4 ms·
U.S. Congress Live Net Worth Tracker
- beej71 2y agoIt would be fun to have a law that said once your family's net worth rose above some factor of the poverty line you'd be ineligible for higher office. Yes, I recognize the multitude of problems this presents, but it's fun to consider the implications.
- austin-cheney 2y agoHow can any of these people have a net worth less than $50k? Surely they have a car or house. Two cars and they are already close to $50K. Any house in California will be a minimum of half a million and that's a burned down garage without plumbing. EDIT: Looking through the data it includes physical assets such as personal residential property, automobiles, and airplanes.
- justsocrateasin 2y agoI believe it's just stock portfolios as net worth, but I could be wrong
- dewey 2y agoNo, as it also lists bank accounts and 401k: https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Alexandria%20Ocasio-Cortez-O000172 https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Alexa...
- 317070 2y agoI reckon this is only measuring the size of their stock portfolio.
- kej 2y agoFrom the bottom of the page: >This estimate does not include the value of the individual's primary residence, or any outstanding liabilities.
- fallingsquirrel 2y agoShouldn't it just be called a Portfolio Tracker then? If they wanted to include the primary residence, they could. The data is out there. Zillow lists historical sale prices for any house.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- adolph 2y agoMaybe Rep Massey could make ESP32 badges for the other members with this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37840547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37840547
- rychco 2y agoMembers of Congress shouldn't be allowed to accumulate this kind of obscene wealth - full stop. The only details up for debate is where we draw the line & how to aggressively enforce it.
- ajross 2y agoThey aren't "accumulating" it, they just have it. The top four, for sure, are wealthy from activities and careers prior to entering congress, often by a spouse or family. Your rule would basically amount to "no rich people allowed to serve in government", which seems arguably even worse.
- devmor 2y agoJust out of curiosity, why do you think that would be worse? I don’t personally think it’s a helpful restriction but I’m curious what problems you believe it would cause.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoFor starters, you’re prepackaging the overthrow committee.
- beej71 2y agoCan you elaborate a little bit? I'm unclear on your meeting.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoIt explicitly isolates people with tremendous power from the levers of official power. That pretty much guarantees you'll have a shadow government. (A competing power centre. Less Q Anon and more gangs in South America.)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Teever 2y agoFar more interested in a list of the names and assets of the people who lobby them.
- pants2 2y agoThe richest congress members got there through insider trading, like Nancy Pelosi's purchase of NVDA calls right before the American Semiconductor funding was announced. Congress should be paid well - probably more than $174k per year if we want the best and the brightest. Congress should also be completely banned from any sort of individual stock trading, and closely monitored for passing insider info.
- pc86 2y agoThey simply have access to too much information. Everything they and their spouse or partner own should be in a blind trust from the time they win a primary election until they've been out of office for some set period of time, say 10 years, since the information they get especially on committees related to the treasury, commerce, and national intelligence, has impacts lasting years. It should be impossible to go from a nobody to achieving generational wealth in a decade due to legally protected insider trading. Trading is zero sum - someone sold those NVDA calls to Pelosi and lost millions. Information asymmetry just makes this legally protected theft with extra steps.
- pants2 2y agoAgreed on most points, but do know that options market makers would be hedged on that position so likely didn't lose anything significant. However, by frontrunning the market Pelosi created worse conditions for other investors.
- bhickey 2y agoLet them trade whatever they want — but publish their trades and delay execution for 48 hours.
- tracker1 2y agoYeah, 24-48 hours advance notice would be a better option IMO, then anyone could follow along. Hell, you could have funds based on congressional trades.
- exabrial 2y agoI'm really only interested in their net worth change after taking office.
- tmaly 2y agothat would be an interesting visual
- exabrial 2y agoI know that congress is required to disclose trades, but what is the required timeline on that? Like is it days, hours, or months later?
- dzonga 2y agonumber one got rich by [1] fleecing (fraud) the federal gvt - through his hospitals. no prison, just fine - and he's now in the senate. [1]: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article288431251.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article...
- ab_testing 2y agoWhat is the point of a live net worth tracker if it is just an estimate. This could be table in a wikipedia page based on the margin of error and amount of guesswork invovled
- dragonwriter 2y ago> What is the point of a live net worth tracker if it is just an estimate? Sensationalist propaganda.
- tracker1 2y agoI wish they'd go a step farther and require members of Congress, staff and immediate family disclose any stock trades at least 24 hours ahead of the exchange. The fact that existing exclosure timelines and reporting are bad enough.