you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 1 week ago* (8 children)

As an intermediate solution, you can define it as X times the median or the minimum legal wage, so they still have incentive to raise them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    This is the way, and they aren't allowed to buy any stocks, only ETF's

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Nope, ETFs are too flexible for them. Only indexed mutual funds for members of Congress. Can't have them selling off their ETFs before a committee meeting is over and the information isn't public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I wouldn't even let them have that. They are there to help the population, not the economy (corporations).

    Any hard measures comes with a drop of their personal wealth the moment they are investing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Index funds should be fine then, even Bernie Sanders has Index funds. Smart people will want to invest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    That was going to be my first comment, but really, will politicians hold tech companies responsible for example if they know that giving real fines and not token ones leads directly to a drop?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    They can have a retirement plan, like anyone else. There needs to be a federal law (or amendment) requiring any elected or politically appointed individual to put assets into a blind trust. And they can’t just name their kid(s) as temporary custodians of their assets. Any assets you owned the 2-years prior to running are placed in a trust unless they were sold to a third party.

  • source
  • parent