It might be that while each of us was writing we had some specific people as examples in mind. It's always helpful to say what we are talking about. I was rather thinking of the backbenchers who on average earn about $10,000 a month plus ca. $5,000 representation allowance (apartment in the capital, travel expenses). A congress(wo)man can also spend an extra $13,000 on office furniture and equipment on handing in supporting documents and bills, can employ a personal assistant for whom there's another budget, which they can't manage themselves, though. If you take into account that a senior physician in a clinic or a federal judge also earn between $8,000 and 10,000, the pay and perks of a member of parliament would not be astronomically high. For a judge and a doctor it might not even be that attractive to get elected.For self-employed people a break of several years could mean to start up from scratch again.Why should they want to risk that if there wasn't sufficient compensation?Naturally, there are some members of congress who earn more. I also see two problems: conflicts of interests due to money received from lobby groups and corporations, as you say, and a pension claim as high as that for normal employees after a life of hard work which becomes effective as early as four years of office. There is no societal consensus on honoring servicemen specifically. Right now there are still a number of them in parliament, remains from a time when military service was compulsory. I don't begrudge them all that. What gets me, though, is a salary of $20m a year plus a more than generous pension scheme an - employed - manager of a car manufacturer gets, not earns, although he has done tremendous damage to the company and has cheated millions of customers. I don't that's fair but there's no such thing anyway.
@Thomas Stearn we don't really have "back benchers" here, as we do not have a parliamentary government. When the British Parliament building was reconstructed in 1945-46, Churchill wanted it rebuilt as it was previously without even room for everybody to sit at one time. Here, everyone has desks, offices, meeting and conference rooms and large staffs. The difference between the car manufacturer and the legislator is that his/her salary is generally at least in part determined or negotiated by someone else, while legislators can determine their own salary and benefit packages, and they generally are not small. I heard someone describe politics here as being similar to professional wrestling. While there is a big show of conflict and violence on the surface, behind the scenes, most of the performers are working on the same goals and the results are generally "rigged" before the performance begins.
Interesting, Don. I didn't know that about Alaska. As to performance: The same over here, people want performance and only hear what they want to hear. The question remains: What would actually be a publicly acceptable compensation package for congressmen? Big shots in industry keep mocking at parliamentarians as not being the brightest people on the grounds that compensation was not high enough to attract talent. Are they right, I wonder? The discussion about MP remuneration has been going on for ages and, so far, no one has come up with a workable solution. What they have finally done is to link compensation and its increases to the salary of federal judges, which spares parliament several weeks of public discussions about whether an inflationary adjustment should be granted or not. Would there be a better solution?
Dunno. I have always had a question about why someone would leave a perfectly good business and go into politics where the base pay is less. Prestige? For an example, a lawyer with a major firm knocks down a pretty good chunk but runs for a judges position which probably pays less. A district court judge makes a salary of $162,000 a year and with the cost of living adjustments, they can make around $260,000. Unless a person is an elected city prosecutor, a good lawyer makes twice or three times what he or she would make as a federal judge. Now, my original question is indeed a facetious one for everyone and their mother knows why. Whether it’s a federal judge’s position or a seat in congress, it’s all business and a very questionable one at that. If they had to pay for every luxury out of pocket and there were no side line perks to the positions then there would be more people in powerful positions who are there for the right reasons. Everything including their salary would be stamped in stone just as it is in the military. Example: Unless it is paid out of pocket the offices would be: Desk, 1 each, stained, oak Chair, 3 each, straight back, metal frame, seat, padded\ Light, 2 each. 1, ceiling, LED: 1, desk, 10” w/ shade, brass laminate Picture 2 each, 1 president of the U.S. 1 Vice President of the U.S. Unless it was out of pocket, all flights would be standby only and coach. Overnight rooms would be something akin to motel 6. Meal allotments would be $5.00 breakfast, $10.00 lunch, $15.00 Dinner Congressional cafeteria, free Now, in the end, if politics wasn’t already a business then the OP could be answered honestly. As it is, I’m sure that each person in congress could file for a 501C3 permit and get it because let’s face it, they all claim that there’s no profit by holding the position they hold.