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.
F*** WaPo is annoying with the anti-adblock and anti-private browsing nonsense. I'll just go by the chart, they left off taxes which exceed any other expense I have by a considerable margin.
F*** WaPo is annoying with the anti-adblock and anti-private browsing nonsense. I'll just go by the chart, they left off taxes which exceed any other expense I have by a considerable margin.
Property taxes may be wrapped up in the housing cost.
If your #1 cost is taxes, it's probably because you're making more money. Federal income tax rates are lower than they've historically been in a long time. This only shows up to 2011; we've had another decrease in rates since 2017: https://www.savantcapital.com/blog/t...-and-tomorrow/
Looking at state income tax rates since 2000, not many states raised taxes. The standout tax increases look to be in California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, particularly on higher income earners.
A lot of states have kept their income tax rates pretty well level, e.g.: Oregon and Virginia, same as they were in 2000. States like Minnesota, Georgia, Colorado, or Iowa pretty much the same too, minor adjustments.
Many even lowered them. E.g.: Massachusetts lowered its top rate from 5.9% to 5.1%. Ohio from 7.2% to 4.8%, Michigan from 4.4 to 4.25%. North Carolina from 7.75% to 5.25.
F*** WaPo is annoying with the anti-adblock and anti-private browsing nonsense. I'll just go by the chart, they left off taxes which exceed any other expense I have by a considerable margin.
It's interesting that in an economics forum, you expect people to work for free. WaPo doesn't want you to read their articles without getting paid. If you don't like the quality of their content, move on. No need to insult them.
Every single one of these compilations leaves out, "non-wage compensation." Funny how that changes the entire dynamic until very low incomes. And of course total social welfare spending accounted for nominally or vs. GDP is up dramatically over similar spans.
People who try and can't make it here would be dead across much of the globe.
Every single one of these compilations leaves out, "non-wage compensation." Funny how that changes the entire dynamic until very low incomes. And of course total social welfare spending accounted for nominally or vs. GDP is up dramatically over similar spans.
People who try and can't make it here would be dead across much of the globe.
So health insurance. Which you can't eat, and still have to pay a lot out of pocket to access the health care system. I suspect that is included in the "health care" piece of the graph, and the fact that it's not wages factors in.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57750
Another generalization that doesn’t make sense to many. For example, my income in 1985 (in California then) was double the amount shown, and my housing cost then was far more than health care and vehicles combined. We were a family of 4 then, 5 as of 1987. We had no college cost, my wife and I both worked and paid our way through college and graduate school. Health care today is a very small portion of our expenses, with good employer plans, back in 1985 it cost us a lot more than now.
It's interesting that in an economics forum, you expect people to work for free. WaPo doesn't want you to read their articles without getting paid. If you don't like the quality of their content, move on. No need to insult them.
Did I say they should work for free? No I said there were annoying and I stand by it, just pausing adblock doesn't work on their site it's annoying. Also, posters can look for free links like I eventually found on MSN.
One of the key drivers in the price of housing is the emergence, in the late 1960s, of the dual income family, which in turn was in part enabled by the emergence & adoption of The Pill.
Given that dual-income families are the norm in HCOL areas, I find it odd the authors select male wages as the benchmark against which expenses are measured.
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.
