You must log in or register to comment.
Just make inside trading and taking corporate and foreign Pac bribes illegal for them.
Currently these two rules alone are why they rig laws for corportations and big pharma and insurance and oil companies, weapon manufaturers, banks, israel… they work for everyone but the citizens… And that some fucking how is legal and practiced in the open by both Democrats and Conservatives alikeThis is where the real money is, and this is the real source of corruption; their salary is not the problem. In fact, I think the salary should be high enough that normal people will still be interested in the difficult and ugly game of politics. I wouldn’t run for office for less money than I make at my job - I have bills to pay.
I think they should be barred altogether from making stock trades while in office. Maybe their portfolios could go into a blind trusts (or index funds or something) so that they cannot make insider trades. Likewise for their partners and close family.
Manipulating the stock market is the principal motivation behind Trump’s trade and foreign policy. The same can probably be said about many Democrat and Republican congresspeople. Allowing this obscenity is the single greatest weakness of the American political system.
I have a solution. Come up with actual Qol metrics for the average American, check them every 3 months, if they go down a congressman is selected at random for execution.
I like it, but there is a hitch. With climate change, mean QoL is going to fall for the rest of our lives. We can mitigate the suffering and redistribute resources to make things equitable, but the best we can realistically do is improve median QoL.
Yeah, I left it vague because I’m certainly not qualified to determine what that should be.
Sounds good on paper, until you notice this means… only the wealthy would ever bother running for office.
That’s true already
Right. So it wouldn’t change anything.
I’m sure many low wage workers would jump at the chance to actually make a difference.
Why do we think only people who have become career politicians should be politicians? They’re the last people who should do it.
A room of 600 plumbers, nurses, and bin men would make far better decisions than them.
Yes, but in that case adopting Sortition and abolishing career politicians makes way more sense.
That’s the theory behind pensions for most public offices and the police. To remove the temptation for corruption in office… not that it works
If members of Congress earn the average or median wage, that will ensure that only the rich can actually hold that position. Very, very few non-rich people would take that risk.
And it will only encourage lobbying, insider trader, and every other corrupt money making bullshit they still do with what they earn.
Better yet, bring back the ancient Greek lottery for state office.
Yes, but a competency test is essential. 50% of the population are below average intelligence.
Sounds like an improvement over the current US congress already.
I think most countries would benefit from a competency test for public office, maybe even a morality assessment…
The more serious answer to that is that someone then needs to decide what “competent” means. Should a human rights activist be disqualified from office if they’re terrible at math?
Morality tests are even harder to make apolitically. It’s another avenue of attack that could be used maliciously.
I don’t think so. That just creates another way to gatekeep, and that can be corrupted. I’d rather focus on improving education in the first place.
They should also have to use the VA for health insurance
Early retirement, absolutely.
With regards to politicians wages, I think they should be commensurate with the responsibilities of the job. But they should have no other means of income during their term, and potentially for a period afterwards. There would need to be much more stringent auditing and enforcement to ensure this.
Politicians engaging I’m outside employment seems crazy to me, and is clearly a route to corruption.
What responsibilities? Most people just assume there are responsibilities and consequences, turns are out there isn’t. The newest episode of Some More News is about exactly this.
And a wealth cap. If you have 20 million networth but want to give it all up save under 200k (current median networth) to be a public servant then by all means. They made Jimmy Carter give up his peanut farm, which was the right thing, we should do the same for politicians today.
I agree with an earlier retirement, but I’m conflicted about the regular wage part.
If gov members work for a “regular” wage, then what would be their incentive in public service vs other jobs. Or what’s stopping them from working a regular wage and then side hustle as the billionaires’ lap dog (not that different now tbh). Good will?
Good will seems to work for teachers and nurses. Problem is more money would likely come from other sources (bribes, lobbying, that sort of thing)
In that case, I suspect it’s just a law enforcement issue. By which I mean, what would happen to a nurse or a doctor who ignored triage and took personal bribes to ensure certain people receive help first, while leaving other people who need more urgent help to die? That’s what should be happening to politicians too IMO.
Ah but who’s going to watch the watcher? Or whose gonna enforce that if you’re the top dog?
Right, but if you get to write the laws about what happens in those cases, I bet those laws have no teeth or are unenforceable
Yeah. Like why would I work for a shit paying but powerful job, unless I have some ulterior motives. Good Samaritans exist but they’re a dime a dozen.
What I’m saying is there are tonnea of people who work hard for low pay everyday (ex. teachers and nurses).
Being in a position of power however would likely corrupt them (or maybe attract corrupt people)
tell that to the silent generation and boomers in congress, mitch, chuck greasley, chuck schumer,etc.
Mitch might show no interest at all in this matter.
Ughhhh what? Again I hate to hate on people who did good in life. You gotta step up your game and find a profession that can earn you above that wage as well as pay off the student loan which if you don’t choose the minimal w/the longest time to pay it off, with a ridiculous apr, so you won’t be trapped in a financial hole.
But I think that 280k$/yr should be the max anyone can potentially earn and I think you should have to pay 2% more overall in taxes per year on everything city, state and federal once you make over 120k$. For example your excise tax, city water bills and even phone bills would be 2% more.
Not groceries and clothes/general retail. so like credit card bills, Spotify, Netflix wouldn’t be more in taxes. Phones are needed in today’s society, like you can’t do a lot without it. So it would be extra in taxes.
You gotta step up your game and find a profession that can earn you above that wage
Above median salary? What about the fact that, by definition, 50% of people won’t be able to do that?
Okay, okay, so wages rise over time, and eventually 99% of people are making above 66k… but then the new median will be, like, 150k, and everything in society will be priced accordingly, and some other person will have the great advice that “You gotta step up your game and find a profession that can earn you above that wage” again ignoring the fact that, by definition, 50% of people cannot do that.
No. The solution is not to tell people to work harder, or just find a better job. You want a society where people clean the rooms in hotels, right? What would happen if all cleaning staff took your advice?
At the bare minimum for this conversation, we should ensure that people making median income have a good quality of life. At the bare minimum for an ethical society, wages would not be the metric that determines whether someone deserves a good quality of life.
Ever think that the 50% that can do it, should while they can before that kind of hyper inflation happens and like maybe boost the morale with advice on how not to trap yourself in a predatory ass loan or give a list of things you did to achieve your goals that got you into a position where you feel financially comfortable.
I mean shit I’m on food stamps but I found a goal that’s gonna make bank in less than 2 years plus I can pay it off in 2 years on a payment plan. I’m gonna be making six figures in less than 5 years. I am more than happy. I’m stepping up my fucking game.
My biggest example is I completed an accredited cannabis retail specialist certification program in 2024, it was 860$ I got a coupon code at the time and paid 680$ total.
That same program is now has a going rate of 1900$. In 2 years it’s more than doubled.
So if you want to do a certification program, have the credit and motivation as well as the ability to either pay outright or put a payment plan on a certification program, you should do it now before they’re more expensive in 2 years.
Ever think that the 50% that can do it, should…
Fair enough; also by definition, 50% of people make more than the median. Good for them.
I’m saying that, by definition, no matter where the median salary is, 50% of people will make less than that. Individual choice can change who makes less than that… but still, 50% of the population will make less than that.
hyper inflation
Well, not necessarily. I didn’t specify a period of time. In the past 30 years, nominal wages have grown 150%. So if, in the next 30 years, nominal wages grow 150%, we hit the numbers that I gave.
I’m on food stamps
gonna make bank in less than 2 years
gonna be making six figures
Right, so at this time, you are among the 50% of people who make below median salary. I admire your confidence, but… what if it doesn’t work out? There’s a small chance you get into a car accident and your plan gets thrown off. There’s a small chance you have a medical emergency. There’s a small chance your house catches fire.
Success is not guaranteed just because you work hard. There’s a chance you make below median salary for the rest of your life. It is MY opinion that it doesn’t matter why you’re making below median salary; you still deserve a life that doesn’t involve making a choice between paying a medical bill or paying rent.
Success is not guaranteed just because you work hard. you still deserve a life that doesn’t involve making a choice between paying a medical bill or paying rent.
No I agree but that seems like there needs to be a restructuring of the medical system and the insurance system.
Section 8 needs to be reevaluated so those that don’t really need it and are taking advantage can get the fuck off of it and those that need it can get the fuck on it. Section 8 is Severely Lowered Rent making it so that you can pay your bills.
Success being a non guarantee means that neither does having stability, you’re not 100% guaranted that you will be able to pay your medical bills and buy groceries, that’s based off of your personal success and financial gains, as well as being able to successfuy balance your budget (meaning seeing extra money and putting in the bank, not on a new product) That’s just the cruel reality of living anywhere on this planet, not just in capitalism or the US.
that seems like there needs to be a restructuring
Who would be in charge of doing that? Would it be Congress? What incentives do they have to do this restructuring?
The proposal is that Congress be paid the median salary so that it is clear which things need to be restructured and why. If they want better living conditions, they would need to pass policies which improve the material conditions of a typical citizen.
you’re not 100% guaranted that you will be able to pay your medical bills and buy groceries… That’s just the cruel reality of living anywhere on this planet
We’re talking about median income. You said that the solution was to make more than median income. Are you now saying that you are willing to tolerate these conditions for 50% of people? I don’t like the idea of anyone being unable to afford rent or groceries or healthcare, but I would at least kind of understand if you were willing to tolerate 1% of people suffering. But 50%?
The point being made is that if 50% of people are struggling, something is wrong. It means a failure of governance. It’s the kind of mistake that can only be made by a Congress who makes 3 times the median income, and is populated almost entirely by people with rich parents, who have never ever struggled. It’s the kind of mistake that would not be made by a Congress that makes median income.
Well I took 50% with a grain of salt. I took 50% and thought to myself 50% of the working class, right? Anyways I did think to myself that’s not good, well it’s just an example. I mean if that many people were struggling I wouldn’t be okay with it.
Either way, doesn’t help to try to boost morale right?
It’s the kind of mistake that would not be made by a Congress that makes median income.
So they’re making a shit load of money and ain’t doing shit but if they make less that’ll suddenly inspire them to do a better job… Where is the common sense there?
Also, I don’t like volatility in the job market, if they’re making that much they must’ve worked hard enough to get there… unless it’s just purely nepotism then they can go fuck themselves. Maybe looking into ending government corruption little by little could end up with people who are worth their position, rather than people who suck at what they do and get paid a fuck load.
I will amend what I said to say, I mean for the common man, if you’re struggling and have the ability to be able to get into a position in life where you can make more than the median, than you should attempt it.
The solution is obviously deflate the economy a little bit while lowering federal interest rates so people who are making the median or a little more than the median can buy homes and afford medical bills and groceries at the same time
if they make less that’ll suddenly inspire them to do a better job… Where is the common sense there?
If you were a house builder, but you could only live in the typical houses that you’ve built… would that inspire you to do a good job?
If a person’s job is public policy and legislation… but they have to live under typical living conditions for the citizenry… do you think that would be any different than a builder who has to live in the houses they build?
The solution is obviously
No intellectually honest thought starts with this.
I think you should have to pay 2% more overall in taxes per year on everything city, state and federal once you make over 120k$
Yep, the US Federal income tax (and many states’ income taxes) are already a progressive tax that separate income into brackets and taxes each bracket at an increasing rate. It’s definitely time to increase that top marginal rate and add a bunch of exclusions that rich people use to hide their money in capital gains.
Nah. Get rid of the numbers. No money, no problem, amirite? Just make willpower and do what you do best! That’s the supererogatory of self. Old men plant trees they don’t ever see the shade of, y’know? Simple shit to restructure your reality around, if you cared. Karma, as we call it. The entanglement process. Oooh, I’m horny already…
Nahhh, I’m not for total get rid of everything but a restructuring of society couldn’t hurt… The common man, 😉
It’ll ruin the superduper rich but the common man would love a societal restructuring.
Removed by mod
You can always ask chatgpt how to create a career path for you. Other than that, I wouldn’t know the answer to any of your questions and/or psychotic ramblings. I’m wicked sorry I’m not of help. I see stuff for FBI Agents on Indeed all the time, I’m sure if you apply and stuff you might get far, idk.
I see stuff for FBI Agents on Indeed all the time
lol send it. They’ve fired the agents who can read.
Bro, you’re the one that don’t know because you never engage to equate yourself with me. That is a weird piece of the puzzle, y’know? Empathy? I personally believe it is self-evident that I am a skilled communicator in text, which requires a degree of empathy, as all that ish be is your ability to see around your “self,” y’know, maneuver the lakitu bro of the “I” observing itself, like biting your own teeth, grinding into it (there is something interconnected with ear-rumbling, I must openly acknowledge for benefit to the coffers insuite. But it’s just seeing back into itself. Like, I can’t drive. I cannot, for the life of me, pilot a motorized vehicle, but I can errorcify your new self with some brittle ironcane flanges if you wish to…level up…yes? Go Thundercats!
But then we wouldn’t get “the best people”. /s
No perks - they pay for their own insurance and take what’s offered just like the rest of us.
No two-three months vacation. Or more. NO insider trading - trump has jacked up the price of petroleum and made a literal killing from it. No vested retirement just for showing up for a couple of years. No more travel allowances. No more fucking perks. No more lobbyists. They want lobbyists then go to their fucking home town and listen to the people who hired them. No more rich corporate daddies. And speaking of which - all those fuckers need a 90% tax on ASSETS, real or imagined.
And their whole superstructure of interns and slaves and ne’erdowell hangers on - these fuckers need to start reading writing their OWN goddam bills based on their OWN goddam constituent’s needs.
The usual argument against this is that the less politicians earn, the easier they are to bribe.
My argument is, what am I supposed to be entertained by, if the number of USian political posts is brought down to zero?
Politicians will be happy to take bribes regardless of what they earn.
At least until campaign finance is fixed. Citizens United has fully instituted political bribery as a matter of course
I’ll never get over how cheap it is to buy politicians. They make so much money, then they can be made to vote for a genocide for $3000.
It’s not just about how much they get, it’s also about how much their opponents don’t get.
I think it’s more to do with influence. They gain the favor of a large business with access to basically infinite money which gives them a whole lot more power behind them
See Exhibit A: Trump
Which is why taking away their salary punishes honest politicians more than corrupt ones.
As an intermediate solution, you can define it as X times the median or the minimum legal wage, so they still have incentive to raise them.
This is the way, and they aren’t allowed to buy any stocks, only ETF’s
Nope, ETFs are too flexible for them. Only indexed mutual funds for members of Congress. Can’t have them selling off their ETFs before a committee meeting is over and the information isn’t public.
I say they should only be allowed Thrift Savings Plan funds.
As retired Navy, I 100% feel this comment in my soul. Thanks!!
I wouldn’t even let them have that. They are there to help the population, not the economy (corporations).
Any hard measures comes with a drop of their personal wealth the moment they are investing.
Index funds should be fine then, even Bernie Sanders has Index funds. Smart people will want to invest.
That was going to be my first comment, but really, will politicians hold tech companies responsible for example if they know that giving real fines and not token ones leads directly to a drop?
They can have a retirement plan, like anyone else. There needs to be a federal law (or amendment) requiring any elected or politically appointed individual to put assets into a blind trust. And they can’t just name their kid(s) as temporary custodians of their assets. Any assets you owned the 2-years prior to running are placed in a trust unless they were sold to a third party.
I know you are right, that is what they claim. Having said that, 25 years of naked corruption should be enough, even for Americans, to realize they have been lied to
Or even if you take the bribery angle out of it, the less politicians earn, the less it incentivizes working class people from going into government because they need the money. The net result is you end up ruled by the wealthy (including those who will advocate for pay decreases for congresspeople, which just worsens the problem).
How is that different from now?
It’s not, which is why it’s not a valid solution.
Also low compensation makes it nearly impossible for the average person to run an office, live in DC, and maintain a home in their home district.
I’d be okay if they recieved some kind of voucher or stipend that can only be used on a lease in DC and office necessities. Just to make up the difference
Just build dorms for Congress. There are only around 540 of them, including the non-voting members from PR and DC.
You could make a very nice apartment building for Congress for less than we spend on a lot of other shit. Remove all the extra costs for maintaining two residencies. Travel is already an extra stipend. So is food.
Or that you just make politics into something only for the independently wealthy. This is especially true at the state and local level where positions are often part time. The result is often those with the power to make their own schedules (landlords, lawyers, trust fund kids, etc.) make up a disproportionate amount of elected officials. You’ll get some people who are passionate enough to give up the rest of their lives, but not enough.
Yeah, but they’re already being bribed at this point.
The solution?
Prison for bribes. No parole. Enforce it.
But the usual rational response is, if what they earn is never enough for the blind pursuit of more, than they will always, “make less” in their minds and justify abuse of their positions.
This city needs an enema…
So you set the congressional pay at a high level, and ban all other sources of income. Any securities must be placed in a blind trust for the duration of service.
“High level” is the problem. It’s a subjective number. You’re going in wrong direction. Make it an objectively low number, maybe average full time salary in their state with potential to hit performance bonuses based on a number of measurable things that help their constituents.
Their pay needs to be linked to their performance in office and yes, a separate matter, but there needs to be tight regulation (and oversight with enforcement) for monitoring their wealth before, during and for a period after serving in office.
The biggest argument against it is they need to maintain 2 residences and travel back and forth from their district to DC. If they’re not paid enough to do that, only the wealthy and corrupt could ever be in congress.
That’s what the FBI and clearance is for
Median is a better choice as its less affected by outliers.
The mean average is the amount you compute by putting all the money that is earned in a big pot and dividing it up evenly amongst everyone.
Median is where you find the single most average person and ask them how much they make.
Median gives them an incentive to improve the income of the average American. Mean average gives an incentive to increase national wealth regardless of who’s hands its in, and an incentive to decrease the population. That is not a good incentive.
But also keep in mind congress members are local representatives. They need to be in DC while in session, and in their state or district at other times to be available to their constituents. The job requires maintaining two households, so they should earn enough for that. Unless we provide them college dorm level mandatory housing in the capital. Then median alone is enough.
They can get paid median salary whilst getting stipends for travel, congressional office, and DC housing.
I get that you’re trying to be accurate, and I respect that.
Let’s use the mean, and eliminate the top and bottom 1% of earners. Which would put Congress’ salary between 57,000 and 61,000
Using the median gives them a salary of 87,500 dollars.
That top 1% is a real motherfucker.
$87,500 is the median household income.
Median personal income (income of all persons 15+ with any amount of income) is $46,960.
For the bottom 1%, I assume this includes the unemployed as making $0?
And for the billionaire class, if we are talking AGI here (which I assume we are) I’m guessing they have some entirely normal AGI. If they are paying anything on their actual wealth it’s probably through some kind of capital gains tax, or hidden in some trust or shell corporation.
So before eliminating top 1% and bottom 1%, we might want to clarify those items, as the “average” worker will mainly just have a non-zero AGI they are taxed on.
Eliminating the top 1% of earners is a good policy I support, but I don’t think it makes sense as a way to calculate averages.
Though your proposal might work now, in the fullness of time things will change, and the 1% may not be the right number. I don’t think you can rely on governments to update numbers promptly. There are places in England that have fines in law defined in denominations that no longer exist. You can’t rely on governments keep things up to date.
But your doesn’t address the underlying problems with using the arethmetic mean. It seems like you’re just searching for justification to pay people you don’t like less.
I believe everyone should be able to live comfortably, and well designed incentive systems are effective at shaping behavior. Median is better on both fronts.
It’s designed to be uncomfortable until the lowest earners in the country are able to approach comfortability themselves. The whole point is to tie people who make decisions for the rest of us to the consequences of them. It’s not about inflicting harm, it’s about inflicting consequences, which may be good or bad.
We want a rising tide.
Then tie it to the lowest earners. You can pick a lower percentile using the same methodology as finding the median.
Adding fixed percentage adjustments to the mean is not a good way of going about it.
Might be unpopular be politicians should actually be paid a lot. You want to attract actually skilled and capable people after all
But it should also be there only source of income, no speaking gigs, no stock trades, no side business
I think it is much more important what they are using that skill for.
One of the reasons a lot of government positions track if you have debts is that propensity to financial burdens make politicians more suceptible to corruption.
If you pay them less, they are actually going to be more easily bribed.
If you pay them less, they are actually going to be more easily bribed.
If you keep the same people in office, then yeah. I wonder who else would be up for the job if the pay was lower. Hopefully more Mamdanis.
Nah, it’ll be independently wealthy trust fund kids that don’t need to rely on a paycheck to pay rent, but have a trust that is valued based on policy.
Politicians should be some of the highest paid people in the country. I wouldn’t get out of bed for 70k today, that was my paycheck for my first professional job. Now perhaps you don’t want me as a politician, but…
I’d agree with you except we see politicians selling out for even tiny amounts while having tens of millions in the bank. If you’re willing to sell the food out of the mouths of the poor for $2,500 and you’ve got 12 mil in the bank your inherently corrupt and having a big paycheck won’t change that. They have billionaire brain rot, number go up syndrome, as long as number goes up that’s all that matters no matter how much they are given or have.
These people are massively advantaged with the current campaign system/rules.
No. You see the tiny tip of the iceberg in payments. There is always a ton more beneath the surface.
It’s also actually a means to prevent corruption unfortunately. Less likely to take ridiculous sums if you’re financially solid
Live in Missouri. Our state legislature liked to for years vote down a pay raise for themselves. They made sure to stand up and wave “Look at how good we’re doing.”
If I wanted to run for legislature, I would have had to taken a cut in pay and I am definitely not on the top 50% of the state, much less the country.
