(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 02:48 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:53 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:38 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  I agree. Build some dormitories for them to live in while in D.C. and they won't HAVE to live in their offices unless they want to. Problem solved.

They have better benefits than our military. Build them a barracks. Problem solved. I build some really nice EIT barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, MO for the MPs... They can live in those. It was 3 starship barracks, plus site work, $30 million. That's a tax savings.

At $174k a year, they can afford a small place in DC or one of the suburbs. They don't need an expensive home. They're there to work. Not play.

A "small place in DC" is a 1-bedroom apartment. I looked up a few more sources, and they give a range of $1583-2831/month for the average cost of a 1-bedroom apartment in DC. I assume you don't want congresswomen being robbed while walking to work, so that rules out the bottom end of that spectrum.

And rent is paid out of post-tax dollars. They pay 41.95% marginal tax rate (federal 32% + DC 8.5% + 1.45% medicare). So if they pay $2000/month for 1 bedroom apartment, that's $41,343 per year out of their salary.


I'm 100% in favor of giving them the option of living in barracks. That's a lot more humane than forcing the 10% of Congress who aren't rich to live in their office.

Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Actually there is no requirement that they live in their district. They do have to live in the state.

And a lot of divorced people have to pay to maintain two homes. Many people earning 175k have a lake house or beach condo. They choose their priorities. Representatives don't need to have an expensive place in DC. They could have a small place or live in the burbs. Might help get them more in touch with the real world.

(06-13-2019 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  And a lot of divorced people have to pay to maintain two homes. Many people earning 175k have a lake house or beach condo. They choose their priorities. Representatives don't need to have an expensive place in DC. They could have a small place or live in the burbs. Might help get them more in touch with the real world.

Getting divorced is usually not a choice for the guy who is maintaining homes and it absolutely results in a major quality of life hit. Running for congress is a choice.

Serving is not desirable at that salary for someone in the middle or upper middle class. You have to take a quality of life hit. Right now it is only desirable if you are rich enough to have someone at home take care of your business interests for you while you use the money earned to take advantage of the graft opportunities in Washington. I am a pretty average American and being in congress would mean taking a quality of life hit. I could make it happen by leaving my family at home and trying to live up there with the additional $65k in income that position would get me over what I make now. Not sure how familiar you are with the DC area, but you are talking the slums even if you get a 1BR in the suburbs. It isn't worth it. Not suggesting we give everyone a Georgetown mansion, but it has to be enough to make the average Joe able to live there and enjoy the lifestyle he has at home (safe area, decent schools, etc).

This is stupid.

Members of Congress don't pay for all of their expenses. They have allowances, deductions and can fund raise for many things. WHY must she maintain two homes? $2,000/mo in 2 cities is 4k/mo. 48k/yr and she makes 175k? Even after taxes she's hardly poor. Maybe she and the girl from Michigan can share a 2br in DC? Maybe she can shop at thread-up or even the salvation army.... or find a newbie designer willing to 'sponsor' her for the exposure?

I've often advocated for politicians to be given a fixed election budget that they can't supplement. Their first task is to accomplish their goals (winning the election) within a budget. Seems like good practice.

She claims to be an advocate for people like the single mom with 3 kids living off a minimum wage job.... and we're suggesting that she can't house herself in DC or NY (splitting the monies) on 87.5k/yr? Seems she was doing it before on about 1/4 that.

(06-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is stupid.

Members of Congress don't pay for all of their expenses. They have allowances, deductions and can fund raise for many things. WHY must she maintain two homes? $2,000/mo in 2 cities is 4k/mo. 48k/yr and she makes 175k? Even after taxes she's hardly poor. Maybe she and the girl from Michigan can share a 2br in DC? Maybe she can shop at thread-up or even the salvation army.... or find a newbie designer willing to 'sponsor' her for the exposure?

I've often advocated for politicians to be given a fixed election budget that they can't supplement. Their first task is to accomplish their goals (winning the election) within a budget. Seems like good practice.

She claims to be an advocate for people like the single mom with 3 kids living off a minimum wage job.... and we're suggesting that she can't house herself in DC or NY (splitting the monies) on 87.5k/yr? Seems she was doing it before on about 1/4 that.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see her making these arguments/complaints regarding a COLA raise, this issue. Her rationale only seemed to be related to campaign finance reform.

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

This is a non-sequiter. The marginal rate doesn't matter to a second home... and because it's a requirement of the job, I suspect at least one of them gets some preferential tax treatment.

It would be different if she made 150k before and now is making 175 but has to have a second home. She made around 30k before iirc. so it's the rate on the excess, and not just the last dollar.

Here is MY question... If she lived in NY before on 30k... even if she doubles that to 60k and spends it all on housing... she still has 110k to spend in DC... and she COULD rent a 2br with another congress person for both economy AND safety.

Quote:AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

So you're telling me that nobody would give her a cash advance on her election? That nobody would rent to someone with a 500 fico who used to earn 30k, but now will be earning 6 times that amount GUARANTEED for the next few years? I'm just calling BS on the idea that this was a struggle. People loan athletes with horrible credit scores waiting on their first contract MILLIONS 'betting on the come'. I suppose there could be some rules against it, but I'd change those rules. Seems an easy fix. If you've been elected but not hired yet, you can be advanced monies by the DNC, RNC or government for travel, housing and offices, perhaps up to say 25% of your first annual salary.

Quote:The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

I don't disagree with this... but this doesn't address that.

The poverty line in SF and nearby counties is 110k for a family of 4. The poverty level.

(06-13-2019 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is stupid.

Members of Congress don't pay for all of their expenses. They have allowances, deductions and can fund raise for many things. WHY must she maintain two homes? $2,000/mo in 2 cities is 4k/mo. 48k/yr and she makes 175k? Even after taxes she's hardly poor. Maybe she and the girl from Michigan can share a 2br in DC? Maybe she can shop at thread-up or even the salvation army.... or find a newbie designer willing to 'sponsor' her for the exposure?

I've often advocated for politicians to be given a fixed election budget that they can't supplement. Their first task is to accomplish their goals (winning the election) within a budget. Seems like good practice.

She claims to be an advocate for people like the single mom with 3 kids living off a minimum wage job.... and we're suggesting that she can't house herself in DC or NY (splitting the monies) on 87.5k/yr? Seems she was doing it before on about 1/4 that.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see her making these arguments/complaints regarding a COLA raise, this issue. Her rationale only seemed to be related to campaign finance reform.

I didn't say she made these arguments. I see people making them for her. Notice I said 'we're' suggesting.... not she's suggesting

I do find it a bit ironic that the person somewhat universally known as the 'everyman' and against the wealthy is speaking out in favor of pay raises (even just COLA) for some of our top earners, even when you include the excess expenses... (People in SF often brag about being the wealthiest ignoring their buying power is 1/2 many other places and even less when it comes to housing)... but that's just ironic to me. I do think it will be used against her.... by Democrats.

She's a bad spokesperson for this issue... at least the government salary aspect of it. It screams for someone to argue that she's saying... if you paid me more, I wouldn't break the law (campaign finance rules).

IMO, everyone deserves to be paid for services rendered. What I've never understood is how Congress is allowed to give itself a pay raise. That just seems wrong on every level.

(06-13-2019 04:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

This is a non-sequiter. The marginal rate doesn't matter to a second home... and because it's a requirement of the job, I suspect at least one of them gets some preferential tax treatment.

It would be different if she made 150k before and now is making 175 but has to have a second home. She made around 30k before iirc. so it's the rate on the excess, and not just the last dollar.

Here is MY question... If she lived in NY before on 30k... even if she doubles that to 60k and spends it all on housing... she still has 110k to spend in DC... and she COULD rent a 2br with another congress person for both economy AND safety.

Quote:AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

So you're telling me that nobody would give her a cash advance on her election? That nobody would rent to someone with a 500 fico who used to earn 30k, but now will be earning 6 times that amount GUARANTEED for the next few years? I'm just calling BS on the idea that this was a struggle. People loan athletes with horrible credit scores waiting on their first contract MILLIONS 'betting on the come'. I suppose there could be some rules against it, but I'd change those rules. Seems an easy fix. If you've been elected but not hired yet, you can be advanced monies by the DNC, RNC or government for travel, housing and offices, perhaps up to say 25% of your first annual salary.

Quote:The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

I don't disagree with this... but this doesn't address that.

The poverty line in SF and nearby counties is 110k for a family of 4. The poverty level.

(06-13-2019 01:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is stupid.

Members of Congress don't pay for all of their expenses. They have allowances, deductions and can fund raise for many things. WHY must she maintain two homes? $2,000/mo in 2 cities is 4k/mo. 48k/yr and she makes 175k? Even after taxes she's hardly poor. Maybe she and the girl from Michigan can share a 2br in DC? Maybe she can shop at thread-up or even the salvation army.... or find a newbie designer willing to 'sponsor' her for the exposure?

I've often advocated for politicians to be given a fixed election budget that they can't supplement. Their first task is to accomplish their goals (winning the election) within a budget. Seems like good practice.

She claims to be an advocate for people like the single mom with 3 kids living off a minimum wage job.... and we're suggesting that she can't house herself in DC or NY (splitting the monies) on 87.5k/yr? Seems she was doing it before on about 1/4 that.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see her making these arguments/complaints regarding a COLA raise, this issue. Her rationale only seemed to be related to campaign finance reform.

I didn't say she made these arguments. I see people making them for her. Notice I said 'we're' suggesting.... not she's suggesting

I do find it a bit ironic that the person somewhat universally known as the 'everyman' and against the wealthy is speaking out in favor of pay raises (even just COLA) for some of our top earners, even when you include the excess expenses... (People in SF often brag about being the wealthiest ignoring their buying power is 1/2 many other places and even less when it comes to housing)... but that's just ironic to me. I do think it will be used against her.... by Democrats.

She's a bad spokesperson for this issue... at least the government salary aspect of it. It screams for someone to argue that she's saying... if you paid me more, I wouldn't break the law (campaign finance rules).

Ham she had $15k in the bank but couldn't afford housing. Let that sink in.

You all keep boomeranging back to AOC personally. While she makes some valid points, it has nothing to do with her. She is a single, childless woman and it is extremely simple to pack up and move wherever. She doesn't have to worry about time, extra mouths to feed, a spouse and their potential employment, schools, or anything else. My point is for people that do. The argument that because AOC herself could have easily made the move is moot. I want Joe the Plumber with 5 kids in congress. The current paradigm does not allow for this. Maybe keeping the salary the same and giving them a 1BR apartment on Capitol Hill would work. Then they can at least maintain their quality of life at home. and not have to move their families to the swamp. They'd still be away from their families a lot, but at least the salary combined with covered expenses would make that a more appealing tradeoff. I don't think some of you have any idea what it costs. I saw $2,000 mentioned... that won't even get you a decent 1 BR in Arlington or Fairfax, much less DC.

She should go talk to Kamala Harris and get lessons on how to generate money the whore-bag way.

She doesn’t like the paycheck don’t do the job. This kind of crap makes me crazy. Why does this idiot believe she is worth more that a freakin’ bartender? Never mind....

(06-13-2019 11:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:28 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 03:44 PM)banker Wrote:  Your tax payments are way off. You're applying the top tax bracket to 100% of their wages, not factoring in even a standard deduction, or making any other adjustments. The effective federal tax rate for the typical person making $175K is going to be between 13-18%.

Generally accepted debt/payment ratios say most people can afford 25% of their gross income for housing. That's $43,750 for a person making $175K, or $3,645 per month.

Now, if you want to live beyond your means because you think you are a celebrity instead of a junior House member, I could see where you could have problems. Is she living with her boyfriend that she put on her staff and pays six figures to? That would make things easier. Also, 29 year old bartenders don't usually get elected, she probably had a negative net worth going in, you know, because she had never done anything up to the point she was elected.

They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

Because her family is not poor. They're not wealthy, but they're solidly middle to upper-middle.

Her Dad owned a small architecture firm before he died in 2008. Her parents owned a small home (916 sq ft) in Westchester County and a condo in the Bronx. Her Mom sold the home in 2016 for $355,000.

You just contradicted yourself. Either she didn't have money to start working in DC or she had $15 grand. If you can't live off $15k until that first check on the 15th or 30th, maybe you need to re-evaluate your life.

You live in PA. In PA you can rent an apartment based on having $15k in your savings account.

When I moved to San Diego, I discovered that most people with no job for the past year and $15k in the bank are rejected from renting. I rented a 1600 sf house in a working class neighborhood in one of the farthest out suburbs. When I left last year, over 40 potential renters walked through and the landlord told us that only 2 were financially qualified (one of them was a 40-something Native American who got $12k/month tax-free from his tribe, but he was unemployed and he brought two young ladies who looked like his prostitutes with him during the walk-through).

Landlords have all the power when governments restrict the supply of housing (which they've done to an extreme degree in DC, MA, NYC, and CA). If a landlord's property is in any way desirable, they will use that leverage to reject most potential renters.

I suspect DC's apartment market is more like CA than PA.

(06-14-2019 08:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  You all keep boomeranging back to AOC personally. While she makes some valid points, it has nothing to do with her. She is a single, childless woman and it is extremely simple to pack up and move wherever. She doesn't have to worry about time, extra mouths to feed, a spouse and their potential employment, schools, or anything else. My point is for people that do. The argument that because AOC herself could have easily made the move is moot. I want Joe the Plumber with 5 kids in congress. The current paradigm does not allow for this. Maybe keeping the salary the same and giving them a 1BR apartment on Capitol Hill would work. Then they can at least maintain their quality of life at home. and not have to move their families to the swamp. They'd still be away from their families a lot, but at least the salary combined with covered expenses would make that a more appealing tradeoff. I don't think some of you have any idea what it costs. I saw $2,000 mentioned... that won't even get you a decent 1 BR in Arlington or Fairfax, much less DC.

Hear, here. My point exactly.

Someone earlier mentioned barracks for Congress members. I think family housing like some military bases have is more appropriate for members of Congress. And they should be available as soon as their election is certified so that they can set up their office and be ready to start work on Day 1.

(06-14-2019 09:51 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 08:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  You all keep boomeranging back to AOC personally. While she makes some valid points, it has nothing to do with her. She is a single, childless woman and it is extremely simple to pack up and move wherever. She doesn't have to worry about time, extra mouths to feed, a spouse and their potential employment, schools, or anything else. My point is for people that do. The argument that because AOC herself could have easily made the move is moot. I want Joe the Plumber with 5 kids in congress. The current paradigm does not allow for this. Maybe keeping the salary the same and giving them a 1BR apartment on Capitol Hill would work. Then they can at least maintain their quality of life at home. and not have to move their families to the swamp. They'd still be away from their families a lot, but at least the salary combined with covered expenses would make that a more appealing tradeoff. I don't think some of you have any idea what it costs. I saw $2,000 mentioned... that won't even get you a decent 1 BR in Arlington or Fairfax, much less DC.

Hear, here. My point exactly.

Someone earlier mentioned barracks for Congress members. I think family housing like some military bases have is more appropriate for members of Congress. And they should be available as soon as their election is certified so that they can set up their office and be ready to start work on Day 1.

This line of thinking is a mystery to me. Does anyone here believe Joe the plumber wouldn’t take that job? Bullchit!

The fact is if Joe the plumber could wrestle this job from an incumbent he would at some time come back to his district a rich man. Or woman in AOC’s case.

Maybe she should call up her former coworkers at the bar, you know, the ones who lost their jobs because of her policies, and tell them how badly she has it on 175K per year.

(06-14-2019 10:14 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 09:51 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-14-2019 08:20 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  You all keep boomeranging back to AOC personally. While she makes some valid points, it has nothing to do with her. She is a single, childless woman and it is extremely simple to pack up and move wherever. She doesn't have to worry about time, extra mouths to feed, a spouse and their potential employment, schools, or anything else. My point is for people that do. The argument that because AOC herself could have easily made the move is moot. I want Joe the Plumber with 5 kids in congress. The current paradigm does not allow for this. Maybe keeping the salary the same and giving them a 1BR apartment on Capitol Hill would work. Then they can at least maintain their quality of life at home. and not have to move their families to the swamp. They'd still be away from their families a lot, but at least the salary combined with covered expenses would make that a more appealing tradeoff. I don't think some of you have any idea what it costs. I saw $2,000 mentioned... that won't even get you a decent 1 BR in Arlington or Fairfax, much less DC.

Hear, here. My point exactly.

Someone earlier mentioned barracks for Congress members. I think family housing like some military bases have is more appropriate for members of Congress. And they should be available as soon as their election is certified so that they can set up their office and be ready to start work on Day 1.

This line of thinking is a mystery to me. Does anyone here believe Joe the plumber wouldn’t take that job? Bullchit!

The fact is if Joe the plumber could wrestle this job from an incumbent he would at some time come back to his district a rich man. Or woman in AOC’s case.

Incorrect. You have to already have money to get rich off the graft. You have to invest $1M to make $10M on insider knowledge of cattle futures. Joe the Plumber is trying to make ends meet. He can't make that investment. Now he could get rich illegally, but you need to invest to take advantage of the legal congressional scams.

(06-14-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 11:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:28 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

Because her family is not poor. They're not wealthy, but they're solidly middle to upper-middle.

Her Dad owned a small architecture firm before he died in 2008. Her parents owned a small home (916 sq ft) in Westchester County and a condo in the Bronx. Her Mom sold the home in 2016 for $355,000.

You just contradicted yourself. Either she didn't have money to start working in DC or she had $15 grand. If you can't live off $15k until that first check on the 15th or 30th, maybe you need to re-evaluate your life.

You live in PA. In PA you can rent an apartment based on having $15k in your savings account.

When I moved to San Diego, I discovered that most people with no job for the past year and $15k in the bank are rejected from renting. I rented a 1600 sf house in a working class neighborhood in one of the farthest out suburbs. When I left last year, over 40 potential renters walked through and the landlord told us that only 2 were financially qualified (one of them was a 40-something Native American who got $12k/month tax-free from his tribe, but he was unemployed and he brought two young ladies who looked like his prostitutes with him during the walk-through).

Landlords have all the power when governments restrict the supply of housing (which they've done to an extreme degree in DC, MA, NYC, and CA). If a landlord's property is in any way desirable, they will use that leverage to reject most potential renters.

I suspect DC's apartment market is more like CA than PA.

I've lived all over the country.. It's all about the same no matter where you live.. You have to pass some credit back ground checks.. So if you have terrible credit and no job, yea you're right..

(06-14-2019 01:46 PM)gdunn Wrote:  I've lived all over the country.. It's all about the same no matter where you live.. You have to pass some credit back ground checks.. So if you have terrible credit and no job, yea you're right..

but she had a government guaranteed job, and lots of fans.

There are democrats in DC who would let her live in their mansions for free if they could.

(06-14-2019 09:50 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 11:13 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 09:28 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:39 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 07:37 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  They also have to have a home in their district. That's a requirement. That's why the marginal tax rate is the relevant one to use (the % paid on the last dollar earned).

How many people do you know who have to maintain 2 homes in order to keep their job?

AOC is right - she literally couldn't begin working in DC until January because she didn't have a salary yet. In the last 20 years, high rent places like CA and DC have started requiring a ridiculous amount of past history in order to rent an apartment. I despise her politics, but she's a member of Congress and I want her to be able to be in Washington setting up her office and getting ready to work before Day 1.

The bolded part is exactly my point - I want at least a few middle-income Americans in Congress! It shouldn't be just a rich person's club! But Joe the Plumber (or Rosie Riveter, Bob the Builder, etc) would be out of his mind to quit his plumbing job to run for Congress - he'd lose a year of salary while he campaigned, and if he won he'd probably have higher expenses than his salary. If that means Duncan Hunter (richest man in Congress) also gets an extra 100k/year, I think it's worth the tradeoff.

Kinda makes you wonder how someone who was so far in debt was able to run a Congressional campaign..

Oh and she had money in her account.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...r-scrutiny

Because her family is not poor. They're not wealthy, but they're solidly middle to upper-middle.

Her Dad owned a small architecture firm before he died in 2008. Her parents owned a small home (916 sq ft) in Westchester County and a condo in the Bronx. Her Mom sold the home in 2016 for $355,000.

You just contradicted yourself. Either she didn't have money to start working in DC or she had $15 grand. If you can't live off $15k until that first check on the 15th or 30th, maybe you need to re-evaluate your life.

You live in PA. In PA you can rent an apartment based on having $15k in your savings account.

When I moved to San Diego, I discovered that most people with no job for the past year and $15k in the bank are rejected from renting. I rented a 1600 sf house in a working class neighborhood in one of the farthest out suburbs. When I left last year, over 40 potential renters walked through and the landlord told us that only 2 were financially qualified (one of them was a 40-something Native American who got $12k/month tax-free from his tribe, but he was unemployed and he brought two young ladies who looked like his prostitutes with him during the walk-through).

Landlords have all the power when governments restrict the supply of housing (which they've done to an extreme degree in DC, MA, NYC, and CA). If a landlord's property is in any way desirable, they will use that leverage to reject most potential renters.

I suspect DC's apartment market is more like CA than PA.

Show me a law that says she must live in DC? A lot of families make the choice to pay less rent and commute 30 to 90 minutes because they cant afford to live close to their job. Members of congress that cant afford to live in DC can make that choice. Or move and get another job and a home closer to where they work.


How is a member of congress any better than the people running their office and doing most of the work, afford living in DC? My guess, they dont, they commute. You seem to think since a person was elected to office they are some how better than that "avg Joe" you want in congress. They're not, they took a job knowing what was required before getting it.

Most of them understand...its a first contract. With a big payday at some point in the future. Hell 5 years on the job and members of congress are fully vested in their retirement. That's a helluva benefit but it's pennies because most of them will be worth millions before retirement.

If the "avg joe" thought they have a shot at winning , you would see more in congress. While it's good to have a mixture of people in congress. My main concren is not being average...being smart enough to actually understand their job.

Immediately up their pay to $250k. No issues.

Also immediately enact term limits: 2 terms for Senators and 4 terms for House members.