517

Retiring House Republican says $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress: 'Most of us don't have wealth' (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

223 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Rank-and-file members of both the House and Senate are paid $174,000 a year.

That probably seems like a decent amount of money, and it is: The median household income in 2022 was $74,580, according to the US Census.

But consider that members of Congress generally have to maintain two residences — one in Washington, DC, and one in their home state — and that they haven't gotten a raise since 2009.

Inflation, meanwhile, has eaten away at the value of that salary over time: If lawmakers' salaries had kept pace with inflation, they would be paid over $250,000 today.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, a North Carolina Republican who served as the interim speaker of the House following Kevin McCarthy's ouster, told The Dispatch that congressional pay needed to be raised in order to attract "credible people to run for office."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Fuck that, make it directly proportional to what the average american is able to put in their savings account. You do not get to be paid by me to profit if I am not also doing so.

Why the fuck are we all sitting here sympathizing with these fucking animals we have in Congress right now? They have not done anything to help you since they've been in office. If you're going to give us breadcrumbs, you also get bread crumbs. I'm shocked at the way people are thinking about this.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 10 months ago

No, I think there's a point to be made here

100k isn't a lot in DC, and they're going to be traveling back and forth a lot. It's a high salary, but it's middle class level when you add in the second rent and the expenses related to the job

Do you want your politicians to be worried about their financial situation? Or already be wealthy? That seems like a recipe for the kind of legalized bribery we have going on

It also means that power is the only draw for people to that position.

There's not a lot of security there, what do you do if you lose? You've now got two rents, maybe even two mortgages and a family, and the only job that is going to pay on that scale with those qualifications is something I don't want to exist, like being a lobbyist or working for a PAC

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Until laws are passed that limit stock trades/lobbying payments, I have no sympathy for their money.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 10 months ago

To be clear, most all of them can go fuck themselves. I don't really care about any of their financial states, and I absolutely support limiting their ability to make money off the office... It's also a few million dollars a year we're talking about, it's a very cheap way to make things better

What I care about are incentives and selection pressures. I want normal people with morals and idealistic people in those seats. I don't want rich people raised to crave approval from their peers, or people with dreams of climbing higher.

I want the job to be the end goal, not a stepping stone to another end

this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024

517 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2030 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News