Live data from Hacker News

$100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

wsj.com

81–90 of 321 posts

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#81
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

every major metro has seen an increase in housing costs. West coast may be extreme, but this hits every metro across the country.

Sure ok, but over 6 years a starter house going from $19,000 to $30,000 in Dayton is a lot different on the affordability spectrum than an equivalent house going from $300,000 to $900,000 in Seattle.

you're not getting a starter home for 30k in Dayton unless it comes without walls and was a former meth lab.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#82
post #33
post #15

I'm in a mini-retirement right now and living in SF. It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. As a single person I can very comfortably live off $40k/year in investment income and pay no taxes right now.

>It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. Not if you're a contractor without a full-time employer. In college I did freelance work, and I lost nearly 30% to taxes despite making less than $5k a year from my work. Having your social security responsibility doubled is brutal.

With W2 employment, you and your employer split the payroll tax responsibility. When you're self-employed, you pay both halves.

If you adjust your rates accordingly, it's a wash for everyone involved (this is one of many reasons the 1099 price per hour should be around twice the W2 price per hour).

None of this has anything to do with CA income tax.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Median household income in USA is $59,039. That's both the mother AND father working to bring home $59,039 on the average (before taxes and other costs). Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much. But that's also why a large chunk of Americans think that "city-folk" are disconnected from reality. $100k is a lot for many people. My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $50…

> Its clear you live in a rich area where $100k isn't much You mean he doesn't live out in the sticks or a run-down city like Detroit (MI), Gary (IN), or Paterson (NJ). You don't need to live in a rich area for $100k to not be that much.

The point still stands that $100k is still statistically high if you look at the U.S. as a whole.

There's a lot of nice cities that $100k still goes far. Boise, Colorado Springs, Minneapolis, Ann Arbor, Houston...

But if you're from one of the coastal cities the OP was referencing, comparison is the thief of joy

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#86
The issue is less about the dollar cost of housing in most places, than the opportunity cost and closing of flexibility in getting into a long term mortgage. In all but the most obnoxiously over-priced areas, if you make $100k, you should be able to buy something on a low down-payment FHA loan, and your total mortgage payment should be less than you'd pay in rent. PMI sucks, but it's not terribly difficult to refinance out of it after a handful of years.

The problem is you're tied down to a location. The market is hot now, but even so, it is not trivial to list a house, get an offer, close, and decamp from it, and it's rare that that goes quickly. If you envision moving around from job to job, rather than settling in for the long haul, a 30-year mortgage is a ball and chain.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#87
post #19

I'm behind a paywall, so I'm sure they pick up on this, but the biggest problem I ran into when I thought I could afford a house was the down payment. You can make $100k (or less!) and quite easily afford a monthly mortgage payment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have enough saved up for a down payment.

Agreed, but it's that way for a purpose no? Maybe not a whole 20%, but enough of a buffer so that you won't be underwater on a mortgage in a down housing market.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#88
post #15

I'm in a mini-retirement right now and living in SF. It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. As a single person I can very comfortably live off $40k/year in investment income and pay no taxes right now.

I was living in San Francisco on an after tax income of $500/week for most of 2010-2011. Prices are a bit higher now, but I think I could scrape by on that amount if I had to. I wouldn't want to though.

Yeah...I realize I'm in a privileged position but just pointing out that if you're in a position to F.I.R.E. that taxes in California are actually low to nil for <$50k/yr despite its reputation as a "high tax state."

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small town America will have $500 / month for a 2-bedroom apartment, while paying medical-doctors $200k+ / year. But you may be the only doctor around for 10s of miles. Which is why you'd be so valuable. I'm sure there are other $100k to $200k jobs that small towns need. No, you won't get high-tech or programming in small-town America. But there's more to life than just the tech-field. Its easy to forget because we'r…

the sweet spot in terms of arbitrage right now is: find full time employment at a high earning job in a major metro area, move far enough from that metro area to work remote while being able to come into the office a handful of times per month. A three hour commute is easier when you only do it twice a week, or a few times a month.

If you want to be mind-numbingly bored, sure. Despite the cost of living in a city, I (and others who enjoy city life) would much rather pay to enjoy amenities like public transit and being able to walk to a bar.

Re: $100k/year still might not be enough to buy a home

#90
post #33
post #15

I'm in a mini-retirement right now and living in SF. It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. As a single person I can very comfortably live off $40k/year in investment income and pay no taxes right now.

>It was surprising to learn that below like $50k you basically pay 0 in income tax in California. Not if you're a contractor without a full-time employer. In college I did freelance work, and I lost nearly 30% to taxes despite making less than $5k a year from my work. Having your social security responsibility doubled is brutal.

The original post was talking about income tax. There are plenty of other taxes on making money by working.

But, if you're living solely off investments you don't pay those. I was surprised to see that capital gains tax is zero below a certain income. It seems rather unfair, since you can choose when to sell.

Post reply on HN