You must log in or # to comment.
This is highly dependant on where you live, as has been said before.
Well shit thats a little Less than 3x what I make lol. 💀💀💀💀
Yes. The people saying no are no longer temporarily embarrassed millionaires but temporarily embarrassed middle class. Have or have not, and 140k is have not given inflation, healthcare, education, food, rent/mortgage, energy etc.
140K is more 85% of the USA population.
It’s upper middle class. it’s about 5 grand a month in disposable income. assuming a 1/3 tax rate and 3K in rent/mortage
it’s also what I make, and yeah i have that much disposable income per month.
Maybe. Depends on where you live. If you live somewhere relatively inexpensive it’s not bad. However, I’d have to caution that this sounds like gross income (I did a search and the article didn’t say), and if it is, this isn’t great. Taxes, medical, any union dues, and hopefully a significant chunk going into a retirement fund will eat this up quickly. This is in the 24% fed tax bracket - not including child credit or any pre-tax deductions for something like a 401k, and no State tax taken. 140k take-home would be pretty good.
God I wish that were me
Yes. That as a household income is not actually that far from two median individual incomes. As someone in a high cost of living area, I can see you’d be very restricted on less than that, and it’s tough to see how you’d ever afford to own a home.
Like there is a figure low enough for either party.
uh huh, thank you vice and mr wallstreet substack poster for spreading such awareness, but where does that leave people in actual poverty?
vast majority people in actual poverty spend their lifetime in poverty. about 10% make it out, mostly via education for gifted kids.
Well shit thats a little Less than 3x what I make lol. 💀💀💀💀
No.
No, it’s not. Having to use a budget and not spending whatever you want on anything you want at any time is not poverty. Fuck off with this.
No.
