2 ms·
300k isn't 300k, as we all know. Probably want to drop 40k in 401k, maybe some in an HSA, probably paying for health insurance. Then the Fed and potentially s
by silisili 4y ago
300k isn't 300k, as we all know. Probably want to drop 40k in 401k, maybe some in an HSA, probably paying for health insurance. Then the Fed and potentially state/city want their share, which is about a third if you're lucky, closer to half if you're not. Then you're paying outrageous rents, transportation/parking costs, etc.
It's easy for me to believe that a family making 300k in Seattle could be living paycheck to paycheck without being extravagant. Definitely not frugal, though, either.
- throwaway6734 4y ago>It's easy for me to believe that a family making 300k in Seattle could be living paycheck to paycheck without being extravagant This is incredibly out of touch with what it means to actually live paycheck to paycheck. 300k is at a minimum 160k post tax which is a little over 13k a month
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI believe that anyone at any income can be living paycheck to paycheck or even growing their debt. However, having lived through it, I think more of the challenge is prioritization and sticker shock for high earners, opposed to financial impossibility. For example, you are allowed to take a year off contributing to your 401k to buy a house if it is a higher priority to you, or simply borrow the down payment from the 401k. Smart people often get bogged down in opportunity costs and wanting it all.