I don't find SF to be any more expensive than any other "big" city outside of housing cost, especially when you factor in not needing a car to get around.
But if I did, there's the premium tax credit, which caps premiums to some % of your annual income. For a single person, 322% above the federal poverty line is $40k with a 9.56% cap, so you'd pay no more than $318 in premiums a month and whatever you pay extra (say $182 for a $500 premium) becomes a tax credit.
echo "1.07^15" | bc -l
Of course, on $40k/year I suppose one would be taking subsidies or medicaid instead of paying full freight. But, then I guess it could be said you can make it in SF on $0/year...
> (No car, no drinking, cook during the week)
We have very different views of "very comfortably" living.
For reference, the amount you have remaining every month after paying rent is close to what I end up averaging on vacation! And I definitely don't think I live a very comfortable lifestyle. (My vacations aren't even that nice - we rent budget cars, fly max economy flights, almost always stay in the bottom 25% of AirBNBs in cost, and almost always eat at $-$$ restaurants) Compared to most Americans - clearly, I spend more on vacation. Compared to my SF Bay Area peers - I spend nothing.
Not if you're a contractor without a full-time employer. In college I did freelance work, and I lost nearly 30% to taxes despite making less than $5k a year from my work. Having your social security responsibility doubled is brutal.
If you adjust your rates accordingly, it's a wash for everyone involved (this is one of many reasons the 1099 price per hour should be around twice the W2 price per hour).
None of this has anything to do with CA income tax.
But, if you're living solely off investments you don't pay those. I was surprised to see that capital gains tax is zero below a certain income. It seems rather unfair, since you can choose when to sell.