|
|
|
|
|
|
by pascalxus
2712 days ago
|
|
|
have you ever been laid off for a year? you can't just assume you'll be gainfully employed your entire life. if another huge tech crash comes along, what will you do? do you have savings? any retirement funds set up? any family? if you have family, your spending will skyrocket and you won't make it with 95K, even in new york. jsut so you know, child care runs about 22K per year per child (not tax decutible) and that's just the tip of iceberg. so don't have any children, if you wanna keep your spending low. edit: serious question, is that equality worth it, if it means you're homeless and hungry on the street? also, in SF 117K is considered low income for a family of 4: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Annual-Income-of-11740... |
|
|
I suspect that in such an alternate NYC, very few renters (let's ignore buyers, because it makes it more complicated, but I think my argument applies there too) would be motivated to make significantly more than $100K. Therefore most people are going to be paying at most $100K/40 = $2500/month for housing according to the standard NYC rental guidelines. The market for 1BR apartments that cost $3000, $4000, $10,000/month no longer exists. (Double that for 2BRs.) In that housing market, not in the current NYC housing market, would I still end up homeless and hungry on the street if I had to pay rent from savings? I think there's a lot less chance that if I got laid off I'd be unable to make rent in this alternate universe, even if I had the savings of making $95K/year, than that if I got laid off from my current job making >>$100K/year and with my current savings I'd be unable to make rent in this universe.
Obviously in the NYC of current reality, I am not going to donate 70% of everything I make over $100K. The very fact that taxes are a collective activity is what makes them different from voluntary charity.