- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
And no money from lobbyists, no insider trading and no ability to award contracts to private entities
No.
The only reform we need is to take money out of politics.
If you get X number of people to sign your petition, you get y dollars to spend on a campaign. The spending is well monitored, so the candidate can’t buy themselves a Lambo and call it a legit expense.
Representatives need a salary, otherwise only those that are independently wealthy can hold office.
I’m with you on this idea for campaign financing though
What’s interesting is that a candidate could rent, lease, or buy a Lamborghini as part of their campaign. That’s perfectly legal!
The restriction is that they can only use that vehicle for traveling to/from campaign events. Since this is highly impractical and a waste of precious campaign funds, that doesn’t usually happen.
Another interesting fact is that candidates can get reimbursement from their campaign funds for miles traveled in their personal vehicles (when campaigning).
Getting paid mileage is normal for a lot of corporate jobs. Not my job these days, but many jobs.
Median is a better choice as its less affected by outliers.
The mean average is the amount you compute by putting all the money that is earned and put it in a big pot and divide it up evenly amongst everyone.
Median is where you find the single most average person and ask how much they make.
Median gives them an incentive to improve the income of the average American. Mean average gives an incentive to increase national wealth regardless of who’s hands its in, and an incentive to decrease the population. That is not a good incentive.
But also keep in mind congress members are local representatives. They need to be in DC while in session, and in their state or district at other times to be available to their constituents. The job requires maintaining two households, so they should earn enough for that. Unless we provide them college dorm level mandatory housing in the capital. Then median alone is enough.
I get that you’re trying to be accurate, and I respect that.
Let’s use the mean, and eliminate the top and bottom 1% of earners. Which would put Congress’ salary between 57,000 and 61,000
Using the median gives them a salary of 87,500 dollars.
That top 1% is a real motherfucker.
For the bottom 1%, I assume this includes the unemployed as making $0?
And for the billionaire class, if we are talking AGI here (which I assume we are) I’m guessing they have some entirely normal AGI. If they are paying anything on their actual wealth it’s probably through some kind of capital gains tax, or hidden in some trust or shell corporation.
So before eliminating top 1% and bottom 1%, we might want to clarify those items, as the “average” worker will mainly just have a non-zero AGI they are taxed on.
Eliminating the top 1% of earners is a good policy I support, but I don’t think it makes sense as a way to calculate averages.
Though your proposal might work now, in the fullness of time things will change, and the 1% may not be the right number. I don’t think you can rely on governments to update numbers promptly. There are places in England that have fines in law defined in denominations that no longer exist. You can’t rely on governments keep things up to date.
But your doesn’t address the underlying problems with using the arethmetic mean. It seems like you’re just searching for justification to pay people you don’t like less.
I believe everyone should be able to live comfortably, and well designed incentive systems are effective at shaping behavior. Median is better on both fronts.
It’s designed to be uncomfortable until the lowest earners in the country are able to approach comfortability themselves. The whole point is to tie people who make decisions for the rest of us to the consequences of them. It’s not about inflicting harm, it’s about inflicting consequences, which may be good or bad.
We want a rising tide.
Then tie it to the lowest earners. You can pick a lower percentile using the same methodology as finding the median.
Adding fixed percentage adjustments to the mean is not a good way of going about it.
$87,500 is the median household income.
Median personal income (income of all persons 15+ with any amount of income) is $46,960.
no. we should:
- make them not have a connection at all to any trade in stocks
- serve a maximum of four years, total, across all “terms”
- not allow for legacy ppl to fill in when they leave early
- force them to retire at <natl retirement age> here
- force them to pay for their own healthcare
- and finally: imprison them for life should they be seen taking bribes, materially supporting genocide (including in israel), and breaking any other laws.
tough shit.
I don’t agree with max terms, mainly because good leaders are fucking rare and if they want to keep going, it’s to everyone’s benefit. Plus, as Trump is showing, when the really bad ones come along, they’ll challenge the maximum rules anyways and not give a shit about the optics like a good faith leader that feels like they need to answer to their population.
Though maybe each leadership term should end with a trial of some sort, though it would be difficult or impossible to be sure that those trials would be run in good faith rather than the ruling class taking it over to punish leaders that hurt them for the sake of the people.
I agree about good leaders being rare. Instead of max terms, I’d advocate for ineligibility to chair a committee after a certain number of years. Limit that particular incentive to stay.
oh. unlike the constitution, i meant for my rules to be immutable. never again to change without complete dissolution of the government anyway. (which is something i also support, anyway…)
and on the good leaders thing - if a good leader is great, they’ll inspire and consult with the next one and they’ll be happy to because doing it in this way should be considered the highest form of social praxis. and they’d be honored to have done a full term without being jailed for life. after all, if they’re not already a criminal they have nothing to worry about, right, i think thats what they tell us. 😂
Not allow them to take a position with any company that may have been affected by a vote they cast.
Also when I’m King, if a company wants to make layoffs, anyone who has served as CEO within the past year also must be laid off, with the same severance package as all the workers that they failed.
This doesn’t really offset the harm. CEOs are often hired to perform layoffs, and will be compensated on a number of ways other than severance.
If a company wants to lay off any percentage of its workforce, it must guarantee their income, insurance, and contributions for 12 months. The CEO must be prohibited from serving on any board for 5 years.
My solution is that any restrictions (voting, holding office) placed on those under 18 also be placed on those older than 100 minus 18.
Boomers want to increase the voting age to 21? Sure, but that also takes three years off the other end.
older than
100full retirement age
I put together a concept where everyone has to adhere to a banded range of job incomes with absolute limits on wealth and assets. Part of the idea is that leadership positions have the workers voting for their existence and who occupies them, every 3 months setting the pay rung that the bosses sit at. By default, leadership offers only the lowest income, so leaders have to convince the workers to vote for something better.
Same principle applied to public leadership, with voters instead of workers.
Congratulations, you invented a Worker’s Soviet.
You could even let the existing Congress grandfather themselves in so they can pull the ladder up one last time.
This is the only way it would even have a chance of passing.
Just checking the room here, y’all know that Congress doesn’t control things like private pensions, 401Ks, or average wages, right? You’re blaming Congress for the blight of capitalism.
They also don’t take that large of a salary. The actual issue is that they are allowed to do insider trading and make an undeserved fortune investing…
But pretending that all of these problems are just problems with how the laws are written is just ignoring the actual source of these problems.
Private pensions is in fact something that has frequently been legislated on
In theory if we tied the salary of congress to the minimum wage the minimum wage would go up.
In practice the income of a congressperson is tied to their morality. Not their salary.
“y’all know that Congress doesn’t control things like private pensions, 401Ks, or average wages, right?”
This is wrong on so many levels. Let’s start with this: Who made pensions and regulates them? Hmmmmmm
Even then it’s about who is enforcing our checking it.
All this inside trading is supposedly illegal to be doing whole in Congress but there it be happening.
No one blinks.
And a president claiming to go for third term.
And people are fearing this as an actual threat that could happen.
So who is pumping the brakes here? Looks like a whole lotta ppl going “well it looks good on paper” and then doing a whole lotta nothing after waving said paper around.
And getting paid $250k for being a “guest speaker” sonewhere when it’s really just a bribe. Even if congress weren’t paid any salary they would still make bank from other sources of revenue.
Its like how DJT took a “$1 presidential salary” or whatever but has made billions doing other things.
Any organisation that is permitted to regulate, investigate, or govern itself is intrinsically corrupt and unfit for purpose.
They should also have to use the VA for health insurance
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.
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.
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.
I want to have sex for not just the healing potential I offer, but there’s the fun of it, I think, but I just want to help people bro! Why’s it so hard to get a job at the FBI? Why is there not an application in my mailbox, you fucking retards. You ain’t recruiting nearly as smartly as you think you be, but you is, cuz you are, and that is what I’m gunna find out once I become an uncertain size that y’all can’t ain’t not see. So fuck off, will ya, I got about a hundred house calls a night you slimy ass gretchins in the digital rotundosphere be thundering up my ass, thanks ya bridgly that I ain’t gotta stank them True Captain shit’s righteousness’ rightly, so I undercurth, and will just do random shit henceforth. Goodnight Mr Plierman…
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.
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!
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.
Success is not guaranteed just because you work hard. you still deserve a life that doesn’t involve making a choice between paying a medical bill or paying rent.
No I agree but that seems like there needs to be a restructuring of the medical system and the insurance system.
Section 8 needs to be reevaluated so those that don’t really need it and are taking advantage can get the fuck off of it and those that need it can get the fuck on it. Section 8 is Severely Lowered Rent making it so that you can pay your bills.
Success being a non guarantee means that neither does having stability, you’re not 100% guaranted that you will be able to pay your medical bills and buy groceries, that’s based off of your personal success and financial gains, as well as being able to successfuy balance your budget (meaning seeing extra money and putting in the bank, not on a new product) That’s just the cruel reality of living anywhere on this planet, not just in capitalism or the US.
that seems like there needs to be a restructuring
Who would be in charge of doing that? Would it be Congress? What incentives do they have to do this restructuring?
The proposal is that Congress be paid the median salary so that it is clear which things need to be restructured and why. If they want better living conditions, they would need to pass policies which improve the material conditions of a typical citizen.
you’re not 100% guaranted that you will be able to pay your medical bills and buy groceries… That’s just the cruel reality of living anywhere on this planet
We’re talking about median income. You said that the solution was to make more than median income. Are you now saying that you are willing to tolerate these conditions for 50% of people? I don’t like the idea of anyone being unable to afford rent or groceries or healthcare, but I would at least kind of understand if you were willing to tolerate 1% of people suffering. But 50%?
The point being made is that if 50% of people are struggling, something is wrong. It means a failure of governance. It’s the kind of mistake that can only be made by a Congress who makes 3 times the median income, and is populated almost entirely by people with rich parents, who have never ever struggled. It’s the kind of mistake that would not be made by a Congress that makes median income.
It’s the kind of mistake that would not be made by a Congress that makes median income.
So they’re making a shit load of money and ain’t doing shit but if they make less that’ll suddenly inspire them to do a better job… Where is the common sense there?
Also, I don’t like volatility in the job market, if they’re making that much they must’ve worked hard enough to get there… unless it’s just purely nepotism then they can go fuck themselves. Maybe looking into ending government corruption little by little could end up with people who are worth their position, rather than people who suck at what they do and get paid a fuck load.
I will amend what I said to say, I mean for the common man, if you’re struggling and have the ability to be able to get into a position in life where you can make more than the median, than you should attempt it.
The solution is obviously deflate the economy a little bit while lowering federal interest rates so people who are making the median or a little more than the median can buy homes and afford medical bills and groceries at the same time
if they make less that’ll suddenly inspire them to do a better job… Where is the common sense there?
If you were a house builder, but you could only live in the typical houses that you’ve built… would that inspire you to do a good job?
If a person’s job is public policy and legislation… but they have to live under typical living conditions for the citizenry… do you think that would be any different than a builder who has to live in the houses they build?
The solution is obviously
No intellectually honest thought starts with this.
Ah yes, the one job where you have to spend months campaining, puting up your own money for ads, be hated by part of your community no matter what you do and smeared in the media with usually poor chances of even getting the job should pay the average wage and benefits. Because that is how you attract honest people who are fine just with the salary, as opposed to the ones who want to steal everything not bolted down.
Stupid ass takes like this is why so many people outside these community echochambers see socialist as moronic clowns. 96% upvote ratio…
My absurd political theory is that there should basically be a big resort hotel. for all of these elected representatives. And it’s pretty nice. Like it’s not 5 star, but it’s pretty nice. No one could complain about being forced to live there. but it is a very strictly regimented life. You only eat what the kitchen makes. You only live in the suites there and you’re not allowed to live anywhere else. In some sense, it’s like a very nice prison, or perhaps a sanatorium. And anyone who goes into these kind of high ranking government positions has to live there, not only for their entire term, but also for the rest of their life.
Sure, you would still get people who were only running for the comfort of living in the resort, but the kind of people who are truly maniacal assholes who want to get rich as fuck and live a life of extreme luxury, off of politics, will be forced to look elsewhere to get their money. If we make the resort mid enough, then only the people who are really aiming for the good of the many will even bother going for these positions.
I like absurdity so tell me in more detail what the benefits of this system would be for the public and the then incentives for the politicians to do this job (this particularly seems to be ppls issue in this thread, though i think most ppl would do it for the want of some type of change to the current system or way things are done, i.e. Leslie Knope style)
