If DC got rid of it's life long entitlements and bloated city government they could cut taxes by 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don' like it, you have options. But wealthy people keep moving into the district. The free market has spoken. Whatever problems DC has, it is attractive to people with means.

Wealthy people are moving to the whole region period. DC gets much less as a percentage of new residents than the suburbs. So in other words DC isn;t attracting as many wealthy people as say Arlington or Bethesda.

Well your measure does not make sense. DC has less physical space to expand. The only way to add wealthy people is through gentrification of transitional neighborhoods, and yet it still happens. In Arlington you can tear down a 2,000 square foot home in a nice suburb and build a 5,000 square foot home. I live in North Arlington and love it. But there is a net inflow of wealthy people into the District, and that is significant. DC is too small to ever compete on raw numbers. A better economic measure is this:

Find the cost of a 4500 square foot home on 7500 feet of land that is 6 blocks from the metro. What is the price in Arlington? What is the price in the District? Bethesda? The market does not lie.

Ok so you don't live in DC. Soooo just keep walking. First of all DC's population is down from a high of 800k, so until we get back to that number we've still lost population since the 60s. Secondly there are tons of places in DC where you could build 5,000sq ft homes, look at Philips Park or the tract of land right near Maret or the large spaces off of Colorado for example. Hopefully more of these leeches move out in to Virginia and you can support them with your tax dollars since you seem so eager to do so.

OK, I did. A home in North Arlington that goes for 1.3 million dollars goes for 3 million in Phillips Park. Economics proves that DC is attractive to wealthy people. If it was not, the price of similar houses in Arlington would be higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:21:04 you are correct. Yvette Alexander and Marion Barry introduced legislation to limit TANF for 5 years, or whatever the federal guidelines provide. I don't know what happened with that legislation.

I don't think it has gone anywhere (yet?). Tommy Wells and Michael Brown introduced a different TANF bill that was passed in January and became law on April 8. You can read about both bills here: http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/dc-council-tackles-tanf-program/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not a bad thing at all. But its annoying when people talk about DC like it is a complete welfare state or that the taxes are so bad - wealthy folks are still moving here despite all of these negatives. Folks don't make that kind of choice without getting some perceived value in return - whether its living in a walkable neighborhood, access to public transit, nightlife and culture.

I thought there was a push recently to get rid of the lifelong public assistance entitlements - if I am not mistaken Barry was in favor of it. As a native DC'er I think we should get rid of the lifelong status as well but I don't think social services are the big tax drag everyone paints them out to be either.

Really? The city has a half a billion dollars deficit, and you don't think it's a drag? The mayor has proposed very little in spending cuts but just raising taxes. As these poor people finally leave DC, the city can spend it's tax receipts on better things and try to become a world class city rather than a welfare den.

[Anonymous]

Actually DC has one of the lowest deficits as a percentage of revenue, compared to the 50 states. Deficits aren't good, but ours is pretty manageable.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Really? The city has a half a billion dollars deficit, and you don't think it's a drag? The mayor has proposed very little in spending cuts but just raising taxes. As these poor people finally leave DC, the city can spend it's tax receipts on better things and try to become a world class city rather than a welfare den.

I am not sure where you get your information, but Gray's budget proposal cuts spending by $187 million. Two out of three dollars cut comes out of programs aimed at assisting the poor and disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a bad thing at all. But its annoying when people talk about DC like it is a complete welfare state or that the taxes are so bad - wealthy folks are still moving here despite all of these negatives. Folks don't make that kind of choice without getting some perceived value in return - whether its living in a walkable neighborhood, access to public transit, nightlife and culture.

I thought there was a push recently to get rid of the lifelong public assistance entitlements - if I am not mistaken Barry was in favor of it. As a native DC'er I think we should get rid of the lifelong status as well but I don't think social services are the big tax drag everyone paints them out to be either.

Really? The city has a half a billion dollars deficit, and you don't think it's a drag? The mayor has proposed very little in spending cuts but just raising taxes. As these poor people finally leave DC, the city can spend it's tax receipts on better things and try to become a world class city rather than a welfare den.

Proof please that the deficit is a result of spending on social services.....