Can we stop referring to households making $200 or 300K a year as "middle class"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

Sounds ok to me, would it be better to buy a new car

Assuming that they were spending some money on housing before, their housing expenses are now more than 1/2 their take home pay. That seems like a very bad decision.

A good decision might be to increase the mortgage by a couple thousand a month, and use the rest for increased savings towards retirement, college etc . . . , and maybe treat oneself to something like a vacation once in a while. That's very possible on $350K.

As a real middle class person - if our HHI went up that much - sure we'd buy a nice house. But let me define nicer. First we'd have more than one full bath (which is what we currently have). I want a real vanity (with space to put things on) in the bathroom. Possibly a gas fire place. A bit more square footage. If it ends up still being a townhouse that is fine. In other words - we'd love to upgrade but within reason. We'd rather do other things with our money. And that would be a choice. Therefore I agree - a higher salary does indeed give you the ability to make choices. If you choose to max out on house and then plead poverty because you have no disposable income - that is a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

Sounds ok to me, would it be better to buy a new car

Assuming that they were spending some money on housing before, their housing expenses are now more than 1/2 their take home pay. That seems like a very bad decision.

A good decision might be to increase the mortgage by a couple thousand a month, and use the rest for increased savings towards retirement, college etc . . . , and maybe treat oneself to something like a vacation once in a while. That's very possible on $350K.

Yeah PP is either lying or majorly house poor. I did some really rough calculations on those two incomes to see how take home pay might differ- granted actual taxes depend on many factors, this is just based on an online calculator tool for a married couple living in MD, doesn't include deductions for 401k, medical, etc.

$150k
- take home monthly pay: ~$9k
- max mortgage based on 30% rule: $2700
- income after mortgage: $6300

$350k
- take home monthly pay: ~18k
- so if their disposable income after mortgage is still $6300, that's a whopping $11700 mortgage, or perhaps less if she was factoring in the massive bills from heating/cooling such a big house.

Even if these numbers are off a bit, that is still nuts. Which is why I call BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

Sounds ok to me, would it be better to buy a new car

Assuming that they were spending some money on housing before, their housing expenses are now more than 1/2 their take home pay. That seems like a very bad decision.

A good decision might be to increase the mortgage by a couple thousand a month, and use the rest for increased savings towards retirement, college etc . . . , and maybe treat oneself to something like a vacation once in a while. That's very possible on $350K.

Yeah PP is either lying or majorly house poor. I did some really rough calculations on those two incomes to see how take home pay might differ- granted actual taxes depend on many factors, this is just based on an online calculator tool for a married couple living in MD, doesn't include deductions for 401k, medical, etc.

$150k
- take home monthly pay: ~$9k
- max mortgage based on 30% rule: $2700
- income after mortgage: $6300

$350k
- take home monthly pay: ~18k
- so if their disposable income after mortgage is still $6300, that's a whopping $11700 mortgage, or perhaps less if she was factoring in the massive bills from heating/cooling such a big house.

Even if these numbers are off a bit, that is still nuts. Which is why I call BS.

good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went from 150k to 450k, the only thing that changed was a larger new house, our disposable income is the same.

Sounds like a silly choice to me but YMMV

Sounds ok to me, would it be better to buy a new car

Assuming that they were spending some money on housing before, their housing expenses are now more than 1/2 their take home pay. That seems like a very bad decision.

A good decision might be to increase the mortgage by a couple thousand a month, and use the rest for increased savings towards retirement, college etc . . . , and maybe treat oneself to something like a vacation once in a while. That's very possible on $350K.

Yeah PP is either lying or majorly house poor. I did some really rough calculations on those two incomes to see how take home pay might differ- granted actual taxes depend on many factors, this is just based on an online calculator tool for a married couple living in MD, doesn't include deductions for 401k, medical, etc.

$150k
- take home monthly pay: ~$9k
- max mortgage based on 30% rule: $2700
- income after mortgage: $6300

$350k
- take home monthly pay: ~18k
- so if their disposable income after mortgage is still $6300, that's a whopping $11700 mortgage, or perhaps less if she was factoring in the massive bills from heating/cooling such a big house.

Even if these numbers are off a bit, that is still nuts. Which is why I call BS.

When we are at 160K our mortgage was 3500, when we moved up to 350k our mortgage is now 5200. Dunno but we also had kids so childcare costs ate the difference. I can see how someone could feel like the only difference is the house size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

No Jersey City.

[Anonymous]

Being middle class is different depending on your income, location, and cost of living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

No Jersey City.

New Jersey has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, unless of course you would have them drive 1.5 hours to get to work because there's no PATH stations in their county

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

Well the middle class friends that I know who own property live in Yonkers, Queens and Brooklyn. They commute because it's a darn expensive city to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

Well the middle class friends that I know who own property live in Yonkers, Queens and Brooklyn. They commute because it's a darn expensive city to live in.

Exactly. OP can't understand this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

NYC doesn't only include Manhattan you know. There are also suburban bedroom communities outside the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

NYC doesn't only include Manhattan you know. There are also suburban bedroom communities outside the city.

Westchester, Essex, Bergen and Nassau Counties have the highest property tax in the country

[Anonymous]

Is OP from NYC? Totally missed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing ordinary about making north of $200K, which puts one in the top 5% of the country. How is that "middle"? And please don't say "250K doesn't get you very far in NW DC, Chevy Chase and Bethesda" - living in an expensive area is a choice. When I lived in NYC, I remember wealthy professionals in Manhattan saying these incomes are "barely getting by" - as if choosing to live in Manhattan isn't itself a luxury.

http://mic.com/articles/64095/what-we-get-wrong-when-we-define-the-middle-class

If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

No Jersey City.

New Jersey has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, unless of course you would have them drive 1.5 hours to get to work because there's no PATH stations in their county

Okay smarty pants - but that is where my middle class friend rents an apartment and commutes from. remember we are talking middle class here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a person works in Manhattan, where should they live? Iowa? Idiot

NYC doesn't only include Manhattan you know. There are also suburban bedroom communities outside the city.

Westchester, Essex, Bergen and Nassau Counties have the highest property tax in the country

obviously those are places the middle class is not choosing though. there are other options