Comment 121601

By RobF (registered) | Posted June 08, 2017 at 11:45:19 in reply to Comment 121598

We are probably not going to agree on principle and appear to be talking at cross-purposes. In the case of the house of commons the pin works like an access pass to areas of the parliament buildings not open to the public. Once elected an MP you have life-time access privileges apparently.

On the remuneration front, I consider the rings or any other "tokens" given to a Councillor as part of their overall compensation package. Whether they are or aren't taxable is a moot point.

All you have to do is look at the decision to shift away from having some of their pay being tax-exempt to see the folly in that line of argument. That shift costs us about half a million dollars a year, but now it is easier to see what they are really being paid in salary, or so went the argument from Sammy at the time.

So what would you prefer that they just include it in their next compensation adjustment and pay for it themselves. If we object to the rings, because of what they might symbolize that is fine and understandable. But the argument that we have no money to cover what we need is a little trite. That canard can be rolled out to object to just about any spending decision coming out of public funds. Why build recreation centres or maintain flower beds on boulevards when there are people in need of affordable housing? And on it can go. Where I live it is vocalized as why install traffic calming features when the roads themselves are falling apart?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds