Well I for one would much prefer people get rich in the private sector, and then go into politics, instead of going into politics and then getting rich, which seems to be standard-operating-procedure these days.
Wealth doesn't inherently negate the potential for conflicts of interest or policy biases that could benefit a politician's own financial interests. After all, the same drive that helps individuals amass their fortunes—ambition, competitiveness—doesn't just switch off once they're in a position of public power. And personal integrity isn't tied to one's bank account balance; it's about character and the robustness of political and legal accountability systems.
So, regardless of whether someone is wealthy before politics, without strong ethical standards and transparent oversight, the risk of using political office for personal gain remains.
You're absolutely correct. I think the person you were replying to was being pithy about the fact we have essentially in-the-open legal corruption happening in the US today where politicians can get elected to high office with minimal personal fortunes and be millionaires before they complete their first term simply due to the nature of that corruption (for instance, legalized insider-trading for Congress).
I very much am against the corruption we witness so blatantly. Personally I thought that if wealthy people were elected to office we may be able to eliminate some of that, but it seems as though if anything they are just better at it.
Paid speeches, book deals, consulting payments and jobs for family members or after holding office are the more significant items.
We have a funny system where paying a politician $250k for a one hour speech to your company, trade group, union, political action committee or whatever is treated as a perfectly reasonable speaker fee, and totally different than just handing the politician the money in a briefcase. Or hiring a politician's 22 year old new-grad child at an executive salary.
There was a bit of a brouhaha with the last few Congresses where incoming freshmen representatives who had poor backgrounds were having difficulty securing housing due to poor credit history, even though their new salaries put them squarely in upper tax income brackets.
A 10% chance of swinging a 001M position 10% is worth $10k.
A 10% chance of swinging a 010M position 10% is worth $100k.
A 10% chance of swinging a 100M position 10% is worth $1M.
A 10% chance of swinging a 001B position 10% is worth $10M.
A 10% chance of swinging a 010B position 10% is worth $100M.
A 10% chance of swinging a 100B position 10% is worth $1B.
It may remain, however that doesn't mean the temptation isn't crippled.
A 1 billion net worth person is less likely to be tempted by a $50,000 "enrichment" opportunity compared to someone making $174,000 with a net worth of less than 100k.
Working for a living and owning things for a living provide very different incentive landscapes that are often opposed to one another. Assets pay you in proportion to how much you own, so "owning things for a living" is roughly synonymous with a net worth above a line that lands somewhere between $10M and $100M depending on how you draw the line. In any case, if you work for a living, you definitely do not want to be represented by politicians who own things for a living.
Did he? Probably not, when you look at all the facts.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organiza...
According to the NPR article, the SS has a $200 per-diem limit for hotel expenses and by staying with Trump at his hotel (where rooms run about $1k/night), exceeded this limit.
This raises the question: how do accommodations work for president's entourages when traveling? I have a hard time believing that they restrict themselves to Holiday Inn tier establishments. Hotel rooms in larger cities can easily run $500/night, especially on a short notice.
As an alternative I propose the Aztec method. While they are in office, the elected is given every possible luxury and upon leaving their sacrifice is ceremonialized in a very public way so that all know the elected did not perform their duty for personal gain.
This is a good point. People act rationally all of the time, plus nobody has ever become a billionaire by compulsively capitalizing on every opportunity to gain wealth.
Absolutely disagree with this—you can't acquire a billion dollars without sacrificing major ethics.
I’ve seen statements in this vein a lot. It’s quite vague and often confusing one’s relative morals for what society has collectively deemed acceptable.
Last I heard she had about £800 million which I'm sure keeps her and hers very very comfortable.
I was hoping it would switch off when they amass more money than they can spend in their lifetime
Name a self made person that didn't work hard.
If someone who grew up poor or middle class cannot understand once they've gotten financially stable, then who the hell can?
I would prefer to vote for the person who grew up in poor/difficult circumstances and managed to succeed (in some way) despite those circumstances, over someone who grew up in the same poor circumstances and couldn't figure out how to make it.
Which person is better equipped to help people help themselves? The one who did it? or the one who couldn't figure out how to do it?
wut?
I can't think of a single billionaire who made their wealth while in politics, or after. You can come out of politics and get a kushy low-seven-figure lobbying job, at best. Maybe if you were really senior (congressional leadership, VP, president) you can write a few books and give a bunch of speeches and get to the tens of millions in income, but that's as far as it goes.
Basically "politics" produces maybe 5-6 people per decade able to pull what a median FAANG acquihire founder gets. That sounds... pretty democratic to me, really.
Common in extremely corrupt authoritarian regimes; Putin would be an obvious example. But yeah, less common in democracies; I'm struggling to think of a modern example.
I would rather they get rich after being in politics, but not because of special consideration while in politics.
When I was younger, I used to have the attitude that “if they got rich running a business, clearly they know how to succeed and would be great to run the country”. But that turns out to be naive thinking.
I have absolutely no problem with a former politician becoming a millionaire (or billionaire or they can do it!) from using what they learned while in office, provided they didn’t use their time in office setting up for that against the betterment of the public. In my experience, it’s easy to quickly forget what it is like to be an “average citizen“ when you can pay $10 for a banana. How can you truly represent what you don’t understand?