who is to say who is more deserving?
The government, they're elected after all. I'm sorry because that's a frankly flippant answer to what's actually a very good question but it's the best one I've got. While I like the idea that we should decide as individuals the answer, too often, would be: "me". I think it has to be some body that can step back and be a bit more objective and I can't think of a better one than the government - even if they're not actually a particularly good one.

I'm guessing we've got different definitions of government though. You seem to be using it to refer to centralised national government wheras I'm using it to include local councils as well. I think you're arguing for as much decentralisation as possible an I'd line right up alongside you there. Decisions should be taken at the most local level possible. Inevitably there are some decisions which belong at a national level but national governments to tend to want to centralise everything and I don't think that's healthy.

Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?
There no use trying to butter me up with cheap puns at this late stage. Oh alright, yours were clever while mine was more "I can't believe it's not funny". I was on something about it being margeinally funny but I just couldn't get the wording right.

@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.
I think issues around MP pay are really quite interesting. I like to think that low pay would mean only the committed would serve but I suspect it would mean only the indepentently wealthy would.