The argument for higher wages for elected officials, when they were instituted a long time ago, was that low wages would create extra incentives for those officials to act corruptly and siphon away public money. That’s an argument that made sense at the time and genuinely held water.
What has happened over time though, is that the loosening of rules around lobbying (read:bribing); the continual massive gains of the ultra-rich to line the pockets of those officials in order to sway public policy; and the capacity for elected officials to use confidential information to engage in insider trading, has meant that those officials act corruptly, just often not in a direct “steal from the public purse” sense.
The original argument no longer holds water. If we instituted severe restrictions on lobbying and fundraising for elected officials as well as rules that prevent insider trading, I’d have no qualms with elected officials earning large sums of money. If their wage is literally the only way they can make money, they should make good money. The problem is that their wage is not the only way they make money.
So just turn a blind eye to this kind of wealth disparity amongst people that are supposed to be representi g the populous until the numbers get bigger?
1 billion is 1,000 Millions, so to put it in perspective, she got 30, while Elon got richer by 300,000 Millions. I’d say focus on the problems by order of impact.
If it’s the same problem it’s the same solution. What do you mean by order of impact? The net worth of redistributing wealth held by decamillionaires far exceeds that held by billionaires. The biggest impact would indeed be to go after this group. Your argument is a very bourgeoisie finger pointing while sipping champagne type approach.
30 million in net worth is not the issue
anyone in elected office should at most be paid at federal minimum wage and be forced to cap at the limits of a 1040-ez.
I agree with the fed minimum wage, but these assets are from her spouse
then why are they counted for her? if only to propagandize the meme?
Probably the second part, shared assets are commonplace.
The argument for higher wages for elected officials, when they were instituted a long time ago, was that low wages would create extra incentives for those officials to act corruptly and siphon away public money. That’s an argument that made sense at the time and genuinely held water.
What has happened over time though, is that the loosening of rules around lobbying (read:bribing); the continual massive gains of the ultra-rich to line the pockets of those officials in order to sway public policy; and the capacity for elected officials to use confidential information to engage in insider trading, has meant that those officials act corruptly, just often not in a direct “steal from the public purse” sense.
The original argument no longer holds water. If we instituted severe restrictions on lobbying and fundraising for elected officials as well as rules that prevent insider trading, I’d have no qualms with elected officials earning large sums of money. If their wage is literally the only way they can make money, they should make good money. The problem is that their wage is not the only way they make money.
Politician pay, at any level, is a joke. Our city council members make less than minimum wage, $6,000 salary.
so you can then assume they are doing it because they have love for your city?
So just turn a blind eye to this kind of wealth disparity amongst people that are supposed to be representi g the populous until the numbers get bigger?
No? But maybe let’s focus on the current issues, instead of someone who owns a business worth 30 million.
1 billion is 1,000 Millions, so to put it in perspective, she got 30, while Elon got richer by 300,000 Millions. I’d say focus on the problems by order of impact.
It’s all the same problem mate
This is why “by order of impact”.
Penny wise, pound foolish is not a good system for addressing societal problems.
If it’s the same problem it’s the same solution. What do you mean by order of impact? The net worth of redistributing wealth held by decamillionaires far exceeds that held by billionaires. The biggest impact would indeed be to go after this group. Your argument is a very bourgeoisie finger pointing while sipping champagne type approach.
You can’t possibly be this thick. You must be a troll.
I’m presuming the latter.
Buh-bye!