Surely you are not serious on this?
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
how much income per year is 'enough'?
- Thread starter peiserg
- Start date
Surely you are not serious on this?
- Joined
- 5 August 2009
- Messages
- 1,440
Nailed it on the head for me, though, the wife and kids part is still in the future
. But at least thats what I see as being "enough."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Ooh. Looks like CNN caught me live on TV. I sure hope now that i've done my part, he does his.
I looked up on the extremely authoratative wiki for stratification of income. It was earlier stated someone would be satisfied and comfortable at the 90th percentile. Looks like thats just above 100k/yr... which will certainly keep the rain off your head.. but is not exactly what the lower 89% seems to think it is... 5k/month after taxes... minus car/house/utilies etc... I doubt there's going to be much "living large" going on at even the 90th percentile.. unless you come from an income of 50k or less, and don't jump immediately into a 500k/yr home... which in most zip codes isn't exactly "mansion" territory.
Our mortgage (before refi) was for a 580k loan with 800ish credit and no debt. I think it was 3600/month... so your $5k/month is wiped out right there.
Our mortgage (before refi) was for a 580k loan with 800ish credit and no debt. I think it was 3600/month... so your $5k/month is wiped out right there.
$5K a month ($60K) out of $100K, after taxes? Maybe in the Republik of Kalifornia or something but in Texas, even as a single person with no deductions or benefits (ie, no health insurance, 401(k), etc, etc being deducted pre-tax), you'd still be taking home $80K a year. That's $6700 a month.
Not everyone is taxed nearly as heavily as you indicated, nor is cost of living always as high as you represented.
It's a foregone conclusion that an "acceptable" salary varies from state to state and even city to city as cost of living changes dramatically. I'd never try and live on $100K in Cali (with a family of four, as I have) but I'd have no problem whatsoever doing so in Texas, Ohio, Michigan, etc, etc...
Most people I know around here don't make close to 5k a month take home.
For instance my friend who is an RN makes less than 800 a week.
Borg Warner, large factory pays about 600 a week for TOP positions on the floor.
Cornell University pays 400-600 per week
Five thousand a month around here and you would be living like a king
Median home price is less than 100k
Even if some question your math or split hairs on the actual breakdown, I pretty much agree with your analysis. As I mentioned before, I've made very little and I’ve made a lot and every shade in between. The point I was trying to make was that when I was only making $30K a year, it seemed like $50K was a lot of money and would be "enough" for what I needed. At $30K I had a place to live, a car, I eat well, travelled etc. but I always felt stretched thin. I always felt I could use a little more cushion to feel like I had enough. However, when I actually made it to $50K, it wasn't quite what I expected. I still felt like I was struggling and was stretched very thin. I still had a place to live, a car, eat well, travelled, but for some reason additional responsibilities and taxes seemed to eat up the difference where it was very hard to perceive the additional $20K a year. At that point I felt that $100K a year would be enough. But yet again, when I finally got there I still felt stretched very thin and vulnerable. The same for $200K and even $500K. Many people are under the impression that six figures a year is like winning the lottery, but it isn’t. A person pulling in six figures (living within their means) will live in a very modest house, have a very modest car, and live quite moderately. I think part of the problem is that people get a misconception because a lot of people live well beyond their means, and for those people it only gets worse at the more money they make. Most of these people who drive fancy cars and live in big houses, are living on credit and will foreclose or go bankrupt over time. Until someone has actually lived through the spectrum of income from low to high, it’s hard for them to accurately understand what the true effect of additional income really is. Just as I did when I was making less, people make broad assumptions that some $XYZ dollar amount would be enough but until you actually make that amount and try to live responsibly at that rate, they really don’t know what it’s like.
Wow. RN only making $800 a week? My bro-in-law was an RN (then got his BN, then went back to school to become a CRNA) but he was making a lot more than $800 a week as an RN. He's not THAT old, either (turns 40 this year - he'd have been about 32 when he was an RN). That's in Louisiana, which isn't exactly a high-wage state, either...
But you do make a good point. $5000 take-home a month is a lot of money in many places. Where I live, a typical house is about $125K, give or take, so you can do very well with $5K take-home a month.
I just wouldn't want to live in California on $5K a month with a family of four...
Actually the guy is sitting here right now as I type this and just showed me his pay stub and he makes 675 a week. BTW this is AFTER he donates EVERY week to the United Way.
He has a brand new house and a brand new car. He is a decent dude.
i'm not a cPA, so i wonder how one would only pay combined state and federal taxes of 20 percent on 100k/yr? Social security ALONE is 7.5% for the individual (15% if you are self employed i think?). So you're telling me that a zero deduction single person only pays 13.5% combined fed/state earning $100k/yr? Wowzers. guess I'm moving there.
I do know texas has no "income" tax.. but they shaft you hugely on the house tax... My $103k house there was $3400/yr in taxes!! Compared to my mom's $650k house ($1400/yr in Phoenix). So to compare apples to apples, you have to include ALL those taxes... unless you live in an apartment i guess.
I think there is a big difference though. I know people who are making 100K/year at age 25, single, no kids, in a low cost of living area. Making a 100K/year family income with 2 kids is an entirely different ballgame. The wiki information is on each filer (which includes many double income households).
I have lots of friends who are nurses, and many of them have lots of over-time (just like prison guards:biggrin
due to nursing shortages. Don't forget to add in the differential pay for swing and graveyard shifts. Some are almost getting double their base salary from the over-time and differential pay. Just a thought.
Last edited:
Actually, that's a point I missed. That was federal income taxes only, so you're right, it'd drop another $8K at least for SS and other deductions. Probably more like $10K.
That said, most people making that kind of money would have some personal deductions to offset their income, so it might not be MUCH different.
Personally, I had $35K in deductions last year on income in the general area of what we're talking about. I ended up paying about 4% income tax, total.
I have lots of friends who are nurses, and many of them have lots of over-time (just like prison guards:biggrin
True, though he wasn't doing much overtime at all. He was working in a private clinic, though - perhaps that made a difference?
Honest people use no rhetoric;
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Enlightened people are not cultured;
Culture is not enlightenment.
Content people are not wealthy;
Wealth is not contentment.
So the sage does not serve himself;
The more he does for others, the more he is satisfied;
The more he gives, the more he receives.
Nature flourishes at the expense of no one;
So the sage benefits all men and contends with none.
Rhetoric is not honesty.
Enlightened people are not cultured;
Culture is not enlightenment.
Content people are not wealthy;
Wealth is not contentment.
So the sage does not serve himself;
The more he does for others, the more he is satisfied;
The more he gives, the more he receives.
Nature flourishes at the expense of no one;
So the sage benefits all men and contends with none.
So what does it mean when I'm not content nor wealthy. Does it mean I'm screwed or confused?
So what does it mean when I'm not content nor wealthy. Does it mean I'm screwed or confused?
Happiness is not an absence of problems; but the
ability to deal with them....H. Jackson Brown
This thread blows me away. Maybe it's because I live in Hooterville, East Tennessee, but the figures some of you guys are quoting are incomprehensible to me. Not that I begrudge anybody anything, I am happy for ya, but ??????? Wow.
I guess I am missing something.
I worked for 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller, and never made more than $60K a year. I've been retired for 10 years and now make about half that, and I have an NSX, a 95' Grand Cherokee to tow the boat, a 98' Accord for the wife, 4 motorcycles, a 2 seat airplane & my own airstrip behind the house.
Paid 66K for the house back in 85, (it is currently worth about twice that), and it is more house than I could ever need. (And almost all the house & yard & garden I can keep up with!)
We don't go out to eat every night, but we do eat out a couple times a week, we lack nothing, we have money in the bank, and we sent both our kids to private school.
Is it because I am looking at life through the viewpoint of a small town church Christian pastor, (our congregation averages (my guess) $35K a year) so is it because the cost of living in East Tennessee is the best kept secret in the US, or am I just missing something?
How much is enough? I guess it depends on how much it takes to make you feel content, and it looks like some people need more to make them feel content than others.
Which brings up another question: are feelings of contentment a good barometer of anything...? (He who dies with the most toys doesn't win - only the lawyers win...)
I guess I am missing something.
I worked for 30 years as an Air Traffic Controller, and never made more than $60K a year. I've been retired for 10 years and now make about half that, and I have an NSX, a 95' Grand Cherokee to tow the boat, a 98' Accord for the wife, 4 motorcycles, a 2 seat airplane & my own airstrip behind the house.
Paid 66K for the house back in 85, (it is currently worth about twice that), and it is more house than I could ever need. (And almost all the house & yard & garden I can keep up with!)
We don't go out to eat every night, but we do eat out a couple times a week, we lack nothing, we have money in the bank, and we sent both our kids to private school.
Is it because I am looking at life through the viewpoint of a small town church Christian pastor, (our congregation averages (my guess) $35K a year) so is it because the cost of living in East Tennessee is the best kept secret in the US, or am I just missing something?
How much is enough? I guess it depends on how much it takes to make you feel content, and it looks like some people need more to make them feel content than others.
Which brings up another question: are feelings of contentment a good barometer of anything...? (He who dies with the most toys doesn't win - only the lawyers win...)
I think part of where you are getting bumped is that you are equating with the drive for more money with either greed and/or selfishness, which it does not have to be. Nor is it evil, nor is it a bad thing.
Note when you recant what you've accomplished in your life all of what you reference are things that you own, your cars, your boat, your planes, your house etc, and the things that you can do with your money, eat out, send kids to private school. That's great that is enough for you and it certainly a good life... for you. But (being devil's advocate here) who is the one being selfish? You've provided enough for you and your family. But if you think of the roads you've used, the social security you may be collecting, the police, fire department, public libraries, the military, government agencies, have you paid your share to not only support what you've used, but what others who can't afford to, have you paid their share as well? And did you not only pay what you've used today, but have you put in enough to sustain future generations' costs for these public things as well. Well based on your tax bracket, and the fact that things like social security and the deficit is going amok, the answer is no. If you sum up all that you've donated and paid in taxes, it may cover what you and your family has used, but it certainly doesn't cover the share of those who can't pay use.
Now consider, who has paid for them. Well, the very wealthy. The ones who make $372,950 or more (the top IRS tax bracket). These are the same people who "never have enough" because they know the more they generate, the more everybody benefits. That's because they pay way more to a public system then they will ever use. They subsidize the costs of roads and services that they will only use a tiny fraction of, yet the rest of the population will benefit from. And the more they earn, the more they pay and the more other people (not them) benefit. So while it is very easy to claim these people are selfish and greedy, the fact is, you have made enough for you and your family. But these people have made enough for themselves, and many others. So in that case, who really is the selfish one? You had the ability to make more money, but you chose not to. You chose to enjoy your life and cover your expenses. You had no interest in wanting more and generating more money for people other than yourself and your family to benefit from. So while some guy is out taking risks, burning the midnight oil to earn a few more thousand dollars and giving 35% in taxes for the benefit of everybody (not including charitable donations), you were probably enjoying time with your family on your boat or in your plane. So again, who is the selfish one in this picture?
Now please don't think I'm attacking you. I really am not trying to. I just don't want people to keep vilifying wealthy people and especially those who worked very hard to become wealthy because they always wanted "more". I want people to understand that most people think that many of these public and government things that we all use are not paid by you. The sad reality is that the average household income doesn't even cover the expenses that goes into funding these things like roads, military, police etc. let alone covering the share of those who are paying nothing or near nothing. If you are collecting social security who do you think is paying for that? I paid well over $150,000 in taxes last year and the chances are very high that I won't get a dime from social security when I retire. Not only that, but I have to save twice as much as my hard earned "not enough" money so I will actually have a chance to retire. So you tell me, would it be better than if I said screw it, work less, make less money, buy a boat and relax more, pay less taxes so that the social security runs out faster and not have enough when I retire, so when it's my turn to collect social security I double the burden on your children to have to support people like me and millions of others? No, that would be selfish. I'm going to work harder, pay more taxes, and put more into the pot, because more is never enough, and when it comes time to retire, I'll have enough to take care of myself. And when I die, what I don't spend, I'll give to charities and family so that they can benefit from my "more is never enough" attitude and they can put more back into the system.
Again, not attacking you in anyway, but I hope I can shed a little different perspective those who are always desiring for more. If you can look at the big picture then perhaps you can see why there is no reason to look down on them for what they do benefits us all.
I think reading the book "Fooled by Randomness" really changed my perspective on wealthy people. Other than the entrepreneur, I really have no deference to high income professions. And even then, a lot of the time it's just because of the risk involved in many business ventures - not because society actually benefits from having another small business car wash or laundromat.
Last edited:
Wow, so you are saying you have no respect for a doctor who worked his ass off through multiple years of school, then took on a tremendous amount of workload, stress and liability, happens to save lives and make a lot of money in the process?
By the way if that book is trying to imply luck has a lot to do with the success of the wealthy, then I'll re-iterate what Thomas Jefferson once said, "I am a great believer in luck. I find the harder I work, the more of it I have."
Last edited:
Considering that a doctor is one of the safest, highest earning professions out there - not really. Certainly more than the lawyer, but not higher than the average innovator (someone who invents shit and is a core driver of growth in our knowledge based economy). Most doctors are not innovators (not a slight, very few people are innovators).
I have far more respect for someone who has a PhD in theoretical physics, made an original contribution to human knowledge, and generally embarked on a much more risky, much lower earning, and more intellectually demanding career.
Last edited:
Luck absolutely plays a factor in every person's condition. If Kobe was 5'6" he wouldn't be playing in the NBA. He could have put quadruple the practice time in during elementary school and he wouldn't have smelled an NBA career.
I'd reckon many of us on this forum are lucky due to our intellect (which is a very important trait in making money). Intellect is pretty intrinsic to our being, being dictated by genetics and early environmental influences (both out of our control).
Last edited:
Well I hope you or someone you know don't get diagnosed with a cancerous tumor and require the skill and expertise of trained surgeon. I'm not sure theoretical physical models will do you much help at that point.
Also if you think money and contribution to human knowledge are inversely proportional, you are highly mistaken.
Plus, it would be quite a wonderful world if we could all just take up philosophy, theory and sciences. Unfortunately, those things don't save lives, build buildings, keep our country safe from wars, or put us on the moon. It's also not their fault that they happen to get paid a lot for what they do. If it wasn't in such high demand, then they wouldn't get paid. Plus what does money even have to do with it? Say someone wanted to save lives? They obviously have to work and train very hard to do such. So the act of saving lives is not respectable? What if they were to go to a hospital in Africa and save lives for free. You still would have no respect for them? So is it just because they make money, makes them deplorable to you? But if they did the exact same thing and didn't make money, then that would be ok?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
