4 ms·

Let's pretend some of these SF twitter employees have families. $4k in rent monthly, 4k in general living expenses (these are based off median figures available

Let's pretend some of these SF twitter employees have families. $4k in rent monthly, 4k in general living expenses (these are based off median figures available publicly) A bit over $96k in living costs. Assuming that $200k in total comp includes about 25% in stock (based off publicly reported comp packages for twitter employees), and a combined state/federal 35% tax rate... They have no spare money to save without a second income with $97,500 in take home pay.

clpm4j 4y ago
$4k is the going rate for a nice-ish 1 bedroom apartment in a good SF neighborhood. The people I know who have a partner and one child are typically spending $5-6k/mo if they're renting.
- penneyd 4y ago
  That's a choice, the East Bay exists and isn't anywhere close to those numbers.
stocknoob 4y ago
Yes, because income tax brackets aren’t progressive (all the income is taxed at 35%, and no standard deduction). People should definitely live a lifestyle with no slack for savings. It’s <someone else’s> fault I couldn’t save anything with 3.5x the median household income.
- thrown321 4y ago
  You should look at it the SF Bay Area affordable housing income requirements. You’d be surprised how many tech families qualify.
- ev1 4y ago
  150k is the actual housing and urban development definition of low income in San Francisco. You practically need assistance at that point.
  - briHass 4y ago
    That is a bit misleading. 'Low income' is defined as a household income of 80% of the median ($166K), depending on household size. $150K only meets that for a family size >= 4. There's also 'very low' (50% median) and extremely low (~35% median.)
Dig1t 4y ago
I think you're right with your numbers and I do have some sympathy for these people, but not too much. Living in an insane COL area like the Bay with crazy high taxes is a choice, nobody forced these people to do that. There are tons of job options in other places with a much lower COL and lower taxes. I got the hell out of the Bay as soon as I could and would definitely never choose to live there with a family.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kristjansson 4y ago
  TBF Twitter kinda did tell them to live there.
frumper 4y ago
Most of your pay isn’t taxed at 35%. General expenses sound way too high if you’re excluding shelter and have a full time at home parent. This hypothetical Twitter employee family is burning money on something instead of saving.
projectazorian 4y ago
It's a sad commentary that when the prospect of someone facing economic hardship comes up, many peoples' first thought is "but did they deserve it?"
- Disruptive_Dave 4y ago
  Wouldn't it be naive to ignore context and imprudent to dismiss lessons available in this time? You can have compassion for someone AND attempt to help them learn from struggles and correct poor choices.
- thrown321 4y ago
FireBeyond 4y ago
Even at 25% stock, it's actually closer to $120K take home based on tax bracketing.

clpm4j 4y ago

$4k is the going rate for a nice-ish 1 bedroom apartment in a good SF neighborhood. The people I know who have a partner and one child are typically spending $5-6k/mo if they're renting.

penneyd 4y ago
That's a choice, the East Bay exists and isn't anywhere close to those numbers.

stocknoob 4y ago

Yes, because income tax brackets aren’t progressive (all the income is taxed at 35%, and no standard deduction). People should definitely live a lifestyle with no slack for savings. It’s <someone else’s> fault I couldn’t save anything with 3.5x the median household income.

thrown321 4y ago
You should look at it the SF Bay Area affordable housing income requirements. You’d be surprised how many tech families qualify.
ev1 4y ago
150k is the actual housing and urban development definition of low income in San Francisco. You practically need assistance at that point.
- briHass 4y ago
  That is a bit misleading. 'Low income' is defined as a household income of 80% of the median ($166K), depending on household size. $150K only meets that for a family size >= 4. There's also 'very low' (50% median) and extremely low (~35% median.)

Dig1t 4y ago

I think you're right with your numbers and I do have some sympathy for these people, but not too much. Living in an insane COL area like the Bay with crazy high taxes is a choice, nobody forced these people to do that. There are tons of job options in other places with a much lower COL and lower taxes. I got the hell out of the Bay as soon as I could and would definitely never choose to live there with a family.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kristjansson 4y ago
TBF Twitter kinda did tell them to live there.

frumper 4y ago

Most of your pay isn’t taxed at 35%. General expenses sound way too high if you’re excluding shelter and have a full time at home parent. This hypothetical Twitter employee family is burning money on something instead of saving.

projectazorian 4y ago

It's a sad commentary that when the prospect of someone facing economic hardship comes up, many peoples' first thought is "but did they deserve it?"

Disruptive_Dave 4y ago
Wouldn't it be naive to ignore context and imprudent to dismiss lessons available in this time? You can have compassion for someone AND attempt to help them learn from struggles and correct poor choices.
thrown321 4y ago

FireBeyond 4y ago

Even at 25% stock, it's actually closer to $120K take home based on tax bracketing.