ADVERTISEMENT

This is a bizarre news story. You can't make this up.

What the hell is the housing market like in Bethesda if a millionaire lives in a house like this?

190617200529-askia-khafra-fire-scene-exlarge-169.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: N&B4PSU and BBrown
Guess Beckwitt hasn't been monitoring Trump's assessments of the North Korean threat.:)
 
What the hell is the housing market like in Bethesda if a millionaire lives in a house like this?

190617200529-askia-khafra-fire-scene-exlarge-169.jpg

Frankly, it's horrendous. Making $105K in metro DC is living paycheck to paycheck. Thank you for sending all of your tax dollars here to artificially sustain and grow the economy!
 
Frankly, it's horrendous. Making $105K in metro DC is living paycheck to paycheck. Thank you for sending all of your tax dollars here to artificially sustain and grow the economy!

What are your thoughts on this idea, move parts of the federal government out of DC into Midwest cities as outlined in this video from Vox?

I know I know it's Vox - but still a concept that seems interesting to me.

 
Frankly, it's horrendous. Making $105K in metro DC is living paycheck to paycheck. Thank you for sending all of your tax dollars here to artificially sustain and grow the economy!

Not true at all unless you have a spouse that doesn't work and several kids. I make a bit more than $105K, but not much and am putting away $40K+ for retirement every year as opposed to living paycheck to paycheck.
 
What are your thoughts on this idea, move parts of the federal government out of DC into Midwest cities as outlined in this video from Vox?

I know I know it's Vox - but still a concept that seems interesting to me.


Funny. Reason Magazine just published an article on the same topic. The USDA is currently moving 550 jobs from metro DC to their facility near Kansas City and USDA employees are up in arms.
As a policy matter, it's a no-brainer. The move is estimated to save the government $300M over 15 years. Metro DC population has been exploding since the 90s when government was "shrunk." This just meant there was an outsourcing strategy which led to every major govt contractor moving here or expanding. There has been a huge influx of people ever since(me included). When I got here in 1999, Loudon County was literally farmland. Today it's full of McMansions and 800K town homes and has the highest median income in the country. 7 of the 10 richest counties in the country are commuting distance to DC. Zoning laws in the district prevent tall building which prevents enough housing from being built in the city.
It makes sense to have policy and political types in DC, but there is little reason to have the administrative state located here. There are plenty of large Federal admin locations all around the country. Doing so would take pressure off of housing and traffic in DC and would provide a stable population and tax base to other, lower cost areas, mostly in the midwest. Many of these towns have unused infrastructure due to declining populations so they could absorb the new people without much impact.
 
Not true at all unless you have a spouse that doesn't work and several kids. I make a bit more than $105K, but not much and am putting away $40K+ for retirement every year as opposed to living paycheck to paycheck.

That's awesome, but I think you are the exception.
I read an article within the last year - probably during the partial shutdown - about the salary needed in various metro areas to just get by. DC was north of $100K.
 
Funny. Reason Magazine just published an article on the same topic. The USDA is currently moving 550 jobs from metro DC to their facility near Kansas City and USDA employees are up in arms.
As a policy matter, it's a no-brainer. The move is estimated to save the government $300M over 15 years. Metro DC population has been exploding since the 90s when government was "shrunk." This just meant there was an outsourcing strategy which led to every major govt contractor moving here or expanding. There has been a huge influx of people ever since(me included). When I got here in 1999, Loudon County was literally farmland. Today it's full of McMansions and 800K town homes and has the highest median income in the country. 7 of the 10 richest counties in the country are commuting distance to DC. Zoning laws in the district prevent tall building which prevents enough housing from being built in the city.
It makes sense to have policy and political types in DC, but there is little reason to have the administrative state located here. There are plenty of large Federal admin locations all around the country. Doing so would take pressure off of housing and traffic in DC and would provide a stable population and tax base to other, lower cost areas, mostly in the midwest. Many of these towns have unused infrastructure due to declining populations so they could absorb the new people without much impact.
Another huge advantage would be getting a lot of these people away from the lobbyists that run the country. Would be much harder to influence them when they are spread out all over the country.
And having them in various states and cities would keep them more in touch with large parts of the population. When in DC they loose touch with the working people that make the country run. Having them in cities all across the country would make it a more representative government.
 
What are your thoughts on this idea, move parts of the federal government out of DC into Midwest cities as outlined in this video from Vox?

I know I know it's Vox - but still a concept that seems interesting to me.


Reinvigorating the 10th amendment is the right solution. That would turn DC into a relative ghost town, but tough shit!
 
Another huge advantage would be getting a lot of these people away from the lobbyists that run the country. Would be much harder to influence them when they are spread out all over the country.
And having them in various states and cities would keep them more in touch with large parts of the population. When in DC they loose touch with the working people that make the country run. Having them in cities all across the country would make it a more representative government.

This would just bump up the lobbyist's frequent flier miles. The influence they are trying to buy would still be for sale by the same people.

The 10th amendment is the answer!
 
Not true at all unless you have a spouse that doesn't work and several kids. I make a bit more than $105K, but not much and am putting away $40K+ for retirement every year as opposed to living paycheck to paycheck

Your numbers make zero sense without more context. Tell people the whole story. You aren't paying market rates for housing and living like that in that area. Did you inherit a house? Are you 55 years old with no mortgage? Did your parents throw you money? Or did you just crack the code on taking home 3k per month in one of the highest COL areas in the country cuz you're a genius?
 
Reinvigorating the 10th amendment is the right solution. That would turn DC into a relative ghost town, but tough shit!

If it hasn't happened yet, thankfully, it's not going to happen now that the great baby boomer die off has begun. I'd rather worry about one corrupt federal gov't than 50 corrupt state gov'ts.
 
If it hasn't happened yet, thankfully, it's not going to happen now that the great baby boomer die off has begun. I'd rather worry about one corrupt federal gov't than 50 corrupt state gov'ts.

The "corrupt" federal government can run deficits and print money. The "corrupt" state governments can do neither.

The issue here is about the selling of influence. The sellers have had free rein. We need to take the power away from them and return it to the states where it originated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Spackler
What the hell is the housing market like in Bethesda if a millionaire lives in a house like this?

190617200529-askia-khafra-fire-scene-exlarge-169.jpg
Couple of things here:

1) Being a millionaire today isn't what it used to be.

2) In the DC area, a lot of people have net worth based largely on equity in their house. If you bought a long time ago (or say in 2010), your house is a huge asset. My house has appreciated to double my purchase price in 2010, so on paper, including that equity, I am a millionaire. But my home (in DC) is relatively modest (2100 ft2, very small yard).

3) Today, a 3BR, 1.5 BA house in Bethesda would probably start at $750K (and might need significant work).
 
Another huge advantage would be getting a lot of these people away from the lobbyists that run the country. Would be much harder to influence them when they are spread out all over the country.
And having them in various states and cities would keep them more in touch with large parts of the population. When in DC they loose touch with the working people that make the country run. Having them in cities all across the country would make it a more representative government.
I'd like to clear up a couple of things here.
1) 79% of all federal employees live outside of the DC metro area. Yes, there are a lot of federal employees, but most of them don't live here.

2) There are big advantages to having similar agencies in the same place. For example, as it stands now, it is quite easy for USGS, USFWS, NPS, NOAA, USEPA, USDA and NSF senior staff (or senior scientists) to sit down face to face for a meeting. Even though google would like you to think that human interaction is a thing of the past, more gets done face to face, especially among high level folks. If each of those agencies was in a different geography, that would never happen.

3) Having access to the other branches of government (mostly legislative) is important in both directions. Agencies get called to the Hill fairly frequently on short notice and that becomes a problem is those folks are 3000 miles away.

4) Recruiting top people to government jobs (which is a problem anyway) is a lot harder if you have to try to sell them on living in Pigs Knuckle, Arkansas. DC is a great town and helps with recruiting.
 
An article said he made profits "in the seven figures" by trading stocks, so who knows if he was actually worth 7 figures.
 
That's awesome, but I think you are the exception.
I read an article within the last year - probably during the partial shutdown - about the salary needed in various metro areas to just get by. DC was north of $100K.
Sounds right. DC and SF areas still among the highest cost of living. Just checked a kiplinger article that said Manhattan, SF, Honolulu (partially surprised and not surprised), Brooklyn, DC.
 
With the means of communication available nowadays, there is no good reason to have the federal government so highly concentrated in one location. There is also no reason that federal representatives should be spending so much time in D.C. versus their own districts other than to propagate the Swamp Culture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Spackler
What are your thoughts on this idea, move parts of the federal government out of DC into Midwest cities as outlined in this video from Vox?

I know I know it's Vox - but still a concept that seems interesting to me.


This might be the best idea I've ever heard and the fact that both far left Vox and liberterian Reason magazine are in favor of it tells me it must be good.

The 550 jobs they're moving to KC will save $20 million per year. That is $36 K per job. IOW, right now the Feds are spending $36 K more PER JOB PER YEAR by having these jobs in DC instead of KC.

And in addition to the fact that it saves money, the middle of the country needs it, certainly way more than the already overstuffed DC metro area. I suspect the reason a lot of this stuff ended up there in the first place was because physical proximity was necessary but now with technology you usually don't need to be in the same place with people to confer with them.

The only downside is the people that have to move. But after the move, new employees will start in KC (or wherever) and KC will feel like home instead of DC.
 
This might be the best idea I've ever heard and the fact that both far left Vox and liberterian Reason magazine are in favor of it tells me it must be good.

The 550 jobs they're moving to KC will save $20 million per year. That is $36 K per job. IOW, right now the Feds are spending $36 K more PER JOB PER YEAR by having these jobs in DC instead of KC.

And in addition to the fact that it saves money, the middle of the country needs it, certainly way more than the already overstuffed DC metro area. I suspect the reason a lot of this stuff ended up there in the first place was because physical proximity was necessary but now with technology you usually don't need to be in the same place with people to confer with them.

The only downside is the people that have to move. But after the move, new employees will start in KC (or wherever) and KC will feel like home instead of DC.

A decade ago, I was hired into a government organization that moved from the DC area to the Midwest. Only 29% of the DC staff elected to move with the organization. The rest preferred to stay in DC, so I would expect a big turnover, not that that in and of itself is a bad thing.
 
A decade ago, I was hired into a government organization that moved from the DC area to the Midwest. Only 29% of the DC staff elected to move with the organization. The rest preferred to stay in DC, so I would expect a big turnover, not that that in and of itself is a bad thing.

So, you guys want to take jobs from a rich area and redistribute those jobs to a poorer area in need of jobs. Interesting.

If you start filling red states with a bunch of gov't jobs, you will never shrink the federal gov't.
 
With the means of communication available nowadays, there is no good reason to have the federal government so highly concentrated in one location. There is also no reason that federal representatives should be spending so much time in D.C. versus their own districts other than to propagate the Swamp Culture.
Or current Cesspool culture.
 
Not true at all unless you have a spouse that doesn't work and several kids. I make a bit more than $105K, but not much and am putting away $40K+ for retirement every year as opposed to living paycheck to paycheck.
40k a yr for retirement? In a qualified plan? Are you self employed? Does your wife work and make like a $1 mil a year?
As others have said those numbers just don’t compute as stated
401k max for 2019 is $19,000 plus maybe a small catch up
IRA max is like $6000 but at that income level is most likely not deductible
Maybe you started ur own DB plan than depending on ur age perhaps
 
19k+ an employer match + a taxable portfolio...it’s a possibility.

If it’s accurate, that’s a kick ass savings rate.
Sure living in WV maybe. living in metro DC? There’s too much left out , IMO not that it matters
 
40k a yr for retirement? In a qualified plan? Are you self employed? Does your wife work and make like a $1 mil a year?
As others have said those numbers just don’t compute as stated
401k max for 2019 is $19,000 plus maybe a small catch up
IRA max is like $6000 but at that income level is most likely not deductible
Maybe you started ur own DB plan than depending on ur age perhaps

Single and not self employed.

24,500 401k including catchup (what you call a "small catchup" is 6,000)
7,000 Roth IRA including catchup
4,500 HSA including catchup (really only 4,000 as 500 or so is used for out of pocket medical)
6,000 401k company match
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT