Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

$93k supporting a family (stay at home partner, two kids) is most definitely not comfortable, whether in the Midwest or the coasts. Insurance premiums alone would be ~$15k/year (pretax, but still). Throw in a mortgage or rent @ $1500/month, that's another $18k/year, you've already consumed a third of your wages.

View on HN

Different people have different definitions of "comfortable", but it is entirely possible to live comfortably in the Midwest on a household income of ~$100k.

I don't really agree with this premise for a few reasons. $1500 a month is insane for the midwest (Unless you're talking about a huge house on a few acres, or a luxury condo in a large midwestern city). You could spend $1000 a month on a mortgage and live comfortably in a nice 3-4 bedroom house in a good neighborhood in most parts of Iowa, for example.

Lastly, if you have a family of 4, there is a Federal Child Tax Credit of $2000 per child, your standard deduction goes up significantly if you're married and head of household and the lower tax brackets cover a larger portion of your income. So the overall tax burden is much, much less than a single guy making 100k a year.

I did a quick calculation and figured someone making 93k a year in Iowa would be taking home $1,332 a week with 4 allowances. That's 5300/mo - 1200 for insurance (Which seems nuts unless your employer doesn't have good plans), and $1000 for housing, and 1000 for food and 500 for transportation/misc bills, that leaves $1600 a month extra. I wouldn't say that's rich but it is comfortable and even enough to save a for retirement.

I'll work that out for my office, which is right by the beach in Florida. First of all, that pay would likely be for a somewhat junior position. Also, bonuses are common, but I guess I won't count that because it isn't promised.

Insurance is provided. BTW, we also add on a bit more for a 401K, in addition to whatever you might choose to contribute.

I don't know what you'd want for a home, and I don't know your credit score, but throwing some numbers into a mortgage calculator for 30-year mortgages gives me: You could pay $1250/month on a home that is 7 minutes from work, on 1.16 acres, going for $275,000. If you don't mind an older house, one on 1.3 acres (like a football field) is 11 minutes away and is selling for $320,000. That looks like $1455/month, which is almost what you propose. This might be excessive for you though; a smaller piece of land can be had for half that price unless it has a new McMansion or a waterfront.

So I think it's more realistic that housing would consume 1/6 of your wages.

Note also the lack of a state income tax. Fuel is half the price you'd pay in California.

Im at a $100k, my wife stays at home with our two school age kids, we live quite comfortably.

I assume you live somewhere rural, with low cost of living, and not a suburb of a major metro. Is my assumption accurate? You might even be remote, in which case you've traded higher wages for lower employment mobility (which is a reasonable compromise to make, but not common).

I am in the process of moving to live 30 minutes from New Orleans and yes I work remote.

> my wife stays at home with our two school age kids

Ah, so she's providing service equivalent to $100k

We haven't calculated the cost, but we know its up there. Particularly since we make 90% of our meals from scratch. She does all the baking, we share in the cooking and split clean-up.

At 94K, stay at home spouse w/ kids. I live in upper midwest, avg cost of apartment renting $1200 2bd rm. Own a home, $1800/month. You are correct, @ 94K I am struggling to save.

15k/year after the employer contribution?

Yes, although I have colleagues at other companies who pay much less (~$6k-8k year employee cost). Hard to make apples to apples comparison because employer health plans aren't public, but I have seen amazing plans and I've seen absolute garbage plans where you need to go to the open marketplace instead (and in doing so, your premiums are now non-tax deductible and you're paying the entire cost with no employer subsidy). I conservatively round up, because medical costs usually end up higher than expected.

I have 11 kids and I'm not paying $15k/year. It would be sort of negative if nothing happened, since money would accumulate in one of those FSA/HSA things. There is no paycheck deduction.

Even the maximum possible out-of-pocket expense is well below $15K/year. Getting to that point would require major surgery.

It depends on the state, but I would note that a huge number of states have either free, or highly subsidized healthcare for children under 18.

Only if your family income is so low that you qualify for Medicaid.

> Almost every state has multiple Medicaid programs. But, as a good rule of thumb, if you make less than 100% to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and are pregnant, elderly, disabled, a parent/caretaker or a child, there’s likely a program for you. And if you make less than 133% of the FPL, there’s possibly a program for you, depending on whether your state expanded under Obamacare.

https://www.policygenius.com/blog/a-state-by-state-guide-to-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com