for the jobs going up and then those hired are now, being let go, so they can take credit for reducing government.

Jobs increased by far more than government grew.

As far as their wage increases being frozen and not they aren't so they are catching up..... many workers, probably haven't had a increase in pay for many years. Shame.

Many workers have had an increase. A 1.6% increase after 4 years is far from shameful.

[shortlived]

Jobs increased by far more than government grew.Many workers have had an increase. A 1.6% increase after 4 years is far from shameful.

They don't deserve it. They already get paid too much.

It is ridiculous the average public salary is $115000, absolutely absurd.

The median Family income is under $70,000 Why are they getting more than twice that?

Edited March 31, 2013 by shortlived

[Michael Hardner]

They don't deserve it. They already get paid too much.

It is ridiculous the average public salary is $115000, absolutely absurd.

The median Family income is under $70,000 Why are they getting more than twice that?

They are paid too much ? All of them ? That's too much of a generalization - as some are paid at market, some paid more.

Also you don't provide a cite for the two numbers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The problem of politicians salaries at public expense is indeed difficult. In truth it doesn't matter how much they are paid, its never enough for them and always too much for the tax payer.

In my opinion, the wages of MP's should be immediately frozen pending a public inquiry. If it was up to me I would not pay them a dime until they balanced the books, not a red cent! The very idea that a government can predict that they will spend more money than they will receive a year into the future is a slap in the face to the public. To add insult to injury the government is constantly involved in cost overruns and additional expenses on a daily basis.

Not that any of this matters at all in reality given that the nature of the beast is such that a politician is drawn to money like a moth is drawn to a light. They write the laws, it goes down the way they want it to.

[GostHacked]

They are paid too much ? All of them ? That's too much of a generalization - as some are paid at market, some paid more.

Also you don't provide a cite for the two numbers.

I think their raises should be based on performance.

[GostHacked]

Is that what a major in liberal arts gets you these days? A nice 150k salary with the government?

[Michael Hardner]

I think their raises should be based on performance.

Ideally, perhaps, but you would have to buy out contracts or engage in a lengthy legal war to get there, so it's a fantastic hope.

[CliffStir]

And, if I remember correctly, the Ontario Provincial Liberals included a clause last year that automatically gives MPs an increase whenever the Feds get one (that was AFTER the extra $45k that Dalton gave himself).

Based on performance? not while they hold the keys to the cash box with no accountability.

[GostHacked]

Ideally, perhaps, but you would have to buy out contracts or engage in a lengthy legal war to get there, so it's a fantastic hope.

Well Michael, this is what happens in the real world for the rest of us peons. We work, and we are held accountable for our actions and our performance. MPs should not be any different. They are responsible for the country's business, and if the country is not doing good, they should not be getting raises. It's a thumb in the eye of the public.

People got pissed when the CEOs of the large banks got huge bonuses after they were bailed out with taxpayer money. A politician getting a raise while the country is not in great shape is akin to that in a small way.

I have performance reviews twice a year. And I also have to do weekly reports to various teams.

I don't see why politicians should get a pass. Creating a standard for them and a standard for the rest of the populous.