Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived comfortably on 30K a year when I was single. Now I earn a LOT more, but money is a lot tighter, because I have to pay childcare for 3 kids, student loans, non-subsidized health insurance, preschool, a safe and large enough car (3 kids in carseats won't fit in a cheap two-door like I had back then), health care, the list goes on and on.

Now back when I was earning 30k, single and had enough left over to travel internationally, I could have been super-smug and claimed that I didn't understand how families making twice or three times my salary weren't rich. But I wasn't a jerk, and wasn't so arrogant as to assume that I knew other people's situations, or that I had a right to judge.

OP here. I wasn't being smug. My comment was in response to DCUMers who keep saying that $80k is poor, even for a single w/o kids. I was showing how that isn't true, and how $70k after tax (which is around $85k gross) is a nice standard of living (if one doesn't insist on living in DC.)

If $70k after tax is $85k gross, I want to speak with you accountant. I'm getting screwed.

OP here. It all depends on your deductions. Do you deduct mortgage interest and property tax? (That was accounted for in my PITI.) But also, remember, I'm not earning $85,000 - that's the amount I estimated would yield $70k net. That's almost 20% in taxes, which is actually more than would be expected. (People confuse their marginal tax rate with the percent of income going to taxes.)

Do you live somewhere that you don't pay state taxes?

No....state taxes are included in the $15,000. But let's even say I'm wrong, and it takes $90k gross to net $70k. That still should show people who are saying $90k is poor - I've seen people calling even $100k poor on this forum - that they are wrong, and a single can live nicely on that income. So, if a single earning $90k is comfortable, I just don't het how families earning $250k - triple, almost! - are struggling.

Why don't you just say how much you are earning gross?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's going on here. OP is living comfortably, happily and healthily on less than 100k a year in the DMV area.

Good for her!

What's with the bitching at her? If we all were equally disciplined about living within our means many of us would sleep better at night.

I commend her.

Because she thinks that translates to living on less than $100k as family in the DMV, which it doesn't. No one is on here saying it's hard to be single and make $100k. It's challenging to support a family on that amount, which is a different story. Plenty of opportunity to argue about the $200k-300k earners and why they find it hard, but op's situation really doesn't add anything to that discussion.

OP here, and that's where you're wrong. Not on this thread, but others. People are saying that $100k for a single person is poor. I'm simply showing that it is not.

Another np, and I haven't seen it either. Show it if you've got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived comfortably on 30K a year when I was single. Now I earn a LOT more, but money is a lot tighter, because I have to pay childcare for 3 kids, student loans, non-subsidized health insurance, preschool, a safe and large enough car (3 kids in carseats won't fit in a cheap two-door like I had back then), health care, the list goes on and on.

Now back when I was earning 30k, single and had enough left over to travel internationally, I could have been super-smug and claimed that I didn't understand how families making twice or three times my salary weren't rich. But I wasn't a jerk, and wasn't so arrogant as to assume that I knew other people's situations, or that I had a right to judge.

OP here. I wasn't being smug. My comment was in response to DCUMers who keep saying that $80k is poor, even for a single w/o kids. I was showing how that isn't true, and how $70k after tax (which is around $85k gross) is a nice standard of living (if one doesn't insist on living in DC.)

If $70k after tax is $85k gross, I want to speak with you accountant. I'm getting screwed.

OP here. It all depends on your deductions. Do you deduct mortgage interest and property tax? (That was accounted for in my PITI.) But also, remember, I'm not earning $85,000 - that's the amount I estimated would yield $70k net. That's almost 20% in tax
es, which is actually more than would be expected. (People confuse their marginal tax rate with the percent of income going to taxes.)

Do you live somewhere that you don't pay state taxes?

No....state taxes are included in the $15,000. But let's even say I'm wrong, and it takes $90k gross to net $70k. That still should show people who are saying $90k is poor - I've seen people calling even $100k poor on this forum - that they are wrong, and a single can live nicely on that income. So, if a single earning $90k is comfortable, I just don't het how families earning $250k - triple, almost! - are struggling.

Mostly it's that as a childless adult you can live someplace with so-so to bad schools in a tiny rundown place with lead paint.

And your schedule is flexible enough you can carpool.

Yea, kiss that flexible schedule and carpool good-bye once you're doing daycare drop-offs. No offense, op, but you sound clueless.

I am far from clueless. You are missing the point by saying that my costs will go up with kids, which of course I know. The point is that my income is fine, more than fine, for being single and childless - and people here on this forum have said that anything under $100,000 is poor, even for single and childless people. I'm showing that it isn't true, and anyone who thinks so is living in a DC bubble.

NP here, and I've never seen anyone on this board that a single childfree person making almost $100k (with no student loans at that) is poor.

There was a thread a while back about a woman earning $100k, and some people were saying she was poor. In fact, they said she almost qualified for welfare. That was really ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has called out only saving $8400 / year for retirement.

Maybe you're comfortable now...

I get 100% match, so it's double. More than 20% of my income! which is more than the recommended 15%. I think I'm doing well in that area.

Me again....I just did a calculation. Saving $19,000 a year earning 8% (stock average is more than 10%) would be more than $1,200,000 in 25 years. And that's assuming that I don't start increasing the amount of contributions, and it doesn't account for what I've already saved. I'll probably have $2 million at this rate, and that's just on my own.

Goes to show that one can earn around $85,000 or $90,000 (single, no kids), live comfortably, and save for a nice retirement.

You use some fuzzy math, OP. $8400 * 2 = $16,800, not $19,000, and since you're earning in the mid 90k's, that's not more than 20% of your income.

8% is a pretty aggressive assumption for gains.

I'm not saying you won't be fine, but it seems as though the assumptions you make are always skewed towards making your picture rosier than it is. It doesn't strengthen your argument.

Same fuzzy math that says an $85k income only pays $15k in taxes.

Op, you're a high earner with minimal expenses. You should be maxing out your retirement accounts now - it won't be any easier later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's going on here. OP is living comfortably, happily and healthily on less than 100k a year in the DMV area.

Good for her!

What's with the bitching at her? If we all were equally disciplined about living within our means many of us would sleep better at night.

I commend her.

Because she thinks that translates to living on less than $100k as family in the DMV, which it doesn't. No one is on here saying it's hard to be single and make $100k. It's challenging to support a family on that amount, which is a different story. Plenty of opportunity to argue about the $200k-300k earners and why they find it hard, but op's situation really doesn't add anything to that discussion.

OP here, and that's where you're wrong. Not on this thread, but others. People are saying that $100k for a single person is poor. I'm simply showing that it is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that no one has called out only saving $8400 / year for retirement.

Maybe you're comfortable now...

I get 100% match, so it's double. More than 20% of my income! which is more than the recommended 15%. I think I'm doing well in that area.

Me again....I just did a calculation. Saving $19,000 a year earning 8% (stock average is more than 10%) would be more than $1,200,000 in 25 years. And that's assuming that I don't start increasing the amount of contributions, and it doesn't account for what I've already saved. I'll probably have $2 million at this rate, and that's just on my own.

Goes to show that one can earn around $85,000 or $90,000 (single, no kids), live comfortably, and save for a nice retirement.

You use some fuzzy math, OP. $8400 * 2 = $16,800, not $19,000, and since you're earning in the mid 90k's, that's not more than 20% of your income.

8% is a pretty aggressive assumption for gains.

I'm not saying you won't be fine, but it seems as though the assumptions you make are always skewed towards making your picture rosier than it is. It doesn't strengthen your argument.

Actually, the reason it's "fuzzy" is because, remember, I am spending $70k after tax, which was based on an estimate of $85k - $90k. I was upfront that my income is somewhat more than that, and that's why there's an extra couple of thousand per year in savings. It's the "overflow." But you're right....it's not quite 20%. It is more than 15%, though, and a very respectable savings rate.

I think 8% is a realistic assumption. The stock market has returned close to 11% over time, so I'm being conservative. I think the people worrying about whether $3 million is enough for retirement, which I've also seen on this forum, are being too negative.

A nest egg of even $1 million (assuming I've been too aggressive, so I halved it) plus $2500 in social security (all in current dollars) plus a paid-off house will be fine! I'm not the one you should worry about. The real problem is the 50% of people who don't even have $25,000 by the time they're in their 50s. (Another topic, though.)

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's going on here. OP is living comfortably, happily and healthily on less than 100k a year in the DMV area.

Good for her!

What's with the bitching at her? If we all were equally disciplined about living within our means many of us would sleep better at night.

I commend her.

Because she thinks that translates to living on less than $100k as family in the DMV, which it doesn't. No one is on here saying it's hard to be single and make $100k. It's challenging to support a family on that amount, which is a different story. Plenty of opportunity to argue about the $200k-300k earners and why they find it hard, but op's situation really doesn't add anything to that discussion.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what's going on here. OP is living comfortably, happily and healthily on less than 100k a year in the DMV area.

Good for her!

What's with the bitching at her? If we all were equally disciplined about living within our means many of us would sleep better at night.

I commend her.

I think it's fine that she's doing that. Bravo.

My problem is with the extrapolation of her situation to other types of households of which she couldn't possibly understand the financials. I think that's why people are saying "clueless"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived comfortably on 30K a year when I was single. Now I earn a LOT more, but money is a lot tighter, because I have to pay childcare for 3 kids, student loans, non-subsidized health insurance, preschool, a safe and large enough car (3 kids in carseats won't fit in a cheap two-door like I had back then), health care, the list goes on and on.

Now back when I was earning 30k, single and had enough left over to travel internationally, I could have been super-smug and claimed that I didn't understand how families making twice or three times my salary weren't rich. But I wasn't a jerk, and wasn't so arrogant as to assume that I knew other people's situations, or that I had a right to judge.

OP here. I wasn't being smug. My comment was in response to DCUMers who keep saying that $80k is poor, even for a single w/o kids. I was showing how that isn't true, and how $70k after tax (which is around $85k gross) is a nice standard of living (if one doesn't insist on living in DC.)

If $70k after tax is $85k gross, I want to speak with you accountant. I'm getting screwed.

OP here. It all depends on your deductions. Do you deduct mortgage interest and property tax? (That was accounted for in my PITI.) But also, remember, I'm not earning $85,000 - that's the amount I estimated would yield $70k net. That's almost 20% in tax
es, which is actually more than would be expected. (People confuse their marginal tax rate with the percent of income going to taxes.)

Do you live somewhere that you don't pay state taxes?

No....state taxes are included in the $15,000. But let's even say I'm wrong, and it takes $90k gross to net $70k. That still should show people who are saying $90k is poor - I've seen people calling even $100k poor on this forum - that they are wrong, and a single can live nicely on that income. So, if a single earning $90k is comfortable, I just don't het how families earning $250k - triple, almost! - are struggling.

Mostly it's that as a childless adult you can live someplace with so-so to bad schools in a tiny rundown place with lead paint.

And your schedule is flexible enough you can carpool.

Yea, kiss that flexible schedule and carpool good-bye once you're doing daycare drop-offs. No offense, op, but you sound clueless.

I am far from clueless. You are missing the point by saying that my costs will go up with kids, which of course I know. The point is that my income is fine, more than fine, for being single and childless - and people here on this forum have said that anything under $100,000 is poor, even for single and childless people. I'm showing that it isn't true, and anyone who thinks so is living in a DC bubble.

NP here, and I've never seen anyone on this board that a single childfree person making almost $100k (with no student loans at that) is poor.

Anonymous wrote:
12. Post-insurance MRI costs for 10 year old kid with symptoms consistent with a brain tumor (found out she is fine)

OP here. Lots of the expensive stuff you're listing are for kids. My budget is for singles, so you can't compare. I would assume that with a second income, my/our spending could cover an additional $6,000 a month. That's plenty, even with $2,000 for childcare, allergy slots co-pay of $80, snowplow fees, and so on.

I'm glad your DD is fine.