Goldman Sachs: 40% of $400-500K and $500K+ households “live paycheck to paycheck”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

and were drunk when you posted this? I assume that you are joking but I'm blown away by this thread. HHI 500-700K and we cannot possibly spend all of our take home even after maxing all that stuff out. But we live in a very modest house. I think that makes a huge difference.

I was mocking the PP who makes $2M or whatever and said they’re still paycheck to paycheck but that went over your head.

I laughed PP. Some people are just dense and don’t get the joke.

While folks are right that many of these high income earners are not truly “paycheck to paycheck”, they are only one job loss and extended unemployment away from materially falling out of this lifestyle. So yes, they may be funding a full 401k, 529, and maybe private school, but those are not enough to fully retire on or replace their income if there’s a job loss. Yes, they’d likely have to move and sell the $2+ million home walking away with 30-50% equity. I’m not going to shed tears over this but I do sympathize with the fact that their financial position is not as strong as their income would suggest. It’s worse for the true middle class, which probably can’t fully find any of these things and has few assets and lots of debt and leases.

One job loss from having to reconsider little Timmy's private elementary school for next year, not going to St Bart's this year or not leasing a Range Rover is not paycheck to paycheck. These people will be just fine unless they do not adjust their expenses, which they can do without much pain or deprivation. That includes moving to a 500k house v. a 2 million one. Paycheck to paycheck means truly not having money to pay ongoing expenses, food and housing insecurity, mounting credit card debt and a downward spiral to financial ruin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

and were drunk when you posted this? I assume that you are joking but I'm blown away by this thread. HHI 500-700K and we cannot possibly spend all of our take home even after maxing all that stuff out. But we live in a very modest house. I think that makes a huge difference.

I was mocking the PP who makes $2M or whatever and said they’re still paycheck to paycheck but that went over your head.

I laughed PP. Some people are just dense and don’t get the joke.

While folks are right that many of these high income earners are not truly “paycheck to paycheck”, they are only one job loss and extended unemployment away from materially falling out of this lifestyle. So yes, they may be funding a full 401k, 529, and maybe private school, but those are not enough to fully retire on or replace their income if there’s a job loss. Yes, they’d likely have to move and sell the $2+ million home walking away with 30-50% equity. I’m not going to shed tears over this but I do sympathize with the fact that their financial position is not as strong as their income would suggest. It’s worse for the true middle class, which probably can’t fully find any of these things and has few assets and lots of debt and leases.

One job loss from having to reconsider little Timmy's private elementary school for next year, not going to St Bart's this year or not leasing a Range Rover is not paycheck to paycheck. These people will be just fine unless they do not adjust their expenses, which they can do without much pain or deprivation. That includes moving to a 500k house v. a 2 million one. Paycheck to paycheck means truly not having money to pay ongoing expenses, food and housing insecurity, mounting credit card debt and a downward spiral to financial ruin.

Someone with $400-$500k is not flying to St Barts during prime season. They could easily be a two income (with one Fed) household, two kids, living in a $800k North Bethesda postwar crappy house, driving a Honda Odyssey and a 10 year old Camry with two kids in public school with just enough to fund the $401k and minimum 529s and deferred maintenance on their house while wondering if they have enough to fund college and retirement. Again, I’m not going to shed tears for these folks but their financial position could be far from really comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

and were drunk when you posted this? I assume that you are joking but I'm blown away by this thread. HHI 500-700K and we cannot possibly spend all of our take home even after maxing all that stuff out. But we live in a very modest house. I think that makes a huge difference.

I was mocking the PP who makes $2M or whatever and said they’re still paycheck to paycheck but that went over your head.

I laughed PP. Some people are just dense and don’t get the joke.

While folks are right that many of these high income earners are not truly “paycheck to paycheck”, they are only one job loss and extended unemployment away from materially falling out of this lifestyle. So yes, they may be funding a full 401k, 529, and maybe private school, but those are not enough to fully retire on or replace their income if there’s a job loss. Yes, they’d likely have to move and sell the $2+ million home walking away with 30-50% equity. I’m not going to shed tears over this but I do sympathize with the fact that their financial position is not as strong as their income would suggest. It’s worse for the true middle class, which probably can’t fully find any of these things and has few assets and lots of debt and leases.

Anyone who isn’t financially independent (which is the vast majority of Americans) cannot maintain their current lifestyle indefinitely without their jobs. But that’s not what paycheck-to-paycheck means. Many of these folks could survive several years without a paycheck by drawing down savings, 401ks, reducing lifestyle, etc. There is a lot space between paycheck-to-paycheck and financially independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

and were drunk when you posted this? I assume that you are joking but I'm blown away by this thread. HHI 500-700K and we cannot possibly spend all of our take home even after maxing all that stuff out. But we live in a very modest house. I think that makes a huge difference.

I was mocking the PP who makes $2M or whatever and said they’re still paycheck to paycheck but that went over your head.

I laughed PP. Some people are just dense and don’t get the joke.

While folks are right that many of these high income earners are not truly “paycheck to paycheck”, they are only one job loss and extended unemployment away from materially falling out of this lifestyle. So yes, they may be funding a full 401k, 529, and maybe private school, but those are not enough to fully retire on or replace their income if there’s a job loss. Yes, they’d likely have to move and sell the $2+ million home walking away with 30-50% equity. I’m not going to shed tears over this but I do sympathize with the fact that their financial position is not as strong as their income would suggest. It’s worse for the true middle class, which probably can’t fully find any of these things and has few assets and lots of debt and leases.

One job loss from having to reconsider little Timmy's private elementary school for next year, not going to St Bart's this year or not leasing a Range Rover is not paycheck to paycheck. These people will be just fine unless they do not adjust their expenses, which they can do without much pain or deprivation. That includes moving to a 500k house v. a 2 million one. Paycheck to paycheck means truly not having money to pay ongoing expenses, food and housing insecurity, mounting credit card debt and a downward spiral to financial ruin.

Someone with $400-$500k is not flying to St Barts during prime season. They could easily be a two income (with one Fed) household, two kids, living in a $800k North Bethesda postwar crappy house, driving a Honda Odyssey and a 10 year old Camry with two kids in public school with just enough to fund the $401k and minimum 529s and deferred maintenance on their house while wondering if they have enough to fund college and retirement. Again, I’m not going to shed tears for these folks but their financial position could be far from really comfortable.

I've lived that profile - it actually is very comfortable with plenty going to retirement and college savings.

[Anonymous]

For UMC families, "paycheck to paycheck" means that after retirement, 529 plans, mortgages, life insurance, etc., the net income is spent every month. I don't think that's atypical, especially for young families who bought their homes after interest rates rose and are paying for childcare right now. $400k in income doesn't leave a lot once it is net of 401k contributions, mortgages at today's rates, childcare, and 529 contributions. Also, plenty of folks don't believe in keeping an emergency fund or much cash. They rely on credit to cover emergencies, which some think are so remote that they don't need to plan for them. I suppose in extreme cases, there are folks making $400k who don't have 401ks, 529 plans, brokerage accounts, home equity, etc., but those folks are few and far between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

Preach. I also think the line in the sand is the interest rate on the mortgage. People with the same income and a 2% rate should be more comfortable especially with saving cash for home repairs.

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

and were drunk when you posted this? I assume that you are joking but I'm blown away by this thread. HHI 500-700K and we cannot possibly spend all of our take home even after maxing all that stuff out. But we live in a very modest house. I think that makes a huge difference.

I was mocking the PP who makes $2M or whatever and said they’re still paycheck to paycheck but that went over your head.

I laughed PP. Some people are just dense and don’t get the joke.

While folks are right that many of these high income earners are not truly “paycheck to paycheck”, they are only one job loss and extended unemployment away from materially falling out of this lifestyle. So yes, they may be funding a full 401k, 529, and maybe private school, but those are not enough to fully retire on or replace their income if there’s a job loss. Yes, they’d likely have to move and sell the $2+ million home walking away with 30-50% equity. I’m not going to shed tears over this but I do sympathize with the fact that their financial position is not as strong as their income would suggest. It’s worse for the true middle class, which probably can’t fully find any of these things and has few assets and lots of debt and leases.

One job loss from having to reconsider little Timmy's private elementary school for next year, not going to St Bart's this year or not leasing a Range Rover is not paycheck to paycheck. These people will be just fine unless they do not adjust their expenses, which they can do without much pain or deprivation. That includes moving to a 500k house v. a 2 million one. Paycheck to paycheck means truly not having money to pay ongoing expenses, food and housing insecurity, mounting credit card debt and a downward spiral to financial ruin.

Someone with $400-$500k is not flying to St Barts during prime season. They could easily be a two income (with one Fed) household, two kids, living in a $800k North Bethesda postwar crappy house, driving a Honda Odyssey and a 10 year old Camry with two kids in public school with just enough to fund the $401k and minimum 529s and deferred maintenance on their house while wondering if they have enough to fund college and retirement. Again, I’m not going to shed tears for these folks but their financial position could be far from really comfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For UMC families, "paycheck to paycheck" means that after retirement, 529 plans, mortgages, life insurance, etc., the net income is spent every month. I don't think that's atypical, especially for young families who bought their homes after interest rates rose and are paying for childcare right now. $400k in income doesn't leave a lot once it is net of 401k contributions, mortgages at today's rates, childcare, and 529 contributions. Also, plenty of folks don't believe in keeping an emergency fund or much cash. They rely on credit to cover emergencies, which some think are so remote that they don't need to plan for them. I suppose in extreme cases, there are folks making $400k who don't have 401ks, 529 plans, brokerage accounts, home equity, etc., but those folks are few and far between.

We used to make $400K (now at $800K due to job change) and had zero issue doing all of the above at $400K with lots of money to spare each month. And we also traveled lavishly and had daily Starbucks / takeout and bought in 2024 so our PITI for a $700K mortgage was close to $6K on 7% interest. In other words we weren’t being super frugal like some holier than thous on here.

The only thing that busts a $400K budget is top private school ($50-60K per kid) for multiple kids which another PP mentioned above. Which was never an UMC thing to begin with but DCUM is gonna DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For UMC families, "paycheck to paycheck" means that after retirement, 529 plans, mortgages, life insurance, etc., the net income is spent every month. I don't think that's atypical, especially for young families who bought their homes after interest rates rose and are paying for childcare right now. $400k in income doesn't leave a lot once it is net of 401k contributions, mortgages at today's rates, childcare, and 529 contributions. Also, plenty of folks don't believe in keeping an emergency fund or much cash. They rely on credit to cover emergencies, which some think are so remote that they don't need to plan for them. I suppose in extreme cases, there are folks making $400k who don't have 401ks, 529 plans, brokerage accounts, home equity, etc., but those folks are few and far between.

We used to make $400K (now at $800K due to job change) and had zero issue doing all of the above at $400K with lots of money to spare each month. And we also traveled lavishly and had daily Starbucks / takeout and bought in 2024 so our PITI for a $700K mortgage was close to $6K on 7% interest. In other words we weren’t being super frugal like some holier than thous on here.

The only thing that busts a $400K budget is top private school ($50-60K per kid) for multiple kids which another PP mentioned above. Which was never an UMC thing to begin with but DCUM is gonna DCUM.

Also, student loan payments (think MDs or JDs who had no parental assistance with tuition) and caring for elderly parents, or stretching to purchase a home in certain HCOL areas near jobs. In San Francisco, for example, good luck finding a decent family home within a reasonable commute of work for under $2m.

[Anonymous]

Look at the question text:

"Primarily live paycheck to paycheck: I find it tough to make progress on any long-term financial goals."

"Moderately improve each year: I am able to make some saving progress each year."

"Considerably better: I am able to make progress on both short-term and long-term financial goals."

Why would you select "Primarily Live Paycheck to Paycheck" when you are maxing out 401K, 529, Roth, and brokerage funds? At the very least you're saying "Moderately Improve" to reflect your high level of savings.

I think 30%-40% really are spending down their money as soon as they get it in these income brackets. It's a treadmill of consumption and big bills (5-figure mortgages, designer clothing, big trips, expensive cars, etc)

Money in, money out.

[Anonymous]

It’s a rat race. If you don’t hustle, house of cards collapses. Yes…$500k annual income, if you are working for it not rich. Now if you can earn even half that off investments, pensions with no debt and only taxes and living expenses, you are wealthy in my book.

[Anonymous]

Whenever I hear "lease a car" I think they're spending beyond their means. At this income level just save up money and buy the car in cash!

[Anonymous]

This is insulting to 95% of America

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy to me, see page 20:

https://am.gs.com/cms-assets/gsam-app/documents/insights/en/2025/am-retirement-survey-102025.pdf?view=true

Lots of wild details in this document on “The Future of Retirement”

I can relate. We are in the same income bracket. We live paycheck to paycheck after maxing out 401k, hsa, saving 10k per kid in 529, saving 60k in our brokerage account. We don’t have much left.

Similar. We make 3M/yr but it's almost entirely stock. In terms of cash by the time we put 70k each in 401k, back door roth, max HSA, 10k per kid in 529, 60k in brokerage, then there's only enough cash left to pay all the bills and live an UMC lifestyle. Our NW is growing rapidly, but it takes discipline to never dip into the investments and fit our life into the cash flow.

Same except we make $10M/yr and I’m a historian and my spouse keeps bees

You should go on a House Hunters episode with that bio. 😆

Ha ha ha. That’s one of my favorite shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the question text:

"Primarily live paycheck to paycheck: I find it tough to make progress on any long-term financial goals."

"Moderately improve each year: I am able to make some saving progress each year."

"Considerably better: I am able to make progress on both short-term and long-term financial goals."

Why would you select "Primarily Live Paycheck to Paycheck" when you are maxing out 401K, 529, Roth, and brokerage funds? At the very least you're saying "Moderately Improve" to reflect your high level of savings.

I think 30%-40% really are spending down their money as soon as they get it in these income brackets. It's a treadmill of consumption and big bills (5-figure mortgages, designer clothing, big trips, expensive cars, etc)

Money in, money out.

Everyone posting here except one other PP has totally missed this point. These are people making $500,000+ making no progress on their financial goals. Which to me would imply minimal contributions to 401k, 529s, or brokerage funds. Maybe not even a solid emergency fund.

[Anonymous]

People clearly didn't look at the chart. It's not people who are broke because they save -- there's an alternate category for that.