Anonymous wrote:^ also as a family of five, it costs about 10k every time we fly on vacation somewhere.

It was our choice to have three kids. But the point is, every extra child is very expensive and detracts a LOT from your bottom line.

People are crazy if they think a single person's lifestyle and spending looks anything like a person who has two or more kids.

so true.

^ also as a family of five, it costs about 10k every time we fly on vacation somewhere.

It was our choice to have three kids. But the point is, every extra child is very expensive and detracts a LOT from your bottom line.

People are crazy if they think a single person's lifestyle and spending looks anything like a person who has two or more kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Just a couple posts above you is someone making the claim that "it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less." I think there's another thread on the front page that makes a similar claim -- that $300k HHI is not a lot in this area. I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there isn't a very vocal and active contingent of DCUM believes that $100k is poor. (I have no way of knowing whether these posters are a majority of DCUM, but they are active and visible.)

Yes, exactly. You can't on one hand say that $100,000 for a single is lots of money, and then on the other hand say that it's hard to get by on $300,000 once you add a couple of kids into the picture.

There's a big disconnect going on here. If $100k is good money for a single (I believe it is), then $300k is good money for a family. It doesn't take an extra $130,000 (after-tax additional income between $100k and $300k) to raise a family. That's more than $10,000 ADDITIONAL PER MONTH!

It's hard to save as much as you need to if you have kids who you want to send to private college some day. To send my three children to a school that costs 70k right now (as our alma mater does), we have to save $45k a year. Just for college. Then you have retirement to worry about, which is supposed to be your #1 priority. Then your mortgage so they can go to a good school so they can get into that college your saving a small fortune for. If they're little, don't forget that your looking at several thousand dollars a month for daycare. Maybe you have student loans of your own that you're still paying back.

Then when your kids are older, you have to pay for wrap around care at school and their activities which very often are not cheap. If you work, you need to pay someone to drive them to said activities. Of course people are going to come in and say "activities are not necessary." Well I disagree. I think it's important for kids to be engaged in their community and to have hobbies outside of school that they care about. Plus, they *are* necessary to get into those colleges you're saving a small fortune for. What's the point of saving that much money if they're not even going to have a shot at getting in? So you do have to play the game and jump through those hoops.

It adds up and doesn't leave a lot left over for the nice things that rich people are supposed to have (nice cars, luxurious vacations, country club memberships, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Did you read that thread? She was slammed, it was an all in pile on. Involving multiple people. She was pretty much told she was a loser for not earning more than $100k. The view that $100k or less is "poor" is very common on DCUM.

Nope. No idea what thread that is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Did you read that thread? She was slammed, it was an all in pile on. Involving multiple people. She was pretty much told she was a loser for not earning more than $100k. The view that $100k or less is "poor" is very common on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Just a couple posts above you is someone making the claim that "it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less." I think there's another thread on the front page that makes a similar claim -- that $300k HHI is not a lot in this area. I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there isn't a very vocal and active contingent of DCUM believes that $100k is poor. (I have no way of knowing whether these posters are a majority of DCUM, but they are active and visible.)

Yes, exactly. You can't on one hand say that $100,000 for a single is lots of money, and then on the other hand say that it's hard to get by on $300,000 once you add a couple of kids into the picture.

There's a big disconnect going on here. If $100k is good money for a single (I believe it is), then $300k is good money for a family. It doesn't take an extra $130,000 (after-tax additional income between $100k and $300k) to raise a family. That's more than $10,000 ADDITIONAL PER MONTH!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Just a couple posts above you is someone making the claim that "it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less." I think there's another thread on the front page that makes a similar claim -- that $300k HHI is not a lot in this area. I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there isn't a very vocal and active contingent of DCUM believes that $100k is poor. (I have no way of knowing whether these posters are a majority of DCUM, but they are active and visible.)

I agree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Just a couple posts above you is someone making the claim that "it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less." I think there's another thread on the front page that makes a similar claim -- that $300k HHI is not a lot in this area. I think we're kidding ourselves if we pretend that there isn't a very vocal and active contingent of DCUM believes that $100k is poor. (I have no way of knowing whether these posters are a majority of DCUM, but they are active and visible.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

I agree. And if it were true, there'd be no problem citing multiple positions and posts with links that state such. I haven't seen it.

I think that the OP started by saying that it's easy to live on $70k, and then when people said "That's because you're single!" OP backed into the position that DCUM paints people who make $100k as poor and are barely getting by when that's not exactly the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

I don't think that's a majority DCUM position.

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.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

Yep I refuse to believe it. Because we do it on much less. Its all about choices.

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.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

I'm not the poster you're responding to, but I definitely disagree that it's "hard to raise kids in this area on $300k." We only have 1 kid (I recognize that you said multiple), but we also "only" make $275k gross, and we're beyond comfortable living in NWDC. We'll add a second kid soon, and we may have to cut our annual savings down from $73k, but we'll still have more than enough money. Here's our spending from last year:

- Taxes: $65k (includes federal, DC, and FICA)
- House: $40k (includes PITI plus HOA plus utilities)
- Daycare: $22k
- Student loans + kid's 529: $16k
- Restaurants: $11k
- Travel: $9k
- Groceries: $8k
- Insurance + Medical: $8k
- Clothing: $6k
- Cable and Cell phones: $5k
- Discretionary/uncategorized/entertainment: $12k
- Savings: $73k (includes 401k, IRA, brokerage, etc.)

As I mentioned on another thread, this isn't to brag but rather aims to give a reality check to people who say $300k is "middle class" in NW DC. It isn't. It's extremely comfortable and privileged.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.

Agree. There was a thread where people were telling an older single woman that she was a loser because she earned only $100,000. Called her a failure and even said she almost qualified for welfare.

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.)

Because you and people like you refuse to believe that it's hard to raise kids in this area on $300k (two government lawyer salaries) or less. Kids - as in two or more - are HUGELY expensive. And the COL in this area is expensive if you want to be in a good school district or do private school.

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.

Honestly there have been threads where people have put down those making 100k (single people).... But no its not hard to live on that amount -- because I have as well.