Tuesday, December 12, 2006


Things like this are going to make it easier for any fiscal conservatives or libertarians who aren't terribly excited about working for John Tory next fall to sit it out, if they were thinking about it.

Of course, with that logic, the best party to work for is the NDP. Why the hell is the freaking NDP the only party trying to save money?

God, that's depressing.


Kerry said...


Anonymous said...

Piffle. Being an MPP is a responsible, demanding and stressful job and at $110K they are not overpaid for the work they do. Populists love to howl about this but the public expense is absolutely trivial - an increase of $22K for 100 MPPs is a total of $2.2m per year - or about 40 cents per taxpayer. If MPPs made just a few good decisions - like signing on to the new BC-Alberta free-trade agreement or cutting corporate taxes - they would justify their salaries a hundred times over. Cheaper government is not the issue - what we need is better government.

Anonymous said...

C'mon now... don't you be going over to the Dark Side.

BBS said...

When a government like McGuinty's continues to increase spending year after year while running a deficit, the last thing they deserve is an raise.

My job as a business owner is also a
"responsible, demanding and stressful" job but reality dictates that I can't give myself a $22,000 dollar raise whenever it suits me.

The base salary is only that - a base. Start doing the math on all the other benefits an MPP receives and the final package is well over $100,000.00 .

Jon Whitelaw said...

Because of Tory support for this motion one cannot merely criticize the 'McGuinty Government'. While I do not support large wage increases for government officials; the higher salaries do help attract more tallented representatives (hopefully some with good business sense).

I'd be interested to see if this is a cost of living increase they have pushed off for 10 years because it's bad press and how much more a year on average they get. I would also like to see those NDP members who didn't support the motion and will now be getting paid more to donate their money to the provincial debt they racked up under Rae. :)

AM said...

In New Hampsshire, MPs are paid about $100 a year....

mostlyfree said...

"Being an MPP is a responsible, demanding and stressful job and at $110K they are not overpaid for the work they do."

Oh, please. A fifteen year old could put on a suit and spend more money than he has all day long.

How about we pay them the same (or, even better, less) and then let them work about 1/4 (or less!!) of the time they do now.

That New Hampshire system sounds fantastic to me.

Matt said...

While I don't think MPPs were underpaid, I also have a hard time getting too worked up about this. Quite frankly, I'd rather see $2 million go this than another billion be poured into monster bureaucracies with dubious results.

The NH example is interesting, but the problem with getting politicians who don't a salary is that you get the kind of politicians who don't need a salary.

Stephen Harper and Mike Harris are unlikely to have entered politics for $100/yr. Millionaires like Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach would still be there.

You can see other effects in the NH legislature. Half of members are retired, and the average age is 60.

Liam O'Brien said...

So-called conservatives tried going with this this in Nova Scotia and on the St. John's city council in NL not that long ago. It's shameful.



mostlyfree said...

I think that lowering the salary leaves you with people that aren't in it for a salary, but not necessarily only people who don't need it. We would end up with people who don't need it in either system.

Both systems have their ups and downs, but one is cheaper and, I think, gives less of an incentive to come up with frivilous legislation.

Granted a happy medium would be fine with me, too.

Anonymous said...

MPPs wanted more money because they were jealous of what federal MPs made.

This is what happens when greed meets envy.

Oink. Oink.

notloz said...

Looks like reason isn't on your side :)

I agree with your blog name Liberty is good.
I am a stong beliver in liberty

-Doing whatever you want as long as you dont harm others.
I do have a problem with freedom or at least the rhetorical use of it.
-do what ever you want

And that is the difference between the socialist and the capitalist.

The current economic superstructure does not recognoize indidivuals at the bottom of the system and exploits them and the enviroment for profit. (putting concious human life the planet and the poor creature speices in peril. Just beucase some asshole was systimatized into a system that propagates competition.

I have no problem with competition to the Nth degree, where competitive buisness practices become ruthless buisness practices. When things become ruthless then the extreamly bad exploytation occurs