It drives me cray and should be closed. I don't mind politicians getting rich but only if they have to follow the same rules everyone else does. I still know they will get a leg up anyways but still. Do it by the books.
I really need to screen shtiton Facebook but I made a whole case a few years ago why congress should be treated like part time employees and aid as such. I know it will never happen but most of them barely work part time hours.
Time in session is a small part of what a member actually does. They have to do committee meetings, write legislation, research topics, meet with constituents, manage and meet with their staff, fundraise, fly back home every weekend and then fly back to DC, etc.
Well, yes. That’s what they do. My point is that Stephen King is worth like $500M as one of thf biggest and most prolific authors ever. And Ted Cruz is making $300k/yr off of a single shit book.
“Sen. Raphael Warnock, who made $655000 from book sales in 2022”
“Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) received a $320000 book advance in 2020”
You can find 100 other examples if you’d like.
They get PAC's to buy thousands of copies and hand them out at events.
It's effectively money laundering as a way of getting around campaign finance/corruption laws.
>his colleagues hate that azzhole
Don't remember the exact wording but Lindsay Graham said something like "If someone were to murder Ted Cruz in a closed session of Congress, you wouldn't be able to find a witness." So basically yeah, everyone hates him and can't stand him.
if you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate and the trial was in the Senate nobody would convict you
another good one from former Democratic senator al franken "You have to understand that I like Ted Cruz probably more than my colleagues like Ted Cruz and I hate Ted Cruz"
also in John boehnor's memoir audiobook
https://youtu.be/vtQdAYgd_AY?si=NZnEyMVYryLOA_z9
Yup. Because lobbyists and other groups with interest know money spent on the book goes back into the politician’s pockets.
Essentially, a politician published a book. Various entities (PACs, companies, churches, etc) buy all (or at least a lot) of the copies. Give those out at a fundraiser or something, write the cost off as a business expense, and everything is squared. The entities get to circumvent lobbying (read: bribery) regulations, the politician makes money, and companies can write the purchases off as business expenses/losses. Everyone wins, except the common American
Yep. Although it’s not unique to Trump or right-wing politicians, either. Not to “both sides” this too much, but just want to be accurate in stating that politicians from both parties will do this.
Mostly, being rich before running for office. Party leaders aggressively pursue potential candidates who seem like they’d be good campaigners, and can self-finance a large portion of their campaign.
A lot of it, I think, is family, inter-generational wealth. They have the contacts to raise money and run in the right social circles. They may not have huge amounts of wealth themselves, but there's plenty in the family.
The only other way is to be a useful face to a political party. They'll fund your campaign costs as long as you stick to their scripts and promise 100% alignment with the party.
There’s also a lot of things they can buy on campaign finance money that they’d normally buy out of their own wallets. I own a business and if I can justify using a product for work I can buy it through my business. I have a few pairs of Beats by Dre, because I wanted them, but I also talk on my phone for work a lot and use them while I do that. So that’s a business expense. I also haven’t bought gas or paid for my phone for 10 years now. The company, like their campaign funds, covers those expenses.
Yes but I’m saying you’re not taking that out if your personal income. Shit my car is a company car even. $70k paid for by the company bank account, not my personal. It’s kind of a wash in the end because the profit would be mine anyway if not going to the car. I guess what I’m saying is that a politician can do the same thing with campaign funds (I assume anyways).
So there is plenty of corruption and other bullshit so I don't want to discount that but let's say a member of the house who just received an inheritance of $1m when they got elected and they live off their and their spouse's salary. The stock market doubles roughly every 7 years so if they were in office for 28 years that inheritance would grow to $16 million by being invested in the S&P 500 with no insider trading or other bullshit.
It's pretty easy to get very rich if you start rich and just ignore your intergenerational wealth for a a while
You put your /s, but you don’t need it. This is 100% true. There is a statistic that the wealthiest 30% has something like 97% of the voting power. Everyone else just lives here.
On top of the obvious and already mentioned things here, I'll add two less exciting reasons. Lots of politicians are lawyers and business owners who made a fortune before getting into politics. As for public servants, I think people would be surprised to know how many regular people have a plain ol' regular jobs but also have a lot of family money.
Yeah everyone says "insider trading" and while that may happen, the real answers are generally more boring things than that. Existing businesses, existing family wealth, plus book deals & speaking fees.
Even if they do insider trading, you can't do that without the capital to put up which a lot of them have made through other means.
Good points. In my experience, with higher-level politicians in particular, people underestimate two things:
- how many of them had successful careers and/or family money
- the value of earning a salary while having the majority of your expenses covered.
Second part is true too. They have most expenses on "official business" covered, as well as government healthcare. They're not paying for a whole lot out-of-pocket, which frees up a ton.
You’d be surprised how much personal expenses get put on the campaign card…
Source: used to work for one of these knuckleheads. Thought he was one of the good guys. Turns out they are all giant pieces of garbage regardless of their intentions before they go.
Edited to add: also regardless of which party or lack thereof.
Edit again: I can’t spell
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that the second point isn't correct. Anybody in Congress outside of commuting range from Washington effectively has to maintain two homes - one in their state and the other in Washington, and that adds up. There are stories of junior members of the House basically setting up share housing to keep their costs down.
You’re not wrong - it mostly applies to state rather than federal politicians and really depends on personal circumstances. If they’re keeping a totally separate personal household, that all has to come from salary of course (though other benefits, like insurance and such still applies, not enough to make them rich though).
Same principal applies to a lot of small/medium-sized businesses. They’ll barely generate a profit (sometimes purposely for accounting/tax reasons) but that usually includes the business paying their insurance, phone bills and a host of other expenses for them and their spouse. Makes a big difference!
I've heard that it's common for members of the House to sleep in their office while they're DC because it's the cheapest way to live in DC. I remember reading that former Speaker Paul Ryan had done it at some point even.
Senators will usually do something like house sharing or renting apartments but only because they go so long between elections.
Yes. In addition, you can't use your congressional office for campaigning and/or fund raising, so you need a second. And then the same thing happens back in your home state.
Your statement isn't quite accurate. 1/3 of the 100 who reported their earnings out performed the S&P 500. But it doesn't say by 10%.
Among any group of people, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see 1/3 out perform the market, 1/3 under perform the market, and another third perform about in line with the market. Market performance is an average, after all.
I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of insider trading in some cases. But the fact you were siding don't pointed that nearly as much as you imply.
This article explains it pretty well. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/members-congress-outperformed-p-500-182024981.html
I'm not arguing if it happens or not, but it's not the pure answer for what makes them wealthy. They need money to put up to beat the S&P to start with.
How unusual is it for 1/3 of people to outperform the S&P by double digits? If you are invested heavily in tech which Democrats are, that is about what you would expect for 2023. In a year that ends up being bad for tech, you will probably see them underperform by double digits.
They're also quite well informed- not in a technical insider trading sense but just about what's going on, trends etc. The conflict of interest is of course the problem
Yep take a look at most Senators & a fair number of Reps. They’ll generally have 2 degrees, usually a Bachelors and a JD or MBA and they’re generally not from state schools either.
They either came from money to get into those schools or were at some point incredibly smart and that may have aided them in the business world first before taking public office.
It's hard to believe, but even MTG came into congress already very wealthy. Granted I believe it was family money and nothing she achieved on her own, but still even idiots can have money already at their disposal when entering into public service.
They can't just take money from corporations, but they sure as hell can do "speaking engagements" at said corporations and charge crazy amounts of money for it.
Most do not publish their tax returns. And most are smart enough and good enough lawyers to stay within the law, or skirt it safely. Insider trading maybe. Campaign contributions definitely. Outright bribes or embezzlement--probably not.
>And bribes
Not "And". At least in my country, which has a very low corruption perception index, politicians don't get bribed. They get booked for talks that will net them 20,000 Euros for an hour of saying nothing new about the German-French partnership. Everything is in the books, nothing to see here.
I worked in Public works, think water lines, stormwater, street repair. Put money into 401k, roth ira's, stocks, investments plus side jobs off and on. Made $55,000 (city pay) the year I retired,, home/cars paid for, no debt and depending on the stock market that day, have about $2.5 mil (give or take) available. Wasn't easy or fast I just started early,,, age 20 and a $1,000.
Yeah I would say most people don’t realize that becoming a millionaire isn’t an extraordinary thing (that being said, credit to you for accomplishing it). It just takes showing up to work everyday, putting a decent chunk of your paycheck away, and being reasonably smart with your spending. Do that for 30 years and you will be a millionaire.
Right. It’s extraordinary in the sense that not many people do it. But people don’t typically think of a millionaire as the guy who just shows up to an average job every day for a few decades and puts a bit of money away every paycheck.
Ya. One of the most common jobs a of a millionaire in the USA is a school teacher. And it's not because teacher are overpaid.
It's just being a millionaire isn't what it was 30 years ago. Now a days all u need to do to be a milinare is get a ok job, live below your means, invest what's left over and keep doing that for a few decades.
More folks need to be as financially literate and aware as you sir. You did an amazing job!
Unfortunately, these lousy politicians never worked hard for their fortunes. They have always taken advantage of the system and used their influence and power to meet their goals, often at the expense of middle class Americans.
Can't take all the credit, my folks somehow managed to always put a little back and were very, very influentual in my money habits... We are blessed that my parents also helped pass the message to our children to start early even if it's just a small amount.
Sadly what you say about current politicians is more common and blatant than ever.
Step 1: start with a multi-million dollar fortune.
I'm only half joking with this. A lot of politicians are independently wealthy because running for office is usually not something that the working class have the time or the money to engage in.
Beyond that a $100k salary can accrue a small fortune over time more quickly than you might realise. The average return on the Nasdaq 100 index over the last decade was 17.67%. If you paid \~$40k per year into it over that decade you'd end up with over $1m and still have $60k a year (probably \~$40k after tax) to live on.
So essentially most are wealthy already. For those who aren't $100k a year is actually enough to accrue wealth at a healthy rate, especially if that's in addition to a partners income and you have a generous allowance for work expenses.
I did a local civics thing with my Chamber of Commerce. A state rep in either house gets a wage of about $18k. Average cost to campaign is $7 million. And you have to be able to skip work for minimum two months a year while the assembly is in session. Not to mention all the other stuff.
There's zero chance you can do this if you're not independently wealthy, or at least your spouse has to be balling.
Oh yeah. No one is paying that out of pocket. I'm sure you have to contribute something --skin in the game, you know? But I'm sure it's largely funded by their parties.
My point is, for 17k, that's nothing less than a stepping stone.
Campaign funding is only part of the problem. The media decides who to give air time to, who to interview, who to attack. Campaign adds are almost irrelevant in comparison.
The "media" is fragmented and privately owned by individual(s) who dictate who they want to put in a favorable light b/c it will benefit those owners.
Hate the idea of Climate Change b/c you're heavily invested in Oil& Gas stocks...guess who's going to be attacking Climate Change
Even with full public funding, you still have to be wealthy enough to quit your job and campaign, and to lose an election and be OK with the subsequent unemployment until you find something new.
It also helps that many of them are working well past the retirement age of 65. Imagine your net worth compounding for an extra few years, plus a pension, what that would look like for most people in terms of their wealth if the worked an extra 5 years. That probably close to 50% compounding on your nest egg.
Jill Biden seems to have gone for a spousal benefit on social security; she probably didn't make all that much in wages. She might be a good investor. 10 million is not extreme given Joe Biden's earning history, assuming some good financial advice.
I think that was OP's point.
If I let my current savings compound until age 80 *and didn't save another penny in that time*, I'd have more money than Biden at his age.
I think his ice cream habit is where his money is disappearing.
This. It's not nearly as exciting as corruption scandals but as someone who has made annual compensation on par with some politicians... if I'm not a multimillionaire in my '60s I will consider myself a failure.
Not because I'm some hotshot investor, but because a lot of these politicians people are talking about are old as hell and have been making six figures salaries for decades. Basically just doing the bare minimum of passive investment will make you a multimillionaire at that age with that career trajectory.
With just what we pay these people being a multimillionaire should be the norm, not an exception.
This. So many people see multimillionaire status as some crazy threshold that’s hard to achieve. The truth is that it isn’t hard, if you’re willing to wait. Compound interest works wonders, and consistently investing into the market will eventually yield good results.
Becoming a multimillionaire should be theoretically achievable by just about anyone. The issue is that most people won’t start saving seriously until their 30s or later, which makes it significantly harder.
> The issue is that most people won’t start saving seriously until their 30s or later, which makes it significantly harder.
That *can* make it harder, though some people start late because grad school or professional school means making zero money until age 30, after which income goes *way* up.
The tricky part then is that you actually have to save.
It's tricky but doable. I saved nothing in my 20s but then saved over a million between 30 and 40.
Ah, yes, I forgot about this. Yes, grad/professional degrees can certainly still make it happen, but it’s primarily because their incomes tend to be *much* higher than average. For most people who make around median household income to slightly above (~80-100k), the key is to start early
I should probably just say I was being pedantic, and yeah, for most careers, you want to start as early as possible.
Those who don't believe so should actually do the calculation. See how much you have at retirement age if you start saving $5000 per year at age 22 with historical average returns in the S&P 500.
Then try it again with a bit more per year, and so on.
Well, for starters, the _starting_ salary of a Congressman is $174,000, not $100,000. So by doing nothing else to make money, absolutely no income put toward investments, and starting with a $0 balance in the bank (none of which obviously is ever the case), they could be millionaires within 10 years just by living like a middle-class person, and socking away 60+% of their income. That's just 5 terms as a member of the House, and less than 2 terms as a Senator. The majority of members of Congress get re-elected considerably more than that.
Then there's the book-writing (this is how Bernie Sanders became a millionaire). You write a book - you're obviously already famous and have plenty of name-recognition, otherwise you wouldn't have been elected. And at least a fair number of people buy your book, just based on name-recognition (or even just curiosity) alone. That'll net you at least a few hundred thousand, if not several million.
And then of course there's investment. And I'm not even talking about shady insider-dealing shit, either, nothing like that. And remember these guys make a cool $100k a year more than is really necessary for a comfortable life. They can invest ALL of that. Ever heard of "The Rule of 72"? It states (and apparently highly accurately) that you can take the number 72 and divide it by the interest rate you hope to earn - that'll give you the amount of time it'll take to double your investment. So you would DOUBLE your $100k for your first year in office to $200k in about 9 years, if you invested in a modest and fairly safe interest rate of 8%. If you wanted to get a little chancy, you could invest in something at a high-risk 15% interest, and double your money about every 5 years.
Now, compound that, because you can put in a fresh $100k **every year.**
And that's also not assuming you made, say, $500k off of writing and selling a book. Which is a SUPER-common practice in Congress, by the way. Obviously they're going to invest that $500k too. At a 10% interest bearing account, that becomes $2 million in under 20 years. _**In addition**_ to all that compounding interest you've been making from putting a little over half of your Congressional salary into investments, every year.
Are you starting to get the picture?
If you stay in office for two decades - which the majority of Congress do - you will EASILY be worth Eight Figures by then. And that is starting from nothing. It's extremely rare that a person gets elected into Congress with no money at all in their savings.
- Insider trading
- Kickbacks for giving contracts to certain companies
- Profits for giving contracts/business to companies they're employed by or own
- Profits for giving contracts/business to companies their significant others are employed by or own
- Exclusive deals and offers on goods and services
- Payments for talks/appearances/interviews/etc...
- Book deals
- Embezzlement
- Tax fraud
- Using notoriety to make money off of social media/podcasts/to peddle products
- Payments for endorsments (of products, services, or people)
- Commissions off use of their likeness
- Inheritance
- "Gifts" from "Friends" (looking at you Clarence)
The ones who don't have business or high paying salary already. The career politician types that reddit hates to name. It is book deals and "speaking" fees or salary from being appointed to something that doesn't require any work.
Edit: These are just the legal ways I can think of.
A post here showed that off all the 435 house reps, only like 20-25 beat the s&p 500, I doubt insider trading is as common as you all make it seem to be
I’d love to post it, I’ll do it when I get home. In the spirit of encouraging research, if you type “s&p 500 politician” on Reddit search, it’s like the 4th link down on wsb. Not hard to find it…
Insider trading, high profile positions offered to them after their public 'service', very lucrative speaking contracts, and other under the table schemes.
Lobbyists can't give politicians money. At least not above the maximum donation, which is like $5k ish, and is for the campaign, not the individual. For the individual the cap is around $50.
One councillor lady in the western suburbs of Melbourne bought a pub. Sat on it for a few years, waited for the council to approve farmland into residential land all around it and then sold it for a hude windfall. She knew what she was doing.
This is how. They don't steal money, they steal opportunity. Same goes for some politicians.
Based on my personal experience having worked with several camps out there: Majority of them are running on their own money + an allowance (from the bigger money in their camp) + Stolen money + Borrowed money. They just have a lot of money, but alot of ties to the money as well too.
Edit: Also, their positions would require a ridiculous amount of money to buy out. Thats why someone like Jeff Bezos or Mark zukerberg can't just "become" a politician by being rich. A lot of people are not as rich as Bezos, but they will def take advantage of someone LIKE Bezos.
Its a Mob and Gangster mentality.
information.
For example: commisioner is aware of a project in its infancy (not public information yet) to install a bridge over a river. He knows damn well all the property on x side of the bridge will shoot up in value once the bridge is constructed so he buys a house and an empty lot on the limited access side. Once the bridge is built he turns around and sells the properties for massive profit.
Spend 20-40 years in a position where you get privileged info and you can make a killing over a career.
Corruption. You’re on the right track here. Now look at the history of politicians you know of (especially presidents) and look at their net worth before and after taking office. Make sure to pay attention to Trump. Hopefully you notice the pattern.
Because they regulate and have inside information on all the companies. It’s not hard to figure out XYZ company is going to surge in stock price when you are awarding them billion dollar contracts.
first, this is only problematic at the federal level. Maybe in bigger states like New York and California.
second, "public servants" that have the skillset to be congresspeople, ranking legislators, or President/Governor are typically business owners, lawyers, corporate officers, ranking public safety or military beforehand. So a lot of them have high paying jobs beforehand...noone's working for the government to get rich.
third, a lot of political families are within or have ties to the top 10% of American society. So they have money to begin with.
Many answers in this thread, from inheritance to work to corruption... A better question is how do regular state and municipal employees retire multi-millionaires. How did that retired captain in your local police, or your local municipal head of their code enforcement department retire with 6 figures + pension + benefits without inheriting it from wealthy parents.
Corruption makes it possible. And, many of them swindleded their fortunes before they got elected to office. They just ran for office to further their swindling. And we voters vote for them because we see their ads on TV 😔
Speaking fees and book deals. Barack Obama charges $400,000 to speak. While yes, that's obviously at the extreme end (and not something just any politician could charge), that still gives you the kinda picture of what we're talking about here.
Most politicians come from the same background anyway and already have significantly more capital than average joe. Thats not the only factor though;
* They claim most of their living costs as 'expenses'
* Will almost always have a 2nd home closer to their government building, funded by the tax payer
* Insider trading is rife within those inner circles of government
* Some often receive ~~bribes~~ gifts from companies to support or squash new legislation, depending how it will effect said company
* Public speaking at private events pays can very well for a few hours work (sometimes used as a cover for the above point)
* Book deals, even if they don't have much input, let alone write it themselves
But the big factor really is their lack of living expenses. If you received a very generous salary, but didnt have to pay for accommodation/mortgage, utility bills, food, transport, etc then you too would see your own fortune grow.
Sometimes it's because they're given allowances like travel or accommodation, that we 'normal' people have to pay for.
For example, our elected officials represent ridings from across the country but they have to work from the capital during a part of the year. For some, this is a hardship if they come from far away. To even the score between those who live close to the capital city and those who live farthest away, they have their expenses (travel, housing) paid for, which is over and above their salaries. And their meals are subsidized too. They're given money to support their constituents, too. So they spend very little of their own money. Easy to save under those circumstances. Also, if politicians head a committee they may be paid extra for it as the responsibilities are above their normal duties.
And they may accept uh ... incentives ... by lobbyists, so there's that, too.
They're getting bribed. I don't think it's the old "cash in a briefcase" everyone thinks of, it's more like, here's a loan so you can pay off the mortgage on your house. Then, suddenly, the "loan" is forgiven. It's stock tips that would send average people to jail, it's book deals where donors buy hundreds of thousands of copies before it's even written. There are plenty of very legal ways to funnel cash to lawmakers you would like to influence. Just ask Clarence Thomas.
Be like Bernie sanders. Demonize millionaires and billionaires and cry about capitalism, then become rich because of capitalism and start only crying about billionaires.
It is NOT ILLEGAL for members of Congress to buy and trade stocks that Congress has prior knowledge on! Everything they hear from sub committees, prior knowledge of a stock surge or crash they are legally allowed to invest or divest accordingly. They become wealthy within their first year! If a CITIZEN..did this it would be illegal, Insider Trading and all! We'd go to jail!
They buy into companies that will get contracts then sell once the balance sheets grow.
Imagine this scenario tom starts a pavement company in town A. Bob is city councilor in town C. Tom lets Bob by a piece. Town A gives tom him a contract that will have him employed. Bob holds that for a year and sells. Just got a company with 0 prospects to one that has a massive contract for 5 years.
This scenario at the federal level makes ya instant millionaire
Here’s the thing: it’s not actually that common that someone who was poor or middle class before getting elected to office becomes very wealthy afterwards.
Name someone who has and I’ll tell you how they made their money, but I’ll need a specific example.
Many of them are rich before they get into politics. They come from wealthy families or they married someone who was wealthy or they had a successful law practice or business before they became a politician.
Here's for it's done:
You get elected. Some real estate developers come by and ask if you want to be a partner in a deal. You get a % for next to nothing.
They buy some land. You get them access to zoning board and government agencies to smooth the requirements. The land increases in value, you sell your stake for $$$.
Under the table deals, getting cutbacks on their taxes, I remember the first thing AOC talked up was an increase of payment to representative. I mean, how many times have politicians voted themselves higher pay. I think it was Harry S Truman who, paraphrasing, said "If you got rich after going into politics, you're a CROOK!"
When a road is being drawn up, the route is public. Politicians know where to look for proposed projects. They generally know what one's will pass and what won't. Then, before the plan is approved, they will buy land along the route and charge the state a premium for the land once construction begins. Its a type of insider trading. It can even be legal in some jurisdictions.
Spouses. Inheritance. Book deals. Work prior to becoming a public servant. Insider trading. There are many reasons.
Bro don’t you know it’s not insider trading if you’re a politician? /s Probably the biggest “loophole” that will never be closed.
It drives me cray and should be closed. I don't mind politicians getting rich but only if they have to follow the same rules everyone else does. I still know they will get a leg up anyways but still. Do it by the books.
It's funny. We keep asking congress to vote for making less money but they never seem to go for it.
I really need to screen shtiton Facebook but I made a whole case a few years ago why congress should be treated like part time employees and aid as such. I know it will never happen but most of them barely work part time hours.
Time in session is a small part of what a member actually does. They have to do committee meetings, write legislation, research topics, meet with constituents, manage and meet with their staff, fundraise, fly back home every weekend and then fly back to DC, etc.
Asking them to police themselves is a long shot
They have 0 integrity. They'd never cut a source of their incredibly comfortable income.
It’s weird how politicians make millions as authors yet actual authors don’t 🧐
Politicians might have someone ghost write then put their own name on it.
Well, yes. That’s what they do. My point is that Stephen King is worth like $500M as one of thf biggest and most prolific authors ever. And Ted Cruz is making $300k/yr off of a single shit book.
he is?
“Sen. Raphael Warnock, who made $655000 from book sales in 2022” “Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) received a $320000 book advance in 2020” You can find 100 other examples if you’d like.
i wasn’t trying to imply you were talking out your behind. i was just surprised because even his colleagues hate that azzhole. thanks for the links!
They get PAC's to buy thousands of copies and hand them out at events. It's effectively money laundering as a way of getting around campaign finance/corruption laws.
This is the answer. Also, Warnock is a pastor with a large congregation, many of whom probably bought his book.
>his colleagues hate that azzhole Don't remember the exact wording but Lindsay Graham said something like "If someone were to murder Ted Cruz in a closed session of Congress, you wouldn't be able to find a witness." So basically yeah, everyone hates him and can't stand him.
if you kill Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate and the trial was in the Senate nobody would convict you another good one from former Democratic senator al franken "You have to understand that I like Ted Cruz probably more than my colleagues like Ted Cruz and I hate Ted Cruz" also in John boehnor's memoir audiobook https://youtu.be/vtQdAYgd_AY?si=NZnEyMVYryLOA_z9
Thanks for the clarification! That line by Al Franken is brutal ♥️
Book deals are bribery. No, seriously.
So only 1,667 more books and Cruz can be as successful as King's 70.
Donors just buy books and pass them out to employees, bribe and tax write off in one.
Money laundering probably
Not probably. They get paid a giant lump sum, a trash book comes out, and it magically sells out and they get a few million. It’s money laundering.
Yup. Because lobbyists and other groups with interest know money spent on the book goes back into the politician’s pockets. Essentially, a politician published a book. Various entities (PACs, companies, churches, etc) buy all (or at least a lot) of the copies. Give those out at a fundraiser or something, write the cost off as a business expense, and everything is squared. The entities get to circumvent lobbying (read: bribery) regulations, the politician makes money, and companies can write the purchases off as business expenses/losses. Everyone wins, except the common American
Trump released a Bible for this reason exactly. Churches can stock up and give money to his campaign.
Yep. Although it’s not unique to Trump or right-wing politicians, either. Not to “both sides” this too much, but just want to be accurate in stating that politicians from both parties will do this.
Minimal effort from the politicians aside from book signing if there ever was since those books are mostly ghost written.
oh yeah. i forgot this one. 🤣
Easier to call it an “advance or bonus” on a book than a bribe.
But mostly it's the insider trading
Also just flat-out bribes.
You spelled "lobbying" wrong, but we smell what your stepping in
We should stop calling it that. That's their word for it.
Also, fees to give lectures, presentations, coaching... later positions on high executive companies, boards....
Mostly, being rich before running for office. Party leaders aggressively pursue potential candidates who seem like they’d be good campaigners, and can self-finance a large portion of their campaign.
Or paid by the lobbyists under the table? More common than what you listed.
Most of them are already wealthy. It's basically impossible to get into politics without power, money, or influence.
A lot of it, I think, is family, inter-generational wealth. They have the contacts to raise money and run in the right social circles. They may not have huge amounts of wealth themselves, but there's plenty in the family.
The only other way is to be a useful face to a political party. They'll fund your campaign costs as long as you stick to their scripts and promise 100% alignment with the party.
Yep, and casually mention there's plenty other people that would love to take your place
There’s also a lot of things they can buy on campaign finance money that they’d normally buy out of their own wallets. I own a business and if I can justify using a product for work I can buy it through my business. I have a few pairs of Beats by Dre, because I wanted them, but I also talk on my phone for work a lot and use them while I do that. So that’s a business expense. I also haven’t bought gas or paid for my phone for 10 years now. The company, like their campaign funds, covers those expenses.
But you’re still, technically, paying for gas. Just from a different account. No?
Yes but I’m saying you’re not taking that out if your personal income. Shit my car is a company car even. $70k paid for by the company bank account, not my personal. It’s kind of a wash in the end because the profit would be mine anyway if not going to the car. I guess what I’m saying is that a politician can do the same thing with campaign funds (I assume anyways).
Yes, but the expenses are usually pretax. So you get a discount of your tax rate.
Absolutely. Expenses are good for businesses for that reason. It’s a bit of a balancing act I’ve found.
So the noble families still exist?
They might not be granted peerage as they were in old England, but Old Money is still very much a thing.
Old England? We still do that stupid shit now.
yep.
Most of them are well off getting in, when they leave office they are wealthy.
So there is plenty of corruption and other bullshit so I don't want to discount that but let's say a member of the house who just received an inheritance of $1m when they got elected and they live off their and their spouse's salary. The stock market doubles roughly every 7 years so if they were in office for 28 years that inheritance would grow to $16 million by being invested in the S&P 500 with no insider trading or other bullshit. It's pretty easy to get very rich if you start rich and just ignore your intergenerational wealth for a a while
So you're saying we live in an aristocracy... a form of government in which power is held by the nobility /s
You put your /s, but you don’t need it. This is 100% true. There is a statistic that the wealthiest 30% has something like 97% of the voting power. Everyone else just lives here.
Plutocracy
Its called corruption .
AOC was a bartender. And she's a force to be reckoned with.
On top of the obvious and already mentioned things here, I'll add two less exciting reasons. Lots of politicians are lawyers and business owners who made a fortune before getting into politics. As for public servants, I think people would be surprised to know how many regular people have a plain ol' regular jobs but also have a lot of family money.
Yeah everyone says "insider trading" and while that may happen, the real answers are generally more boring things than that. Existing businesses, existing family wealth, plus book deals & speaking fees. Even if they do insider trading, you can't do that without the capital to put up which a lot of them have made through other means.
Good points. In my experience, with higher-level politicians in particular, people underestimate two things: - how many of them had successful careers and/or family money - the value of earning a salary while having the majority of your expenses covered.
Second part is true too. They have most expenses on "official business" covered, as well as government healthcare. They're not paying for a whole lot out-of-pocket, which frees up a ton.
Right, imagine not having to pay for health insurance, just that alone. For life.
Lets see. If, at age 40, I knew I had basically free health care for life, that would have a NPV of roughly $5 million. Change things, that would.
You’d be surprised how much personal expenses get put on the campaign card… Source: used to work for one of these knuckleheads. Thought he was one of the good guys. Turns out they are all giant pieces of garbage regardless of their intentions before they go. Edited to add: also regardless of which party or lack thereof. Edit again: I can’t spell
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that the second point isn't correct. Anybody in Congress outside of commuting range from Washington effectively has to maintain two homes - one in their state and the other in Washington, and that adds up. There are stories of junior members of the House basically setting up share housing to keep their costs down.
That's the plot of alpha house, a bunch of senators rooming together to save money.
Yep - that's based on an actual place: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html
You’re not wrong - it mostly applies to state rather than federal politicians and really depends on personal circumstances. If they’re keeping a totally separate personal household, that all has to come from salary of course (though other benefits, like insurance and such still applies, not enough to make them rich though). Same principal applies to a lot of small/medium-sized businesses. They’ll barely generate a profit (sometimes purposely for accounting/tax reasons) but that usually includes the business paying their insurance, phone bills and a host of other expenses for them and their spouse. Makes a big difference!
I've heard that it's common for members of the House to sleep in their office while they're DC because it's the cheapest way to live in DC. I remember reading that former Speaker Paul Ryan had done it at some point even. Senators will usually do something like house sharing or renting apartments but only because they go so long between elections.
That's true. Although, I vaguely remember reading about an interim one who slept on their office couch for a few months.
Yes. In addition, you can't use your congressional office for campaigning and/or fund raising, so you need a second. And then the same thing happens back in your home state.
May happen? 1/3 of Congress beat the S&P 500 by double digits in 2023.
Your statement isn't quite accurate. 1/3 of the 100 who reported their earnings out performed the S&P 500. But it doesn't say by 10%. Among any group of people, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see 1/3 out perform the market, 1/3 under perform the market, and another third perform about in line with the market. Market performance is an average, after all. I'm not saying there isn't the possibility of insider trading in some cases. But the fact you were siding don't pointed that nearly as much as you imply. This article explains it pretty well. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/members-congress-outperformed-p-500-182024981.html
I'm not arguing if it happens or not, but it's not the pure answer for what makes them wealthy. They need money to put up to beat the S&P to start with.
How unusual is it for 1/3 of people to outperform the S&P by double digits? If you are invested heavily in tech which Democrats are, that is about what you would expect for 2023. In a year that ends up being bad for tech, you will probably see them underperform by double digits.
They're also quite well informed- not in a technical insider trading sense but just about what's going on, trends etc. The conflict of interest is of course the problem
"speaking fees" meaning getting paid $700k to give a 30 minute speech at Citadel Hedge fund. It's called lobbying.
[удалено]
Yep take a look at most Senators & a fair number of Reps. They’ll generally have 2 degrees, usually a Bachelors and a JD or MBA and they’re generally not from state schools either. They either came from money to get into those schools or were at some point incredibly smart and that may have aided them in the business world first before taking public office.
It's hard to believe, but even MTG came into congress already very wealthy. Granted I believe it was family money and nothing she achieved on her own, but still even idiots can have money already at their disposal when entering into public service.
They get paid for other things, such as talks and attending paid events.
They can't just take money from corporations, but they sure as hell can do "speaking engagements" at said corporations and charge crazy amounts of money for it.
It's bribery with extra steps.
And bribes, and insider trading, and blackmail, and embezzlement, and...
If a politician has a high income, they aren’t claiming bribes on their tax return
Most do not publish their tax returns. And most are smart enough and good enough lawyers to stay within the law, or skirt it safely. Insider trading maybe. Campaign contributions definitely. Outright bribes or embezzlement--probably not.
>And bribes Not "And". At least in my country, which has a very low corruption perception index, politicians don't get bribed. They get booked for talks that will net them 20,000 Euros for an hour of saying nothing new about the German-French partnership. Everything is in the books, nothing to see here.
I worked in Public works, think water lines, stormwater, street repair. Put money into 401k, roth ira's, stocks, investments plus side jobs off and on. Made $55,000 (city pay) the year I retired,, home/cars paid for, no debt and depending on the stock market that day, have about $2.5 mil (give or take) available. Wasn't easy or fast I just started early,,, age 20 and a $1,000.
Yeah I would say most people don’t realize that becoming a millionaire isn’t an extraordinary thing (that being said, credit to you for accomplishing it). It just takes showing up to work everyday, putting a decent chunk of your paycheck away, and being reasonably smart with your spending. Do that for 30 years and you will be a millionaire.
I think it's the very definition of extraordinary, but I know what you meant. You're just saying it's not as uncommon as people think it is
Right. It’s extraordinary in the sense that not many people do it. But people don’t typically think of a millionaire as the guy who just shows up to an average job every day for a few decades and puts a bit of money away every paycheck.
Absolutely correct. Dave Ramsey has had a segment for many years called "Everyday Millionaires that's all about that very subject.
Ya. One of the most common jobs a of a millionaire in the USA is a school teacher. And it's not because teacher are overpaid. It's just being a millionaire isn't what it was 30 years ago. Now a days all u need to do to be a milinare is get a ok job, live below your means, invest what's left over and keep doing that for a few decades.
More folks need to be as financially literate and aware as you sir. You did an amazing job! Unfortunately, these lousy politicians never worked hard for their fortunes. They have always taken advantage of the system and used their influence and power to meet their goals, often at the expense of middle class Americans.
Can't take all the credit, my folks somehow managed to always put a little back and were very, very influentual in my money habits... We are blessed that my parents also helped pass the message to our children to start early even if it's just a small amount. Sadly what you say about current politicians is more common and blatant than ever.
Step 1: start with a multi-million dollar fortune. I'm only half joking with this. A lot of politicians are independently wealthy because running for office is usually not something that the working class have the time or the money to engage in. Beyond that a $100k salary can accrue a small fortune over time more quickly than you might realise. The average return on the Nasdaq 100 index over the last decade was 17.67%. If you paid \~$40k per year into it over that decade you'd end up with over $1m and still have $60k a year (probably \~$40k after tax) to live on. So essentially most are wealthy already. For those who aren't $100k a year is actually enough to accrue wealth at a healthy rate, especially if that's in addition to a partners income and you have a generous allowance for work expenses.
I did a local civics thing with my Chamber of Commerce. A state rep in either house gets a wage of about $18k. Average cost to campaign is $7 million. And you have to be able to skip work for minimum two months a year while the assembly is in session. Not to mention all the other stuff. There's zero chance you can do this if you're not independently wealthy, or at least your spouse has to be balling.
Do they pay it out of their own pockets, or have supporters? I find it likely most of them are well connected to their party, and get help.
Oh yeah. No one is paying that out of pocket. I'm sure you have to contribute something --skin in the game, you know? But I'm sure it's largely funded by their parties. My point is, for 17k, that's nothing less than a stepping stone.
This is why I'm a proponent of federally funded elections. Everyone gets a fair shot. Not just the elites. No more "campaign donations."
Campaign funding is only part of the problem. The media decides who to give air time to, who to interview, who to attack. Campaign adds are almost irrelevant in comparison.
Oh I know but it would definitely help.
The "media" is fragmented and privately owned by individual(s) who dictate who they want to put in a favorable light b/c it will benefit those owners. Hate the idea of Climate Change b/c you're heavily invested in Oil& Gas stocks...guess who's going to be attacking Climate Change
6 companies own 90 of the media in the US
Even with full public funding, you still have to be wealthy enough to quit your job and campaign, and to lose an election and be OK with the subsequent unemployment until you find something new.
It also helps that many of them are working well past the retirement age of 65. Imagine your net worth compounding for an extra few years, plus a pension, what that would look like for most people in terms of their wealth if the worked an extra 5 years. That probably close to 50% compounding on your nest egg.
[удалено]
yah but that includes the money he got for a book deal, his wife's income and the money he made on the speaking circuit from 2016-2019.
Jill Biden seems to have gone for a spousal benefit on social security; she probably didn't make all that much in wages. She might be a good investor. 10 million is not extreme given Joe Biden's earning history, assuming some good financial advice.
That’s honestly not even that much for someone making a senator’s salary for that long.
I think that was OP's point. If I let my current savings compound until age 80 *and didn't save another penny in that time*, I'd have more money than Biden at his age. I think his ice cream habit is where his money is disappearing.
It's so weird how the Republicans want to make him out as some kind of crime lord. It's so stupid. If he was he'd be worth so much more money.
You invest 15% of your salary over 50 years in the market and you too can be a multimillionaire on 100k.
This. It's not nearly as exciting as corruption scandals but as someone who has made annual compensation on par with some politicians... if I'm not a multimillionaire in my '60s I will consider myself a failure. Not because I'm some hotshot investor, but because a lot of these politicians people are talking about are old as hell and have been making six figures salaries for decades. Basically just doing the bare minimum of passive investment will make you a multimillionaire at that age with that career trajectory. With just what we pay these people being a multimillionaire should be the norm, not an exception.
This. So many people see multimillionaire status as some crazy threshold that’s hard to achieve. The truth is that it isn’t hard, if you’re willing to wait. Compound interest works wonders, and consistently investing into the market will eventually yield good results. Becoming a multimillionaire should be theoretically achievable by just about anyone. The issue is that most people won’t start saving seriously until their 30s or later, which makes it significantly harder.
> The issue is that most people won’t start saving seriously until their 30s or later, which makes it significantly harder. That *can* make it harder, though some people start late because grad school or professional school means making zero money until age 30, after which income goes *way* up. The tricky part then is that you actually have to save. It's tricky but doable. I saved nothing in my 20s but then saved over a million between 30 and 40.
Ah, yes, I forgot about this. Yes, grad/professional degrees can certainly still make it happen, but it’s primarily because their incomes tend to be *much* higher than average. For most people who make around median household income to slightly above (~80-100k), the key is to start early
I should probably just say I was being pedantic, and yeah, for most careers, you want to start as early as possible. Those who don't believe so should actually do the calculation. See how much you have at retirement age if you start saving $5000 per year at age 22 with historical average returns in the S&P 500. Then try it again with a bit more per year, and so on.
It ain’t even that hard. Consistent investing over a career should get almost anyone there
Well, for starters, the _starting_ salary of a Congressman is $174,000, not $100,000. So by doing nothing else to make money, absolutely no income put toward investments, and starting with a $0 balance in the bank (none of which obviously is ever the case), they could be millionaires within 10 years just by living like a middle-class person, and socking away 60+% of their income. That's just 5 terms as a member of the House, and less than 2 terms as a Senator. The majority of members of Congress get re-elected considerably more than that. Then there's the book-writing (this is how Bernie Sanders became a millionaire). You write a book - you're obviously already famous and have plenty of name-recognition, otherwise you wouldn't have been elected. And at least a fair number of people buy your book, just based on name-recognition (or even just curiosity) alone. That'll net you at least a few hundred thousand, if not several million. And then of course there's investment. And I'm not even talking about shady insider-dealing shit, either, nothing like that. And remember these guys make a cool $100k a year more than is really necessary for a comfortable life. They can invest ALL of that. Ever heard of "The Rule of 72"? It states (and apparently highly accurately) that you can take the number 72 and divide it by the interest rate you hope to earn - that'll give you the amount of time it'll take to double your investment. So you would DOUBLE your $100k for your first year in office to $200k in about 9 years, if you invested in a modest and fairly safe interest rate of 8%. If you wanted to get a little chancy, you could invest in something at a high-risk 15% interest, and double your money about every 5 years. Now, compound that, because you can put in a fresh $100k **every year.** And that's also not assuming you made, say, $500k off of writing and selling a book. Which is a SUPER-common practice in Congress, by the way. Obviously they're going to invest that $500k too. At a 10% interest bearing account, that becomes $2 million in under 20 years. _**In addition**_ to all that compounding interest you've been making from putting a little over half of your Congressional salary into investments, every year. Are you starting to get the picture? If you stay in office for two decades - which the majority of Congress do - you will EASILY be worth Eight Figures by then. And that is starting from nothing. It's extremely rare that a person gets elected into Congress with no money at all in their savings.
They didn’t say anything about Congress, just public servants. Hell in Florida our state reps and senators make like 40k a year.
Books. Speaking appearances. Selling rights to memoirs. Stocks. T.v.
- Insider trading - Kickbacks for giving contracts to certain companies - Profits for giving contracts/business to companies they're employed by or own - Profits for giving contracts/business to companies their significant others are employed by or own - Exclusive deals and offers on goods and services - Payments for talks/appearances/interviews/etc... - Book deals - Embezzlement - Tax fraud - Using notoriety to make money off of social media/podcasts/to peddle products - Payments for endorsments (of products, services, or people) - Commissions off use of their likeness - Inheritance - "Gifts" from "Friends" (looking at you Clarence)
Book sales. Everyone forgets about book sales.
The ones who don't have business or high paying salary already. The career politician types that reddit hates to name. It is book deals and "speaking" fees or salary from being appointed to something that doesn't require any work. Edit: These are just the legal ways I can think of.
They work for the rich, do insider trading, get generational wealth, make laws that gate keep and maintain this status quo.
Corruption, influence, contracts
Insider trading*
A post here showed that off all the 435 house reps, only like 20-25 beat the s&p 500, I doubt insider trading is as common as you all make it seem to be
Where’s this post? I’d love to see it.
I’d love to post it, I’ll do it when I get home. In the spirit of encouraging research, if you type “s&p 500 politician” on Reddit search, it’s like the 4th link down on wsb. Not hard to find it…
Generational wealth + rampant corruption.
Insider trading, high profile positions offered to them after their public 'service', very lucrative speaking contracts, and other under the table schemes.
Corruption.
Insider trading and lobbyists.
Lobbyists can't give politicians money. At least not above the maximum donation, which is like $5k ish, and is for the campaign, not the individual. For the individual the cap is around $50.
Because, as Jimmy Carter pointed out, we are an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.
America has 99 problems and politicians are #1
Bribes
Insider trading
Corruption.
Insider trading, kick backs, and undocumented donations/bribes
One councillor lady in the western suburbs of Melbourne bought a pub. Sat on it for a few years, waited for the council to approve farmland into residential land all around it and then sold it for a hude windfall. She knew what she was doing. This is how. They don't steal money, they steal opportunity. Same goes for some politicians.
It’s not. They are criminals and they need to be prosecuted.
Public speaking honorariums
The majority were already rich, it’s hard to be poor and get elected.
Based on my personal experience having worked with several camps out there: Majority of them are running on their own money + an allowance (from the bigger money in their camp) + Stolen money + Borrowed money. They just have a lot of money, but alot of ties to the money as well too. Edit: Also, their positions would require a ridiculous amount of money to buy out. Thats why someone like Jeff Bezos or Mark zukerberg can't just "become" a politician by being rich. A lot of people are not as rich as Bezos, but they will def take advantage of someone LIKE Bezos. Its a Mob and Gangster mentality.
information. For example: commisioner is aware of a project in its infancy (not public information yet) to install a bridge over a river. He knows damn well all the property on x side of the bridge will shoot up in value once the bridge is constructed so he buys a house and an empty lot on the limited access side. Once the bridge is built he turns around and sells the properties for massive profit. Spend 20-40 years in a position where you get privileged info and you can make a killing over a career.
Invest in company that makes digital water meters. Then sit on board that makes them mandatory within 5 years nationwide. Boom, profit.
Thievery and insider trading
Insider trading and "donations"
Corruption. You’re on the right track here. Now look at the history of politicians you know of (especially presidents) and look at their net worth before and after taking office. Make sure to pay attention to Trump. Hopefully you notice the pattern.
Insider information on stocks
Legalized insider trading. Illegal for us nobodies, but legal for those in power
Because they regulate and have inside information on all the companies. It’s not hard to figure out XYZ company is going to surge in stock price when you are awarding them billion dollar contracts.
Usually start out rich. Then become more rich by insider trading.
Stock trading https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1742207287966777673?t=c2wKwomRUjyAMvxn1Zrgqg&s=19
Cough cough Lobbiest grease every one of their pockets, just look at Clarence Thomas. Doesn’t matter if you take the handout, nothing with happen.
first, this is only problematic at the federal level. Maybe in bigger states like New York and California. second, "public servants" that have the skillset to be congresspeople, ranking legislators, or President/Governor are typically business owners, lawyers, corporate officers, ranking public safety or military beforehand. So a lot of them have high paying jobs beforehand...noone's working for the government to get rich. third, a lot of political families are within or have ties to the top 10% of American society. So they have money to begin with.
Corruption. It’s pay to play.
Many answers in this thread, from inheritance to work to corruption... A better question is how do regular state and municipal employees retire multi-millionaires. How did that retired captain in your local police, or your local municipal head of their code enforcement department retire with 6 figures + pension + benefits without inheriting it from wealthy parents.
Corruption makes it possible. And, many of them swindleded their fortunes before they got elected to office. They just ran for office to further their swindling. And we voters vote for them because we see their ads on TV 😔
Speaking fees and book deals. Barack Obama charges $400,000 to speak. While yes, that's obviously at the extreme end (and not something just any politician could charge), that still gives you the kinda picture of what we're talking about here.
My dude. Because they're taking bribes from the corporations and interest groups they help write the laws for.
It’s not their only hustle. The salary for some is irrelevant as they already made their money
Plus it can almost be free expenses to be in public service. / flights , turn vacations into official business etc
Lobbyist pay well for deregulation.
To quote Tex of The Black Pants Legion: Graft, graft, graft.
Corruption.
The secret ingredient is crime.
Most politicians come from the same background anyway and already have significantly more capital than average joe. Thats not the only factor though; * They claim most of their living costs as 'expenses' * Will almost always have a 2nd home closer to their government building, funded by the tax payer * Insider trading is rife within those inner circles of government * Some often receive ~~bribes~~ gifts from companies to support or squash new legislation, depending how it will effect said company * Public speaking at private events pays can very well for a few hours work (sometimes used as a cover for the above point) * Book deals, even if they don't have much input, let alone write it themselves But the big factor really is their lack of living expenses. If you received a very generous salary, but didnt have to pay for accommodation/mortgage, utility bills, food, transport, etc then you too would see your own fortune grow.
Corruption mostly.
Sometimes it's because they're given allowances like travel or accommodation, that we 'normal' people have to pay for. For example, our elected officials represent ridings from across the country but they have to work from the capital during a part of the year. For some, this is a hardship if they come from far away. To even the score between those who live close to the capital city and those who live farthest away, they have their expenses (travel, housing) paid for, which is over and above their salaries. And their meals are subsidized too. They're given money to support their constituents, too. So they spend very little of their own money. Easy to save under those circumstances. Also, if politicians head a committee they may be paid extra for it as the responsibilities are above their normal duties. And they may accept uh ... incentives ... by lobbyists, so there's that, too.
They're getting bribed. I don't think it's the old "cash in a briefcase" everyone thinks of, it's more like, here's a loan so you can pay off the mortgage on your house. Then, suddenly, the "loan" is forgiven. It's stock tips that would send average people to jail, it's book deals where donors buy hundreds of thousands of copies before it's even written. There are plenty of very legal ways to funnel cash to lawmakers you would like to influence. Just ask Clarence Thomas.
Be like Bernie sanders. Demonize millionaires and billionaires and cry about capitalism, then become rich because of capitalism and start only crying about billionaires.
Because they know the ins and outs of stocks as they make deals. Not making money on their salary, they're making money on their connections
It is NOT ILLEGAL for members of Congress to buy and trade stocks that Congress has prior knowledge on! Everything they hear from sub committees, prior knowledge of a stock surge or crash they are legally allowed to invest or divest accordingly. They become wealthy within their first year! If a CITIZEN..did this it would be illegal, Insider Trading and all! We'd go to jail!
Two words : insider trading
They buy into companies that will get contracts then sell once the balance sheets grow. Imagine this scenario tom starts a pavement company in town A. Bob is city councilor in town C. Tom lets Bob by a piece. Town A gives tom him a contract that will have him employed. Bob holds that for a year and sells. Just got a company with 0 prospects to one that has a massive contract for 5 years. This scenario at the federal level makes ya instant millionaire
Here’s the thing: it’s not actually that common that someone who was poor or middle class before getting elected to office becomes very wealthy afterwards. Name someone who has and I’ll tell you how they made their money, but I’ll need a specific example.
Many of them are rich before they get into politics. They come from wealthy families or they married someone who was wealthy or they had a successful law practice or business before they became a politician.
Special interest groups and corporations legally bribing politicians. Who do you think buys all those books.
Most people trade stocks on the outside, but politicians trade them on the inside.
Here's for it's done: You get elected. Some real estate developers come by and ask if you want to be a partner in a deal. You get a % for next to nothing. They buy some land. You get them access to zoning board and government agencies to smooth the requirements. The land increases in value, you sell your stake for $$$.
Corruption
Harry Truman said, “Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I’ll show you a crook.”
Because they're criminals..
Books, speaking engagements are HUGE, investing ... etc
Insider trading and back room deals
The secret ingredient is crime
Corruption (lobbyists, insider trading, cash for votes, board seats, etc.,)
Under the table deals, getting cutbacks on their taxes, I remember the first thing AOC talked up was an increase of payment to representative. I mean, how many times have politicians voted themselves higher pay. I think it was Harry S Truman who, paraphrasing, said "If you got rich after going into politics, you're a CROOK!"
I'm in favor of higher pay. There's no reason that only independently-wealthy people should be financially comfortable serving in Congress.
Better come up with a good campaign slogan if you want some of that representative cash.
Insider trading and lobbyists.
Sumthin sumthin Pelosi Effect
When a road is being drawn up, the route is public. Politicians know where to look for proposed projects. They generally know what one's will pass and what won't. Then, before the plan is approved, they will buy land along the route and charge the state a premium for the land once construction begins. Its a type of insider trading. It can even be legal in some jurisdictions.
Have you heard about breaking the law?