Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Living on $100k a Year

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 195 posts

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#111

Post by paulddraper »

jorblumesea wrote: post #15

The 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

That is a common opinion, and one that is not justified by the facts.

About half of income tax comes from 1% of taxpayers.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#112

Post by harryh »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #26

What do people think about federal taxes (mostly) not being adjusted for cost of living? It serves as a disincentive for moving to the cities, but is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Living is a high COL city is a luxury. One shouldn't get a tax break because of their particular luxury purchases.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#113

Post by brutus1213 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #21
mberning wrote: post #6

I really cannot sympathize. My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak. Yes we struggled at times. Public school. Knock off sneakers. Cheap cost cutter food and small simple meals. Crap car. Etc. When I started working in software I made way more money right out of school than my family ever made. And I developed a lot of bad spending habits as a result. After a few years I got my head on straight. Pa…

> My father raised a family of 6 making ~$30k/yr at his peak. When your father was working and you were growing up, $30k was worth more (perhaps much more, depending on how old you are) than it is now. His job probably had benefits and protections modern jobs don't have. What used to work for people increasingly doesn't work, in large part because benefits are disappearing, government programs and subsidies are being…

Completely agreed. House prices/rent and high child care costs are what have done our generation in. What salary do you need in Mountain View to afford a house? 400K?? It is nuts!

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#114

Post by pjc50 »

notyourday wrote: post #108
pjc50 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, the first is false and the idea of removing all restrictions was not under suggestion, so I don't see how this is relevant?

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#115

Post by abalashov »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #102
abalashov wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but maintaining a bigger emergency fund implies spending less in other categories. :-)

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#116

Post by Consultant32452 »

notyourday wrote: post #108
pjc50 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not the person you asked, but I'll give it a shot.

In the short term I think I would be much better off. I don't believe enough people who can compete with me economically would be all that interested in coming here, and/or them coming here doesn't improve their ability to compete with me. However, I'd be able to hire poor people for slave-like wages to perform all sorts of odd jobs for me around the house. I'd have a maid, etc.

In the long term I would be much worse off. The influx of poor people from other nations would completely overrun our public infrastructure: public schools, welfare programs, etc. The reason why illegal immigration "works" for the upper-middle and upper class is because it's illegal. My taxes would have to go through the roof to pay for all of this.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#117

Post by scarface74 »

abalashov wrote: post #97
rpmcmurphy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ^^^^. I have lived in San Francisco for 25 years now. While I could reduce my cost of living dramatically by moving, I have spent my entire post-college life here. Nearly all of my friends and professional network are here, so I have approximately zero interest in moving, even if it would be cheaper, it would not be worth it.

And arguably wouldn't make financial sense. There's a benefit to being within driving distance of 900 of the world's top 1000 tech companies, or whatever it is. You might be able to afford a better lifestyle on a modest paycheck in Sioux City, Iowa, but what happens when that company, the approximately ~1 serious tech employer in town, lays you off? In the Bay Area, you just go across the street. Lest anyone think I'…

Well if you live in northeast GA (as do I) you know that a software developer with 5-10 years of experience can easily make $110-140K and that easily affords you to live in some of the nicest part of Atlanta.

True. We aren't around "900 of the world's top 1000" companies, but in the 20 years I've lived here, I've never found there to be a lack of development jobs.

As a single person, you could easily live comfortably in parts of metro Atlanta making 70K.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#118

Post by scarface74 »

killercup wrote: post #61
azinman2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention high quality education through university.

Yeah, that's something I always forget about when talking to people from the US: I don't have any student loans. A semester at a university in Germany costs around 250€ (plus housing and food), so it's hard to get to a point where you need 10 years to pack back loans. I had a part time job all through university and even saved up a reasonable amount of money.

There is really no reason for an American to have a unaffordable student loan. They could easily go to a state school instead of a private college and save thousands.

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#119

Post by abalashov »

scarface74 wrote: post #117
abalashov wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And arguably wouldn't make financial sense. There's a benefit to being within driving distance of 900 of the world's top 1000 tech companies, or whatever it is. You might be able to afford a better lifestyle on a modest paycheck in Sioux City, Iowa, but what happens when that company, the approximately ~1 serious tech employer in town, lays you off? In the Bay Area, you just go across the street. Lest anyone think I'…

Well if you live in northeast GA (as do I) you know that a software developer with 5-10 years of experience can easily make $110-140K and that easily affords you to live in some of the nicest part of Atlanta. True. We aren't around "900 of the world's top 1000" companies, but in the 20 years I've lived here, I've never found there to be a lack of development jobs. As a single person, you could easily live comfortably…

My impression of the top end of typical developer salaries in Atlanta doesn't quite go that high, but it's possible they're crept up since I last took a look.

I agree that metro Atlanta is not an especially high-cost area, though parts of it certainly are; ITP in general is getting overheated. I lived in Midtown for the better part of ten years and by the end of that, rents seemed on par with Brooklyn and Chicago, though I did have to upgrade from single-person housing on account of a short-lived marriage.

Nowadays, I've moved back to Athens. Where are you?

Re: Living on $100k a Year

#120

Post by Consultant32452 »

abalashov wrote: post #115
Consultant32452 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but maintaining a bigger emergency fund implies spending less in other categories. :-)

Nope. Building an emergency fund implies spending less in other categories, namely retirement savings. But once you've made those initial, temporary sacrifices, maintaining the emergency fund doesn't cost any more just because you have variable income.
Post reply on HN