Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested members of Congress should get paid more, but a majority of Americans want the complete opposite

submitted by useless_aether from (businessinsider.com)

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]SaidtItFirst 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Only if we tax them at 70% after the national average income.

[–]TheParanoidAndroid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What are you on about?

[–]SaidtItFirst 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

She's asking for more money, while saying there's a limit to how much other people can have. It seems hypocritical.

[–]TheParanoidAndroid 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you're talking about her 70% tax rate? So are you just misinformed or are you intentionally being misleading? The 70% was a marginal tax rate on earnings over $10 million. She even said herself that she would gladly pay it if she made over $10 million a year. That tax would effect very few people at the top of the food chain. Why do you defend the rich when they don't give a fuck about you besides the money they take?

[–]SaidtItFirst 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's the lying "I was raised in poverty in the Bronx" when that's not true.

Now that she's in power (at the trough), she wants more money, but isn't her claim to fame that she's fighting against greedy and corrupt politicians? So there's flip-flopping.

Trust me, when she hits $10 million, the bar gets raised to $100 million -- which is why she's going to be given $10 million.

[–]hennaojisan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She's already getting way more than a coffee shop waitress.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

She does have a point. It's the age old dilemma. If you pay politicians below average, you tend to find yourself governed by wealthier people who can afford to live off that low pay. Either that, or you wind up with people taking bribes, "gifts", or whatever else in the form of campaign donations to make ends meet. The solution would be to pay politicians enough that they don't feel the need to accept those bribes, but that's a pretty distasteful proposition as far as the public is concerned.

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

or people going into politics should be driven by their idealism, not greed..

[–]cmdrrockawesome 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Idealism is all great and good, but it's not always realistic. And I'm not saying it's entirely based on greed. It's about practicality. If you're expected to take on the added costs of a second residence, while still maintaining your primary residence in your home district, you could definitely find yourself running into financial troubles if you aren't compensated adequately. Well, at least the average citizen would probably find themselves running into issues.

It's a delicate balance. You attract people to a position with a number of things -- power, prestige, influence, and money. There are probably tons of qualified candidates out there who want to get into politics and want to make a difference, but simply can't afford to. Maybe they're making too much and have to support their family and their business. Maybe it's something else. You have to make the job attractive enough to entice people who are on the fence.

You're not always going to be able to rely on a person's altruistic nature to get them to run for office. Not in the real world anyway. Not when they have financial and personal obligations to overcome.