r/AskReddit • u/clemson07tigers • 16h ago
What do you think about paying members of US Congress a salary equivalent to the take-home pay of the median voter in the region they represent?
836
u/birdie_sparrows 16h ago edited 16h ago
Great idea if you want to maximize corruption.
EDIT to say that our system has many shortcomings but absolutely none of them will be solved by paying shit salaries to members of Congress.
To do the job well, and I think there are still a few who do, requires maybe 60-70 hours a week of work minimum plus re-election effort. If you want set the bar low and get the absolute worst people in office who are running simply because they want to feel important or because they have some pet industry they want to protect...by all means drop the pay by as much as possible.
119
u/__slamallama__ 13h ago
I agree. Ironically I think that paying Congress excellent salaries is a better move. Pay them $250k+ so you can get smart people who aren't independently wealthy.
Then repeal citizens United.
Then clear and stringent inside trading laws, only allowing investments in full market index funds during their tenure.
Now you have an incentive structure that actually makes sense.
80
u/dontbajerk 8h ago
They should have exceptionally good pay and extremely harsh penalties for even the appearance of corruption. Like if proven they took money they shouldn't, years to decades in prison, no early outs.
→ More replies (1)30
u/doubtinggull 7h ago
Right, extremely good pay and very tight restrictions on any other income. Stocks in a blind trust, no gifts of any kind, no book sales, nothing.
20
u/jfchops3 6h ago
Pay them the average officer compensation among Fortune 500 companies. It's probably in the $1-2MM range. And yes, the trade off here is no trading stocks US market index funds only. They run the most powerful organization in human history, compensate them accordingly. The quality of candidates will go way up since now the people who are capable of earning that in the private sector (which doesn't happen by being incompetent) are financially incentivized to serve - look how well it's working out for us expecting people to do the job for only $174k. Drop in the bucket in the scheme of the federal budget and I bet they'll pay it back with higher quality budgeting
→ More replies (3)8
u/__slamallama__ 4h ago
YUP. There's tons of smart people who are not independently wealthy and aren't interested in taking a massive pay cut to get into public service. If you want the best people, pay accordingly.
And 100% agree, the conflict of interest laws need to be ironclad and with heavy penalties. Including spouses.
Right now the incentive structure makes it hardly surprising that we're in this situation. Humans aren't that complex, fix the incentives and the rest will fall in line.
151
u/Karmanoid 16h ago
Also to add, members of Congress have very little to do with raising the pay of those in their states. Most of that is driven by state policies and industry investment. Outside of a federal minimum wage increase this makes their pay suck just for coming from a poor state.
52
u/Aromatic_Coffee911 14h ago
Exactly. You would be effectively penalizing the delegates who were chosen from the poorer state, and ostensibly leave it to Congress to somehow control that. Don't mistake tie compensation to the job and performance, not the median income of the ZIP codes they represent.
16
u/Frost_Valet 10h ago
Also creates a weird incentive where a representative's personal pay would rise or fall based on their state's economy without them having much direct control over that, that's a strange thing to tie someone's livelihood to
→ More replies (8)9
u/BaltimoreAlchemist 8h ago
Add in an incentive to funnel more pork to your home state, something people already hate about congress.
3
u/TerryFinallyBackedUp 6h ago
Pork Belly politics is misunderstood. It had the effect of actually making reps work hard for their constituents. Actually make them work across the isle to pass legislation.
But it has been actively eliminated in the past couple decades by the forces that no longer want bipartisanship.
5
u/BaltimoreAlchemist 6h ago
Eh, it did that, but it also led to a spending on stuff like weapons contracts that the military didn't want just to spend something in the committee member's district.
3
u/TerryFinallyBackedUp 5h ago
That is also true but giving the President unlimited line item veto authority undermines bipartisanship efforts on beneficial legislation and promoted partisan politics to the max.
2
u/CucumberPuzzled6803 5h ago
Exactly. Tying their pay to the income of the people they represent sounds clever at first, but it creates a weird incentive and punishes someone for something they don't necessarily control.
→ More replies (2)13
u/milo_undercover 13h ago
There's also a practical issue with implementation, median income varies wildly by district, so you'd end up with representatives from wealthy coastal districts making several times what representatives from poorer rural districts make for doing literally the same job with the same responsibilities
→ More replies (3)26
u/Loggerdon 11h ago
I’m a PR in Singapore where they pay their politicians very well. The PM gets about $1.8 million US. Senior Ministers get about $1.25 million and so on. They have very low corruption and their system works very well.
Last year they convicted a Minister of accepting gifts, including F1 tickets. He got 12 months in prison. They take it all very seriously.
3
u/AtaracticGoat 6h ago
Singapore isn't perfect though. One political party practically runs the country and has for decades. They also openly "bribe" for votes by using stimulus money before elections.
I've also heard there's some racism there as PAP is controlled by ethnic Chinese, and there's some shady/underhanded but legal ways they keep other races out.
41
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ArbysLunch 9h ago
Speaker Johnson basically lives in his office, or at least did for some time.
Put them in dorms. Actually, find the worst military barracks within 100 miles, put them in those. Something that still has asbestos and lead pipes.
3
u/Whatdosheepdreamof 12h ago
Correct. A well functioning democracy really should start seeing countries operating more like a company. I don't mean, maximise profits, but that politicians are accountable to KPIs.
Politicians who markedly improve market dynamics, push the cost of necessities down, should be rewarded. Housing, energy, water, education, healthcare, transport are all metrics where the cost borne by consumers increase.
Government traditionally pays the private sector to provide social services, but that's not working.→ More replies (2)1
u/crazyfighter99 12h ago
The thing is, maximizing profits is, has, and always will be #1. All throughout history, kings and emporers' goals were to expand their power and wealth as much as they could. Today is no different, unfortunately.
→ More replies (6)38
u/ResidentInsect2573 15h ago
Low congressional pay wouldn’t eliminate corruption; it would just make outside money and influence even more attractive.
19
u/Imaginary-Couple722 15h ago
A fair salary doesn’t prevent corruption by itself, but low pay can make public office even more attractive to the independently wealthy and people looking for outside income. The better answer would be reasonable pay plus strict bans on individual stock trading, strong disclosure rules, campaign-finance reform, and real penalties for conflicts of interest.
6
u/birdie_sparrows 15h ago
yes agreed. thorough disclosure, no self-dealing, no nepotism, and everything else you mention. Totally agree.
8
u/DilshadZhou 9h ago
I'm glad your comment was the top one when I saw this thread because I would have said the same thing. Two other ideas for reducing corruption:
Ban individual stock trading or business activity for current members. Essentially mandate what has historically been the norm in terms of putting all business affairs into a blind trust.
Make the salary and benefits guaranteed for life, but make that guarantee contingent on never working in lobbying.
16
u/Then_Sir7372 12h ago
If a job requires keeping residence in both DC and your home district, cutting the salary just ensures only people with inherited wealth can take the seat.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Aware-Conclusion3171 12h ago
That's honestly the part people overlook. If you make the salary too low, you're not necessarily getting more regular people in Congress you might just make wealth a prerequisite for being able to afford the job.
3
u/Old_Abrocoma_5446 13h ago
Exactly, if anything we should be making Congress attractive to competent people without making the job so lucrative that corruption becomes part of the incentive.
3
u/bloke_pusher 13h ago
You also need to make their wealth totally public. For everyone who doesn't want that, they are free not to participate and let someone else do it. There, corruption almost solved.
2
4
u/Victor_Korchnoi 8h ago
I feel like people generally understand that raising the pay for a job attracts better applicants. And yet somehow, those same people think political positions are immune to this.
I see it especially in local politics. Everyone is against raising the pay of our elected officials. In my city, if you were making the city council salary, you would qualify for income-restricted housing. You either attract people without great prospects or wealthy people who don’t need the money.
→ More replies (3)3
u/DeliveryCareful1272 10h ago
Making the salary low enough that only the independently wealthy can afford to serve seems like the opposite of making Congress more representative.
→ More replies (65)3
u/user365user 16h ago
Right. They already make all their money from insider trading.
2
u/MattTheRadarTechh 15h ago
Brother, only like 25 of all the senators and congressman beat the s&p500 last year or 2024.
Insider trading isn’t as common as you think it is
3
u/nathan7812 16h ago
my cousin swears his friend in politics made a heap just off one sketchy stock tip in their district salary range
2
137
u/krycek1984 16h ago
One thing to keep in mind is that the lower we pay our politicians, the more likely it is that only the rich can afford to be politicians. Which honestly is the outcome most of us would least want.
No matter how idealistic someone is, if they aren't going to be able to live comfortably with what their job pays (and being a politician is a job), or they can do more lucrative things with their talents, they will do something else.
It's a very unpopular thing to say, but if you are a congressman and you have no other income whatsoever life will be somewhat difficult financially for you. They have expenses that normal people do not have. For example, most of them need to maintain two places of residence-one in their home district and one in/around DC to be close to work. They do not get reimbursed for that.
And they can't just get some random cheap apartment - security is going to be a very serious concern
I think people have this belief that people in Congress especially have a slush fund to tap into to live their lives and it's not true.
22
u/GozerDGozerian 13h ago
We should build a big dorm and everyone in congress has to stay there when in session and we have cameras in the non-private areas like some big reality TV show and viewers can call in and dare them to eat gross food or do a lap around the quad in just their underwear and stuff like that.
That would be so rad
11
u/souryellow310 12h ago
You want to see people in their 70s and 80s in their underwear?
→ More replies (2)5
4
u/Shepher27 10h ago
Session is like eight months a year. Members of congress are people with full lives, families, kids, pets.
3
u/GozerDGozerian 6h ago
Oooh and like they have a pet monkey that runs around the dorm and steals they food and what not.
2
3
u/TheTurboDiesel 2h ago
Which honestly is the outcome most of us would least want.
That's what we have. It's prohibitively expensive to run for office, and as far as I know, only NYC and one other place offer public campaign financing.
73
u/Bkrygsheld 16h ago
I think it creates a situation where the only people able to be congress members are the already wealthy and affluent, deepening the current crisis in American politics rather than helping it.
11
u/Mysterious-Tie7039 12h ago
Yes and it’s also important to note that they have to have two residences, one at home and one in DC.
→ More replies (3)3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 10h ago
Honestly that's already where we are at. In order to run for congress and have a shot at winning you have to be able to take 6-9 months off work to campaign full time. And no body has the money for that.
→ More replies (1)
19
54
u/MrPoopMonster 16h ago
I don't think the politicians working directly for rich people should make more money than the ones working for poor people.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/Uvtha- 15h ago
We should pay law makers more and do everything we can to cut out all the other ways the lawmakers currently make money.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/auptown 16h ago
Members of Congress should be paid a million a year, all securities trading should be banned, and corruption severely monitored and punished. Singapore, for example, does this and corruption is nearly non-existent. Scale that up for the president and cabinet, and also repeal citizens united and we might get a bit closer to a true representative government
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Hrekires 9h ago
The kind of Congressperson this would impact -- the ones not independently wealthy before seeking office -- are probably not the ones you want to drive out of office.
11
u/Captain_Aware4503 8h ago
Its not the salary. Its the bribes, free international vacations, and all the insider trading they do that is the issue.
And this is all nothing compared to the President who accepted a free $800 million ($400 million + $400 million in upgrades) jet from the country that funds Hamas, who used insider trading to make $2 billion in one year, and who banned the IRS from investigating him or his family for ever.
10
u/BreakfastBeerz 5h ago
Great way to discourage educated high income people from wanting to do it and to encourage uneducated low income people to do it.
6
u/_BigT_ 5h ago
For real. Salaries for our reps need to be increased by a lot while focusing on actually stopping corruption. Its a prestigious and difficult job, pay them well and bring down the hammer if they are caught cheating the system.
Paying them less only incentivizes illegal activities
→ More replies (1)2
u/kiwipixi42 4h ago
The idea is that it incentivizes the politicians to work to raise the salaries of people in their area, and thus their own salary.
I don’t think it would work as stated because poorly paid officials are more vulnerable to corruption. But maybe paying them some fixed multiple of their district’s median income would be viable.
Also paying them the median income flat doesn’t work given that the job very literally requires most of them to maintain two residences.
3
u/_BigT_ 3h ago
Its simly a terrible idea. It takes a lot of work to become a rep in the US house or representatives. We want highly qualified, intelligent, hard working people. The amount of money that we pay our politicians, compared to our yearly spend is practically zero.
Paying them a little extra so we can have a larger pool of candidates and less of a need for making corrupt money would be beneficial for everyone involved minus the powerful corporations ripping the average American off.
14
u/Mister_Uncredible 16h ago
I think, considering it's one of the most important jobs in the entire country that they should be paid handsomely. And not pretty well, but like 2 million a year, minimum, on top of a generous housing allowance for needing to maintain two homes.
I don't understand why we live in a would where a MLB minimum is higher than the congressional salary ($780k vs $174k). I'm not saying MLB players should be paid less either.
We're out here fighting for fair wages for everyone except for politicians. I get that they're easy to hate, but they're human beings, fairness for all means fairness for them too. The end results of insider trading, corruption, and only people of means running for office are hardly surprising, only the unethical and independently wealthy can afford to do it.
If you want to make it so someone truly can't be bought, you need to buy them first, and that's exactly what the government should be doing for the people making the most important decisions.
→ More replies (4)
7
6
u/Andoverian 8h ago
I see several problems with this.
First, low pay means only independently wealthy people will be able to afford to run and serve. Members of Congress are all but forced to maintain two residences: one in their home district and one in the relatively high-cost-of-living D.C. area. Plus frequent travel between the two. That's simply not possible on the median pay of the vast majority of districts. At the very least, any reform like this would need to include an additional stipend for housing and official travel between their home district and D.C.
Second, low pay for congresspeople will discourage the good, highly qualified people we want in Congress from running, leaving only the corrupt, the power hungry, and the overly zealous. Corrupt people will effectively ignore the low "base" pay by finding ways to use their position to enrich themselves (through bribes, insider trading, promises of lucrative lobbying or "consulting" jobs after they leave Congress, etc.), and power hungry people and zealots will be willing to endure personal hardship if it means advancing their selfish goals. None of those will actually help the people in their districts.
Lastly, while I'm sure your intent in tying Congressional pay to the pay of the median voter in their district is to provide an incentive for people in Congress to improve the median pay for people in their districts, it will also provide an incentive to prevent poor people from being eligible to vote. Improving the economy takes time and at best will probably only raise the median pay by a few thousand dollars over several years. Even a significant bump to the minimum wage might not have a huge impact on the median even though it's very helpful to those making minimum wage. On the other hand, simply raising the voting age to 30 or requiring voters to own property would probably bump the median voter's pay by $10,000 overnight by cutting low-income people out of the calculation altogether.
5
u/Mackntish 5h ago
I think most applicants would have to be independently wealthy, and using the position to further their own interests. Or at least that's the way it works in poorer countries who's politicians are practically encouraged to be corrupt by being paying very low wages.
•
u/pplrstrng07 51m ago
I think they should make the minimum wage and recieve the healthcare benefits of their state.
4
5
u/Weekly-Log-5870 11h ago
Interesting idea in theory, but it would probably create more problems than it solves.Congressmen already get a lot of non-salary benefits (staff, travel, healthcare, pension, etc.) Tying their base pay to the median income of their district might make them more “in touch,” but it could also:
Discourage competent people from running
Push them even harder toward corruption or outside income
Create weird incentives depending on whether they represent a rich or poor area
A better version might be , pay them a solid middle-class salary + strict limits on outside income and lobbying after they leave office.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 10h ago
I think a better idea would be paying them in line with what an ivy league educated lawyer would make after 5-10 years in the field, but also finding a way to shorten the length of the campaign.
Because like, the thing keeping normal people out of congress is that 6-12 month campaign. Not the pay.
4
u/BigMax 8h ago
It's dumb (no offense, it's an interesting idea to think about!)
But... we should pay what the job is worth.
The constant attack on politician pay is awful in my mind. You know who takes those jobs if we don't pay a good wage? The already rich and powerful, who can afford to work in that job without pay. OR those who are corrupt and don't care about the low pay because they will use it as a grift to scam money in other ways.
We should WANT to pay politicians a fair wage, so that regular, ordinary, qualified people want to do that job.
If you kill the wages for someone working in a poor district in Louisiana or something... then no "regular" person will ever take the job. You now limit your applicant pool to the wealthy or corrupt. Is that what we want?
4
u/PissNBiscuits 8h ago
Setting their salary isn't going to solve any issues. The money they make in office doesn't come from their salary; it comes from the lobbyists and dark money donors. You want real change? Get rid of Citizens United and implement ranked choice voting, and that'll be a good START.
9
u/YouSure-AboutThat 16h ago
They aren’t there for the salary.
13
u/CpnStumpy 16h ago
Not if they're rich. Though if you want to attract hard ethical workers, incrntivizing them with a high salary is wise. Otherwise you'll only attract rich people who don't need a salary, or corruptible people who will make their $$ on the side
2
2
u/JohnnyFootballStar 7h ago
It’s like how it is always the same people who complain about government efficiency while also saying we need to lower government salaries and reduce benefits. Sure. Let’s improve government by making it a terrible place to work so only people with no other options choose those jobs. That will help!
3
u/Drak_is_Right 15h ago
Would need to provide proper housing for them in DC then paid for by the government.
3
u/Sure_Comfort_7031 10h ago
No.
They need to be paid for the job they're doing and be able to get to and from their job duty location.
How it is on paper isn't how it is in real life right now. And i respect that. But I'm not enshrining anything in a constitution. Especially "no pay" - that removes the Joe Anybody from making it there because of the pay.
3
u/Maestro_Primus 9h ago
I think that's actually a good plan if you add in government funded travel so they can get between work and their constituents. You'll also need to pass a law making it illegal for them to have any other source of income and to be illegal to accept any kind of gift while they are in office so you cut down on the corruption. Now, tell them to vote to implement that. Lord knows people love giving themselves paycuts.
3
u/thelunarunit 7h ago
I will be the minority and say no we should pay them more. However with a ban on insider trading and campaign finance reform.
9
u/bhampson 16h ago
The salary they collect is a pittance compared to lobbyists funding their “next election.” And the money they make on insider trading.
9
u/token_friend 16h ago
Reddit has a hard time appreciating this, but the truth is that the average unremarkable but successful 30 something is pulling down $150-250k+
Not like “I went to Harvard and became a lawyer/doctor/etc” but just garden variety regular successful people who either picked up an in-demand trade, graduated college into a normal white collar job, or went into sales.
185k for a job that requires travel and nights + weekends (campaigning / fundraising) sounds like a nightmare. I don’t know anyone in my circle that would work for that.
Congressional salaries need to be higher frankly.
→ More replies (1)16
u/birdie_sparrows 16h ago edited 16h ago
this is absolutely the case. I wasn't gonna out myself in this thread but...well my father was in the House when I was a kid. He didn't take PAC money and he released to the penny audits of our family's personal finances every year. At the time he believed they were the most thorough financial disclosures ever released by a member. I wouldn't be surprised if they remain so.
He was a dedicated public servant who assumed no importance due to his role and never demanded special treatment. He estimated that he worked 80-100 hours a week 48-50 weeks out of the year on legislative stuff alone. He brought home stacks of constituent mail almost every night.
Don't get me wrong, our time in DC is pretty neat so I don't want to paint it as this awful slog. But the average person just does not understand the demands placed upon members. They make good money yes, but they are maintaining two residences to certain degree (or sleeping in their DC office three nights a week, which is also a thing. And the pay is rather meager compared to what they might earn in the private sector. And oh by the way your put your entire family under a microscope to certain degree.
If you want good people in office, it has to be a survivable proposition for them.
2
2
u/n33dwat3r 13h ago
If it includes benefits like lifetime health insurance and paid for travel they're still getting paid more.
They need free dorm style residence blocks for when they stay in DC to make it feasible.
2
u/QuantumRiff 8h ago
I'd much prefer that they be forced to use Medicare, which is a federal thing they control...
2
2
2
2
u/NinjatheClick 1h ago
Even better. They can only have the same Healthcare we have.
And if they go over budget they are ineligible to run again.
2
u/drako_86 1h ago
Make it their States' minimum wage and only give them the health coverage that is provided to their pootest through their states' Medicaid and welfare. Make it so that they and their immediate family cannot buy stock, or bonds and cannot be paid for making appearances at places. Watch how quickly things get repaired and how psychopaths stop running for political seats.
•
u/booksaregoodbro 9m ago
Tie it to minimum wage. Median isn't honest. Median is almost always referring to a household, not individual, and usually includes billionaires which skews that "median" higher than it is in reality for the average non billionaires.
3
u/Then_Sir7372 12h ago
Paying them less just guarantees that lobbying firms and special interest groups will have even more financial leverage over them.
2
2
u/WondrousDildorium 16h ago
The less you pay them the more likely they are to be corrupt so good luck with that
2
u/mark_able_jones_ 16h ago
No, but I think they should have to send their kids to a public school with an average per-student budget for their district/state.
And they should have to choose a health care plan that is middle-tier for their family and be given to special privileges when it comes to coverage.
There are members of Congress who don't even live in their district or state. They don't send their kids to school in the state they rep. They own property in that state, but they would never live in the areas they represent.
I'm surprised this isn't a bigger, more common political issue, but journalism in the USA absolutely blows.
2
u/shakakaaahn 16h ago
Now you've limited those that serve in Congress to those who are individually wealthy, and likely even older.
2
u/GaidinBDJ 15h ago
Sounds like a great way to make sure nobody who isn't independently wealthy ever ends up in Congress again. And, anybody who does make it in would be so much more likely to be tempted by bribes.
If you're going to try and thwart the will of the electorate, why half-ass it? Double that up with term limits to make sure only the super-wealthy make it in. Or just have like a $50 million cover charge. Pay the fee and you're in the door.
If you want someone who only makes the median income for the people they represent elected then vote for that person. If you only want people to have X number of terms, then don't for for them their X+1th term.
2
1
u/UnderaZiaSun 16h ago
Pay them $1M a year, but forbid them from trading any individual stocks or assets. Only allow them to by index funds or diversified ETFs/mutual funds
1
u/jeromeburtonlb 16h ago
It sounds good in theory, but all it would do is ensure that only independently wealthy people could ever afford to hold office.
A regular working-class person trying to maintain a residence in D.C. *and* back home in their district on a $50k median salary would go broke immediately.
Plus, their official paycheck isn't how they get rich anyway. It's the insider trading, speaking fees, and corporate lobbying gigs after they leave.
1
u/nblackhand 15h ago
It sounds great in theory but realistically the only people this affects are the actual voter-representative people who are trying to deal with all of DC's appearance focused nonsense (no one will take a politician seriously/they'll be viewed as "messy and unprofessional" if they don't wear expensive suits and get expensive haircuts and so on) with only the salary and who are not also backed by piles of lobbyist money and generational wealth &c &c. If we could somehow comprehensively erase corruption and aggressively ban all privately funded political ads then after that, yeah, sure, median salary for the reps too, but before that it hurts more than helps unfortunately.
1
1
u/Gosa_on_the_wind 15h ago
Their wealth doesn't come from their salary anyway. This won't maximize corruption. The corruption is already there.
1
u/nowhereman136 14h ago
I'm not suggesting we pay them stupid amounts of money but paying them low wages only encouraged them to suppliment their income elsewhere. Plus, if you can live off a low government salary, then that means you likely have wealth from a previous job or family wealth to support you. It would basically ensure only rich people could be politicians. And third, when you make the job appealing to have with a high salary, you attract more qualified candidates. A lot of people avoid going into politics because they make more money in the private sector
1
u/Crappler319 14h ago
Absolutely not. The congressional pay scale should be, in my opinion, be a constantly increasing scale (similar to the Cravath scale in law) that increases each year based on, for example, cost of living, the current average of pay in "elite" private sector careers (doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, etc), and/or federal judicial salaries.
Crappy congressional pay means that only wealthy people can afford to represent their state in congress: maintaining a household in their home state and (unless they're in VA or MD) maintaining a SEPARATE home here in DC, which is hellaciously expensive.
There is no sane reason for a twenty-something Big Law attorney fresh out of Law School to be making over $80,000 more than a senior member of the House.
The congressional salary is BARELY enough to comfortably get by in DC itself. You can make do with far less than that here, yes, but very few people are going to sign up for a job that is going to strain their finances to the extent that being a rep or senator would a lower or middle class person. If we want "normal" people to want to go to congress, we need to create a situation where they have to pick between shouldering a massive financial burden, or corruption and insider trading.
There are other barriers in place like the cost of campaigning, time investment, etc. that make it very difficult for people who are gainfully employed and not independently wealthy to run for office, but at the very least making it financially feasible for them to even occupy the office is a good start.
Any adjustment that they'd get would be a rounding error of a rounding error in the budget. There isn't really a downside. The only real argument to raising congressional salaries is "I don't like them and don't think they deserve it," or "it's very unpopular," which is a direct consequence of everyone thinking "I don't like them."
Which, sure, me neither. But maybe we'd like them more if actual human beings could run and occupy the office instead of most of them being generationally wealthy lizards.
1
u/Exact_Acanthaceae294 14h ago
They have to have housing in DC - prices there have always been insane.
1
u/First_Plate2817 14h ago
Tying their pay to the median voter’s take-home would force them to feel the same financial reality as the people they’re supposed to represent.
1
1
u/mixologyst 14h ago
It wouldn’t change anything because they also get millions for staff and offices.
1
u/classycatman 14h ago
No. I’d rather pay them a sufficient salary so that they don’t feel the need to sell their vote.
1
u/OnlyPromotion3642 14h ago
I can see the logic behind this. If politicians had to live closer to the financial reality of the people they represent, they might have a better understanding of the pressures ordinary families face. I’m not sure matching the exact median income is the perfect solution, but tying their pay more closely to the people they serve is an interesting idea.
1
1
u/thepervertedromantic 14h ago
It wouldn't matter since most of their income is from "other" sources
1
u/Android_Pete91 13h ago
That sounds great, but this will just let the rich monopolize Congress, and cutting salaries will just keep ordinary people who have to pay rent in two places from being able to participate
1
u/Limp-Plantain3824 13h ago
Horrible idea unless you then tack on massive housing and travel allowances. The cost to keep a home in DC in addition to one where there from would make it almost impossible for anyone not a multimillionaire to even think about running.
1
u/_gloryholemadrid 13h ago
sounds great in theory, but in practice it means only independently wealthy rich people could afford to hold office. normal working class folks wouldn't be able to pay for two residences (dc + home district)..
1
u/Vynlovanth 12h ago
Did you know members of Congress and the Senate have to maintain a residence in the district/state they represent, as well as one in DC which is one of the most expensive metro areas in the country to live? They’re provided funding for offices in each place, but not a place to live.
How would you expect someone making the median pay of basically any area in the country to pay rent or a mortgage in two places at the same time? You wouldn’t, you’d either have exclusively old people with paid off houses in their home district, or you’d have independently wealthy people. Not exactly great if you want your representatives and senators to represent the average person.
All these questions that ask if we should limit pay for representatives/senators don’t think about the consequences. The lower their pay, the more you make it increasingly difficult for the average person to be elected. Also the more likely you increase grifting and corruption.
Pay them more. Overturn citizens united, limit corporate spending and the use of PACs. Ban individual stock and options trading. They can have access to the same retirement investing options that government employees get, ETFs and bonds only. Don’t do anything stupid like term limits because that will just create another revolving door for corporate stooges to work their way in and rotate out, doing favors for corporate interests in exchange for an easy gig after. Congress should be made up of experienced politicians and educated professionals, not random lobbyists or “celebrities” or people who can get the best dog whistle or sound bite. Set a retirement age where they can no longer run for office and that’ll act as a sort of term limit.
1
1
u/butterflyslinky 11h ago
That would only mean something if they were also cut off from their personal wealth during their time in office.
1
1
u/_Fun_Employed_ 11h ago
pay of the modal voter, median and mean are too easily manipulated by just having some really wealthy people. But as top comment pointed out this would lead to corruption
1
1
u/Effective-Winter-860 10h ago
They all have the same job, so shouldn't have different salaries. That said, if they want to have years long election seasons, they should be reimbursing the American people for every minute they spend working their election and not doing their job.
I don't have a problem with how much they earn...I have a problem that they give themselves special medical insurance that we don't have access to and that we pay them and coverage their transportation even when they are campaigning.
1
1
u/BTRunner 10h ago
You would attract only those for whom that pay would be a step up compare to their original salary.
1
u/TheLizardKing89 10h ago
This will just encourage more corruption or ensure that only independently wealthy people run for office.
1
u/iamtehryan 10h ago
Rather than that, make it a no strikes, codified law that if you are found guilty of any sort of corruption you're straight to prison if you're in politics.
1
1
u/GlectroniccPSY1201 10h ago
Maybe if the government provided living places, like Congressional dormitories, so they wouldn't have to buy and maintain a residence in Washington DC.
1
u/V48runner 10h ago
Good idea in theory, but they're making their living off insider trading anyway.
1
u/No-Lobster-5120 10h ago
It would only impact the members of the body who are NOT millionaires. Frankly, I'd like to see more ordinary people in office, not fewer.
1
u/maringue 10h ago
The opposite would be better. Pay them 5 million a year, but they're not allowed to take a SINGLE cent from any other sources.
1
u/Realtor_In_Texas 10h ago
Pay them as much as a soldier in the military gets paid. Same benefits too.
1
u/DeeJayDelicious 10h ago
There is a reason public servants are paid disproportionately well in most developed democracies.
And it's to make them more resistant to corruption and less beholden to 3rd parties.
That said, the income from the job is already a neglible source of wealth for most senators and representatives.
1
u/BluebirdFancy5198 10h ago
Honestly, I like the idea in principle. If you're making laws that affect ordinary people, maybe your paycheck shouldn't be completely disconnected from their reality. 😂
The problem is that Congress already has plenty of opportunities to make money elsewhere, so I'd rather see strict rules on stock trading, lobbying, and conflicts of interest alongside a salary change.
1
1
u/Shepher27 10h ago
Members of congress are required to maintain homes both in their district AND in Washington DC, a very expensive place to live. If you lower pay for being in congress that low, only the ultra wealthy can afford to be in congress.
I’d rather increase their pay and heavily restrict their ability to earn pay in any outside way (no stock trading or investing for their family, no gifts, no lobbying or corporate jobs for their spouse, no owning businesses over a certain number and size, etc.)
1
1
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 10h ago
I think it's a terrible idea.
Look at how much money a lawyer from an ivy league school would be making 10 years after graduation. It's double what congress people are making. So already, most people in congress are taking a big paycut to be there, making this payout worse isn't going to make things better.
1
u/BigCrab9128 10h ago
Paying them less wouldn’t automatically make Congress less corrupt. If anything, it could make outside money, lobbying, and other financial incentives more tempting.
1
u/BigCrab9128 10h ago
Paying them less wouldn’t automatically make Congress less corrupt. If anything, it could make outside money, lobbying, and other financial incentives more tempting.
1
u/Helagoth 10h ago
In New Hampshire, we pay out state reps $100 a year to be state reps. The result is most of our reps are independently wealthy or old ass retirees. Guess how well they do representing the average person?
I get thay people don't like the idea of career politicians, but it IS a job and you either pay it as such, or you get a lot of reps doing it who don't need the salary and look out for their own interests.
1
u/cleveruniquename7769 9h ago
I'd actually rather that we paid Congress people more, like $300,000/yr for life adjusted for inflation, but with the stipulation that it would be illegal for them to earn any type of income outside of that salary for the rest of their lives.
1
u/wrstlrjpo 9h ago
Sounds like a great way to attract median intellect.
I’d probably set the floor at 2x the median colleague educated constituent above the age of 35.
1
u/MetalEnthusiast83 9h ago
I think that's a really fucking dumb idea.
Because it would 1) obviously open the door for corruption and 2) shrink the talent pool of people willing to do the job.
1
u/AnswerGuy301 9h ago
I studied countries that paid their public officials peanuts and in my former career worked in corporate compliance with companies that by necessity did business in such countries. Either they were just poor or all the money was being plundered by dictators and their family or cronies.
Nothing happened business-wise in any such country without a lot of bribes being paid. Americans think they live in a pervasively corrupt country or at least understand what that looks like. They do not.
We do not want to emulate that, trust me.
1
u/Throwaway91847817 9h ago
Pay politicians more and ban lobbying and gifts. Thats actually how you fix corruption. People who are paid well are less likely to do anything for cash.
But its unpopular because saying “pay politicians more” sounds bad to people.
1
u/DownByTheRivr 9h ago
Horrible idea. As others have pointed out, that’s a quick way to get corrupt idiots in office.
Why tf would any qualified candidate want that job?
We should be paying our representatives more, not less
1
u/Mountain-Bullfrog-30 9h ago
First term should be free or under median. All stock trades should be audited prior to taking office to establish baseline, and checked periodically during their term. If they get re-elected, they’re paid the median. Terms should be limited.
1
u/Unable_Pumpkin987 9h ago
I think that’s a great way to make extra double sure that only independently wealthy people can be in Congress. We’re 80% of the way there now, but this would put us at 99% for sure.
Congresspeople have to live at least half the year in the district they represent, and work half the year in a completely different city that is too far to commute to for ~500 of the 535 members. Do you think the average salary in your district would allow someone to maintain a household in the district and also live somewhere else half the year?
Do you think that people who represent poorer districts should be paid less than people who represent mostly upper middle class areas? Is their work less valuable or less important because the people they are serving are less wealthy?
1
u/randalljhen 9h ago
Sure. But you also have to bar them from receiving income from anywhere else for as long as they're in office.
1
u/waterbuffalo750 9h ago
No job gets better employees by paying less. And I want our members of congress to be more qualified and able than the average citizen.
1
u/richcournoyer 9h ago
It really wouldn't matter......it's NOT where the real money comes from (Lobbyist, insider stock information)....they'll still get rich...
1
1
u/JohnBPrettyGood 9h ago
Controlling a salary is easy
Controlling a Bride ... O.K. now we are talking
BuT ThEy WeRe PoLiTiCaL CoNtRiBuTiOnS !!!
1
u/Blissful_Brisket 9h ago
AND, their only option for medial insurance must be Medicare. No commercial options at all.
1
u/kateinoly 9h ago
considering that it would take a whole new agency to track and administer this. you really aren't going to save much. And most congresspeople are wealthy apart from any salary.
1
u/freedraw 9h ago
People always propose stuff like this as a way to make sure congress is representing the people and knows what it’s like for their constituents, but the reality is it would have the complete opposite effect. You would ONLY get very wealthy people running, increasing detachment from their constituents’ realities.
Think about it. You’re a 30-something state representative with a young family. There’s an open congressional seat you think you have a shot at. The median salary in the area is $50k. Winning the seat means you will have to maintain a residence for your family both in your home state and Washington DC, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. You realize taking the job is a financial impossibility. You don’t run. Some multimillionaire wins the seat instead. Or, alternatively, you run and win the seat and immediately start insider trading.
1
u/byte_handle 8h ago
That have to maintain a residence in the district they represent and also have a residence in DC to work.
There are a lot of updates to make to Congress, but cutting their salary to the point where doing the job would be impossible just guarantees that the people who run for Congress are already wealthy enough to afford a second home and would enact policies that help them and the other rich people they know.
(Most of them are already in this position, but if you ever want that to change, this isn't the policy you want to enact).
1
u/hexhead-404 8h ago
They should be paid well for limited terms. Nobody wants to be represented by a career politician. Fast-track impeachment and jail time for financial corruption.
1
u/2LostFlamingos 8h ago
Ah yes. Require them to be poor and live in expensive dc with no money.
You’ll get only super rich people and those who like to take bribes.
For me the solution is to pay them all 500k per year but even the slightest corruption is 10 years in prison.
1
u/DocGaviota 8h ago
I think we could pay them minimum wage by the hour and we’d have every one of them that we have now.
1
1
214
u/green_rog 16h ago
I want my congress people to work for their salary, not for the lobbyists "gifts".