7 ms·

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they a

by Sevii 4y ago

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
We should let them own a house in their constituency, at least. I'm open to disallowing real estate speculation.
mfer 4y ago
> they don't get to own stocks or real estate So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? I don't see that going over well. Your primary home is real estate. So is that little family cottage. Also, congressional reps need to have a home is Washington. So, they have to rent there?
- dhritzkiv 4y ago
  Many reps do rent in DC, sometimes in frat-house-like conditions with other reps.[1] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...
  - wyre 4y ago
    Why isn’t this the basis for a tv show?
    - AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
      It was, the cartoonist behind Doonesbury did it for 2 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_House
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Renting may be a new experience for them. And with such a huge bump in salary I think they can take the hit. After all it is positioning real estate as investments that contribute to its unaffordability.
- rococode 4y ago
  That's pretty trivial to work around... you can own one primary residence, and one additional residence in DC. You can't own 10 buildings. That said, I don't think real estate is as easily abused as stocks. Much harder to influence the value.
- vkou 4y ago
  > So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? They could always try renting. A lot of people manage to get by doing just that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
_8j50 4y ago
Better Idea: $300k base and a performance bonus up to 100% more based on sponsored laws and an additional 100% for passed laws with an extra 100k for no votes missed or abstained. So a perfectly performing congressperson gets a mil.
- zeruch 4y ago
  I'm not sure about the specifics you outlined, but I do think a comp package that incentivizes grown-ass behavior (read: full attendance, voting, actual participation in the legislative process) is a great idea. I don't think rewarding certain behaviors like sponsoring is good, because its too easily abused. When a KPI becomes a target, its no longer a KPI.
  - thebiss 4y ago
    Can you clarify when/how a KPI ever not a target? Bonuses and promotions always go to those who exceed them, and "improvement plans" or "restructuring" is reserved to those who miss.
    - cwkoss 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... Any imperfect measure that becomes a target gets pursued at the expense of the original intent.
      - zeruch 4y ago
        You restated what I meant better than I stated it. Thank you.
      - _8j50 4y ago
        It's not a perverse incentive, there is a limit to it. And it has a counter balancing incentive in the form of having to run for an election. If you passed bad laws for the sake of metrics you get voted out because there is someone else that wants to do better than you. A perverse incentive is not the same as compensation for doing your job.
hedora 4y ago
I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leaving office.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Nobody sane would take that deal.
  - hedora 4y ago
    Which part? If you get elected to the Senate, you and your kids are set for life. Do you really want people greedier than that running the country?
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    Nobody sane would take $1M USD per year for life? Call me insane I guess.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    A million dollars per year for life? Most people would kill for that deal. Not the HN crowd, but most people without hesitation.
  - wyre 4y ago
    Only on HN is a 1 million dollar salary a bad deal
    - twblalock 4y ago
      It's a bad deal for the kind of people who are capable of succeeding in national politics.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  I agree. Make them wards of the state. Corruption has been far more destructive than incompetence, because corruption filters for and protects incompetence. Let public servants make a sacrifice.
zeruch 4y ago
...or afterwards for 5 years.

by Sevii 4y ago

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

We should let them own a house in their constituency, at least. I'm open to disallowing real estate speculation.

mfer 4y ago

> they don't get to own stocks or real estate So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? I don't see that going over well. Your primary home is real estate. So is that little family cottage. Also, congressional reps need to have a home is Washington. So, they have to rent there?

dhritzkiv 4y ago
Many reps do rent in DC, sometimes in frat-house-like conditions with other reps.[1] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...
- wyre 4y ago
  Why isn’t this the basis for a tv show?
  - AftHurrahWinch 4y ago
    It was, the cartoonist behind Doonesbury did it for 2 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_House
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Renting may be a new experience for them. And with such a huge bump in salary I think they can take the hit. After all it is positioning real estate as investments that contribute to its unaffordability.
rococode 4y ago
That's pretty trivial to work around... you can own one primary residence, and one additional residence in DC. You can't own 10 buildings. That said, I don't think real estate is as easily abused as stocks. Much harder to influence the value.
vkou 4y ago
> So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? They could always try renting. A lot of people manage to get by doing just that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

_8j50 4y ago

Better Idea: $300k base and a performance bonus up to 100% more based on sponsored laws and an additional 100% for passed laws with an extra 100k for no votes missed or abstained. So a perfectly performing congressperson gets a mil.

zeruch 4y ago
I'm not sure about the specifics you outlined, but I do think a comp package that incentivizes grown-ass behavior (read: full attendance, voting, actual participation in the legislative process) is a great idea. I don't think rewarding certain behaviors like sponsoring is good, because its too easily abused. When a KPI becomes a target, its no longer a KPI.
- thebiss 4y ago
  Can you clarify when/how a KPI ever not a target? Bonuses and promotions always go to those who exceed them, and "improvement plans" or "restructuring" is reserved to those who miss.
  - cwkoss 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_original_cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina... Any imperfect measure that becomes a target gets pursued at the expense of the original intent.
    - zeruch 4y ago
      You restated what I meant better than I stated it. Thank you.
    - _8j50 4y ago
      It's not a perverse incentive, there is a limit to it. And it has a counter balancing incentive in the form of having to run for an election. If you passed bad laws for the sake of metrics you get voted out because there is someone else that wants to do better than you. A perverse incentive is not the same as compensation for doing your job.

hedora 4y ago

I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leaving office.

twblalock 4y ago
Nobody sane would take that deal.
- hedora 4y ago
  Which part? If you get elected to the Senate, you and your kids are set for life. Do you really want people greedier than that running the country?
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Nobody sane would take $1M USD per year for life? Call me insane I guess.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  A million dollars per year for life? Most people would kill for that deal. Not the HN crowd, but most people without hesitation.
- wyre 4y ago
  Only on HN is a 1 million dollar salary a bad deal
  - twblalock 4y ago
    It's a bad deal for the kind of people who are capable of succeeding in national politics.
pessimizer 4y ago
I agree. Make them wards of the state. Corruption has been far more destructive than incompetence, because corruption filters for and protects incompetence. Let public servants make a sacrifice.

zeruch 4y ago

...or afterwards for 5 years.