How much should members of the US Congress get paid?

[obvious Child]

How much should members of the US Congress get paid?

Also, numbers are currently not including benefits such as retirement, staff salaries, housing allowance, etc.

 

[jamesrage]

It should be however much the tax payers in their district AKA their employers dictate. Politicians seem to be about he only employees on the planet who are able to give themselves pay raises.

 

[obvious Child]

It should be however much the tax payers in their district AKA their employers dictate.

Well, I assume you're a US voting citizen. How much should your Congress Senators and reps get paid?

 

[jamesrage]

Well, I assume you're a US voting citizen. How much should your Congress Senators and reps get paid?

50-75 thousand or more or less depending on how good of a job the tax payers felt they did. I think once or twice a years tax payers should be able to vote on whether or not to increase,decrease or keep their pay the same.

 

[obvious Child]

50-75 thousand or more or less depending on how good of a job the tax payers felt they did. I think once or twice a years tax payers should be able to vote on whether or not to increase,decrease or keep their pay the same.

That seems rather expensive to maintain. Constant ballots over pay? I don't know about that. I'd prefer it less frequent especially since states would have to pick up the tab for the ballot. Maybe every 2 or 4 years?

$80k seems right to me. About what many judges make. The current $174,000 is ridiculous.

 

[TurtleDude]

It should be the job the founders' envisioned-a part time job held by those who had other jobs or sources of income. 12 weeks at most. Give em 25-50K at most. No pension whatsover.

 

[obvious Child]

It should be the job the founders' envisioned-a part time job held by those who had other jobs or sources of income. 12 weeks at most. Give em 25-50K at most. No pension whatsover.

But that does not reflect the nature of the job now. While most members of Congress are exceedingly wealthy to the point where America is really a representative plutocracy, not all of them share such luxuries. And it seems rather strange to pay people who make policy less than state judges.

 

[Orion]

My issue is not how much they get paid, but the fact that they themselves can vote in their own pay increase with little justification. No other employee in the nation has this ability.

 

[TurtleDude]

But that does not reflect the nature of the job now. While most members of Congress are exceedingly wealthy to the point where America is really a representative plutocracy, not all of them share such luxuries. And it seems rather strange to pay people who make policy less than state judges.

If the tenth amendment was actually enforced, congress would not need to be in session for more than a few weeks a year

 

[obvious Child]

My issue is not how much they get paid, but the fact that they themselves can vote in their own pay increase with little justification. No other employee in the nation has this ability.

No question. All issues of pay for elected officials should be done either by outside firms who determine pay (I know someone who does this, rather boring really) or by direct voting by the officials' constituents. That said, we still should determine what they should get paid. I'd bet that 99.9999% of the forum agrees with me that the current $174,000 + benefits is insane and needs to come down to rational levels of pay.

 

[Redress]

I really think that how much congress makes is pretty trivial. Pay em 100k a year, and tie their pay to the GDP. If GDP goes up, their pay goes up a like amount. If GDP goes down, so does their pay. Make it automatic, and lets never talk about it again.

 

[Joe1991]

There's precious few people worth paying over $100k a year, and a congress critter ain't one of them.

 

[obvious Child]

I really think that how much congress makes is pretty trivial. Pay em 100k a year, and tie their pay to the GDP. If GDP goes up, their pay goes up a like amount. If GDP goes down, so does their pay. Make it automatic, and lets never talk about it again.

But what if they really suck (like now)? If Congress was totally ignoring its responsibilities during a non-election year, I'd want to cut their pay. We should be allowed to have rare special pay ballots that would quickly allow citizens to voice their concerns with their representatives' wallets. If they don't listen to our voices, they will listen to the sound of empty wallets. As for GDP, that doesn't tell the whole story and members of congress who do good jobs during recessions shouldn't get hit for something largely out of their control.

 

[FlappyTheKinkajou]

100% taxed minimum wage during periods of budget deficit or national debt, $300,000 after fiscal 2067.

 

[Redress]

But what if they really suck (like now)? If Congress was totally ignoring its responsibilities during a non-election year, I'd want to cut their pay. We should be allowed to have rare special pay ballots that would quickly allow citizens to voice their concerns with their representatives' wallets. If they don't listen to our voices, they will listen to the sound of empty wallets. As for GDP, that doesn't tell the whole story and members of congress who do good jobs during recessions shouldn't get hit for something largely out of their control.

Vote em out if you are unhappy with the job they are doing. Employing some one you don't consider worthwhile is foolish. If you don't got the votes to do so, tough.

Edited to add cuz I forgot: I don't mean that GDP is a great indicator of the job they are doing, only that it is easy to track(it's already done), and amounts to a COLA in the long term. It's a trivial issue, I doubt most members of Congress really care what they make, they get other compensations.

 

[Hatuey]

They should be paid based on performance rating from their constituents. Every year they are up for a raise the public should get to vote on whether or not their representative gets a raise. If the public gets to vote them to congress, it should vote on how much they get paid too.

 

[Inferno]

No more than 50K. No other perks. They pay for their own housing.

 

[Anima]

No more than 50K. No other perks. They pay for their own housing.

Slashing the salary certainly might deter those candidates whos primary motivations are just money and power as opposed to working for the betterment of their constituients, and I think you'd see a definite improvement in Congress in that scenario.

 

[WI Crippler]

Slashing the salary certainly might deter those candidates whos primary motivations are just money and power as opposed to working for the betterment of their constituients, and I think you'd see a definite improvement in Congress in that scenario.

People who's primary motivation is money and power, usually have some of both before they enter Congress. There are some that I would imagine consider their base pay to be a drop in the bucket. So dropping the salary isn't going to keep them out of power. And slashing salary isn't going to reduce the power they do wield, so the power hungry mongrols will be well fed.

And I don't think you can just give a base salary to all. $50,000 for a rep from ND and he lives ok. $50,000 for a rep who's district is in NYC, and they work part time in a sex-slave dungeoun to make ends meet.

 

[celticlord]

Eliminate all Congressional pay and most perquisites--let them keep the franking privilege (but watch it like a hawk) and health benefits.

Give each Congressman and Senator a per diem allowance for each day the Congress is actually in session, and a travel allowance to let them commute to and from their districts and states.

The one thing I actually like about Joe Biden was he took a commuter train home to Delaware the whole time he was in the Senate. He's an idiot and a half and a double asshat in every other regard, but that's the level of travel expenditure that should be accorded to Congressmen and Senators as a rule.

 

[Anima]

People who's primary motivation is money and power, usually have some of both before they enter Congress. There are some that I would imagine consider their base pay to be a drop in the bucket. So dropping the salary isn't going to keep them out of power. And slashing salary isn't going to reduce the power they do wield, so the power hungry mongrols will be well fed.

And I don't think you can just give a base salary to all. $50,000 for a rep from ND and he lives ok. $50,000 for a rep who's district is in NYC, and they work part time in a sex-slave dungeoun to make ends meet.

A lot of good points there. My idealism occasionally does run away from me, and withthe expenses scandal going on in the UK (one of our MP'S resigned after spending £10000 on a stone duck house, another claiming £16000 for a mortage he'd already paid), I'm ready to just pick all politicians up and shake them upside down til the money we gave them falls back out.

I'd personally be happy with a salary set at around US $60,000, with the oppurtunity to claim additional funds to ensure one's continued housing etc.

 

[rathi]

I would actually suggest increasing congressional pay. Not that they deserve any of it, but because it would probably end up being cheaper to the country as a whole.

One of the things that drastically improved british parliment was the addition of pay. It allowed people who were not independently wealthy to hold office, and reduced the number of people who had to use bribes as their means of income. Even today, in countries where officials get lousy pay, you see them supplementing their income by abusing their office.

Congress handles so much money that any reduction in corruption outweighs minor increase in their pay. Cynically speaking, a congress persons's salary is just a bribe from the taxpayer, and is weighed against the other bribes from other groups. Paying someone 100k more to avoid a $10,000,000 "subsidy" is ultimately worth it in the long run.

 

[jamesrage]

That seems rather expensive to maintain. Constant ballots over pay? I don't know about that. I'd prefer it less frequent especially since states would have to pick up the tab for the ballot. Maybe every 2 or 4 years?

$80k seems right to me. About what many judges make. The current $174,000 is ridiculous.

States have ballot issues all the time,so having ballot issues on whether or not to increase,decrease or keep the pay the same should not be the issue seeing how they can be intergrated with other poll issues.

In the end in should be up to the tax payers seeing how they are the employers of the politicians. .Do you disagree with this notion?

 

[obvious Child]

One of the things that drastically improved british parliment was the addition of pay. It allowed people who were not independently wealthy to hold office, and reduced the number of people who had to use bribes as their means of income. Even today, in countries where officials get lousy pay, you see them supplementing their income by abusing their office.

How is campaigning financed in Britain? The biggest problem today in getting into office is paying for the huge campaign finances. Once you're in the pay isn't the real issue. The US is a plutocracy due to essentially election costs.

Cynically speaking, a congress persons's salary is just a bribe from the taxpayer, and is weighed against the other bribes from other groups. Paying someone 100k more to avoid a $10,000,000 "subsidy" is ultimately worth it in the long run.

That made me laugh.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think around $200-225k is a fair amount for the hours they work, the experience they bring, the costs they're required to incur, and the lack of job security.

They should be paid based on performance rating from their constituents. Every year they are up for a raise the public should get to vote on whether or not their representative gets a raise. If the public gets to vote them to congress, it should vote on how much they get paid too.

It should be however much the tax payers in their district AKA their employers dictate. Politicians seem to be about he only employees on the planet who are able to give themselves pay raises.

States have ballot issues all the time,so having ballot issues on whether or not to increase,decrease or keep the pay the same should not be the issue seeing how they can be intergrated with other poll issues.

In the end in should be up to the tax payers seeing how they are the employers of the politicians. .Do you disagree with this notion?

Constitution says no to individuated decisions on congressional pay.