"Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food" - CNN

[LibrarianFuzz]

Living in Seattle, Hawaii, the Bay area, New York, and other high cost areas is a luxury and a choice, not a right.

Wow. You wanna go and tell that to all of those natives who have been living in Hawaii for thousands of years?

There is proof of settlements there as early as 124 AD. They were doing just fine with the cost of living and their own life until the U.S. government put Queen Lili'uoakalani under house arrest in 1898 and took over the government so they could keep their cheap sugar, then made Hawaii into a state in 1959.

So, you wanna tell the native population of Hawaii, who come from generations who have lived there for thousands of years - that they can't stay on their native soil because their home is now a "luxury" spot for rich people and so it's no longer their "right" to live there?

[pecunia]

With this talk of averages and means it does lead one to consider how much of this is an effect of the tendency of Americans - on average - to buy as much housing as they can afford, even given other, non-dreadful options, i.e. perfectly safe, reasonably located, clean neighborhoods.

When things aren't going well for you, you aren't buying housing.

Until recently, houses have been looked at as an investment that appreciates.  This coupled with the mortgage deduction and the fact that you'd have a better pace to live provided an incentive to keep building as large as you could afford.  The housing industry has certainly been willing to go along, creating such phrases as "dream home."  You are right in that lots of people have been suckered into becoming "house poor."

[Nicholas Carter]

At 50 weeks/yr that’s just shy of $45k/yr. full benefits, good insurance, marching 401k, ...

I had a gentleman come in my office, and the words out of his mouth were, “today is my last day, with how many kids I have it’s not worthwhile for me to work and lose my government assistance.”

In Rhode Island at least, it is possible for someone with more than three children to receive more than 45k/yr in government assistance.

[MrsDinero]

Living in Seattle, Hawaii, the Bay area, New York, and other high cost areas is a luxury and a choice, not a right.

Wow. You wanna go and tell that to all of those natives who have been living in Hawaii for thousands of years?

There is proof of settlements there as early as 124 AD. They were doing just fine with the cost of living and their own life until the U.S. government put Queen Lili'uoakalani under house arrest in 1898 and took over the government so they could keep their cheap sugar, then made Hawaii into a state in 1959.

So, you wanna tell the native population of Hawaii, who come from generations who have lived there for thousands of years - that they can't stay on their native soil because their home is now a "luxury" spot for rich people and so it's no longer their "right" to live there?

You don't even have to go that far back.  I was talking to a co-worker about housing.  His parents were born in SF in the 1950's.  They have aunts and uncles who grew up there and raised all their kids.  His parents are still living in the house my co-worker and his siblings were raised in. He was saying his parents want to downsize because there is no reason to keep a house with more than 2 bedrooms.  The problem is if they sell, they would  not be able to buy a place nearby the kids and grandkids.  Everyone still lives in the area and while they could sell for good money, there isn't much buying power in that area.  So they continue to live in a house they don't want because it is cheaper than selling.

[honeybbq]

I didn't read the article, but I've been living in Seattle for 5 years.

- Housing is crazy. A 3 bedroom 1 bath house that isn't in TEAR DOWN condition is $750k anywhere near the city. Yes, you can commute an hour each way from Everett and get cheaper. The black mold tear down house was 650k. Houses go for all cash and 100-200k over asking price. My house has gained approximately $700k in EQUITY in 5 years. It's insanity. Renting is just as bad.

- Day care is crazy. 2 to 5 year waiting lists to pay $2500/month for infant care.

- Taxes are large. If you get a house, the taxes are quite substantial. Since we have no state income tax, homeowners get a large chuck of the bill. (My taxes are in the 14k/year range). Sales taxes are over 10%. (I think 10.2?) I'm fine with this compared to a state income tax, but sometimes it makes you do a double-take.

-Basic expenses like car registration costs quite a bit more. Bus fares are $2.75 each way, which I think is pretty expensive.

- I've never seen an Aldi here, but I'm guessing they are around. Food seems to be more expensive than I see quoted here.

Seattle is #12 in the highest cost of living indexes after a few of the usual suspects (DC, NY, SF, etc). https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/region_rankings.jsp?title=2017&region=019

[Nicholas Carter]

People who make low wages and complain about low wages need to be happy with what they have, move, curb spending, maybe move into one of the 100s of free needle tent cities (yes, Seattle pays you to shoot up indirectly), or make more income. If people are incapable of doing those, move out of the luxury areas.

So, to focus things for a moment on the only thing you seem to care about¹: If all of the working poor in a large city leave their jobs or go elsewhere, and those people aren't replaced by equally poor people, then your city will grind to a halt as every business is deprived of janitors, admin assistants, and sanitation workers. You can only live in Seattle because a bunch of poor people live in Seattle.

1: Yourself.

[TempusFugit]

If all of the working poor in a large city leave their jobs or go elsewhere, and those people aren't replaced by equally poor people, then your city will grind to a halt as every business is deprived of janitors, admin assistants, and sanitation workers. You can only live in Seattle because a bunch of poor people live in Seattle.

I have often wondered why these high cost cities arent somewhat self-correcting in that it would seem that beyond some point in COL, no one in the service industries, including public service for that matter, would be able to live in or even near the cities to provide the very lifestyles which make those cities so desireable. 

[Nicholas Carter]

If all of the working poor in a large city leave their jobs or go elsewhere, and those people aren't replaced by equally poor people, then your city will grind to a halt as every business is deprived of janitors, admin assistants, and sanitation workers. You can only live in Seattle because a bunch of poor people live in Seattle.

I have often wondered why these high cost cities arent somewhat self-correcting in that it would seem that beyond some point in COL, no one in the service industries, including public service for that matter, would be able to live in or even near the cities to provide the very lifestyles which make those cities so desireable.

In every big city I've ever been to somewhere there's a slum where rent and gas are much cheaper than everywhere else. Also the only thing the gas station sells other than gas is cigarettes and all of the buildings have rats and electrical fires because code enforcement never goes to the slums.

[Jrr85]

Living in Seattle, Hawaii, the Bay area, New York, and other high cost areas is a luxury and a choice, not a right.

Wow. You wanna go and tell that to all of those natives who have been living in Hawaii for thousands of years?

There is proof of settlements there as early as 124 AD. They were doing just fine with the cost of living and their own life until the U.S. government put Queen Lili'uoakalani under house arrest in 1898 and took over the government so they could keep their cheap sugar, then made Hawaii into a state in 1959.

So, you wanna tell the native population of Hawaii, who come from generations who have lived there for thousands of years - that they can't stay on their native soil because their home is now a "luxury" spot for rich people and so it's no longer their "right" to live there?

Well, notwithstanding the callous delivery, isn't that correct? 

Short of litigating government annexations from over a century ago and/or abandoning western understandings of property, if you want to live somewhere in hawaii, you are either going to have to rent land from somebody.  I understand it's distressing for the people facing that situation, especially in Hawaii where it's not a matter of just getting in the car and driving for an hour, but it doesn't seem too different to me from some of my friends from vacation areas in other parts of the U.S. who "couldn't" stay because there weren't jobs available that would allow them to pay tourist prices, or even that different from friends of mine that "couldn't" stay at much less desirable places that were "home" and near family because there weren't jobs available.  It's somewhat sad, but lots of people don't get to stay in their ideal place while still being able to afford a lifestyle they desire. 

[effigy98]

Living in Seattle, Hawaii, the Bay area, New York, and other high cost areas is a luxury and a choice, not a right.

Wow. You wanna go and tell that to all of those natives who have been living in Hawaii for thousands of years?

There is proof of settlements there as early as 124 AD. They were doing just fine with the cost of living and their own life until the U.S. government put Queen Lili'uoakalani under house arrest in 1898 and took over the government so they could keep their cheap sugar, then made Hawaii into a state in 1959.

So, you wanna tell the native population of Hawaii, who come from generations who have lived there for thousands of years - that they can't stay on their native soil because their home is now a "luxury" spot for rich people and so it's no longer their "right" to live there?

I do not like the reality there and what happened in the past is evil. It has happened all over the world, including the united states mainland. When people get conquered they usually get the short end, but the reality is, living in hawaii is now a luxury.

[effigy98]

People who make low wages and complain about low wages need to be happy with what they have, move, curb spending, maybe move into one of the 100s of free needle tent cities (yes, Seattle pays you to shoot up indirectly), or make more income. If people are incapable of doing those, move out of the luxury areas.

So, to focus things for a moment on the only thing you seem to care about¹: If all of the working poor in a large city leave their jobs or go elsewhere, and those people aren't replaced by equally poor people, then your city will grind to a halt as every business is deprived of janitors, admin assistants, and sanitation workers. You can only live in Seattle because a bunch of poor people live in Seattle.

1: Yourself.

Not worried about that. Supply will usually meet demand. I had a lot of shit tastic jobs as a teenager, working since I was 13, and I HIGHLY appreciated them since we were in trailer park poverty and it gave me a stepping stone to move up the income ladder. With FULL on adults soaking up those jobs, you are screwing over the youth who are desperate for those opportunities. I am sure it is not bad now, but when recessions hit, it gets really hard for young people to find jobs.

[mathlete]

The median income of King County is $10K less than their "survivability" number. I love data, and I love that the United Way is collecting data in order to address issues of inequality. "Survive" is a well-chosen word aimed at driving attention (and probably donation dollars) to the United Way though. I wish that CNNMoney didn't just take this stuff and run with it before adding value though. Come on Tami!!

The good news for King County residents, is that their eligibility requirements for subsidized housing are pretty generous¹. The bad news is that there is a shortage of subsidized housing and they have to rely on waitlisting and lotteries.

If I was struggling in King County, I'd consider a move, or a commute from a neighboring county. Easier said than done of course.

¹https://www.kcha.org/housing/subsidized/eligibility/


 

[mm1970]

Rather amazing statistics.  1/2 of all American families can't afford rent and food!   Astounding.

Are the streets, empty lots, parks, etc. all filled with shanty towns?    Because if half the folks aren't able to rent, they would have to be.  And yet, in all my travels around the country, I've never seen an area where that appeared to be true - other than, say, when New Orleans got flooded out.  And even then the problem wasn't they couldn't afford the rent, it was that the houses were destroyed or underwater...

Has the CDC listed starvation as one of the top killers of Americans in the country?  Because if half the families in the country can't afford to eat, they would certainly have to.   Have all our city and county budgets seen ballooning costs to bury all those starved-to-death Americans?  Because, surely, the rest of the family can't afford to bury them if they can't afford food or shelter...

And yet, none of that seems to be happening...

So, clearly, people appear to be able to afford shelter and can afford to eat.

It's clearly an issue all along the west coast.  I see it all over my town.  And did I mention that a large % of the students in my elementary school are considered homeless?  The definition of that is: homeless, on the street, in a car, in a shelter, or living with more than one family in a single home or apartment.

In addition, a very large % of our student body in the entire area are eligible for free and reduced price lunches.  So what does this mean?
- 70% of the elementary schools in our district, including ours, just give free lunch to ALL students
- 1 of our 4 junior high schools provide free lunch to all students
- all elementary schools provide free breakfast or morning snack
- the district has about 10 locations (schools, community centers, food trucks) where they provide free dinner to any child under 18. 
- They continue these free meals through the summer at a slightly reduced # of sites.
- A large number of families are regularly served through our food bank
- The homeless shelter is packed
- The Section 8 list is 8 years long
- Emergency shelters for families and single parents have a long waiting list
- Many people live in cars or vans or old motor homes.

You are incredibly lucky and sheltered if you haven't seen any of this with your own eyes.

[Slee_stack]

Living in Seattle, Hawaii, the Bay area, New York, and other high cost areas is a luxury and a choice, not a right.

Wow. You wanna go and tell that to all of those natives who have been living in Hawaii for thousands of years?

There is proof of settlements there as early as 124 AD. They were doing just fine with the cost of living and their own life until the U.S. government put Queen Lili'uoakalani under house arrest in 1898 and took over the government so they could keep their cheap sugar, then made Hawaii into a state in 1959.

So, you wanna tell the native population of Hawaii, who come from generations who have lived there for thousands of years - that they can't stay on their native soil because their home is now a "luxury" spot for rich people and so it's no longer their "right" to live there?

Truly a bummer that you feel personally guilty about this, but squatting on a piece of dirt, regardless of how recently or far back an ancestor may have been sitting there is still.....not a right.

Nothing against Hawaiians personally.  Any person, anywhere doesn't have any 'right' to any dirt.  You can pretend you have a right...but it may not end well for you.  Ask almost any person from any century ever.

If you choose to be part of a society...you have to follow the rules...even the ones you don't like.

If you can't accept that, I don't know what to suggest. 

Shit costs money.  Shit that is more attractive to more people costs even more money.

If you come up with a way to get people to pay MORE for shit they want LESS...you might have a solution.

[pecunia]

Slee-Stack:

If you choose to be part of a society...you have to follow the rules...even the ones you don't like.

Was there a choice?

Capitalism is so odd.  People living in tarps and in cars on the West Coast and the homes some of them left in Detroit get bulldozed.  This is the market making efficient choices again.

[AZDude]

Interesting article and reminded me of living in Southern California. Combined, we made about $70K and were struggling mightily to live a lifestyle something roughly halfway between badass Mustachian living in his van and a typical middle class person. So I can understand how someone could theoretically struggle on $85K a year.

That being said, we found a place we could have rented that would have been sustainable and allowed us to stay in SoCal, enjoy life, and save money. However, that place was a tiny little shithole and instead we made the conscious choice to move to a lower cost of living area.

[sol]

Capitalism is so odd.  People living in tarps and in cars on the West Coast and the homes some of them left in Detroit get bulldozed.  This is the market making efficient choices again.

America has had more vacant homes than homeless people for the past decade.  Most developed countries do. 

It's just a symptom of our structural income disparity, in which the wealthy compete to drive up home prices, and the unhealthy give up on the idea of keeping up.  Places like Seattle are prime examples, full of empty million dollar condos but packed with people sleeping under bridges.

[moof]

Rather amazing statistics.  1/2 of all American families can't afford rent and food!   Astounding.

Are the streets, empty lots, parks, etc. all filled with shanty towns?    Because if half the folks aren't able to rent, they would have to be.  And yet, in all my travels around the country, I've never seen an area where that appeared to be true - other than, say, when New Orleans got flooded out.  And even then the problem wasn't they couldn't afford the rent, it was that the houses were destroyed or underwater...

Has the CDC listed starvation as one of the top killers of Americans in the country?  Because if half the families in the country can't afford to eat, they would certainly have to.   Have all our city and county budgets seen ballooning costs to bury all those starved-to-death Americans?  Because, surely, the rest of the family can't afford to bury them if they can't afford food or shelter...

And yet, none of that seems to be happening...

So, clearly, people appear to be able to afford shelter and can afford to eat.

Actually, many people CANNOT afford to eat. They rely heavily on food banks, food stamps and free school lunches. It's pretty widely reported that 1 in 6 Americans faces hunger, many of them kids.

Many folks don't see the poverty.  If you have a decent job, there is a good chance you live in an area without overt poverty, even if there is plenty of hardship.  Many of the working poor put on a brave face and hide the anguish they suffer.  In places like the bay area there are many folks living with a dozen to a house to make rent, often with risk of getting kicked out if landlords find out.  Many others are not labeled as poor, but as "failure to launch" 20/30 somethings who have full time Joe jobs with no hope of ever being able to afford rent on their own.

The middle class dream is out of reach of many hard working people in this country.  Those people don't fit into one simple mold, and you will often not see them as obviously "poor" even if they are struggling to put food on their kid's plates.  Self labeling yourself "poor" is a deeply shameful thing for most, and many poor folks are in denial about their circumstances as well.

[sol]

The middle class dream is out of reach of many hard working people in this country.

"The middle class" dream is a (deliberately?) broad category, but one that I think is still achievable to "hard working people" who are industrious enough to relocate to where the work is.  Lots of our immigrants do it.

Part of the problem, though, that most Americans are not "hard working".  If you grew up in a suburban millennial household with two cars and a picket fence and a dog, you've probably never seen hard work.  You might be forgiven for thinking everyone deserves $28/hour to work in an air conditioned office, because that's the only type of job you've ever seen.  That's not hard work.

Hard work is done with a shovel and trowel, or on a dairy farm or meat packing plant or an orchard.  Hard work means you show up on time every day and then do more than 40 hours per week of actual work, not just being at work.  Hard work means your muscles are tired and you smell bad and you don't get to be home for your little one's bedtime.  And people who do this hard work can absolutely afford a middle class lifestyle.  They pay rent, and put gas in their vehicles, and have cable tv and joyous Christmas mornings.

Not everyone in America can do that.  Some of them are injured or disabled, and some are too addicted to something to pass the required drug tests and show up reliably.  Many more, though, are just honest suburban white kids who recoil in horror at the thought of hard work, and would rather eek out a shared living arrangement on a part time barista salary than admit they need to suffer to make a better future for themselves.

I'm not even picking on millenials here, they are not the ones at fault for this arrangement.  There are many roads to success and outdated employment models probably cause more harm than good.  I'm just pointing out that "hard work", while a viable path to the middle class, is not necessarily the panacea that many people seem to think it is.  It requires uprooting your family, abusing your body, accepting a certain level of poverty, and above all being fortunate enough to be physically able.

[DreamFIRE]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

[Jrr85]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

But the amount of SS/Medicare the single person, and especially a couple without kids, will dwarf the amount they put in, and the difference traditionally has been covered by younger workers, and the cost of raising those kids were borne by the parents.  So the current difference between what people have paid in and what they are expected to receive is something like $21 Trillion. 

[DreamFIRE]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

But the amount of SS/Medicare the single person, and especially a couple without kids, will dwarf the amount they put in, and the difference traditionally has been covered by younger workers, and the cost of raising those kids were borne by the parents.  So the current difference between what people have paid in and what they are expected to receive is something like $21 Trillion.

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

As for the unrelated topic on how to sustain SS without giving seniors and people within ten years of age 62 the shaft, that could be done easily if our legislators had the will to do so:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-fixed-social-security!/

Maybe we'll end up with Medicare for All, but I feel seniors are the most deserving after paying into it for a lifetime, so I don't want to see them given the shaft just so that poor people and their kids are further subsidized with yet another program:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/%27medicare-extra-for-all%27-would-mean-even-more-motivation-to-rothize/

[zippyc]

"So, it's fairly safe to assume that these people have made conscious choices to be in the situation they're in (or have been completely irresponsible and made major life decisions without thought or care). In either case, I have a hard time feeling bad for them. Two adults who can't find $40k/year averaged between them and yet decide to have multiple kids in an area that costs that much have made some bad decisions. Moving two counties away, where the pay isn't likely much lower for the types of positions someone making less than $40k/year would be taking, could reduce the needs of that 4 person family to a much more attainable ~$57k per year."

The biggest problem with Seattle is how fast it all happened. The internet has made it easy for hoards of people to learn about a cool place to be and swarm there very quickly. Seattle is not only receiving a huge insurgence of people with money that come in and drive up the prices (I heard that it's been growing by 1000 a week since 2010), but it's also been a target of high stakes real estate investing. Couple that with all the water and mountains and you have a huge problem housing anyone (rents are so high because demand far outweighs supply, so you better have perfect credit and a high income to even be considered) and moving them around (transportation). A 30 minute commute at midnight is easily 90 minutes at 8am.

Also Seattle has some of the most regressive taxes in the nation. The rich guys don't have to pay income tax, but those who are forced to drive 2 hours a day to and from work pay a huge gas tax.

We had a house there that was worth $540K in 2012. In 2017 we sold that house for over $1 million. Now, one year later it is estimated to be worth $100K more than we sold it for. That's very fast and if you've been dug in here your whole life, that's not a lot of time to make decisions about moving away from everything you've ever known to a lower cost of living area.

And for the guy who said it was a privilege to live in Seattle - don't be an ass! I'm a third generation Seattleite. I couldn't handle what was happening to my city, so I cashed in and moved. Then I convinced my mom to move and for the first time in 71 years, she left the area. You would truly tell her it's a privilege to live there? We lived there when the whole world had no idea where it even was on the map.

I know people with businesses that had to close after 20 plus years because the building was bought out and the rent was raised 400%. I know 60 year old hair dressers that had the rental they lived in sold and rent raised 4 times what they were paying. Yes, renting is a risk, but she lived there for 40 years with no change. She could walk to work and all of her friends lived in the neighborhood. Now they're all moving away and they are sailing into retirement without their community, support systems or friendships.

My point is, Seattle has changed at lightening speed after being a very slow moving city for its entire existence. People didn't have time to change game plans before they got caught in the cog. I'm happy to be out of there, but I was a fortunate one who had real estate to sell. What's really sad is all the really cool quirky people that made Seattle such a cool place are being pushed out and replaced with Mr I'vegotminewhat'syourproblem has moved in. Not sure what he's going to do once he's convinced all the mechanics and other service people to get out of his way....

[big_slacker]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

But the amount of SS/Medicare the single person, and especially a couple without kids, will dwarf the amount they put in, and the difference traditionally has been covered by younger workers, and the cost of raising those kids were borne by the parents.  So the current difference between what people have paid in and what they are expected to receive is something like $21 Trillion.

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

As for the unrelated topic on how to sustain SS without giving seniors and people within ten years of age 62 the shaft, that could be done easily if our legislators had the will to do so:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-fixed-social-security!/

Maybe we'll end up with Medicare for All, but I feel seniors are the most deserving after paying into it for a lifetime, so I don't want to see them given the shaft just so that poor people and their kids are further subsidized with yet another program:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/%27medicare-extra-for-all%27-would-mean-even-more-motivation-to-rothize/

While it's technically true that people without kids pay in part for education it's gradeschool level stuff to realize that many government provided services are good for society even if you don't 'use' them. Like, I've never had my house burn down but I'm happy we have fire departments. I've not driven on a 10th of the roads I 'pay for' but I'm happy they exist so maybe my plumber can get to the house if I need him. And I'm happy to pay for schools so we have halfway intelligent people that don't sacrifice goats on my lawn to the sun god, work at autozone instead of mugging me and so on.

You can argue about where to draw the line on social services, but hopefully we're not advocating for no public schools. If so I'll happily walk out of the thread and let you good folks have at it.

[zippyc]

Rather amazing statistics.  1/2 of all American families can't afford rent and food!   Astounding.

Are the streets, empty lots, parks, etc. all filled with shanty towns?    Because if half the folks aren't able to rent, they would have to be.  And yet, in all my travels around the country, I've never seen an area where that appeared to be true - other than, say, when New Orleans got flooded out.  And even then the problem wasn't they couldn't afford the rent, it was that the houses were destroyed or underwater...

Has the CDC listed starvation as one of the top killers of Americans in the country?  Because if half the families in the country can't afford to eat, they would certainly have to.   Have all our city and county budgets seen ballooning costs to bury all those starved-to-death Americans?  Because, surely, the rest of the family can't afford to bury them if they can't afford food or shelter...

And yet, none of that seems to be happening...

So, clearly, people appear to be able to afford shelter and can afford to eat.

It's clearly an issue all along the west coast.  I see it all over my town.  And did I mention that a large % of the students in my elementary school are considered homeless?  The definition of that is: homeless, on the street, in a car, in a shelter, or living with more than one family in a single home or apartment.

In addition, a very large % of our student body in the entire area are eligible for free and reduced price lunches.  So what does this mean?
- 70% of the elementary schools in our district, including ours, just give free lunch to ALL students
- 1 of our 4 junior high schools provide free lunch to all students
- all elementary schools provide free breakfast or morning snack
- the district has about 10 locations (schools, community centers, food trucks) where they provide free dinner to any child under 18. 
- They continue these free meals through the summer at a slightly reduced # of sites.
- A large number of families are regularly served through our food bank
- The homeless shelter is packed
- The Section 8 list is 8 years long
- Emergency shelters for families and single parents have a long waiting list
- Many people live in cars or vans or old motor homes.

You are incredibly lucky and sheltered if you haven't seen any of this with your own eyes.

And clearly the children living in these situations will make stellar decisions, get a great education, and be surrounded by positive influencers, so they can set themselves up for a smart and approved path in life.

[SwordGuy]

Rather amazing statistics.  1/2 of all American families can't afford rent and food!   Astounding.

Are the streets, empty lots, parks, etc. all filled with shanty towns?    Because if half the folks aren't able to rent, they would have to be.  And yet, in all my travels around the country, I've never seen an area where that appeared to be true - other than, say, when New Orleans got flooded out.  And even then the problem wasn't they couldn't afford the rent, it was that the houses were destroyed or underwater...

Has the CDC listed starvation as one of the top killers of Americans in the country?  Because if half the families in the country can't afford to eat, they would certainly have to.   Have all our city and county budgets seen ballooning costs to bury all those starved-to-death Americans?  Because, surely, the rest of the family can't afford to bury them if they can't afford food or shelter...

And yet, none of that seems to be happening...

So, clearly, people appear to be able to afford shelter and can afford to eat.

Actually, many people CANNOT afford to eat. They rely heavily on food banks, food stamps and free school lunches. It's pretty widely reported that 1 in 6 Americans faces hunger, many of them kids.

Last I heard, 1 in 6 is not the same as "half".   

No, I'm not being callous.

We have systemic inequalities in our society that need to be fixed.   Absolutely.

But when folks make up obviously false conclusions like this headline it totally destroys any credibility an honestly done study might achieve, which makes getting buy in from enough people to fix the problem really hard.

Plus, we can't fix the problem the right way if our plans are based on bogus studies.   We'll solve the wrong problem the wrong way and probably make the situation worse.

[TheWifeHalf]

This is the first time I looked at this thread, and of course, looked at numbers for my state, Ohio. I find it curious that the county I am in ranks 4th lowest in percent Alice and poverty in the state. This was from 2015, but is going through a change right now. Since the '70's, the nuclear power plant has employed 5000, and it's in the process of being shut down. Those are all well paying jobs, and I suspect a lot of those people will go elsewhere looking for work.

It's basically a rural area, with railroads and the lake making various jobs possible. Medical care, between Cleveland and Toledo, is only growing.
Interesting site.

[DreamFIRE]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

But the amount of SS/Medicare the single person, and especially a couple without kids, will dwarf the amount they put in, and the difference traditionally has been covered by younger workers, and the cost of raising those kids were borne by the parents.  So the current difference between what people have paid in and what they are expected to receive is something like $21 Trillion.

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

As for the unrelated topic on how to sustain SS without giving seniors and people within ten years of age 62 the shaft, that could be done easily if our legislators had the will to do so:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-fixed-social-security!/

Maybe we'll end up with Medicare for All, but I feel seniors are the most deserving after paying into it for a lifetime, so I don't want to see them given the shaft just so that poor people and their kids are further subsidized with yet another program:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/%27medicare-extra-for-all%27-would-mean-even-more-motivation-to-rothize/

While it's technically true that people without kids pay in part for education it's gradeschool level stuff to realize that many government provided services are good for society even if you don't 'use' them. Like, I've never had my house burn down but I'm happy we have fire departments. I've not driven on a 10th of the roads I 'pay for' but I'm happy they exist so maybe my plumber can get to the house if I need him. And I'm happy to pay for schools so we have halfway intelligent people that don't sacrifice goats on my lawn to the sun god, work at autozone instead of mugging me and so on.

You can argue about where to draw the line on social services, but hopefully we're not advocating for no public schools. If so I'll happily walk out of the thread and let you good folks have at it.

You will drive on some roads, and I'm sure you would like fire protection when your house starts to burn, so that's apples and oranges to what I'm talking about.  I'm saying that those without kids subsidize those that do have kids, it's not just by some chance that a house might catch on fire.  But since you mention it, I'm paying more for the fire protection and roads also because the person with the kids is getting a tax break.  So you don't mind paying for the roads and fire protection when you know I'll be paying more.  I'm paying higher taxes to support those because people with kids pay less.  That's the point.  I wasn't making a case about advocating for or against schools, only that people without kids are paying for much of the cost.  I think it would be better if those who have/had kids had a larger stake in paying for them without me having to do it and that people with kids weren't getting tax breaks for their personal decisions.  If I wanted to pay for kids, I would have had my own.  It's a pretty simple concept really.

[calimom]

The median income of King County is $10K less than their "survivability" number. I love data, and I love that the United Way is collecting data in order to address issues of inequality. "Survive" is a well-chosen word aimed at driving attention (and probably donation dollars) to the United Way though. I wish that CNNMoney didn't just take this stuff and run with it before adding value though. Come on Tami!!

The good news for King County residents, is that their eligibility requirements for subsidized housing are pretty generous¹. The bad news is that there is a shortage of subsidized housing and they have to rely on waitlisting and lotteries.

If I was struggling in King County, I'd consider a move, or a commute from a neighboring county. Easier said than done of course.

¹https://www.kcha.org/housing/subsidized/eligibility/

There are lots of factors why people stay in one place with a low-paying job in a HCOL area and no or minimal job opportunities in a LCOL area. "Just moving" isn't always an option when people are entrenched in a location with family ties. In a perfect world, our HCOL areas would do better at providing more housing options and our LCOL areas in attracting new industries. Coal is probably not "coming back" to Kentucky; could our leaders be more innovative on green energy manufacturing jobs? In our current political climate, probably not.

[PoutineLover]

It's good for society to subsidize having children, because how else will you grow your tax base and increase the productivity of your nation? Look at Japan for why having too many old people isn't great for society. Once people have those kids, it's in the public interest to turn them into educated, productive adults. You don't want to live in a world full of feral children when only the rich can afford to put them in school. Plus, you probably went to school as a child, no? Consider taxes your 'pay it forward'.

[Jrr85]

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I don't see the sarcasm with that.  It's true.  So often, I see a story about a struggling "family" where the earner of the family is advocating for a $15/hr minimum wage and making statements like, "I have 3 kids and another on the way."

Hello, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't be having them.  Maybe then you wouldn't be struggling so much.

I am working very hard not to take this personally. I'm one of those damn poor people, you see. Had kids, then things became tough.

I'm not talking about the people who could afford it at the time they had kids.

Telling people not to breed is neither realistic nor does it encompass the whole picture, regardless of some carefully crafted sound bite or highly edited quote designed to elicit a specific reaction in the viewer/reader.

I'm not telling someone not to breed, but I don't feel sorry for someone making bad decisions putting themselves in that situation of having kids when they can't afford them.  Kids are already highly subsidized by other taxpayers through tax credits and schools.

That doesn't sound right, unless you are ignoring the massive welfare systems we have that  are dependent on younger taxpayers to pilfer.

It's right, it's just not all inclusive.  Sure, children are subsidized even further by the massive welfare system, such as EIC, but the point is that they are already subsidized by my tax dollars, even though I don't have and never had kids.  I don't feel like doing the the math now, but a household with a $60K income occupied by a single person pays far more in taxes than a household with a $60K income occupied by a married couple with two kids.

But the amount of SS/Medicare the single person, and especially a couple without kids, will dwarf the amount they put in, and the difference traditionally has been covered by younger workers, and the cost of raising those kids were borne by the parents.  So the current difference between what people have paid in and what they are expected to receive is something like $21 Trillion.

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

As for the unrelated topic on how to sustain SS without giving seniors and people within ten years of age 62 the shaft, that could be done easily if our legislators had the will to do so:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/i-fixed-social-security!/

Maybe we'll end up with Medicare for All, but I feel seniors are the most deserving after paying into it for a lifetime, so I don't want to see them given the shaft just so that poor people and their kids are further subsidized with yet another program:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/%27medicare-extra-for-all%27-would-mean-even-more-motivation-to-rothize/

Sure, it has nothing to do with social security or Medicare if you want to ignore the biggest subsidy that goes from parents to non parents.

And the 'fixes' to social security, even if they were implemented, wouldl do nothhing to change the fact that recipients will be receiving money taken from younger workers, and for recipients who did not bear the.birden of raising any kids that fund social security and Medicare, that's a massive subsidy from those who did.

[Paul der Krake]

And for the guy who said it was a privilege to live in Seattle - don't be an ass! I'm a third generation Seattleite. I couldn't handle what was happening to my city, so I cashed in and moved. Then I convinced my mom to move and for the first time in 71 years, she left the area. You would truly tell her it's a privilege to live there? We lived there when the whole world had no idea where it even was on the map.

So what? You saw your city turn from a sleepy regional hub to a bright metropolis known and envied the world over. This isn't the first city this has happened to, nor will it be the last.

What do you hope to convey when you proudly announce that your family was here first? That you should be getting preferential treatment? That you knew all along how great this area was and you are part of the reason it is so in demand today?

Think long and hard about the implications of allowing a two-tier system to determine who gets to live where based on the accident of birth. Whether you're a third generation Seattleite, a native Hawaiian on Maui, or a direct descendant from Alexander fucking Hamilton in Manhattan, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. The current rules state that when something is scarce, we use money to determine who wants it more. Not feelings, not bloodline, but cold hard cash. It's not perfect, but it beats the alternatives.

Side note: I've been priced out before, and no doubt will be again. One of my childhood homes now rents for 12,000 dollars a month, and a shoebox studio in that area would run me 2k. Regardless of how connected I may feel to that place, I will never be able to afford to raise a family there. That is fine.

[pecunia]

The WifeHalf:

Since the '70's, the nuclear power plant has employed 5000, and it's in the process of being shut down. Those are all well paying jobs, and I suspect a lot of those people will go elsewhere looking for work.

Cedar Point is booming.  Might be a few jobs there.  Dumb to shut Davis Besse down.  Pollution free energy and good domestic jobs.

ZippyC:

My point is, Seattle has changed at lightening speed after being a very slow moving city for its entire existence. People didn't have time to change game plans before they got caught in the cog.

How far does this housing bubble reach?  I remember traveling through the Olympic  Peninsula a few years back and the area did not appear gentrified.

[sol]

How far does this housing bubble reach?  I remember traveling through the Olympic  Peninsula a few years back and the area did not appear gentrified.

About an hour north and south on the freeway.  Less, if you go east.

[Nicholas Carter]

Hard work is done with a shovel and trowel, or on a dairy farm or meat packing plant or an orchard.  Hard work means you show up on time every day and then do more than 40 hours per week of actual work, not just being at work.  Hard work means your muscles are tired and you smell bad and you don't get to be home for your little one's bedtime.  And people who do this hard work can absolutely afford a middle class lifestyle.  They pay rent, and put gas in their vehicles, and have cable tv and joyous Christmas mornings.

I dunno. I'm getting paid a lot more now to work in an office than anyone in my family ever got paid to do real work. Maybe I'm rich, but it doesn't seem like it compared to the people on this forum.

[Jrr85]

Hard work is done with a shovel and trowel, or on a dairy farm or meat packing plant or an orchard.  Hard work means you show up on time every day and then do more than 40 hours per week of actual work, not just being at work.  Hard work means your muscles are tired and you smell bad and you don't get to be home for your little one's bedtime.  And people who do this hard work can absolutely afford a middle class lifestyle.  They pay rent, and put gas in their vehicles, and have cable tv and joyous Christmas mornings.

I dunno. I'm getting paid a lot more now to work in an office than anyone in my family ever got paid to do real work. Maybe I'm rich, but it doesn't seem like it compared to the people on this forum.

Yea, that doesn't match with what I see either.  There are a lot of skilled and semi-skilled people doing hard work that do well.  But lots of people doing hard work just get by, or maybe they do ok and make $20 an hour, but that's still a wage that a lot of people in white collar work complain about. 

[mm1970]

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

God the complaining about schools makes me roll my eyes.

You are paying back society for your own fucking public education.

Social security is a HUGE factor.  If everyone stopped having kids and there were no new workers to pay your SS when you retire?  Guess what, you'll get a crap ton less, if any at all.  In fact research has shown that the biggest "squeeze" (fewest # of workers paying for the SS of the largest # of retirees) will happen ... oh in about 20 years, right when my spouse and I hit SS age.

[sol]

In fact research has shown that the biggest "squeeze" (fewest # of workers paying for the SS of the largest # of retirees) will happen ... oh in about 20 years, right when my spouse and I hit SS age.

If you had two kids or less, then you'll get more out of social security than you're putting back in.  Childless people are ruining SS!

[TheWifeHalf]

The WifeHalf:

Since the '70's, the nuclear power plant has employed 5000, and it's in the process of being shut down. Those are all well paying jobs, and I suspect a lot of those people will go elsewhere looking for work.

Cedar Point is booming.  Might be a few jobs there.  Dumb to shut Davis Besse down.  Pollution free energy and good domestic jobs.

Every year CP hires many, but those are seasonal jobs, and most are not what I would consider 'high paying.' Many are jobs in which the employee lives at CP, great for singles in their early 20's.

The nuclear plants are being shut down because it's cheaper to make electricity other ways. They're building a big plant, out by where TheHusbandHalf works,  that makes electricity (sorry, don't know the word) that's using natural gas, probably from all the fracking done in eastern Ohio. It's just cheaper to make electricity that way. It's a half hour away from the nuclear power plant, I hope many will find jobs at the new plant.

[pecunia]

Wife half:

The nuclear plants are being shut down because it's cheaper to make electricity other ways. They're building a big plant, out by where TheHusbandHalf works,  that makes electricity (sorry, don't know the word) that's using natural gas, probably from all the fracking done in eastern Ohio. It's just cheaper to make electricity that way. It's a half hour away from the nuclear power plant, I hope many will find jobs at the new plant.

The new plant may be a combined cycle natural gas plant.  One reason these plants are cheaper is that they have less employees.  Whereas Davis Besse may have had 1,000 people working at it, a combined cycle may only need 50.   First Energy is closing all three of their nuke plants so other small towns will have less good employment.

It's too bad - Natural gas will eventually go back up in price and you would think they could start the nukes back up at that time but the rules state that once they shut the nukes down it's for keeps.

[chloes1]

Exactly!  Having been in that situation my concerns were about how to fill my stomach and still have someplace sheltered to sleep.  Tomorrow would just have to take care of itself because my focus was on getting through today.

My divorce put me in that terrible spot.  Once I was approved for SSDI life got better, but in some ways I still struggle to think past the now...

Those damn poor people, why don't they get better jobs/move/not breed?  /sarcasm

I'm on the other half of the state. Plenty of lower income adults and families try to move here to take advantage of the lower COL but all the same amenities that a city can offer. Unfortunately, we don't have jobs for them and even our basic infrastructure isn't up to our rapidly rising population. Hell, we don't even have housing because we are going through a housing shortage. There isn't much beyond the I-5 corridor either, since between Spokane and the west side is primarily smaller farming communities (with the exception of Pasco/Tri-cities, which is undergoing a similar situation as Spokane). Explosive growth in our area means in another 10 years we will be having similar cost increase issues as those living along the coast. I fully believe a large population can't afford basics. There are tent cities stretching across the state of WA and down into Oregon. Even well outside city limits around here it isn't unheard of to stumble across a tent city of homeless individuals and families. It would be an epidemic if we weren't so programmed to ignore it...

Yes, for some families there is poor decision making, but often options themselves are a farce. When one is desperate, truly desperate, then there is only short term decision making -- what puts food in the belly NOW? What gives my kids shelter NOW? What makes life worth living NOW? One can't look at decisions with the longterm in mind, because if you don't do something NOW then there is no TOMORROW. Dropping out of school to take extra hours at a crappy job? Yay, I get to keep my place and eat! Sure, I'll then only be qualified for this low paying crappy job forever, but whatever. When people are struggling to make ends meet, their fight or flight response is triggered. Great for short term problem solving, not so great for longterm planning. Not uncommon to escape the problem of not eating today and run right into the problem of no housing tomorrow when one is stuck in this negative feedback loop.

[Arbitrage]

It's good for society to subsidize having children, because how else will you grow your tax base and increase the productivity of your nation? Look at Japan for why having too many old people isn't great for society. Once people have those kids, it's in the public interest to turn them into educated, productive adults. You don't want to live in a world full of feral children when only the rich can afford to put them in school. Plus, you probably went to school as a child, no? Consider taxes your 'pay it forward'.

Pretty much.  Yes, having kids is subsidized by the government.  That's completely rational.  It's in a government's best interest to encourage their citizens to have children, so the country to continue to prosper and grow.  It's also in a government's interest to have a well-educated, productive populace.  Complaining about a government doing what is necessary for the country to continue to exist is pretty nonsensical IMO.

[Cassie]

Yes we all pay for things we don't use. It is for the common good.  I never mind paying taxes or for things I don't use.  In the long run everyone benefits.

[simonsez]

You will drive on some roads, and I'm sure you would like fire protection when your house starts to burn, so that's apples and oranges to what I'm talking about.  I'm saying that those without kids subsidize those that do have kids, it's not just by some chance that a house might catch on fire.  But since you mention it, I'm paying more for the fire protection and roads also because the person with the kids is getting a tax break.  So you don't mind paying for the roads and fire protection when you know I'll be paying more.  I'm paying higher taxes to support those because people with kids pay less.  That's the point.  I wasn't making a case about advocating for or against schools, only that people without kids are paying for much of the cost.  I think it would be better if those who have/had kids had a larger stake in paying for them without me having to do it and that people with kids weren't getting tax breaks for their personal decisions.  If I wanted to pay for kids, I would have had my own.  It's a pretty simple concept really.

Try comparing after-tax or disposable income rather than total income.  Total income can be pretty misleading, the net is more relevant.

There are bare bones expenses for each human baked into the tax code (at least there were until personal exemptions morphed into something a little less direct).  One person making the same as a household of 4 has much more disposable income.  If you have more disposable income relative to another individual or household, you will have higher taxes.  Pretty simple concept.

[sol]

There's a pretty simple reason why rich people pay more in taxes than do poor people:  they're the only ones who can afford it.

It's the same reason wealthy corporations get charged for pollution cleanup and bankrupt corporations don't.  It's the reason celebrities get sued for sexual harassment that burger flippers get away with.  It's the reason the US military deploys all over the world and no one else bothers.  If these things are going to get paid for, they have to be paid for by someone with resources. 

There's no point in suing the burger flipper because he has no money, and there's point in taxing the poor because they don't have enough money to run a country.  If America has made you successful and prosperous, you will be asked to pay more than your fair share.  And all of those folks that America failed will pay basically nothing, because they have basically nothing.

I'm not even upset about this inequality.  I see no better way.  It always baffles me when people who have profited from American investment (in infrastructure, public education of the workforce, criminal protections, stable markets, etc.) suddenly decide they don't owe anyone anything and want to keep all of their money, instead of repaying all of that investment that made them rich.

[DreamFIRE]

You will drive on some roads, and I'm sure you would like fire protection when your house starts to burn, so that's apples and oranges to what I'm talking about.  I'm saying that those without kids subsidize those that do have kids, it's not just by some chance that a house might catch on fire.  But since you mention it, I'm paying more for the fire protection and roads also because the person with the kids is getting a tax break.  So you don't mind paying for the roads and fire protection when you know I'll be paying more.  I'm paying higher taxes to support those because people with kids pay less.  That's the point.  I wasn't making a case about advocating for or against schools, only that people without kids are paying for much of the cost.  I think it would be better if those who have/had kids had a larger stake in paying for them without me having to do it and that people with kids weren't getting tax breaks for their personal decisions.  If I wanted to pay for kids, I would have had my own.  It's a pretty simple concept really.

Try comparing after-tax or disposable income rather than total income.  Total income can be pretty misleading, the net is more relevant.

Disposable income is after taxes, and if we're talking about tax rates being higher for individuals, then you need to use the figure that is used to figure your taxes, which is your AGI, NOT your disposable income.

One person making the same as a household of 4 has much more disposable income.

That is false.  A single person household making the same AGI as a household of 4 (married couple with 2 kids) has less disposable income.  Here are some figures I calculated with the Dinkytown 2018 tax calculator using a simple comparison:

Household income of single woman with no kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $8700
Disposable income $61300

Household income or married couple with 2 kids $70,000
Total federal income tax $1139
Disposable income $68861

The single woman household pays over 7 1/2 times as much tax in this example.  She is subsidizing the family with kids by paying many more times in taxes despite the family utilizing far more $ in public resources.

The married couple with 2 kids has $7561 more disposable income than the single woman.  That's right, $68861 is more than $61300.  Check the batteries in your calculator.

If you have more disposable income relative to another individual or household, you will have higher taxes.  Pretty simple concept.

No, you don't pay income taxes on disposable income, you pay it on AGI.  Disposable income is the result "after" income taxes.  Indeed it's simple, but you need to run your calculations with the correct income figure for what is used for calculating taxes, which is the AGI.  That's what I did in the example above to show total federal income tax and disposable income.

Hopefully that clarifies it for some others as well who missed the point I was making.

[DreamFIRE]

There's a pretty simple reason why rich people pay more in taxes than do poor people:  they're the only ones who can afford it.

Yes, I agree that wealthier people should pay more and that households with the same income should pay the same income tax as each other.

[kenmoremmm]

seattle tent cities:
https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+tent+city&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih65T5tprbAhUCBjQIHVMNA7UQ_AUICygC&biw=821&bih=448

from what i have seen, most of the folks living out there do so because of lifestyle choice. they like the community. they like to spit in the face of rules and regulations. they are unchecked and cannot be touched by the police, city, or anyone else. the seattle city counsel bends over backwards for them.

seattle had its heyday. it was called the 80s. low cost. best summers on the planet. best mountains in the lower 48. no traffic. low costs. good communities. all gone.

[DreamFIRE]

I'm talking about singles/couples without kids paying higher taxes, paying for schools for other people's kids, paying for the EIC of low income families with kids, etc.   So I'm paying to raise kids that aren't mine - hence the subsidizing comment.  This has nothing to do with social security.  That's a flat rate based on income, and it doesn't matter how many kids you have, it doesn't change the payroll tax rate.

God the complaining about schools makes me roll my eyes.

You are paying back society for your own fucking public education.

Actually, taxes aren't based on whether you went to "fucking public" schools.  It's not a pay-back.  You're taxed on your income, regardless of whether or not you have a public education.  The funds we pay today are to keep the schools running today, which I have not opposed.  I specifically stated a few posts back, "I wasn't making a case about advocating for or against schools, only that people without kids are paying for much of the cost."

Social security is a HUGE factor.  If everyone stopped having kids and there were no new workers to pay your SS when you retire?  Guess what, you'll get a crap ton less, if any at all.

But guess what else?  I never proposed that people stop having kids.  I bet that most people would still have kids even if the tax system was more fair in taxing all households based on total household AGI rather than child tax credits and such.  The vast majority of people don't even understand the basics of the tax code.  You're jumping to the conclusion that "everyone stops having kids" simply due to not getting a advantage.  I don't think it's ever going to change regarding the benefits for married couples with kids, but this discussion evolved from some earlier comments in this thread, and based on some of the feedback, I can see that some didn't get the point and made false assumptions, so I've tried to clarify that.

In fact research has shown that the biggest "squeeze" (fewest # of workers paying for the SS of the largest # of retirees) will happen ... oh in about 20 years, right when my spouse and I hit SS age.

I'm looking at 16 years to SS myself.  Someone mentioned that they didn't mind paying taxes for this or that.  And I definitely would support higher payroll taxes and lifting the cap to help shore up Medicare and Social Security.

[DreamFIRE]

Yes we all pay for things we don't use. It is for the common good.  I never mind paying taxes or for things I don't use.  In the long run everyone benefits.

Oh yeah, I'm all for paying my fair share and that wealthier people should pay more.  I hope I did not imply otherwise.