Should all politicians who have a net worth over one millions dollars receive no salary?

Answer 1

Class warfare is stupid.

Answer 2

I wouldn't advocate those numbers, but this is an interesting idea... could save over 50 million by my count. I think the honorable thing for the multimillionaire politicians to do would be to take a $1 annual salary like Lee Iacocca did to pull Chrysler out of the red. Then they could lead by example, when asking for other wealthy persons to tighten their belts to help balance the budget and cut the deficit.

Answer 3

They should receive a salary for the work that they do. Where we, the public, are running into trouble with their pay is oversight of their side benefits like trips. They should also not accept gifts from lobbyists or anyone else seeking favors or influence. I think they should work a certain number of hours or days, certainly not just 1 or 3 days a week. Earmarks on bills should be curtailed because they receive money from that in a way for "bringing home the bacon" towards getting reelected. They should work for the good of the people who voted them into office and whom they SERVE.

Answer 4

The salary you get paid has to do with the job you are performing not your net worth.

Some senators who are fortunate enough to have wealth donate their salary - such as former MN Senator Mark Dayton (of the Dayton's Department Store fortune). He donated his entire salary during his six year term to a Seniors group.

Answer 5

No, I think wealth has a way of leading to corruption. I think we should provide housing and a income equal to the G5 and make it a law that special interest groups have zero contact. The only exception is to speak in a public forum. I do not think that our politicians have time to spend their own money. It is an honor to serve and the reward will only come at the end of service.

Answer 6

I think a million is kind of low, realistically speaking. However if a politician is a multi millionaire then he or she can might make some political points by refusing to take a salary.

Answer 7

Do you know of any that don't? With the exception of municipal level politicians, I think most do.

Therefore you are proposing that they aren't compensated. So, in order to benefit from office, they must be either; altruistic and truly concerned only with the betterment of society and receive satisfaction from that, or they will be compensated in some form or another from those people or organizations that have interest in particular laws or policies being passed.

Answer 8

When you pay or don't pay someone based on need or lack of need, then you are no longer paying on performance - which will always have bad results. A little too close to Socialism for me. How about if Congressmen are paid based on how often they vote. The ones who aren't doing their job, by not helping to make decisions, should be paid less.

Answer 9

Come on now where you people come up with this sure they should be paid, Just like if you don't have a net worth of 10,000 maybe you should not get paid for work at McDonald's.

Answer 10

It wouldnt matter because politicians dont rely on the salary they get. They receive special interest money from lobbyist groups and gifts from them, to promote policies for their companies and clients best interests. They make the most money from companies, groups and individuals who pay them to push legislation which is favorable to them. Therefor the salary is irrelevant. For instance president bush makes $200,000 a year. Before he was the president he made approx 1.2 mil per year. Its about power not about money, the politicians already have a lot of that.

Answer 11

N O, One million dollars do not go very far, especially if
you live in Washington, DC and have a family somewhere else. Believe it or not, the Congressmen & women work their butts off trying to please everyone and make sure that their bills get passed.