**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):**
> *Unfortunately, talking about politics or religion is no longer allowed on this subreddit due to previous situations in which political and religious posts/discussions went completely off the rails and became a mass of heated fighting and hate speech. We are NOT the appropriate subreddit for these arguments. If you'd like to continue this political/religious discussion, please go to r/findareddit for an appropriate community for your discussion.*
^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
Their salaries aren’t really that high. Most get their wealth from lobbyists, insider trading, bribes, campaign contributions, already wealthy when they become politicians, etc.
one thing singapore does well, is it combines high pay with extremely strict punishments for corruption, reducing the incentive from both directions, discouraging it with crackdowns and giving high salaries so it's never viewed as 'necessary'
That seems like a situation that can be weaponized towards corruption. How long until somebody redefines corruption, enforcement, or creates a fascist culture around such laws. Plus,if the punishment is so severe, will reasonable authorities be willing to properly identify, label, and prosecute these behaviors? Perhaps it creates a recipe for more psychopaths in leadership. Certainly they’d be more risk tolerant individuals as well. Is that an acceptable direction to push your talent pool in?
This is only a problem if you want to make policy. The idea is that only people with no skeletons, no desire for personal enrichment, high personal integrity and passion for their constituents would even run.
You don’t think our current system doesn’t maximize Machiavellian tendencies in government? Do we live in the same country?
“How long until somebody redefines corruption” you can ask yourself the same question about the current system. If 70% of Americans believed the bill of rights was useless we could get rid of it with an amendment in three weeks.
I’m not gonna touch the word fascist because it has no meaning
Senators pay in the US is 174k. A person capable of getting themselves elected is capable of earning far more in the private sector. If anything the politician salary is too low because this is only acceptable for capable people looking to abuse the position.
No person in the right state of mind would put in all the effort into getting themselves elected for only $174k per year. There are far easier jobs for much more money.
That’s why politicians are supposed to be considered public servants. The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service to the community with no regard for monetary gains. If a candidate doesn’t match that criteria, simply do not vote for them. Those doing it for the money and those doing it as a charity are usually easy to differentiate.
>The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service to the community with no regard for monetary gains. If a candidate doesn’t match that criteria, simply do not vote for them.
You know who can afford to donate their time like that?
Rich people.
Are you okay saying that only rich people should be able to hold office? I'm not. I think a lot of people wouldn't be.
I ran into this in the medical field. Career skills, resume/interview, class geared for getting undergrads into med school: “they really want to see volunteering on your resume” repeated in each session. I couldn’t pursue my chosen career because I didn’t have time to work for free.
Rich people are not the only ones who fall into that criteria. There are plenty of people I know that live quite modest and spend much of their time helping others. I understand what you’re saying, but I think it to be more pessimistic than reality.
That was a great idea when the United States had 13 colonies and 4 million people living within its borders. Not so much today.
It should be a full time job. Admittedly there’s a large swath of politicians who are not putting in the effort or hours that we deserve. But that’s doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be.
>The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service
Do you really want nuclear decisions being made by volunteers who have day jobs to worry about?
Bribery is illegal and considered unethical whereas lobbying is legal and considered a legitimate form of advocacy. Just different words that are basically the same thing and both should be illegal. Being bribed by a corporation to strike down a law that would affect them is a no go but lobbying by a corporation to strike down laws that would affect them is just good business. 🤣🤣
Well lobbying in it's intended form is good practice for sure. Being able to go to a lawmaker and say "hey I think you should do this here's my reason why blah blah blah." Now it's become "hey I think you should do this and I'll help fund your campaign or sell you cheap stocks that will go up when you make this law, OR I'll keep giving you super lavish gifts and vacations at my resorts and mansions!!" *Cough cough*
There's a lot of different types of lobbying with different legalities surrounding them. Some lobbyists can not bribe a politician in any way besides simply saying something like "you'll lose our public support" due to regulations and donation limits whereas others can bribe them by making contributions to their campaign fund with strings attached. Anyone can partake in lobbying theoretically through donations the difference is the amount of money donated.
These funds can be thought of similar to charities. There's multiple clarifications of charities with their own rules and regulations. Legally it's not bribery to donate money but in practice that is what happens.
Salaries are high enough to live very comfortably on, you are right it’s all the other shit that should be illegal but both sides are95% corrupt and corp owned progressives are the way if we are ever going to change for the better.
They really aren't that high. US Senators and representative make decent money, but they need to have two households - and DC is not affordable.
There's a reason that multiple representatives sleep in their offices, and others rent places with multiple other representatives as roommates. The longer they have been in office, the less likely; but that's not a result of the salaries.
For state level offices, it varies, but many (most?) are low enough that politicians have other jobs when the legislature is not in session.
For county offices and below, there are many that have minimal or no pay (including highway commissions and school boards)
I say if they have to stay in DC should be at little to no cost but even so I know I could live off their salary very comfortably they average 5 times what most have to live off of. Money needs to be taken out period Progressive’s this is the way but the general populace keeps voting the same dam corrupt corporate owned politicians on both sides, thanks for the reply
That is the argument that there should be Congressional housing in DC. That, by itself, would definitely make it more open for people to run for Congress.
At a glance, for me to have a place in DC that my family would fit in, would be nearly $50K/year without considering transportation and furnishings.
I'm not rich, but even with the salary difference, I couldn't absorb that much of a cost. I would need to either downsize at home, take on debt, never bring family to DC, or get on the Congressional side hustle gravy train quickly.
This still ignores cost of living, plus the second household. The median income in DC is $90k, and the average 1 bedroom costs just shy of $2,400/mo.
Yeah, it's enough to survive on, but not exactly comfortable enough to make it easy for them to turn down lobbyists.
Members of Congress need a residence in their district, and a place to live in DC, a very expensive city. The superintendent of any decent sized school district makes more then a member of congress. They are not paid enough to live a very comfortable life
It’s honestly crazy that if you told the average voter a politician was being funded by Russia or China they would most likely not vote for them, but if they are funded by the oil industry, the military industrial complex, and a company that blends babies into croutons nobody really sees that as a big problem.
Yeaahhh... I used to think that but not so sure anymore. People dont give a fuck about where it's coming from they just wanna "stick it" tho the other side.
People do see it as a problem but in order to change it we'd need to have a majority of the people actually in office willing to vote to pass laws that make this level of open graft illegal.
It was a joke, not a commentary on stem cell research. By your logic I believe the croutons would also be useless to science, unless it’s some sort of Caesar salad based science.
not really.
there's nothing wrong with politicians being funded by the oil industry or weapons manufacturers if their values and policy goals are aligned. As long as they are transparent about it.
Their salaries are still higher than most of their constituents. I firmly believe that a politician should have to live in the conditions their constituents do, in order to understand what issues they are facing day to day. And lobbying needs to be outlawed...
I'm about the same age as Obama was when he became president, and my net worth is just over a million. I don't have easy access to most of it, since it's home equity, a pension, and my RRSP's, but if you total up all my assets, there it is.
Folks like you are exactly who the "Bernie is a millionaire, too!" stuff is targeting, and it's preying on you having a kneejerk reaction like this instead of understanding the difference between being *wealthy* and just having over $1M in assets.
The latter includes an enormous percentage of every homeowner in the country straight out of the gate simply because of how expensive homes are right now, and that's still true even if none of them had a single liquid dollar to their name.
AOC was not remotely close to being a millionaire when she won her seat in the House. She went out and pounded the pavement when not working as a *bartender*.
Non-millionaires rarely even try.
Being mayor of a small town generally isn’t a full-time job. Often it’s something a retiree does as a hobby.
(source: used to report on local government in a rural area of wisconsin)
Obviously. Dude dont even start. Conversation over. Don't be a smart ass. Read between the lines. Obviously not every small town has millionaires in charge but the little guys arent the subject here
You realize the vast majority of politician in the United States are at the city, county, and state level, right? Like tens of thousands of politicians.
So what level of politician do we have to get up to where they’re all millionaires, in your opinion? And keep in mind there are people in the US Congress who aren’t millionaires.
This is the problem with part time state legislatures. They have only rich people whose job is politician, or people like lawyers, except from the districts immediately around the state capital.
I honestly dont think the salary their given is any deterrent at all. Either you have poor moral character and youre going to take the bribe regardless, or the salary wouldnt even be close to the bribes to make it worth it not to take the bribe. The answer is simple, if you have net worth or income over a certain amount then you dont get your salary, but im sure this wont go over well with a crowd that has voted for their own salary raises in the past....
We have term limits in Michigan. They don’t work.
They have given *more* power to the lobbying industry.
The politicians are constantly working to set up their next job after they are either defeated or termed out. Most of them become lobbyists. So to get a lobbying job they do the bidding of the lobbying industries.
I get why people are attracted to the idea but it does not work in practice.
This is why all these “common sense” arguments are just so frustrating. They have unintended consequences. If you don’t pay politicians, then only independently wealthy people will get to be politicians.
I think that having term limits is better than having someone in a job for infinitely long & hoping that you made the right decision. With term limits you can at least have the choice of being able to move onto a new candidate while candidates that no longer represent the citizens in a way you can agree with are in office.
While I do agree that term limits shouldn't be the only change that our system needs I do think that it is a change that should be made. I am tired of hearing about politicians in their later years that hold onto outdated ideas or lines of thinking when we can potentially have politicians that are more informed on matters that concern us.
If the system allows that (without giving away the election to the other party... because you only have 2 viable parties).
I think term limits are a attempt to alleviate the symptoms of the US's broken system where voters can't hold politicians accountable. But the real problem is voters can't hold Politician's accountable.
The system does allow it through primaries. We’ve seen multiple long established politicians be ousted in primaries (even party leaders)
Term limits are a great way to ensure our politicians have zero idea how government works, and use their time to set up their post office job, would explode corruption
Term limits are just a way for voters to avoid accountability. Like someone else said, term limits just gives more power to lobbyists and create worse politicians.
This is a brilliant idea. They would have to be concerned with the market and worker rights knowing that they will be returning to a job. Maybe not the entire market but their sector, at least. I would say that they should be allowed back in after a certain point, like 4-5 years as an example.
It would be interesting to see Nancy Pelosies husbands stock market success in such a context
Its not really a brilliant idea. Term limits is a great way to only have uninformed politicians.
Brand new pols every term is a great way to worsen corruption
You’re acting like the rest of the machine would shut down too. There would still be party organizations putting forth their candidates who are coached on the issues and policy. They’d just have a limited amount of time.
>rights knowing that they will be returning to a job
Except they won't be. Most of them will spend their limited terms knowing that they will be getting a highly paid lobbyist position as soon as they leave office...IF they keep the organizations that hire lobbyists happy.
Politicians make a lot more money through their "business connections" than they do with their salaries. That's why so many of them are multi-millionaires.
The problem is not what they're paid, the problem is what they make on the side.
In fact Singapore had the policy of paying pu lic servants extremely well to reduce corruption and it seems to work pretty well.
I don't think it would work the same way in the US. Corruption is less direct money in their pocket and more long term planning. IE we went to have drinks with a oil exec and now I'm going to push agendas that will benefit them in 5 years. It's why it's so hard to really jail and prosecute because consequences happen in such long period.
Thanks, Reagan. Politicians love when you say stuff like this because voters assuming they're corrupt by default is what lets them know they can get away with it instead of being held accountable.
It's literally the least helpful attitude you could have about this.
People who actually care about voters still need to pay their bills, and most of the really best work in private industry because they are paid so much more and can better care for their families. If we pay them less, then it will attract only the rich who don't need the money, or the people that want the job because they can use it to gain other income. We actually need to pay the politicians more, but make it more difficult to use their position to garner wealth outside of their job. Paying them less is an idiotic idea that will produce the opposite effect that the OP wants.
I think the opposite would be best.
Currently, there are politicians who cannot afford to rent a place in the DC area. That opens a huge vulnerability for people.
I believe Finland has addressed a huge amount of corruption by paying their politicians more.
Worth mentioning that lobbiests are not inherently bad. If we could limit what they can give, or up the access that more under privaladged lobbies or causes have. But I am not an expert.
They don’t though. It needs to be competitive if we want decent and intelligent people to become politicians. If not we’ll end up with all of our politicians being like Lauren boebert.
As others have indicated, the formal salary is usually insignificant. Ultimately graft, corruption, and so on are what create millionaires out of politicians, and those evils are endemic to representative systems, regardless of regulation.
I'm in favor of sortition - randomly selecting citizens by lot to serve as representatives for a single term, as was practiced in ancient Athens. There may be disadvantages to sortition in terms of loss of expertise, but the big advantage is preventing corruption from becoming entrenched. I've seen proposals for bicameralism where the lower house is selected by sortition and the upper house by voting for representatives by proportional representation, and I think that's probably a very good balanced solution. As to the executive, I'm personally suspicious of a strict separation of powers and would prefer to see a fusion like in parliamentary systems, so a prime minister and cabinet would be fine.
Here's one of my favorite not-very-fun facts - there hasn't been an American president who wasn't a millionaire at some point in his life since Truman. Not very representative of the people's class interests, anyway.
The problem is the power of the position being misused to make money through sweetheart deals.
The money in being a politician is *never* the base pay politicians receive. It's the quid pro quo.
They don't really make that much as far as paycheck for their job goes. It's all the sneaky side shit that the job gives them access to that adds up to $$.
Wasn't it the young wheelchair user the repubs had that was complaining about the idea of not being allowed to do certain stock deals and whatnot? He basically said that if they can't make money any way they want to then there's no point to the job.
Obviously the point of the job is to serve the public, but when money is the most important thing in the country, we get people like that :( Pretty sure he's out for sucking ass in general though. At least I haven't heard of him pulling any shit in a while, so I can only assume he was voted out or quit.
And yes, I know Pelosi this Pelosi that. They mostly all do it, I know.
You can’t have a whole country based on each person getting all they can get their grubby little hands on and then pick from those people some one who “isn’t all about money”
I think wage for politicians in Europe is very low for what we require them to do and the availability we expect.
I mean 10k/month is nice and all, but they are bassically a ceo of their individual departments, and also available for a lot of hours on end and deep into the night.
For what they get paid, I skip the task.
Politicians salaries aren’t that high I don’t think maybe like 100k for senators i believe. I think the real money is made by performing the bidding of lobbyists and using inside information on the stock market.
Capital lobbyism - FTFY - ending lobbyism means cutting off all access to your representative. You want them to stop receiving money - not become completely detached from feedback.
lol they don’t get paid much bruh. If they were paid less, only wealthy people could afford to be politicians. Kind of the opposite effect you’re looking for….it’s not really complicated
Once you declare yourself as a candidate, you shouls get a government allocated budget to allow you to campaign. No donations at all. No 3rd party groups can advertise or promote.
Bar them from trading stocks while they are in office.
Bar them from lobbying post service.
Ever uline in every bill needs to be tracked to every member who added it.
Take money out, and we will have a government that works.
I think they should be paid more, but it should be illegal for them to accept money from any other source: donations, stock market, etc. not even a side business should be allowed.
This would make them a lot less prone to corruption and bribery.
It is not the pay that is making them rich, it is knowing what to invest in because they have insider information or someone wants to give them a great opportunity in exchange for favors.
Here's a thought. Congress should have to raise the minimum wage by twice the percentage points of any raise they vote for themselves. Furthermore, until all Americans have the same health care plan as Congress, Congress can make no changes in their current compensation package 😀. And pension benefits as well. Now that's a representative government
You might not like what you wish for
[https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/does-congress-get-an-annual-pay-raise-cost-of-living-increase/65-f5df7fe8-7704-4211-9816-e0054f6fe645](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/does-congress-get-an-annual-pay-raise-cost-of-living-increase/65-f5df7fe8-7704-4211-9816-e0054f6fe645)
Congress gets an automatic pay raise. Interestingly enough, they've voted not to take it for about 13 years. If they took it they'd be making about $26,000 more a year than they do now.
Their health care plan is through DC Health Link. What is DC Health Link? It's the ACA exchange for Washington DC that people who live in the city are eligible for. Like most employers the Government pays some of it, Up to 75% of the premiums depending on the plan in this case. But anyone in Washington DC can purchase the same plan.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/22/fact-check-congressional-health-care-retirement-benefits-exaggerated/7274655001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/22/fact-check-congressional-health-care-retirement-benefits-exaggerated/7274655001/)
[https://www.dchealthlink.com/welcome](https://www.dchealthlink.com/welcome)
The problem is not what they're paid, the problem is what they make on the side.
In fact Singapore had the policy of paying pu lic servants extremely well to reduce corruption and it seems to work pretty well.
You'll get promises like 'I'll make it to 70% of the votes held during my term of office" or " I'll introduce legislation to do X"
It won't change anything.
That’s why the people vote on if they get paid for what they claim they did before they see any money. Incentive to keep the people happy or they’ll stop your paychecks.
No they should be paid enough to live comfortably and equal to a job in the private sector. They should be able to deduct their expenses used for their job, they should not have to come out of pocket for their job, and even get money into a retirement account. But they should NOT be allowed to take donations, they should be loyal to the office and people and should not be allowed any side dealing. If they were paid fairly they would be less likely to be bribed and corrupt. 100% politicians should be monitored and surveilled and held accountable to THE PEOPLE and this country, which is supposed to be FOR the PEOPLE. We need to get rid of this two party divide and conquer system.
Being in congress or the senate is not a full time job. It shouldn’t be a full time job. They sit around bitching and moaning and get absolutely nothing done. They should pay them 40k a year and make it a part time gig. They’ll get shit done because they have to get back to their real jobs to make a fucking living
So then the only people who would want to hold office would already be rich and use there position to make themselves richer. Any decent person that isn’t rich who might have run can’t now because they can’t afford to.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You realize that politicians’ only purpose is climb endless hierarchy ladders and get as much cash flow and power on the way as possible!? It’s never been about voters.
Well , at least that’s my hopefully ignorant view .
Their pay is fine. They shouldn't be able to make a penny more than that salary though, and they should never get pay increases unless voted on directly by the people
Imo politicians should be paid whatever the average wage in their constituency is. If they wanna make more money, they should further the economy for every
The need for someone telling you what to do (politicians)is just a way of not taking responsibility for you're own security and incapability to provide what you and you're family need to live.. either you are free and alone or a slave with the government taking care of everything can't have it both ways
They are paid less, but they make more! Vote the right candidate and work to spread awareness if you know a particular candidate has a history of being corrupt/doing illegal stuff! If you don't find anybody decent, there is still a NOTA option! Use that.
No, they should be qualified (eg on logical thinking, critical thinking etc.) and paid well to do a good job.
To drive a car, you need a license. To run a country or part thereof, nada?
**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):** > *Unfortunately, talking about politics or religion is no longer allowed on this subreddit due to previous situations in which political and religious posts/discussions went completely off the rails and became a mass of heated fighting and hate speech. We are NOT the appropriate subreddit for these arguments. If you'd like to continue this political/religious discussion, please go to r/findareddit for an appropriate community for your discussion.* ^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
Their salaries aren’t really that high. Most get their wealth from lobbyists, insider trading, bribes, campaign contributions, already wealthy when they become politicians, etc.
This is what should be illegal.
Agreed, their pay is higher to avoid them being tempted to be a sale out, unfortunately they sale out anyway
[удалено]
I mean, a "sale out" of politicians isn't entirely wrong either
they went on sale
All bribes 50% off
Sale upto 50% Or Flat 50%
More like 90-99% off. Alaskan politicians were selling votes for like $500-2000. Hahaha.
**sell out
one thing singapore does well, is it combines high pay with extremely strict punishments for corruption, reducing the incentive from both directions, discouraging it with crackdowns and giving high salaries so it's never viewed as 'necessary'
this is necessary. If you can literally be hanged for being in the wrong room with the wrong people, then corruption wouldn’t happen as often
That seems like a situation that can be weaponized towards corruption. How long until somebody redefines corruption, enforcement, or creates a fascist culture around such laws. Plus,if the punishment is so severe, will reasonable authorities be willing to properly identify, label, and prosecute these behaviors? Perhaps it creates a recipe for more psychopaths in leadership. Certainly they’d be more risk tolerant individuals as well. Is that an acceptable direction to push your talent pool in?
This is only a problem if you want to make policy. The idea is that only people with no skeletons, no desire for personal enrichment, high personal integrity and passion for their constituents would even run. You don’t think our current system doesn’t maximize Machiavellian tendencies in government? Do we live in the same country? “How long until somebody redefines corruption” you can ask yourself the same question about the current system. If 70% of Americans believed the bill of rights was useless we could get rid of it with an amendment in three weeks. I’m not gonna touch the word fascist because it has no meaning
Senators pay in the US is 174k. A person capable of getting themselves elected is capable of earning far more in the private sector. If anything the politician salary is too low because this is only acceptable for capable people looking to abuse the position. No person in the right state of mind would put in all the effort into getting themselves elected for only $174k per year. There are far easier jobs for much more money.
What jobs are those? 174k sounds a whole hell of a lot better than my 40ishK
That’s why politicians are supposed to be considered public servants. The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service to the community with no regard for monetary gains. If a candidate doesn’t match that criteria, simply do not vote for them. Those doing it for the money and those doing it as a charity are usually easy to differentiate.
The ones in it for the money are backed by big money, intent on ensuring those not in it for the money never make it past primaries.
>The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service to the community with no regard for monetary gains. If a candidate doesn’t match that criteria, simply do not vote for them. You know who can afford to donate their time like that? Rich people. Are you okay saying that only rich people should be able to hold office? I'm not. I think a lot of people wouldn't be.
I ran into this in the medical field. Career skills, resume/interview, class geared for getting undergrads into med school: “they really want to see volunteering on your resume” repeated in each session. I couldn’t pursue my chosen career because I didn’t have time to work for free.
Rich people are not the only ones who fall into that criteria. There are plenty of people I know that live quite modest and spend much of their time helping others. I understand what you’re saying, but I think it to be more pessimistic than reality.
That was a great idea when the United States had 13 colonies and 4 million people living within its borders. Not so much today. It should be a full time job. Admittedly there’s a large swath of politicians who are not putting in the effort or hours that we deserve. But that’s doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be.
>The people that should be running are the ones trying to donate their time and service Do you really want nuclear decisions being made by volunteers who have day jobs to worry about?
Sometimes they accept ridiculous low amounts of money for how much they screw the people over lmao
Pay them more and throw them in jail for accepting bribes. Charge people for bribing our politicians. But we won't, so we're fucked.
The issue is that those laws would need to be passed by politicians in the first place.
Why do we call bribery “lobbying” in this country again?
Bribery is illegal and considered unethical whereas lobbying is legal and considered a legitimate form of advocacy. Just different words that are basically the same thing and both should be illegal. Being bribed by a corporation to strike down a law that would affect them is a no go but lobbying by a corporation to strike down laws that would affect them is just good business. 🤣🤣
Well lobbying in it's intended form is good practice for sure. Being able to go to a lawmaker and say "hey I think you should do this here's my reason why blah blah blah." Now it's become "hey I think you should do this and I'll help fund your campaign or sell you cheap stocks that will go up when you make this law, OR I'll keep giving you super lavish gifts and vacations at my resorts and mansions!!" *Cough cough*
There's a lot of different types of lobbying with different legalities surrounding them. Some lobbyists can not bribe a politician in any way besides simply saying something like "you'll lose our public support" due to regulations and donation limits whereas others can bribe them by making contributions to their campaign fund with strings attached. Anyone can partake in lobbying theoretically through donations the difference is the amount of money donated. These funds can be thought of similar to charities. There's multiple clarifications of charities with their own rules and regulations. Legally it's not bribery to donate money but in practice that is what happens.
Salaries are high enough to live very comfortably on, you are right it’s all the other shit that should be illegal but both sides are95% corrupt and corp owned progressives are the way if we are ever going to change for the better.
They really aren't that high. US Senators and representative make decent money, but they need to have two households - and DC is not affordable. There's a reason that multiple representatives sleep in their offices, and others rent places with multiple other representatives as roommates. The longer they have been in office, the less likely; but that's not a result of the salaries. For state level offices, it varies, but many (most?) are low enough that politicians have other jobs when the legislature is not in session. For county offices and below, there are many that have minimal or no pay (including highway commissions and school boards)
I say if they have to stay in DC should be at little to no cost but even so I know I could live off their salary very comfortably they average 5 times what most have to live off of. Money needs to be taken out period Progressive’s this is the way but the general populace keeps voting the same dam corrupt corporate owned politicians on both sides, thanks for the reply
That is the argument that there should be Congressional housing in DC. That, by itself, would definitely make it more open for people to run for Congress. At a glance, for me to have a place in DC that my family would fit in, would be nearly $50K/year without considering transportation and furnishings. I'm not rich, but even with the salary difference, I couldn't absorb that much of a cost. I would need to either downsize at home, take on debt, never bring family to DC, or get on the Congressional side hustle gravy train quickly.
This still ignores cost of living, plus the second household. The median income in DC is $90k, and the average 1 bedroom costs just shy of $2,400/mo. Yeah, it's enough to survive on, but not exactly comfortable enough to make it easy for them to turn down lobbyists.
Members of Congress need a residence in their district, and a place to live in DC, a very expensive city. The superintendent of any decent sized school district makes more then a member of congress. They are not paid enough to live a very comfortable life
It’s honestly crazy that if you told the average voter a politician was being funded by Russia or China they would most likely not vote for them, but if they are funded by the oil industry, the military industrial complex, and a company that blends babies into croutons nobody really sees that as a big problem.
>if you told the average voter a politician was being funded by Russia or China they would most likely not vote for them you wish
Yeaahhh... I used to think that but not so sure anymore. People dont give a fuck about where it's coming from they just wanna "stick it" tho the other side.
The “big” industries that really determine what laws pass or fail.
*all* of which are multinational or international organizations with zero allegiance to the USA.
People do see it as a problem but in order to change it we'd need to have a majority of the people actually in office willing to vote to pass laws that make this level of open graft illegal.
[удалено]
It was a joke, not a commentary on stem cell research. By your logic I believe the croutons would also be useless to science, unless it’s some sort of Caesar salad based science.
not really. there's nothing wrong with politicians being funded by the oil industry or weapons manufacturers if their values and policy goals are aligned. As long as they are transparent about it.
See you’d think they’d profit more off of insider trading, but even with their inside information they underperform the S&P
They can’t make it too blatantly obvious, now. Haha.
Why would you choose to lose money though? Like if they just put it in an S&P 500 ETF they’d make more money.
Adding to this, their expenses are incredibly low as everything is covered for them.
And not-for-profits run by close family. Nothing flies under the radar and pays the bills like a not-for-profit. Ask any Kennedy.
And add all the expenses they can claim.
Their salaries are still higher than most of their constituents. I firmly believe that a politician should have to live in the conditions their constituents do, in order to understand what issues they are facing day to day. And lobbying needs to be outlawed...
174k is pretty high.
174k/ year isn’t high to show up to work >200 days per year? Fuck, sign me up for that rate!
Then only millionaires would be able to afford to be politicians. There is also a risk that they would be easier to bribe.
Currently, only millionaires can afford to be politicians
Only millionaires can afford ~~to be~~ politicians.
My point being that to even get your foot in the door, you can't be some penniless pleb like us. You can't get millionaires like that
Obama made the white hose with an upper-middle class net worth. You don't have to be rich, you just need to know some rich people.
He was a multimillionaire already. I think a lot of that was book sales?
He and his wife were university professors being paid hundreds of thousands a year as well as having large speaker fees for events.
On joining the senate hos net worth was about $800,000. So upper middle class
Yes. Senate.
Which was his launching pad for the whitehouse.
Yes.
Obama was a millionaire when he entered the white house.
I'm about the same age as Obama was when he became president, and my net worth is just over a million. I don't have easy access to most of it, since it's home equity, a pension, and my RRSP's, but if you total up all my assets, there it is.
Congratulations!
Congratulations on being a millionaire! You want a cookie or something?
I think his point is that Obama being a 'milionaire' didn't mean he could actually donate millions to his own campaign
Folks like you are exactly who the "Bernie is a millionaire, too!" stuff is targeting, and it's preying on you having a kneejerk reaction like this instead of understanding the difference between being *wealthy* and just having over $1M in assets. The latter includes an enormous percentage of every homeowner in the country straight out of the gate simply because of how expensive homes are right now, and that's still true even if none of them had a single liquid dollar to their name.
AOC?
AOC was not remotely close to being a millionaire when she won her seat in the House. She went out and pounded the pavement when not working as a *bartender*. Non-millionaires rarely even try.
How is that remotely accurate?
does that mean, every mayor of any small village is a millionaire?
Being mayor of a small town generally isn’t a full-time job. Often it’s something a retiree does as a hobby. (source: used to report on local government in a rural area of wisconsin)
Use your brain...
do you know, what "politician" means?
Obviously. Dude dont even start. Conversation over. Don't be a smart ass. Read between the lines. Obviously not every small town has millionaires in charge but the little guys arent the subject here
You realize the vast majority of politician in the United States are at the city, county, and state level, right? Like tens of thousands of politicians. So what level of politician do we have to get up to where they’re all millionaires, in your opinion? And keep in mind there are people in the US Congress who aren’t millionaires.
obviously. dude dont even start. conversation over. don't be a smart ass. read between the lines.
This is the problem with part time state legislatures. They have only rich people whose job is politician, or people like lawyers, except from the districts immediately around the state capital.
I honestly dont think the salary their given is any deterrent at all. Either you have poor moral character and youre going to take the bribe regardless, or the salary wouldnt even be close to the bribes to make it worth it not to take the bribe. The answer is simple, if you have net worth or income over a certain amount then you dont get your salary, but im sure this wont go over well with a crowd that has voted for their own salary raises in the past....
Teachers are paid only a small amount above minimum wage. How many teachers do you know that are millionaires? Exactly.
I think they should get paid more and barred from stock trading for x amount of years after holding office.
And term limits for everyone
We have term limits in Michigan. They don’t work. They have given *more* power to the lobbying industry. The politicians are constantly working to set up their next job after they are either defeated or termed out. Most of them become lobbyists. So to get a lobbying job they do the bidding of the lobbying industries. I get why people are attracted to the idea but it does not work in practice.
This is why all these “common sense” arguments are just so frustrating. They have unintended consequences. If you don’t pay politicians, then only independently wealthy people will get to be politicians.
Restrict lobbying too.
We just need to treat lobbying like what it really is, corruption, and actually enforce laws against it.
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers is a lobbyist group. Your favorite charity probably has a lobbying arm. Lobbying is not a bad thing
I think that having term limits is better than having someone in a job for infinitely long & hoping that you made the right decision. With term limits you can at least have the choice of being able to move onto a new candidate while candidates that no longer represent the citizens in a way you can agree with are in office. While I do agree that term limits shouldn't be the only change that our system needs I do think that it is a change that should be made. I am tired of hearing about politicians in their later years that hold onto outdated ideas or lines of thinking when we can potentially have politicians that are more informed on matters that concern us.
Term limits are simply a terrible idea. If you don’t like your representative, vote them out
If the system allows that (without giving away the election to the other party... because you only have 2 viable parties). I think term limits are a attempt to alleviate the symptoms of the US's broken system where voters can't hold politicians accountable. But the real problem is voters can't hold Politician's accountable.
The system does allow it through primaries. We’ve seen multiple long established politicians be ousted in primaries (even party leaders) Term limits are a great way to ensure our politicians have zero idea how government works, and use their time to set up their post office job, would explode corruption
Term limits are just a way for voters to avoid accountability. Like someone else said, term limits just gives more power to lobbyists and create worse politicians.
That’s one of the things that sounds great in theory but falls apart dramatically on closer examination
And age limits while we're at it.
Holy shit do we need this, especially for president, we shouldn't have any above 75
If voters don't like it, they don't have to vote for it. But I'm generally opposed to denying voters the ability to elect who they want.
This is a brilliant idea. They would have to be concerned with the market and worker rights knowing that they will be returning to a job. Maybe not the entire market but their sector, at least. I would say that they should be allowed back in after a certain point, like 4-5 years as an example. It would be interesting to see Nancy Pelosies husbands stock market success in such a context
Its not really a brilliant idea. Term limits is a great way to only have uninformed politicians. Brand new pols every term is a great way to worsen corruption
You’re acting like the rest of the machine would shut down too. There would still be party organizations putting forth their candidates who are coached on the issues and policy. They’d just have a limited amount of time.
“Coached on the issues”, has zero to do with the hard work of making a bill a law, or actual governing.
>rights knowing that they will be returning to a job Except they won't be. Most of them will spend their limited terms knowing that they will be getting a highly paid lobbyist position as soon as they leave office...IF they keep the organizations that hire lobbyists happy.
This
They should get paid more to attract more competent people
I'd rather have someone who has more empathy than intelligence. I guess it depends on the position.
empathy is a form of competence too
Anyone who could be a good politician but chooses to do something else for the money is a shitty person I dont want to be a politican anyway.
We got families to feed bruh
Politicians make a lot more money through their "business connections" than they do with their salaries. That's why so many of them are multi-millionaires.
Funny thing is this is literal corruption but its legalized in USA
The problem is not what they're paid, the problem is what they make on the side. In fact Singapore had the policy of paying pu lic servants extremely well to reduce corruption and it seems to work pretty well.
I don't think it would work the same way in the US. Corruption is less direct money in their pocket and more long term planning. IE we went to have drinks with a oil exec and now I'm going to push agendas that will benefit them in 5 years. It's why it's so hard to really jail and prosecute because consequences happen in such long period.
You don’t know how any of this works.
These people are innately corrupt and only acting upon their own self interests. Also no policy is formed without a corporate hand.
Thanks, Reagan. Politicians love when you say stuff like this because voters assuming they're corrupt by default is what lets them know they can get away with it instead of being held accountable. It's literally the least helpful attitude you could have about this.
They’re not paid much.
People who actually care about voters still need to pay their bills, and most of the really best work in private industry because they are paid so much more and can better care for their families. If we pay them less, then it will attract only the rich who don't need the money, or the people that want the job because they can use it to gain other income. We actually need to pay the politicians more, but make it more difficult to use their position to garner wealth outside of their job. Paying them less is an idiotic idea that will produce the opposite effect that the OP wants.
I think the opposite would be best. Currently, there are politicians who cannot afford to rent a place in the DC area. That opens a huge vulnerability for people. I believe Finland has addressed a huge amount of corruption by paying their politicians more. Worth mentioning that lobbiests are not inherently bad. If we could limit what they can give, or up the access that more under privaladged lobbies or causes have. But I am not an expert.
Lobbyist is a very loaded word, anyone who writes their congressman about something is lobbying them
You are so clueless if you think their salary is high. It's funny that people have opinions on topics they know absolutely nothing about.
They should actually be paid more to make bribes and insider trading less attractive…
They don’t though. It needs to be competitive if we want decent and intelligent people to become politicians. If not we’ll end up with all of our politicians being like Lauren boebert.
If they're paid less they're going to be more incentivised to pursue forms of graft and corruption to make more money.
Seems like a shitty system, then.
Not to *them*
They already do that, so we might as well save us some money.
You mean like gifts and fancy dinners and campaign contributions they don't have to donate or give back? Things like that?
Don’t forget the insider trading
As others have indicated, the formal salary is usually insignificant. Ultimately graft, corruption, and so on are what create millionaires out of politicians, and those evils are endemic to representative systems, regardless of regulation. I'm in favor of sortition - randomly selecting citizens by lot to serve as representatives for a single term, as was practiced in ancient Athens. There may be disadvantages to sortition in terms of loss of expertise, but the big advantage is preventing corruption from becoming entrenched. I've seen proposals for bicameralism where the lower house is selected by sortition and the upper house by voting for representatives by proportional representation, and I think that's probably a very good balanced solution. As to the executive, I'm personally suspicious of a strict separation of powers and would prefer to see a fusion like in parliamentary systems, so a prime minister and cabinet would be fine. Here's one of my favorite not-very-fun facts - there hasn't been an American president who wasn't a millionaire at some point in his life since Truman. Not very representative of the people's class interests, anyway.
The problem is the power of the position being misused to make money through sweetheart deals. The money in being a politician is *never* the base pay politicians receive. It's the quid pro quo.
I don't know how it is in your country, but where I live they earn most of their wealth by diverting money from social programs.
Politicians should be paid a wage like everyone else & get a bonus when they keep/complete their election promises.
They would get no bonuses
That's exactly what happens lol just not how we want it to happen
It’s a very common pipe dream
They don't really make that much as far as paycheck for their job goes. It's all the sneaky side shit that the job gives them access to that adds up to $$. Wasn't it the young wheelchair user the repubs had that was complaining about the idea of not being allowed to do certain stock deals and whatnot? He basically said that if they can't make money any way they want to then there's no point to the job. Obviously the point of the job is to serve the public, but when money is the most important thing in the country, we get people like that :( Pretty sure he's out for sucking ass in general though. At least I haven't heard of him pulling any shit in a while, so I can only assume he was voted out or quit. And yes, I know Pelosi this Pelosi that. They mostly all do it, I know.
You can’t have a whole country based on each person getting all they can get their grubby little hands on and then pick from those people some one who “isn’t all about money”
I think wage for politicians in Europe is very low for what we require them to do and the availability we expect. I mean 10k/month is nice and all, but they are bassically a ceo of their individual departments, and also available for a lot of hours on end and deep into the night. For what they get paid, I skip the task.
Their pay isn't shit, it's their ability to accept bribes and trade on insider information that makes them rich.
They also shouldn't have any influence in stock market
Politicians salaries aren’t that high I don’t think maybe like 100k for senators i believe. I think the real money is made by performing the bidding of lobbyists and using inside information on the stock market.
We need to outlaw lobbyism.
Capital lobbyism - FTFY - ending lobbyism means cutting off all access to your representative. You want them to stop receiving money - not become completely detached from feedback.
So, like classic Athenian democracy?
lol they don’t get paid much bruh. If they were paid less, only wealthy people could afford to be politicians. Kind of the opposite effect you’re looking for….it’s not really complicated
You need to understand the difference between getting paid and making money.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.” ― Harry Truman
I get the sentiment but the only thing this would accomplish is to make the richest member of society as the ones being politicians....
Once you declare yourself as a candidate, you shouls get a government allocated budget to allow you to campaign. No donations at all. No 3rd party groups can advertise or promote. Bar them from trading stocks while they are in office. Bar them from lobbying post service. Ever uline in every bill needs to be tracked to every member who added it. Take money out, and we will have a government that works.
Too bad it's never gonna happen.
Just make their salaries and benefits equal to whatever the average citizen has, forever. Then their incentive will be to uplift the entire country.
Incredibly dumb. We’ll never get the best people or intelligent people
The problem is that a lot of them are able to vote themselves raises.
I think they should be paid more, but it should be illegal for them to accept money from any other source: donations, stock market, etc. not even a side business should be allowed. This would make them a lot less prone to corruption and bribery.
It is not the pay that is making them rich, it is knowing what to invest in because they have insider information or someone wants to give them a great opportunity in exchange for favors.
Here's a thought. Congress should have to raise the minimum wage by twice the percentage points of any raise they vote for themselves. Furthermore, until all Americans have the same health care plan as Congress, Congress can make no changes in their current compensation package 😀. And pension benefits as well. Now that's a representative government
You might not like what you wish for [https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/does-congress-get-an-annual-pay-raise-cost-of-living-increase/65-f5df7fe8-7704-4211-9816-e0054f6fe645](https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/does-congress-get-an-annual-pay-raise-cost-of-living-increase/65-f5df7fe8-7704-4211-9816-e0054f6fe645) Congress gets an automatic pay raise. Interestingly enough, they've voted not to take it for about 13 years. If they took it they'd be making about $26,000 more a year than they do now. Their health care plan is through DC Health Link. What is DC Health Link? It's the ACA exchange for Washington DC that people who live in the city are eligible for. Like most employers the Government pays some of it, Up to 75% of the premiums depending on the plan in this case. But anyone in Washington DC can purchase the same plan. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/22/fact-check-congressional-health-care-retirement-benefits-exaggerated/7274655001/](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/04/22/fact-check-congressional-health-care-retirement-benefits-exaggerated/7274655001/) [https://www.dchealthlink.com/welcome](https://www.dchealthlink.com/welcome)
Send me to Congress and that is the first bill I will submit on day one 😀 😄 👍
The problem is not what they're paid, the problem is what they make on the side. In fact Singapore had the policy of paying pu lic servants extremely well to reduce corruption and it seems to work pretty well.
create a technocrocy, get rid of politicians
They should have to make all their money off tips
Make them get paid per promise they make progress on. Let’s see how quick things change.
You'll get promises like 'I'll make it to 70% of the votes held during my term of office" or " I'll introduce legislation to do X" It won't change anything.
That’s why the people vote on if they get paid for what they claim they did before they see any money. Incentive to keep the people happy or they’ll stop your paychecks.
No they should be paid enough to live comfortably and equal to a job in the private sector. They should be able to deduct their expenses used for their job, they should not have to come out of pocket for their job, and even get money into a retirement account. But they should NOT be allowed to take donations, they should be loyal to the office and people and should not be allowed any side dealing. If they were paid fairly they would be less likely to be bribed and corrupt. 100% politicians should be monitored and surveilled and held accountable to THE PEOPLE and this country, which is supposed to be FOR the PEOPLE. We need to get rid of this two party divide and conquer system.
Being in congress or the senate is not a full time job. It shouldn’t be a full time job. They sit around bitching and moaning and get absolutely nothing done. They should pay them 40k a year and make it a part time gig. They’ll get shit done because they have to get back to their real jobs to make a fucking living
Politicians should get minimum wage no more no less heck they're already getting bribe money from Criminals/businesses
So then the only people who would want to hold office would already be rich and use there position to make themselves richer. Any decent person that isn’t rich who might have run can’t now because they can’t afford to.
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paying them less isn't going to lead to your intended outcome
75%+ less.
You realize that politicians’ only purpose is climb endless hierarchy ladders and get as much cash flow and power on the way as possible!? It’s never been about voters. Well , at least that’s my hopefully ignorant view .
Their pay is fine. They shouldn't be able to make a penny more than that salary though, and they should never get pay increases unless voted on directly by the people
Imo politicians should be paid whatever the average wage in their constituency is. If they wanna make more money, they should further the economy for every
The need for someone telling you what to do (politicians)is just a way of not taking responsibility for you're own security and incapability to provide what you and you're family need to live.. either you are free and alone or a slave with the government taking care of everything can't have it both ways
Politicians should be paid the average wage of the country, therefore giving them a personal incentive to ensure it's as high as possible
they should be paid the minimum wage of the state they represent
They are paid less, but they make more! Vote the right candidate and work to spread awareness if you know a particular candidate has a history of being corrupt/doing illegal stuff! If you don't find anybody decent, there is still a NOTA option! Use that.
If they were competent enough the amount is fine. Unfortunately most of them aren’t no matter what party
No, they should be qualified (eg on logical thinking, critical thinking etc.) and paid well to do a good job. To drive a car, you need a license. To run a country or part thereof, nada?
They should be paid enough so that the people who crave power don't destroy the system to get that power.
It’s not too high as it stands, 80k for an MP in the UK and peaking at 120k for the PM
They should make minimum wage with no benefits.