7 ms·

>"You'd be forcing a good number of Congressional spouses to retire if you implemented this without a gradual implementation." Call me jaded, but boo-hoo, so b

>"You'd be forcing a good number of Congressional spouses to retire if you implemented this without a gradual implementation." Call me jaded, but boo-hoo, so be it. The power and privileges that come with being so close to someone in power surely make up for the loss of being able to trade stocks.

ViViDboarder 5y ago
If you’re not in house leadership, salaries are around $174,000. Depending on where someone is in their life (children in college, mortgage, etc) this may not be enough to be a single income earner in a family. Not saying that family members should have unfettered abilities to trade, but having to use something like a trading plan or announcing trades prior or even just (gasp) enforcing insider trading laws against them, would be terrific.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  That's 86th percentile for US household income. They can make do. Welcome to public service.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Members of Congress tend to wind up having to run two households, though, and I'm sure there's a variety of other sorts of expenses that are fairly unusual. Salaries haven't gone up in over a decade, either. Limiting Congress to people who can independently afford the income/expense hit might not be optimal.
    - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
      Yes, there's always excuses to "need" higher pay. 86th percentile is more than sufficient for representatives of the people.
      - captainredbeard 5y ago
        If you view public service as requiring sacrifice, perhaps, but if you wish to attract folks you need to at least bring decent pay to the table.
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      And the second household is necessarily in one of the more expensive real estate markets in the country.
    - jatone 5y ago
      salaries havent gone up because they've opted to decline the increase for themselves. no one is denying they should be paid for their work we're wish to deny them the right to fuck over working americans to line their pockets. they can easily pass a bill to fund lodgings for congress critters in DC if they wanted. it'd certainly be cheaper for americans than this corruption.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > salaries havent gone up because they've opted to decline the increase for themselves Well, sure; why would the wealthy incumbents want to make it easier for new, not-independently-wealthy candidates to break in? You probably limit the AOC-style folks a bit by not adjusting for inflation. > they can easily pass a bill to fund lodgings for congress critters in DC if they wanted I kinda like that idea; a little Versailles-y.

ViViDboarder 5y ago

If you’re not in house leadership, salaries are around $174,000. Depending on where someone is in their life (children in college, mortgage, etc) this may not be enough to be a single income earner in a family. Not saying that family members should have unfettered abilities to trade, but having to use something like a trading plan or announcing trades prior or even just (gasp) enforcing insider trading laws against them, would be terrific.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago
That's 86th percentile for US household income. They can make do. Welcome to public service.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Members of Congress tend to wind up having to run two households, though, and I'm sure there's a variety of other sorts of expenses that are fairly unusual. Salaries haven't gone up in over a decade, either. Limiting Congress to people who can independently afford the income/expense hit might not be optimal.
  - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
    Yes, there's always excuses to "need" higher pay. 86th percentile is more than sufficient for representatives of the people.
    - captainredbeard 5y ago
      If you view public service as requiring sacrifice, perhaps, but if you wish to attract folks you need to at least bring decent pay to the table.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    And the second household is necessarily in one of the more expensive real estate markets in the country.
  - jatone 5y ago
    salaries havent gone up because they've opted to decline the increase for themselves. no one is denying they should be paid for their work we're wish to deny them the right to fuck over working americans to line their pockets. they can easily pass a bill to fund lodgings for congress critters in DC if they wanted. it'd certainly be cheaper for americans than this corruption.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > salaries havent gone up because they've opted to decline the increase for themselves Well, sure; why would the wealthy incumbents want to make it easier for new, not-independently-wealthy candidates to break in? You probably limit the AOC-style folks a bit by not adjusting for inflation. > they can easily pass a bill to fund lodgings for congress critters in DC if they wanted I kinda like that idea; a little Versailles-y.