Life is Easy in NW DC on $300k, AMA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

I'm sure that is true. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

I'm sure that is true. What is your point?

That 300k is middle class in dc if you have kids and didn't buy your home 10 plus bears ago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

I'm sure that is true. What is your point?

That 300k is middle class in dc if you have kids and didn't buy your home 10 plus bears ago

Isn't that what op is saying? That he has a comfortable middle class life and doesn't want for anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

+1.

Also, most Americans make less than $100k.

Just saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the entire private school sub-thread is really a deflection. The PP gave this very unique bullying hypo to suggest that even though everything is easy for OP on $300k, well, everything would fall apart if they had no choice but to send their 2 kids to an expensive private school.

But, without arguing about whether there are some unique outlier cases where parents truly have "no choice", the simple fact is that's not why the vast overwhelming majority of kids are in private school. They are there because their parents made a choice to send them to private school.

I have nothing against people who make that choice. But it's silly to pretend that OP's situation is imperiled because of the possibility that they are put in a position where they have no choice but to pay $70k per year for private school.

I see it differently.

OP showed how everything is wonderful...when everything is wonderful.

But in many cases, that's not the case. It could be bullying and then private school, or a disease, or alimony payments, or ID fraud and legal bills, or whatever.

$300k is great money when everything is wonderful. But that's not always the case, even in NW DC.

No, OP was responding the the endless threads that it is hard to get by in DC on 300K/year with an outline of a pretty good life. He did not say tragedy or hard times will never happen to him, although I hope it does not. All we can do is the best we can. People complaining about not getting by on 300K are not whining about their inability to have fallback plans in the event their children are bullied.

How do you know that? Do you have some special powers to know forst-hand all relevant details about the lives of all posters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

I'm sure that is true. What is your point?

That 300k is middle class in dc if you have kids and didn't buy your home 10 plus bears ago

Isn't that what op is saying? That he has a comfortable middle class life and doesn't want for anything?

No, OP repeatedly claimed that he is not middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see so much confusion on here, and I thought I'd try to clear some stuff up. My central point is that life is easy, downright cushy even, on $300k per year gross income in the DC area. My wife (38) and I (40) raise our two kids (6 and 3) in upper NW DC and our gross income in 2016 was $300k. People who suggest they are scraping by at this income are either deluding you or deluding themselves.

I am happy to answer any questions and dispel any other related myths you may see on DCUM.

Some of our details:
- ~$300k gross income
- $about 70k in total income and payroll taxes
- PITI is about $3500 (we bought a 4 BR house near AU park in 2012 for low $800s. Before that we owned a small condo in Logan Circle)
- Public school (but we did daycare for both kids from 4 months - 3 years)
- I graduated from law school in 2004 with about $150k in student loans. Those are all paid off now.
- We don't do fancy luxury cars, but it's not bargain basement either. The last car we bought was in 2012 and it cost about $30k.
- We eat at nice restaurants weekly, travel several times a year, and buy more consumer goods (clothes for her, gadgets for him) than we probably should
- We save amply $36k per year in the 401k/TSP, $10k per year in the 529s, and $30-40k in the taxable brokerage account. Our savings balances include $750k in retirement accounts, $60k in 529s (kids are still young), and $250k in taxable brokerage accounts.
- We give to charity an amount that I think is generous, about $5k per year usually.

You are missing the point of those earlier threads. Few, if any, said $300k is not a nice lifestyle in NWDC. Rather, many correctly said that $300K does not automatically make you "rich" or "wealthy". Because it does not. You are dangerously dependent on your salary, which could disappear overnight (see 2008/2009). If we you lost your job, you'd be in dire financial straits. Actually rich people can afford a great lifestyle independent of a salaried job. That is not you, or most people in AU Park. You are upper middle class. If you don't understand the distinction, it's not surprising. Most Americans are sadly financially illiterate and would not understand this either.

I think we're talking about 2 different things. I have seen people on DCUM people say they are scraping by or living paycheck to paycheck on 300k. Or that 300k is middle class. That's what I'm pushing against.

I definitely never used the terms rich or wealthy. And I never tried to argue we're wealthy enough to not need a salary. In fact the whole point of the past was to show what lifestyle or salaries provide, not to argue that we don't need or salaries.

Of course we're still dependent on our salaries. But one day we won't be. Also, we'd be fine if one of us lost our jobs. We'd only be in "dire straits" if we both lost our jobs. Which is frankly unlikely, bc I work for the federal government.

Seems like a very middle class life to me. You send your kids to public schools, drive average cars, save for kids' colleges, etc. Doesn't seem like you do anything particularly luxurious except for dining at some nicer restaurant and some consumer goods. Again, very middle class. Your life isn't any fancier than someone middle class who lives in Kansas City. Except the person in Kansas City probably isn't saving as much for college, but then again their child probably won't attend as expensive of a college.

If you earned another 100-150k you could add in some more UMC things like a lot of expensive travel, nicer home etc.

Exactly.

I think you are both proving OP's point. If you don;t expect to live a "rich" lifestyle and don't have any extenuating circumstances (family to support, high health care costs) then living on $300K is pretty comfortable. If you expect more, you will either feel deprived or be unable to save as much. Sounds like OP isn't expecting to feel rich and is therefore very satisfied. And since once of their salaries is from the federal gov't, their income and health insurance is pretty secure. Bravo OP!

It doesn't seem any different from living in 100k in a lower COL city. I could easily own the same sized property, drive older cars and send my kids to public school in Minneapolis on 100k.

I'm sure that is true. What is your point?

That 300k is middle class in dc if you have kids and didn't buy your home 10 plus bears ago

Isn't that what op is saying? That he has a comfortable middle class life and doesn't want for anything?

No, OP repeatedly claimed that he is not middle class.

I don't care whether you insist on calling it middle class, but the simple fact is it's a cushier lifestyle, by far, than the vast majority of Americans.

[Anonymous]

OP is not middle class. And $300k in DC is more comfortable than $100k in a lower COL area. No one making $100k anywhere can afford to spend $11k eating out/year.

It's not your lifestyle that determines whether you are middle class - it's your income. And in DC $300k puts in the top 5-10% of earners - middle class would be more like $70-140k I would bet.

Which means I'm middle class ($74k salary plus $10k child support for me plus one kid). We're fine, and can make it fine in DC, even if we're not saving as much as I'd like. And it would be harder to be a family of 4 on my salary, but it would be doable if I saved less money.

But anyone living outside of their means, or who has unrealistic expectations of what their salary should afford them, is going to feel strapped at any income.

[Anonymous]

The problem here is that people seem to define everything lower than Rich Kids of Instagram-style living as middle class. In some ways this makes sense, because someone making $300k has a lifestyle more similar to someone making $50k than to the truly wealthy.

[Anonymous]

OP, seriously thank you for this thread and your honesty. Our HHI is 250k but our mortgage is substantially lower. We drive modest cars, and our debt load is very similar.

I stand to make substantially more money than I have in the past in 2018 and this thread is giving me a look at some of the things that could change (including more savings and more 529 contributions).

[Anonymous]

You absolutely could not live the same life on a 100 grand in Minneapolis. The OP is saving what, 100k a year or so? That's more than the average person in Minneapolis makes. And saving 100k a year leads to....Early retirement. That is definitely not middle class, but we'll above.

Good for you OP, I'm impressed with your ability to avoid serious lifestyle inflation.

[Anonymous]

lol i love these threads.

we make 190k gross. some years we get a big bonus, but not regularly. we focus our savings on rental property, which now pays all of our monthly expenses. this allows us to pack away about 75% of our income. public schools for kids. live in brookland.

life is easy on 190k. it's all about decisions. many people make horrible housing and transportation decisions, which is why 300k+ can feel tough.

[Anonymous]

This thread is refreshing. We are a family of 5 living in DC on combined income of $180k. We are comfortable. Our children attend public schools. We could only imagine what another $90k would allow us to do, but thanks to OP and other posters we know that money will go toward more financial investments and perhaps a few splurges.