Neat tool, good use of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.It says to use gross income and not count retirement savings as an expense (duh?), but doesn't say if you should count taxes as an expense or not. What did you all do - just normal monthly expenses, or normal expenses and taxes?I get 1.13% if I do the former, 2.32% if I do the latter.Got a ways to go to get in the top 1%, especially if taxes are counted as an expense.
Interesting to see how much the size of the from/to income ranges impact the sample size which in turn impacts the final %.First I put in from 160,000 to 160,000 with expenses of 2500. This resulted in 0% because there were only 17 samples at 160k.Increasing the range to 160,000-165,000 bumps it up to 124 samples and 3.51%. Up to 175k is 358 samples and 3.33%
I think it was pretty clear that taxes don't count as an expense - I don't think most people even know their what their taxes are on a monthly basis.
Quote from: Beric01 on October 01, 2014, 12:13:24 PMI think it was pretty clear that taxes don't count as an expense - I don't think most people even know their what their taxes are on a monthly basis.What did it say to you that made that clear? I must have missed it.And I don't think most people know their expenses, period. But if they do, they're likely (or at least should be) using annual and dividing by 12 so as to take into account irregular expenses (auto insurance paid annually, for example).One of those expenses is a big check I write every April to the IRS. That's why I was wondering.
Well, I just went straight to the BLS date. From this report, it looks pretty clear that taxes are not included. I agree, though, that the calculator could make that clearer.
0% - Winning!
Quote from: Timmmy on October 01, 2014, 02:05:31 PM0% - Winning!It also tells you that you are 'Winning!' when you are at 98%+ too...
This calc is biased against those of us in high COL areas. We need one that excludes housing. You know, so I can feel good about myself, which is what's important here. :)
Quote from: Eric on October 01, 2014, 02:07:20 PMThis calc is biased against those of us in high COL areas. We need one that excludes housing. You know, so I can feel good about myself, which is what's important here. :)I got my result IN a high COL area. I guess I can really pat myself on the back now. ;-)
I think income matters the most. I'm at about 14% given my 'low' income (for these forums). I'm also 24, so it's kinda expected. Income ~65k. Spending ~2250. HCOLA makes spending under that pretty difficult. If I went the Spartan way, it could be about 1900, but that doesn't touch the low numbers some of you are posting. That would take bringing in about double.
Quote from: Pooperman on October 01, 2014, 02:20:10 PMI think income matters the most. I'm at about 14% given my 'low' income (for these forums). I'm also 24, so it's kinda expected. Income ~65k. Spending ~2250. HCOLA makes spending under that pretty difficult. If I went the Spartan way, it could be about 1900, but that doesn't touch the low numbers some of you are posting. That would take bringing in about double.I'm currently living in San Jose (the most expensive metro in the US) for $1600/month, and I'm looking at a couple options to pull that down to $1200/month. If I were to go Spartan I could pull that down to sub $1K. It's all a matter of keeping your mind open to options.I want to be a 1-percenter! ;-)
The data doesn't make much sense to me.It's telling me that 90% of people who make $200k-$300k spend $15k yearly or less.Somehow I doubt that $200k-$300k income earners are all a super-breed of mustachians.
This data is based on monthly, not yearly expenses. Input your monthly spending and it should make a lot more sense.
Quote from: Beric01 on October 01, 2014, 08:01:10 PMThis data is based on monthly, not yearly expenses. Input your monthly spending and it should make a lot more sense.Ah, that is better.Shifting between annual incomes and monthly expenses seems weird to me, but I suppose other people think of things that way?
Quote from: shuffler on October 01, 2014, 08:17:59 PMQuote from: Beric01 on October 01, 2014, 08:01:10 PMThis data is based on monthly, not yearly expenses. Input your monthly spending and it should make a lot more sense.Ah, that is better.Shifting between annual incomes and monthly expenses seems weird to me, but I suppose other people think of things that way?Yeah, people tend to know their annual salary and their monthly spending. Just the way it is, I guess.
Does this seem right: put in $360-370k income and $10k/month expenses. I would think that's pretty badass for a family, but the result is 58%. Really? 58 of 100 people spend less? Is this due to low sample size or is this reality? I'd think this income level would be plagued with lifestyle-inflated data points. ... not ... feeling ... so ... smug.
We come in at 1.4, but I'm suspicious of this calculator. It allows for several spending levels above the monthly gross salary??
Ironically, just yesterday I was on Early-Retirement.org and they had linked to the Net Worth Percentile part of the calculator. I'd rather be in the top 1% on that calculator than 1% on this one...