40% of people making 500K/year are living paycheck to paycheck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

The only actual difference between the 275k and 400k households is that the 275k household got up to 9K more in tax credits and tax breaks. Is this what they are crying about? They are making 125k more but crying about not receiving the same 9k in tax benefits? Cry me a river.

The difference in taxes is almost double:

$400K pays $150K in taxes
$275K pays $80K in taxes

So yes, $125 more income, but also $70K more paid in taxes.

In the end, only a $55K difference in take home pay.

No one making 400k is paying $150k in taxes,

Let me give you the correct numbers.
Gross income: $400k
Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $367,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $73k


Gross income: $275k
Standard Deduction: Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $242,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $43k

Even if you add state taxes on top of that, they would still be far away from $150k.
Most earners at that income itemized deductions and pay even less.

You left out FICA. Someone in CA making 400k a year is paying around 74k in federal tax, 18k in FICA, and 29k in state tax for a total of roughly 121k in income taxes (I.e., doesn’t include property tax).

And actually, if you’re single in CA making 400k, your total tax burden is 155k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

Both posts, so obviously AI. We can all easily use ChatGPT, please share real answers here

I agree, especially since several people posted mistakes in the analysis. Gotta be AI.

[Anonymous]

Paycheck to paycheck with 2 million in their retirement, fully funded 529s, a two year emergency fund and a house with $500k in equity. Yup, their retirement contributions are draining their paychecks. Paycheck to paycheck.

[Anonymous]

What I find interesting is the wording the study uses to report that above $300K, the paycheck to paycheck group jumps to 40% potentially due to lifestyle creep "... the phenomenon of luxuries becoming necessities to certain income cohorts."

"Luxuries becoming necessities" - is this perceived necessity, or because a certain level of spending is required for success in certain professional careers?

[Anonymous]

I make under 100k in dmv and am not paycheck to paycheck. This is stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

The only actual difference between the 275k and 400k households is that the 275k household got up to 9K more in tax credits and tax breaks. Is this what they are crying about? They are making 125k more but crying about not receiving the same 9k in tax benefits? Cry me a river.

The difference in taxes is almost double:

$400K pays $150K in taxes
$275K pays $80K in taxes

So yes, $125 more income, but also $70K more paid in taxes.

In the end, only a $55K difference in take home pay.

No one making 400k is paying $150k in taxes,

Let me give you the correct numbers.
Gross income: $400k
Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $367,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $73k


Gross income: $275k
Standard Deduction: Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $242,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $43k

Even if you add state taxes on top of that, they would still be far away from $150k.
Most earners at that income itemized deductions and pay even less.

You left out FICA. Someone in CA making 400k a year is paying around 74k in federal tax, 18k in FICA, and 29k in state tax for a total of roughly 121k in income taxes (I.e., doesn’t include property tax).

And actually, if you’re single in CA making 400k, your total tax burden is 155k.

Eh. Most of it comes out of your paycheck. You’re none the wiser. We ALL pay ⅓ of our income (unless you’re rich & shady).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

Forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question but:

When you say that the higher income household has to save more in order to "self-fund more of their retirement," you are making the assumption that they "need" more for retirement, right?

The 400k household gets the social security too. Say they get the max possible benefit because they made above the limit (around $185k) for 35 years. I think it's around 5k a month. Now say the 275k household gets the same (less likely they will have made above the limit for 35 years but for arguments sake). Why would the 400k household "need" to save more than the 275k household for retirement?

Are you assuming the 400k household has to save more in order to maintain their higher standard of living than the 275k household? If so, that's not a need. That's just wanting a nicer retirement, and actually having enough income to afford it. I'm sure the 275k household would also like a nicer retirement, but they have less money and therefore cannot possibly save as much as the 400k household.

This is not a *hardship* for the 400k household. It is a privilege. You can't save or invest when you never had to begin with.

The $400k household is likely to have a larger house and a bigger property tax bill. Likely around $15k in Fairfax County, which is 1/4 of the social security income.

A house in Fairfax county generating 15k annually in property taxes is worth 1.3 million. The 400k household is presumably capable of paying down their mortgage prior to retirement, and will then have $1m+ in assets that can be sold towards a very comfortable retirement. The 250k household can't afford a house that expensive and therefore will retire with less in property assets.

No one is making you live in a big, expensive house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find interesting is the wording the study uses to report that above $300K, the paycheck to paycheck group jumps to 40% potentially due to lifestyle creep "... the phenomenon of luxuries becoming necessities to certain income cohorts."

"Luxuries becoming necessities" - is this perceived necessity, or because a certain level of spending is required for success in certain professional careers?

Anything that is actually required for your career is a tax write-off, of course. I know an entertainment lawyer who writes off all his movie and concert tickets as "research."

It's all BS. If someone making 400k told me they were living paycheck to paycheck, I'd assume they had a drug or gambling problem because that's stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find interesting is the wording the study uses to report that above $300K, the paycheck to paycheck group jumps to 40% potentially due to lifestyle creep "... the phenomenon of luxuries becoming necessities to certain income cohorts."

"Luxuries becoming necessities" - is this perceived necessity, or because a certain level of spending is required for success in certain professional careers?

Anything that is actually required for your career is a tax write-off, of course. I know an entertainment lawyer who writes off all his movie and concert tickets as "research."

It's all BS. If someone making 400k told me they were living paycheck to paycheck, I'd assume they had a drug or gambling problem because that's stupid.

It just seems like a polite way for the researchers to say "they are living beyond their means". And, by quite a bit more than the next lowest income level!

[Anonymous]

That's funny. I earn five figures, have no debt and am not paycheck to paycheck. When my salary increased with a job change by $14k, the only thing I changed was getting takeout once a month. I can't even imagine all I could do if I was earning half a million dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

The only actual difference between the 275k and 400k households is that the 275k household got up to 9K more in tax credits and tax breaks. Is this what they are crying about? They are making 125k more but crying about not receiving the same 9k in tax benefits? Cry me a river.

The difference in taxes is almost double:

$400K pays $150K in taxes
$275K pays $80K in taxes

So yes, $125 more income, but also $70K more paid in taxes.

In the end, only a $55K difference in take home pay.

No one making 400k is paying $150k in taxes,

Let me give you the correct numbers.
Gross income: $400k
Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $367,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $73k


Gross income: $275k
Standard Deduction: Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $242,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $43k

Even if you add state taxes on top of that, they would still be far away from $150k.
Most earners at that income itemized deductions and pay even less.

You left out FICA. Someone in CA making 400k a year is paying around 74k in federal tax, 18k in FICA, and 29k in state tax for a total of roughly 121k in income taxes (I.e., doesn’t include property tax).

And actually, if you’re single in CA making 400k, your total tax burden is 155k.

Eh. Most of it comes out of your paycheck. You’re none the wiser. We ALL pay ⅓ of our income (unless you’re rich & shady).

That’s closer to 40%, not 33.3%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect.

Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement.

Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more.

The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away.

That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.

And here’s the part people really don’t see coming.

Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone.

Examples of what phases out:

Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child
0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners)
Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year)
Student loan interest deduction
Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions

Now look at the math:
$275K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$195K
Child tax credits: +$4K
Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K
Savings needed: ~$25K
Spendable: ~$175K–$180K

$400K household (2 kids)
Take-home after taxes: ~$250K
Credits: $0 (phased out)
Higher capital gains taxes
Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K
Spendable: ~$160K–$180K
The wild part

After taxes, lost credits, and required savings:
A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household.

That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement.

This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k

The only actual difference between the 275k and 400k households is that the 275k household got up to 9K more in tax credits and tax breaks. Is this what they are crying about? They are making 125k more but crying about not receiving the same 9k in tax benefits? Cry me a river.

The difference in taxes is almost double:

$400K pays $150K in taxes
$275K pays $80K in taxes

So yes, $125 more income, but also $70K more paid in taxes.

In the end, only a $55K difference in take home pay.

No one making 400k is paying $150k in taxes,

Let me give you the correct numbers.
Gross income: $400k
Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $367,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $73k


Gross income: $275k
Standard Deduction: Standard Deduction: $32,200
Taxable Income: $242,800
Estimated Federal Taxes: $43k

Even if you add state taxes on top of that, they would still be far away from $150k.
Most earners at that income itemized deductions and pay even less.

You left out FICA. Someone in CA making 400k a year is paying around 74k in federal tax, 18k in FICA, and 29k in state tax for a total of roughly 121k in income taxes (I.e., doesn’t include property tax).

And actually, if you’re single in CA making 400k, your total tax burden is 155k.

Eh. Most of it comes out of your paycheck. You’re none the wiser. We ALL pay ⅓ of our income (unless you’re rich & shady).

That’s closer to 40%, not 33.3%.

They can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you buried the lede. Look at those making $200k-$300k. They seem to be doing the best.

Yes, this exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you buried the lede. Look at those making $200k-$300k. They seem to be doing the best.

Yes, this exactly.

We made $180k-300k most of my kids’ childhood and it was a great life. First a townhouse, then a SFH. Public schools, safe reliable cars, a SAHP for a good part of it. DH returned to a law firm a few years ago and makes significantly more now but we didn’t change much beyond upgrading travel and padding retirement. Same house, same cars, no country clubs no private schools. Life is good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I make under 100k in dmv and am not paycheck to paycheck. This is stupidity.

I made and still make $2k a month in DMV and I don't live paycheck to paycheck. Back in a day (1996-2002), rent was $350-$650 for a studio. That was my only expense. It took me 50+ hours to make the $2k in DC.
From 2002 to 2014, I worked ca 40 hours to make the $2k.The time it took me to make the $2k went down gradually and now it takes me 15 hours a week.
I had nearly $1k left over every month since 1996. Imagine investing it all. That's how I kind of did it.
My SS Statement fully supports the $2k story. The list of things that made living on $2k possible is very long. My own capacity has to be the main thing though.
My visa restriction did not allow me to change jobs for 13+ years. By the time they were lifted, I was too tired from my physical work to make the change and there was no need as my investments had grown.
I'm sticking to my $2k story as I made $2140 in April. I had January off, will have July off, and hopefully December.