A proposition on the income of US public servants...

[Snipawolf]

This is basically a repost from my same topic on the OL forums. I am just spreading it around and seeing what Objectivists think of it.

"I'm of the opinion that if all public servants were paid an amount of money equivalent to the average annual income of the US citizen, then the government as a whole would massively improve. Career politicians would likely pursue other careers as their income would be severely cut. If they have a degree in law, economy, etc, it would be better served if it were employed by a private company. This would take the immoral (immoral to an Objectivist, who believes that abuse of an elected position of power for personal gain is essentially being a looter) politicians out of office and out of public service. This would leave moral people who are honestly worried about the welfare of the country as a whole to take office. Even if an immoral politician took office, to directly raise his income, he must raise the income of all US citizens. The politicians and government workers would also be directly influenced by the rise and fall of the economy and the rise and fall of the income itself after taxes are taken out. Naturally, this would dissuade the government from throwing any kind of social/welfare taxes into the income taxing, as well as likely causing them to lax taxing as a whole. The government itself would also use much less of the revenue it gains to support paying off politicians and public servants and this money would be freed up for other uses.

I believe that public servants (especially elected ones) make the CHOICE to be responsible for the citizenry of the country that they are employed for. This choice should not be dissuaded by an average (literally) income. This also puts a politician in the position of an average American, provided (s)he is not backed by a wealthy benefactor. By being in the position of an average American, they are living in a condition which affords them a view of how best to improve the country.

This is just something I've been pondering lately. I don't think it'd ever come to fruition unless the vast majority of the public supported it so viciously that they threw opponents of it out of office, but hey, we can wish right? Hahaha. I'm curious for others' opinions on this."

[softwareNerd]

One danger with removing a monetary incentive is that you will end up with a slightly higher proportion of people who are seriously collectivist. For instance, a really genuine and serious socialist is willing to suffer with the rest of his comrade citizens. In a system that pushes statism as a principle, the cynical actors actually provide a way around the system. In some third-world countries life would be tough is not for outright corruption; the corruption allows relief from some very oppressive laws. Obviously, corruption is a bad thing in principle, but the solution is not to get people who will be more genuine about enforcing bad laws. Instead, the laws themselves need to be improved.

A second danger with removing the monetary incentive is that you will lose good people in areas of government where you actually want people to do their assigned jobs well. So, for instance, you want to attract good people to the police force, the army and so on.

[Dante]

This would take the immoral (immoral to an Objectivist, who believes that abuse of an elected position of power for personal gain is essentially being a looter) politicians out of office and out of public service. This would leave moral people who are honestly worried about the welfare of the country as a whole to take office.

If the public-spirited politicians you're speaking of here don't have a good understanding of individual rights and why they are important, then this proposition scares me just as much as a government full of corrupt politicians. Some of the biggest blows to capitalism and limited government have been done by people who were honestly worried about the welfare of the country.

[Sirius1]

A third danger is that by paying them less (but still a livable wage), you could be making it easier to buy their vote.

If you are wanting self-sufficient men, it is better to pay them $1 per year (not a livable wage). They won't be able to run for office, or stay in office, unless they have been sufficient already (exceptions exist).

This site compare salaries by state, but doesn't include per diem in the salary. Examples:

New Hampshire House of Representatives = $100/year

New Mexico House of Representatives = ~$4500-9000/year (per diem only).

Texas House of Representatives = $17,920/year

Connecticut = $28,000/year

Massachusetts = $58,000+/year

California = $95,000+/year

U.S. House of Representatives = $174,000/year

Paying a low wage isn't the only safety mechanism available (high campaign costs would be another) but it is probably the most reliable.

Also, if you pay them less, you could afford to have a more representative government. Rough ratios:

New Hampshire 1:3,311

New Mexico 1:28,709

Texas 1:165,215

Connecticut 1:23,299

Massachusetts 1:41,209

California 1:444,018

U.S. House of Representatives 1: 705,762

Edited July 26, 2011 by Sirius1