A douchebag once argued that MPs should be well paid so they don't get bought off. We hear something like this from the judges and from several others and we can understand the size and source of the problem.
Before anyone complains let me explain…for the hundredth time. Once someone invokes this argument, they are either at best clumsy, or at worst a convenient douchebag (I note this applies to all positions and positions). The reason is simple. The decisions of MPs have to do with millions, tens of millions and billions. No matter how much a parliamentarian or judge is paid since they can be bought sooner or later they will be bought. Maybe not with the same frequency, but it will be bought out and the damage it will cause will be huge. I experienced an incident where a country minister (not in Cyprus) collected a "commission" of 15 thousand … a day. What salary was this country supposed to offer him for the gentleman in question not charging for these "supplies". If you find the number, figure that amount was from one of the hundreds of sources of supply he had.
So the secret is to find people who don't get bought and not to increase earnings by making this argument. And don't tell me "what do you want, only the rich get office"? You know that's not what I mean. You know that there are other numbers between zero and half a million.
The thoughtless and rational increase in salaries has yet another reverse effect – an argument regarding employment in the State (including official positions). The higher the pay and perks and the easier it is to enjoy the fruits of a position with the least impact, the more likely you are to attract the lazy, corrupt and incompetent to that position. I have worked and collaborated with very capable and honest people in the State. The comment was not written to make insinuations about individuals or the mass of civil servants and officials but to explain the absurd logic of the argument. I note that I was also paid for 7 years by the State.
So it is not by chance that we have arrived today to learn about the benefits of officials and allowances in the State. It is because in key positions we have had people who have done this work over time. For a lifetime they have been asking and getting by invoking this type of argument. The mass was silent because with the basil the pot would also be watered, or because it was also facing a blunder or simply saying but I will mess with the establishment?
What should be done with all this and the "multiple" pensions (which for the thousandth time is not the multiple, but their amount is the problem), all those who shout about it, know it very well. They simply throw the ball elsewhere in hopes of locking in the benefit. I'm really afraid we're going for another firework display.
The State does not need to pay better, but to choose better, to punish better. The rest will fix itself.