reply to post by ravenshadow13
Allow me to suggest an alternative: Performance based pay.
There's a bit of background on this idea: I have an on-going series of thought experiments on government, and pretty much an ever-evolving prototype
system in my mind, and my pay idea for the government is based on that theoretical system.
Long story short, imagine a world where the government essentially has 3 forms of revenue only: sales taxes, property taxes (a family's first home
exempt), and "confidence fees" which regulated industries and organizations pay to the government in exchange for government regulation and
government insurance to the public that the entity in question is operating in a fair and legal fashion. Sales taxes and property taxes would be used
to pay for all infrastructure and essential government services, and the confidence fees would fund the actual operation and maintenance and pay of
the government, and any projects the government wants to undertake that the people won't vote to fund by special levy. (balancing government pay
against government pet projects)
As one tiny example of what I mean on the confidence fee, the government might have a voluntary program, where any used car dealer can pay to be
inspected and monitored to ensure that they aren't crooks, and based on that gives an assurance to the consumer in the form of lemon insurance.
So what we have in that industry is that IF the market wants government monitoring, it will give business to the dealers who pay the government to
enforce standards (even though those dealers will have to pass the cost on) and IF the government does a good job at regulation, it will turn a profit
on the insurance it is offering. But if it does a bad job, it will lose money.
You apply that across many industries and government agencies- the SEC could follow some such pattern.
And here's the performance-based pay part:
Whatever profits are left from the balance of government "confidence fee" reciepts minus insurance payouts for failures, is the fund from which all
government pay is drawn. Naturally there will be a paycut heirarchy which ensures that the guys at the top suffer first and the janitors and
lower-level employees are the last affected.
Private enterprise can then provide the lower level government employees with pay insurance to avoid breakdown of government when the government
screws up, meaning that when the government does well, everyone in the government makes a lot, and some of that goes back to the people who bet on the
government by getting invested in the insurance, and when the government does poorly, the first ones to pay for it are the politicians and the
investors who were betting on them. (you theoretically even could make a minimum investment in that insurance mandatory for political party
affiliation, meaning that registered Republicans and Democrats have to actually be willing to bet money on the people they vote for)
(you may notice that a lot of my thoughts go in the direction of combining a socialist sense of governmental duty with the checks of market forces and
Going just a bit further on that subject, necessities of life (minimal shelter, staple foods, basic utilities and sanitation, etc) should be provided
by monopolies at a strict profit cap with no sales tax, and with "confidence fees" made mandatory for the monopolies and all such fees from this
sector funding welfare for the qualified poor.
The rest of the economy would be 100% and completely lassiez faire- only the market could make industries accept regulation (again via the confidence
fee system) and subject to a high sales tax and high commercial property taxes.
This is also envisioned as a more or less confederate system, with the central government being limited to the regulation fo the necessity industries
and the provision of optional services based on market forces.
Sorry it's terribly disorganized, I've never really prepped it for presentation- it's just a pipe dream of mine but I thought it might be an
interesting avenue for the pay control discussion.