If anyone has any helpful criticism or differing view points, I would appreciate it. I wrote this to go on a blog, but I didn't ever get any helpful feedback from it. This is from an American perspective, but I would love to have an international idea about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Of pastors and politicians. I think that government and clergy positions are quite often overstuffed with money. In my opinion they should both make, at the most, the average salary of their people. If a church has a congregation that has an average salary of $30,000, then it is a little ridiculous to have a pastor that gets paid $80,000. The same should apply to the politicians. If the salaries were lower for politicians, then the average person would have more of a chance at being elected. How so? If a person was thinking of entering politics and has an annual income of $100,000, then he/she would think carefully before attempting to get a position that would be a serious cut in pay. If the deep pocket politicians were eliminated from political races, then the average income person would have more of a chance at running. I know that political races aren't won by the amount of money that is produced by the candidate, but all you have to do is look at the current election process to see how important it is. If the average person, that would be a likely candidate, were to try and run against a big business person, then there is only so much the average guy can do whereas the big business person will have all the bling and bangles that money can buy. This is something I've been thinking about recently, but I'll probably have to rewrite this because it's not coming out like I was wanting it to. It may have something to do with it being 4:30 in the morning, or it may just be that I haven't thought it through well enough to put it in writing. Another interesting tidbit that has come to my mind is about Hillary 'loaning' her campaign 5 million bucks. It doesn't make sense to me. I can see her adding her own money to the campaign process, but how do you loan money to a campaign? Can anyone do it? If so, then I might have loaned money to some campaigns in the past if I knew that I would get a return on my loan. Does she lose her loan if she doesn't win the election? If anyone has any information on this I would be very interested in it.
Very good idea. I don't really like religion in general so I'd probably be biased on that part but the politician part is logical. Although it should scale up depending on position.
This would have been an edit, but I didn't think of it until I had gotten away from the computer. I don't agree with the government telling churches what they can and can't do, with various exceptions. Blood sacrifice, killing/maiming/beating people and things that are a "sacrilege" to the faith, and the likes. But I do think that government should get ahold of itself and start some self-regulation. Plenty of politicians are given vehicles to use while in office, reimbursements for moneys spent for the office, and other types of perks. Then on top of that, some of our government employees are only at their job for 90 days during the whole year, unless they are called into special meetings and then they get paid double what they usually get. So, if they get all those perks, why should they get paid $80,000 for working 90 days? And yes, mr scrub, pay should scale upwards with the more responsibility. And even if you don't like religion you can still have a say on what you think that ministers, whether for a church or for the state office, should regulate themselves on. As a final note, if I can get this well enough thought out and well written I am planning on sending this to some of the people I know in local and state offices and see what they think. May even send it to a couple of statewide newspapers. We'll see how it goes. So, I really am looking for feedback. As harsh or as helpful as you can be. I'm just tired of working my ass off and seeing the lawmakers passing fart sniffing laws and being paid with money that comes from my hard earned taxes.
Just out of my sleeve... I'd say a politician working full time on his/her position should be payed well enough within reason - for many, its a 60-hours-a-week-minimum job, and what I wouldn't want to provoke is that only people whose family already has the money attempt to make it into some sort of parliament. All within reason, of course - I am not talking about people spending two years in some local parliament without anybody ever taking notice of them, who then are granted full payment for twice the time they spent in office as what is called "Bridge money" in German. I'd also say, pay them well, but forbid second or third "jobs" as chairmen in companies or other lobbyist organizations, and make their income and its sources public for as long as they are public servants. As for clergy, I don't really know about their geberal income, especially not in the higher ranks. But an aunt of mine and her husband are both reverends, and I'd say their money is hard earned - he, for example, is an emergency counselor as part of his job, but next to his working routine. That means he can be called 24 h each day in case there's someone in the local area - not just the town they live and work in - planning to commit suicide, or when there has been an accident and people have been killed, leaving their relatives as well as Police and Fireworkers in need of counseling (at two o'clock in the night, not over the course of the next months). On the other side, I knew colleagues of them who didn't do quite as much and, unlike them, got their flat for free from the church - while getting the same amount of money. I do agree there are jobs who hardly are payed enough, and others which are being payed too well, but in both the cases of "politicians" as well as "clergy" I find it hard to make general statements because in both groups, I know examples for both hard earned money and people who were... a little overprivileged. In both groups, it is a question of so many things... are they really committed or do they just about cover the work description? And which level of the hierarchy are you looking at? Especially in the case of politicians, it is easy to find people who agree they earn too much. But I'd advocate more transparency in that case first and maybe cross a few privileges (as payments years after having left or having been voted out of office), and then take a second look at the issue and think wether I'd want a member of parliament to earn significantly less than a qualified middle range manager in some sort of business trust. I think there are definitely jobs which aren't payed enough out of tradition - jobs where people work hard, carry a lot of responsibility, and do society a favour: Police, Fire brigades, nurses, teachers etc. I also think a manager who ruined a trust and cost thousand of people their jobs shouldn't be sent home with a few million bucks extra cash. But I find it hard to point at a single group as an entirety and say they earn too much ("not enough" is often easier! )
Thanks for that, Hsing. That gives me some more to think on. The clergy part was mainly for a comparison. Both groups are supposed to be helping their people without the focus on financial gain. If either is primarily focused on their income, then they are probably in the wrong area. I was talking to a friend of my dad's earlier and he gave me some helpful advice about some of this. I may have to go back to peg one and try and decide on just one area or focus of what I want to say. Right now I feel like I'm just blasting a shotgun at the problems I see rather than pinpointing a single problem that can be addressed and built upon. Kenny, my dad's friend, said that he felt that all public servants should have their income statements public. He is a pastor, and like you said he thinks that while some are way over compensated that many are very underpaid. I'll try to re-write my ideas in a more orderly fashion and repost it sometime soon. Please feel free to keep adding to it.
In Greece the earnings of politicians have to be public. Not that it helps much. But anyways. On principle, you have every right to be dissatisfied with the way politicians and clergymen are compensated. But there are practical matters I believe you should take into account when proposing reforms. One, there are areas, at least in Greece, where the general population is poor and/or consisting of low income pensioners. Especially the elderly need the spiritual comfort a priest can give but I seriously doubt anyone would take up a post in their areas. And greed doesn't have to come into it. In Greece priests can be married with children, as long as the marriage takes place before getting ordained, and they are not able to climb the ranks. A family man would not want to support children and/or wife on a salary of 200 euros per month, which was the average pension where I was a rural doctor, even more so when he can't get to a rank with better pay. The other is that someone who wants to be a politician very badly, or at least , there are people who want him/her to be a politician made badly, will find a way around such measures. Off the top of my head, financing the campaign with cushy deals in return and blackmailing the competition it something that has happened, does happen, and continue to happen regardless of the money the politicians get paid to do their job. I don't know exactly how decentralized the political system is in America. But knowing the politicians, at least in local level, is important when going to vote for them. Personally I am wary of politicians who suck up to their voters instead of showing a practical approach to problems, even if such an approach is not popular.
I disagree. The salaries of politicians in the US are crap compared to the incomes of CEOs of big companies. Which makes it easier for politicians to be influenced/pressured by big business.
Only two small points. In Britain, clergy are paid a stipend that differs depending on which denomination they are in. I think the average is about £18,000, which is about the same as a low level office worker. Unlike some of the American clergy I've met, British clergy do not have a staff to assist them in running their churches. They must, as Hsing said, be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most work over 12 hours on an average day and many do not take a day off. So I think that if clergy are overpaid where you live, it's a regional thing. Regarding politicians, given the responsibility of their jobs, I don't think they should be low-paid. They probably do earn more money than they need, but they don't need anything like as much money here to get into politics as is necessary in America. A campaign is funded by the political party, as we vote on a party basis rather than for individuals as Prime Minister.
