I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year. The effective federal rate on the first 80k is around 20%. The CA rate should be 9-10%. Maybe another 5% for soc sec. But I also made a very generous assumption re: apartment spend. I think my point stands.

> I don't think it'll be 40% for someone making 80k per year.

It won't.

At 2013 rates, on $80k of total income for an individual ($73,900 in income subject to income tax with the $6,100 standard deduction, but no other deductions/credits):

  Effective federal income tax on total income: 18.0%
  Effective CA income tax rate on total income: 5.72%
  SS+Medicare: 7.65%
  California State Disability Insurance tax: 1.00%
  Total effective income and payroll tax rate: 32.4%

No, it doesn't still stand. You just adjusted from your initial 20% up to 35%, which essentially eliminates most of the 'savings' money you mentioned in your post. Also, the apartment assumption isn't that generous. If you want to live in SF by yourself, that's what you will pay for a decent apt.

> If you want to live in SF by yourself

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money. My mistake.

That doesn't even make sense. If someone is making the bare minimum effort, then they would probably live by themselves. Are you sure you thought that message through?

No, if you live by yourself in SF, you are not making any realistic effort to save money, because you have not attempted to optimize your largest expense.

OK, I'm done talking about this shifted scenario from what we started talking about. When you want to talk about how hard it is to save money in SF if you actually make any serious effort, I'm happy to resume.

Read your own message. You said you said the following:

>I thought we were talking about someone who is making the bare minimum effort to save money

Do you know what the bare minimum effort means? You are the one suggesting bare minimum effort now.

Living on your own is making zero effort. "Minimum effort" as a mathematical expression could even be negative (i.e. actively trying to rid yourself of money), but as a colloquialism typically means "appreciable," "reasonable," or "realistic." If you're not a native speaker, I can see how that might have confused you. If you are, then you're just being difficult.

You literally said the exact opposite of the point you were implying throughout the rest of the discussion. We were talking about ways to live cheaply. Then YOU were the one that changed positions and said we were talking about someone making the minimum effort to save money, which as you rightly pointed out could mean someone not saving money at all. What is the point of discussing someone who doesn't save in a thread about saving money?

A native English speaker would not make the mistake of using a colloquialism that means the opposite of the literal definition when the very disagreement is about the effort it takes to save money. You can live by yourself in the bay area and still save money. Remember, you were the one that quoted $2k/mo for rent.

This native English speaker believes there was absolutely nothing wrong with anything he said, and that you have been deliberately obtuse.

Well your anecdotal evidence really helps. The point is that what he said means two exactly opposite things depending on how reasonable you think it is to live by yourself.

No, they would have at least one roommate. Not bothering to find a roommate is the zero-effort case.

What? It's much, much cheaper to live with other people than by oneself.