If all politicians got the average wage of the country in which they lived would they be more willing to help raise that average and be more in touch with the people they represent?
Would this also stop career politicians from entering the system?
I believe that this is a good idea and I would answer yes to both of the questions above. If politicans live like the average man they will understand the problems which they face on a daily basis. The question remains how that law would ever be implemented. No politican will ever vote for such a drop in their wage.
This is why so few countries have proportional representation (the US and UK elections of late were both draws and therefore should have gone into Extra Time but that’s not how democracy works) - no party will seriously reform the system that got it into power.
I think that, ideally, this sytem of wage regulation to that of average wage for government officials would work. However, I dont think that wage regulation is practical. I think that this type of economic restraint would be a deterrent to high quality candidates. Instead of pursuing a political career, many congressman or parliamentarians would choose a more lucrative profession in the fields of law, applied science, etc. I think that we would instead get politicans who are either already rich before entering office or little more than laymen seeking distinction through government office.
Is being a career politician a good thing? Shouldn’t people enter politics for other reasons than just profit and money? IMO its better if these people are left out from politics, politicians should serve the people they represent and not just make money out of it
You say that laymen will get in, although I agree, the question is, does an education make a difference in politics or is ethics and social responsibility more worth while.
I took a look at the histoty of the UK’s prime minsters; nearly all in the modern age had an Oxbridge qualification:
I think that the common perception that government is responsible for the poverty of its nation is incorrect. I dont think that the government should have responsibilities other than the protection of its citizens, the reward of good deeds with the preservation of freedoms, and the punishment of crimes through the restriction of freedoms. I favor a limited government. It is because government has assumed roles that it should never have been granted that the government is in such a state of debt and disorder.
I use to think this too. It sounds nice on paper the pursuit of happiness etc… IMO the government must act to stop one group of interests becoming too strong and therefore restricting the freedoms and happiness of the other groups.
Take business becoming too strong that the workers are treated so badly that they don’t get a FAIR share of what they have earned. Of course if trade unions become too strong then the ability of business men to start and operate becomes restricted.
Left unchekced the powerful subject the rest of the population to poverty and therefore impact their happiness. Therefore the governmet is only protecting its citizens. Although the government doesn’t create poverty, it should step in to make society fair and make sure nobody exploits another and hence restricts poverty.
One other point – not paying politicians well is generally an invitation for corruption. Look at Rome, the politicians weren’t paid a thing.
Also, by not paying politicians well I’d argue that it pretty much only encourages the indenpendently wealthy to enter politics. There is always going to be a lot of power in politics, the question is – who can afford access to that power?
Of course that point is largely moot given the contribution-culture we’re living in. If only politicians backed by rich and powerful friends can get into office, those politicians are forced to become puppets of those rich and powerful friends.
I think if you could get the income tax returns of all politicians across America for the 10 years before they won office you’d probably find most of them are fairly wealthy. At any rate, we don’t have to worry about the best and brightest being deterred from politics- depsite the high pay we have governement made up almost entirely of jackasses anyway.
paying politicians (on the national level) what we currently pay them is definitely a motive for many to throw their hat into the ring for a while, if not for good. it should be something quite a bit more reasonable, the average American salary is a good start.
while detracting some of the higher educated and more successful applicants would indeed likely happen, i don’t necessarily think this is a negative thing.
first of all, if they are doing it for the money, i don’t want them in office, period. politics is about representing a group of citizens, being their voice. not making a living.
second, historically, our founding fathers weren’t really paid all too handsomely to do what they did. many levels of politics were more like volunteer work while still close to a full time job … by their standards at least.
if someone wants to be the voice for a certain group, let them go into politics. if someone wants to make a lot of money, keep them out!
A very wise proposal, Bishop. It’s hard to imagine the low pay leading to any worse corruption than the rampant epidemic of graft and greed we currently have. Besides, we could take the millions or dollars we save and apply a bit towards better policing our legislators to insure things are above board.
Why should a politician, even if he’s the POTUS, earn more than a schoolteacher?
If the wage was too low, that would mean the average man could not afford to go into politics at all. Only the wealthy with a lot of money could afford to do it as a hobby.
Secondly, police in the UK get around the average wage. Although there is corruption it doesn’t appear to be exteremly high. Sure it could be hidden. I guess it would be obvious if someone on the average wage lives above his means anyway and if the police are not corrupt would not be a big problem.
The average wage at McDonalds is pretty low yet millions of people work there. I guess that would be a strong incentive to help build up the average wage.
I think the average wage would be plenty, if you mean the average wage of all workers in a community for local govt or the state for state govt. Naturally, the POTUS would earn the average wage for the country.
Keeping the salary for politicians in the $40,000- $80,000 range would drastically cut down on the number of career politicians, which would be a huge plus. I’d also limit them to the same social security that citizens get, no pensions.
Add some very strict & short term limits and you’ve got yourself a winner.
Thats a good point. Still they should do, I guess more demanding work then someone at Macs and so I would argue the average wage on those grounds.
I agree with the fact they should get the same perks as the average citizen too. Then they too would increase I guess. It seems the only question left, is how would this be implemented? Should citizens take to the streets?
Of course this idea, charming and sensible as it is, is impractical, free_thinker. Not becuase it’s a bad idea but because the government we’ve created is a monster that exists mostly to perpetuate itself. You can be certain that having created such a lavish gravy-train, the politicians and civil servants that are bleeding us dry won’t give it up easily.
how do we get the wages of the politicians down to a more reasonable “average?”
i think this would need to happen like the many other changes that need to occur in politics;
voice your opinion (to your representative)
get others to voice their similar opinions as well
find a representative willing to push your idea in congress
and of course this has to be done on a national level to the point where the majority of representatives in congress accept the idea
basically, it boils down to, like so many other things, getting involved with the actual process that elects your representative.
I guess that would be a strong incentive to help build up the average wage.