Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

  1. #11
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    19,339

    Re: Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

    I think the premise of this thread is ignoring a certain constitutional amendment.

    The 27th amendment
    No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  2. #12
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Flori-duh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,531

    Re: Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xelor View Post
    I realize your remark is sarcastic.

    1 of 3 billionaires is just as out of touch as the other two.
    -- Xelor adaptation of an aphorism about Trump-supporters.

    As for there being many millionaires in Congress, wel, that's unsurprising to the point of being expected. Generally, one needs to be successful at something to obtain voters' approbation. One quality most successful people have is that of being comfortable, if not "filthy rich" (most members of Congress aren't "filthy rich."), so it stands to reason that most Congresspersons will be comfortable.

    Off-Topic:
    You may find this interesting:
    • Some say 'millionaire is the new middle class'—here's how many Americans are actually worth $1 million
      • If one lives in a city or close-in 'burb, it's not all that uncommon to have $1M in net worth. For instance, in DC, though there are some homes (detached house, row house/duplex, or flat) valued below $500K, most aren't. Work for 30 years at a "normal paying" job (career-started 30 years ago -- ~$30K/year; career-ended recently -- ~$120K), save "normally" for retirement, and one's sure to have amassed $1M+ in net worth.

        Obviously, if one follows the same pattern in lower cost-of-living (COL) areas, one's net worth may be lower, but then as the COL is lower, that one hasn't reached the $1M+ mark may be immaterial.
    Well that's pretty sad, if only ten percent of the population in america is considered middle class. To my understanding the founding fathers actually set up the government with the intention that well to do folks would run our government. Their reasoning, they would make better decisions for the average person since they themselves didn't need the money. Grand thinking for the day, just not today. It's one of the reasons I feel our constitution needs an update.
    When I stop answering you, there's a reason.......repeat, When I stop answering you, there's a reason.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Last Seen
    05-24-19 @ 10:50 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,257

    Re: Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xelor View Post
    I realize your remark is sarcastic.

    1 of 3 billionaires is just as out of touch as the other two.
    -- Xelor adaptation of an aphorism about Trump-supporters.

    As for there being many millionaires in Congress, wel, that's unsurprising to the point of being expected. Generally, one needs to be successful at something to obtain voters' approbation. One quality most successful people have is that of being comfortable, if not "filthy rich" (most members of Congress aren't "filthy rich."), so it stands to reason that most Congresspersons will be comfortable.

    Off-Topic:
    You may find this interesting:
    • Some say 'millionaire is the new middle class'—here's how many Americans are actually worth $1 million
      • If one lives in a city or close-in 'burb, it's not all that uncommon to have $1M in net worth. For instance, in DC, though there are some homes (detached house, row house/duplex, or flat) valued below $500K, most aren't. Work for 30 years at a "normal paying" job (career-started 30 years ago -- ~$30K/year; career-ended recently -- ~$120K), save "normally" for retirement, and one's sure to have amassed $1M+ in net worth.

        Obviously, if one follows the same pattern in lower cost-of-living (COL) areas, one's net worth may be lower, but then as the COL is lower, that one hasn't reached the $1M+ mark may be immaterial.



    Quote Originally Posted by bongsaway View Post
    Well that's pretty sad, if only ten percent of the population in america is considered middle class. To my understanding the founding fathers actually set up the government with the intention that well to do folks would run our government. Their reasoning, they would make better decisions for the average person since they themselves didn't need the money. Grand thinking for the day, just not today. It's one of the reasons I feel our constitution needs an update.
    All dogs are mammals, but not all mammals are dogs.
    -- Illustration used in teaching inference and the logic of categorical syllogisms


    Red:
    The content I shared and linked-to indicates that having a million dollars of net worth only these days qualifies one as financially middle class, whereas in the past, wealth at that level made one financially upper class. Nothing in that content or my remarks (above) indicates or intimates one million dollars in net worth is the minimum net worth to be middle class.


    Blue:
    As go the Founders' intents, what they intended was that landed citizens be who legislate. AFAIK, they didn't impose a similar restriction on who could administer the government. The main impetus for that was their overall vision of the US as a nation wherein entrepreneurs thrive sans the encumbrances of peerage and religion. In 18th century, land ownership was central to entrepreneurship -- be it as a merchant or as a farmer -- and, given the vision, frankly, it was both germane and prudent to constrain legislative authority to landowners.

    I think the later legislators who removed the land ownership requirement were right to do so; however, I think they goofed by not requiring that legislators own some sort of business. Ideally, IMO, they'd have stipulated that the firm be one of some stripe that aligns with the comparative advantage enjoyed the US economy. In the late 19th and 20th century, that'd have meant some kind of "low tech" manufacturing or retail business, whereas now it means "high tech" manufacturing, retail, or service (medicine, law, other professional services, utilities, telecom, IT services, provision, etc.) firms.


    Pink:
    I agree there are some elements of it that need updating.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    04-19-19 @ 10:46 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    35,825

    Re: Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Should we make all Congressional salaries and pensions $0?
    People should be paid for their work even if it is "Public Service".
    But there is no reason we should incentivize longevity in public service and therefore should remove the ability to accrue time towards or retire from public service.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •