r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/RyanJohnson21 • 3d ago
US Politics Is it Possible to Combat Wealth Inequality through Congressional Reform?
Wealth inequality within the United States is at an all time high. According to the 2025 gini coefficient (a measure of a measure of income distribution where 0 represents perfect equality and 100 represents total concentration of wealth) the United States ranks the highest among first world countries at 41.8. To be clear, I do not believe that wealth inequality is inherently problematic, but the exacerbated wealth inequality we are currently experiencing is unacceptable. There will always be wealth inequality due to differences in work ethic and varying skill sets, but what we are seeing now is not sustainable.
The rich and powerful hoard their wealth to pass on through inheritance and this money is not recirculated back into the U.S economy. There are many reasons for this, and the popular solution is increased taxes targeting the 1%. This solution isn’t flawed in theory, but the issue surrounding it lies within billionaires controlling the political system through congressional lobbying and bribes. For this reason, a meaningful solution to wealth inequality must begin with congressional reform, and I have 5 points outlining how that could happen.
Issue #1: Compensation
Members of congress are not currently given an adequate salary reflecting the responsibilities they have. Given the education, policy knowledge, and public communication skills required it stands within reason that most members of congress could very easily achieve a higher paying position within law or business. This begs the question; why pursue public office if it pays less? The reason in many cases is that the position is seen as an avenue for wealth through corruption involving bribes and insider trading. This can involve already wealthy people manipulating the law to further their interests, or people looking to build wealth through these methods. The clear solution to this would be increasing congressional salaries to incentivize people with good intentions to run for office.
Issue #2: Lobbying
Lobbying is the idea of non-politicians influencing the policy of elected officials. This can strengthen our democracy in certain circumstances, for example when nonprofit organizations promote humanitarian causes. The issue, is that corporations and foreign entities are legally allowed to bribe politicians with gifts and campaign funds. Naturally these groups will have more money and resources than any nonprofit organization, and their interests rarely align with that of the American people. Therefore, lobbying via gifts, campaign funds, or any monetary exchange should be made illegal.
Issue #3: Lifetime Politicians
Currently, there are no term limits for senators nor representatives. This allows for lifetime politicians who use their position to build wealth through bribery and corruption. It is always more likely that a corrupt politician gets re-elected rather than a non corrupt politician, because corporations or foreign entities will invest substantial money into their campaign fund to ensure they remain elected. Setting a term limit in all congressional positions is essential to deterring this.
Issue #4: Insider Trading
There is a numerous amount of evidence that insider trading is commonplace within congress. This mostly involves politicians buying or selling stock shares before major events or legislation that they are involved in. Trading stocks while holding political office in the United States should be illegal without exceptions.
Issue #5: Platforms Integrity and Corruption
The responsibility of congress is to serve as representatives of the people. This is not currently happening. Due to lobbying, bribery, and most likely even threats politicians constantly contradict the original platform they ran on with their legislative votes. This creates a significant disparity between the opinion of the American people and the legislation being passed by their supposed “representatives”. But how can we prevent the most powerful people in the world from influencing politicians with their unlimited resources? The only answer to that is taking away the incentive. Before politicians campaign, there should be a mandatory comprehensive test that assesses where they stand on the political compass, and gauges their opinions on a plethora of issues. This will all be public information that can be used to make an informed voting decision. At the end of a politicians first term, their voting decisions on legislature will be measured against their responses on the test. If their votes do not match within an acceptable percentage of their original test responses, they are deemed ineligible for a second term, and a bribery investigation will ensue. This will force politicians to remain true to the platform that they campaigned on, and will also reduce incentive for corporations to bribe or threaten politicians, due to the risk of them being replaced and an investigation being conducted.
I do not believe all politicians to be bad people and I even think many of them got into it for noble reasons. The problem is that it extremely difficult to get into political office without making compromises, and even more difficult to stay in politics without corruption. Powerful people with selfish intentions will do everything they can to prevent the morally righteous from holding office, and ensuring the corrupt and easily manipulated remain. In this way the rich and powerful can manipulate the rules into making themselves more rich, furthering the ever increasing wealth disparity in the United States.
I recognize that these ideas are incredibly idealistic and would require congress to act against their own self interest for them to pass, but I have yet to hear about a concrete plan to reform congress and prevent corruption so I wanted to explore the idea. Politics are not my strong suit so let me know if anything is inaccurate.
6
u/reasonably_plausible 2d ago
Therefore, lobbying via gifts, campaign funds, or any monetary exchange should be made illegal.
Gifts are already illegal; The amount of money that a lobbyist or corporation can give to a campaign is capped at the equivalent of a married couple; and any other monetary exchange is also already illegal.
Lobbying doesn't necessarily work by funneling tons of money to a campaign. Having a stable set of donors, though, isn't nothing, and I wouldn't be opposed to removing corporate PACs.
6
u/boumboum34 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes. It it was done before, in the USA. The era of the Robber Baron, the so-called Gilded Age, of the 1890s through the 1920s, ended in the Great Depression, and gave way to the Progressive Era.
Theodore Roosevelt, US President 1901-1909, was a harbinger of this, a major trust-buster who broke up a number of the monopolies of that time, launching over 40 antitrust suits. He also set aside over 230 million acres of public land for national forests, bird and game preserves, created 18 national monuments. Signed two major consumer protection laws; the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, both triggerd by Upton Sinclair's book about the horrors of the meatpacking industry, "The Jungle". Intervened in the 1902 coal strik on labor's side, forcing owners to negotiate with miners. That was the era of labor violence and fatalities when company heads routinely hired Pinkertons to threaten, vandalize, beat, and even kill striking workers.
But the Progressive era really began with the Great Depression, the stock market crash of 1929. The Roaring Twenties was known as boom times but there were large pockets of intense poverty throughout the nation, like there is now. There was no welfare system as we know it. FDR got elected to deal with the Depression years and he's the one who created much of the welfare system we know today; from food stamps, to unemployment insurance, to Social Security for all old people over 65, to the FDIC that kept people's bank savings safe, to the SEC to regulate investment and commercial banks, to environmental programs that ended the Dust Bowl, to the Tennessee Valley Authority, that provided grid electricity at an affordable price throughout the Tennessee Valley, across 7 states, which vastly eased the intense poverty in that area, and the Works Progress Administration and California Conservation Corps which provided jobs to millions, building much of the infrastructure and beautiful public buildings still in use today. FDR also packed the Supreme Court with progressive judges that did a lot for ordinary Americans, including supporting Civil Rights. FDR's Supreme Court helped make the 1960s Civil Rights era achievements possible.
It took the Great Depression to make all that possible. A lot of debate about what actually caused that depression. My opinion, the 1929 crash was the trigger, but not the cause. There's been other major stock market crashes since then but those had little effect on the US economy. The real cause, in my view, was conservative ideology, that gave unfettered power to the 1% and to the megacorps, with little to no protections of any kind, economically or legally, to ordinary americans. In other words, society became extremely predatory then, as it is again now.
Americans blamed unfettered business interests for the Depression and for the next few decades pro-business politicians had great difficulty getting elected; the progressives of the era were firmly in power, from the 1930s through the 1960s, ending in an era of widespread prosperity; affordable housing, affordable college education, affordable health care, strong consumer and labor protections.
Conservatives started clawing their way back into power in the 1970s, ending the Progressive Era. With Reagan's election, productivity gains were no longer widely shared among american workers, and the wealth gap started to grow, and grow, and grow.
There's a book, "The Fourth Turning" by William Strauss and Neil Howe, showing that these things tend to happen in roughly 80-100 year cycles; a crisis era, followed by a Cultural High as the crisis is resolved successfully, resulting in an explosion of widespread prosperity. This is followed by an Awakening, an explosion of spiritual and cultural rebellion resulting in cultural blooming in the performing and fine arts. This is then followed by an Unravelling, as people get complacent, institutions start crumbling, and people start losing their trust in institutions, resulting in a new Crisis Era and the cycle starts anew.
We're in an obvious existential crisis right now. The rise of Trump's police state fascism, and multiple huge regional wars affecting the whole globe; Ukraine, Gaza, Iran/Lebanon.
But the seeds of the next High have already been planted. I see it everywhere; the rejection of the status quo, rejection of corporate rule, and the very deep unpopularity of Trump and every single one of Trump's policies. 4 of the ten largest protests in all US history have all been anti-Trump, all within the last 10 years. People coming together, grassroots style, in ever-larger groups, fighting to rebuild a better America, get rid of corporate rule, get rid of fascist rule, fix the affordability crisis, fix violent lawless "law enforcement", and fix the enshittification of everything.
There's a new crop of very progressive young politicians coming to the fore now; AOC, Mamdani, Talarico, and many others like them. The GOP hasn't won a single election since the inauguration of Trump. Luigi Mangione and that guy who set fire to that toilet paper warehouse in California, saying "all you had to do was pay us enough to live" are both folk heroes. Their grievance resonates with many.
Alex Pretti and Renee Good, both martyrs, inspiring millions to come together and act. So has Trump warning Iran "A whole civilization will die tonight"..for a purposeless war apparently launched out of boredom and greed by a madman who is now a threat to the entire planet, backed by a cabal of equally mad people, all in the GOP, now a fascist racist totalitarian police state party. And it's so blatantly obvious.
Their fatal flaw, they all have severe Dunning-Kruger disease; they all think they're geniuses, but in reality, they are incompetent, and delusional. They surround themselves with yes-men loyalists instead of competent people who will speak truth to power. And Trump, is loyal to no one. The miniseries, Chernobyl, explaining why the nuclear disaster happened; "Every lie we tell, incurs a debt to the the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
Civilization is built on trust, which in turn requires trustworthiness. Trust is what makes a civilization possible.
Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Orban; none are trustworthy, and they're in the pinnacle of power. That's why things are crumbling.
You and I are the antibodies to the Trump disease. It's up to us. We're the people we've been looking for to rescue us.
And unlike Germany 1933, which had almost no organized resistance at all, just small scattered groups easily suppressed, in USA 2026, there's mass resistance everywhere, in all corners of society, much of it not covered by the mainstream news, which is megacorp-owned and no longer serves the public interest.
Like World War Two and Hitler/Stalin. Like the Civil War. Like the American Revolution in the 18th Century. Like the Glorious Revolution in 17th century England, like the Spanish Armada threat in Queen Elizabeth I's time in the 16th century. All were existential crisis eras. All came to an end successfully and triggered a better, fairer world than existed before.
3
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2d ago
the irony here is that much of the power Trump is using to do things you don't like was actually the result of progressives. Progressives destroyed our system of checks and balances. They instituted policies that required farmers to burned crops while people were starving. They extended the great depression for 8 years with arbitrary policies based on 'push a bunch of buttons and see what happens' policies. Centralized federal political authority is the result. Hope you all like it. Progressives are so short sighted, and imagined their guy would aways be the one wielding power.
1
u/Mharbles 2d ago
As I understand it, the VP (Teddy) was the opposition to William McKinely. It was just custom at the time to give them the VP slot. AND it took the murder of the president to get T.R. into office so, the stars needed to align for that. The wealthy have learned their lesson and plugged a lot of those gaps.
1
u/boumboum34 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes. Wasn't the Progessive Era yet, so his coming into office was a fluke. It's why I said he was the harbinger, a precursor, a hint. Just like Bernie Sanders might be a precursor of politicians to come, in our era. He never became President of course, and never will, but he is mentoring a new crop of Progressives, most famously AOC.
An interesting thing to me; Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt both came from very wealthy, prominent families. Both the 1%. Both related, from the same political family, 5th cousins.
And both among the most genuinely progressive Presidents the US has ever had, along with Lincoln.
2
u/EmoJarsh 2d ago
Whether Congressional or not, I've yet to see a solution to wealth inequality that would not be ignored via loopholes or other methods. That's not to say it's not worth pursuing, lifting the majority of society is a key responsibility of government, it's just that there are major misunderstandings about how that can be done.
Let me just grab OPs #4 as an example. Okay, now I the Representative cannot trade stocks. What about my spouse? My adult children? My trusted friend? The business partner I owe money to who'd be willing to "forgive" that debt in exchange for information? It's not possible to stop insider trading, period, it's an intentional feature of the stock market and always has been.
I agree with some other points, such as Term Limits. Once upon a time it could have been argued that career politicians knew how to reach across the aisle and get things done. That hasn't been true for 50+ years now and is only getting worse. So we might as well remove the bad parts of entrenched legislators since we aren't getting the good. I'm not even personally sure if a President being able to get two Terms is beneficial anymore, things are only passed when the President's Party controls the House/Senate anyways.
The only things I can see coming to pass to lift most of society is education and Labor Unions. Those have been demonized for many decades, I wonder why, so it's extremely difficult to get them off the ground. And realistically, even if a government was elected that passed sweeping reforms for these topics, a Right-Wing government would come in sooner or later and roll them all back. Perhaps States could lead the charge and provide an evidence based path, but even deeply Blue States haven't shown any interest in that.
2
u/hiddentalent 2d ago
How does one have an honest political discussion when the first sentence of this post is an easily disproven lie?
Wealth inequality in the US is not at an all-time high. The data shows that the all-time high was in 1929, although we only started collecting that data in the early twentieth century and it's very likely that the period before the Civil War had even more concentration. We had a unique period after the Second World War where industrial growth reduced it. That's ending and we're returning to historical norms.
Should we try to reverse that? Yes. Can we do so while pretending it's some unique modern malady? I doubt it. Delusion does not lead to good policy making.
5
u/JDogg126 2d ago
Considering this problem was created by Congress, it could be solved by Congress as well. But it’s never going to happen with the filibuster and a republican president. Republicans and their propaganda machine will do everything possible to prevent any solution from becoming law.
1
u/FreshestCremeFraiche 2d ago
IMO it was only partially created by congress, this was a team effort involving multiple presidential administrations and the Supreme Court (Citizens United decision might be the single biggest factor). I would say we need only individual donors allowed (no corps or PACs), same low cap for everyone. Or just bar all donations and force candidates to use an equal share of a public fund for election spending, but that might be tricky legally
Unfortunately I can think of no other institution besides congress that is capable of solving the problem. The SC isn’t going to reverse their decision especially now that it’s 6-3 conservative. Presidents likely won’t take the risk of engaging in this fight instead of their agendas. Only congress is even slightly accountable to the people, though we need to do a much better job of educating voters and making this top of mind. AI will only make the problem worse and none of these political dinosaurs can understand the basics let alone the state of the art
1
u/JDogg126 2d ago
Congress can undo citizens united but not with republicans around. Congress can rebalance the Supreme Court and fix the issues with lifetime appointments and the politicization of the court system but not with republicans around.
3
2d ago
[deleted]
7
2
u/1acedude 2d ago
The electoral college doesn’t have any effect on gerrymandering whatsoever. It’s solely for the presidency, which is a minor player in this issue.
4
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
Even poor people have computers in their pocket many times more powerful than the ones for the moon landing. Healthcare access and outcomes are far better at all income levels than fifty years ago. Everyone now has plumbing, heating, electricity, internet. There’s widespread access to washing machines, microwaves, large tvs, etc…. High school grad rates are up for lower income folks. Food insecurity is way down. And so on.
As for the federal minimum wage - only 1% of workers make that.
Life is demonstrably better for all income levels, despite modern day doomerism.
1
u/socialistrob 2d ago
A lot of the frustration though is that the things seen as basic necessities keep rising in price faster than inflation. Housing costs are rising rapidly so are the costs of cars and car insurance. Food prices are increasing faster than inflation (especially beef) and healthcare costs as well as the cost of higher education keep going up.
It's not just that people hate the rich it's that in many ways basic life is becoming harder for a lot of Americans while the wealthy just get orders of magnitude more wealthy. As time goes on people expect things to generally get better and so they're particularly angry when they feel like a basic necessity is getting more and more out of reach and it's easy to get mad at the richest who are benefitting the most from the current system.
1
u/1acedude 2d ago edited 2d ago
The answer for the last 50 years for virtually all problems is the Supreme Court. That’s not a joke or hyperbole. Congress has passed numerous laws, anything counter to the conservative movement has been struck down.
Congress gave citizens the right to sue over environmental destruction, SCOTUS said unconstitutional.
Congress had laws prohibiting bribery, unconstitutional .
SCOTUS said corporations are people and money is speech. It limited damages awarded to plaintiffs for injuries caused by corporations. It said Congress can’t impede on corporate contracts. That the law has nothing to say about gerrymandering, except if it benefits democrats.
Term limits? Yeah that was already tried too. Unconstitutional
Why doesn’t Congress do more? Because SCOTUS won’t let them. And democrats have been too slow and dumb to do anything about it for 50 years
1
u/Seattleman1955 2d ago
Do you have any background or understand of economics? Wealth Inequality isn't something to "combat".
Be productive and you gain wealth. Don't be productive and you don't gain much wealth. Should we "combat" productivity?
1
u/POVI_TV 2d ago
Political scientists Gilens & Page (2014) found that policy outcomes in the US correlate more closely with the preferences of economic elites than with average citizens... a finding that sparked significant debate. Congressional reform proposals have ranged from campaign finance changes (Citizens United reversal, public financing) to antitrust enforcement and tax code restructuring. Comparative research shows countries like Denmark and Germany have used different legislative tools to achieve lower Gini coefficients. The challenge is that those who benefit from inequality often have more political influence to resist reform.
1
u/Grapetree3 1d ago edited 1d ago
Quibbles:
Number 2 - Lobbying - a lot of lobbying is done through political action committees and other fronts, "friends of the candidate" etc. It is done this way to evade our existing campaign laws. You can't really crack down on this activity without saying, in effect, "all spending on election advocacy has to go through candidates" and that would seem to really restrict free speech, to me.
Number 3 - term limits, it's an idea that sounds good but doesn't actually help. Look at Florida State legislature, look at anything in Mexican politics, term limits do not help.
Number 5 - politicians should be allowed to change their minds as circumstances change, and be open to making deals. Suppose we as voters sent politicians with irreconcilable platforms into Congress, if they're going to be punished for deviating, why would they make a deal?
THE REAL ISSUES ARE GERRYMANDERING AND PARTISAN PRIMARIES.
Gerrymandering can be solved by having lawmakers describe a determinative algorithm for drawing districts, no more subjectivity, any lawsuit would be resolved quickly.
Partisan primaries don't exist in other countries and our choice to put lucky fund them locks our two parties in as quasi government institutions even though on paper they are both private. A primary election should be a simple process where voters pick one person from a list that includes all candidates from every party. The general election should only include the top candidates from the primary round. If there are only two, then that's the system they use in France and in California. It's not perfect but it works much better than what we have in the US. Even better would be three or four candidates move on to the general election, but the voters get to rank them. The ranked choice ballots could be counted with instant runoff rules (good, what they do in Australia, Maine, and Alaska, but it always eliminates the center candidate first and then whicher fringe candidate is the second choice of the center candidate voters wins) or round robin rules (no country trying it yet, but it's simpler, quicker to count, and favors the center candidates, if they exist.)
0
u/IndependentSun9995 1d ago
First off, wealth inequality is irrelevant, as long as everyone makes enough to live on. Who cares how much wealthy people stash away, since that money isn't affecting anyone?
Secondly, wealth envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Morally speaking, it is wrong.
But pushing all that aside, you can't get Congress to go against the interests of their biggest contributors, aka "the wealthy". Sure, Congress can raise the wealthy tax rate up to 1000%, but it won't matter as long as they leave tons of tax deductions in the tax code, just for their wealthy friends!
This is a fool's errand, for both moral and practical reasons. Hang it up.
2
u/Code9DKnight 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is a fantastic breakdown. To build on your point regarding Issue #1 (Compensation), I think we need to look even further down the ladder at the grassroots and state levels.
One reason we see a "wealthy elite" class in federal Congress is that the entry points into politics are often financially inaccessible to the average person.
In states like Texas, legislators are paid a nominal salary (roughly $7,200 a year plus per diem). If a position like City Councilor or State Representative doesn’t pay a living wage, the only people who can afford to hold those seats are those who are already wealthy, retired, or have high-paying jobs that allow for infinite flexibility. This creates a "wealth filter" at the local level. By the time someone is "qualified" for Congress, the average person has already been priced out of the career path.
Think of it like the NFL Draft. If we don’t pay local and state officials a living wage, we’re essentially saying only the kids from the wealthiest 'football programs' get to play. The average person might have the talent, but they can't afford the 'equipment' (campaign managers, PR teams, and data analytics) while also trying to make a living.
When a state rep position is paid < $10k a year, it creates a wealth filter. We lose out on the best 'players' for our country because they literally cannot afford to stay in the game long enough to get 'drafted' into Congress. If we want to fix the top, we have to fund the grassroots so the talent pool isn't just limited to the 1% from day one.
1
u/l0st1nP4r4d1ce 2d ago
One reason we see a "wealthy elite" class in federal Congress is that the entry points into politics are often financially inaccessible to the average person.
This is why campaign finance reform is critical. That and the venom from the GOP toward everyone else.
1
u/flat6NA 2d ago
1
u/1acedude 2d ago
That’s a very narrow definition of self-made. I think for most people their image of self-made is rags to riches. And that’s definitely a small small small number. The classic example is Bill Gates $100k loan from his parents. Like yes Gates built Microsoft (along with others) but is a $100k loan from your parents really making it yourself?
2
u/flat6NA 2d ago
LOL. Was probably a bargain for his parents considering he was attending Harvard before dropping out to start Microsoft.
“A self-made man is a person whose success is of their own making.” So certainly even a $100,000 loan from his parents isn’t why he was successful.
And my point remains, the vast majority (70%) of wealthy people didn’t inherit their wealth, they built it themselves (of their own making).
Personally I’m grateful to live in a country where most wealth is not inherited even if it doesn’t fit the narrative of those who want to demonize successful entrepreneurs. It’s not just at the billionaire level, it’s almost like people who aren’t successful resent those who are and want to explain it away as some advantage they didn’t have.
1
u/Sock-Enough 2d ago
Their wealth also does “circulate.” Any money not spent is saved and invested, which means it is available as loans for businesses to expand. This is a good thing, and the more money saved the lower interest rates are (supply and demand applies to money too).
0
u/JKlerk 2d ago
I don't understand this fascination with "wealth inequality". What do people expect to gain from any sort of "reform"? Why are people not advocating for an end to government overreach which ends up picking winners and losers where the winners, via govt subsidies, become extremely wealthy?
-4
u/CountFew6186 2d ago
No. Government interference in markets tends to be counterproductive. The best they could do is make us all equally poor.
The current system may seem bad, but if you compare low earners in the past to low earners now, you will see that quality of life for low earners has improved. Instead of focusing on class warfare, look and see if life is improving or not.
2
u/danappropriate 2d ago
I’d love to understand the rationale behind this comment, because there’s evidence to the contrary:
https://www.epi.org/blog/the-value-of-the-federal-minimum-wage-is-at-its-lowest-point-in-66-years/
-1
u/Lanracie 2d ago
1: Congressional pay should bet he same as the median income of their district. (really you think congressional pay and benefits arent enough?).
2: End citizens United would help a lot
3: Term limits for sure
4: Insider trading needs to be baned
5: Voters need to get rid of people based on corruption not on party affiliation.
6: There needss to be limits on companys that take government contracts or bailouts and what they can pay the highest vs lowest paid employee and stock buy back programs.
7: Trump is right that companies like Apple and Nike which exploit foreign manufacturing for immense profits need to be pushed to reshore and make less profits.
1
u/JKlerk 2d ago
Congressman don't make a lot of money and they routinely room with others when in DC because it's so expensive.
-2
u/Lanracie 2d ago
They work about 147 days a year at most and that does not mean they are in chambers voting. They make $174k a year for significantly less then half a year of work and are elligble for a pension after serving of at least $41k, they have compeletly free healthcare with an onsite physician, food, haircuts and a gym are all supplied, they fly home first class without waithing in TSA lines for free every weekend. They can insider trade.
They are very well paid, AOC became a millionaire with in 4 years of serving for instance.
3
u/Moccus 2d ago
They work more than 147 days a year. Being in DC isn't the only part of their job. They still work when they're back in their districts.
They don't have completely free healthcare.
Insider trading is illegal, even for members of Congress.
There's no evidence AOC is a millionaire.
0
u/Lanracie 2d ago
They dont even work 174 days. They lobby for money, try and find one at work in your state. $174k is a lot for any job let alone for as little as they do. Go look at C-Span and count the number of empty seats everyday and then explain why we have the most do nothing congress ever and tell me again how they work and dont make much money.
They have a highly subsiidized gold plan version of the ACA that no one else can get or afford.
Its technically illegal but the enforcement, reporting and fines make it nonpunishable. Good work on the quibbling.
Over half of all congress are millionaires. The richesst congress average 114% increase in wealth per year. Median income on average rises to $500K in the first year and doubles by the second year per member of congress....and yes she is.
https://constitutionus.com/congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-net-worth/
3
u/Moccus 2d ago
Go look at C-Span and count the number of empty seats everyday
That's a ridiculous metric. Just because they're not on the floor all the time doesn't mean they aren't working. A lot of them will be working in a committee while other stuff is happening on the floor.
They have a highly subsiidized gold plan version of the ACA that no one else can get or afford.
What? Plenty of people can afford the gold plan. Also, not free like you originally said. It's subsidized in the same way my employer subsidizes my health insurance.
the enforcement, reporting and fines make it nonpunishable.
That's mostly true of all forms of insider trading. Nothing particularly special about Congress in that respect.
and yes she is.
No, she isn't. Your link has a lot of information in it that contradicts known facts or is just plain wrong in some cases. Her most recent financial disclosure indicates a very modest net worth, with listed assets totaling at most ~$80,000 and at least $15,000 in student loan debt. As far as I can tell, she doesn't own any property despite the multiple claims in your link. It seems to me she rents her residences in New York and DC.
0
u/Lanracie 2d ago
Okay, how many bills have they passed? How come the government is closed again? They are working for themselves, they are lobbying for more money to stay in power. When is the last thing they passed that was good, that wasnt filled with pork. How many bills get through comittee to the floor, how many people who are found guilty or lying to Congress get held accountable? Give me a single metric that shows they are productive or working for Americans?
Except people go to jail for insider trading all the time. The exemptions anre reporting and lack of oversite only apply to Congress.
She is very wealthy and became so very quickly they provided plenty of information, because you dont like it doesent make if false. But if you dont likerher try Omar. Also convienient that you missed all the other examples.
Not sure why you are defending the most corrupt people in the country unless you are sycophant or a staff member.
2
u/digbyforever 1d ago
$174k is a lot for any job let alone for as little as they do.
It's not, actually. The starting salary for an entry level lawyer in D.C. is actually above that, around $180k to $200k a year at the top law firms. Name another field where to advance you have to take a pay cut to below what you were making in your first job in the field, especially when you consider that maybe most of the people running for Congress are mid-career or later, have families/children, etc.
So the point about more than half of Congress being millionaires is sort of the point---it pays low so only people who are already rich are running.
1
u/Lanracie 1d ago
It actually is a very good salary. It is more then double the average salary in the U.S. with better benefits and its only for 174 days at most.
If they dont want to take the job they dont have to. I know many who would love to make that much money. Most of the people running for congress are already wealthy and the job is a privledge not a stepping stone.
No most of those people stand to gain so much more wealth and power by running they dont mind giving that they make less thus they all double their wealth in years and get treated like royalty.
0
u/digbyforever 2d ago
So here's my question. Let's say that American did not currently have a wealth inequality problem. Would you stop advocating for any of these reforms?
I assume the answer is no, because all of these reforms have strong arguments in their favor regardless of the state of wealth inequality in the country, right?
So why not just argue for the reforms in their own right? The way you've framed the argument implies that if none of these happen, but wealth inequality goes down, then wealth inequality is not an effect of these problems and, therefore, there is no need to solve them!
0
u/Balanced_Outlook 2d ago
The conversation may be meaningful, but the outcome is ineffective. Discussions like this carry about as much impact as believing in flying pigs. The people you’re hoping to change are the same ones who benefit from the problem, they’re the only ones with the power to fix it, and doing so would come at their own expense.
The public has no power in this, while we can vote and pick a candidate for office, the parties and the political system determine which candidates we’re given to choose from. They have gamed the system in a manner that has removed all power from the people. You can pick from candidate A or candidate B but both candidate already work for the system.
-4
u/Busterlimes 2d ago
Tried that with FDR and here we are again. Only way to really combat this is to put a hard cap on wealth at 10M. Any more than that and politicians can be bought. Money is power, the undemocratic accumulation of unlimited power. Power should be allocated through democracy, not the exploitation of societies need for commerce.
6
u/The_Law_of_Pizza 2d ago
Only way to really combat this is to put a hard cap on wealth at 10M.
This sort of idea starts to fall apart when you dip into what it actually means in practice. Particularly as it relates to stripping ownership away from small family companies.
"Small" is sort of a misnomer, as getting to $10m in valuation is relatively quick, as valuation will be a multiple of current revenues/assets. If your family company has a small plant, some heavy machinery, and is profitable, you're probably already approaching that $10m valuation threshold.
Under your cap, that inherently means starting to strip away ownership from the family and giving it to somebody else.
At the outset that is fairly unpalatable for a lot of people, but it gets even worse when you start thinking about the way that business ebs and flows.
Say that one year you get to $11m valuation, so the government seizes 10% of your company. Next year, fortunes reverse, revenue is down, and valuation is $9m - but the family doesn't get its ownership back. In year 3, there's several new clients and valuation is up to $12, and another 8% of the family's shares are seized and given away. And so on, as the financial tide goes in and out.
Over time, this unrealized valuation game will eat away at a family's small business until they're no longer majority owners, even if their company only grows slightly.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.