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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of The Bonfire of the Vanities - both the book and the movie - was a man having a tough time making $950,000 in Manhattan - in like 1990.

The New York and San Francisco life with kids in 2026 is absurdly expensive. $500,000 isn't coming anywhere close to managing it for a family.

It is possible if you don’t try to fit in with the wealthy families. If you accept you’re not part of the Upper East Side crowd and you should be looking in Astoria or farther uptown Manhattan.

You don't even have to do that. If you have 500k/yr in Manhattan, you accept that you will live in a small apartment despite making a lot of money (or you move far out and commute) because you are living in one of the most expensive cities in the country. You limit yourself to one kid or you send your kids to public schools. If you have more than 1-2 kids, you will likely need to move out of the city for space just because it's at a premium. Instead of taking fancy vacations, you take advantage of the great stuff NYC has to offer. You do have some built in cost savings from living in an efficient city -- you have zero need for a car, there are lots of free or near-free entertainment options for city residents, living in a small home diminishes expectations for consumption and make it easier to buy less (people aren't amassing garages full of sporting goods they never use in NYC apartments, for instance).

You are still wealthy and can save and invest a lot on a 500k income in NYC. You can live in a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood, it will just be small. You can save for college. No, your life doesn't look like that of a UMC person in a suburb somewhere, but you ARE an UMC person, and you don't live paycheck to paycheck. You just spend an outsize percentage of your income on housing because of where you live, and your lifestyle looks different because of where you live. That's it.

Meanwhile someone making 150k would struggle a lot more to live in NYC with kids. As a single person you could make it work because you could make some extreme compromises about the size of your home, but once you have a kid it's harder. But there are still people who do it! And I know a number of families living in NYC (less expensive neighborhoods) on maybe 200-250k with one or two kids. At 300k it starts to get easier, and by 400k you are living a nice life and don't have true money worries, unless you are dumb and start trying to live like one of the very wealthy people you see around you there. But that's a danger anywhere. Keeping up with the Jones' will do in your finances in Manhattan, NYC, and in Manhattan, Kansas. That's life.

Ugh…I would never want to live in NYC. So many better places to live than there. NYC smells like Mary Jane everywhere you go and it’s full of clueless liberals who elect socialist mayors. Crime is a real problem and COL and the taxes are insane. The exodus of people leaving NYC for better pastures isn’t a fluke.

There will always be people moving to NY because there are jobs and industries it's simply hard to access if you live somewhere else. This is true of most major cities. But yes there are also always people moving out of the city because of the cost of living and the downsides of living in a very large, dense city. This is how it always is. That churn is actually one of the defining features of the city and doesn't reflect some new shift. It likely has a bit to do with your age -- in your 20s you probably new people moving to NY or who wanted to move there, but in your 40s and 50s those same people are headed the opposite direction. Trust that there are plenty of 20-somethings heading there to make their start as we speak here.

[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

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.

They don’t have to have a larger house. We sold our regular size house six years ago and moved to a hybrid style town. Huge houses on one side and three deckers and rental homes on the commercial side.

We have a $650,000 income from my husband’s job. We rent a place that amounts to about 6% of our income. The kids public schools are good. We go on middle class vacations, do normal activities and even with a high tax bracket we don’t live even close to paycheck to paycheck.

We are very lucky the grandparents set the kids up with their own 7 figure trust funds and we have a good retirement plan. But we are comfortable in our middle class lifestyle and not having to worry about money because of the way we choose to live.

And I’m with the people who are shocked at how many posters don’t understand the meaning of living from paycheck to paycheck.

You don't understand either. You are completely tone death. Most people's kids don't have huge trust funds, retirement plans, donate. You can easily buy a nice house so good brag.

And we could easily be a part of the 40% of people in the same income bracket as us and live paycheck to paycheck. After the huge tax bill we could buy two top of the line cars in the $90k range each. We could buy a 2.5 million dollar house that we qualify for. We could fly first class. And we would quickly join those paycheck to paycheck people worrying about some huge unforeseen medical bill.

I guess we’re lucky because we like living in middle class neighborhoods much better than wealthy neighborhoods where there are too many uptight people. Since we only pay $3000 a month in rent and don’t have any loans or money owed we have a surplus. And we’re also lucky that we have the money to help our nieces to get the education they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.

Why can’t your nieces use some of their 7 figure trust funds to pay for their educations?

[Anonymous]

My wife and I make less than half that and are not even close to living paycheck to paycheck. We could sock away more into retirement if we wanted to.

[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

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.

They don’t have to have a larger house. We sold our regular size house six years ago and moved to a hybrid style town. Huge houses on one side and three deckers and rental homes on the commercial side.

We have a $650,000 income from my husband’s job. We rent a place that amounts to about 6% of our income. The kids public schools are good. We go on middle class vacations, do normal activities and even with a high tax bracket we don’t live even close to paycheck to paycheck.

We are very lucky the grandparents set the kids up with their own 7 figure trust funds and we have a good retirement plan. But we are comfortable in our middle class lifestyle and not having to worry about money because of the way we choose to live.

And I’m with the people who are shocked at how many posters don’t understand the meaning of living from paycheck to paycheck.

You don't understand either. You are completely tone death. Most people's kids don't have huge trust funds, retirement plans, donate. You can easily buy a nice house so good brag.

And we could easily be a part of the 40% of people in the same income bracket as us and live paycheck to paycheck. After the huge tax bill we could buy two top of the line cars in the $90k range each. We could buy a 2.5 million dollar house that we qualify for. We could fly first class. And we would quickly join those paycheck to paycheck people worrying about some huge unforeseen medical bill.

I guess we’re lucky because we like living in middle class neighborhoods much better than wealthy neighborhoods where there are too many uptight people. Since we only pay $3000 a month in rent and don’t have any loans or money owed we have a surplus. And we’re also lucky that we have the money to help our nieces to get the education they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.

Why can’t your nieces use some of their 7 figure trust funds to pay for their educations?

They don’t have one. My children do and it wasn’t me or my husband who set it up and funded it, it was grandparents, not on their side. There’s also guilt when your kids don’t struggle and their very close cousins have a hard time. Most people do something to help give them a good start in life.

[Anonymous]

As a postmenopausal woman, I would shed a tear for these struggling families but I can't spare the moisture.

[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

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.

They don’t have to have a larger house. We sold our regular size house six years ago and moved to a hybrid style town. Huge houses on one side and three deckers and rental homes on the commercial side.

We have a $650,000 income from my husband’s job. We rent a place that amounts to about 6% of our income. The kids public schools are good. We go on middle class vacations, do normal activities and even with a high tax bracket we don’t live even close to paycheck to paycheck.

We are very lucky the grandparents set the kids up with their own 7 figure trust funds and we have a good retirement plan. But we are comfortable in our middle class lifestyle and not having to worry about money because of the way we choose to live.

And I’m with the people who are shocked at how many posters don’t understand the meaning of living from paycheck to paycheck.

You don't understand either. You are completely tone death. Most people's kids don't have huge trust funds, retirement plans, donate. You can easily buy a nice house so good brag.

And we could easily be a part of the 40% of people in the same income bracket as us and live paycheck to paycheck. After the huge tax bill we could buy two top of the line cars in the $90k range each. We could buy a 2.5 million dollar house that we qualify for. We could fly first class. And we would quickly join those paycheck to paycheck people worrying about some huge unforeseen medical bill.

I guess we’re lucky because we like living in middle class neighborhoods much better than wealthy neighborhoods where there are too many uptight people. Since we only pay $3000 a month in rent and don’t have any loans or money owed we have a surplus. And we’re also lucky that we have the money to help our nieces to get the education they wouldn’t be able to otherwise.

Why can’t your nieces use some of their 7 figure trust funds to pay for their educations?

They don’t have one. My children do and it wasn’t me or my husband who set it up and funded it, it was grandparents, not on their side. There’s also guilt when your kids don’t struggle and their very close cousins have a hard time. Most people do something to help give them a good start in life.

You married rich but you enjoy cosplaying as middle class. Got it!

[Anonymous]

We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Do you have nothing in savings at all of any kind, for retirement or other accounts? That is what living paycheck to paycheck means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Taxes at that income are definately a thing! Genuinely curious why you didn't save for college if you were making $500K for very long (and currently living a lifestyle that allows you to pay for college as you go)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Do you have nothing in savings at all of any kind, for retirement or other accounts? That is what living paycheck to paycheck means.

Exactly! Paycheck to paycheck is literally not having any savings or investments (retirement, EF, or otherwise) and using your entire paycheck to pay the actual bills.

However, I do know people with high incomes who don't save much and actually do spend most of their income each month. and no EF. They don't need to be living like that, as they have the $$ to save, have an EF and be prepared for what life throws at you. But they choose not to. And while they might be saving for retirement, they are not saving much (for their income). They are instead living above their means.

But I get that plenty of regular earners actually are "paycheck to paycheck". It's hard not to be when you only make $45-50K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you look at the chart?

It says only 16% making $200-$300 live that way and only 25% making $100-$200.

How about this…the people making $500k can live like those making $300k…and then they will saving like 50%.

The most difficult spot to live is that 300k-500k spot, as those are not really rich, and you've lost all the subsidies and tax breaks from the government.

That is total BS. Some people are forced to choose between feeding their family and buying life-saving meds. That is difficult. Feeling like you are entitled to drive expensive cars, buy too much house, and pay for private schools, and as a result feeling stretched due to bad choices is not "difficult".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Taxes at that income are definately a thing! Genuinely curious why you didn't save for college if you were making $500K for very long (and currently living a lifestyle that allows you to pay for college as you go)?

We did Not always make this much money. We are former government employees and this income is a recent development. we did save for college, but not for all four years as we focused on paying off our house first. I don't have a mortgage as one of my expenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Taxes at that income are definately a thing! Genuinely curious why you didn't save for college if you were making $500K for very long (and currently living a lifestyle that allows you to pay for college as you go)?

We did Not always make this much money. We are former government employees and this income is a recent development. we did save for college, but not for all four years as we focused on paying off our house first. I don't have a mortgage as one of my expenses.

I should add, we definitely saved for retirement. My comment is that when he suddenly got his $500,000 income two years ago I thought would be rolling in the dough 😁

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We make 500 K but the outgoing cash is due to our own decisions. We have two kids going to college and we're paying 100% plus their lodging. That alone is huge. And of course the taxes are a bit more than $120,000 a year for Federa, state, county, and city.

Taxes at that income are definately a thing! Genuinely curious why you didn't save for college if you were making $500K for very long (and currently living a lifestyle that allows you to pay for college as you go)?

We did Not always make this much money. We are former government employees and this income is a recent development. we did save for college, but not for all four years as we focused on paying off our house first. I don't have a mortgage as one of my expenses.

I should add, we definitely saved for retirement. My comment is that when he suddenly got his $500,000 income two years ago I thought would be rolling in the dough 😁

nah, the govt takes more with taxes at that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The entire premise of The Bonfire of the Vanities - both the book and the movie - was a man having a tough time making $950,000 in Manhattan - in like 1990.

The New York and San Francisco life with kids in 2026 is absurdly expensive. $500,000 isn't coming anywhere close to managing it for a family.

It is possible if you don’t try to fit in with the wealthy families. If you accept you’re not part of the Upper East Side crowd and you should be looking in Astoria or farther uptown Manhattan.

You don't even have to do that. If you have 500k/yr in Manhattan, you accept that you will live in a small apartment despite making a lot of money (or you move far out and commute) because you are living in one of the most expensive cities in the country. You limit yourself to one kid or you send your kids to public schools. If you have more than 1-2 kids, you will likely need to move out of the city for space just because it's at a premium. Instead of taking fancy vacations, you take advantage of the great stuff NYC has to offer. You do have some built in cost savings from living in an efficient city -- you have zero need for a car, there are lots of free or near-free entertainment options for city residents, living in a small home diminishes expectations for consumption and make it easier to buy less (people aren't amassing garages full of sporting goods they never use in NYC apartments, for instance).

You are still wealthy and can save and invest a lot on a 500k income in NYC. You can live in a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood, it will just be small. You can save for college. No, your life doesn't look like that of a UMC person in a suburb somewhere, but you ARE an UMC person, and you don't live paycheck to paycheck. You just spend an outsize percentage of your income on housing because of where you live, and your lifestyle looks different because of where you live. That's it.

Meanwhile someone making 150k would struggle a lot more to live in NYC with kids. As a single person you could make it work because you could make some extreme compromises about the size of your home, but once you have a kid it's harder. But there are still people who do it! And I know a number of families living in NYC (less expensive neighborhoods) on maybe 200-250k with one or two kids. At 300k it starts to get easier, and by 400k you are living a nice life and don't have true money worries, unless you are dumb and start trying to live like one of the very wealthy people you see around you there. But that's a danger anywhere. Keeping up with the Jones' will do in your finances in Manhattan, NYC, and in Manhattan, Kansas. That's life.

Mic drop. This is the most sensible, realistic post in this thread.