Ron Paul proposes $40k Presidential salary if elected - US Messageboards

trlrtrash13 · November 19th, 2011, 10:49 AM

Texas Congressman and US presidential candidate Ron Paul has vowed to cut US$1 trillion from the federal budget without affecting military spending, and take a salary of only US$40,000 a year if elected president.

The Right Perspective

Yup. Just a $40,000 salary, like the average American. Plus a mansion to live in that comes free with the job, just like the average guy. And a personal jet to fly him around the world, just like you and I have. And a company sponsored security team that will guard him to the day he dies, much like me and my co-workers get. Kudos to Ron Paul. What do you know, he is one of us!

Midnight Marauder · November 19th, 2011, 11:35 AM

He's the biggest professional panderer ever. And that's saying alot.

KittenKoder · November 19th, 2011, 01:59 PM

But, you must admit that if he actually did do that, it'd be the best thing any president has done in a long time.

trlrtrash13 · November 20th, 2011, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by KittenKoder

But, you must admit that if he actually did do that, it'd be the best thing any president has done in a long time.

I don't know if I could ever trust a man who wanted a job that big for a check that small. We say that if we don't offer big bonuses at Fanny and Freddy we can't attract "the best and brightest". If POTUS only pays $40k a year, we will probably get some idiot like Ron Paul in there. Oh, wait. That's what we were talking about wasn't it? lol

boedicca · November 20th, 2011, 06:28 PM

If we don't pay a proper salary for elected positions, only the incredibly wealthy will ever be able to afford to serve.

American Horse · November 20th, 2011, 06:40 PM

I wouldn't care if they made more. That's not the issue with me. If he stated he would propose limiting their time in the capital, like Perry has, I'd be more impressed, and I am with Perry on that score. Perry has proposed several new ideas of late, that being among them. Except for his problems in front of cameras, which I can sympathize with, he has the most credibility.

Although I generally oppose “flat tax” schemes, his tax plan with some tweaking, could catch on. He proposes a 20% flat tax for corporations and a territorial system for that which would remove the problems we have with dual taxation of corporate earnings overseas.

He also proposes a 20% flat tax for individuals with deductions for home mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable giving, along with a personal exemption of 12,500 for tax payers and their dependents. That means a $50,000 earner with three exemptions, a mortgage, and with their state taxes might be about even with the current tax scheme. That's where further tweaking could satisfy the objections of most earners. I believe some of us (the vital few) would willingly (meaning vote for the candidate who proposes to) pay more taxes if the results were positive.

Here's his plan; Cut, Balance, and Grow

trlrtrash13 · November 20th, 2011, 06:42 PM

I like Perry's plan, but I would prefer it not be optional.

Midnight Marauder · November 20th, 2011, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by American Horse

If he stated he would propose limiting their time in the capital, like Perry has, I'd be more impressed, and I am with Perry on that score.

We already have term limits for Congress. It's called the ballot box. The one SURE way to make sure congressmen and Senators are on the take is to make sure they know they don't have to run for re-election their last, lame duck term. They have no reason at all to represent their constituents if they know they don't have to worry about getting voted out. "Gee, I'm Senator Kerry and just got re-elected for the last time. Because of term limits, I know now I have six years to just thumb my nose at the voters of my district, and take as many bribes and quid pro quo as I can."

KittenKoder · November 20th, 2011, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by boedicca

If we don't pay a proper salary for elected positions, only the incredibly wealthy will ever be able to afford to serve.

First, that's all the people are voting in anyway. Secondly, they make more money from bribes and such ... paying them less wouldn't make it any less attractive.

As for "proper" .... do any of them really deserve to be paid anything at this point?

trlrtrash13 · November 21st, 2011, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by KittenKoder

First, that's all the people are voting in anyway. Secondly, they make more money from bribes and such ... paying them less wouldn't make it any less attractive.

As for "proper" .... do any of them really deserve to be paid anything at this point?

I think most of us would all say "Some of them do". And if we were all to list the ones that do, I'm sure all of them would be on their at some point. So I guess, in a convoluted way, all of them do. All of them except Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I think we can all agree on that. lol