100k HHI in suburban envirnoment, and we live like kings. AMA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and that's okay. But I'll repeat it one more time, and more directly: we're not planning on "end of life care." If either of us is in a position where our spouse can't care for us, we're going to die in our homes on our own terms--the way people have for pretty much all of human history. We're not going to spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to prolong our deaths. That's our value system. It doesn't have to be yours.

I get that you're not even 40 years old yet, so you are probably still in that land of the fog where disease and sickness is something that only happens to other people.

But with your education, you should know that there is a wide, wide space inhabited by people whose spouses can't care for them, and yet they are nowhere near death. That state can go on for years, sometimes decades. You or your wife can get dementia and spend your days spreading feces on your living room walls - while remaining otherwise healthy and fit to live for another 15 years. That's just one example of someone whose spouse can't possibly care for them yet there are nowhere near to die. You or your wife can get a chronic condition that requires constant medical attention, again, for years, and I have trouble believing that you or your wife will respond by saying oh well, we didn't plan for this, so just lay in this bed until you die please. But then maybe you will, who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing op has typed shows the he and his family "live like kings". Their food/meals sound boring and actually sorta meager, both husband and wife work, vacations?, kid activities? nothing about living in luxury like a king.
Sure, you may be better off than some, but you also aren't that well off and def not "living like a king"

A better post title would be

Exactly. Living a basic middle class lifestyle. Definitely not like “kings.”

And lower middle class at that:

- $100K house
- diet consisting mostly of meat and starch
- no travel from the sounds of it
- kids are homeschooled

This also rubs me the wrong way: We have everything we need, and the things we want but don't have are primarily related to how our society is structured (we'd like universal health care, etc).
translation - We'd like the things we want to be given to us but American society sucks.

Meh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - great job! Keep it up. You and your family will do fine and all 4 of your kids will go to excellent colleges. I have no doubts.

I read through page 2 and could not bear the snarkiness! Jeez, DCUM IS filled with some mean-spirited biaches! Probably upset that someone who makes a fraction of what they do is actually happy. Sad...

I think OP is coming off a bit...preachy, which is why some people are responding negatively.

It's not that we're stuck in some cycle of unhappiness because we're striving for luxury goods that are just out of reach...it's that we're in a different COL area where basics like housing and childcare are most expensive. $100k would barely keep the rain off of our heads.

So while OP's depiction of living in a low COL is interesting, any comparison made to DC is moot.

Yes, this. And condescending.

Then he goes on to describe how we're all striving for "harems" or something (his words, not mine). It's weird.

Agree. OP is the one why said he lives like a king, and then clearly illustrated that he does not. It's great that he and his family are happy. I am too. But living like a king I ain't, nor would I ever claim to.

Agree. It's also strange that OP is clearly seeking validation for his lifestyle from an urban message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

But that's not how kings live. Kings do not live simply. Kings do not homeschool.

This is why the title of the post is misleading. Because you are happy and content with how much you earn and how you live does not mean you are living like a king. At least be honest about that.

They may not be living like kings by *your* standards, but they are by theirs. Isnt that what matters?

There's a pretty uniform standard of what "living like kings" means. It doesn't mean just shelter and three square meals a day.

For instance, I've never heard of princes who share bedrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and that's okay. But I'll repeat it one more time, and more directly: we're not planning on "end of life care." If either of us is in a position where our spouse can't care for us, we're going to die in our homes on our own terms--the way people have for pretty much all of human history. We're not going to spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to prolong our deaths. That's our value system. It doesn't have to be yours.

I get that you're not even 40 years old yet, so you are probably still in that land of the fog where disease and sickness is something that only happens to other people.

But with your education, you should know that there is a wide, wide space inhabited by people whose spouses can't care for them, and yet they are nowhere near death. That state can go on for years, sometimes decades. You or your wife can get dementia and spend your days spreading feces on your living room walls - while remaining otherwise healthy and fit to live for another 15 years. That's just one example of someone whose spouse can't possibly care for them yet there are nowhere near to die. You or your wife can get a chronic condition that requires constant medical attention, again, for years, and I have trouble believing that you or your wife will respond by saying oh well, we didn't plan for this, so just lay in this bed until you die please. But then maybe you will, who knows.

Exactly. What I bolded - that is not what end of life care is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

But that's not how kings live. Kings do not live simply. Kings do not homeschool.

This is why the title of the post is misleading. Because you are happy and content with how much you earn and how you live does not mean you are living like a king. At least be honest about that.

They may not be living like kings by *your* standards, but they are by theirs. Isnt that what matters?

There's a pretty uniform standard of what "living like kings" means. It doesn't mean just shelter and three square meals a day.

For instance, I've never heard of princes who share bedrooms.

And kings generally can afford most of their "wants" regardless of how "society is structured."

[Anonymous]

DELAWARE SUBURBS.

Excuse me while I go die laughing.

Troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and that's okay. But I'll repeat it one more time, and more directly: we're not planning on "end of life care." If either of us is in a position where our spouse can't care for us, we're going to die in our homes on our own terms--the way people have for pretty much all of human history. We're not going to spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to prolong our deaths. That's our value system. It doesn't have to be yours.

I get that you're not even 40 years old yet, so you are probably still in that land of the fog where disease and sickness is something that only happens to other people.

But with your education, you should know that there is a wide, wide space inhabited by people whose spouses can't care for them, and yet they are nowhere near death. That state can go on for years, sometimes decades. You or your wife can get dementia and spend your days spreading feces on your living room walls - while remaining otherwise healthy and fit to live for another 15 years. That's just one example of someone whose spouse can't possibly care for them yet there are nowhere near to die. You or your wife can get a chronic condition that requires constant medical attention, again, for years, and I have trouble believing that you or your wife will respond by saying oh well, we didn't plan for this, so just lay in this bed until you die please. But then maybe you will, who knows.

Exactly. What I bolded - that is not what end of life care is about.

Yes, your naivety about "end of life" care is pretty crazy.

What happens if one of you develops MS? Some type of bad but potentially curable cancer? (There are many of those).
Alzheimers? (i.e. strong body but demented brain) Parkinson's? (you can be debilitated but of sound mind and live for decades) And the list goes on an on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and that's okay. But I'll repeat it one more time, and more directly: we're not planning on "end of life care." If either of us is in a position where our spouse can't care for us, we're going to die in our homes on our own terms--the way people have for pretty much all of human history. We're not going to spend thousands or millions of dollars trying to prolong our deaths. That's our value system. It doesn't have to be yours.

I get that you're not even 40 years old yet, so you are probably still in that land of the fog where disease and sickness is something that only happens to other people.

But with your education, you should know that there is a wide, wide space inhabited by people whose spouses can't care for them, and yet they are nowhere near death. That state can go on for years, sometimes decades. You or your wife can get dementia and spend your days spreading feces on your living room walls - while remaining otherwise healthy and fit to live for another 15 years. That's just one example of someone whose spouse can't possibly care for them yet there are nowhere near to die. You or your wife can get a chronic condition that requires constant medical attention, again, for years, and I have trouble believing that you or your wife will respond by saying oh well, we didn't plan for this, so just lay in this bed until you die please. But then maybe you will, who knows.

Exactly. What I bolded - that is not what end of life care is about.

Yes, your naivety about "end of life" care is pretty crazy.

What happens if one of you develops MS? Some type of bad but potentially curable cancer? (There are many of those).
Alzheimers? (i.e. strong body but demented brain) Parkinson's? (you can be debilitated but of sound mind and live for decades) And the list goes on an on.

Dementia is really a big one especially when the person who has it is otherwise healthy physically. My MIL is living in an independent facility, but even at a somewhat early stage where she is still mostly lucid, and in the care of a pricey well run facility, it can be exhausting to make sure she doesn't do anything harmful to herself or others. (The latter much improved since we took her car away.) At the rate of her decline I would be within the year she'll require a full-time caretaker to make sure she doesn't leave the stove on or take too many pills. This is the sort of thing you'd want to make sure you could afford. And you can't count on your children doing it all for you, especially if they have families of their own or have moved far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why are you posting on DCUM if you're in Delaware? I totally get that people can live easily on 100K/year in certain parts of the country, but in the metro DC area, you're not going to find a house, or even an apartment for 100K in a safe area with reasonable schools.

Suit yourself. Running a COLA calculator gives us an HHI of ~154k if we lived in DC metro. Also, most people who work in DC don't actually live there (like 75% or so).

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/index.html

That calculator is BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

The definition is "living like kings" doesn't really have anything to do with happiness. It has to do, specifically, with money. You are posting in the Money forum. It's disingenuous to refer to royalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

But that's not how kings live. Kings do not live simply. Kings do not homeschool.

This is why the title of the post is misleading. Because you are happy and content with how much you earn and how you live does not mean you are living like a king. At least be honest about that.

They may not be living like kings by *your* standards, but they are by theirs. Isnt that what matters?

That's like starting a thread, "I have the best husband in the world, AMA", and then telling people that your husband beats you daily, makes shit money and doesn't lift a finger around the house. When people go WTF?, you tell the, huffily, he's the best husband by my standards, isn't THAT what matters? Nope, actually it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - great job! Keep it up. You and your family will do fine and all 4 of your kids will go to excellent colleges. I have no doubts.

I read through page 2 and could not bear the snarkiness! Jeez, DCUM IS filled with some mean-spirited biaches! Probably upset that someone who makes a fraction of what they do is actually happy. Sad...

OP you should stop responding to yourself like this. It's embarassing.

[Anonymous]

try posting on delawaresuburbanmom.com

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think your 100k house in the DE suburbs is going to be big enough for the family of 6 you're planning? How much do you save each month for college?

Yup. It's got 3 bedrooms and the kids will share bedrooms the way kids do all over the world, including in the US.

We don't budget separately for college; we simply save most of our money and we'll divide things up when the kids reach college age.

Do you have/anticipate having enough to fully fund four college tuitions and your retirements?

Retirements? Yup. We live simply.

College? It depends. If it costs 750k/student the way a number of models suggest, no way--just like 99% of the country. If it costs less, perhaps. We're not going to worry about it, because it's not something we can control. We'll just save what we can.

So then you are saying that if you could afford college, you would pay... but you are resigning yourself to not being able, so you stick your head in the sand?
How is this "having everything we need"?