Are you in the US? Even at the federal levels, politicians' salaries aren't particularly high, relative to what those same people could earn in the private sector.

Congressmen earn $174,000. That's not a huge amount for a group that largely consists of successful lawyers, with a smattering of doctors and other businessmen. Many of them are millionaires before they take office.

The governor of my state (Virginia) is paid $175,000. Again, pretty good money. But, the current governor, Terry McAuliffe, was a successful banker and real estate developer prior to entering politics.

And, as noted in a sibling comment, the real problem isn't corrupt politicians. Corrupt bureaucrats are a much worse problem for an average citizen's day to day life. And those bureaucrats are not paid anywhere near as well as the politicians.

McAuliffe was as DRC financier before he became a politician himself. He ran for governor for the prestige of the office rather than the money so it's not likely he'd risk the embarrassment a bribe could bring. Someone independently wealthy doesn't have much use for direct bribes (it still happens, but rarely).

In a corrupt system, being independently wealthy just means you require larger bribes. Corrupt officials dont demand bribes corrupt because they absolutely need the money, but because they want it and can get away with it.

Sorry, the idea of comparing their salaries to what they could supposedly earn outside of government is just wrong. First not all of may have had substantial jobs or education prior to running for office. Lastly, most of them become quite well off after leaving office from speaking fees if not retirement.

They are excessively paid relative to the average American and their salaries should be curtailed to that of average American's so there might be some incentive to improving that. People bemoan golden parachutes of some executives in the private world but would be aghast if they learned just how overpaid many state elected and appointed officials are and some even double dip.

Political office should be service, not a damn lottery winning

The practical outcome of that policy would be to lock out anyone below a certain income bracket from political office. Living as a politician can be expensive and lots of people will find it beyond their means. There is a reason it's forbidden for congressmen to forgo their salaries.

At the congressional & gubernatorial level (and even the mayors of big metros), you're just wrong.

https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

Do not think politicians salaries impact corruption in any big way. As an simple exercise, compare what they spend on campaigns to the entire salary they'll receive on their term.

There are many factors, but the big ones are population acceptance and the risk of getting caught.

The problem is not corrupt politicians - they are for sale everywhere. The problem is acceptance of corrupt bureaucrats.

There are, in Mexico, 3,277 people employed by the federal government who earn more than 2 million pesos a year. That is well over $100K USD a year. This might not sound like that much in the U.S., but, for comparison, a teacher makes $7,812 USD in average for the whole year in Mexico, and someone making minimum wage would get $1,400 USD or so. We also have the fifth most expensive legislating body in the world.

In the absence of any negative repercussion for being caught, and in a culture that normalizes corruption, higher salaries don't make the majority of these people non-corrupt.

Economic inequality is both a cause and an effect of corruption. But it is not true that high wages for public servants are a vaccine against corruption.

This is exactly what i always thought. Many people always think that lower wages for politicians will solve anything ( because they are mostly jealous)

I don't think it does

I lived in Thailand when the now deposed Thaksin Shinawatras party Thai Rak Thai won the election in 2001. I remember many Thais saying he was the ideal PM because he was the richest man in Thailand and because he was the richest man, he would never be corrupted. Fast-forward five years and the military deposed him because of his corrupt politics.

As long as you have a salary you can support yourself and your family on, I don't think higher salary == less corruption. Au contraire, I believe that once you have a sufficiently high income/wealth it's very easy to start to disassociate with the "people" with an average (or lower) income/wealth. That disassociation can then easily lead to moral superiority, that you are above the law/morals of the common man.

"Corruption" had nothing to do with it, the military deposed Thaksin because his politics threatened the interests of the royalty/army axis that has ruled Thailand since approximately forever.

>Fast-forward five years and the military deposed him because of his corrupt politics.

Bullshit. The military deposed him because they were grabbing power and because they were worried about his close relationship with the crown prince.

Thaksin's power base lies in the rural poverty-stricken north. He was the first politician to actually help them. That's why he was so popular.

They all knew he was corrupt, but their choice was between corrupt who would help them and corrupt who would fuck them.

Thailand turned from a democracy into a dictatorship because of power hungry assholes. It had nothing to do with corruption.

Please, let's keep HN respectful and not devolve into reddit, even if you disagree strongly.

"This is one of the reasons top politicians are paid so well."

Really? That would be a fine reason, but it may have more to do with the amount of power and influence they wield, even over those who determine their salaries.

In Congress and my state, they control their own salary; however (in my state), the pay raise cannot take effect until after the next election, theoretically provided a buffer against last-minute or very large increases. I believe the same rule exists in Congress but I am not sure.

To be fair it's only a theory. I was told the same by a friend of mine who is a jurist regarding judges salaries that are high on purpose to prevent corruption. "That's the theory" he said. Western Europe.

I doubt it does much to prevent corruption. You see multi-billionaires working hard to influence tax laws to keep a few more percent of their income despite having more money than they could ever possibly spend.

I am pretty sure no matter how high the salary you can't prevent flattering the ego as a mean to corrupt someone: "It's not about the money, it's about who I am and I am important enough to them they need to corrupt me. They need me. They owe me now.". Or something along those lines.