Zelenskiy Releases Personal Income in Transparency Push
Volodymyr Zelenskiy declared his personal income for the first time since the outbreak of war with Russia, as part of his effort to increase transparency in his government.
In 2021, the year before Russia invaded Ukraine, Zelenskiy and his family reported income of 10.8 million hryvnia ($285,000), down 12 million hryvnia from the previous year, even as his income was boosted by the sale of $142,000 of government bonds, according to a statement on his website.
In 2022, the first year of the Russian invasion, the Zelenskiy family’s income fell further to 3.7 million hryvnia as he earned less income from renting real estate he owned because of the hostilities.
Even as the war allowed Ukrainian officials to withhold revealing sensitive personal information, Zelenskiy pushed to make them publicly declare assets. Increasing transparency and tackling graft are necessary for his country to ensure continued financial aid from its western allies, even as more than $100 billion of funds are held up due to political maneuvering inside US and EU.
Gotta say, that's an almost aggressively reasonable salary for running an entire country,
I'd consider myself pretty well taken care of for that level of pay.
Don't forget, he was a very well known actor and comedian before.
This is what still blows me away.
A fucking actor is doing a better job running a country specifically during wartime than a typical politician.
It's fuckin embarrassing to every single person on this planet who's dealing with stupid/corrupt/inept politicians who would sell their constituents for fuckin toilet paper.
Calling him just an actor is sort of unfair to him though. He was basically Ukraine's Jon Stewart. He does a great job as a politician because he spent years satirizing them, so he knows how the sausage is made and he knows how they totally fuck up and how to avoid it. That's why he's so successful at his job.
And, I imagine, if Jon Stewart ever ran for office, he would do similarly well.
Please, I can only get so erect. I'd tune in 24/7. With popcorn.
Stewart/Colbert would be the ticket to the greatest America.
Tbf, the US tried the actor president twice, and they turned out to be the two worst presidents in modern US history, so it might not always be the best idea to elect the "outsider".
Which two?
Reagan and Trump. The former was a b-list actor before becoming governor and then president and the latter played a successful businessman in the fictional series "The Apprentice".
It's so ironic that California and New York, two beacons of progressivism have us those two turds.
Liberalism, not progressivism. There are big and important differences.
You're right about the rest though, of course.
It's both, can't have progress without liberty
Modern liberalism aka neoliberalism isn't really that much about progress, though. It's more about preserving the status quo and maybe a little Incrementalism if the owner donors allow it.
The liberties that liberals originally fought for hundreds of years ago are the floor of expected liberty now and neoliberalism is a center-right to right wing ideology.
Liberalism is a precursor to progressivism though. You can't make progress without it. You can't expect to be taken seriously this way.
In the same way as coal is a precursor to diamonds, sure. Doesn't mean that coal is useful for making jewelry today.
Like I said, you can't expect to be taken seriously this way. Deny it if you must,
Neoliberalism = liberalism I don't like
Neoliberalism is still center-right. The political spectrum in the US is so skewed to the right that center-right feels like a progressive position.
🙄
Neoliberalism is the ideology of Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, both Clintons, and Biden, to name a few obvious examples.
A study that samples 148 different articles, I'm sure you reviewed a good selection of them before you came to a different conclusion than the study did, right?
It's not like you just named 6 very different politicians and claimed they're all the same because "neoliberal", that would be exactly my point.
There are terrible people everywhere. California and New York have 10s of millions of residents - there are bound to be some that are shitstains. The problem is that money = power and when it's possible for one individual to have too much money, it inevitably means that terrible people will be able to amass this kind of power.
This is why wealth (in)equality is important - it's what determines how much powerful individuals are able to become. If it's too easy for a single person to amass too much power, inevitably, the wrong person will be able to gain it.
Ah ok, I suspected Trump would be one of them but TIL about Reagan.
Trump and Reagan
I think the Ukrainian public decided to throw a curveball that Putin and the KGB could never predict - electing an absolute outsider who the KGB didn’t have time to corrupt
Zelensky's campaign was supported by a Ukrainian oligarch. Not exactly an "absolute outsider". In fact, during the campaign the supporters of Poroshenko (who tend to be more nationalists) used this as ground to accuse him of being associated with Russia (among other things).
What people need to understand about the Ukrainian oligarchs are that they're actually oligarchs. It's not US-style "we should get around to regulating campaign financing some time so that Google doesn't run candidates", it's not Russia-style "Actually you're a minor noble there to exploit your dedicated region for the Tsar, by appointment of the Tsar":
In Ukraine it's "businesspeople with not completely clean records running for office because that's a neat way to get legal immunity and corruption opportunities", aka actual oligarchy, with the fat cats themselves in office. They're absolutely not a unified front, often hate each other's guts both in a business and political sense, and while (at least for the longest time) the Ukrainian people had practically no say in who would run, they could choose which Oligarch they liked best, putting their thumb on the scales.
So why did Kolomoyskyi support Zelensky? There's a very simple explanation: Zelensky ran against Poroshenko, who Kolomoyskyi had quite a fallout over stuff much more important than politics, that being funnelling oil into to Kolomoyskyi's refineries:
Enemy of my enemy and all that.
I can't really tell just how important access to Kolomoyskyi's TV channel was for Zelensky's campaign, the man was a folk hero way before meaning that vanishing on TV might've just boosted his youtube channel in equal amount.
I mean, don't you member doctor house? An actor could earn more than a doctor by pretending to be a doctor. Why can't an actor lead a country better than a politician?
Politicians are actors of politics in a way. Reagan is the oft-cited example of a total himbo politician who acted a cultural identity people associated with.
You know what? I still argues it's a great idea to pay government positions well. Let there be no need for bribes or underhanded deals. You want them to also be able to take care of themselves for the stress and it should be something that people want to achieve because of what a good job it is then prove they are right for it so that there is a pool of smart people willing to do it rather than a job managing HR for Facebook cause it pays better.
But maybe I just like the idea of a country that takes care to make sure they are taking care of people.
In theory the idea is great. Unfortunately in reality people in those positions are fucking greedy and will throw citizens under the bus to get a few extra bucks. In South Africa we see the ruling party ANC politicians who earn decent money but they still can't keep their fucking greasy hands out of the cookie jar. It's pretty fucking disgusting since their is still so much poverty in the country but they will rather steal to enrich themselves.
In the US too, senators get paid ~190k/year and continually throw their constituents under the bus for campaign contributions of just a few hundred to a few thousand dollars from lobbyists
Yeah that's an issue but I think it's also from it being nearly impossible for new people to win against incumbents so we do need to also have a setup where it's possible to run and win without already expecting it.
The system incentivizes it.
Agreed. We should (in the US) pay really high salaries to government officials, especially executive office/legislators/judges. Provide huge benefits like paid education and lifetime medical coverage for children and spouses (even if you retire), and a one time home purchase up to a certain amount in any location on retirement. It's yours and if you sell it, the income is yours too. Pension equivalent to salary, which is raised whenever it's increased for active government officials, and continues for your spouse after you die.
But in return, you and your spouse must fully divest yourself of any investments of any kind. You must sell any properties you own beyond a home in your constituent state. A home in DC will be provided, if applicable. Your spouse also may not have investments or own properties. Your adult children may have investments if they're managed by a blind trust.
After you retire, or "age out" at the current full social security age, or at the end of your assigned term after reaching that age, you may not ever hold another job ever again. You may not receive income in any form other than what is paid to you by the pension fund. You (and your spouse) may not own investments of any kind.
Don't like it? Cool, don't run for office.
lol honestly my middle manager boss makes more than him while he’s running one of the most stressful jobs in the world.
I'd cap every civil servant income to 5 median salaries. If that's too not enough, run your country better.
This is close to reasonable. But the argument politicians shouldn't be paid well is bad. If you can't earn a good income as a politician, then the only people that can be politicians are those that are already wealthy.
A working class person (or background) that can do well as a minister will struggle to put their family in the position of earning a reduced salary compared to a job in the private sector that will pay them more.
A good example of this problem is Rishi Sunak. His wife is a billionaire. He doesn't need a salary and PM. He has extended internal combustion engine sales deadline, supported the war in Gaza as soon as a Gaza permit for BP was announced and spitefully stopped the expansion of high speed rail by selling off the land purchased for it. All these actions are in direct support of BP a company his wife directly benefits from.
It would be much better if our politicians earned their income through their salary. We have a dearth of talent due to low pay and high stress roles, only those that are swindling millions out of it are willing to endure.
Easy. If we find any income other than salary, linked to your decisions or not, that's years or decades of manual labor for you. If your spouse is a millionaire, a business owner or even just a hired worker who doesn't agree to the same level of scrutiny until the end of their lives, no politics for you. Leave politics to saints who serve their people for ideological reasons only. Politics is not supposed to be appealing.
I think the money is not that important at this stage. As an important figure you will get a lot of favours and freebies from people and companies, so you dont pass regulations that would hurt their bottom line. You also have a lot more opportunities later by being spokesperson for other organisations, can write books because everyone knows your name or get hired by a big company, because you already know half the politicians they deal with.
Especially taking in consideration how cheap it all is