Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of fat in that budget. $5k in children's lessons and $8k on vacations? This person is hardly struggling.

The childcare is a bit steep as well, even if I had to pay a full year of infant care at my downtown center (which no one does since you can't start a 0 day old in daycare) it's still only $21k for a full year.

That's a hefty car payment as well and the $3k in consumer debt on top of everything else?

And the budget makes no sense since it appears to only be one income with the one 401k, yet they have childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
by that definition, we are all "rich" since I'm guessing none of us are homeless, even those making $50K.

Now your getting it, "rich" is a relative term. Of course your not "rich" if you compare yourself to those of equal or greater income. What then is the proper income to base "rich" from?

I've been stating this on this thread. "Rich" is a relative term. So, it is possible that $250k in a hcol area is not "rich".

If your comparing yourself to the neighbors on your street then yes $250k could very possibly be not "rich". If someone's income is twice that of yours would you consider them "rich"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a true hcol city (sf, by, dc) then you shouldn't need a car, especially one with a car payment and that much money spent on gas. So that frees up over 15k right there.

In SF, 700K gets you a house far out of the city. Public transit is great within city limits, and almost nonexistent outside the limits. Traffic is also horrendous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
by that definition, we are all "rich" since I'm guessing none of us are homeless, even those making $50K.

Now your getting it, "rich" is a relative term. Of course your not "rich" if you compare yourself to those of equal or greater income. What then is the proper income to base "rich" from?

I've been stating this on this thread. "Rich" is a relative term. So, it is possible that $250k in a hcol area is not "rich".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
by that definition, we are all "rich" since I'm guessing none of us are homeless, even those making $50K.

Now your getting it, "rich" is a relative term. Of course your not "rich" if you compare yourself to those of equal or greater income. What then is the proper income to base "rich" from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When was $200k considered rich? Rich as in I live in a mansion and drive fancy cars and have servants. The whole "six-figure salary no longer means you're rich" in the title of the post seems to be a red herring. I grew up here in DC with two gov't lawyers as parents. At some point, I am quite sure we became a six-figure household. By the time I was in college, I know we were over $200k HHI (one parent had left the gov't), and this was in the '90s. But we were definitely not rich! In fact, even with help from my grandparents, my parents still couldn't afford to send us to any private college we wanted.

Were you rich compared to this guy?

by that definition, we are all "rich" since I'm guessing none of us are homeless, even those making $50K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For starters, do not get a 3K mortgage (that is 36K/12 months).

You can save money on food simply by digital/paper coupons.

At 200k you don't want to be in bad school districts or a shack.

I knew someone would say this.

I grew up in the DC area, elementary through HS, and I felt all the public schools were the same. I have friends in the town I grew up in and they do not complain about schools, and their mortgage is not 3K or remotely close to it.

Define shack, in terms of square footage. I have seen houses under 2K in square feet that are a lot nicer than the houses that are valued at 500K simply because of where it is.

There is a poster here who's obsessed with shitshacks, Great Schools, and says that $350K is the "minimum" needed to get by. That's probably who OP is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When was $200k considered rich? Rich as in I live in a mansion and drive fancy cars and have servants. The whole "six-figure salary no longer means you're rich" in the title of the post seems to be a red herring. I grew up here in DC with two gov't lawyers as parents. At some point, I am quite sure we became a six-figure household. By the time I was in college, I know we were over $200k HHI (one parent had left the gov't), and this was in the '90s. But we were definitely not rich! In fact, even with help from my grandparents, my parents still couldn't afford to send us to any private college we wanted.

Were you rich compared to this guy?

Anonymous wrote:When was $200k considered rich? Rich as in I live in a mansion and drive fancy cars and have servants. The whole "six-figure salary no longer means you're rich" in the title of the post seems to be a red herring. I grew up here in DC with two gov't lawyers as parents. At some point, I am quite sure we became a six-figure household. By the time I was in college, I know we were over $200k HHI (one parent had left the gov't), and this was in the '90s. But we were definitely not rich! In fact, even with help from my grandparents, my parents still couldn't afford to send us to any private college we wanted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House poor does not equal middle class if you are choosing to live in a $700K+ house.

In SF area, 700K is considered "poor" or just "middle class". It's certainly not rich or even well off. I used to live there.

So a city gets so expensive that no one but the rich can afford to live there, and then the rich people who live there claim they are not rich because they spend all their money living there. Hmmm.

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a true hcol city (sf, by, dc) then you shouldn't need a car, especially one with a car payment and that much money spent on gas. So that frees up over 15k right there.