I Live Comfortably on Less than $70K After-Tax in DC Area

[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.

Yeah $9k was pretty low last year. I'd say we're normally around $15k and pretty happy with our vacations. But last year it was just $9k just by happenstance not by design.

[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.

College savings is $4k per year for now. I think it'll be enough. I mentioned that we only have 1 kid (but we also "only" have $275k, not the $300k mentioned). We'll add another soon, and I'm sure our annual savings will drop from $73k but we still won't be anywhere near "tight" on money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

College savings is $4k per year for now. I think it'll be enough. I mentioned that we only have 1 kid (but we also "only" have $275k, not the $300k mentioned). We'll add another soon, and I'm sure our annual savings will drop from $73k but we still won't be anywhere near "tight" on money.

thank you for your perspective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

if you are able to save 30-50k a year for college -- you're pretty well off in my book.... just saying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

if you are able to save 30-50k a year for college -- you're pretty well off in my book.... just saying

Totally agree. I'm the $275k guy who posted his budget above, and I think a lot of these "$300k isn't rich" arguments boil down to "$300k buys my family enormous luxuries and privileges that most people can't afford, but it's not limitless!"

[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.

This trope bother me. Yes, housing in DC area is expensive, but no you aren't "screwed" at present prices on a $300k salary. There are plenty of homes in NW DC (even the nice areas) for $700-800k. With a 20% downpayment you are talking $3000-3500 including taxes. Right in line with what the budget posted above. Here is a 3BR in Tenleytown posted today that will run you 3300/mo. for PITI. So, the budget poster could move into this and still keep housing costs at $40k/year.

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3812-Brandywine-St-NW-20016/home/9968947?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=instant_listings_update&utm_content=refresh_with_promo&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0xMjk0MjQxJnA9bGlzdGluZ191cGRhdGVzX2luc3RhbnRfMTUmdHM9MTUwMTc3OTM0NDcwNyZhPWNsaWNrJnM9c2F2ZWRfc2VhcmNoJnQ9aW1hZ2UmZW1haWxfaWQ9MTI5NDI0MV8xNTAxNzc5MzQzXzImdXBkYXRlX3R5cGU9MSZzYXZlZF9zZWFyY2hfaWQ9OTQ4NjY4NSZsaXN0aW5nX2lkPTcxNjk0MDU2JnBvc2l0aW9uX251bWJlcj0w

[Anonymous]

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.

This trope bother me. Yes, housing in DC area is expensive, but no you aren't "screwed" at present prices on a $300k salary. There are plenty of homes in NW DC (even the nice areas) for $700-800k. With a 20% downpayment you are talking $3000-3500 including taxes. Right in line with what the budget posted above. Here is a 3BR in Tenleytown posted today that will run you 3300/mo. for PITI. So, the budget poster could move into this and still keep housing costs at $40k/year.

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3812-Brandywine-St-NW-20016/home/9968947?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=instant_listings_update&utm_content=refresh_with_promo&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0xMjk0MjQxJnA9bGlzdGluZ191cGRhdGVzX2luc3RhbnRfMTUmdHM9MTUwMTc3OTM0NDcwNyZhPWNsaWNrJnM9c2F2ZWRfc2VhcmNoJnQ9aW1hZ2UmZW1haWxfaWQ9MTI5NDI0MV8xNTAxNzc5MzQzXzImdXBkYXRlX3R5cGU9MSZzYXZlZF9zZWFyY2hfaWQ9OTQ4NjY4NSZsaXN0aW5nX2lkPTcxNjk0MDU2JnBvc2l0aW9uX251bWJlcj0w

Okay so maybe "screwed" is a strong word.

However, that house you pointed out is old, needs work, and likely has a lot of maintenance issues. On top of that, it probably will sell for considerably more than $725K.

But let's say it did - 20% down on $725K mortgage is ~$4K PITI, not $3500. The maintenance could be considerable.

[Anonymous]

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.

This trope bother me. Yes, housing in DC area is expensive, but no you aren't "screwed" at present prices on a $300k salary. There are plenty of homes in NW DC (even the nice areas) for $700-800k. With a 20% downpayment you are talking $3000-3500 including taxes. Right in line with what the budget posted above. Here is a 3BR in Tenleytown posted today that will run you 3300/mo. for PITI. So, the budget poster could move into this and still keep housing costs at $40k/year.

https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/3812-Brandywine-St-NW-20016/home/9968947?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=instant_listings_update&utm_content=refresh_with_promo&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0xMjk0MjQxJnA9bGlzdGluZ191cGRhdGVzX2luc3RhbnRfMTUmdHM9MTUwMTc3OTM0NDcwNyZhPWNsaWNrJnM9c2F2ZWRfc2VhcmNoJnQ9aW1hZ2UmZW1haWxfaWQ9MTI5NDI0MV8xNTAxNzc5MzQzXzImdXBkYXRlX3R5cGU9MSZzYXZlZF9zZWFyY2hfaWQ9OTQ4NjY4NSZsaXN0aW5nX2lkPTcxNjk0MDU2JnBvc2l0aW9uX251bWJlcj0w

Okay so maybe "screwed" is a strong word.

However, that house you pointed out is old, needs work, and likely has a lot of maintenance issues. On top of that, it probably will sell for considerably more than $725K.

But let's say it did - 20% down on $725K mortgage is ~$4K PITI, not $3500. The maintenance could be considerable.

I'm the PP who posted his budget above, who you said was "screwed" if he needed to move at present prices. I look on redfin/Zillow and see plenty of listings for houses in NW DC for ~$750k. But, I'll tell you what, I'll even bump that up and say that I end up buying a $900k house. Maybe something like this (https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/4401-River-Rd-NW-20016/home/9949290). That's $4k PITI after a 20% downpayment. So, let's say my housing goes up from $40k per year up to $48k per year. We still have plenty of room in the budget. Maybe instead of saving $73k toward retirement, we only save $65k. This is not a problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

if you are able to save 30-50k a year for college -- you're pretty well off in my book.... just saying

Totally agree. I'm the $275k guy who posted his budget above, and I think a lot of these "$300k isn't rich" arguments boil down to "$300k buys my family enormous luxuries and privileges that most people can't afford, but it's not limitless!"

Exactly! I can't believe that a poster actually said people earning $300k "are screwed." Sure, if being "screwed" means you can't save $50,000 a year, send your kids to pricey private schools, and go on $10,000 vacations. I think you were the one who posted that you spent $9,000 on travel last year, and another PP posted how low that is. These are rich people's discussions. The wealthy DCUM crowd has lost sight of the fact that $9,000 is the average family's living expenses for three months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

if you are able to save 30-50k a year for college -- you're pretty well off in my book.... just saying

Totally agree. I'm the $275k guy who posted his budget above, and I think a lot of these "$300k isn't rich" arguments boil down to "$300k buys my family enormous luxuries and privileges that most people can't afford, but it's not limitless!"

Exactly! I can't believe that a poster actually said people earning $300k "are screwed." Sure, if being "screwed" means you can't save $50,000 a year, send your kids to pricey private schools, and go on $10,000 vacations. I think you were the one who posted that you spent $9,000 on travel last year, and another PP posted how low that is. These are rich people's discussions. The wealthy DCUM crowd has lost sight of the fact that $9,000 is the average family's living expenses for three months.

I spent a total of $100 this weekend going to watch the eclipse with my son - we could only afford to go because we could stay with family (that covers gas, some food, and a beer). My usual travel budget per year is about $700. And I'm middle class, but still paying off student loans and my car. I make around $70k, have a house in DC (its small, and not in a super "desirable" area but I love it), and am a single mom. That is pretty solidly middle class. The people here complaining that they are poor at $300k should start counting blessings rather than luxuries they can't afford.

People who literally think that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

if you are able to save 30-50k a year for college -- you're pretty well off in my book.... just saying

Totally agree. I'm the $275k guy who posted his budget above, and I think a lot of these "$300k isn't rich" arguments boil down to "$300k buys my family enormous luxuries and privileges that most people can't afford, but it's not limitless!"

Exactly! I can't believe that a poster actually said people earning $300k "are screwed." Sure, if being "screwed" means you can't save $50,000 a year, send your kids to pricey private schools, and go on $10,000 vacations. I think you were the one who posted that you spent $9,000 on travel last year, and another PP posted how low that is. These are rich people's discussions. The wealthy DCUM crowd has lost sight of the fact that $9,000 is the average family's living expenses for three months.

I spent a total of $100 this weekend going to watch the eclipse with my son - we could only afford to go because we could stay with family (that covers gas, some food, and a beer). My usual travel budget per year is about $700. And I'm middle class, but still paying off student loans and my car. I make around $70k, have a house in DC (its small, and not in a super "desirable" area but I love it), and am a single mom. That is pretty solidly middle class. The people here complaining that they are poor at $300k should start counting blessings rather than luxuries they can't afford.

People who literally think that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well yeah, but most of us would blow our brains out living in a Townhouse in Fairfax County. So take that and convert it into a 4K a month mortgage (or more) and then add another 2-4K on top for child care and your 70K budget doesn't look so good anymore does it?

Dude - that's your problem.

+1 So basically, your definition of living comfortably involves "living in a cool area that costs 4K a month." Most people don't pay 4K/month for mortgages because they find cheaper places to live. You're having money problems because you're overspending.

[Anonymous]

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.

Other than the kids/no kids dichotomy, the biggest beef I have with those posters who get by just fine on $70K or $100K is the amount they can save annually. No, I can't fund what for me will be a comfortable retirement if the sum total of my annual savings is $15K.

[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.

Other than the kids/no kids dichotomy, the biggest beef I have with those posters who get by just fine on $70K or $100K is the amount they can save annually. No, I can't fund what for me will be a comfortable retirement if the sum total of my annual savings is $15K.

But that's very different from being "poor" or "middle class".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never understood it either OP. We make $200K and have more money than we know what do with.

Is this from two people working and do you have kids? Most people are strapped because of childcare and housing costs.

And having kids may lead to pressure to live in expensive areas with better schools, and to spend on good experiences for the child.

Parents also may want to think about paying for college.