5 ms·

Your math implies 64k after taxes, which is only 20% and is completely wrong. The effective tax rate in Cali after federal and state is closer to 40%. That lea

Your math implies 64k after taxes, which is only 20% and is completely wrong. The effective tax rate in Cali after federal and state is closer to 40%. That leaves 48k after taxes. Take out the 24k you blew on the 2k/mo apt and you're down to 24k and you haven't even put food on your plate or paid for transportation costs. Take out 4k for food assuming you don't eat at nice restaurants. Take out 2k for a train pass and maybe another 0.5k for other transportation when the train isn't adequate. You are now down to 17.5k and you haven't saved anything or done anything 'to play'. There is a reason the poverty level is around 70k in that area. 80k looks good on paper but in reality it's crap. It's about parity with a 37k salary in Austin, TX. http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/austin-tx/80000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/san-francisco-ca/au...

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. The effective federal rate on the first 80k is around 20%. The CA rate should be 9-10%. Maybe another 5% for soc sec. But I also made a very generous assumption re: apartment spend. I think my point stands.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  No, it doesn't still stand. You just adjusted from your initial 20% up to 35%, which essentially eliminates most of the 'savings' money you mentioned in your post. Also, the apartment assumption isn't that generous. If you want to live in SF by yourself, that's what you will pay for a decent apt.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    > If you want to live in SF by yourself Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money. My mistake.
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      That doesn't even make sense. If someone is making the bare minimum effort, then they would probably live by themselves. Are you sure you thought that message through?
      - jamesaguilar 13y ago
        No, if you live by yourself in SF, you are not making any realistic effort to save money, because you have not attempted to optimize your largest expense. OK, I'm done talking about this shifted scenario from what we started talking about. When you want to talk about how hard it is to save money in SF if you actually make any serious effort, I'm happy to resume.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        Read your own message. You said you said the following: >I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money Do you know what the bare minimum effort means? You are the one suggesting bare minimum effort now.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Living on your own is making zero effort. "Minimum effort" as a mathematical expression could even be negative (i.e. actively trying to rid yourself of money), but as a colloquialism typically means "appreciable," "reasonable," or "realistic." If you're not a native speaker, I can see how that might have confused you. If you are, then you're just being difficult.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        You literally said the exact opposite of the point you were implying throughout the rest of the discussion. We were talking about ways to live cheaply. Then YOU were the one that changed positions and said we were talking about someone making the minimum effort to save money, which as you rightly pointed out could mean someone not saving money at all. What is the point of discussing someone who doesn't save in a thread about saving money? A native English speaker would not make the mistake of using a colloquialism that means the opposite of the literal definition when the very disagreement is about the effort it takes to save money. You can live by yourself in the bay area and still save money. Remember, you were the one that quoted $2k/mo for rent.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. It won't. At 2013 rates, on $80k of total income for an individual ($73,900 in income subject to income tax with the $6,100 standard deduction, but no other deductions/credits): Effective federal income tax on total income: 18.0% Effective CA income tax rate on total income: 5.72% SS+Medicare: 7.65% California State Disability Insurance tax: 1.00% Total effective income and payroll tax rate: 32.4%

jamesaguilar 13y ago

I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. The effective federal rate on the first 80k is around 20%. The CA rate should be 9-10%. Maybe another 5% for soc sec. But I also made a very generous assumption re: apartment spend. I think my point stands.

ars_technician 13y ago
No, it doesn't still stand. You just adjusted from your initial 20% up to 35%, which essentially eliminates most of the 'savings' money you mentioned in your post. Also, the apartment assumption isn't that generous. If you want to live in SF by yourself, that's what you will pay for a decent apt.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  > If you want to live in SF by yourself Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money. My mistake.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    That doesn't even make sense. If someone is making the bare minimum effort, then they would probably live by themselves. Are you sure you thought that message through?
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      No, if you live by yourself in SF, you are not making any realistic effort to save money, because you have not attempted to optimize your largest expense. OK, I'm done talking about this shifted scenario from what we started talking about. When you want to talk about how hard it is to save money in SF if you actually make any serious effort, I'm happy to resume.
      - ars_technician 13y ago
        Read your own message. You said you said the following: >I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money Do you know what the bare minimum effort means? You are the one suggesting bare minimum effort now.
        jamesaguilar 13y ago
        Living on your own is making zero effort. "Minimum effort" as a mathematical expression could even be negative (i.e. actively trying to rid yourself of money), but as a colloquialism typically means "appreciable," "reasonable," or "realistic." If you're not a native speaker, I can see how that might have confused you. If you are, then you're just being difficult.
        ars_technician 13y ago
        You literally said the exact opposite of the point you were implying throughout the rest of the discussion. We were talking about ways to live cheaply. Then YOU were the one that changed positions and said we were talking about someone making the minimum effort to save money, which as you rightly pointed out could mean someone not saving money at all. What is the point of discussing someone who doesn't save in a thread about saving money? A native English speaker would not make the mistake of using a colloquialism that means the opposite of the literal definition when the very disagreement is about the effort it takes to save money. You can live by yourself in the bay area and still save money. Remember, you were the one that quoted $2k/mo for rent.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. It won't. At 2013 rates, on $80k of total income for an individual ($73,900 in income subject to income tax with the $6,100 standard deduction, but no other deductions/credits): Effective federal income tax on total income: 18.0% Effective CA income tax rate on total income: 5.72% SS+Medicare: 7.65% California State Disability Insurance tax: 1.00% Total effective income and payroll tax rate: 32.4%