Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Money and Finances
Reply to "40% of people making 500K/year are living paycheck to paycheck"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]People in that $400K range are in a tougher spot than it looks. On paper, it seems like a big jump from $250K–$300K, but the math doesn’t play out that way. A $250K–$300K household might take home around $180K–$210K after taxes. A $400K household might net about $240K–$260K. So the gap after taxes is already much smaller than people expect. Now layer in retirement. The Social Security Administration replaces a meaningful portion of income for mid-level earners, but much less for higher earners. At $250K–$300K, you might only need to save $20K–$40K a year. At $400K, that jumps to $60K–$90K+ because you have to self-fund most of your retirement. Once you subtract that, the numbers start to converge. A $250K–$300K household could have around $150K–$180K to spend. A $400K household, saving what they need to, could end up in a very similar range, roughly $150K–$170K. That’s the surprising part. You’re earning a lot more, but not necessarily living on a lot more. The result is a compressed outcome. The system takes more in taxes on the way up, and at the same time expects higher earners to save significantly more because they get less relative support later. So a large portion of that additional income is effectively locked away. That’s why it can feel like a tough tradeoff. You push into that “entry rich” range, but the real, usable income doesn’t scale the way people assume.[/quote] And here’s the part people really don’t see coming. Lower and mid-income households still get credits and tax advantages that phase out as income rises. Once you’re in the $300K+ range, most of these are gone. Examples of what phases out: Child Tax Credit: up to $2K per child 0% capital gains bracket (vs 15–20% for higher earners) Premium tax credits (health insurance subsidies, can be thousands/year) Student loan interest deduction Saver’s Credit for retirement contributions Now look at the math: $275K household (2 kids) Take-home after taxes: ~$195K Child tax credits: +$4K Lower capital gains taxes / other breaks: +$3K–$5K Savings needed: ~$25K Spendable: ~$175K–$180K $400K household (2 kids) Take-home after taxes: ~$250K Credits: $0 (phased out) Higher capital gains taxes Savings needed: ~$70K–$90K Spendable: ~$160K–$180K The wild part After taxes, lost credits, and required savings: A $275K household can end up with the same or even slightly more usable money than a $400K household. That’s the real compression. Higher income looks much bigger on paper, but a lot of it disappears through taxes, lost benefits, and the need to self-fund retirement. This is the problem of our budensome tax system unitl you can break out to the 1m+ you really are just the same as 250-300k[/quote] Forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question but: When you say that the higher income household has to save more in order to "self-fund more of their retirement," you are making the assumption that they "need" more for retirement, right? The 400k household gets the social security too. Say they get the max possible benefit because they made above the limit (around $185k) for 35 years. I think it's around 5k a month. Now say the 275k household gets the same (less likely they will have made above the limit for 35 years but for arguments sake). Why would the 400k household "need" to save more than the 275k household for retirement? Are you assuming the 400k household has to save more in order to maintain their higher standard of living than the 275k household? If so, that's not a need. That's just wanting a nicer retirement, and actually having enough income to afford it. I'm sure the 275k household would also like a nicer retirement, but they have less money and therefore cannot possibly save as much as the 400k household. This is not a *hardship* for the 400k household. It is a privilege. You can't save or invest when you never had to begin with.[/quote] The $400k household is likely to have a larger house and a bigger property tax bill. Likely around $15k in Fairfax County, which is 1/4 of the social security income. [/quote] A house in Fairfax county generating 15k annually in property taxes is worth 1.3 million. The 400k household is presumably capable of paying down their mortgage prior to retirement, and will then have $1m+ in assets that can be sold towards a very comfortable retirement. The 250k household can't afford a house that expensive and therefore will retire with less in property assets. No one is making you live in a big, expensive house.[/quote] Regardless, the $4000k household will need to save more for retirement to maintain their standard of living if they don't move. My point is that a $400k household would need to save more because social security maxes out. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics