Poverty level is $140,000 for a family. Really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting concept. I'm a single who makes 140k. On that income, I max 401k/IRA/HSA, have a cheap mortgage at 1500 a month (bought in mid-size city market before real estate exploded post 2020, also refinanced to 2.7). After that I get to take home 4500 a month. Just to live (food, car expenses, utilities, internet, phone, gym pet needs, etc) seems to add up to 3,000 a month. That leaves me with 1,500, which I put aside into long term savings to cover emergency home repairs, eventual car replacement, one international trip a year, etc).

You can see I live comfortably but not extravagantly. I still budget and worry a bit about money, mainly to keep me from splurging too much. Other than my retirement accounts, I do also have 250k in a mutual funds account that is the result of 20 years of careful saving. I am on track for a comfortable retirement.

But it’s still not a fancy life. It's not what I'd call a UMC lifestyle with a bigger house and nicer cars than my Honda. I'm thankful for what I have. But I must also wonder how families survive on less than what I make. They must not save a penny or contribute much to retirement.

Right-- $140k for a single person is very different than $140k for a 4-person family, which it what the OP's article is about.

[Anonymous]

$140K is not poverty. We've made far less than that and been fine.

[Anonymous]

I remember when we were renting a one bedroom in Silver Spring and had two little kids. We earned 80K as a household.

And now we're in a SFH in Bethesda, still earning below 140K a year. We've lived frugal lives for decades. DC1 is in college, DC2 in high school.

It can be done. We never felt poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cost of child care should be fully tax deductible and should similarly deduct from income for government assistance programs. Why does this country hate working parents so much (and let's face it-- mostly working mothers)?

I be agree. 55+ Mom. I stayed home 10 years working now full time college (youngest) healthcare etc. something is very wrong here. And cruel to working young parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

This why they have one working parent instead of two.

We’re dual income with each of us making more than them. Yet they live next door and have nicer cars. No family money. I’d hate to see their retirement accounts though.

The point is that $140k isn’t poverty level throughout the country. Only in HCOL spots and only for certain stages in life.

You’re super dumb. The POINT is that a family with ONE earner making 140k is better off than a family with TWO earners who EACH make 70k.

Two earners making more than 140k is utterly irrelevant to this particular thread. Your neighbor’s choice of vehicle is irrelevant. FFS use the brain God gave you before you comment again.

You’re angry because you don’t communicate well in writing and people don’t understand what you’re trying to convey. Your message was garbled and unclear. But thanks for clarifying, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://wapo.st/4pySw6b

This makes a lot of sense. DCUM would probably say more like 250K, but the world is catching up with DCUM.

Anyone who cannot raise a family on 50K a year is just wasting money.

[Anonymous]

I lived here on 85-100K per year as a single Mom. It wasn't hard to live on that income and I qualified for no benefits. What was hard? My friend married to a E5 making roughly $3200 per month with free housing ($2900/month). They usually ran out of food money by week 3 despite WIC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when we were renting a one bedroom in Silver Spring and had two little kids. We earned 80K as a household.

And now we're in a SFH in Bethesda, still earning below 140K a year. We've lived frugal lives for decades. DC1 is in college, DC2 in high school.

It can be done. We never felt poor.

You know things are more expensive than 10-15 years ago, right?

I also find it hard to believe you paid for daycare for two kids on an $80k income, even 15 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wapo.st/4pySw6b

This makes a lot of sense. DCUM would probably say more like 250K, but the world is catching up with DCUM.

Anyone who cannot raise a family on 50K a year is just wasting money.

How old are you? Do you have any idea how much child care costs? Even a cheap in-home daycare will cost $2k/month for two kids. A cheap two-bedroom apartment is going to cost $1.5k/month.

Even after deductions and credits, that pretty much takes up your entire net income. Without factoring in utilities, food, transportation, clothing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lived here on 85-100K per year as a single Mom. It wasn't hard to live on that income and I qualified for no benefits. What was hard? My friend married to a E5 making roughly $3200 per month with free housing ($2900/month). They usually ran out of food money by week 3 despite WIC.

Its hard because costs have outpaced salaries. That’s what we’re talking about, please keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$140K is not poverty. We've made far less than that and been fine.

I can’t help but notice this is in the past tense. Are you familiar with the concept of time? Inflation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember when we were renting a one bedroom in Silver Spring and had two little kids. We earned 80K as a household.

And now we're in a SFH in Bethesda, still earning below 140K a year. We've lived frugal lives for decades. DC1 is in college, DC2 in high school.

It can be done. We never felt poor.

Oh dear, there are multiple posters in this thread who are unfamiliar with inflation and apparently have been living under a rock for the past five years…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the Midwest and that number sounds crazy high for the poverty line. We live in a wealthy town. We have neighbors with SAHPs who make about that much. They’re not remotely close to the poverty line with their big families, big houses in good school districts.

You have to make a lot more with two working parents to have the same quality of life. In metro areas, you probably need another $30-45k if you both work with two kids. In rural areas, it is probably more like needing another $20-30k.

At lower income levels, you need even more, since the income of the other parent would also need to offset the loss of government programs.

This why they have one working parent instead of two.

We’re dual income with each of us making more than them. Yet they live next door and have nicer cars. No family money. I’d hate to see their retirement accounts though.

The point is that $140k isn’t poverty level throughout the country. Only in HCOL spots and only for certain stages in life.

You’re super dumb. The POINT is that a family with ONE earner making 140k is better off than a family with TWO earners who EACH make 70k.

Two earners making more than 140k is utterly irrelevant to this particular thread. Your neighbor’s choice of vehicle is irrelevant. FFS use the brain God gave you before you comment again.

You’re angry because you don’t communicate well in writing and people don’t understand what you’re trying to convey. Your message was garbled and unclear. But thanks for clarifying, I guess?

Incorrect. I’m not the person to whom you initially responded. Their point was abundantly clear to anyone with two+ brain cells to rub together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cost of child care should be fully tax deductible and should similarly deduct from income for government assistance programs. Why does this country hate working parents so much (and let's face it-- mostly working mothers)?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when we were renting a one bedroom in Silver Spring and had two little kids. We earned 80K as a household.

And now we're in a SFH in Bethesda, still earning below 140K a year. We've lived frugal lives for decades. DC1 is in college, DC2 in high school.

It can be done. We never felt poor.

You know things are more expensive than 10-15 years ago, right?

I also find it hard to believe you paid for daycare for two kids on an $80k income, even 15 years ago.

People like the PP always have a grandmother who provided free childcare or some other significant financial help that they completely dismiss, in favor of the narrative that they did it on their own.

The reality is that an 80K salary wouldn’t even be enough to cover the mortgage on the tiniest of single family homes in Bethesda.

I live nearby in Rockville and prices have gone up so much that I wouldn’t be able to afford my own house if we were buying today. And I only bought 10 years ago.

It takes an enormous lack of self awareness to not understand the role that luck plays in the timing of the housing market. I would expect similar lack of self awareness about other factors like an inheritance that paid for the Bethesda house or years of free childcare from family.