> It should be an expected price of public service that you remove yourself from most other ambitions.

Countries like Singapore already figured out that if you pay public servants very well you can attract high quality people to government jobs.

If you make part of the job requirements that you sacrifice your retirement and financial well being for the good of the country you’re just targeting a type of politician you wish existed, not real people.

> I'd hope that if they were required to live off of their (rapidly depreciating) savings and income

The problem with your line of thinking is that “they” is not a fixed set of candidates. If you forced them to have “rapidly depreciating” financial states to take the job, you’d lose a lot of candidates. I know you’d like to imagine they’d be replaced by perfect utopian candidates who only have your best interests in mind, but in reality if you make people financially desperate they’re actually more likely to look for ways to commit fraud for self-benefit. Imagine the desperate lawmaker watching their family’s retirement “rapidly depreciate” who gets a visit from a lobbyist who can get their kid a sweet $200K/yr do-nothing job if they can just slip a little amendment into a law.

The populist movement to punish lawmakers is self-defeating.

> They shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks.

I'd be okay letting them invest in S&P500 and that's about it.

maybe capital gains for politicians should be increased to like 80% and redirected entirely to public service funds lol. i'm just throwing random crap out there but haven't thought it thru at all for 2.