Keeping congressional salaries that low would encourage corruption and possibly discourage non-corrupt candidates with valuable experience, but I otherwise agree.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

yeah, grand scheme of things a few hundred people getting a salary that's comparable to what they'd get in industry, makes zero difference to total government revenue.

The only reason to make it lower is either out of some weird sanctimonious need to put them in their place, or some idealistic notion that lowering salaries would result in a congress full of serene monk-like sages who exist only to serve their people, when the reality is that it would heavily incentivize even more corruption than we see now.

Give them a million dollars each, and tax them 100% on every penny they make from any other source.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wouldn't give them that much, but I wouldn't cap it as low as OP suggested.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

I know it seems like a lot, especially to someone making a regular salary, but I figure it breaks down as $500k for what they would have got working in a similar level position in industry, and $500k to remove any right to complain about not being allowed to keep any of the money from their investments, house sales, book sales, media residuals etc. It's a number that pretty much everyone can be equally unhappy with.

I'm not simping for millionaires here, just trying to navigate a realistic solution to the underlying problems of corruption and billionaire-level wealth inequality.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You realize that’s the argument they made about Trump, right? “Having no money encourages corruption.” But Trump has money, so he’s less likely to be corrupt.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That is not directly related to what I was saying, no. I did not imply that people with money won't be corrupt.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Keeping congressional salaries that low would encourage corruption

All available evidence indicates that corruption is independent of salary (or wealth) and needs to be addressed separately.

The stock-trading ban and the low salary address the different issue of venal candidates. We need to do everything possible to keep money-grubbers out of the halls of Congress and in the private sector where the damage these creatures do can be contained.

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would say that capping the CEO pay would also lead to unintended outcomes. CEOs aren't going to just shrug and say "ok, I'll take a pay cut", and they certainly aren't going to give everyone a raise... instead they will just convert everyone making less than $500k and offer to bring them back on as a contractor. Or they will 'outsource' all of their departments to staffing agencies and the "CEO" of the staffing agency will only be making $150k.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It turns out that you can fix that quite easily, have a read of the IR35 laws in the UK.

Pasting from wikipedia:

The legislation introduced in July 2000 is designed to target disguised employment. It uses tests to find out if someone is genuinely in business on their own account or a disguised employee of the client. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary, i.e. their own limited company, and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And from that very same article:

It is hard to judge the effectiveness of the legislation since as of 2010 HMRC has not published any figures. On 6 January 2004 Dawn Primarolo was asked in Parliament how many investigations under the IR35 regulation have (a) been initiated, (b) resulted in additional revenue, and (c) been concluded without securing additional revenue. In a written answer she replied that it was not possible with any accuracy to isolate data relating solely to this legislation.[23]

...

The July 2009 issue of IT Now, the British Computer Society magazine, reported that between April 2002 and March 2008 the Government had raised £9.2 million under IR35 legislation compared to the £220 million that was initially expected.[25]

This amongst many other criticisms!

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Those numbers from the mid-2000s are sort of irrelevant because the rules got tightened up a LOT more since then, which leaves you only with that first bit in which you're trying to claim that lack of data is support for your case.

The reason there's no 2020s statistics on "how much money did IR35 bring in" is because such a statistic would rely on the calculation of a counterfactual based on how the world worked in the 20th century, making it effectively meaningless as a statistic.

I can however tell you firsthand that I know several people personally whose clients have been forced to take them on as regular staff within the last five years due to recent crackdowns.

Also, one interesting thing I noticed searching just now, is that almost every single piece about IR35 is written by organisations and groups who very much enjoyed not paying tax, so it's almost entirely hit pieces...

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

To be honest I don't have a case to make, I just found it a bit glaring that you mentioned it was "easy to fix" but then referenced an article which didn't really provide any clear evidence for that. I'm entirely open to the idea of IR35 (though to be honest I haven't considered it closely), and I can easily believe there are lots of hit pieces, but if it is as easily effective as you claim then there should be academic articles providing evidence even despite the confounding factors.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

If what keeps you from serving is money (in excess of a modest living wage), I don’t want you to serve. I want you to fuck off.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Our city council members rock a fat $6K a year. With a $150 a month travel allowance! Nobody's taking that job without having significant outside income.

I was at a party one time where the lady that owns half of downtown was introducing a runner for city council. Watched Brian Spencer (rich architect) cut her a $1,000 check, on the spot, to get her ear. She won and you know she owed him a favor or two. For a measly $1,000 bucks. Anyway, Spencer was on the council two years later. Imagine that!

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Obviously that sucks, but there’s a world of difference between $6k and $200k, and I’m talking about Congress, not your city council or some HOA.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would agree, but 1.5 times medium income is on the low end.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’d do it for minimum wage, and I’m not sure I’d trust anyone who wouldn’t.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You are currently working as a politiian or running for office then, I presume?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

My understanding was that being a member of Congress is extremely lucrative. I’m saying I would serve if it weren’t. I find its current state repugnant and overrun with parasites.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Lol okay, so you expect others to do work for minimum wage which you would totally in theory do as well just not in reality. Gotcha.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

No. I expect people who want to get rich to get the fuck out of Congress.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

That's a great expectation, and simultaneously provides no backing whatsoever to the poor logical reasoning that you.applked earlier.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

dbzer0.com, the instance of angry anarchists that don't care about practical solutions, lead by the admin that discourages voting

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

My proposal is pragmatic. If we offer a living wage (but nothing more) to serve in Congress, all the money-grubbers will fuck off back to the private sector, where these venal parasites belong.

Nothing of value will be lost, since the failure of our Congress is not for lack of esoteric expertise but an excess of depravity.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

An anarchist that discourages voting is like a vegan that encourages meat eating.

Emma Goldman has a few things to say about voting, and has better bonafide than yeahiknow3

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your instance's admin is @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Here's what they've said:

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/14560631

"Disregard elections and take direct action."

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/17059322

"Don’t waste your time electioneering. It doesn’t work. Provenly. Put your effort in literally anything else that would improve your life except this shite. Take direct action. Organize your workplace. Feed the homeless. Whatever."

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/14347565

"Again, the point is that the vote legitimizes the voting system itself and all the effort expended in electioneering. You very assuredly cannot be doing both direct action and electioneering."

I still have to give credits to @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com for hosting the piracy community, kudos for that; but I just have to disagree with their political views regarding voting.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

what practical solution did they say they didn't care about?