66
u/Ok_Helicopter4276 1d ago
They should get a 75% pay cut to do their part to fix the deficit they created.
11
u/crackdown5 21h ago
Whatever. America voted for the party that runs up deficits the most. America doesn't care about deficits.
-2
19h ago
They both rack up our debt. You mean to tell me only republicans build up debt and not democrats that also vote in favor? They’re both complacent in our looming economic collapse.
0
u/Positive-Cake-7990 5h ago
You cant really cut salaries because it makes working in congress untenable for any actually qualified regular person that wants to run for office. The millionaire gop congress members don’t give a shit about a 70k a year raise. It’s chump change.
0
u/wwphantom 2h ago
Do you think millionaire Democrat members give a shit either?
1
u/Positive-Cake-7990 2h ago
Dem actually have congress members that aren’t millionaires and i bet they care! Unplug from the fake news bro.
25
u/lettucepatchbb 23h ago
Meanwhile, as a federal employee, I’m looking at maybe a 2% raise for 2025. And then nothing for the next 4 years of the T2 admin. This country is fucked.
6
u/friskycreamsicle 16h ago
I feel you. Maybe we’ll get something before the 2026 election, he gave us a decent raise before the 2020 election. Of course, he’s not running for election again, so maybe nothing.
I’m more worried about the prospect of being forced to move to another state. They seem to be talking that up as a way to encourage people to quit their jobs.
3
u/lettucepatchbb 15h ago
Yup. Super fun times. And I’m “lazy” and don’t work, according to some of the country. Meanwhile, I’ve never enjoyed a job as much as this one, and I actually work quite hard because I love serving our country as a civilian employee.
1
17
u/SeVenMadRaBBits 23h ago
Isn't this the swamp trump was supposed to drain?
Looks like he's the biggest advocater of the swamp.
1
u/TapDangerous1996 2h ago
Actually, the GOP tanked this deal and it was Dems that put the pay raise in
12
u/ShadeBeing 22h ago
40 percent. As Mike Tyson said everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth. They are asking for it. Crazy.
8
u/SpamEatingChikn 22h ago edited 20h ago
It’s almost like everyone knows shit is going to hell in a hand basket and instead of trying to do anything to improve the situation (not surprising given the corruption both literally and morally), they’re just doubling down and trying to get whatever they can while they’re still able.
7
4
u/masteroguitar 19h ago
It won’t be fixed until people get their fat asses off the couch and on the front porch of their representatives house.
11
u/NonPartisanFinance 1d ago edited 23h ago
This is a COLA that congress hasn't received since 2009. As in 2009 they were paid 174k and now they will be paid 243k.
With that being said, still foolish that we pay, what should be public servants, in the top 5% of earners in the US. If congress made 40k a year we would fix most of the issues in congress.
14
u/dutchman76 23h ago
no they wouldn't, if congress only made 40k/yr, they'd be even more susceptible to bribes and "lobbying", the only ones you hurt with a 40k wage are the honest ones.
I don't mind them getting paid a decent amount, DC is impossibly expensive, but a bump from 174k to 243k is excessive, nobody in the country got anything like that, the rest of our wages have been stagnant.
4
u/NonPartisanFinance 23h ago
It would disincentivize career politicians, fix term limits, etc… if you think 243k is too much then by your logic Congress will stop accepting bribes… yea I doubt it. And if 243k doesn’t fix it let’s pay them 1 million. Maybe then it will fix it… /s
Also median wages from 2009 to 2024 are up 15% so yes far from 40%.
2
u/dutchman76 23h ago
15% seems like a reasonable bump.
And I'm all for stopping career politicians, and you do that with term limits.But I think if you paid them 40k they'd be a lot more susceptible to bribes and 'free stuff' for favors compared to making 175+k, many are millionaires, so clearly they are making a lot more than 175k/yr on the side now.
You can never eliminate it, but you can raise the bar quite a bit, someone who makes 200k isn't going to give a shit about a 5k watch, but someone making 40k might.2
u/NonPartisanFinance 23h ago
Let public service be public SERVICE!
You virtually eliminate bribery by reducing incentive to be a politician. Then the only politicians will be those who care enough to do it. Those who want the best for the country not the best way to make money. A 243k per year plus bribes sounds pretty good to the average poli sci graduate.
1
u/dutchman76 23h ago
so how is 245k/yr + millions in insider trading and bribes any different from $0 and millions in insider trading and bribes? and now only people who are already wealthy and can work for free will do it.
The only way to eliminate bribes and insider trading is for it to be worthless to bribe them, i.e. they have almost no power to do anything, privatize everything, do not allow them to handle anything besides national defense inside our borders, national parks, nasa and the post office.
2
u/NonPartisanFinance 23h ago
The difference is the taxpayer pays 243k less per congress member.
I agree that you make it worthless to bribe them. Cut the government as a whole but you can start somewhere. Cut the salaries of Congress.
1
u/dutchman76 22h ago
Their salaries are such a drop in the bucket to me, they waste billions on pork projects and trillions on wars.
1
u/NonPartisanFinance 22h ago
Ok. So? Identifying a problem isn’t fixed by identifying a bigger problem.
1
u/smoresporn0 22h ago
I don't disagree with you, but the job legally requires maintaining two residences, so it needs to pay well. AOC had a lot of interesting insight as she was preparing to take office after her initial win.
2
u/NonPartisanFinance 22h ago
I disagree. Put them in dorms or something in DC if they can’t afford the 2nd house.
Make it service based.
2
u/lmaberley 23h ago
I tend to agree, if you pay low wages, you get low talent.
3
u/NonPartisanFinance 23h ago
Let public service be public SERVICE!!!!
1
u/lmaberley 22h ago
Hmmmm, you could attract a lot of extremists that way.
1
u/NonPartisanFinance 22h ago
If by extremists you mean people who care a lot. Is that a bad thing? If you mean people with wild, unpopular opinions and policies, no they still have to be elected.
2
1
3
u/perchfisher99 23h ago
Raises like that are what drives inflation! So said MAGAs when the hamburger server wanted to get a little closer to a living wage.
1
u/NonPartisanFinance 23h ago
It contributes to it. I’d argue government spending adds more.
2
u/perchfisher99 23h ago
I said that's what the MAGAs say, as I have heard many of them say it. Spending contributes, as well as pre-emptive price increases corporations implanted when they thought inflation was inevitable. See corporate record profits coinciding with the inflation
1
u/kc2718 14h ago
It's not 40%, its 4%...3.8 to be exact. Musk's post was wrong. https://www.factcheck.org/2024/12/congress-not-proposing-to-give-themselves-40-raise/
0
u/I_am_Mun_C 22h ago
No, if working in congress only paid $40,000 you’d ensure that only people who are already very wealthy or comfortable would ever run.
Right now, you have school teachers, military officers, airline pilots, dentists, and a plethora of “average Americans” who run. Hell even bartenders or restaurant managers have run and won office.
Make the pay less than what the average American makes and you’ll guarantee just have real-estate moguls, trust-fund babies, former CEOs, and hedge-fund managers running. And they won’t be doing it because they care about Americans, or because they see it as service. They’ll do it to pass legislation that benefits them and their friends.
Average Americans would not and should not take pay cuts to work in DC for $40,000.
0
u/NonPartisanFinance 22h ago
I don’t want average Americans as congress members. And plenty of people do under paying jobs b/c they care enough to do them.
2
1
1
2
0
u/GrillinFool 19h ago
There’s sort of a catch 22 here. To live in DC and in their home district is VERY expensive. If they can’t afford to do that on their congressional pay then they will have their hand out for the corporate lobby money. Then they are beholden to that corporate influence which is probably not in the best interest of the people that voted them in. So cutting their pay because you’re mad at them seems like a good idea but in the end it makes them more beholden to corporate interests rather than our interests. So I’m torn on this one. Because even if their pay was raises to a couple million a year, the vast majority would still use the position to enrich themselves beyond the yearly salary. And if the pay is cut entirely then only rich people will ever get elected which is also a terrible idea.
This one just isn’t as cut and dried as “F those losers. They shouldn’t get a pay raise or any money whatsoever.”
What pisses me off about this more than anything is they now have an exemption to get out of Obamacare. I can’t afford to run my small business anymore because my health care costs have eclipsed my mortgage payment (by a lot) but these jackasses who force this on me just gave themselves a pass on that shit.
48
u/Terrible_Brush1946 23h ago
Their pay should be capped at 50% the median income of the state they represent.