• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citizens should have the right to deny representatives pay

gavinfielder

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
756
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
It's already hinky that congress determines its own paycheck, but also that as soon as people are elected and won't be up for re-election, they suddenly have no pressing need to actually represent their constituents. I think citizens should have the right to not pay a portion of their taxes that go to their representatives' salary. Specifically, a deduction would be calculated based on the representatives' salary (a citizen's own representative only) divided by the number of taxpayers in the district. This creates instant accountability, and by virtue of transparency and the ability to directly make a decision would engage more citizens in the political process.

I think accountability is the most important consideration here, so I wouldn't mind if the base pay (salary at 100%) was increased at the same time, but even if not, I don't think it's an issue. It's obvious that representatives have more business expenses than the average citizen, but I'm not entirely sure a $200K salary is what I'd like to be paying congress--especially now. On the other hand, if I know someone to represent me well, I think I would pay them, and I think many other people still would as well.

This seems like common sense to me. If our representatives claim to represent the public and have public support solely by being elected, they should put their money with their mouth is and actually see if that's the case. This would also remove the problem of having no good options in elections.

It's not a full tax-choice proposal (deciding where all your taxes go is absurdly unfeasible) but something that should actually be implementable, and probably be the most effective in creating accountability and give the public direct power over their government and its policies, as they should rightly have.
 
There is an argument that the House pay is not enough so only rich people can afford to run. While $200K may sound like a lot, they have to maintain residences in DC and back home, and the further they are from DC the more expensive it is for them to serve and maintain some kind of semi-normal family life because of the travel expenses back and forth for them or their families.
 
It's already hinky that congress determines its own paycheck, but also that as soon as people are elected and won't be up for re-election, they suddenly have no pressing need to actually represent their constituents. I think citizens should have the right to not pay a portion of their taxes that go to their representatives' salary. Specifically, a deduction would be calculated based on the representatives' salary (a citizen's own representative only) divided by the number of taxpayers in the district. This creates instant accountability, and by virtue of transparency and the ability to directly make a decision would engage more citizens in the political process.

I think accountability is the most important consideration here, so I wouldn't mind if the base pay (salary at 100%) was increased at the same time, but even if not, I don't think it's an issue. It's obvious that representatives have more business expenses than the average citizen, but I'm not entirely sure a $200K salary is what I'd like to be paying congress--especially now. On the other hand, if I know someone to represent me well, I think I would pay them, and I think many other people still would as well.

This seems like common sense to me. If our representatives claim to represent the public and have public support solely by being elected, they should put their money with their mouth is and actually see if that's the case. This would also remove the problem of having no good options in elections.

It's not a full tax-choice proposal (deciding where all your taxes go is absurdly unfeasible) but something that should actually be implementable, and probably be the most effective in creating accountability and give the public direct power over their government and its policies, as they should rightly have.

I don't see how this can work. Let's say I'm disappointed in Harry Reid. So, what happens? Do I keep some of my tax obligation? What would keep me honest?

Maybe we can reverse this. After i Senator (or Congressperson) retires, we vote again on whether the did a good or bad job. Then they get a bonus which is added to everyone's taxes. Of course, I might end up having to pay toward Reid's bonus because only 48% of the other voters disliked him and 51% liked him.
 
I don't see how this can work. Let's say I'm disappointed in Harry Reid. So, what happens? Do I keep some of my tax obligation? What would keep me honest?
The respect and gratitude you have for Harry Reid representing you.

If you didn't vote for him, that's one thing. Other people will pay him--as many as feel he's worth it. If not enough people are willing to sustain his presence in congress, then why on earth should he be there? That's a problem in and of itself.
 
There is an argument that the House pay is not enough so only rich people can afford to run. While $200K may sound like a lot, they have to maintain residences in DC and back home, and the further they are from DC the more expensive it is for them to serve and maintain some kind of semi-normal family life because of the travel expenses back and forth for them or their families.
$100K should be enough to sustain that. But if not, then calculate the base pay from $400K. If they're actually doing their job, they should be able to receive more than enough to do their job, and if they can't, they shouldn't be there in the first place.
 
I can't say that I fully like the concept, but I do agree with the premise that it seems based upon. My own thought would be to base the pay upon the status of the economy. The better the economy does the better our congressmen get paid. However, this would be only one of several changes necessary to improve our representation. Term limits (personally I want to limit the number of years an individual can serve collectively over his lifetime), an inability to pass laws that exempt themselves and non-related riders on bills, especially budget allocations, among other things would all have to be in place to aid this along.
 
There is an argument that the House pay is not enough so only rich people can afford to run. While $200K may sound like a lot, they have to maintain residences in DC and back home, and the further they are from DC the more expensive it is for them to serve and maintain some kind of semi-normal family life because of the travel expenses back and forth for them or their families.

Maybe instead of forcing them to maintain two residences we should have a Congress "Dorm". A building where all the members of Congress can live while in DC. Security for them all would be more centralized and when someone new is elected they get the previous one's old suite.
 
There is an argument that the House pay is not enough so only rich people can afford to run. While $200K may sound like a lot, they have to maintain residences in DC and back home, and the further they are from DC the more expensive it is for them to serve and maintain some kind of semi-normal family life because of the travel expenses back and forth for them or their families.

This can actually be dealt with the same way we do with our armed forces. The government provides housing while you are a serving member of the government. You don't get to choose the house either, it is a standard billet for a service-member from a single-unit up to a family of four.

When you leave office, you leave the housing. We already do that with our Presidents. Meanwhile taxes pay for the upkeep, the residents pay for what goes into the house and other personal activities (like parties) they engage in while living there. Pay reduced, problem solved.
 
Maybe instead of forcing them to maintain two residences we should have a Congress "Dorm". A building where all the members of Congress can live while in DC. Security for them all would be more centralized and when someone new is elected they get the previous one's old suite.

The member I worked for maintained a house and rented rooms to other members to crash pad at, and they might would take a room at the Watergate or somewhere when the family came to town.
 
This can actually be dealt with the same way we do with our armed forces. The government provides housing while you are a serving member of the government. You don't get to choose the house either, it is a standard billet for a service-member and a family of four.

When you leave office, you leave the housing. We already do that with our Presidents. Meanwhile taxes pay for the upkeep, the residents pay for what goes into the house and other personal activities (like parties) they engage in while living there. Pay reduced, problem solved.

congressional pay has always been a tough issue. i mean look how long the 27th amendment took to pass, and it was one of the original amendments to the constitution!

Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to the United States Constitution. It was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789 and was adopted in 1992.

it took about 200 years for one amendment to be adopted.
 
The respect and gratitude you have for Harry Reid representing you.

If you didn't vote for him, that's one thing. Other people will pay him--as many as feel he's worth it. If not enough people are willing to sustain his presence in congress, then why on earth should he be there? That's a problem in and of itself.

Harry Reid was at the nadir of his popularity at the time of the last election. Had the GOP chosen an opponent that was even more bat**** crazy than Harry, he would have lost. So I'm not sure how "the lesser of evils" theory applies to your concept.
 
If you feel your representative is not worthy of a paycheck, vote em' out. It's really that simple. I also don't think that the average citizen has nearly enough knowledge as to the inner workings and actual proceedings of Congress to make a decent judgement.
 
If you feel your representative is not worthy of a paycheck, vote em' out. It's really that simple.
So if a Senator fails his constituents in his first year, you'd gladly wait 5 years to vote him out?

I also don't think that the average citizen has nearly enough knowledge as to the inner workings and actual proceedings of Congress to make a decent judgement.
Democracy works because it's a market for public policy. It stops working under the same conditions as an economic market: a lack of choices or a lack of information. A lack of information is a problem, but it's not one you solve by taking away peoples' right to choose. This is a market solution and it works on fundamental market principles.
 
Last edited:
Should House Republicans have scheduled more than 40 days of work in the last FIVE months of this year?
 
Should House Republicans have scheduled more than 40 days of work in the last FIVE months of this year?
If I wrote my own schedule for work the way they do and expected the pay they get, I'd just get ****ing fired.
 
Exactly. Especially when their first vote last week was to defund HeritageCare and then they took their ball and went home.
They even had to pull a continuing resolution last week because of the House gangstas.
If I wrote my own schedule for work the way they do and expected the pay they get, I'd just get ****ing fired.
 
I can't say that I fully like the concept, but I do agree with the premise that it seems based upon. My own thought would be to base the pay upon the status of the economy. The better the economy does the better our congressmen get paid. However, this would be only one of several changes necessary to improve our representation. Term limits (personally I want to limit the number of years an individual can serve collectively over his lifetime), an inability to pass laws that exempt themselves and non-related riders on bills, especially budget allocations, among other things would all have to be in place to aid this along.
This goes beyond economic issues though. It's a matter of accountable governance and responsible representation, and in doing so, it creates a market solution for that representation. If pay were determined by a formula, how does that formula get changed? We've already seen the formulas fudged as much as possible in terms of determining the official unemployment rate. And what if the unemployment rate doesn't even get factored into it? It's trying to create accountability but it just opens the door for bull****.
 
It's already hinky that congress determines its own paycheck, but also that as soon as people are elected and won't be up for re-election, they suddenly have no pressing need to actually represent their constituents. I think citizens should have the right to not pay a portion of their taxes that go to their representatives' salary. Specifically, a deduction would be calculated based on the representatives' salary (a citizen's own representative only) divided by the number of taxpayers in the district. This creates instant accountability, and by virtue of transparency and the ability to directly make a decision would engage more citizens in the political process.

I think accountability is the most important consideration here, so I wouldn't mind if the base pay (salary at 100%) was increased at the same time, but even if not, I don't think it's an issue. It's obvious that representatives have more business expenses than the average citizen, but I'm not entirely sure a $200K salary is what I'd like to be paying congress--especially now. On the other hand, if I know someone to represent me well, I think I would pay them, and I think many other people still would as well.

This seems like common sense to me. If our representatives claim to represent the public and have public support solely by being elected, they should put their money with their mouth is and actually see if that's the case. This would also remove the problem of having no good options in elections.

It's not a full tax-choice proposal (deciding where all your taxes go is absurdly unfeasible) but something that should actually be implementable, and probably be the most effective in creating accountability and give the public direct power over their government and its policies, as they should rightly have.

I'm not sure how much this would really help. You start off with a significant percentage of people who would most likely simply withhold because they are the opposite political party. Another significant group, mostly the 40% who don't ever vote, who don't know or care about politics and would either withhold or not withhold without really understanding the policies of the politician. I don't think it would be a very good indicator of public support.

I doubt it would have much effect anyway since most politicians are rich enough they wouldn't have to worry about that, and only need to be concerned about their re-election.
 
So if a Senator fails his constituents in his first year, you'd gladly wait 5 years to vote him out?

How do we know if they failed?

The average Joe has no clue what failure in congress is. Neither do I.
 
Las Vegas--Anything more to that "county rights thing" out there being held to a higher legal level than states rights as related to primaries, etc??
Berkley--how did her relation with Adelson get so bad??
What is hot politically out there??
My wife likes your avatar.
We have 3.
Harry Reid was at the nadir of his popularity at the time of the last election. Had the GOP chosen an opponent that was even more bat**** crazy than Harry, he would have lost. So I'm not sure how "the lesser of evils" theory applies to your concept.
 
It's not a full tax-choice proposal (deciding where all your taxes go is absurdly unfeasible) but something that should actually be implementable, and probably be the most effective in creating accountability and give the public direct power over their government and its policies, as they should rightly have.

Rather than full tax-choice...why not just allow taxpayers to choose which congressperson they give their taxes to? ...
 
Las Vegas--Anything more to that "county rights thing" out there being held to a higher legal level than states rights as related to primaries, etc??
Berkley--how did her relation with Adelson get so bad??
What is hot politically out there??
My wife likes your avatar.
We have 3.

Only people of the highest intelligence, the most appealing appearance and the most noble of hearts have 3 cats.:kitty::kitty::kitty:

3MEOWSLANDING5.jpg

My issue with Reid regards the Yucca Mtn. project and his use of fear-mongering to help him politically and gain him favor with the casinos.

Yucca Mtn. represented thousands of high wage jobs. The fewer jobs we have available, the less the casinos have to pay for skilled labor. Running videos of damaged trucks carrying liquid nuclear waste spilling on The Strip were a bit over the top. Scare 'em and sell 'em.

I don't know much about Adelson other than his massive wealth which he uses for political purpose rather than noble purpose. A selfish prick IMHO.

As for "county rights", I assume you're referring to the "competition" between Clark and Washoe. We in Clark pay most of the taxes and Washoe spends them freely on themselves, because that's where the Capital is.

Things seem to be very quiet politically at this point. I'm sure that will change next year as the midterms approach. I hope Tony Hsieh runs for an office since he's the only person in NV that actually tries to make things better for others instead of focusing only on himself.
 
How do we know if they failed?

The average Joe has no clue what failure in congress is. Neither do I.
Well, if that were the case, I don't think the average Joe would be willing to pay his representatives.

Oh look, another problem solved.
 
I'm not sure how much this would really help. You start off with a significant percentage of people who would most likely simply withhold because they are the opposite political party. Another significant group, mostly the 40% who don't ever vote, who don't know or care about politics and would either withhold or not withhold without really understanding the policies of the politician. I don't think it would be a very good indicator of public support.
Well, you could make the optional tax obligation equal to salary divided by the number of voters. But perhaps I'm also skewed by my environment--as a student representative, I'm fairly well informed and connected when I know most people are not.

I doubt it would have much effect anyway since most politicians are rich enough they wouldn't have to worry about that, and only need to be concerned about their re-election.
I'm coming from the point of view that politicians are paid too much anyway. Removing the money incentives from politics is a big thing that needs to be done one way or another. In my opinion, the more money comes out of this, the better. I used to think that if I were ever elected to public office, I would work for minimum wage. Of course, that's not actually possible, but in an ideal world, politicians would represent the people not for the money, but because it's an important duty to the public. I think it's a travesty that so few politicians have ever actually had that attitude. At the very least, they need to be held accountable, and letting the market sort them out is a simple and effective way to do it, in my opinion. Of course, it would also have to limit other sources of income, which needs to be done anyway.
 
Well, you could make the optional tax obligation equal to salary divided by the number of voters. But perhaps I'm also skewed by my environment--as a student representative, I'm fairly well informed and connected when I know most people are not.

I'm not sure you can make that work unless you make it so that only those who voted can have the optional obligation. If not you still have those who didn't vote making the decisions, and making it impossible to truly gauge public support. And I'm not sure keeping records of those who voted and tying them to taxes is necessarily a good idea.
I'm coming from the point of view that politicians are paid too much anyway. Removing the money incentives from politics is a big thing that needs to be done one way or another. In my opinion, the more money comes out of this, the better. I used to think that if I were ever elected to public office, I would work for minimum wage. Of course, that's not actually possible, but in an ideal world, politicians would represent the people not for the money, but because it's an important duty to the public. I think it's a travesty that so few politicians have ever actually had that attitude. At the very least, they need to be held accountable, and letting the market sort them out is a simple and effective way to do it, in my opinion. Of course, it would also have to limit other sources of income, which needs to be done anyway.

If you did that, only the independently wealthy would ever run for office, and those who were rich enough to run for office, wouldn't care about losing out on their salary. Honestly I think cutting down on only their other sources of income would be a better idea. At that point the simple salary of 100k would be a respectable enough salary that you wouldn't have to be independently wealthy to run for office, but not enough that anyone would ever do it just for the money that comes with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom