- 21 hours
Sounds good on paper, until you notice this means… only the wealthy would ever bother running for office.
- tazeycrazy@feddit.ukEnglish21 hours
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
- 19 hours
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 alike - 22 hours
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.
- 21 hours
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.
- 1 day
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
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.
- 1 day
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…
- 1 day
It’s also actually a means to prevent corruption unfortunately. Less likely to take ridiculous sums if you’re financially solid
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.
- 1 day
These people are massively advantaged with the current campaign system/rules.
- 1 day
No. You see the tiny tip of the iceberg in payments. There is always a ton more beneath the surface.
- 24 hours
I think it is much more important what they are using that skill for.
- Azal@pawb.socialEnglish1 day
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.
Better yet, bring back the ancient Greek lottery for state office.
- 21 hours
Yes, but a competency test is essential. 50% of the population are below average intelligence.
- 21 hours
Sounds like an improvement over the current US congress already.
- 19 hours
I think most countries would benefit from a competency test for public office, maybe even a morality assessment…
- 19 hours
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.
And no money from lobbyists, no insider trading and no ability to award contracts to private entities
- 19 hours
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.
- 19 hours
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.
- 19 hours
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…
- 2 days
The usual argument against this is that the less politicians earn, the easier they are to bribe.
- 2 days
At least until campaign finance is fixed. Citizens United has fully instituted political bribery as a matter of course
- 2 days
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.
- 2 days
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
- Goodeye8@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
Which is why taking away their salary punishes honest politicians more than corrupt ones.
- 22 hours
My argument is, what am I supposed to be entertained by, if the number of USian political posts is brought down to zero?
- 2 days
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.
- 2 days
This is the way, and they aren’t allowed to buy any stocks, only ETF’s
- 2 days
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.
- HopeForTheFuture@piefed.zipEnglish1 day
As retired Navy, I 100% feel this comment in my soul. Thanks!!
- 2 days
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.
- 2 days
Index funds should be fine then, even Bernie Sanders has Index funds. Smart people will want to invest.
- 2 days
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?
- ClownStatue@piefed.socialEnglish1 day
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.
Yeah, but they’re already being bribed at this point.
The solution?
Prison for bribes. No parole. Enforce it.
- 2 days
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
2 daysOr 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).
- 2 days
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
- Earthwormjim91@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
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.
- 1 day
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.
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.
- 2 days
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…
- Earthwormjim91@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
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.
- 1 day
“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.
- pachrist@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I have always heard people make this argument, and since it’s Great British Bake-off time, I’ll use it as the example.
There’s no prize, and the pay per episode is fairly minimal. Less than $500/episode for contestants. Plus, they get ~$2000 stipend for ingredients. On the fly converting pounds to dollars, so these are guesstimates.
What that means is that Great British Bake-off does not find the best home baker in Britain, it finds the best baker who can afford to take time off to be on the show. If you can afford to miss school, work, or being a parent for 12 weeks, you can’t compete.
Same applies here.
If you can’t afford to live on the salary, you’ll only get people in office who don’t need the salary. We already get that to some extent with campaigning costs. This could make it worse. The barrier of entry is higher.
Instead, we need a performance review with real consequences other than “Guess I don’t get re-elected, but I still get a book deal.”
I have always thought it should be twice the average median income of the state they represent.
But you bring up much larger issues. There are so many bars to running for office that make it so much easier for capital holders. I say people who hold capital should be barred from public office. I will leave the exact definition of “holding capital” up to the reader.
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.
- MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
My thoughts on that was they got paid the average pay for the state the live in. Down here in the south they would have to get food stamps.
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.
- 2 days
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.
- Earthwormjim91@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
$87,500 is the median household income.
Median personal income (income of all persons 15+ with any amount of income) is $46,960.
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
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.
- 2 days
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.
- 1 day
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.
- 1 day
And it will only encourage lobbying, insider trader, and every other corrupt money making bullshit they still do with what they earn.
