Since COVID is coming back I’ll give this thread a bump.
From UBS Global Wealth Report. I’m thinking this is may be more of a function of home values than anything else really, but I thought it was interesting to see the change in cohort size swap from the lowest wealth category to the 2nd lowest.
Is that inflation adjusted
This is an interesting graph, but it’s hard to believe that the shift from <10k wealth to 10-100k wealth is driven by home prices when those groups are least likely to be homeowners. (Or maybe your homeowner comment referred to the two richest bands at the bottom and I misunderstood.)
This is a global wealth report, so I’d expect that the biggest factor for the lowest $ categories is just the increasing output of non-US countries. Inflation is an interesting thing to think about. On one hand, of course inflation matters given the nominal dollar amounts (even though it’s a little tricky to think about how inflation affects the large group of people in that lowest $ group with no assets to speak of).
tl;dr
It’s probably the total value. In a typical public sector plan, to get a pension of $250,000 per year you’d have to work there for 20 to 30 years and retire with a final salary of about $300,000. Harris only worked for the city of SF for 7 years or so according to her Wikipedia page, so she probably has a pension that is more like, I don’t know, $30,000 a year. That would map to a value in the $250,000 to $500,000 range on an actuarial basis.
Sounds like she isn’t planning on a second term!
Candles must be in Uncategorized.
Haven’t gone through the thread but a couple reactions
Re #1, the majority of their income is being taxed at 32-37% federal, plus 6-7% state + 4%-ish NYC. 43% doesn’t seem unreasonable. Maybe they’re also including stuff like FICA.
The post strikes me as a strained attempt to frame it as “boy everything gets eaten up after expenses and taxes!” when they are throwing a quarter million dollars a year into investments. That’s partly due to OP talking about how frugal they are with their nanny, FT daycare, and $50K vacations. But also partly due to how the software shows savings/investments. If it showed it in-line with the expenses, it would look different.
I plugged in $1,000,000 to this tax calculator, and it gave total federal, state and city taxes of $422k
However, the part of their income they contribute to 401k and HSA isn’t taxable, and they may have some other deductions that push things down further
On the other hand, the tax calculator doesn’t include FICA. The Social Security part of that goes away after 160k for each spouse, but the Medicare part applies to the full amount of income. So maybe it ends up evening out.
Contributions to Investments aren’t “Expenses”
I’m always surprised that the thing that usually gets called out on these is the “high” vacation budget. I spend ~8% of gross income on vacation, which is significantly more than this couple. Four economy comfort tickets to Europe plus a nice hotel for 7 nights is going to be $20k alone.
Just look at the per person prices at adventures by Disney. You are going to spend that entire $50k budget on one trip.
I’d also be completely shocked if a family of four in NYC is only spending $25/yr on food. That sounds borderline impossibly low unless the nanny is doing the grocery shopping and cooking.
Fair, but if their kids are still in preschool it seems like a waste to go to Europe.
I always love these “once I account for consumption, spending and charity, I have nothing left” posts. But the best part of this is that there is no charity! Since the tax stuff is almost certainly a lie, you would think they would pop some in there before posting. Atrocious.
And over $230,000 a year in annual savings.
