The deputies did not like the idea to put them on a salary of 35 thousand, did not appreciate her and in the government.
As expected, the state Duma deputies not relished the idea of their fellow revolutionaries on equating their allowances to the average wage in the country (that is to 35 thousand roubles). Not approved the initiative and the government. It is also understandable why.
There is one legislative subtlety. The fact is that according to the Federal law “About the status of a member of the Council of Federation and status of Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, the MP is treated like a Federal Minister — and gets as much as he is. That is, wages would automatically follow to cut and members of the Cabinet. And they, as MPs, have a go, apparently, is not ready. In other words, servants of the people of the future suddenly find themselves in the situation of the people are not smiling.
“How can you live in Moscow with the money? — commented on the initiative of the Deputy Vitaly Milonov. — Then it would be the average salary in Moscow is offered. And who will go to work in the state Duma for the money?” Apparently, sit on the hunter Series, taking the sometimes crazy bills — a chore. What’s in your hot shop. Or at the bottom.
Note that dear Vitaly Valentinovich did not take into account another important fact: unlike ordinary citizens, receiving 35 thousand per month, members receive a budget (or rather — out of our pocket) and still a whole bunch of benefits. And, apparently, fallen from happiness obureli so much that they consider it a natural phenomenon.
Referred to us the law requires MPs to provide not only office accommodation, but also to pay them along with family moving into it. If service housing for whatever reason, cannot be provided (usually because the old tenant, also a Deputy, rested and did not move out; every time the same story at the junction of the two convocations, “Source” talked about such “devicesetup”), the servant of the people accommodated in the hotel. Not because it is, again, the expense, and not in some “Tourist” in the suburbs.
And to newly elect and his home in the capital was not bored, he and the family paid a “lump sum allowance… in the amount of 0.5, to each member of his family — 0.25 monthly remuneration”. We will remind, now it is 450 thousand rubles. By the way, the same amount the member receives as benefit when his term of office comes to an end, even if it is not re-elected.
About “paid annual leave of 42 calendar days” and so it is common knowledge that go further. The parliamentarian the aforementioned law also “medical, rehabilitation and home support”. Not what happens, and “the conditions established for the Federal Minister.” And if he is in the company of the powers will receive some injury, then all that saved him for life.
If the Deputy come out of the Duma before the end of the term of office, he has the right and the “monthly payment to the insurance pensions of old-age (disability)”. Spent in the state Duma a period or two or 55%, for more than two terms — 75% of “monthly remuneration”. That estimate, what is the cost of ex-MPs at rest and in what progression a growing number of soderzhantsy.
About fantastic transport support also all know. Not time heard the requirement to replant legislators on personal transport. Gentlemen, do not rush and do not get excited: the lovely FZ “About the status of the Deputy” implies indemnity and such expenses.
All of the above is not a complete list of Deputy freebies. Curiously, the government stated that the increased salaries of MPs is due to (attention!) the nature of their activities. They (deputies), noted in the Cabinet, are required to “fully and effectively participate in parliamentary activities, above all in the legislative process, the complexity and the intensity of which in modern conditions has increased substantially, and also to pay considerable attention to the work with voters”. Tricky question: when you were last seen alive by his Deputy? Well, the person for whom you voted in September 2016? And you it generally saw?.. Understand: you have a series of rhetorical questions, sorry.