• hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    She only takes a small portion of her salary and donates the rest (I think 40-50k out of like 120k,?).

    I'm torn on this. On one hand, it's good for gauging how serious politicians are about what they preach.

    On the other hand, I don't think we want this as a litmus test. I'm fine with (good) politicians having financial security, and requiring people to live in financial precarity before we take them seriously is real "here you are critiquing capitalism on your iPhone" energy. It's also a mistake to equate socialism with living one emergency from disaster. And of course no one with real wealth is going to be held to this standard -- at most, it'd serve as a tool to browbeat PMC socialists into giving away pretty modest earnings (which would help some people immediately, but isn't going to bring us any closer to socialism).

    • Eldungeon [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I think that they've tacked it to the median income of a local skilled worker. That's how it's described anyway. I take your point but it's seems pretty fucking cool to me that a working class politician doesn't take more than the people they represent. I mean I don't personally have a problem with say Bernie having a lake house etc. But in the eyes of the public politicians are extremely out of touch and making 6 figs as an individual seems to make most politicians careerist in the worst way possible. Also PMC deserves to be brow beat and paying high salaries to politicians doesn't bring us any closer to socialism either.