3 ms·

Trading activity should be limited for federal employees at that level in a similar manner that trading is limited for bank employees and their families. They s

Trading activity should be limited for federal employees at that level in a similar manner that trading is limited for bank employees and their families. They should be allowed to trade index funds, etfs, mutual funds etc, but perhaps not individual stocks. Or perhaps there should be a bi-annual or quarterly trading period where they're allowed to trade individual stocks. Should they be allowed to also trade derivatives (Options, futures etc)? I think so but with similar restrictions. Perhaps also they should get a raise. Senators and house members make ~175,000. Having to pay for two houses/apartments. It seems a bit low for their relative importance. Perhaps a higher salary would mean they rely less on Wall St too

wanderindev 5y ago
Congressional representatives should 100% be held bare minimum to the standard that bank employees are if not more. As per raises, they haven't received one since 2009 and I think it'd definitely make sense to peg that to inflation. In general though, they're securing a pension via this job which even though it's not their full salary it will set them up for retirement better than the average investing would.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > As per raises, they haven't received one since 2009 and I think it'd definitely make sense to peg that to inflation. I think it would make more sense to peg it to the lower of a set multiple of each per capita GDP and median after-tax-benefits adult individual income, with th multiples set so that they both work out equal the current pay now. Rewarding Congress for driving up average consumer prices when they are paid far enough above median income to start that their spending basket is different is...perhaps not well considered. But any peg has a problem that ultimately, whoever is measuring the thing to which pay is pegged is accountable to Congress, so the result is to make the measure less trustworthy by tying Congressional pay to it. Forcing Congress to vote on their pay changes and face election after they do so and before they go into effect, as the last-ratified-amendment of the Bill of Rights requires, is not only Constitutionally-mandatory, but a very good idea.

wanderindev 5y ago

Congressional representatives should 100% be held bare minimum to the standard that bank employees are if not more. As per raises, they haven't received one since 2009 and I think it'd definitely make sense to peg that to inflation. In general though, they're securing a pension via this job which even though it's not their full salary it will set them up for retirement better than the average investing would.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> As per raises, they haven't received one since 2009 and I think it'd definitely make sense to peg that to inflation. I think it would make more sense to peg it to the lower of a set multiple of each per capita GDP and median after-tax-benefits adult individual income, with th multiples set so that they both work out equal the current pay now. Rewarding Congress for driving up average consumer prices when they are paid far enough above median income to start that their spending basket is different is...perhaps not well considered. But any peg has a problem that ultimately, whoever is measuring the thing to which pay is pegged is accountable to Congress, so the result is to make the measure less trustworthy by tying Congressional pay to it. Forcing Congress to vote on their pay changes and face election after they do so and before they go into effect, as the last-ratified-amendment of the Bill of Rights requires, is not only Constitutionally-mandatory, but a very good idea.