DC Statehood Tax Implications

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the commuters from outside the District are slowly creeping back in I would love to see them pay a commuter tax.

The bridges onto the Mall (Memorial and 395) would remain Federal, I think. No tolling on those if are under Fed control.

The Key & Chain Bridges, plus 66, could be tolled. Likewise, DC could just assess a congestion charge on its streets, similar to that in place in London. The license plates are just scanned and tolls assessed electronically based on congestion zone.

I don’t get this. There’s already a toll on the HOV lanes on 395 coming from VA. Why couldn’t DC do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the commuters from outside the District are slowly creeping back in I would love to see them pay a commuter tax.

The bridges onto the Mall (Memorial and 395) would remain Federal, I think. No tolling on those if are under Fed control.

The Key & Chain Bridges, plus 66, could be tolled. Likewise, DC could just assess a congestion charge on its streets, similar to that in place in London. The license plates are just scanned and tolls assessed electronically based on congestion zone.

I don’t get this. There’s already a toll on the HOV lanes on 395 coming from VA. Why couldn’t DC do the same?

VA is tolling the HOV lanes which is permitted under federal law. A congestion toll requires federal approval and there are only so many slots for such programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Logistics? When part was retroceded to VA it was also about infrastructure and who will pay for it-Federal? State? Local?

MD retrocession of mainly wards 1.3.4.5.7.8 is estimated at 75% of the pop and 70% of the households. There is the Stadium Armory which should also stay DC. New use for land? FBI on federal property?

States have a multiplicity of areas from rural to suburban to urban plus a multiplicity of business from agriculture to manufacturing to service industries. They also have economic engines that support jurisdictions with low SES populations. Maryland and Baltimore which used to be the economic powerhouse of the state for most of it's existence.

Local taxes- New State could go Virginia and tax on annual Fair Market Value. That would up the take on the old wards 3 and 4. New state could do whatever income tax it wants on residents. Wash DC would be federal and people would pay local income tax to their own state.

Persons living in the fed zone? Would they move out? Buy outs? If left voting status is the same as current.

Schools Impact Aid and anything federal- New State would be like everyone else. Anyone left living in the Fed Zone would be part of some sending agreement with New State or have it's own small school district. Cities of Falls Church and Fairfax have them.

New State-buys all other Federal Property like the Zoo, National Arboretum, VP House keeping new borders of Washington DC contiguous. Stick the VP in Blair House even though it was bought in 1942 and US base of Churchill.
Objections to Churchill are not uniform throughout the USA.
Zoo can move to land near Dulles since VA already has the Smithsonian at Air & Space near Dulles.

Revenue- contiguous DC provides it's own police, fire, schools, road maintenance.

USA - why are foreign government affiliated properties on Impact Aid forms? They should all be paying standard property taxes.

Lol, somehow other states can have federal land but New Columbia can't. Also good luck with violating the Vienna Conventions, I'm sure other countries will happily pay up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a new state, dc would legalize prostitution, decriminalize drugs, promote restorative justice over incarceration and generally reform policing to be more lenient (which would exacerbate crime), and raise taxes. It would be another Portland, except one half of the citizens would be poor.

"I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because I disagree with their policy positions"

No. In dc born and bred. I’m from SE. I just know what a newly liberated, liberal city council would do because I have lived here so long. They would jack taxes way up to fund the same generations of families in public housing, in perpetuity, so as not to lose their political seats.

This public sector in this city is also still highly dysfunctional. I don’t know if it’s a legacy of the Barry years or what, but even with all the new wealth, somehow shtty agencies like dcra continue to provide poor service year after year. I don’t mind. A lot of the dysfunction works for me as a commercial real estate owner. Im just a realist about this stuff. Dc has massive problems. As a state it would be super liberal in trying to solve them. These problems, many of which are intractable and culture driven, have no answers. There is no solution. Millions and millions of dollars over decades have been thrown at the problems, and there is nothing to show for it.

If dc became a federal tax haven versus a state I would be fine with that.

It won't be any worse than it is already. The new status will require all sorts of political structure rejiggering in the short term. This will make people care again

[Anonymous]

You kidding? Every dinky apartment and condo will be snatched up as people clamor to establish residency and avoid federal taxes.

[Anonymous]

Why break a good thing? I'm a DC native and don't get the clamoring for statehood besides "it's fashionable"

[Anonymous]

This is all wonderful but DC will never be a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a new state, dc would legalize prostitution, decriminalize drugs, promote restorative justice over incarceration and generally reform policing to be more lenient (which would exacerbate crime), and raise taxes. It would be another Portland, except one half of the citizens would be poor.

"I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because I disagree with their policy positions"

NP - I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because 1) the Founders knew that locating the capital in one state would disadvantage others; and 2) everyone in DC now chooses to live there, despite no voting rights since 1791. If it matters that much to you, move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a new state, dc would legalize prostitution, decriminalize drugs, promote restorative justice over incarceration and generally reform policing to be more lenient (which would exacerbate crime), and raise taxes. It would be another Portland, except one half of the citizens would be poor.

"I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because I disagree with their policy positions"

NP - I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because 1) the Founders knew that locating the capital in one state would disadvantage others; and 2) everyone in DC now chooses to live there, despite no voting rights since 1791. If it matters that much to you, move.

PP, to women in 1915: "You choose to live here despite no voting rights since 1776. If it matters that much to you, move."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a new state, dc would legalize prostitution, decriminalize drugs, promote restorative justice over incarceration and generally reform policing to be more lenient (which would exacerbate crime), and raise taxes. It would be another Portland, except one half of the citizens would be poor.

"I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because I disagree with their policy positions"

NP - I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because 1) the Founders knew that locating the capital in one state would disadvantage others; and 2) everyone in DC now chooses to live there, despite no voting rights since 1791. If it matters that much to you, move.

PP, to women in 1915: "You choose to live here despite no voting rights since 1776. If it matters that much to you, move."

Cute try. Not at all the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why break a good thing? I'm a DC native and don't get the clamoring for statehood besides "it's fashionable"

+1

Today's statehood argument is largely being pushed by white and wealthy liberal transplants, whose gentrification ironically pushed tens of thousands poor people (most of whom are people of color) out of the District and into states with Congressional representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the commuters from outside the District are slowly creeping back in I would love to see them pay a commuter tax.

The bridges onto the Mall (Memorial and 395) would remain Federal, I think. No tolling on those if are under Fed control.

The Key & Chain Bridges, plus 66, could be tolled. Likewise, DC could just assess a congestion charge on its streets, similar to that in place in London. The license plates are just scanned and tolls assessed electronically based on congestion zone.

I don’t get this. There’s already a toll on the HOV lanes on 395 coming from VA. Why couldn’t DC do the same?

Why would DC want to do that? It would only discourage folks from coming into DC for evening and weekend activities. Those activities depend in large part on subordinates and their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why break a good thing? I'm a DC native and don't get the clamoring for statehood besides "it's fashionable"

+1

Today's statehood argument is largely being pushed by white and wealthy liberal transplants, whose gentrification ironically pushed tens of thousands poor people (most of whom are people of color) out of the District and into states with Congressional representation.

Who cares? Whether DC should have Congressional representation should NOT be depended on whether or to what extent gentrification has taken place. DC should have Congressional representation, regardless. As a separate question, I certainly recognize that the chances of obtaining that representation have increased perhaps due to the changing composition of DC. [Biden's election and BLM issues no doubt have furthered the cause as well.] But, regardless, all DC residents of whatever makeup would benefit from Congressional representations. And those folks who move out of DC are being represented by others in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a new state, dc would legalize prostitution, decriminalize drugs, promote restorative justice over incarceration and generally reform policing to be more lenient (which would exacerbate crime), and raise taxes. It would be another Portland, except one half of the citizens would be poor.

"I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because I disagree with their policy positions"

NP - I think that denying Washingtonians representation in Congress is acceptable because 1) the Founders knew that locating the capital in one state would disadvantage others; and 2) everyone in DC now chooses to live there, despite no voting rights since 1791. If it matters that much to you, move.

PP, to women in 1915: "You choose to live here despite no voting rights since 1776. If it matters that much to you, move."

Cute try. Not at all the same thing.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why break a good thing? I'm a DC native and don't get the clamoring for statehood besides "it's fashionable"

Calling BS.

90%+ of DC people want statehood. Every DC native I've ever met will talk your ear off about statehood. Moderate-to-poor trolling effort, though. Perhaps go back to TheDonald.com?