It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Removing financial incentive in politics - reducing or eliminating pay

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
From what I understand the founders NEVER wanted career politicians. They envisioned accomplished and educated people - business owners, land owners, professionals, etc - taking office and continuing their jobs along with working in office. Now I'm guessing that there was to be some kind of sacrifice of their professional life in order to serve the nation and that is probably why the original salaries were not meant to be luxurious living salaries.

Even back in the early 19th century, Washington DC was more than a days travel from most anywhere in the States. Now you can get there from anywhere in the states in hours and we have remote offices and Internet to do a lot of what needs to be done.

I suggest the salaries of congressmen be drastically cut along with benefits to that of other government employees (benefits wise). Travel expenses should be covered for "average" travel, not first class to/from every day.

We all see how politicians increase their wealth and financial holdings while in office by orders of magnitude more than their counterparts in the "civilian" world. This is obviously due to insider information or at worst bribes/corruption and such.

IDK if we are past the point where people would work for the country w/o massive reimbursements and if salaries are decreased will people feel that they deserve more and increase corruption?




posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I am in favor of this reduction in pay and reimbursements. And don't forget term limits. On that I am in favor or two three year terms and out the door. And no cross overs, no going from the House to the Senate or vice versa



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Term limits for all positions is the only clear answer, IMO -
if you cut the pay drastically, the ONLY people who will wind up controlling policy are those who have so much money that they don't need to work- or those so corrupt that they can live on bribes by controlling policy for megacorporations.

The founding fathers probably never really figured you'd have such wealth inequality in a country where anyone can make a living if they're just willing to work hard.
Remember... people here were still generally free to until our government sold us out to the bankers a century ago.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac


the ONLY people who will wind up controlling policy are those who have so much money that they don't need to work- or those so corrupt that they can live on bribes by controlling policy for megacorporations.


I think this is a good point comac. But as this seems to be the case already, would term limits be enough to fix things? It would be a good start but what else do you think we could do to insure honest people in our offices.

edit on 30America/ChicagoSun, 30 Jun 2019 11:46:57 -0500Sun, 30 Jun 2019 11:46:57 -050019062019-06-30T11:46:57-05:001100000046 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I am in favor of this reduction in pay and reimbursements. And don't forget term limits. On that I am in favor or two three year terms and out the door. And no cross overs, no going from the House to the Senate or vice versa


Yeah, I should have included that but I was kind of on a single track idea while writing. Thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 12:01 PM
link   
If you don't pay them, you are guaranteeing that only uber rich people will ever run for office.

Is that really what you want?



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Good idea in "theory" 😎

But under the table "cash" will reign supreme 😄



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I think we need a Constitutional Amendment making the activities of lobbyists illegal. Just like the War on Drugs we would have the War on Corruption.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Imo, we definetaly need term limits. Political office is supposed to be a service, not a career. Politicans should not be allowed to make more money than the median income of the average American worker. If they raise the median income then they can raise their pay. They should also be required to wear the logos of corporations & NGOs who donate to their campaigns & their healthcare should not be better than Medicare recipients healthcare. Many politicians are also lawyers. At one time in history lawyers made the same money as teachers did. There should be a cap on lawyer fees to not exceed the average teacher's salary. Career politicians like Bernie Sanders & Joe Biden have been in politics for over 3 decades, with nothing worthwhile to show for it besides their multi-million dollar net worths. This is unacceptable. Bernie Sanders didn't receive his 1st paycheck until he was 40 years old and he has never worked an honest days work at a real job in his life.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... o-dem-debate/



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
It shouldn't be a full time job. It should be similar to serving on a corporate board. You meet quarterly and draw a relatively small income. F500 Board directors typically have other jobs / careers. They may make like $200k plus expenses. They do get substantial options/equity, but that may or may not pay off.

The biggest issue is they get lobbying and other opportunities AFTER serving. That is where the big money comes in from all the contacts. Making $200-$500k a speech. Getting cushy jobs at investment banks, law firms, etc. Lobbying firms.

Terms limits are definitely necessary, but unless we get a constitutional convention it will never happen. These people are not going to legislate themselves out of a job.

Maybe limit donors to those only in the constituency. In other words, a corporate (or union) cannot donate to a politician. Individual voters can donate only to the politician who represents their district. This would cut down on industry donations somewhat...



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Your going TOTALLY the wrong direction..

The problem is that we pay them less than the people trying to buy them off.... but still allow them to profit privately..


If your in government service your pay check should be your ONLY income..


That way only people in it for the “people” would be willing to give up the ability to do private commerce..


And keep their pay going and restrictions in place for atleast 5 years..



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

All cutting their pay would do is make them easier to pay off.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

This is literally the dumbest thing I have seen today...


If you cut their pay, it is cheaper to buy them off... obviously..

The problem is that we allow them to profit privately.. which makes it nearly impossible to police bribes, because they can just spend money “legally “ through the candidates private business, or the pay off comes in the form of a job and pay check..



Politicians don’t even make CEO type money lol..

Sure it pays well, but pres. is only 400k last I checked..

So what is congress??

200k?

Lol

200k is pocket change to most people who run.. lol


Addressing their already relatively low pay is a deflection so we ignore lobbying.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

This is literally the dumbest thing I have seen today...


If you cut their pay, it is cheaper to buy them off... obviously..

The problem is that we allow them to profit privately.. which makes it nearly impossible to police bribes, because they can just spend money “legally “ through the candidates private business, or the pay off comes in the form of a job and pay check..



Politicians don’t even make CEO type money lol..

Sure it pays well, but pres. is only 400k last I checked..

So what is congress??

200k?

Lol

200k is pocket change to most people who run.. lol


Addressing their already relatively low pay is a deflection so we ignore lobbying.


It is funny that people spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $178k a year. They make less than 1st year attorneys and MBA grads.

Maybe we should raise the salaries. I would agree to maybe paying them say $500k/yr or more with strict term limits and limits on where they can work after their term is up.

They can't work at any firm that is actively lobbying or some other highly restrictive rules that prevent people from profiting from their time in office.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Honestly, I believe that all candidates should not be allowed to announce or fundraise until January 2 of the year of election.

Furthermore, one primary nationwide should be held June 2 in all states.

At least we would only have a presidential campaign for 11 months.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny



If your in government service your pay check should be your ONLY income..



The US President and UK ministers work under that rule.

They put their businesses etc in trust.

Which means that they make an absolute fortune, they just can't touch it until they leave office.

For every excellent idea, there are a hundred accountants and lawyers that will subvert it in minutes.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I agree with a few points you make.
Term limits for sure.
No more golden parachutes either.
Love those ideas.


But I do disagree with one thing.
Cutting the salary.

Last week a local school superintendent resigned her position and is retiring.
She was making $205k per year plus benefits.

Why would someone running a school system "badly I might add" get paid more than a representative of a state?

Honestly the pay isnt enough to talk me into leaving my current job unless it includes all those benefits.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Lowering pay would accomplish nothing. Just make them even less loyal as even more of their funds will rely on corporate bribes.

Citizen's United needs to be demolished and any loop hole that allows them to profit in any way outside their pay via obfuscated bribes.

The issue isn't their pay, it's their ability to gain profit by selling out to special interests that's the problem. As long as they can do that it doesn't matter how little we pay them or how much as we could never pay them enough to outweigh the coffers of the mega rich.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof




Removing financial incentive in politics


I think all sides agree on this as voters.

Problem is most of those elected or running don't.

Today it's possible to talk with potus directly using twitter.

People like you should be on there everyday talking to him about these issues.

At the same time we should all be making those we elected and those running debate this issue and do something about it.

It's our fault for letting the government amass so much power.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof



Terrible Idea

This would make it so only the wealthy could run for office and function.

Wealth and financial success doesn't make a good politician.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join