I'd be happy with that, but perhaps an easier solution is to make them moderately wealthy. Pay them a top 5% salary with a guaranteed pension for life, plus mandatory open finances for life. Then there's much less incentive to resort to graft.
I've always wondered about this. These are people who we elect to do a job - one that we expect and need them to do well. I wonder what would happen if their base salary was something higher than current - perhaps $300k. They receive the maximum healthcare coverages available to the majority of Americans. Pension is set at $100k/year at retirement, no strings attached.
BUT - In exchange, you'd have to agree to some very restrictive governance while in office. Example:
- No trading of specific investment vehicles, you may invest a maximum of ($x) per year in the following options (ETF, Treasuries, etc.). This goes for any immediate family members.
- Congressperson's income can only consist of the US Government salaries. Any income from previous book deals, consulting, etc, must go into a blind trust that can only invest in the aforementioned investment options.
I wonder if that is enough of an incentive to still attract sharp minds while perhaps incentivizing them to work more for the people and less for themselves.
The income for a US senator or congressman is already literally exactly at the 95th percentile at 174,000. Making someone wealthy doesn't remove their incentive to gather more wealth it gives them a stake and incentive to be more effectively corrupt.
The number I saw was $300k. But either way, I don't think that's true. Countries with endemic corruption tend to underpay people. E.g., countries where you have to bribe cops and bureaucrats are ones where those people have a hard time making a living on their normal salary.
Some people, of course, are infinitely greedy. But most people aren't. E.g., most developers I know aren't maximizing their income fully, and they definitely aren't criming to make even more money.
175k is not enough... it needs to be 300k at least. maybe 500k. Something high enough that the risk-reward for corruption is less attractive. 175k is a nice life but not even remotely enough to have the lifestyle you'd expect for someone running our country.
It is the nature of ambition not to be satiated. people making millions of dollars per year want to make billions. Billionaires strive to exceed their peers. Our leaders already have a lot to lose. Predictably most of our corruption isn't high risk blatant illegality its the boringly legal influence peddling where regular donations buy your "totally legitimate" interests and concerns additional consideration by decision makers instead of paying n dollars for a particular law.
There is no reason to believe paying them 2-3x as much so they can be really wealthy would lead to electing better leaders.
Our lawmakers make 175k directly in salary and aprox 1 million dollars for staff and 143k for office expenses. This is not including the cost of the lifetime pension they will qualify after only 5 years and lifetime health plan for themselves and spouse after 10 years in the house or 8 in the senate. Hint I know they pay I think 28% of the cost of their gold plan.
Lifetime a 2 term senator will cost the tax payers near 18 million dollars in total.
100% Agree. Salaries for elected officials should be far higher and then make punishments for this very very strict so there's zero incentive to graft.
The people running our country should not be making less than any typical c-staff or high level executive. They should be making lawyer/doctor/c-staff level money.
