Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

This is patently false. Some things cost a lot more in SF, like rent; most other things are slightly more expensive or the same in price, like a car or a trip to Europe. So really, a $250k salary in SF is like a $225k salary in Michigan, allowing $2k more a month for rent, which I think is generous, but I don't know the market right now.

View on HN

Is rent tax deductible now? :P

Also remember all your local services are done by employees that have to pay rent too, and businesses have to pay rent (that one actually is tax deductible).

I've lived in the bay area, it was more expensive than say SLC, but not incredibly so. Your food, your clothes, much of what you need to live, is actually sourced outside of the area. Starbucks was cheaper than SLC, for some strange reason I can't really understand. Maybe competition?

These days, I visit Seattle and Spokane a lot. Seattle is of course, a lot more expensive than Spokane, or it is supposed to be. But restaurants are much more expensive in Spokane than Seattle. Heck, across the border in Idaho where minimum wage is a lot less than WA, they are even more expensive than Spokane.

I've lived in Switzerland and now live in China. These places are much more expensive in some goods (like cars, clothes, china is cheap in eating out at least). The differentials are much greater than anything you would encounter in the states.

In New Jersey, at least up to a couple years ago, you could indeed deduct part of your rent (10%?) on the presumption that it had already gone towards property taxes.

$250k/yr doesn't allow for $2k/mo more spending than $225k/yr after factoring in federal taxes.

California state income tax is also more than double that of Michigan's at those income levels.

Fine, then increase that to $4k/mo (so your Michigander is making $200k vs. SF $250k), which doesn't pan out in my experience but we are still far away from $80k.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com