151–160 of 169 posts
Members of Congress make ~$174k/yr. [1] It will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that we should pay better (and demand better) for a job with that much responsibility. Otherwise, a congressperson will be forever tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches. [1] https://w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is being a legislator a full time job in the US? As in, you are legally not allowed to also have another job? (It isn't in my country. You can be a pilot, an actor or an engineer and still be a legislator)
To give an example, that may not representative: the Texas legislature meets for 140 days, every 2 years. The governor can call special sessions that are up to 30 days in length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Legislature So at least in Texas it does not have to be a full time job.
Members of Congress make ~$174k/yr. [1] It will be an unpopular opinion, but I believe that we should pay better (and demand better) for a job with that much responsibility. Otherwise, a congressperson will be forever tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. I'm fairly certain we should be paying our elected officials at least as much as our football coaches. [1] https://w…
Regardless of their pay, a congressperson will be tempted to align their incentives with service to causes other than their electorate. Plus, people who just want to make a lot of money (instead of serve their country) would be tempted to run for congress to receive "football coach level pay". It makes sense to pay them a high enough wage so (lack of) money doesn't become a worry in their life, but incentives get bor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heavily disagree. We are already in a situation were poor people don't even fucking bother to vote anymore because none of the politicians live on the same planet as they do. None of these millionaire douchebags are relatable at this point.
I think the problem is that if we don't pay them, someone else will. And the "someone else" always attaches strings.
Only way we'll ever get rid of Pelosi.
I can't recall who said it, but the gist of the quote was: "If you want to eliminate earnings inequality in the United States, give every citizen real-time access to Nancy Pelosi's trades." According to the now-Cancelled Twitter account (would that have happened if she was a Republican?) dedicated to her financial shenanigans, her portfolio has outperformed Bitcoin. Something is deeply, deeply wrong here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Hell no. Elected office is a sacrifice and a duty. It is not a way to make a living. Thats how you end up with dinosaurs working those halls for 68 years. I have a better idea. 1)Fix salary at 2x poverty wage. 2) make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials) 3) tax any earnings above their pre-office historical income avg, at say 98%.…
That's a great way to get corruption. Relying on independently wealthy people to sacrificially serve their country is not a reliable way of getting good quality talent. My father spent some time in Bolivia some decades ago, and people in government were paid practically nothing. So there were a lot of bribes expected. And government officials got a fantastic exchange rate on Bolivios -> USD, which after you go throug…
Who are these people you are referring to as talented?
Do you mean talent to lie cheat and steal to the top? Kind of like a CEO?
We dont want talented people. Those belong in private industry where the metric for benefit of society is measured in hard currency.
We need people NOT talented in government so that the government does what its supposed to, and nothing else
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't recall who said it, but the gist of the quote was: "If you want to eliminate earnings inequality in the United States, give every citizen real-time access to Nancy Pelosi's trades." According to the now-Cancelled Twitter account (would that have happened if she was a Republican?) dedicated to her financial shenanigans, her portfolio has outperformed Bitcoin. Something is deeply, deeply wrong here.
Is there no other source for information on her financial activities?
Decent article:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/12/house-speaker-paul-stocks...
Interesting (though they have 30 days to report their activities):
All the discussion about how much Senators and Representatives should be paid and whether it leads to bribery misses the most important moral point, which is: They are in a position to influence stocks, and hence must be barred from owning them, other than in a blind trust. It's the same moral principle as "Judges must recuse themselves from cases in which they have a financial interest." We want them to vote on regu…
I have trouble with the escalation of demands being made on social media. Initially the titles talked about banning "insider trading", despite them not legally being insiders (which is a very specific legal term which refers to company employees/agents which specific non-public corporate information). The the titles talk about banning "day-trading", which is trading in-out of stocks multiple times per day. They are a…
However, "insider" is often construed broadly as "possessing material, non-public information." For example, if you work at Google and you realize the next earnings are bad and you call your brother-in-law, who sells short, he can be prosecuted for violating insider trading laws. I think. Not just you.
Now as to "you're saying they cannot even have any stock ownership" -- I didn't say that, I said "blind trust." This is a legal vehicle that's been used for public officials for generations. It means they can't influence it and they don't know how it's doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trouble with the escalation of demands being made on social media. Initially the titles talked about banning "insider trading", despite them not legally being insiders (which is a very specific legal term which refers to company employees/agents which specific non-public corporate information). The the titles talk about banning "day-trading", which is trading in-out of stocks multiple times per day. They are a…
First of all, you're right about the title. The article is not about day trading, which confused me at first too. However, "insider" is often construed broadly as "possessing material, non-public information." For example, if you work at Google and you realize the next earnings are bad and you call your brother-in-law, who sells short, he can be prosecuted for violating insider trading laws. I think. Not just you. No…
Just being an employee does not make you an "insider". I regularly traded in the company I worked for. I did not have access to any financial information, so it was all based on my hunches of how sales were doing.
There's nothing illegal about that.
Moreover, you are not in violation of insider trading laws just for knowing insider information. You have to have received it from someone you knew was violating their insider status, or compensated them for such. For example, if you overhear someone in a bar talking about their sales numbers, and you trade on that - you are not guilty of insider trading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Hell no. Elected office is a sacrifice and a duty. It is not a way to make a living. Thats how you end up with dinosaurs working those halls for 68 years. I have a better idea. 1)Fix salary at 2x poverty wage. 2) make house members 1:50,000 representation to their county (yes that means the house would explode to 8000 elected officials) 3) tax any earnings above their pre-office historical income avg, at say 98%.…
Why sacrifice yourself before your political career ended? Why not do it afterwards with extremely high capital gains and income taxes (100% tax for anything above $200k) for retired politicians?
What you are stating is the same I advocate. (Done with govt, ok cap hits you now)
This works well because elected oficials have reporting requirments which means any high income during office is subject to optics and actual regulatory disclosure.
Plus, I'm taking for granted that term limits would be put in place first.
We need to get rid of the speech circuit retirement.