I agree...in theory. But the reality is those things already exist. It is generally the wealthy who take office for a number of reasons.

a) You have to be independently wealthy in order to take the time to campaign. Johnny punch-clock working 8 hours a day isn't going to have the financial means to take the time to win and election.

b) Independently wealthy people are usually the ones with access to investors/contacts who can fund their campaign. and

c) Winning an election usually requires some sort of name recognition in your community/district, etc... So it's likely a business owner, a local city council person, etc... someone with existing ties in the constituency they are seeking to represent.

It's always going to be the wealthy (or at least moderately well off) that get into power regardless of how much they are paid. Because it takes wealth to even get there in the first place.

Obviously it's not enough then. Because they still take bribes.

Was just going to say, it might not be a bad thing. Here in India our politicians and bureaucrats are paid a pittance and it leads to super high corruption.

As if that's not already the case. Poor people can't become politicians, unless they become not poor.

Back in the day, a salary for politicians was actually a huge left-wing policy priority because of this. Sure, anyone could be an MP in Victorian England, but only a lord could actually afford to sit in commons all day, and in some cases cover staff and travel expenses themselves. People fought hard for them to be implemented.

Whether 200k is too much is a question. It's not unreasonable given how elite a job we're talking about, but if they cut that in half would we start getting lots of corruption? I don't know.

High chance this is negligible compared to the national budget, though.

70,000 should suffice, assuming they get reimbursed for expenses