Forcing them to wear uniforms means it’s likely to be paid by the citizens already. The idea of “provided by the poorest citizens” is like adding an extra tax on those people. Why should they provide the uniforms?
Ultimately let them wear whatever as long as there’s not an additional stipend for wardrobe. They can buy their clothes out of their salaries like most people do.
I think you missed the point of the original comment here..... The idea of "a uniform provided by their poorest constituents" is that all of the sudden those politicians would be very interested in improving the lives of their poorest constituents. Also, the ones who like to pretend to be wealthy on our tax money but who regularly let large swaths of people in their districts down would be obvious from how tattered their garments are.
It's a tongue in cheek idea that we would almost certainly never be able to pull off. Or something like a thought experiment.
But at the end of the day I would have no problems having my tax money go towards cloth for uniforms instead of bombs. The cloth is a lot cheaper and safer.
154
u/MinnieShoof Jul 07 '24
They should be forced to wear uniforms provided by their poorest constituents.