this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
190 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

7226 readers
634 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't really see the logic here. They're already wealthy so who cares if they get a raise? All the more reason they don't need one, it's so out of touch with the rest of the country.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The logic is that they're all rich because a regular Canadian can't afford to be an MP - if we raise MP salaries we'll open the door for regular people to compete without significantly impacting the wealth of current MPs.

[–] Someone@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

I'm confused, I thought the issue was that regular Canadians can't afford to run for MP. I find it hard to believe anyone would struggle to live on nearly $200,000 after being elected. Are you suggesting people would be incentivized to go into debt campaigning for the chance to be elected if their potential future wage was a little higher? There has to be a better use of that money, even in an elections context. Why not some form of funding for "low income" candidates, possibly a loan that's partially forgiven based on votes? I don't know what the solution is, but I just can't see how voting yourself a raise (especially on the same day as unpopular tax hikes) can be seen as anything other than tone deaf.