Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Net" is too variable and misleading depending on whether you are a big saver or not. Using gross as the denominator is more meaningful especially because it give a clearer idea of just how much you CAN save based on current circumstances. Also, if you own a home that figure should include everything like interest, taxes, and insurance.
Though I think it offers some insight, I think you need both net and gross to get a real sense of someone's financial picture. We've discussed that here before. 30% of net income sounds too high to me, but if that is someone dumping 40% of gross into a 401k I'm not overly concerned since they could slow contributions a bit and still be OK. 30% in someone contributing nothing to a 401k? Now that is a big problem.
We're around 23% of net (that's full PITI - not sure if OP wanted taxes/insurance included for homeowners but probably makes sense if comparing to rent), not counting the sporadic miscellaneous income throughout the year. We own. 30 year fixed mortgage. ~12% of gross income. Ideally, we would of course prefer to pay less (who wouldn't?), but this is very comfortable.
We're around 23% of net (that's full PITI - not sure if OP wanted taxes/insurance included...
And utilities too. Plus hoa/condo fees and parking and pool use and any other feature
that the owner or renter is obliged to pay in order to live where they choose.
Also relevant is whether we're talking a two income household. Very few single income households are gonna have a 10% mortgage payment. Seriously, just giving a single percentage doesn't really say much of anything but it can sound good for a humblebrag kind of thing.
Btw, those who are saying zero are taking into account that you said mortgage and not housing. They still pay property taxes and have paid or inherited the value of the property + whatever they payed in mortgage interest over the lifetime of their property if they had a mortgage. Some even pay HOA fees which can get quite high. Take it with a grain of salt. There are a lot of people paying much more in property taxes per year than I pay in rent in NYC per year, and with the new tax laws we're either taking the same deduction or they're spending more to save more, which is a fallacy in of itself. Ownership can make sense, but you gotta be smart with the math and not let people convince you of something that's not true. % is also somewhat relative. If you're pulling in $500k/yr and spending 50% of your income in rent, you're still pulling in more than someone pulling in $60k.
Though from a matter of perspective, your % is too high for my financial comfort. 39.5% is a scary number to look at. Do you really spend enough time at home to warrant spending that much money in rent compared to your income?
Btw, those who are saying zero are taking into account that you said mortgage and not housing. They still pay property taxes and have paid or inherited the value of the property + whatever they payed in mortgage interest over the lifetime of their property if they had a mortgage. Some even pay HOA fees which can get quite high. Take it with a grain of salt. There are a lot of people paying much more in property taxes per year than I pay in rent in NYC per year, and with the new tax laws we're either taking the same deduction or they're spending more to save more, which is a fallacy in of itself. Ownership can make sense, but you gotta be smart with the math and not let people convince you of something that's not true. % is also somewhat relative. If you're pulling in $500k/yr and spending 50% of your income in rent, you're still pulling in more than someone pulling in $60k.
Though from a matter of perspective, your % is too high for my financial comfort. 39.5% is a scary number to look at. Do you really spend enough time at home to warrant spending that much money in rent compared to your income?
Yes mainly because I won't live around other people, ie an apartment or condo situation.
The other consideration in the 401k % is the amount 18k limit. For someone making 180k, 10% towards 401k already covers maxing it while 10% for someone making 120k still has room to save more.
Again, the above scenario is in case both are spending 20% towards piti/rent
And utilities too. Plus hoa/condo fees and parking and pool use and any other feature
that the owner or renter is obliged to pay in order to live where they choose.
Did OP ask for utilities? Not sure I saw them list any of these things and didn't seem like folks were including them. Obviously an important consideration, but important to compare apples to apples. If OP is comparing their rent-only to someone else's rent + utilities + parking + whatever else that could mislead them into thinking their situation is more okay than it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
