Increasing the salary of those in congress.

[Chino]

I have been meaning to make this thread for a while.

Why do the members of congress make so little money? My father makes about 15k a year more than them (salary wise), and all he does is program computers. There's probably a reason I am unaware of, but if we paid them a few million a year instead of the relatively low amount we do now, wouldn't you think they would be harder to buy?

[AcidLameLTE]

My father makes about 15k a year more than them (salary wise), and all he does is program computers.

...

[Scheavo]

Because we don't want to attract people to a job becuase of the money it pays. Public service is supposed to be something you want to do because of it's inherent traits, not for the money. During the Constitutional Convention, we nearly ended up not paying members at all, but it was finally argued that you had to compensate people somewhat for their work, and to make it so that some people who would want to enter public service, actually could.

174k a year is a LOT of money, and it's a lot higher than the medium income in America.

I'd actually say move it the other way, pay congressional members ~50k a year, which is more than fair, and also make it illegal for them to perform insider trading. We need to make money less involved in politics, not more.

[ResultsMayVary]

174k a year is a LOT of money, and it's a lot higher than the medium income in America.

This. My parents make 120k a year combined and they are even better off then A LOT of people around Ohio where they live.

Anywhere from 50-75k would be a more appropriate salary if you ask me. Fairness isn't really a factor, but it would certainly be a start to help lower the debt if each representative and senator had 100k less a year for the government to spend.

[rumborak]

@Scheavo: I think that's ideological nonsense. It's a job with a lot of responsibility and long hours. While 174k is definitely on the high end, it should at least be above 100k. You can not live with 50k in DC.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

@Scheavo: I think that's ideological nonsense. It's a job with a lot of responsibility and long hours. While 174k is definitely on the high end, it should at least be above 100k. You can not live with 50k in DC.

rumborak

If it costs so much to live in DC, that's in part due to the prices we pay governmental employee's, but also the massive corruption and money found in DC.

I believe there have been congressional dormitories in the past, and there's no reason why there couldn't be such in the future. I'm fine with housing and feeding our members of Congress, and giving them the median income in the US.

Becoming a congressmen should not make you rich, and that's exactly what happens in today's environment.

[rumborak]

Scheavo, sometimes your cynicism gets the best of you. Government areas around the world are expensive places, but not for the reasons you mention, but for plain demographic reasons. Governing a whole country takes a lot of people, and they all settle in one place. Add to that international dignitaries (who naturally have a high standard of living because they are representing their country) and you got yourself a high cost of living.
The" competition" with international dignitaries also somewhat requires a reasonably high standard of living for Congressmen. It's an arms race really. Do you really want to have a nice palace by the UAE, and then dorms for the heads of government next to it?

rumborak

[orcus116]

I honestly thought this was going to be about that annual "let's increase our salary before voting on anything" motion they have every year. In regards to the thread I honestly have no idea what goes into being a congressman so I can't really comment.

[El Barto]

To answer Chino's question,  the actual salary isn't really a factor in the profitability of being a senator.  While the official salary might be [relatively] small,  those guys are taking home a helluva lot more than that.

To address Rumbo's point,  yes, they should be living cheaply.  It should be a burden, not a golden ticket.  If Congress were full of people who didn't want to be there,  but thought they had a moral obligation to make this a better place,  then we'd all be better off. 

[rumborak]

I've heard that statement many times before, and it's totally bogus. Show me the place whose work improves the less you compensate the workers for it.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I've heard that statement many times before, and it's totally bogus. Show me the place whose work improves the less you compensate the workers for it.

rumborak

Another possible answer to reduce the amount of work we require of them; A part-time legislature is an idea I'm fond of.

[El Barto]

I've heard that statement many times before, and it's totally bogus. Show me the place whose work improves the less you compensate the workers for it.

rumborak

That's an oversimplification and you know it.  We're talking about public service,  not the fry station at McDonalds. 

[Sigz]

I can't imagine congress would do any better of a job if they made a million dollars a year.

[rumborak]

The idea that just because it's public work the rules of human incentivization no longer apply, that's oversimplified.
Besides, what they get from the US payroll is a drop in the bucket anyway.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I've heard that statement many times before, and it's totally bogus. Show me the place whose work improves the less you compensate the workers for it.

rumborak

High salaries are high to attract people to the position, they do not actually make the work done by those people "better." Attraction to public service should not be in the money, but the actual desire to publicly serve.

Human's are not incentive only by money, and that seems to be the root assumption of your argument.

[hefdaddy42]

Most of the people serving in Congress are already financially well-off, either businessmen or attorneys.  They aren't doing it for the job's salary, they already have money and the salary is less than what they normally make anyway.

For that reason, I say knock it down to $100K or less and save some government money.

[carl320]

I've heard that statement many times before, and it's totally bogus. Show me the place whose work improves the less you compensate the workers for it.

rumborak

Another possible answer to reduce the amount of work we require of them; A part-time legislature is an idea I'm fond of.

I don't know about other states but Indiana's state legislature doesn't work close to the full year and make around 30k for that.

[Scheavo]

Most of the people serving in Congress are already financially well-off, either businessmen or attorneys.  They aren't doing it for the job's salary, they already have money and the salary is less than what they normally make anyway.

For that reason, I say knock it down to $100K or less and save some government money.

70k*535 congressmen is 37 million, which is like an hour in Afghanistan. Can't really buy the argument that we should lower the salaries of congressmen to save money - though, lowering the salary of government employee's would, by and large, be fine with me.