Denver salaries vs housing question (renting, insurance, credit score)

[Lafleur]

Originally Posted by DenverBound41

I think you mean gross income, big difference.

Right, and a lot of people make that same mistake when assessing what people can "afford". It's so silly to go off of gross income, because nobody actually sees gross income.

[headingtoDenver]

Originally Posted by Lafleur

You have no idea what my net income is. With 401k contributions, HSA contributions, student loan payments, taxes, etc., your $1200/mo is more like 40% of my monthly net income (the 2-paychecks month; not the 3-paychecks month). And for what? A dinky 600 sq. ft. unit? My current apartment is bigger than that by 100 sq. ft. and I have barely enough space as it is (incl. storage).

Again, you can afford a place, you just can't afford the place you want which is proven by your comment.

You are sounding like a child that can't get what they want even though they've been a good boy. Nobody is entitled to any type of lifestyle because they make a certain amount of money (or in your case don't make a certain amount of money). You want a city lifestyle, move to a city that you can afford. It really is that simple. You won't find me moving to Manhattan on a 100K salary and then complain about why I cannot afford an apartment overlooking central park.

[farscapesg01]

For the first time homeowners.. I feel for you. But I think every city has that issue when you are looking for condo/townhome/etc. in the middle of the city. I forget how many people on these forums are very "city dweller" specific. If you are looking for a first time home.. what about the Commerce City area? Looks like there are a few listings under $200k. I don't have any doubts about making it on $100k up there.. depending on what I'm willing to give up. Like I said, I'm used to a 1.5 - 2 hour commute.. so anything less than that is icing on the cake

When we were buying our first house.. there is no way I would have been able to afford something in downtown Houston. Wouldn't have mattered anyways as my job was out in a suburb town. We got a nice little 3 bed, 2 bath "starter" home in a subdivision out in the middle of nowhere for around $110k. It was 6 miles to the nearest grocery store, 10 to actually get into the nearest town. My work was about 15 miles (30 minutes) via back roads (paved.. but still back roads). Unfortunately, at that time my wife and her commute was about 65 miles (2 hours) each way! So yeah, you can find cheaper housing if you're willing to sacrifice in other ways.

Honestly, that's what I would like to get back to. We moved in a fancier/newer subdivision (just before I was offered a new position with my current commute), but after almost 10 years I need to get back to the outdoors. Most days I almost wish we still had that first house because they still haven't developed around it (lots of trees and no houses across the street), with a 1/3rd acre lot to plant a small garden. The only downside was the nearby amenities (which have improved with a grocery store just down the street, a Target, and several little restaurants), but the wife likes having the swim team, dance classes, ymca, etc. all closer here than they were out there...

[bluescreen73]

Originally Posted by farscapesg01

For the first time homeowners.. I feel for you. But I think every city has that issue when you are looking for condo/townhome/etc. in the middle of the city. I forget how many people on these forums are very "city dweller" specific. If you are looking for a first time home.. what about the Commerce City area? Looks like there are a few listings under $200k. I don't have any doubts about making it on $100k up there.. depending on what I'm willing to give up. Like I said, I'm used to a 1.5 - 2 hour commute.. so anything less than that is icing on the cake

When we were buying our first house.. there is no way I would have been able to afford something in downtown Houston. Wouldn't have mattered anyways as my job was out in a suburb town. We got a nice little 3 bed, 2 bath "starter" home in a subdivision out in the middle of nowhere for around $110k. It was 6 miles to the nearest grocery store, 10 to actually get into the nearest town. My work was about 15 miles (30 minutes) via back roads (paved.. but still back roads). Unfortunately, at that time my wife and her commute was about 65 miles (2 hours) each way! So yeah, you can find cheaper housing if you're willing to sacrifice in other ways.

Honestly, that's what I would like to get back to. We moved in a fancier/newer subdivision (just before I was offered a new position with my current commute), but after almost 10 years I need to get back to the outdoors. Most days I almost wish we still had that first house because they still haven't developed around it (lots of trees and no houses across the street), with a 1/3rd acre lot to plant a small garden. The only downside was the nearby amenities (which have improved with a grocery store just down the street, a Target, and several little restaurants), but the wife likes having the swim team, dance classes, ymca, etc. all closer here than they were out there...

Where in Commerce City? A fair portion of Commerce City is heavily industrial - meaning you'll be in the shadow of the water treatment plant, the Cherokee Power Plant, and/or the Suncor Refinery. If it's Reunion it won't be as bad, but you'll be really close to the airport and the Adams County Landfill.

[Lafleur]

Originally Posted by headingtoDenver

Again, you can afford a place, you just can't afford the place you want which is proven by your comment.

You are sounding like a child that can't get what they want even though they've been a good boy. Nobody is entitled to any type of lifestyle because they make a certain amount of money (or in your case don't make a certain amount of money). You want a city lifestyle, move to a city that you can afford. It really is that simple. You won't find me moving to Manhattan on a 100K salary and then complain about why I cannot afford an apartment overlooking central park.

Oh please. I knew your rhetoric was going to come to this, as this is the typical line thrown out by everyone whose argument is found to be baseless ("You're so entitled!"; yeah, nice try). I'm not entitled to anything, you're right. I never said I was, but you did. Nice straw man anyway.

I'm telling you that I can't afford to buy a place here on X amount of income and you're telling what I can based on faulty math.

Also, I'm not trying to afford Downtown Denver real estate. I'm not even set on Denver city limits. Again, that's a straw man argument that you, yourself, created to make me look like the entitled brat that you think I am. I'm simply saying that even on my income, which is relatively good for an individual at my age, it is very difficult to find affordable real estate in ALL of DENVER METRO. Not just downtown, but the rest of the city and the surrounding 'burbs.

[headingtoDenver]

Originally Posted by Lafleur

Right, and a lot of people make that same mistake when assessing what people can "afford". It's so silly to go off of gross income, because nobody actually sees gross income.

It isn't a mistake. It is simple accounting.

Most (if not all) financial institutions and such use gross income over net income because net income can be adjusted.

I can adjust my dependents to get more pay per paycheck or less per pay check. Also, I can adjust the amount going into my 401K, etc. You don't HAVE to have money going into your HSA, that is your choice.

Go finance a car, they will ask for your gross income. Of course they will follow that up with your payments to other things per month such as student loans and credit cards, but gross is what is looked at when your income is factored into anything.

In other words, you make 66K a year and cannot afford a place (per your words). That doesn't mean someone else making 66K a year cannot afford a place. They might be able to buy a place and live comfortably.

[Lafleur]

Originally Posted by headingtoDenver

It isn't a mistake. It is simple accounting.

Most (if not all) financial institutions and such use gross income over net income because net income can be adjusted.

I can adjust my dependents to get more pay per paycheck or less per pay check. Also, I can adjust the amount going into my 401K, etc. You don't HAVE to have money going into your HSA, that is your choice.

Go finance a car, they will ask for your gross income. Of course they will follow that up with your payments to other things per month such as student loans and credit cards, but gross is what is looked at when your income is factored into anything.

In other words, you make 66K a year and cannot afford a place (per your words). That doesn't mean someone else making 66K a year cannot afford a place. They might be able to buy a place and live comfortably.

Yeah, I know what financial institutions do. And it's faulty accounting at best and that's why people who have no business buying certain items have been allowed to finance said items and then foreclose or default on them. Nobody should be going off of your gross income; it's dumb and it's a tactic for banking institutions to be able to tell you that you can afford more than you can afford (and they can loan you more money which equals higher profits for them). Nobody actually sees their gross income. Any intelligent individual will base his/her purchasing/financing decisions on their net income (what they actually bring home), not their gross income.

I'm in finance, I know what I'm talking about here.

[headingtoDenver]

Originally Posted by Lafleur

Oh please. I knew your rhetoric was going to come to this, as this is the typical line thrown out by everyone whose argument is found to be baseless ("You're so entitled!"; yeah, nice try). I'm not entitled to anything, you're right. I never said I was. But nice straw man anyway.

I'm telling you that I can't afford to buy a place here on X amount of income and you're telling what I can based on faulty math.

Also, I'm not trying to afford Downtown Denver real estate. Again, that's a straw man argument that you, yourself, created to make me look like the entitled brat that you think I am. I'm simply saying that even on my income, which is relatively good for an individual at my age, it is very difficult to find affordable real estate in ALL of DENVER METRO. Not just downtown, but the rest of the city and the surrounding 'burbs.

Actually, I'm not trying to make you out as anything, you are doing a good job of that on your own. When people say Denver Metro, it is implied that metro is downtown and not the surrounding suburbs. If you expand your search into the suburbs, plenty of real estate can be had for well under 200K.

[Lafleur]

Originally Posted by headingtoDenver

Actually, I'm not trying to make you out as anything, you are doing a good job of that on your own. When people say Denver Metro, it is implied that metro is downtown and not the surrounding suburbs. If you expand your search into the suburbs, plenty of real estate can be had for well under 200K.

WTH are you talking about? No, when I say Denver Metro, I mean frickin' Denver Metro.

Thanks anyway.

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by Lafleur

Yeah, I know what financial institutions do. And it's faulty accounting at best and that's why people who have no business buying certain items have been allowed to finance said items and then foreclose or default on them. Nobody should be going off of your gross income; it's dumb and it's a tactic for banking institutions to be able to tell you that you can afford more than you can afford (and they can loan you more money which equals higher profits for them). Nobody actually sees their gross income. Any intelligent individual will base his/her purchasing/financing decisions on their net income (what they actually bring home), not their gross income.

I'm in finance, I know what I'm talking about here.

You really can't afford $1200/month with a $66k salary and you tell us you are in finance? Sounds like budgeting issues, not "net income" issues. You must have a very large student loan to pay off?