- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or # 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
MEDIAN wage. No rich to skew things.
And no money from lobbyists, no insider trading and no ability to award contracts to private entities
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.
It’s also actually a means to prevent corruption unfortunately. Less likely to take ridiculous sums if you’re financially solid
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.
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.
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.
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.
