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

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 321 posts

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

#121

Post by Yhippa »

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #101
chadlavi wrote: post #27

I know millennials with combined household incomes in excess of $200k who can't afford to buy, because huge student loans are required to get that kind of income if mommy and daddy aren't rich in the first place.

You certainly don't need to be drowning in student loan debt to reach that. You could go to a state school and get an excellent job. That's just poor financial decision making. Where I live you could go to UVa, VT, or maybe VCU.

Don't forget the highly underrated community college systems in VA.

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

#122

Post by throw0101a »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #95
aledalgrande wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that is a problem in any place where it is desirable to live these days. Locations I've experienced first hand: London, Sydney, Bay area, Los Angeles, Vancouver... and I'm sure there are many more where you can't buy on that salary.

Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction. Meanwhile in desirable places which allow more construction, like Tokyo, housing prices have stabilized [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...

> Not in all desirable players. Only ones that limit construction.

Toronto has more construction (120) cranes than anyone else in North America (Seattle & LA second at 50), and prices are still crazy even with a building boom.

* https://www.on-sitemag.com/heavy-equipment/toronto-remains-u...

* https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/economic/2019/0...

And that 120 is just in the city proper, the suburbs have more towers as well:

* https://www.livabl.com/2019/07/246-cranes-toronto-suburban-c...

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

#123

Post by abfan1127 »

Joelexander wrote: post #112
justinzollars wrote: post #9

$100,000 still a lot of money. You can buy a beer in Vietnam for 20 cents. The problem in the Bay Area, where I live, is we artificially limit the amount of housing. So prices move to infinity.

Ive thought a lot about this. For many residents, building more housing and letting more people in would irreparably change the “character” of the neighborhood. This can mean more crime, traffic, and pollution. Past a certain density automotive transportation becomes unfeasable and people will be forced to rely on public or other alternative forms of transportation like walking or riding a bike. Reducing housing cost…

that attachment has a cost.

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

#124

Post by mrlase »

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #101
chadlavi wrote: post #27

I know millennials with combined household incomes in excess of $200k who can't afford to buy, because huge student loans are required to get that kind of income if mommy and daddy aren't rich in the first place.

You certainly don't need to be drowning in student loan debt to reach that. You could go to a state school and get an excellent job. That's just poor financial decision making. Where I live you could go to UVa, VT, or maybe VCU.

PA, for example where I went to school, was still nearly $20k/year for tuition at the flagship state schools. I know a lot of people in-state that ended up with over $100k debt.

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

#125

Post by anonuser123456 »

dbtqgoat wrote: post #99

> “I can’t think of anyone we’ve rented to recently who didn’t make $100,000,” said Bruce McNeilage, who owns 148 rental homes around the Southeast and is building 118 more. Well there’s your problem. Quit building unaffordable housing.

In most 'unaffordable' locations, land is way more expensive than housing.

My house, to build new, would cost 250k. The land it sits on is another 750k.

The right answer would be to demo my somewhat old house and rebuild 6 units on it. But you can't; setbacks, height restrictions, parking spot requirements etc. make that impossible. Why? Because everyone in the neighborhood already 'got theirs'.

But from a usage standpoint, my million dollar/ property neighborhood is at that price point because of the land use, not because builders don't build 'affordable housing'

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

#126

Post by lotsofpulp »

dragontamer wrote: post #7
notfromhere wrote: post #2

It's been a long time since $100k was a lot of money

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…

> My sister lives in an area (in USA) where a 2-bedroom apartment is just $500/month, low crime good living conditions.

Presumably, this is because the risk of losing income is higher (lack of job security) and or not as much opportunity to increase income.

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

#127

Post by sjdb77 »

paxys wrote: post #116
sjdb77 wrote: 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.

Unless you get very lucky with housing living off $40k/year is pretty difficult in San Francisco. Even if you manage I would definitely not call it comfortable.

I pay $2k in rent, so $24k. That leaves $1300/month for everything else. I'm easily below that most months. (No car, no drinking, cook during the week)

I don't find SF to be any more expensive than any other "big" city outside of housing cost, especially when you factor in not needing a car to get around.

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

#128

Post by icedchai »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #108
sjdb77 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with how freelancing income is different than other forms of income...isn't that just a regular 1099? Are you saying you didn't receive a tax refund during tax season?

1099 income you pay full amount of payroll tax. W2 your employer kicks in 1/2.

You need tax deductions: expenses, SEP IRA contributions, home office space, utilities, etc.. You'll get that 1099 income down real quick.

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

#129

Post by icedchai »

sjdb77 wrote: post #96
skybrian wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah...seems to incentivize day trading.

Not really. It's only zero on long term capital gains if total income is below a certain threshold.
Post reply on HN