100k HHI in suburban envirnoment, and we live like kings. AMA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1, why have that many kids

That's a nonsensical argument; there isn't an objective reason to have any kids. I could just as easily say it's irresponsible to have kids if you can't pay for their colleges and buy them their first homes and max out their retirement funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: As an individual it's hard to imagine a way you could be more ecologically wasteful, and I'm not being hyperbolic.

Are you having *any* children? Because if you plan on doing so, you're simply being a hypocrite by trying to claim you're being less destructive than someone with more children (a dubious claim in itself).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

But that's not how kings live. Kings do not live simply. Kings do not homeschool.

[Anonymous]

I am going to be a dissenting voice. I respect the way you are living. It is simple living and one can be very happy living simply. Good for you!

[Anonymous]

This post makes me sad. We live in a close in DC suburb with about an hour commute to work, moved here in our early 30s, and can't possibly afford a house or childcare for more than one kid (even part time) on just under $100k. It's not that we're financially irresponsible, its just that we don't live in Delaware, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But living simply and scrimping and saving does not equal living like kings. Your post is mistitled.

I don't see any scrimping in our lifestyle. I also don't think living well means spending every last dollar and then some; by definition, if you aren't doing that, you're saving. And regarding simple living--we're living a life that makes us happy, all of our needs are met, and we don't have too many wants. If your definition of living well is based primarily on things you can't have, then you're always going to see yourself as living like a pauper. That's not the way we see the world.

But that's not how kings live. Kings do not live simply. Kings do not homeschool.

This is why the title of the post is misleading. Because you are happy and content with how much you earn and how you live does not mean you are living like a king. At least be honest about that.

[Anonymous]

OP here - thanks for the good conversations and discussions everyone. It's dinnertime at the Smiths', but we'll be happy to answer any more respectful questions later on. Cheers all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: As an individual it's hard to imagine a way you could be more ecologically wasteful, and I'm not being hyperbolic.

Are you having *any* children? Because if you plan on doing so, you're simply being a hypocrite by trying to claim you're being less destructive than someone with more children (a dubious claim in itself).

I have no children, but that doesn't make your statement any less false. Each kid raised in the West is a huge ecological burden. The carbon impact of a child born in the United States is 160 times that of a child born in Bangladesh. Each of his 4 kids means the possibility for exponentially more grandkids, great-grandkids, etc. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/14/having-kids-is-terrible-for-the-environment-so-im-not-having-any/?utm_term=.65115bd1a072

OP started out saying he lives like a king, then that he lives better than people in the 3d world, then that he is living in such a way as to be respectful of the world's resources. Only one of those claims is supportable, but "I live better than a person in the 3rd world on a 100k HHI in suburban America. AMA." didn't have quite the same ring to it, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am going to be a dissenting voice. I respect the way you are living. It is simple living and one can be very happy living simply. Good for you!

Thank you I wish you the best as well in your life (as well as everyone else in this thread, whether we agree on happiness or not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just did a quick search for $100,000 properties in DC proper - you know what comes up? Parking spots, and 1 BR 1 BA in really terrible neighborhoods. But please, OP, tell us how to do it.

OP clearly said burbs, not the city Proper....that would be a good place to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think your 100k house in the DE suburbs is going to be big enough for the family of 6 you're planning? How much do you save each month for college?

Yup. It's got 3 bedrooms and the kids will share bedrooms the way kids do all over the world, including in the US.

We don't budget separately for college; we simply save most of our money and we'll divide things up when the kids reach college age.

Do you have/anticipate having enough to fully fund four college tuitions and your retirements?

Retirements? Yup. We live simply.

College? It depends. If it costs 750k/student the way a number of models suggest, no way--just like 99% of the country. If it costs less, perhaps. We're not going to worry about it, because it's not something we can control. We'll just save what we can.

But you could be saving more if you cut back on your charitable contributions, so one could argue that you're putting strangers over you own kids, hence the question as to whether you worry they'll resent your decisions. Also can you share your actual savings and anticipated/target retirement amount in dollars? Planning to live simply is great but are you budgeting for potential medical costs, 30+ years, etc or just assuming it will somehow work out? I think that, and not wanting to be a future burden, is abig reason that a lot of people feel stretched thin even on decent salaries.

[Anonymous]

Apologies for potentially stereotyping, but since this is an ama, are you Mormon?

[Anonymous]

Do you know any actual kings? Because I'm pretty sure they don't live the way you're describing. Except maybe those in exile.

[Anonymous]

OP, you also left out how much less you spend in taxes in DE! Property tax is what Im specifically thinking of. Granted, the low property taxes compared to Ffx Cty (for instance) are why your schools arent as good, but if youre homeschooling it doesnt matter.

[Anonymous]

Why did you pay off your mortgage? When you go to sell the house in 30 years when kids are out how much appreciation could there possibly be in suburban DE? Should have sunk that money into market.