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.
I’m willing to pay taxes to enjoy my preferred lifestyle. I prefer dense, walkable urban neighborhoods, meaning, I’m usually in the middle of the city. If you’re comparing one suburban to another, I can see where taxes will come into play, but when comparing the suburbs to the city, I’m simply not going to choose to live in the suburbs.
I’m also of the belief the taxes usually go to the public good , and I’m okay with paying my fair share.
I'm all for paying my fair share as well, but I don't just pretend that taxes don't make any difference. For instance, we pay over $400 a month in property taxes and I'm OK with that but when we considered buying another home, we quickly realized that we'd be paying $700 or more PER MONTH in property taxes so we decided to get really happy where we are instead. I'd rather pocket that $300 a month and go on a good vacation instead. I mean, I am already comfortable so I don't need to be THAT much more comfortable. My husband and I ruled out areas when we were looking due to their overall tax rate.
I'm all for paying my fair share as well, but I don't just pretend that taxes don't make any difference. For instance, we pay over $400 a month in property taxes and I'm OK with that but when we considered buying another home, we quickly realized that we'd be paying $700 or more PER MONTH in property taxes so we decided to get really happy where we are instead. I'd rather pocket that $300 a month and go on a good vacation instead. I mean, I am already comfortable so I don't need to be THAT much more comfortable. My husband and I ruled out areas when we were looking due to their overall tax rate.
I'd do unforgivable things to pay $400 p/month in property taxes.
Sincerely, a former Cook County converted Taxachusetts resident.
EDIT: I do agree with Gladhands for the most part. E.g. In Illinois, most residents will b**** and complain, and then move on to talk about the nice downtown they live by, the good school systems their kids go to, the wonderful public facilities, and how unsightly and unkempt cities in Texas are. Though I understand that some spending is undeserved, and corruption plagues, I'd rather pay the taxes and see the benefits (at a micro level) than not pay and see nothing. Same applies in Massachusetts- Though income tax, property tax etc. is fairly high, the state leads the country in K-12 education, hosts the only universal healthcare model, and very easy on the eye.
I’m willing to pay taxes to enjoy my preferred lifestyle. I prefer dense, walkable urban neighborhoods, meaning, I’m usually in the middle of the city. If you’re comparing one suburban to another, I can see where taxes will come into play, but when comparing the suburbs to the city, I’m simply not going to choose to live in the suburbs.
I’m also of the belief the taxes usually go to the public good , and I’m okay with paying my fair share.
But it certainly can affect what you can afford so you may have to choose a different neighborhood based on price no?
But it certainly can affect what you can afford so you may have to choose a different neighborhood based on price no?
I honestly can’t see a scenario where I wouldn’t choose a cheaper city neighborhood or buy less house, before considering the burbs. If I were choosing between two cities for a relocation, taxes would only become a consideration if all other factors were equal. I say this as someone who’s spent most of his adult life in NY, IL, MA and PA. As I said before I totally understand taxes if you choosing between Suburb A and Suburb B, but not Suburb vs city. Maybe, I’d consider taxes if I were deciding between Boston or Cambridge or Minneapolis and St Paul.
One of the things I'm beginning to realize more and more is that high salaries (100K+) are truly difficult to obtain (only 10-12% make that, coastal elites included) and you really do need about 100K to live comfortably in the pricey metros if you had a family, and say 70K if you're single. Also, each additional dollar nets you less and less take home pay the more you make due to tax.
For myself, I have begun to tone down my salary expectations and effort in my career and begun to work harder on making what I do have go farther. I can't predict what my future all holds, but statistically, aiming for say an 80K salary and buying in a lower COL area is my best bet.
What is exciting, even with these high home prices, is that there are options all over the US to pick from, except for the west coast, which is entirely crazy.
I don't think $100k is as much as you think it is. In DC, a GS-13 Federal employee gets a $100k salary.
I'm a GS-11 at 26, will be a GS-12 at 27 and a GS-13 at 28. In other words, $100k at age 28 is standard. If you're a Government employee and aren't making $100k+ in your early 30s, I would wonder what you were doing wrong.
And Government jobs pay much less than the contractor workforce or other orgs like World Bank or IMF. And that also excludes defense contractors and consulting firms (where employees make even more on top of that).
I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, however, and $100k there would be reserved for managerial positions after 15 years of service.
I don't think $100k is as much as you think it is. In DC, a GS-13 Federal employee gets a $100k salary.
I'm a GS-11 at 26, will be a GS-12 at 27 and a GS-13 at 28. In other words, $100k at age 28 is standard. If you're a Government employee and aren't making $100k+ in your early 30s, I would wonder what you were doing wrong.
And Government jobs pay much less than the contractor workforce or other orgs like World Bank or IMF. And that also excludes defense contractors and consulting firms (where employees make even more on top of that).
I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, however, and $100k there would be reserved for managerial positions after 15 years of service.
Wow. I guess I can blame your youth for your complete ignorance (and arrogance). Makes me wonder what you're doing wrong . The vast, VAST, majority of government employees never come close to GS-13 status. Especially by 28. Kudos to you for achieving that.
About 46% of households in the SF Bay Area make over 100K a year.
That's household though, not individual. If I factor that SF is 2x as expensive as the rest of the US, then the bay area falls behind the median US household income of 60K.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker
Factor in taxes. You need to make 150k to live ok in a place like Denver.
150K is steep. I'm at 60K and doing alright (renting is the only option though). There's just a cliff in price between between being single and renting and having a family and owning in Denver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
I don't think $100k is as much as you think it is. In DC, a GS-13 Federal employee gets a $100k salary.
I'm a GS-11 at 26, will be a GS-12 at 27 and a GS-13 at 28. In other words, $100k at age 28 is standard. If you're a Government employee and aren't making $100k+ in your early 30s, I would wonder what you were doing wrong.
And Government jobs pay much less than the contractor workforce or other orgs like World Bank or IMF. And that also excludes defense contractors and consulting firms (where employees make even more on top of that).
I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, however, and $100k there would be reserved for managerial positions after 15 years of service.
Well, I keep hearing about people who launch into six figures, but the stats seem to point out that there's not that many people making that much. So I guess, if you have a reasonable career path outline, you can gauge where you can get a decent income to COL expense. But, for people like me, a 24 year old who doesn't really know what he'll be making at age 30, it would be unwise to settle down in a high COL with hopes that I can make the six figures+, but have a fairly decent probability of not actually making that income goal. I think a lot of people make that mistake with education, where the loans don't quite pay for the salary they actually get at mid life.
Likewise, it would be unwise if you have a decent amount of skill, experience, and talent, to move to a bargain COL area as you would be pretty limited upward.
I honestly can’t see a scenario where I wouldn’t choose a cheaper city neighborhood or buy less house, before considering the burbs. If I were choosing between two cities for a relocation, taxes would only become a consideration if all other factors were equal. I say this as someone who’s spent most of his adult life in NY, IL, MA and PA. As I said before I totally understand taxes if you choosing between Suburb A and Suburb B, but not Suburb vs city. Maybe, I’d consider taxes if I were deciding between Boston or Cambridge or Minneapolis and St Paul.
I wasn't talking about between choosing living in the city vs suburbs but just in general since taxes affect your overall monthly payment.
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.
. The vast, VAST, majority of government employees never come close to GS-13 status. Especially by 28. Kudos to you for achieving that.
