Here are the salaries of 13 major world leaders

(25-03-2015, 06:45 PM)specuvestor Wrote:

(25-03-2015, 03:48 PM)corydorus Wrote: Currently the salary is around $4M annual right ? I don't see an issue unless you are arguing for 100M and 1B.
Looks like a non-issue on the pay. So why are we even debating about it ?

The debate is that I see $40k-$80k a month as a more reasonable gauge pegged to multiple of the median salary of the common man on the street.

I don't agree to pegging to top earners as their JD and motivation is totally different. That has already beginning to show in the cracks of public opinion of policy makers being Elitists. The writings are already on the wall. Many of our founding fathers are English educated but they had their nose to the ground and people knew they stand for meritocracy rather than Elitism. There is a difference.

It seems a debate of ideology vs pragmatism.

You guys remember we had some old threads on this discussion?

(25-03-2015, 10:11 PM)corydorus Wrote: Well i disagree in Singapore context to have a talent able to run the COUNTRY paid so low. A local medium size CEO earns more than that.

So do you agree that "Price is what you pay and value is what you get"?

So any talented guy is measured by how much he is paid. Nice.

Actually we can't really quantify the PM's remuneration in monetary terms, considering the tangible and intangible incentives the PM and his family members received. I am not speaking about power manipulation but more on the priorities that the family members received from the public (eg. respects, gifts, reputation etc) and from the corporates (eg. positions etc).

IMO, managing a country is as relevant as running a company. For the case of a company, CEO is PnL focused and shareholders and creditors are the assessors. Whereas for a country, PM is elections focused and citizens are the assessors. So I am suggesting that a CEO should be paid well if a company produces stellar results, likewise a PM should be well remunerated if he achieves huge victory in public elections.

I don't want to discuss to what extent we should remunerate our PM in monetary term because different capability attracts different price. But someone like Mr Lee Kuan Yew deserved to be paid hundred of millions if not more.

Exactly. Just like we cannot peg our parents effort to raise us on monetary terms. It's meaningless.

(26-03-2015, 02:43 PM)valuebuddies Wrote: Actually we can't really quantify the PM's remuneration in monetary terms, considering the tangible and intangible incentives the PM and his family members received. I am not speaking about power manipulation but more on the priorities that the family members received from the public (eg. respects, gifts, reputation etc) and from the corporates (eg. positions etc).

IMO, managing a country is as relevant as running a company. For the case of a company, CEO is PnL focused and shareholders and creditors are the assessors. Whereas for a country, PM is elections focused and citizens are the assessors. So I am suggesting that a CEO should be paid well if a company produces stellar results, likewise a PM should be well remunerated if he achieves huge victory in public elections.

I don't want to discuss to what extent we should remunerate our PM in monetary term because different capability attracts different price. But someone like Mr Lee Kuan Yew deserved to be paid hundred of millions if not more.

Your notion of being paid huge when winning a seat has been precedented: It's called the decline of the Roman Republic

Our founding fathers' motivation were not monetary. I think a lot of people take the heuristically easy one indicator solution of pegging ministers' salary to a simple number to calculate worth or incentive. Like I posted, if salary is the primary motivation of policy makers, we will be in trouble. Higher salary is to increase disincentive.

Most here are still thinking in terms of incentives because we are so used to corporate analysis. We have to be careful not to be the man with a hammer that everything looks like a nail.

Buffett summarised the tax debate very well in a one liner: Let's discuss tax on the beach of Normandy. It is not just about money. We can't just analyse a stock based on one PE indicator. If it is that simple my son could arrange them in order and buy the one with lowest PE. It's a tree but it's wrong tree. Money is but one part of an equation to help disincentivise policy makers from the most obvious forbidden fruit: Corruption that comes with power.

Between winning election and improving people's life is hard work. What you want is to pay base on the latter instead of the former. Some people can promise you the sky to win election but have no plan, or not even the faintest idea, to deliver.

Look guys, don't be blinded by ideology. Please use common sense. The cost of an F-16 Plane probably cost US$150 Millions. The whole cabinet + PM office cost much less than this annually. We are not paying something sky high imo.

I disagree hundred of millions price tag on LKY. To transform a nation if i know a person like him can do it, is in US$ Billions.

I beg to be different. My equation is:

Improved people's life + prosperous nation = higher performance assessment = victory in GE = higher remuneration

With this equation, a statesman knows that he/she can only secures high/higher remuneration only if he can contribute to "improved people's life" + "prosperous nation". Someone who fails shall not expect to have the same level of remuneration again. It is true that we don't want a pure money-driven minister. But in a modern democratic jurisdiction, if a minister is only money-driven but not people-driven, how can he/she stays in cabinet for long?

If I were a statesman, if I want a good repo and good pay, I will do my best in serving my people, unless I am not monetary motivated or reputation motivated person. The reality is that if someone is not monetary motivated or reputation motivated person, he/she is not capable to be a statesman.

(26-03-2015, 03:02 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Your notion of being paid huge when winning a seat has been precedented: It's called the decline of the Roman Republic

Our founding fathers' motivation were not monetary. I think a lot of people take the heuristically easy one indicator solution of pegging ministers' salary to a simple number to calculate worth or incentive. Like I posted, if salary is the primary motivation of policy makers, we will be in trouble. Higher salary is to increase disincentive.

Most here are still thinking in terms of incentives because we are so used to corporate analysis. We have to be careful not to be the man with a hammer that everything looks like a nail.

Buffett summarised the tax debate very well in a one liner: Let's discuss tax on the beach of Normandy. It is not just about money. We can't just analyse a stock based on one PE indicator. If it is that simple my son could arrange them in order and buy the one with lowest PE. It's a tree but it's wrong tree. Money is but one part of an equation to help disincentivise policy makers from the most obvious forbidden fruit: Corruption that comes with power.

I have to admit that I know nuts about history

I think I gonna spent plenty of time in studying what you have pointed out, but just a quick thought: isn't it inappropriate to make peer comparison between modern educated Singapore voters versus the Romans?