(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).