Susan MacDougall, Voluntary Euthanasia Party for the Senate, Candidate Questionnaire, Election ’13

neanderthalsis said :

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels? ….. It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

No, I don’t believe it is, and would not be suggesting a salary cap on corporations. I do however think that it is evidence of some fundamental flaws in our implementation of capitalism.

euthanasia, but no question on mental health policies – seems the forgotten issue in this election. very sadly…

wildturkeycanoe said :

The reason executive jobs have a larger salary is because the people doing those jobs have either (a) been through years of university and studied hard to gain their qualified job, (b) taken some serious risks with their money/house/family in order to achieve some financial gains or (c) were born into it and are darned lucky.

You forgot (d): “are giving themselves pay rises because they feel they are entitled to the money.”

wildturkeycanoe said :

but if you go too far then we won’t have anyone willing to put in the extra yards to become our future heart surgeons, engineers, lawyers [yeah, I know they don’t really deserve all their dollars, but they do a lot of study to get there], architects, directors of companies, entrepreneurs and even politicians. Why go through so much heartache and earn the same as a street sweeper?

What about pride of workmanship? What about basic altruism? Why should money be the only motivator? What have the people in the Queensland government done to earn their 40% pay rise?

wildturkeycanoe said :

If that training were affordable for anyone who had the intelligence, aspirations or desire to get to these money earning positions, the country would have enough doctors to treat our sick.

The training is affordable for more people than are able to become doctors. The number of doctors is limited by the Government’s handing out of licences to practise in the form of Medicare provider numbers. Then there’s the issue of people who have gone through the study and achieving their qualifications, receiving their provider number, then staying in the city where the clients have more money.

When acquisition of money is the goal, the economically rational player will do their work where their work is most rewarded. Under this model of operation, the doctors heading out to the country will be the ones who aren’t good enough to cut it in the city.

We need street sweepers more than we need Lexus-driving CEOs. The difference in contribution to society does not warrant orders of magnitude differences in salaries.

Hi, Susan.
Are you the Voluntary Euthanasia party’s candidate in the ACT? I thought Philip Nitschke was standing here.
I had thought I would vote for him in the upper house, as I, like many, despair of the lack of policy debate from the two main parties. I will not vote Greens, I don’t want a tram etc. However, having voted for you or Philip at no. 1, I will then exercise my judgement over the rest of the ballot paper.
Because, I have to say, your responses demonstrate why single issue parties will never gain traction. Your answer to 1 is great, 2 shows a lack of economic principles, 3 is fine, but completely unanswerable by any candidate, 4 is part of the fiscal credibility gap of both major parties, 5 is ok, 6 I personally disagree with, 7 Hallelujah but who cares, secondary issue, the Ardbeg is kicking in, who designed these idiot questions that you have to answer anyway?? and I am now bored about the others.
Anyway, euthanasia is a very important issue, one that our squibbling politicians continue to avoid, I will vote for you (or Philip) on that.
Besides, I am not getting any younger!
Cheers
Willoring

neanderthalsis said :

p1 said :

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels?

I dislike top executives earning huge salaries with stock options, and when it goes pear shaped, they walk with a nice golden handshake. I also believe that their should be increased accountability to shareholders and transparency with shareholders. But ultimately it is the individual organization, through the Board and or the shareholders that should determine pay structures, not our elected representatives.

It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

…. that there should be increased accountability…

p1 said :

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

But is it the role of government to determine remuneration levels?

I dislike top executives earning huge salaries with stock options, and when it goes pear shaped, they walk with a nice golden handshake. I also believe that their should be increased accountability to shareholders and transparency with shareholders. But ultimately it is the individual organization, through the Board and or the shareholders that should determine pay structures, not our elected representatives.

It is not a role of government to tell me how much I can earn.

neanderthalsis said :

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.

If you don’t like the example of Gina, what about the CEOs of banks on $10 million? There are many arguments for why some people get paid more then others (size or organisation, importance of organisation, level of responsibility, etc, etc), but it is very hard to make the argument as to why the difference needs to be so big (especially when compared to the wages of top brain surgeons or military leaders).

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

well put

YeahBuddy said :

Bootstraps

Yep, poor people are all lazy.

Well done.

johnboy said :

The issue isn’t a doctor making $200,000 a year.

It’s Gina Rinehart making $200,000 every nine minutes:

http://www.howrichareyou.com.au/

But if people like Gina, Clive and Twiggy weren’t out there stumping up their own dosh, digging holes and selling rocks to China, we as a nation would be one hell of a lot poorer than we are now.

Yes Gina got lucky because daddy had cash by the bucket load, she may be madder than Bob Katter at a gay greenie tofu festival, she may have a family that makes the good folk off Dallas look like Family Ties, but she puts her cash on the line and gives people jobs.

We seem to support entrepreneurialism up to the point where people become successful and start making serious money. At that point, in the eyes of the broader Australian public, you stop being successful and start being an Industrial Overlord, living off the blood and sweat of the oppressed working class.