300k net worth at 32 - good?

BigDawg69 wrote:

Wondering how you are saving 10k a month if u were bitchin about not being able to make 100k two years ago. Especially given that a 10k a month savings requires one to make atleast 200k, and only if that person is capable of living off 1.5k a month (poverty level).

You might want to check your math....

200k - (10k x 12 months) = 80k.

If you make 200k, you are likely paying 30-40k per year in taxes. Which means that you are living off of 40-50k per year which is no where near the poverty level.

Taxman wrote:

How did you guys get this point at such a young age? Photography pay that well? Never spend a dime on anything? I ask because I feel like I'm very frugal and I budget everything and make $50k (straight outta college) yet I'm never going to hit anything above a $200k by 30

Most people like the OP have never actually worked, just received weatlh transfers from their family in the form on inhertance or house etc.

At 32 I had a negative net worth, mostly because at that point I was just moving from my PhD to a postdoc.

That's beyond excellent but the $50K in crpyto is questionable. A lot of black market activity going on in the crypto market these days..

This is absurd. Many many people have acquired reasonable wealth in their early 30s simply by living frugally, avoiding consumer debt and entering high paying professions.

I have never inherited any money, houses etc. and have managed to save and invest extensively over the last decade while also paying off our school loans. There is nothing magic about this stuff.

truth hertz wrote:

At 32 I had a negative net worth, mostly because at that point I was just moving from my PhD to a postdoc.

I also had a negative net worth until I was 34. (Paying off college loan after finishing the grad school.) But that graduate degree allowed me to pursue the career I really wanted. So instead of investing in my retirement account, I invested in myself.

Two decades later, I have 600k in my retirement account and my house is fully paid. I could comfortably retire at 65 if I want to, but I enjoy my job so I may decide to work a little longer.

Mr.Man wrote:

BigDawg69 wrote:

Wondering how you are saving 10k a month if u were bitchin about not being able to make 100k two years ago. Especially given that a 10k a month savings requires one to make atleast 200k, and only if that person is capable of living off 1.5k a month (poverty level).

You might want to check your math....

200k - (10k x 12 months) = 80k.

If you make 200k, you are likely paying 30-40k per year in taxes. Which means that you are living off of 40-50k per year which is no where near the poverty level.

Please let me know how i can pay a 15-20% effective tax rate while earning 200k as single adult in Seattle.

Thank you!

Estimated at a 60k tax burden leaving you at 20k left over after saving your 120k.

Might want to check your math BUDDY!!!!1!

highhoppingworm wrote:

This is absurd. Many many people have acquired reasonable wealth in their early 30s simply by living frugally, avoiding consumer debt and entering high paying professions.

I have never inherited any money, houses etc. and have managed to save and invest extensively over the last decade while also paying off our school loans. There is nothing magic about this stuff.

You also need to keep in mind that those in their early 30s started investing at the bottom of stock market. If you had graduated from college a decade earlier, you would have had an entirely different experience in the first decade of your investment. This is totally random chance.

While I did receive a medium inheritance ~10 years later, my wife and I had a goal of $100k savings (not including retirement, roth) before we had our first kid at 30. We met that goal, paid off the house ~5 years later, and now around 40 we're worth about 1.5m (1m if you take away the house).

We did this while earnings went from ~120k to ~300k over that timespan in a high COL area. Just meant we had to live frugally (speaking to pre-ten years ago and early in that 10 year ago window - I realize that now we do not need to live frugally with our income) and not waste money like our friends and family did. They think we're poor, it's funny listening to their comments about 'when will you be buying a new [they mean bigger/nicer] house', etc.

BigDawg69 wrote:

Please let me know how i can pay a 15-20% effective tax rate while earning 200k as single adult in Seattle.

Thank you!

Who said anything about either making $200k/yr or paying a 15% tax rate or living in Seattle?

First of all, if you made $200k/yr, that should be $170k of taxable annual income if you max out your 401K and HSA contribution.

Taxed at a 24% federal rate (there is no income tax in WA state, although many liberals want there to be one), leaving you with $127,249 take-home pay.

Let's say your employer matches your 401K contribution 50%. Add $9,750 to the $127,249, get

$136,999.

Let's say your employer matches your HSA contribution 100%. Add $3,500 to $139,999, get $143,499.

Now say your employer has an ESPP which allows you to spend up to 15% of your take-home pay to buy company stock at a 10% discount (automatic 11% profit). Add $2,099 to $143,499, get $145,498.

We're at $145,498 of savable money over 1 year.

Totally agree. That said, I would have preferred to graduate a decade earlier (currently 34) so that I could have taken advantage of this bull market with a higher salary (and the subsequent higher post tax account contributions).

So how much you making jamin? And which basement are you living in?

OP, Youre probably one of those guys who brags to literally everyone about his money. For the record,(so you dont dismiss me as another broke loser) i have a good amount of savings myself but i dont feel the need to tell everyone that fact. Any man that always uses money to cope with their insecirities is a weak man. If their money was gone, they would have nothing to stand on. A lot of people also lie about money or pretend thwy live lavishly. They are the ones leasing, taking out mortgages and bank loans to pay for everything. Line of credit assets are pathetically putrid. Dont call it yours until youve paid it off!!!

Not really

Flagpole wrote:

You should be sure to:

1) Not include any depreciating asset in that, like a car.

Why?

If it's an asset it's an asset.

You can sell the car and get money for it.

If your point is that the worth will change over time, everything will change over time.

Part of the net worth are debts that will go down over time, increasing the net worth.

Net worth is a snap shot at a moment in time.

It's not a projection.

You are indeed right. People get really bent out of shape about this stuff. Net worth is literally a calculation of all of your assets minus all of your liabilities. Not including depreciating assets is literally violating the the definition of net worth.

That said, it becomes impractical at some point to include ALL of your assets. For that reason, it oftentimes makes sense to really only evaluate assets that you have a high probability of becoming liquid at some point. Typically depreciating assets depreciate because of use and therefore people, more often than not, use them until they are not worth much. In this sense I agree with the sentiment Flagpole expressed. If the point of tracking your NW is to better understand when you can retire it probably only makes sense to look at income generating assets in that calculation. Anything else either doesn't matter or simply offsets expense and will result in a lower necessary NW to support your lifestyle.

highhoppingworm wrote:

Many many people have acquired reasonable wealth in their early 30s simply by living frugally, avoiding consumer debt and entering high paying professions.

I have never inherited any money, houses etc. and have managed to save and invest extensively over the last decade while also paying off our school loans. There is nothing magic about this stuff.

Let's see.

To the OP: You're 32. If you didn't graduate university with student debt, then probably you have forgotten to mention some help from mommy and daddy, but let's just pretend you had a full-ride scholarship and were not in the red at 22.

300k / 10 years is 30k per year. What have you been doing for work that left you with 20-30k to spare every year since 22?

you should give up on life if you believe this wrote:

While I did receive a medium inheritance

As I thought.

How much is a "medium inheritance" to someone debating if 1M is enough net worth in his 30s?

I’m kind of ignoring the OP at this point.

You seem to believe that being on stable financial footing in ones 30s is somehow irregular with extensive help from ones parents. While my experiences, network etc. is obviously biased my experience is that having some assets to speak of by 30-35 is not particularly abnormal. It simply requires some discipline.