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:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Your housing budget translates to ~$500K mortgage. Since you're not talking about moving anytime even though you're adding a family member soon, it sounds like you're not living in a condo but a house. So it further sounds like you bought a long time ago. Yes, if your mortgage or rent is frozen at a level that is a decade or more ago, you'll be fine.

If you have to worry about present levels, you'll be screwed. Even on $300K salary.

Are you suggesting you can't buy a house for 500k in this area??

not anywhere in DC that is safe for children.

This is DCUM

Oh ok so no one outside of the district line is allowed to post? LOL

No, but most people here are posting from the perspective of actually being a DC resident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Your housing budget translates to ~$500K mortgage. Since you're not talking about moving anytime even though you're adding a family member soon, it sounds like you're not living in a condo but a house. So it further sounds like you bought a long time ago. Yes, if your mortgage or rent is frozen at a level that is a decade or more ago, you'll be fine.

If you have to worry about present levels, you'll be screwed. Even on $300K salary.

Are you suggesting you can't buy a house for 500k in this area??

not anywhere in DC that is safe for children.

This is DCUM

Oh ok so no one outside of the district line is allowed to post? LOL

No, but most people here are posting from the perspective of actually being a DC resident.

honestly I doubt it -- I assume most people live in the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Your housing budget translates to ~$500K mortgage. Since you're not talking about moving anytime even though you're adding a family member soon, it sounds like you're not living in a condo but a house. So it further sounds like you bought a long time ago. Yes, if your mortgage or rent is frozen at a level that is a decade or more ago, you'll be fine.

If you have to worry about present levels, you'll be screwed. Even on $300K salary.

Are you suggesting you can't buy a house for 500k in this area??

not anywhere in DC that is safe for children.

This is DCUM

Oh ok so no one outside of the district line is allowed to post? LOL

No, but most people here are posting from the perspective of actually being a DC resident.

Also note that the thread title is "DC area".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how all these threads go:

"300k (two government lawyers) is not rich"

"what are you talking about? I get by just fine on 100k"

"you don't have kids"

"so? saving for college and paying for activities are not necessary"*

*Said even though most of these posters probably had such things given to them as kids.

/hit head on desk repeatedly


Sorry I don't want to provide just the bare minimum (food, clothing, shelter) for my kids! Providing the bare minimum doesn't make you a good parent, it just means CPS won't get involved.

Wow your comment is ridiculous -- who said they are providing the bare minimum for their kids??

the people who said saving for college, activities, and summer camp are not necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how all these threads go:

"300k (two government lawyers) is not rich"

"what are you talking about? I get by just fine on 100k"

"you don't have kids"

"so? saving for college and paying for activities are not necessary"*

*Said even though most of these posters probably had such things given to them as kids.

/hit head on desk repeatedly


Sorry I don't want to provide just the bare minimum (food, clothing, shelter) for my kids! Providing the bare minimum doesn't make you a good parent, it just means CPS won't get involved.

Wow your comment is ridiculous -- who said they are providing the bare minimum for their kids??

the people who said saving for college, activities, and summer camp are not necessary.

who said that? on this thread? must have missed that

[Anonymous]

^ Poster who posted budget: your travel is really low. I love to travel, it's a huge priority to me. If I died tomorrow, I would really regret not seeing more of the world. We probably spend ~ 50k but we make double what you make.

9k on travel is not even enough for one of our trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how all these threads go:

"300k (two government lawyers) is not rich"

"what are you talking about? I get by just fine on 100k"

"you don't have kids"

"so? saving for college and paying for activities are not necessary"*

*Said even though most of these posters probably had such things given to them as kids.

/hit head on desk repeatedly


Sorry I don't want to provide just the bare minimum (food, clothing, shelter) for my kids! Providing the bare minimum doesn't make you a good parent, it just means CPS won't get involved.

Wow your comment is ridiculous -- who said they are providing the bare minimum for their kids??

the people who said saving for college, activities, and summer camp are not necessary.

who said that? on this thread? must have missed that

on the last page but it comes up every time this topic is discussed. It's the go to argument. I fundamentally disagree which is why it's usually not worth my time or energy to post in these threads (not sure why I am doing so today). sorry but that's not the way I want to raise my kids (without that stuff). If we had to, we would but I'd feel guilty about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ Poster who posted budget: your travel is really low. I love to travel, it's a huge priority to me. If I died tomorrow, I would really regret not seeing more of the world. We probably spend ~ 50k but we make double what you make.

9k on travel is not even enough for one of our trips.

NP. Their savings for college seems low too as it includes their own student loans (unless they're only paying back $1k a year on their loans?). Our financial adviser said we should be saving 15k for every kid each year.

And they only have one kid! Try having another and needing to save 30k for college PLUS daycare for two PLUS food, clothing, diapers for an extra person PLUS travel for an extra person PLUS activities and camps when the kids are older, etc. etc. Come on, even you must admit that you would have to cut corners if you had another kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how all these threads go:

"300k (two government lawyers) is not rich"

"what are you talking about? I get by just fine on 100k"

"you don't have kids"

"so? saving for college and paying for activities are not necessary"*

*Said even though most of these posters probably had such things given to them as kids.

/hit head on desk repeatedly


Sorry I don't want to provide just the bare minimum (food, clothing, shelter) for my kids! Providing the bare minimum doesn't make you a good parent, it just means CPS won't get involved.

Wow your comment is ridiculous -- who said they are providing the bare minimum for their kids??

the people who said saving for college, activities, and summer camp are not necessary.

who said that? on this thread? must have missed that

on the last page but it comes up every time this topic is discussed. It's the go to argument. I fundamentally disagree which is why it's usually not worth my time or energy to post in these threads (not sure why I am doing so today). sorry but that's not the way I want to raise my kids (without that stuff). If we had to, we would but I'd feel guilty about it.

Do you honestly think people are choosing not to save for college? I think for some people -- they aren't able to save much for college. Big difference. People who can save enough to send their kids to a school costing 70k a year are very lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Poster who posted budget: your travel is really low. I love to travel, it's a huge priority to me. If I died tomorrow, I would really regret not seeing more of the world. We probably spend ~ 50k but we make double what you make.

9k on travel is not even enough for one of our trips.

NP. Their savings for college seems low too as it includes their own student loans (unless they're only paying back $1k a year on their loans?). Our financial adviser said we should be saving 15k for every kid each year.

And they only have one kid! Try having another and needing to save 30k for college PLUS daycare for two PLUS food, clothing, diapers for an extra person PLUS travel for an extra person PLUS activities and camps when the kids are older, etc. etc. Come on, even you must admit that you would have to cut corners if you had another kid.

There is no possible way we could save $15k a year for college. So consider yourself fortunate.

[Anonymous]

Agree with all the posters saying it's tight to raise kids on $300k salary in/around DC. I say that as a childfree person with similar HHI. We save a lot (and that's not the reason to be childfree for us), but I can't imagine paying for all the medical/dental bills, baby stuff, activities, saving for college (even public schools are expensive these days!), the list seems to go on and on.

[Anonymous]

Ok so just know that the next time this topic comes up, which it will, just know that is one of the big "expenses" people are dealing with when they say 300k is not rich. They're probably saving 30-50k for college.

If you yourself attended a private college and had an amazing experience that helped you get to where you are now, it's really hard to think you shouldn't give that to your kids too. So you scrimp and save.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Your housing budget translates to ~$500K mortgage. Since you're not talking about moving anytime even though you're adding a family member soon, it sounds like you're not living in a condo but a house. So it further sounds like you bought a long time ago. Yes, if your mortgage or rent is frozen at a level that is a decade or more ago, you'll be fine.

If you have to worry about present levels, you'll be screwed. Even on $300K salary.

Not exactly. We live in a condo that we bought in 2012 for approx. 700k. We may need to move as the kids grow. Could easily add $1k/mo. to our mortgage and still be saving $50k per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Your housing budget translates to ~$500K mortgage. Since you're not talking about moving anytime even though you're adding a family member soon, it sounds like you're not living in a condo but a house. So it further sounds like you bought a long time ago. Yes, if your mortgage or rent is frozen at a level that is a decade or more ago, you'll be fine.

If you have to worry about present levels, you'll be screwed. Even on $300K salary.

Are you suggesting you can't buy a house for 500k in this area??

not anywhere in DC that is safe for children.

This is DCUM

Oh ok so no one outside of the district line is allowed to post? LOL

No, but most people here are posting from the perspective of actually being a DC resident.

Also note that the thread title is "DC area".

Fair enough, but note that this is still DCUM, so most posters are DC residents with children, or at least close in subarbanites with children.

Fairfax isn't exactly close.

[Anonymous]

This thread reminds of that iconic episode of Happy Days where Fonzie jumped the shark.