Is a family in DC making $200k "wealthy"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming a family has two children under 4--so you have to pay for childcare for two children--a family in DC is expected to pay $3300K/month. This is based upon what the federal gov't thinks is an allowable price for full-time daycare (according to their own daycare center costs.) Now, what kind of income would enable a family to pay that kind of money and rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district? Assuming average debts from college/graduate school and no consumer debt?

I think that in DC, where you can have two feds (GS-12/13) each earning $100K with 2 kid in public school, they would be OK but definitely not wealthy. They would be financially tight affording two in daycare, but they could do it--barely. This would be a professional class family where two families have to work in order to rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district in DC. There's enough debate around the $200K figure to say that it is not the mark of wealth.

However, I think that once you move to $500K HHI/Year, there is decidedly less argument that that constitutes wealthy--even with DC's cost of living.

Completely agree. DH and I net $240k. 2 kids in daycare, renting a small townhome (3/2) for $3k. Granted, we sock a lot away for college ssavings and retirement, so there isn't much at the end of the month. Oh, and we drive 2007 Toyotas, nothing new and fancy. If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much.

We also know that if we lived elsewhere, our pay would drop by roughly 15-20k each, putting us at about 200-210k. In most other places in the US (but not NY or California) I would consider us somewhat wealthy. We wouldn't be in a small 3/2 townhome, but in a 3500 sq ft SFH on a nice lot, and still saving for retirement and college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christ, people, the point is that currently people in DC who make $40K pay the SAME marginal tax rate as those who make $200K. You can whine all day about how not-wealthy your $200K makes you, but surely you can agree that you are a lot wealthier than a family making $40K and that you can afford to pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than the $40K family.

And that marginal tax rate is almost 9%. That is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Christ, people, the point is that currently people in DC who make $40K pay the SAME marginal tax rate as those who make $200K. You can whine all day about how not-wealthy your $200K makes you, but surely you can agree that you are a lot wealthier than a family making $40K and that you can afford to pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than the $40K family.

But the 40k family is making mmore than the 4k family, but paying the same tax rate. Don't you see? They should have the tax rate raised on them as well!
Seriously, there are those that think people who make more money somehow have the obligation to subsidize others. And then there's those that worked hard to get an education to get a well paying job (and paying student loans to prove it) that think they shouldn't be subsidizing someone who decided to drop out of high school.
Neither side will agree, and both sides have merit to their arguments. It's easy to say "that guy should pay more!" when he has 6 luxury cars and 3 vacation homes, but a little harder to justify when its people down the street that don't drive luxury cars or even own a home, nor go on extravagent vacations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Christ, people, the point is that currently people in DC who make $40K pay the SAME marginal tax rate as those who make $200K. You can whine all day about how not-wealthy your $200K makes you, but surely you can agree that you are a lot wealthier than a family making $40K and that you can afford to pay taxes at a slightly higher rate than the $40K family.

But the 40k family is making mmore than the 4k family, but paying the same tax rate. Don't you see? They should have the tax rate raised on them as well!
Seriously, there are those that think people who make more money somehow have the obligation to subsidize others. And then there's those that worked hard to get an education to get a well paying job (and paying student loans to prove it) that think they shouldn't be subsidizing someone who decided to drop out of high school.
Neither side will agree, and both sides have merit to their arguments. It's easy to say "that guy should pay more!" when he has 6 luxury cars and 3 vacation homes, but a little harder to justify when its people down the street that don't drive luxury cars or even own a home, nor go on extravagent vacations.

The unfortunate thing is that most people in this town don't have that kind of thinking. They feel that people who earn more somehow had everything handed to them and thus owe everyone else. Instead of praising people for working hard they would rather vilify them and shame them into paying more taxes. Never mind the fact that this money is going in to a black hole and not benefiting "the needy". I'd rather give my money to Catholic charities or some more efficient form of help.

[Anonymous]

People at 200K/year are expected to pay their own way for everything - no public pre-K, no financial aid for college, no tax credit for child care, etc. So, people at 200K save, like they should, to pay for these things. They don't live extravagantly if they want these things for their kids. Not here in DC. They often don't have enough left to save for their own retirement, so you just expect them on the dole in 30 years. This is a never ending spiral of our own doing. Class warfare isn't going to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree. DH and I net $240k. 2 kids in daycare, renting a small townhome (3/2) for $3k. Granted, we sock a lot away for college ssavings and retirement, so there isn't much at the end of the month. Oh, and we drive 2007 Toyotas, nothing new and fancy. If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much.

The bolded sentence is completely ass backwards. You do have a lot left at the end of the month, enabling you to sock a lot away for college and retirement.

Also, this sentence is just incoherent: "If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much."

First, the proposed tax increase is 0.4% on amounts over $200,000. So if this passes, you'll be paying an extra $160 per year. If you take $13 per month from your extensive retirement savings, you're all square, and I doubt you'll be eating cat food in your retirement.

And how in the heck will a higher tax rate make college financial aid officers think you make more money?

Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming a family has two children under 4--so you have to pay for childcare for two children--a family in DC is expected to pay $3300K/month. This is based upon what the federal gov't thinks is an allowable price for full-time daycare (according to their own daycare center costs.) Now, what kind of income would enable a family to pay that kind of money and rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district? Assuming average debts from college/graduate school and no consumer debt?

I think that in DC, where you can have two feds (GS-12/13) each earning $100K with 2 kid in public school, they would be OK but definitely not wealthy. They would be financially tight affording two in daycare, but they could do it--barely. This would be a professional class family where two families have to work in order to rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district in DC. There's enough debate around the $200K figure to say that it is not the mark of wealth.

However, I think that once you move to $500K HHI/Year, there is decidedly less argument that that constitutes wealthy--even with DC's cost of living.

Completely agree. DH and I net $240k. 2 kids in daycare, renting a small townhome (3/2) for $3k. Granted, we sock a lot away for college ssavings and retirement, so there isn't much at the end of the month. Oh, and we drive 2007 Toyotas, nothing new and fancy. If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much.

We also know that if we lived elsewhere, our pay would drop by roughly 15-20k each, putting us at about 200-210k. In most other places in the US (but not NY or California) I would consider us somewhat wealthy. We wouldn't be in a small 3/2 townhome, but in a 3500 sq ft SFH on a nice lot, and still saving for retirement and college.

Uh no, you are not like the fed couple discussed above. If you are netting $240K, then you are earning significantly more than the hypothetical couple. That couple would probably net closer to $120K. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

$200K in DC is rich because you can afford to choose.

Of course an arbitrary national figure for wealth will disadvantage people in high living cost cities.

Tough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming a family has two children under 4--so you have to pay for childcare for two children--a family in DC is expected to pay $3300K/month. This is based upon what the federal gov't thinks is an allowable price for full-time daycare (according to their own daycare center costs.) Now, what kind of income would enable a family to pay that kind of money and rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district? Assuming average debts from college/graduate school and no consumer debt?

I think that in DC, where you can have two feds (GS-12/13) each earning $100K with 2 kid in public school, they would be OK but definitely not wealthy. They would be financially tight affording two in daycare, but they could do it--barely. This would be a professional class family where two families have to work in order to rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district in DC. There's enough debate around the $200K figure to say that it is not the mark of wealth.

However, I think that once you move to $500K HHI/Year, there is decidedly less argument that that constitutes wealthy--even with DC's cost of living.

Completely agree. DH and I net $240k. 2 kids in daycare, renting a small townhome (3/2) for $3k. Granted, we sock a lot away for college ssavings and retirement, so there isn't much at the end of the month. Oh, and we drive 2007 Toyotas, nothing new and fancy. If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much.

We also know that if we lived elsewhere, our pay would drop by roughly 15-20k each, putting us at about 200-210k. In most other places in the US (but not NY or California) I would consider us somewhat wealthy. We wouldn't be in a small 3/2 townhome, but in a 3500 sq ft SFH on a nice lot, and still saving for retirement and college.

Uh no, you are not like the fed couple discussed above. If you are netting $240K, then you are earning significantly more than the hypothetical couple. That couple would probably net closer to $120K. Sorry.

Sorry, meant gross, not net.

[Anonymous]

Wait a minute. Let's be clear they are talking about a few hundred bucks a year at your income level. Your retirement is hardly at risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming a family has two children under 4--so you have to pay for childcare for two children--a family in DC is expected to pay $3300K/month. This is based upon what the federal gov't thinks is an allowable price for full-time daycare (according to their own daycare center costs.) Now, what kind of income would enable a family to pay that kind of money and rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district? Assuming average debts from college/graduate school and no consumer debt?

I think that in DC, where you can have two feds (GS-12/13) each earning $100K with 2 kid in public school, they would be OK but definitely not wealthy. They would be financially tight affording two in daycare, but they could do it--barely. This would be a professional class family where two families have to work in order to rent a reasonable size home (3/2) in a good school district in DC. There's enough debate around the $200K figure to say that it is not the mark of wealth.

However, I think that once you move to $500K HHI/Year, there is decidedly less argument that that constitutes wealthy--even with DC's cost of living.

Completely agree. DH and I net $240k. 2 kids in daycare, renting a small townhome (3/2) for $3k. Granted, we sock a lot away for college ssavings and retirement, so there isn't much at the end of the month. Oh, and we drive 2007 Toyotas, nothing new and fancy. If they tax us in a higher bracket, there goes college and retirement savings, and we'll be even more screwed with financial aid for college because they'll see that we make too much.

We also know that if we lived elsewhere, our pay would drop by roughly 15-20k each, putting us at about 200-210k. In most other places in the US (but not NY or California) I would consider us somewhat wealthy. We wouldn't be in a small 3/2 townhome, but in a 3500 sq ft SFH on a nice lot, and still saving for retirement and college.

[Anonymous]

Wait a minute. Let's be clear they are talking about a few hundred bucks a year at your income level. Your retirement is hardly at risk. [\quote]
So How will that $200/year actually help DC? Out of a population of 600k, in which over 550k make less than $200k/yr, that leaves what - an increase in $2M to fund 3 more positions to oversee taxing us more?

[Anonymous]

$200K in DC is rich because you can afford to choose.

Really? That's your definition of "rich," simply that you have some autonomy?

My brother makes about $38,000 as a waiter, and he can afford to live in Crime Ridden Neighborhood 1 by himself OR Slightly Safer neighborhood 2 With Three Adult Roommates. He is, evidently, rich.

My housecleaner makes about $20,000 a year. She routinely chooses to take either Metro to my house, the bus, or have her husband drop her off on the way to his job as a mechanic. Since she can afford these transportation costs and choices, she is certainly rich, too, right?

WTF. Did you just move here from Malawi or something to define "rich" that way?

[Anonymous]

I'm raising 3 kids on $60K, so even $100K seems rich to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gray wants to raise taxes on the "wealthy" and he keeps using this $200k number. We can debate the merits of tax increases (I think the city has more to cut first) but a family in DC making $200k is not really wealthy. After TAXES and education costs most of that money has evaporated. Why are politicians so disingenuous?

Just pay up and shut up! To the victors belong the spoils. One city,baby!

-- Marion Barry

[Anonymous]

"Wealthy" is in the eye of the beholder. Can't we stop getting hung up on the word and agree that it's all about COMPARATIVE income, and 200K is comparatively high even in this expensive town.