I Live Comfortably on Less than $70K After-Tax in DC Area

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived comfortably on 30K a year when I was single. Now I earn a LOT more, but money is a lot tighter, because I have to pay childcare for 3 kids, student loans, non-subsidized health insurance, preschool, a safe and large enough car (3 kids in carseats won't fit in a cheap two-door like I had back then), health care, the list goes on and on.

Now back when I was earning 30k, single and had enough left over to travel internationally, I could have been super-smug and claimed that I didn't understand how families making twice or three times my salary weren't rich. But I wasn't a jerk, and wasn't so arrogant as to assume that I knew other people's situations, or that I had a right to judge.

OP here. I wasn't being smug. My comment was in response to DCUMers who keep saying that $80k is poor, even for a single w/o kids. I was showing how that isn't true, and how $70k after tax (which is around $85k gross) is a nice standard of living (if one doesn't insist on living in DC.)

If $70k after tax is $85k gross, I want to speak with you accountant. I'm getting screwed.

OP here. It all depends on your deductions. Do you deduct mortgage interest and property tax? (That was accounted for in my PITI.) But also, remember, I'm not earning $85,000 - that's the amount I estimated would yield $70k net. That's almost 20% in taxes, which is actually more than would be expected. (People confuse their marginal tax rate with the percent of income going to taxes.)

Do you live somewhere that you don't pay state taxes?

No....state taxes are included in the $15,000. But let's even say I'm wrong, and it takes $90k gross to net $70k. That still should show people who are saying $90k is poor - I've seen people calling even $100k poor on this forum - that they are wrong, and a single can live nicely on that income. So, if a single earning $90k is comfortable, I just don't het how families earning $250k - triple, almost! - are struggling.

Why don't you just say how much you are earning gross?

Because it colors the argument in her favor. This whole thread is annoying and pointless.

Because my actual earning level is irrelevant. The point is that I'm living on just $70k, which would be "as if" I were earning $85k.

But because you want to know, it was $94,000 last year. But I now need to concentrate on work, or it will be $0. (But I will be back later.)

Of course it's relevant!! And no, someone making $85k isn't taking home $70k. When we talk hhi around here, it's gross, not net, and certainly not imagined net.

Yeah I make $85k but take home just over $50k after deductions (insurance and 401k).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived comfortably on 30K a year when I was single. Now I earn a LOT more, but money is a lot tighter, because I have to pay childcare for 3 kids, student loans, non-subsidized health insurance, preschool, a safe and large enough car (3 kids in carseats won't fit in a cheap two-door like I had back then), health care, the list goes on and on.

Now back when I was earning 30k, single and had enough left over to travel internationally, I could have been super-smug and claimed that I didn't understand how families making twice or three times my salary weren't rich. But I wasn't a jerk, and wasn't so arrogant as to assume that I knew other people's situations, or that I had a right to judge.

OP here. I wasn't being smug. My comment was in response to DCUMers who keep saying that $80k is poor, even for a single w/o kids. I was showing how that isn't true, and how $70k after tax (which is around $85k gross) is a nice standard of living (if one doesn't insist on living in DC.)

If $70k after tax is $85k gross, I want to speak with you accountant. I'm getting screwed.

OP here. It all depends on your deductions. Do you deduct mortgage interest and property tax? (That was accounted for in my PITI.) But also, remember, I'm not earning $85,000 - that's the amount I estimated would yield $70k net. That's almost 20% in taxes, which is actually more than would be expected. (People confuse their marginal tax rate with the percent of income going to taxes.)

Do you live somewhere that you don't pay state taxes?

No....state taxes are included in the $15,000. But let's even say I'm wrong, and it takes $90k gross to net $70k. That still should show people who are saying $90k is poor - I've seen people calling even $100k poor on this forum - that they are wrong, and a single can live nicely on that income. So, if a single earning $90k is comfortable, I just don't het how families earning $250k - triple, almost! - are struggling.

Why don't you just say how much you are earning gross?

Because it colors the argument in her favor. This whole thread is annoying and pointless.

Because my actual earning level is irrelevant. The point is that I'm living on just $70k, which would be "as if" I were earning $85k.

But because you want to know, it was $94,000 last year. But I now need to concentrate on work, or it will be $0. (But I will be back later.)

Of course it's relevant!! And no, someone making $85k isn't taking home $70k. When we talk hhi around here, it's gross, not net, and certainly not imagined net.

Yeah I make $85k but take home just over $50k after deductions (insurance and 401k).

The OP included insurance and her 401k contribution in her after-tax budget. You can't say that your net income is what you end up with after you pay for health insurance and retirement contributions - that right there is probably the $20,000 difference.

[Anonymous]

I live on less than this WITH a kid as do many, many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's going on here. OP is living comfortably, happily and healthily on less than 100k a year in the DMV area.

Good for her!

What's with the bitching at her? If we all were equally disciplined about living within our means many of us would sleep better at night.

I commend her.

Because she thinks that translates to living on less than $100k as family in the DMV, which it doesn't. No one is on here saying it's hard to be single and make $100k. It's challenging to support a family on that amount, which is a different story. Plenty of opportunity to argue about the $200k-300k earners and why they find it hard, but op's situation really doesn't add anything to that discussion.

OP here, and that's where you're wrong. Not on this thread, but others. People are saying that $100k for a single person is poor. I'm simply showing that it is not.

Link please.

Also, I recommend you max out your retirement savings while you're single -- before your expenses go up.

[Anonymous]

Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

Uh, I'm childfree by choice and agree with you on that point, but you've totally missed the point of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

Go look at the title of the board. "DC Urban Moms and Dads". You knew it was a site for parents - why the hell are you here if you don't have kids? You should have known better than to post here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

My mother absolutely told me to have kids. She really really wanted to be a grandma.

I'm not saying that influenced my decision, but someone actually did tell me to have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........


My mother absolutely told me to have kids. She really really wanted to be a grandma.

I'm not saying that influenced my decision, but someone actually did tell me to have kids.

People tell each other all kinds of stuff. My dad told me to never buy a house (I didn't listen to him). The point is that having kids is a personal decision. Nobody makes you have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

My mother absolutely told me to have kids. She really really wanted to be a grandma.

I'm not saying that influenced my decision, but someone actually did tell me to have kids.

Right!

I'm sure PP means "nobody MADE you"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but no one told any of you to have kids. That's like the biggest complaint on here. All of you with children know they cost money so you should have prepared better.

Flame away........

Uh, I'm childfree by choice and agree with you on that point, but you've totally missed the point of this thread.

Yes completely missed the point. And I am a poster with one child who is doing just fine on 100k HHI. No complaints here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You make a lot of money and you're single.

Op would be screwed if she had 2k a month in childcare costs.

Solutions for families. DON'T pay 2K for childcare costs. Find a good spot for $1200-1500 instead like many of us have. Use public schools. If you're in DC, daycare costs could end at age 3 anyway thanks to DCPS and charters schools. Cut back on discretionary spending. DONE.

I'm a single mom on less than 100K gross in DC. It aint rocket science and we're not pinching pennies.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I started this thread to make a point: That despite many DCUMers being incredulous that families can have a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle on less than $250k and/or believing that income below $100k is poor for singles (some people even said it was nearing welfare eligibility!), people are doing just fine on less. I wanted to insert a dose of reality into the forum.

Again, my $70,000 spending level includes not only regular living expenses, but contributions to my retirement plan and health insurance/medical costs. How much my actual salary is is irrelevant. Even if I made $200,000 a year (yeah, I wish), all I really need is $70,000 after tax.

(And for those of you defending me against the people bitching at me, thank you.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF is all this crap about $300k being middle class and $80k being poor? I (single, no kids) live very comfortably on less than $70k (net). Here's my approximate spending:

$1650 PITI (3-bedroom, 1700 st condo in Fairfax County)*
325 condo fee
200 cable/phone/internet
150 electric
50 water
400 groceries/household stuff
150 gas/commuting. (3-person carpool)
800 medical (includes premium)

Fixed expenses: $3725

$600 Eating out/entertainment
150 Clothes (don't need much - have plenty)
50 Household repairs
200 Donations (annualized)
250 Vacations (annualized)

Discretionary expenses: $1250

Plus, savings toward retirement: $700

Total....$5675 per month ($68,100)

Because if you had even ONE child you'd need to add in at least 2k a month for daycare/nanny.

OK, so for clarity, these people saying $80k is poor are talking about families? There's a big difference.

YES!! We spent $2500/month in childcare, that's more than our mortgage!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has called out only saving $8400 / year for retirement.

Maybe you're comfortable now...

I get 100% match, so it's double. More than 20% of my income! which is more than the recommended 15%. I think I'm doing well in that area.

Me again....I just did a calculation. Saving $19,000 a year earning 8% (stock average is more than 10%) would be more than $1,200,000 in 25 years. And that's assuming that I don't start increasing the amount of contributions, and it doesn't account for what I've already saved. I'll probably have $2 million at this rate, and that's just on my own.

Goes to show that one can earn around $85,000 or $90,000 (single, no kids), live comfortably, and save for a nice retirement.

You use some fuzzy math, OP. $8400 * 2 = $16,800, not $19,000, and since you're earning in the mid 90k's, that's not more than 20% of your income.

8% is a pretty aggressive assumption for gains.

I'm not saying you won't be fine, but it seems as though the assumptions you make are always skewed towards making your picture rosier than it is. It doesn't strengthen your argument.

Same fuzzy math that says an $85k income only pays $15k in taxes.

Op, you're a high earner with minimal expenses. You should be maxing out your retirement accounts now - it won't be any easier later.

OP here, and we are really getting to the crux of the disconnect. You are saying that a single earning $90s is a high earner, yet other people are saying $90s is poor.

So, let's come to an agreement. An individual earning $85k, $90k, $95k, is a high earner (I'd call it "comfortable'), but that amount for a family would be a bit of a struggle.

It took you TEN pages to get to this???