Right now, I think they are being paid WAY TO MUCH. A first year senator, if they retired after ONE term gets 15,000 dollars a MONTH retirement. We are in debt because of THEIR SALARIES and retirement. I just think they would try harder if we didnt pay them, OR paid them on an elected performance eval. you?
2007-09-27 05:26:00 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If we didn't pay them, that would mean that the only people who could ever become elected officials are the super-rich. It's hard enough to get someone who isn't rich elected now, but if you don't pay them, the only people who will be able to run for office will be those who can afford to not get any income while they serve.
Also, your statement about retirement is completely false. Whoever told you that was lying to you. You should ask them why.
There is a five-year vesting period for the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), which means a one-term Representative would not get vested, but a Senator would.
A single-term Senator could take retirement at age 62. The amount is the average annual salary for the three top-earning years multiplied by years served multiplied by 1.7%.
Right now, a Senator makes $168,500 a year. If we assume that amount for the top three earning years, and we assume that the Senator served a single term, then we come up with a pension amount of $17,187 per year.
2007-09-27 05:37:22 · answer #1 · answered by Teekno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that they are overpaid. We need less of them and more accountability for the whole system. We'd probably save more than enough to insure everyone in this country with just the money wasted. I'm very concerned that the elections are won by how much money a person raises, that is a waste of money that could be used for other purposes and our officials end up owing favors for repayment. This is corrupt, and is so prevelent on both sides of the aisle. They should be paid a low base plus commission. If they show up for a vote, they get commission. Half of them don't even vote on critical issues. No retirement and healthcare forever, either, kind of like the jobs 90% of us do.
2007-09-27 12:39:03 · answer #2 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, you are wrong about the retirement benefit for a 1 term senator. 15,000/month is about an active senator's salary. The current average retirement benefit for those receiving them is about $60,000/year. The current max benefit (30 years of service) is about $121,000/yr. (A full salary for active members of the Senate is currently $161,000/yr, leadership positions a bit higher)
A 1 term Senator with no other federal service would receive a pension of about $24,000/year at retirement age (62 or older)
But in answer to your question, no, it would not be better if they were unpaid. Then we would have nothing but the rich elite protecting their interests, or the just plain corrupt.
2007-09-27 12:42:15 · answer #3 · answered by jehen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one works well when they're not paid. The salaries and pensions of 100 Senators are just a drop in the bucket. The reason why have doubled our national debt in 7 years is because for the first time in our history, taxes were reduced during a war.
Edit: the private sector salaries these men and women could get would be much, much higher.
2007-09-27 12:29:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't think we are in debt because of their salaries and benefits. We ar in debt for the G.W. Bush War.
But I agree some of their benefits and salary have gone too far. Until they extend their health care insurance to all Americans their policies (insurance) should be cancelled.
2007-09-27 12:46:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that you are right. If it were a lower paying/volunteer position, they would be there for the right reasons - not for the money alone. Just look at our military - I am pretty sure that the majority of them aren't there for the pay . . .
2007-09-27 12:33:03 · answer #6 · answered by vinsa1981 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Considering the amount of time put in, you would make the situation worse...only the independently wealthy could ever aspire to office (not that it is much better now).
2007-09-27 12:30:11 · answer #7 · answered by makrothumeo2 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
OOOOrah Leatherneck! I ve been saying this and asking this for a few weeks. These potato heads only care about their money and PERKS! If they worked like this on the outside they would be on welfare!!!!
2007-09-27 12:33:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, they would just take more kickbacks from companies in exchange for their votes.
2007-09-27 12:52:04 · answer #9 · answered by BrushPicks 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋