I'd have to be pretty independently wealthy before I'd consider applying for a job that practically required me to maintain residences in D.C. and my home state and only paid $174k/year.
I'd have to be wealthier to consider it if it cost an average of over $10 million to put together a competitive application, or I had to reapply every 6 years, and even moreso if, as is the case with the actual Senate, if both of those applied.
(Yeah, you can fundraise for the “application” costs, but that's a whole additional job on top of the job.)
I’d much prefer the teachers and organizers be elected to Congress than the bankers and lobbyists.
No, you’ll get politicians for whom maintaining two homes, one in a high CoL location, isn't significantly difficult even without the income from the job. I mean, we’ve actually done the experiment and can see the results.
Why?
Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life.
Insider trading is already illegal.
Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if the public does not know it too can invest where their politicians have invested.
So keeping in mind this doesn't preclude lawmakers from investing or buying index funds or ETFs, but the reason is because they literally create legislation that benefits certain companies. CHIPS Act is a recent example.
So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that. What we want to do is separate "what's good for me" from "what's good for the country" and remove conflicts of interest like that. There's no real reason for a lawmaker or their immediate family to be buying individual stocks. Instead it makes more sense for them to invest in something like a market index so that if there are incentives to be aligned they should be focused on benefiting the entire market instead of any specific companies.
You lost me here. Participating in society is okay. Maybe in the case of a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, this could be the case. But an insulated lawmaker is definitely not the way to go. If a lawmaker riuns his financial status via the stockmarket, cool! Elect someone else.
> So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that.
They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else.
Imagine a politician attempting to pass a law banning guns but just before it passes that politician buys a bunch of guns.
Or, in 1930s, when an order was given that made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world.
> What we want to do is separate "what's good for me" from "what's good for the country" and remove conflicts of interest like that.
Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc.
Every politician gets elected because what they'll do is "what's good for the country". And then we elect the next politician
Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions...
So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks. The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on. The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks. The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward. And this is a thing we voted on.
> They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else.
So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well.
While I see where you are coming from with the rest of your post, you're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading, whereas I think there are shades of gray. Frankly, (as you mentioned real estate) the only reason that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level. There are a ton of injustices that still occur. Like buying a property and then voting to change the zoning or something similar.
Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped.
> So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks.
Some people see this as an issue, others don't. But, I understand that I am messaging in a place that has opinions that are different than mine. However, I owe my livelihood to having read this place as a teenager. So, here I am. I know when I one day run for office, the members of this board, likely, would not vote for me. I still like to exercise my thoughts and ideas in a familiar community.
> The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on.
That is one ideology. There are many others. Can you think of a honest, good reason that a politician might have to trade stocks? If you can't think of good reason, you're ideology has given you bias against someone (in the same way that it has given you bias for someone else). There many different ways of life, most people think theirs is the best way.
> The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks.
I don't think this is the best direction to go in.
> The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward.
We'll see if the policy shifts in this direction
> And this is a thing we voted on.
Who is we? Not me.
> So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well.
But if the politicians aren't following current laws, why would they follow new laws? (The law I am referring to is the stock trade disclosure one, but there are others)
> You're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading
Agreed
> Whereas I think there are shades of gray.
Agreed, even private citizens have to declare their trades to the SEC once a trade reaches a certain value.
> that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level.
I disagree, shifts in land value happen for many reasons including legislation. Are these shifts in value as volatile as the ones seen in stock market? The answer, IMO, depends on the time frame.
> There are a ton of injustices that still occur.
Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.
> I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc.
And I just explained that we are voting on these things and that disallowing politicians buying individual socks was one of the things that you categorized and that we are voting on.
So if you are arguing that we "vote in issues, etc." I'm just pointing out we do vote on issues and this is just one. So you either have to agree with what you said (and then agree with that I said), or refute your own comment. Your choice. There's no alternative to this scenario here.
> Agreed, but, More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents. I am not for that.
Then you propose no solution and expect things to just get worse indefinitely, without barriers, and for all of time. Which is kind of pointless and non-productive. Should we not have laws against murder or rape just because that begets more law enforcement?
It’s not just that senators can front run institutional investors, it’s that they can make the rules that cause a stock to rise or fall. Allowing them to trade in financial markets directly creates perverse incentives. If they want to buy funds, bonds, or toss money into a 401k that’s fine. Hell, but property. Just not publicly traded stocks.
that will happen regardless of the monetary incentive
> that benefit someone's personal finances.
I don't know how to contextualize this. There should be no slaves.
> "why shouldn't they be able to pass laws based on their investments?"
Hopefully, they are invested in their community, their city, their county, their state, their country. I don't know where you want to go with this. Obviously some people are... invested differently. Don't vote for these people
> You're looking at this from the wrong direction
we have different viewpoints, this why it seems this way
And the public do not know what their politicians are investing in. Congressmen are supposed to report their trades within 45 days, but that's too long to make a difference in something like the current stock market.
> Congressmen are supposed to report their trades within 45 days
contradiction
> But that's too long to make a difference in something like the current stock market
I disagree, the strategy an investor deploys could make the difference. Blindly following someone else's trades is likely not a good strategy
Lobbyists and donors give money to campaigns, which require untold sums of money these days, and a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party.
As to their actual personal means of a congresspersons wealth, they’re paid fairly high salaries (close to 200k per year, which, despite the expectations of this forum is quite a bit for the US) and yes, they have the ability to engage in their own investments and business dealings on the side. Not to mention their incredibly generous pensions.
> a congresspersons power within the party is directly correlated to their ability to fundraise for the party
I agree, trading stocks is an easy, relatively passive way of doing this.
The main issue at hand is related to the fact that congresspeople are able to trade stocks on the basis of the insider information they have about upcoming legislation/changes to government policy.
There are laws in place that govern congresspeople's trades. These are ignored. They should be enforced. If congresspeople (or who?) are ignoring/not-enforcing the previous laws, what are they going to do with these new ones?
Am I mistaken? I thought most political position are paid positions. Currently north of $150,000 USD for members of congress, I think?
I think the vast majority of US elected positions are unpaid or have a small nominal stipend, but, yes, federal elected officials are all paid (the salary, and even more the total comp, are...pretty minimal compared to the private sector for the kind of responsibilities involved.)
They don't. The $174k-193k (the latter for certain leadership positions) is their salary. They also have individual staff budgets, and there are shared services with their own budgets (CRE, CBO, etc.)
>pay for [...] research
Thanks for the laugh.
They might read research, but they aren't personally funding it.
You may wish to read up on the subject of government work, salaries, etc. before you go debating about it on the net. Most of this stuff is covered in early Civics classes, and as someone who presumably pays taxes, you might be interested in finding out where and how those dollars get distributed!
might read, or have someone else tell them the important bits. This cost money either way
> Through your taxpaying dollars, just like every other government worker?
If this were the case, why are the politicians even trading stocks to begin with? if they wanted money why not be a private individual and then there would be no scrutiny on trading stocks.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/
You can also read them, they're pretty comprehensive and exhaustively cited.
At the first-ever minimum salary for Congressional (non-intern) staff (which actually doesn't go into effect until September), it could actually pay the salary for 22 people with a little left over.
And lots of work is done by interns, who now do get some pay ($20k is allocated to each House office and $50k to each Senate office of this purpose annually), but not much.
(Yes, any private employer doing this would have the Labor Department all over them for wage and hour violations. Guess who those rules don't apply to?)
I was trying to clear up your confusion that staff (and other expenses) were paid out of a congresspersons $150,000 salary (which is also a bit higher than that btw).
I am trying to assert that political machines require money. Taxpayer money is one avenue the stock market is another.
I am also saying that the money allocated, by taxpayer money, may not be enough. One way to alleviate this tension is investing in the stock market.
If I am not mistaken, if this ban passes, would they not also vote to increase their salaries? (I would think so, because a source of income was made illegal) So, to conclude, I don't want to give more money to politicians. Let them make money in the stock market and actually enforce the laws already in place that governs their trades.
What is this hunch based on, given that you didn't know they had another $1,000,000+ to spend?
Politicians trade stocks
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Mr. Cole: That money could be put to use, to gain more money.
Paul: Explain how!
Mr. Cole: Money can be exchanged for stocks and bonds. The value of these securities shifts over time. Performing analysis on these securities can help you produce probabilities on how the value may change.
It's not huge, by rich-people standards (which is a legitimate concern, as it does lead to very rich people being more able to take politician jobs than regular people), but, what, you thought they relied on graft to buy their dinners??
Even as it stands, just relying on their Congressional salary, it can be difficult for Congresspeople to maintain a residence in their district and one in DC—which is a fairly expensive real estate market—which is effectively a requirement of their position. Within some fairly clear limits, increasing the salary paid to those in Congress would have a tendency to decrease their reliance on lobbying money, rather than increase their appetite for it.
Rather than paying our politicians more to hopefully prevent them from being corrupt I'd suggest putting them in prison anytime we catch even a slight whiff of impropriety.
I agree, and trading stocks is not keeping poor people from becoming elected officials either
They will if this ban is instituted
They have an annual salary.
What happens when they exceed the budget?
Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?