I think it is funny that people like to argue about a phrase assigned to an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by MM.
I understand why terms like "rich" are very subjective, and I understand why people argue about the meaning of that term, but I don't understand why people argue with "'big dog' is a term we'll use on MM as shorthand for people with $10,000+ take home pay a month." It isn't a real *thing,* it is just a word people decided to use here for something, you know? We could chose to use the word "penguins" to describe people with annual income over $100,000 and I don't think it would have any less meaning than MM's arbitrary "big dogs" really, right?
My comment is that it is ridiculous to lump those who make $250K/year (which translate to about $10K per month depending on your deductions) into the same category as those who make a $1M+ per year, as is being discussed in current tax talks. There needs to be more brackets at the top and a corresponding reduction in payroll taxes -- which are regressive, especially in two income households.
$250k translates to 10k take home? We take home around 9400/month and don't come CLOSE to earning $250k/year.
I think it depends on your deductions. WE take home less than you but aren't that far from making 250K
Now I am depressed about my deductions. Whomp whomp.
I think it is funny that people like to argue about a phrase assigned to an arbitrary line in the sand drawn by MM.
I understand why terms like "rich" are very subjective, and I understand why people argue about the meaning of that term, but I don't understand why people argue with "'big dog' is a term we'll use on MM as shorthand for people with $10,000+ take home pay a month." It isn't a real *thing,* it is just a word people decided to use here for something, you know? We could chose to use the word "penguins" to describe people with annual income over $100,000 and I don't think it would have any less meaning than MM's arbitrary "big dogs" really, right?
Honestly, my issue with it is that it's "take home" vs gross income. There is so much variance is what people might or might not have taken out directly out of their paychecks, the meaningless number is truly meaningless. My "take home" is ~45% of my gross, it would completely reasonable for someone else to be at 70% or 30%.
My comment is that it is ridiculous to lump those who make $250K/year (which translate to about $10K per month depending on your deductions) into the same category as those who make a $1M+ per year, as is being discussed in current tax talks. There needs to be more brackets at the top and a corresponding reduction in payroll taxes -- which are regressive, especially in two income households.
$250k translates to 10k take home? We take home around 9400/month and don't come CLOSE to earning $250k/year.
I just plugged $250,000 into paycheckcity.com for a married NYC resident/employee with no deductions. After federal, state, and city taxes, take home is 12,701.07. And that doesn't count 401(k) contributions, health insurance, etc. So $10k isn't that far off.
A take home of 10k is really not what I'd consider a Big Dog, either. But it is all relative, right? If you're bringing home 5k per month, 10k might seem awfully rich. Whereas if you bringing home 20k per month, my guess is that you no longer think of 10k as "a lot".
As much as I loathe the term, I enjoy compartmentalizing. I like the idea of a secret language. Even though I only post on here a few times a week, it makes me happy when I know wtf someone is talking about.
I don't think you can factor take home over HHI. People's take home can be different based on what they put into retirement or what insurance plan they choose...etc.
I think it depends on your deductions. WE take home less than you but aren't that far from making 250K
Now I am depressed about my deductions. Whomp whomp.
Huh. And we have gotten money back the past couple of years at tax time. I am puzzled.
But I probably shouldn't think about it too hard LOL.
We are both lucky in that work contributes a lot to retirement and we don't have state income tax. Still.
Ha, well that probably has something to do with it! To be fair, we also file seperate and I haven't adjusted my witholdings after DS. I also pay like $300 a paycheck for insurance and 20% to retirement. It adds up sadly.
A take home of 10k is really not what I'd consider a Big Dog, either. But it is all relative, right? If you're bringing home 5k per month, 10k might seem awfully rich. Whereas if you bringing home 20k per month, my guess is that you no longer think of 10k as "a lot".
As much as I loathe the term, I enjoy compartmentalizing. I like the idea of a secret language. Even though I only post on here a few times a week, it makes me happy when I know wtf someone is talking about.
My comment is that it is ridiculous to lump those who make $250K/year (which translate to about $10K per month depending on your deductions) into the same category as those who make a $1M+ per year, as is being discussed in current tax talks. There needs to be more brackets at the top and a corresponding reduction in payroll taxes -- which are regressive, especially in two income households.
And the COL argument is that it ridiculous to call those living in HCOL or VHCOL areas and earning $250k/year "big dogs" when their monthly housing expense for a 700 sq/ft apartment is more than most peoples total monthly income in the rest of the country. Hence me waving shiny things to distract people from this non-resolvable argument being endlessly debated again.
I hate to throw fuel on this, but I'm surprised it's still even in debate. It exists. As someone who would be big dog in 95% of the country, but live in NYC where, as I've said, I am a puppy. No joke.
For example: I just ate a sandwich and Popchips at my subsidized office cafeteria and paid over $7.00.
I don't think you can factor take home over HHI. People's take home can be different based on what they put into retirement or what insurance plan they choose...etc.
Don't forget to subtract daycare, mortgage, etc. :-(