4 ms·
No offense, but I'm strongly inclined to believe that you are not making it by on 80k a year in SF, and if you made that little money at one point, it was not f
by ars_technician 13y ago
No offense, but I'm strongly inclined to believe that you are not making it by on 80k a year in SF, and if you made that little money at one point, it was not for an extended enough period of time for you to properly understand what it afforded you. Your estimates seem to be nothing more than back of the napkin calculations missing major components like half of the taxes. Your numbers fit to someone making 100k+.
Edit: Also, you didn't even address the direct counter-point to your argument that the savings is "trivial".
- jamesaguilar 13y agoIt does not offend me that you assume I make more money than I'm arguing over, and you are not wrong. I also lived in a $500/mo room in an apartment with two others when I made that much money, so I was saving like a boss. Travel was actually a larger expense than housing. As far as addressing counterpoints, I've grown tired of quibbling. I think that you can live comfortably spending 66% of your income net of taxes per year without any undue effort if you make $80k a year in SF. I think anyone who looks into it would find the same to be true. That's my last word in this conversation.
- ars_technician 13y ago>As far as addressing counterpoints, I've grown tired of quibbling. I think that you can live comfortably spending 66% of your income net of taxes per year without any undue effort if you make $80k a year in SF. I think anyone who looks into it would find the same to be true. That's my last word in this conversation. That's fine. As long as you can admit that you are just arm-chairing it and haven't actually had to live under those restrictions.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoI didn't ever claim otherwise.