Its definitely not a enough, even in a medium cost of living area. The biggest problem? Taxes. Of that 100k, 30-40K are taxes.
This is why lowering taxes is great.
Living on $100k a Year
101–110 of 195 posts
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it's safer to get closer to the line with a stable income than an unstable one. No, it means you've failed to accurately assess what the "line" even is. >Otherwise, it seems your advice is "live within your means", "spend less than you make" and "save for rainy days". Thanks, dad. No, my advice was a specific set of principles and practices laid out within Ramsey's book which could help you to overcome the problems…
My point was that with greater volatility, a smaller portion of income remains sufficiently consistent, and thus the line will be lower and the budget will be smaller.
I don't think you would feel that way if you actually read the book and followed a real written budget. I know this because I've lived it myself. The only difference between variable income and static income is gauging the size of your emergency fund. Otherwise, your budget is identical.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually temporary assistance, which is when you get cash is considered welfare. Most people who understand this stuff don’t consider safety net programs like food stamps or WIC that way. The difference is that the Food stamps/WIC allow you to work, and most people on them do. “Welfare” requires you to not work in order to get a benefit. The most vociferous disgust regarding people on welfare usually comes from people…
Yes. This exactly. We never received currency which is what most poor people understand to be “welfare”. In fact there is a bit of a hierarchy to these things and in school it was definitely way worse to be on “welfare” than food stamps. God forbid the kids at school found out you were getting welfare. You would be hounded about it. Food stamps not so much. Kids are savage to each other.
Okay, but you're not a child anymore. You should understand that you did in fact receive welfare.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#104This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the fact is that you're living far beyond your means. I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you…
>Spend that big salary on a home near your workplace and sell the $40,000 SUV.
lol a home in downtown DC, where the MD guy likely works, is gonna set you back 2 million at least. you're not gonna find a 1br apartment downtown for less than 2k/mo.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a heads up: The numbers for Germany on that page include all social security contributions, including health insurance (4.7k€) and pension contributions (6k€). (Not sure if you accounted for these in your number for Maryland.)
As an American, I incur the below costs: * $18,000/year 401k contribution (similar to pension, but I take on the market risk) * $5,500/year IRA contribution (similar to pension, but I take on the market risk) * $200,000 total in tuition per child at my alma mater. * Health insurance costs. This can easily be $12,000/year or more for a family. None of these are included in the tax amounts that we pay. This is also not…
German social security is roughly similar to ours. So if you want to live comfortably in retirement, you have to put extra money away there too. As for health insurance: employers cover on average 71% of insurance premiums for families; at the $100k mark, it's probably significantly higher than that. Finally, as for tuition--you get cheap tuition in Germany because: (1) people making 30,000 Euros are getting taxed a lot more to pay for it; and (2) most kids get tracked out of college and sent to apprenticeship at 16.
If we taxed our middle class what Germany taxes its middle class, we could afford cheap tuition too (for the 1/4 of our kids we chose to send to college).
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#106This is ridiculous. It's one thing to claim that 100k is "not enough" if you live in a high cost of living (which is still dubious, considering the median income in NYC is half of that.) If that's not enough for you in Kansas, the fact is that you're living far beyond your means. I think it's telling that one family cited credit card debt like it's an act of nature instead of a conscious choice. And just because you…
>Spend that big salary on a home near your workplace and sell the $40,000 SUV. lol a home in downtown DC, where the MD guy likely works, is gonna set you back 2 million at least. you're not gonna find a 1br apartment downtown for less than 2k/mo.
I work in D.C., and there are tons of 3 bedroom houses around mine (in a good school district) for $300,000.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#107Someone making $100k should easily be able to save $1k a month wherever they are living in the world and put it into a fund making at least 15% a year.
Here's some mind blowing advice - stop buying useless ornaments that do nothing to elevate you or enhance your life in meaningful ways. People have been hoodwinked into buying junk and stand there teary eyed wondering how it all happened and why they're so empty inside. How they went so far but did so little.
This years black friday/cyber monday sales were extraordinary - because people are idiots.
It's not a mystery. Make conscious choices in your life and you won't be a victim. Someone making 6 figures is the last person anyone should feel sad for.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is there anything that can be done to improve the situation? Yes, but it's all the things that "coastal elites" don't want to hear. The first two topics of conversation would likely be about trade and immigration policy. But it's hard to talk about either without being shouted down as xenophobic or racist. It's worth noting that Obama ran on a platform to renegotiate NAFTA during his first primary.
What evidence is there that protectionism and further raising of the immigration barrier would actually solve any of these problems?
I'm going to presume that your family has a combined income of 100k or more.
Lets engage in a very simple intellectual exercise:
remove all immigration restrictions and all protections that we have.
Do you believe that
a) your family in a short term would be better off/not different/the worse off?
b) your family in a long term would be better off/not different worse off?
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#109The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. Tax breaks are at best a very short term proposition, and if the numbers are to be believed, the current tax plan only serves to widen the gap over time. Unfortunately, many Americans have been convinced to vote against their best interests since in many places, D means Devil. H…
The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the poor, unable to, the rich, not numerous enough to". Raising taxes on the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 50…
I mostly agree with you but I think you are a bit pessimistic about what the top 1% are capable of. IIRC they currently pay something like 40% of the income taxes[1] (which is more than the bottom 90% combined). That's kind of a lot!
1. To be are I think this doesn't include payroll taxes so it's a bit of a skewed number.
Re: Living on $100k a Year
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The middle class has been unfairly burdened with paying for the expenses of the entire country. The poor, unable to, the rich, unwilling to. That's not really supported by the data. A more accurate summary would be "the poor, unable to, the rich, not numerous enough to". Raising taxes on the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.01% has very little impact on total revenues simply because you need to raise taxes 50x, 50…
The federal tax code is a highly unequal affair, and due to a system of complicated loopholes and itemized deductions, the wealthiest among us get the lions share of spending and deductions. While I agree that raising taxes by 500% on the rich is an absurd idea, it's really not asking much for the wealthy to pay their fair share. These deductions and "welfare for the rich" basically amount to hundreds of billions in…
> If you're in the top 0.1%, the actual taxes you pay each year is a far lower percentage than the middle class would pay, due to this unequal system.
This is false. Paid tax rates rise progressively with income in the US.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
The NYTimes article that you link to doesn't really discuss tax benefits that are valuable to the top 0.1% so much as those that are valuable to the upper-middle class: the mortgage interest tax deduction, 529 plans, 401k/IRA deductions, various aspects of our health care law, etc are all extremely valuable to this group but small potatoes to those making $2M+ per year.