Removing financial incentive in politics - reducing or eliminating pay

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

In general, I agree with you. However, one must consider whether or not one wants government by the affluent (only those who can pay the costs associated with an elected position or the most deserving but unable to pay the costs.

In the founders time, only the well to do could afford the time and expense of governing. The local baker or black smith couldn't just take a month off to travel to Congress - his family would suffer.

To my mind a better alternative would be to pay a modest salary for family support (if needed) and all government expenses. And these stipends would be capped and NO ONE IOTA MORE could be spent.

a reply to: Edumakated

The main point is to restrict any other forms of income during, and for awhile after office.. and obviously they keep the 500k until allowed to work again..

If you make it where ANYONE giving them money is a bribe it is WAY easier to track.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Someone could just send money though their company in trust, and it will still be waiting for them ...


You can have lifetime politicians if they CANNOT be bought off period.. and payment they receive is considered a bribe..


No stock investments...

All you get is an increased government salary, but likely or up to for life.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So how is not paying for them in the future, not leaving yourself open to the same reason your against lowering their salary?!?!

The bribe will be just as appealing if they will be unemployed the second they leave office..

The only way to actually police corruption is not to allow them to accept any money past their salary.

Then any income is obviously a bribe.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

In general, I agree with you. However, one must consider whether or not one wants government by the affluent (only those who can pay the costs associated with an elected position or the most deserving but unable to pay the costs.

In the founders time, only the well to do could afford the time and expense of governing. The local baker or black smith couldn't just take a month off to travel to Congress - his family would suffer.

To my mind a better alternative would be to pay a modest salary for family support (if needed) and all government expenses. And these stipends would be capped and NO ONE IOTA MORE could be spent.

First time in a long time I have wholly agreed with you.

The political class should be reigned in, more so than any one else.

One place liberals were right (but gave up on, apparently) was the concept of corporate personhood and what it means to average Americans. Especially in the era of corporate censorship we live in today.

We gotta do something because between the political class and the corporate class we are caught in the middle carrying the load for both...

...and it only get heavier, doesn't it?

There is only 2 things I think would work. Term limits of course but more important take away the ability to buy the office. Let's face it who ever raises the most money wins the election.

Easiest solution to this is the government gives each candidate money to run for office. They are not allowed to take private donations. And both sides will have the same amount of money. This means to win you need to present ideas and not just flood the market with adds.

a reply to: JustJohnny

Thanks, I've already been sufficiently scolded on this issue and on further consideration I agree, though the retirement program and super health insurance does seem excessive/

a reply to: dragonridr

Won't work since anybody can run, can't finance everyone. Instead make it like one of those dating videos, each candidate gets to record one video of set time to try and sell themselves to the American people. At the end of each video is a link to their website with their policies. These videos will be put in rotation, and every website with adds in the respective country will need to rotate them in on occasion. There will be a 24/7 station that rotates these adds, one on the radio, one on television and one website. Any other advertising a candidate does will result in immediate irreversible disqualification. These videos will be cheap every man videos, things that have the production value of one of those dating videos. No special effects, no flashy expensive nonsense, just the candidate and a recorder. They have their website to go into further detail. There will be a debate forum open that other can observe, but only they and special moderators can post on. There will be a subforum where people can post questions that any of them can answer, or provide desired debate topics. Ahh heck, you get the idea, I'm sure there's more we can come up with, but it's time to remove the nonsense and make the candidates engage.

i propose they get paid the median wage of the u.s. worker. that will incentive them to do better with the economy so the median worker gets a raise, which they will get in return.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I've stated on this forum many times, term limits are the number one thing that needs changed in Congress. After that nothing really matters because you have career politicians running everything.

As for pay, they vote themselves for more pay, as well as term limits, so i just don't see it changing.

a reply to: stormson

Hell, if you're gonna do that go all the way, they are supposed to be public servants after all, minimum wage. They get paid for 40 hours of work at minimum wage, they cannot accept money from anywhere else, nor can they use any savings from prior to becoming a public servant. In addition, they are provided the minimum benefits required for any full time employee and no more.

Salary has little or nothing to do with it - unless you're a bartender with no quals & financed by Soros NGOs - that $175K (didn't they vote a raise?) is real important to @AOC.

Term limits are a sure way to introduce new blood into the congress, but you're inviting more corruption to the party with each new batch. THE END OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE - GOVERNMENT FUNDED ELECTION SPENDING, no private donations, no "Party" or "Super PAC" war chests, just a government allotment of what you can spend and how.

With Term Limits should come a reduction in retirement benefits since nobody would have completed a typical vesting period. And then we're talking a fraction of salary based on length of service. Executive government employees need 15 years service to get "free" (subsidized low cost) medical plan. Politicians wouldn't serve that long.

AND THEN we still have to eliminate those laws that exempt Congress from all the other laws everybody else has to live by, like insider trading laws and such.

FINALLY, I've recently read that Virginia ratified the original thirteenth amendment and this needs to be acknowledged, implemented and enforced - all these other problems will quickly evaporate.

ganjoa

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

It is excessive, but only because they are allowed to profit privately...and do to the tune of millions usually..

For tax payers to pay the Clintons/trumps/Romney’s/exc expenses afterward is ridiculous because they are gazzillionairs anyway.