November 15, 2006
Holy Huge Salary, Batman!
Because we simply can't get enough of salary talk, today the Post tells us that Metro's presumptive new head honcho, John B. Catoe Jr., will be taking in $300,000 a year, not to mention a $60,000 living allowance, a company car, and all the free Metro rides he can take.
While it seems a little on the steep side for a public servant working for an agency notorious for its mismanagement of public funds, Catoe won't be making much more than he has in Los Angeles, where he earned $287,000 as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's second-in-charge. And maybe $300,000 is the price to attract the needed talent to a relatively thankless job — after all, Metro's 700,000 some-odd riders will always have something to grouse about. Former WMATA heads made less, though not by much -- ousted director Richard White took in $285,000 and a $50,000 living allowance.
Catoe claims he'll be looking to live in the District or in Virginia, and will likely take Metro to work. Take it from us, John — live in D.C. Not that there's anything wrong with Virginia (well, spare that whole heterosexual love thing they have going on), but within the District's city limits you'll have access to more of the system's lines, more of the system's daily riders, and a chance to better understand what periodically drives us batty about Metro. And, of course, you'll be officially disenfranchised, pay higher taxes, and constantly be needled for sharing cityspace with Marion Barry. But you'll also gain so much more in hipster cred.
And now we cue the obvious discussion point — $300,000 in salary. Too much, or just right? Discuss amongst yourselves.
|
Oh what the heck, just give the guy half-a-mil and a solid gold enema bag. I mean, you get what you paid for, right?
Riddle me this...
Just why does a person making six figures better than 2 need a living allowance?
And what exactly does he need the company car for... unless that was a witty little pun... nevermind. He can take metro, just like the rest of us. He's not in lalaland anymore...
Martin did a nice job of covering all the angles, to the point where I think he answered his own question. Is it a great compensation? Yes. Is it astronomically or even largely different from previous people in the position? I would say no. As I've said in the past, higher salary demands higher performance measures, and for something as important to our region as Metro, yes I think it is worth the investment, provided that we see the results of a productive tenure.
I think he should live in Clarendon so he can experience the joy of trying to cram his way into an orange line train that's probably been full since it left East Falls Church.
I'm with j -- isn't salary the living allowance for the rest of us? Could someone please explain the need for what seems to be a ludicrous perk at the expense of taxpayers and Metro riders (without using the rationale "Richard White had the same deal")?
I like that his "living allowance" is greater than or equal to what most of us make. WTF?
I don't understand.. is the living allowance a one-time shot? Or is his salary $360,000?
If it is anything like a pastor's "Housing Allowance" it is cash compensation but by separating it out and using it only for housing expenses it gets preferential tax treatment.
I was always under the impression that a "living allowance" was in ADDITION to the annual salary. If that weren't the case, then it should acurately be called a signing bonus, or a relocation expense. But hell, I've known lots of people who've switched coasts, and were lucky to get a few thousand in relocation expenses.
Whatever it is, it's still almost double what I make and that just isn't right...
Unfortunately, the salaries of professional athletes and folks who run the transportation systems have little to do with a. what you make for a living or b. your opinion. I'm just saying.
Um, I live in L.A., and the fact that this dude is making this kind of cash to be second-in-command at the L.A.M.T.A. is just atrocious. Oh, and if they don't stop working on the damned Gold Line across the street from my house at 3 in the morning I'm going to personally tear up the street in front of Mr. Catoe's house with a jackhammer!
Martin --
http://www.capitalcommunitynews.com/publications/hillrag/2006_October/html/The_Numbers.cfm
Check this out from Ed Lazere in last month's Hill Rag. DC's taxes aren't THAT bad. I mean, they aren't LOW, but it's kind of along the lines of the 'swamp' myth that DC's taxes are astronomical.
DC does have high taxes. Ed Lazere is paid to argue that taxes are too low because higher taxes is part of the core agenda of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute. They believe the primary way to help lower income families is through more governmental funding and redistributive taxes. Fair enough, but it explains why his study is a perfect example of how you can manipulate numbers to prove your point. He compares apples to oranges to bananas to try to come up with some vague conclusion that DC has the lowest tax rates in the area. That's buncombe. Arlington has the lowest taxes. Its income tax rates top out at 5.75 compared with DC's 9%, it's mill rate 10% lower than DC's, and its sales taxes are 15% lower than DC's.
Besides, Lazere is focusing only on a narrow band on income to try to prove his point that DC has the lowest taxes. Even he would agree that someone like Catoe would pay more in DC than VA or MD, it's just that if it were up to Lazere, he'd pay even more.
Yes, Ed Lazere promotes how tax dollars should be used to help lower income families. That doesn't mean the numbers are wrong. DCFPI shows its data and explains its methodology -- you may dislike the philosophy but the numbers are solid. And if one is doing the impact of taxes, the rate isn't what you compare, but what the impact of county and state taxes are (property, income, sales). That's apples-to-apples.
Yes that study presents its assumptions and conclusions, but those assumptions are manipulative.
First it uses the post-tax cut numbers for DC to compare current loads, even though the final tax cut won't be phased in until next year. That's great that taxes will be lower (if the council doesn't postpone the cuts, that is), but it does nothing to affect the conventional wisdom of what DC's taxes have been and currently still are. We'll see if the final tax cuts see the light of day.
Second its treatment of property tax is apples to oranges. It calculates the tax load by averaging the tax load for homes sold at a certain price range over the past year. But that speaks more to home appreciation than tax loads. DC has experienced the most real estate appreciation in the area, so when you calculate real estate tax this way it appears to have a lower rate. (and by the way, the study also shows that renters almost always do better in Arlington). If a Virginian's house has not appreciated as much and a Washingtonian's, he'll have paid a higher tax bill this year versus the Washingtonian even if they both sell their houses this year for the same amount. One reason why that DC person's tax bill didn't catch up to the VA person's has to do with the cap on assesment increases. But new homeowners don't get the benefit of that (the new assesment will jump up), which is another reason why this method of calculating real estate taxes is misleading.
Further, the study doesn't consider sales tax at all and assumes you have one or two cars.
So, yes, compared to Mont. and PG Counties, DC isn't that bad. But it takes smoke and mirrors to say DC is better than Arlington. It doesn't even begin to try to analyze cost of living (especially the cost of private schools), which has the same economic effect as higher taxes.