hypothetical solution of corruption in politics

[Betwrong]

~

Well, IMHO if you are rich it is stupid to not use your wealth. What is the purpose of it if not use it for whatever reason? Happiness isn't the only one and doing some research for something so individual as happiness is irelevant at all. You can use wealth for example for making life easier, more comfortable or just for aesthetical purpose.

Lets say I am very rich and have comfortable house which is a piece of architectonical art. I would like to go to holiday but I really hate hotels. Because of I can afford the same comfort as at home, I will simply buy a new house at my holiday destination. As years passed, I've collected a few houses all around the world.

You proposed a solution to the problem of corruption, and I'm trying to provide a more realistic one. I agree with that "if you are rich it is stupid to not use your wealth". But the thing is that many politicians are not rich(yet). They go into politics in hopes of becoming rich(mostly through bribes). And they will not stop taking bribes ever with that state of mind. It will never be enough money for them. That's why I think it's important to know the limit after which more money will not make you happier.

[Imam Nuddin]

Corruption is indeed a disease that is detrimental, not only in an agency, it can even harm the whole country. Preventing by giving big paychecks probably won't work. It is human nature to always be greedy with wealth. The higher the salary, the more motivated they are for corruption. Maybe it would be more appropriate to punish him severely or the death penalty.

I strongly agree with the opinion that corruptors should receive severe punishment. because with the culture of corruption very many parties are harmed. so it is very appropriate for a corruptor to be punished with the death penalty

[figliar0]

You proposed a solution to the problem of corruption, and I'm trying to provide a more realistic one. I agree with that "if you are rich it is stupid to not use your wealth". But the thing is that many politicians are not rich(yet). They go into politics in hopes of becoming rich(mostly through bribes). And they will not stop taking bribes ever with that state of mind. It will never be enough money for them. That's why I think it's important to know the limit after which more money will not make you happier.

Yes, it started to be little OT. But i don't agree with your solution either - I don't think that it wll help to teach people that from some point wealth starts to be disgusting. You just draw a line (where?) and tell that everything above is disgusting (why?). Well, it doesn't have much sense at all - first question of every child will be - why?

[hornetsnest]

[Mpamaegbu]

I strongly agree with the opinion that corruptors should receive severe punishment. because with the culture of corruption very many parties are harmed. so it is very appropriate for a corruptor to be punished with the death penalty

I get your drift and also note your sentiment on the nature of punishment (though I don't believe in death penalty) as punitive measure. I think imprisonment of various sentencing should be enough deterrent to corruption. In societies where those culpable are sentenced to prison, there is the likelihood of citizens avoiding anything that will bring about corruption. China is a typical example of countries with zero tolerance for corruption and that's a major part of what has stabilized her economy, though it's the death penalty way. Once a corruptor is hanged or executed, s/he won't have the opportunity to right the wrong. But if sent to prison, they could turn a new leaf and win more thieves over to the path of good. That's my point.

[Kryss191]

Sorry for necroing, but I wanted to add something.
Perhaps we should focus on implementing stricter penalties for corrupt politicians. Putting them in jail for a significant period, if not for life, for example. Moreover, removing the option for them to appeal the verdict could guarantee justice and prevent prolonged legal battles that only serve to delay accountability.
Because as of now, as detailed by this law firm, they can appeal the verdict if the jury was biased or committed some form of misconduct or legal errors were made during your trial. So we could take this option from them.

[MissNonFall9]

Some time ago I was thinking about corrupted politicians in democratic countries and how to prevent this phenomenon. Things like big salary is to prevent corruption doesn't work, so why not to take all salary from them? In brief it should look like this...

Politicians and their families cannot have and manipulate with finance of any kind at all. After elections all their present property will be nationalized.  During the political service all their life costs will be paid from public funds, so as the living, which will be taken after the service. They will be motivated to rule well to rule as long as possible, because absence of any finance will effectively prevent from hoarding resources for later. After the service they will get some minimal one-shot retirement - for example one-year average salary.

What do you think about this? Can it works?

The thinking is very good because if their properties are nationalized after the elections then the corrupt people will never want to come to the elections. It is very natural that the human race will naturally have an inexorable attraction towards money and nowadays only those who have a lot of money are willing to enter politics because they have to spend a lot of money in elections. It is understood that if it is possible to completely ban the use of money for campaigning as a pre-condition for elections, then it seems that corruption will be completely eradicated.