Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Should we pay our politicians more money?

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:53:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If a man WANTS to be president, he's the exact WRONG person to f-ing elect. People still don't get that.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:10:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:53:23 PM, smelisox wrote:
If a man WANTS to be president, he's the exact WRONG person to f-ing elect. People still don't get that.

And why is that? I doubt that someone who doesn't want to be president would do a good job. Being president takes a lot of commitment.

Anyway, it's inconceivable that we would ever have the option of voting for someone who doesn't want to be president - the prospect is practically laughable.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:22:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:11:42 PM, smelisox wrote:
They want power, respect, fame, and money, not to fix or help society.

Sometimes, but so what? It's not like we can force people into politics who don't want to go.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:22:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.

On the contrary, I think politician's should make a wage just enough to humbly support themselves and a family. I'm thinking maybe 50,000-80,000$ a year. This would attract more common people, as opposed to rich people who have a family history of politics.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:26:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:22:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.

On the contrary, I think politician's should make a wage just enough to humbly support themselves and a family. I'm thinking maybe 50,000-80,000$ a year. This would attract more common people, as opposed to rich people who have a family history of politics.

As if a high salary dissuades "common people" from entering politics. In fact, raising the salary of politicians would actually make it easier for "common people" to become politicians, because they wouldn't need as many connections to support themselves.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:26:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:22:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.

On the contrary, I think politician's should make a wage just enough to humbly support themselves and a family. I'm thinking maybe 50,000-80,000$ a year. This would attract more common people, as opposed to rich people who have a family history of politics.

As if a high salary dissuades "common people" from entering politics. In fact, raising the salary of politicians would actually make it easier for "common people" to become politicians, because they wouldn't need as many connections to support themselves.

No, the low salary would dissuade rich people with a family history of politics from entering elections, given that there would be more focus on serving the community and less on money and power.
Nolite Timere
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:37:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:53:23 PM, smelisox wrote:
If a man WANTS to be president, he's the exact WRONG person to f-ing elect. People still don't get that. ::

I agree with you. The public should be choosing who runs for the presidential office.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:50:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:28:28 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:26:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:22:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.

On the contrary, I think politician's should make a wage just enough to humbly support themselves and a family. I'm thinking maybe 50,000-80,000$ a year. This would attract more common people, as opposed to rich people who have a family history of politics.

As if a high salary dissuades "common people" from entering politics. In fact, raising the salary of politicians would actually make it easier for "common people" to become politicians, because they wouldn't need as many connections to support themselves.

No, the low salary would dissuade rich people with a family history of politics from entering elections, given that there would be more focus on serving the community and less on money and power.

Hardly any politicians are concerned with their salary (and the ones who are - the common folk - aren't the ones you'd want to drive out). If they're motivated by money at all, it's for the bribes and inside deals they can get. Notice how rarely congressmen attempt to raise their own salaries.

By lowering the salary, you'd simply end up with a slightly smaller (and therefore worse) pool of well-connected candidates. You wouldn't end up with common folk.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:11:42 PM, smelisox wrote:
They want power, respect, fame, and money, not to fix or help society.

Maybe, but don't you think they'd also want to be remembered well, as politicians who brought about positive change?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,070
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:00:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:37:25 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:53:23 PM, smelisox wrote:
If a man WANTS to be president, he's the exact WRONG person to f-ing elect. People still don't get that. ::

I agree with you. The public should be choosing who runs for the presidential office.

So some random guy is eating dinner one day and then POOF he must go down to the White House and take office as President or go to jail?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:09:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:00:03 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:37:25 PM, sword wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:53:23 PM, smelisox wrote:
If a man WANTS to be president, he's the exact WRONG person to f-ing elect. People still don't get that. ::

I agree with you. The public should be choosing who runs for the presidential office.

So some random guy is eating dinner one day and then POOF he must go down to the White House and take office as President or go to jail?

My ex-sister-in-laws husband is being groomed to run for the presidential office by his father's friends. This is the type of people who end up being president. If you want details of how it's done, I can share that information with you.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since politicians have such a large impact, it would almost certainly be cost-effective to offer high salaries if doing so meant even slightly (as in like 1 percent) better results. Of course, it's doubtful whether this is actually the case. If we offered too high of salaries, we'd get people who aren't even interested in politics running for office, which would surely be a disaster.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:17:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The president of some country (I think Uganda?) is so uncorrupt, and downright the best politician ever (and the only good one in the world) that he gives all his money to charity and survives on the equivalent of TEN DOLLARS a month. He sleeps in a tent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:28:28 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:26:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:22:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:09:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Benefits that come to mind:
1. Politicians would be less inclined to accept bribes, and would be less reliant on outside funding, thus increasing their freedom to vote how they want. Lobbying would also be less effective against them.
2. It would attract more talent, as people who go into politics often have to give up high-paying jobs.

Possible downsides:
1. Such a policy might attract the wrong kinds of people.
2. The expense.
3. Would probably worsen the politician's already tarnished reputation.

On the contrary, I think politician's should make a wage just enough to humbly support themselves and a family. I'm thinking maybe 50,000-80,000$ a year. This would attract more common people, as opposed to rich people who have a family history of politics.

As if a high salary dissuades "common people" from entering politics. In fact, raising the salary of politicians would actually make it easier for "common people" to become politicians, because they wouldn't need as many connections to support themselves.

No, the low salary would dissuade rich people with a family history of politics from entering elections, given that there would be more focus on serving the community and less on money and power.

For politicians rich enough to be worth driving out in the first place, a 100k difference in salary won't make any difference.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:45:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:17:23 PM, smelisox wrote:
The president of some country (I think Uganda?) is so uncorrupt, and downright the best politician ever (and the only good one in the world) that he gives all his money to charity and survives on the equivalent of TEN DOLLARS a month. He sleeps in a tent.

I wish there were more like him.