Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#41

Post by Of_Prometheus »

bpodgursky wrote: post #37
grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much big…

I agree with you on stuff like schools, firemen, and healthcare. But it's a different calculation for a head of state. When 300mm people look to an individual as a leader (rather than 3mm people) there are 100x as many threats to their security via disgruntled citizens, crazy people, etc, so physical security has to scale. It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as…

The comparison, then, should be with the governor of Oklahoma, who lives in the Governor's Mansion.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#42

Post by grecy »

bpodgursky wrote: post #37
grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much big…

I agree with you on stuff like schools, firemen, and healthcare. But it's a different calculation for a head of state. When 300mm people look to an individual as a leader (rather than 3mm people) there are 100x as many threats to their security via disgruntled citizens, crazy people, etc, so physical security has to scale. It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as…

Rather than spending money "defending" your leaders, wouldn't it be better if you addressed the issues and actually figured out why people want to cause harm to their leaders?

You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#43

Post by xweb »

Gee, it sounds awful. On recent tax reform: "Especially surprising was the lack of opposition from the upper strata of Uruguayan society, who would almost assuredly pay more taxes as a result of the reforms.... There are few associations or organizations that unite the country’s elite even today, and Uruguay’s political parties tend to develop broad “catch-all” coalitions that refrain from aligning to closely with the wealthy and alienating the majority of voters. Thus, the economic elite tend to have very weak influence on political decision making, including tax reforms." http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/Uruguay_Taxation_201...

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#44

Post by smtddr »

yodsanklai wrote: post #38
glesica wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is actually wrong with it? Nothing you mentioned sounds bad at all (and the translation of that article seemed pretty poor, so hard to draw conclusions). I would LOVE to live in a more "socialist" country. I'd much rather be poorer in a place where my basic needs are met and I don't have to fear starvation or freezing to death if I catch an unlucky break. Instead of a rising tide lifting all boats, I'd rather…

I live in a more socialist country where health care and education are free, and where we have have a good balance between work and personal time and I hope it'll stay the same despite the international pressure. I don't know why "socialism" is such a bad word in the US. Probably propaganda from the rich to keep their privileges. I had the chance to live in the US for a couple of years (it was a child dream of mine t…

>>Probably propaganda from the rich to keep their privileges.

Not probably. It's exactly that.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#46

Post by mikeyouse »

grecy wrote: post #36
bpodgursky wrote: post #11

Uruguay's population is 3.3 million, which is a bit smaller than Oklahoma, for comparison. It's not shocking to me that a head of state of a small country like that doesn't have all the trappings and security a of a country of 100mm / 300mm / a billion people.

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much big…

    Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"?
"The trappings" are essentially a fixed cost at any scale of country.

Let's say you need a palace, a security detail, a motorcade, and a jet to have all of "the trappings" for the ruling family. If you assign some costs to these things, say $500k/yr for the palace, $1mm/yr for security, $500k/yr for motorcade, and $10mm/yr for the jet, you can figure out the annual cost -- $12mm/year in this example. So in a country with only 3.3 million people, that's $3.60/citizen/year for the ruling family to have their trappings. In a country with 310 million people, that would only be $0.038/citizen/year.

Even if you need more security, or a bigger motorcade, or a more expensive plane, you're still on the magnitude of pennies/person/year instead of dollars/person/year.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#47

Post by ricardobeat »

mikeyouse wrote: post #46
grecy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These size comparisons always seem strange to me. Uruguay has 3.3 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The US has 310 million people, so they collect tax from that many to spend on important stuff like schools, firemen and healthcare. The fact that the US has more people to collect taxes from means it's spendings pot is obviously much big…

Why do you think that a country with more taxpayers has more money for "trappings"? "The trappings" are essentially a fixed cost at any scale of country. Let's say you need a palace, a security detail, a motorcade, and a jet to have all of "the trappings" for the ruling family. If you assign some costs to these things, say $500k/yr for the palace, $1mm/yr for security, $500k/yr for motorcade, and $10mm/yr for the jet…

The size of the government is proportional to the population. Those costs are not fixed at all.

Anyway, you're missing the point. He doesn't have all of this by choice, not because Uruguay can't pay for it.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#48

Post by true_religion »

grecy wrote: post #42
bpodgursky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on stuff like schools, firemen, and healthcare. But it's a different calculation for a head of state. When 300mm people look to an individual as a leader (rather than 3mm people) there are 100x as many threats to their security via disgruntled citizens, crazy people, etc, so physical security has to scale. It's like saying, "why does the mayor of my town not need the same number of secret service as…

Rather than spending money "defending" your leaders, wouldn't it be better if you addressed the issues and actually figured out why people want to cause harm to their leaders? You know, many developed countries don't even have a security force for their leaders, and for example, the ex-Prime Minister of Australia went jogging all the time by himself, in whatever city he happens to be in.

Perhaps it is as simple has having more enemies because you have more citizens under your rule as a bigger country. after all no president has been assassinated by a foreign plot.

Re: Uruguay's president José Mujica: no palace, no motorcade, no frills

#49

Post by dep_b »

jere wrote: post #5
xweb wrote: post #2

Immediately searched for "moving to Uruguay" after reading this. The thought of a sane politician is so refreshing.

I had a similar thought. AMURICA ? More like A Mujica ? Am I right? >1972 Imprisoned again. Remains in jail for more than a decade, including two years' solitary confinement at the bottom of a well, where he speaks to frogs and insects to maintain his sanity. There's something amazing about politicians who spend decades in prison but still have the drive to go into politics afterwards (e.g. Mandela).

....or Menem....
Post reply on HN