Anonymous wrote:OP here.

1. I am not "gaming the numbers" by presenting net instead of gross. I could be grossing a million a year, and it would be meaningless to my point, which is that $70k after taxes is a very nice living.

2. This was to refute DCUMers who have said, not on this thread but on others, that $100k for a single and $250k for a family barely qualifies as middle class. I was trying to inject a dose of reality, and some posters - not the snotty ones above - got and agreed with my point.

3. I posted in the section of this site that is clearly labeled "non-parenting forums." Are you so resentful or think less of childfree people that non-parents are not allowed to post on non-parenting threads? What exclusionary snobs you are.

4. Finally, you still insist on criticizing me for not maxing out my retirement, even though I am exceeding the recommended amount. At the same time, you'll jump to the defense of people who are unable to support themselves, and give all sorts of support to people who have spent irresponsibly.

There are plenty of people posting here without children, but I'm done. Goodbye and good luck.

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

1. I am not "gaming the numbers" by presenting net instead of gross. I could be grossing a million a year, and it would be meaningless to my point, which is that $70k after taxes is a very nice living.

2. This was to refute DCUMers who have said, not on this thread but on others, that $100k for a single and $250k for a family barely qualifies as middle class. I was trying to inject a dose of reality, and some posters - not the snotty ones above - got and agreed with my point.

3. I posted in the section of this site that is clearly labeled "non-parenting forums." Are you so resentful or think less of childfree people that non-parents are not allowed to post on non-parenting threads? What exclusionary snobs you are.

4. Finally, you still insist on criticizing me for not maxing out my retirement, even though I am exceeding the recommended amount. At the same time, you'll jump to the defense of people who are unable to support themselves, and give all sorts of support to people who have spent irresponsibly.

There are plenty of people posting here without children, but I'm done. Goodbye and good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading some of this hread, I've come to realize that OP is a younger women(but not too young either) who spends way too much money monthly and has mortgage for a townhome, in Fairfax?, right?, that is more than my two story single family mortgage in MoCo in a good school district, because I had a huge down payment. Spends too much on nonsense and vacations, and must be the one of the last unmarried people in her social circle, hence resentful that her former friends with kids aren't having enough money to spend on frivolous vacations to keep her company and even if they have they tell her they don't because they would rather not spend it going out with her. She is also not that bright either, first her vacation fund is $250 monthly, then she spends $1250 monthly on vacations also, then $600 monthly on vacation and other fun expenses. And with all that fun fund can't even fund her ski trip. Can't even keep her own story straight from one post to the other. I suppose she is what one OP wrote about, young people who just have to have that fancy expensive "knife set" because they saw in on Food network and buy anything shown on HGTV.

Your overuse of the word "hence" gives away that your posts belong to you. First you call her smug, now "not that bright", you should stop reading and posting if this thread bothers you so much.

I don't care if you can tell which posts belong to me, what would that matter to me? If you are that curious, I can go and put together all my replies, Sherlock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading some of this hread, I've come to realize that OP is a younger women(but not too young either) who spends way too much money monthly and has mortgage for a townhome, in Fairfax?, right?, that is more than my two story single family mortgage in MoCo in a good school district, because I had a huge down payment. Spends too much on nonsense and vacations, and must be the one of the last unmarried people in her social circle, hence resentful that her former friends with kids aren't having enough money to spend on frivolous vacations to keep her company and even if they have they tell her they don't because they would rather not spend it going out with her. She is also not that bright either, first her vacation fund is $250 monthly, then she spends $1250 monthly on vacations also, then $600 monthly on vacation and other fun expenses. And with all that fun fund can't even fund her ski trip. Can't even keep her own story straight from one post to the other. I suppose she is what one OP wrote about, young people who just have to have that fancy expensive "knife set" because they saw in on Food network and buy anything shown on HGTV.

Your overuse of the word "hence" gives away that your posts belong to you. First you call her smug, now "not that bright", you should stop reading and posting if this thread bothers you so much.

I don't care if you can tell which posts belong to me, what would that matter to me? If you are that curious, I can go and put together all my replies, Sherlock.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, OP, no one ever said (again) bring single on 100k gross or 70k net was hard. I did well with a net of 30k here when I was single.

But it is a completely different ball game when kids are in the picture. You want net dollars. My over 200k salary nets me around 130k. From there I have to pay health insurance out of pocket, child care, housing, groceries, etc. I also had to buy a new car when my second was born so I now have car payments again. It's a big difference now, and yes, it's not easy.

Anonymous wrote:We all have children. Because we are on a site called DC Urbanmoms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading some of this hread, I've come to realize that OP is a younger women(but not too young either) who spends way too much money monthly and has mortgage for a townhome, in Fairfax?, right?, that is more than my two story single family mortgage in MoCo in a good school district, because I had a huge down payment. Spends too much on nonsense and vacations, and must be the one of the last unmarried people in her social circle, hence resentful that her former friends with kids aren't having enough money to spend on frivolous vacations to keep her company and even if they have they tell her they don't because they would rather not spend it going out with her. She is also not that bright either, first her vacation fund is $250 monthly, then she spends $1250 monthly on vacations also, then $600 monthly on vacation and other fun expenses. And with all that fun fund can't even fund her ski trip. Can't even keep her own story straight from one post to the other. I suppose she is what one OP wrote about, young people who just have to have that fancy expensive "knife set" because they saw in on Food network and buy anything shown on HGTV.

Your overuse of the word "hence" gives away that your posts belong to you. First you call her smug, now "not that bright", you should stop reading and posting if this thread bothers you so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

This is a parenting board, op Discussions of hhi here are for families, not single people. You gamed your numbers by presenting your net instead of gross number. You seem to think you're doing amazingly well, but you're not even maxing out your retirement. You're presenting an argument that no one refutes. We all agree that it's easy to get by in this area as a single person making nearly $100k. You've offered nothing new to the discussion, and you presented it in a somewhat dishonest way. That's why you're getting the pile-on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

OP here, and thank you. I find the criticism here from others bewildering. There is a lot of sympathy for people who, for one reason or another, must rely on government assistance programs, and lots of encouragement that they have nothing to feel bad about. But when faced with a self-sufficient person (like me), who is doing everything right - saving more than the recommended percentage for retirement, giving to charity, buying and paying off my car (so no loan anymore), and just living a responsible life - I get hit with the hate.

(I am not criticizing those who need food stamps or whatever. People need help, and that's valid. I'm pointing out the difference between the emotional support of DCUMers toward a person on assistance, and criticism of a self-sufficient and financially responsible person who had the discipline to begin a retirement fund at age 22.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but it seems the goal posts have been unfairly moved. At first it was "you are not saving enough for retirement." When it was pointed out that saving 18% of gross income IS enough (and it is), then the critique moved to "you are not maxing it out." But maxing it out wasn't the point. The poster is doing fine, and is not "shorting" his/her retirement. Why all the hate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In your position you are absolutely not saving enough for retirement. You may be living fine, but you are shorting your retirement. Also, you should assume 4% for long term growth. At your age I wouldn't include SS either.

OP here. I am saving 18% of my income, which is more than the 15% that advisors recommend. And once I increase my contribution, I will be putting away 20%. I've been doing that since the first year after college, and I'm sure I'll be fine. The main thing is that I started early.

Fine, but you are not maxing out.