The Instigator
S_putri
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

THW make the salary of politicians equal to the per capita income of the country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,356 times Debate No: 64826
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

S_putri

Pro

Limitation : Developing Country
Im totally agree with the motion because,

1. Dedrease the amount of money that country ue for politician's salary
2. The amount of money should be transfered to build the economy in its country and increse the prosperity of people
3. Politicians will get motivated to increase the prosperity of people so that their salary will increase.
bluesteel

Con

== My Case ==

Contention 1: Brain drain

If you want to attract smart people, you need to pay them more money. The per capita income of Somalia, for example, is $600 per year. [1] Somalia really sucks. Approximately 1 in 100 of the population leaves Somalia each year. [2] The smart people in Somalia go to a university in another country and stay there. If you want smart people in Somalia to become politicians, rather than leaving to find more lucrative options elsewhere, you need to pay them more than $600 per year.

Contention 2: Corruption

Corruption in developing countries is widespread. "In most developing countries today, corruption is widespread and part of everyday life." [3] If you pay politicians a salary that is too little to live on, you force them to take bribes in order to supplement their income. The U.S. had the same experience in the not-so-distant past when it paid its police officers too little: it resulted in widespread corruption among the police force. It's dangerous to have people in positions of power who are severely underpaid. A $600 per year salary, for example, means the politician has less than $2 per day to live on. The United Nations defines living on less than $2 a day as being poverty and less than $1 a day as being in extreme poverty, as far as the Millenium Development Goals are concerned. It's very hard to live on less than $2 per day, even if you live in a developing country where the cost of living is cheaper. And most people who live on less than $2 per day are farmers, so they have food to supplement their income. In contrast, a politician is expected to work full time on politics, which leads to me to....

Contention 3: Starvation

In some countries, like Somalia, the per capita income is so low that a politician would literally starve to death if he or she worked full time (on politics) instead of farming, scavenging, or hunting for food. Earning below two dollars a day is well below subsistence. You can't actually expect someone to live off of that salary. Such a salary wouldn't even cover the cost of living in a major city. You couldn't afford rent while earning less than $2 per day. In general, the cost of living in a city is higher than the cost of living in the country-side. It's simply not feasible to expect a politician to live off of a per capita income so low that it leads to most people in the country (who earn that income) to be constantly in a state of near-starvation. A country needs politicians to look up to, who can inspire the masses. Someone who is on the verge of starvation is not going to be an effective leader.

== Rebuttal ==

R1) My opponent says that the country will have more money in its budget if it pays its politicians less

However, Somalia could pay its politicians 10 tens the per capita income and still have plenty of money. $6,000 per year isn't exactly going to break the treasury, even of a country like Somalia. Furthermore, politicians' salaries are simply not a very large part of any national budget. A much larger portion of the budget goes towards servicing the country's debt (in the US, 20% of the budget goes towards this purpose). Another significant portion goes to military and police. Another significant portion goes towards infrastructure, like roads. If you want good leaders, politicians' salaries is not the right thing to skimp on. A good politician can more than pay for himself or herself by helping to boost the nation's economy, thereby increasing the overall tax base. A single good infrastructure project (like building a new school) will more than pay for a salary of $6,000 per year in Somalia when those kids grow up and add far more than $6,000 per year to the economy.

R2) My opponent claims that the money could instead be put into the economy

However, as stated above, we're talking about paltry sums of money here. Furthermore, paying politicians too little ensures corruption, which means the money will be squandered by the corrupt politicians and will be allocated to their benefactors or stolen for their own purposes. You need to pay politicians enough to ensure you can attract honest politicians. That way, less money is squandered on nefarious dealings.

R3) My opponent claims politicians will be motivated to stimulate the economy so their salary increases

However, this is not much of an incentive. The GDP of Somalia is 917 million US dollars. If a politician somehow managed to double the size of the Somalian economy -- adding 917 million per year into the economy -- his or her pay would only double from $600 per year to $1,200 per year. That's not much of an incentive, especially given that a *doubling* in the size of the economy is not very feasible. If instead the politician added only $10 million to the economy, his or her salary would only increase 1 percent, from $600 per year to $606 per year. Ten million dollars is a lot of money to add to the economy, but the politician himself (or herself) only realizes $6 from that gain. It'd be more beneficial to the politician to engage in corruption and pocket 10% from the government project that is worth $10 million, instead netting himself (or herself) $1 million. Even a somewhat moral politician could easily justify such corrupt dealing if he or she was earning only $600 per year because the additional money from corruption is necessary for survival at that point.

But regardless, the motive to increase their salary is almost non-existent and would still exist in a regime where they are paid significantly more money because increases in GDP will make them look good and increase their chances of re-election. If their salary was much higher than the per capita income, there would be an even greater incentive to get re-elected in order to keep this salary.

[1] http://www.indexmundi.com...(ppp).html
[2] http://www.indexmundi.com...
[3] http://www.oecdobserver.org...
Debate Round No. 1
S_putri

Pro

S_putri forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
S_putri

Pro

S_putri forfeited this round.
bluesteel

Con

Extend my arguments. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
oh snap! Someone's getting the royal treatment.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Motivated politicians are never good for the economy. Sleeping politicians would be great for the economy. Just leave us alone and wealth will be built.Politics has been built into an industry. That is the problem.Most of them go there to see how much bigger they can expand government.With their brainy ideas has put America $18,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. That is just federal. States, counties, local, all are in debt.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
S_putribluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
S_putribluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by neverBSAD 2 years ago
neverBSAD
S_putribluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.