I couldn’t opine on that, because you gave no info as to tax laws or agencies in your hypothetical. I don’t know if this person paid $10 million in taxes or if they paid $750.
If you’re using actual and not hypothetical laws, I would need more details such as the years this person was in the public service, how and when they hypothetically accumulated their money, so I can look up the applicable laws. The years and methods are relevant, because a lot of reform in that area is recent.
~Max
And what exactly is that “inherent conflict of interest” when someone writes a book or rents apartments in buildings they own or has money invested in a 401K ? You appear to believe earning any money other than the government paycheck is a conflict of interest but don’t ever specify what the conflict actually is. And if earning any outside money is a conflict of interest, then presumably you want this to apply to all government jobs, so a mail carrier can’t pick up a few shifts a week at McDonald’s and the only people who will be able to run for part-time, barely paid state and local offices are people who don’t need to support themselves, as no one will run for the New Hampshire House of Representatives which pays $100/yr if they aren’t allowed other income - or do you also consider being supported by a spouse or parent to be corruption?
Your concept seems much too much like reliance on noblesse oblige for all of society’s elected official needs. I’d like to think that people who can’t afford to exist on a pitiful government salary (maybe they’re raising a family, maybe they have extra expenses due to disability, whatever) can run for office as well. I’m not opposed to wealthy people running for office, but I’d like to see candidates from all across the economic spectrum.
Lots of elected officials are not paid like Congress. (Besides which, $174,000 in Washington DC is not chump change, but if your spouse gave up their job to move to DC, you’ve got 3 kids to raise, and two mortgages - one for home and for a DC residence - it’s not going to leave you insanely wealthy.)
But set that aside - you want Congress people to have zero income after they assume office. Suppose someone is not re-elected. Are they now supposed to never hold a job again?
Yeah, and not only they but also senior staff past a certain level. Though widely criticized for giving the various figures as ranges (e.g “under 1,000”, “1,000-15,000” etc., rather than to the cent). For state officials it varies from location to location.
Also, let’s face it, “Obvious answer, is bribery” etc. Obvious? To someone who is not already coming in with a formed opinion about how that should not be possible?
Hmmm… so furthermore of we’re going to take “appearance of a convflict” to its fullest, no lawyers in the Judiciary committee, no MDs in the committee that handles health care coverage, no farmers in the Ag committee, nobody who owes a mortgage or student loan in the banking committee, since once they do their Cincinnatus and go back to their regular job they would be dealing with the very laws they passed.
At the moment, we’ve had a conversation about how it’s impossible to become a millionaire in thirty years on a Congressional salary. You seem to have acceded that this concern was not based on anything.
We’ve also had a conversation about Congressmen not getting into trouble with the FBI. Likewise, you seem to have acceded that this is also not a real concern since they do arrest Congressmen.
Given that the new conversation comes from the same source and that you’ve not made any argument for how anything bad would happen because a Congressman makes some honest money in their free time, I would say that we’re having the conversation for pretty much the same reason that we had the first two.
I’m quite willing to listen to argument that there is some bad thing that happens if we allow Congressmen to invest money and sell books but, no, it’s very far from a topic where we don’t even need to consider the underlying merits - and particularly not when the last two conversations careened off into the ditch.
Typical example of a strawman argument here. Did I say that once they leave Congress they cannot be employed in their fields? No.
I’d like some scrutiny to make sure that they aren’t exploiting their Congressional duties for personal gain, but there’s got to be some gray area, even if they enter a new field.
I find it remarkable how conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, doesn’t seem to bother people very much. I’m beginning to understand the OP’s question of how corruption is justified: most people don’t seem to care that they are being stolen from by their elected representatives, and seem to want to encourage unethical behavior on the basis of–what? “That’s how the world works”? “It’s always been done like that”? “I want some $$$ if I’m ever lucky enough to get elected to office”? “I like corruption”? “You can’t beat City Hall”?
Excellent. So do most of us. Our disagreement is with the presumption that the default is dirty play.
Because you haven’t demonstrated it to be a pervasive problem?
Zero sarcasm here–thanks very much for clarifying what the standard response to the accusation of corruption is. Apparently, it’s “what corruption?”
I was under the impression that owning a positive $10,000,000 net worth despite never having earned more than $200,000 in your life and having no other visible income sources is itself a clear indication of corruption. Seemingly, that’s just peachy with most of you.
No, it’s not - but earning money from writing a book, or making speeches or collecting rents on property you own or even owning property that increases in value are the opposite of “no other visible income sources” - they are visible income sources. and I don’t understand why you think they are invisible.
Point to a real live person where this is the case. Not a fictional talking point person.
LBJ.
And the hundreds of emulators of LBJ’s style of managing political and money-making careers.
To say nothing of “Donald Trump.”
LBJ left office 52 years ago. Can you identify one of his “hundreds of emulators” with specific evidence of their corruption?
Well, I’m with you there. But he’s such an over-the-top case that you can hardly use him as an example of “typical” DC corruption.
Although, in the cases of Trump or for that matter the Clintons it’s not a case of “no other visible income sources”. They had other visible lawful-income sources — the question is whether those were on the up-and-up.
I can think of two types of standard responses.
A lawyer interviewed walking out the building where their client was indicted, and the lawyer just says: “Wait until the entire story comes out.”
(ONE DAY, I’d like to see the news station run that clip after the client is convicted and simply say “We guess the entire story finally came out.”)
At the end of the movie The Pink Panther, Inspector Clouseau is on the witness stand being grilled about how he can afford his lifestyle on a police detective’s salary. He responds (paraphrase): “My wife is very frugal with the housekeeping funds.”
There are a huge number of ways a politician can be ‘paid off’ for doing someone’s bidding. For example, there is the speaking fee racket. Do a favor for a company, and after a suitable cooling off period you might find they offer yih $500,000 for a short speech to their board.
Then there’s the book racket, where you can get enormous advances for books that will either be purchased by the people paying you off, or the books are remaindered and the cost eaten by someone.
Real Estate has many opportunities for graft. Whitewater type scams are one of them. Anothef common scam is to use insider knowledge about future decelopment to buy up cheap land that is about to become very expensive land.
Then there’s lobbying, ‘consulting’, and other primo high income gigs you can land if you play ball while in office.
Outright insider trading was rampant not long ago. New rules against it make it harder, but clearly some politicians are still doing it.
You can also heavily leverage family members to hide your grift.
Lots of ways, and politicians, like nature, always find a way.
We just had that discussion… [rummages through papers]
Here:
~Max
If you spend $2000 a month on living expenses and pay about 25% in taxes, then you’re going to be keeping about $125,000 per year.
If you only take your first year of savings - so ignoring all later money - and invest it in Berkshire Hathaway for thirty years, you would have turned it into about $100,000,000. If you put it into a variety of fairly good holdings and get a 10% return, that’s only $2,000,000 but we are, again, ignoring the other 29 years of income. It would be very easy to get past $10,000,000.
If you’re not aware of investing, it’s really something that you should consider getting in on. It’s like playing casino games but you are the winner, not the house.
Your 401k is not corrupting you. It’s just smart.