160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby thesealocust » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:20 pm

sumner wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
sumner wrote:K-JD 2L here- i was reading through the thread and noticed people were accounting for 5k a year into an IRA. just for my own education, is that really necessary? does a 26 year-old need to be dumping 5k into his IRA per year?

Are you asking whether you should be putting money into an IRA instead of paying down loans? Or are you asking whether you should be saving at all?

If it's the first question, there are arguments going both ways and either is justified. If it's the second, yes, saving is good. IRAs just give you tax advantages not available in traditional savings accounts.


yeah this is independent of any debt questions. I know I'm one of the few 23 year olds with an IRA I just wasn't planning on putting that much money in it per year at this point in my life. I figured it would be more prudent to put that money in a savings account for a down payment or a wedding.

It just seemed like a lot so I was wondering if that was the norm.


You can withdraw the principal from a [roth] IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use a [roth] IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.
Last edited by thesealocust on Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:24 pm

thesealocust wrote:
sumner wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
sumner wrote:K-JD 2L here- i was reading through the thread and noticed people were accounting for 5k a year into an IRA. just for my own education, is that really necessary? does a 26 year-old need to be dumping 5k into his IRA per year?

Are you asking whether you should be putting money into an IRA instead of paying down loans? Or are you asking whether you should be saving at all?

If it's the first question, there are arguments going both ways and either is justified. If it's the second, yes, saving is good. IRAs just give you tax advantages not available in traditional savings accounts.


yeah this is independent of any debt questions. I know I'm one of the few 23 year olds with an IRA I just wasn't planning on putting that much money in it per year at this point in my life. I figured it would be more prudent to put that money in a savings account for a down payment or a wedding.

It just seemed like a lot so I was wondering if that was the norm.


You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.


if serious, curious how much you'll be worth at that point (through BigLaw I assume)

Also how much liquid? I mean having a couple mil in real estate is great but still tough to live like a retired king when you're spending all your rent checks on mortgage payments just building equity

anon because similar aspirations, decent worth right now but dont want to out my financial situation

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby guano » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:
sumner wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
yeah this is independent of any debt questions. I know I'm one of the few 23 year olds with an IRA I just wasn't planning on putting that much money in it per year at this point in my life. I figured it would be more prudent to put that money in a savings account for a down payment or a wedding.

It just seemed like a lot so I was wondering if that was the norm.


You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.


if serious, curious how much you'll be worth at that point (through BigLaw I assume)

Also how much liquid? I mean having a couple mil in real estate is great but still tough to live like a retired king when you're spending all your rent checks on mortgage payments just building equity

anon because similar aspirations, decent worth right now but dont want to out my financial situation

When you have no earned income you should not have a mortgage. (Unless for tax/leverage purposes)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:45 pm

thesealocust wrote:
sumner wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
sumner wrote:K-JD 2L here- i was reading through the thread and noticed people were accounting for 5k a year into an IRA. just for my own education, is that really necessary? does a 26 year-old need to be dumping 5k into his IRA per year?

Are you asking whether you should be putting money into an IRA instead of paying down loans? Or are you asking whether you should be saving at all?

If it's the first question, there are arguments going both ways and either is justified. If it's the second, yes, saving is good. IRAs just give you tax advantages not available in traditional savings accounts.


yeah this is independent of any debt questions. I know I'm one of the few 23 year olds with an IRA I just wasn't planning on putting that much money in it per year at this point in my life. I figured it would be more prudent to put that money in a savings account for a down payment or a wedding.

It just seemed like a lot so I was wondering if that was the norm.


You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.



This is not true
http://www.irs.gov/uac/What-if-I-withdr ... -my-IRA%3F

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15476
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.



This is not true
http://www.irs.gov/uac/What-if-I-withdr ... -my-IRA%3F

Pretty sure he meant Roth IRA.

horseradish
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby horseradish » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:02 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.



This is not true
http://www.irs.gov/uac/What-if-I-withdr ... -my-IRA%3F

Pretty sure he meant Roth IRA.


Did not mean to be anon before. But its not true for a Roth either.

https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-pla ... withdrawal

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15476
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:11 pm

horseradish wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.



This is not true
http://www.irs.gov/uac/What-if-I-withdr ... -my-IRA%3F

Pretty sure he meant Roth IRA.


Did not mean to be anon before. But its not true for a Roth either.

https://www.fidelity.com/retirement-pla ... withdrawal

It's 100% true. Your own link points this out:

"For Roth IRAs, you can always remove post-tax penalty contributions (also known as “basis”) from your Roth IRA without penalty. "

What it doesn't mention is that this "basis" comes out first, but it does.

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retire ... rules.html

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:23 pm

isnt it 170 after taxes. as in, cant you count on a 10g bonus?

also this is obvious but must be pointed out, by year 2 you will have an extra 10k and by years 3 and extra 25k, which means that even if you have to have a roommate for a year as someone lol'd at , by year 2 the extra money can get you your own place, or you an pay off more debt

edit: i didnt mean to respond anon, and dont know how to/ too busy to change it

horseradish
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby horseradish » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:26 pm

Tiago, i stand corrected. Good to know.

User avatar
wiz
Posts: 28884
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:25 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby wiz » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:isnt it 170 after taxes. as in, cant you count on a 10g bonus?

also this is obvious but must be pointed out, by year 2 you will have an extra 10k and by years 3 and extra 25k, which means that even if you have to have a roommate for a year as someone lol'd at , by year 2 the extra money can get you your own place, or you an pay off more debt

edit: i didnt mean to respond anon, and dont know how to/ too busy to change it


I think you mean before taxes, but yeah, last year's market bonus was 10k for year 1.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby thesealocust » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:isnt it 170 after taxes. as in, cant you count on a 10g bonus?

also this is obvious but must be pointed out, by year 2 you will have an extra 10k and by years 3 and extra 25k, which means that even if you have to have a roommate for a year as someone lol'd at , by year 2 the extra money can get you your own place, or you an pay off more debt

edit: i didnt mean to respond anon, and dont know how to/ too busy to change it


Bonuses are discretionary. When I applied to law school, market bonuses were $35,000 for 1st years and sometimes firms paid spring bonuses. At the height of the crisis, they fell as low as $2,500.

Also, ATL coverage of bonuses makes things look much more uniform than they are. The biggest firms and the biggest names do lockstep bonuses, but a lot of big V100 firms have wonky nuances which will make bonuses below (and even sometimes above) "market" or else not actually payable to everyone evenly.

User avatar
goldeneye
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:25 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby goldeneye » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:57 pm

This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:00 pm

wiz wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:isnt it 170 after taxes. as in, cant you count on a 10g bonus?

also this is obvious but must be pointed out, by year 2 you will have an extra 10k and by years 3 and extra 25k, which means that even if you have to have a roommate for a year as someone lol'd at , by year 2 the extra money can get you your own place, or you an pay off more debt

edit: i didnt mean to respond anon, and dont know how to/ too busy to change it


I think you mean before taxes, but yeah, last year's market bonus was 10k for year 1.



thats what I meant. whoops

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby 09042014 » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:01 pm

goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.


DC is nearly as expensive as MFH.

VA and MD pay less tax than DC.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby guano » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:07 pm

goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.

Look at it this way. If you're the typical consumer of biglaw, you probably wouldn't pay a premium to having your work done in NY, if DC cost significantly less

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby IAFG » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:13 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.


DC is nearly as expensive as MFH.

VA and MD pay less tax than DC.

The only thing I can think of to explain the big COL index difference is that there are still cheap-but-dangerous neighborhoods in the district, and pretty much none on MFH.

AllTheLawz
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:20 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby AllTheLawz » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:15 pm

goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.


You should see consulting. Pays the same in Atlanta and Pittsburgh as it does in NYC. Always found it shocking that NYC was the most in-demand office at some firms.

User avatar
ExBiglawAssociate
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby ExBiglawAssociate » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:20 pm

guano wrote:
goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.

Look at it this way. If you're the typical consumer of biglaw, you probably wouldn't pay a premium to having your work done in NY, if DC cost significantly less


Actually, I know for a fact that certain clients are willing to pay more to get NYC attorneys to do certain kinds of corporate work rather than DC attorneys (or attorneys in any other area of the country).

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby 09042014 » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:31 pm

IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.


DC is nearly as expensive as MFH.

VA and MD pay less tax than DC.

The only thing I can think of to explain the big COL index difference is that there are still cheap-but-dangerous neighborhoods in the district, and pretty much none on MFH.


Must be. The CNN calculator says MFH is 78% more expensive than DC for housing. Which is absurdly wrong. Good luck finding a decent 1 bed from under 2000 in DC.

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby thesealocust » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:35 pm

Also, the reason NYC is expensive isn't because everyone there is dumb and self loathing, it's because a lot of people want to be there very badly. If you aren't one of them the cost is stupid. If you are, you derive value from being in NYC, whether or not that's rational. Pay has to be high enough to be worth it, but employers don't need to pay (much of) a premium because - and I know this is hard to understand - some people strongly prefer being in NYC over other areas of the country.

User avatar
goldeneye
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:25 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby goldeneye » Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:06 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
IAFG wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
goldeneye wrote:This is sort of related but it's always surprised me that DC pays what NYC does. The col index says it's cheaper. If you live in Virginia or Maryland though, I believe you pay an additional tax.


DC is nearly as expensive as MFH.

VA and MD pay less tax than DC.

The only thing I can think of to explain the big COL index difference is that there are still cheap-but-dangerous neighborhoods in the district, and pretty much none on MFH.


Must be. The CNN calculator says MFH is 78% more expensive than DC for housing. Which is absurdly wrong. Good luck finding a decent 1 bed from under 2000 in DC.


That was my original source which seemed wrong, but at least the 1 bedroom you get for a bit over 2000 is inhabitable unlike most in MFH.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:48 pm

guano wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.


if serious, curious how much you'll be worth at that point (through BigLaw I assume)

Also how much liquid? I mean having a couple mil in real estate is great but still tough to live like a retired king when you're spending all your rent checks on mortgage payments just building equity

anon because similar aspirations, decent worth right now but dont want to out my financial situation

When you have no earned income you should not have a mortgage. (Unless for tax/leverage purposes)


wtf? why would you assume he, I, or anyone would not have any income 4+ years out of law school and in biglaw

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby guano » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
guano wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
thesealocust wrote:You can withdraw the principal from an IRA without penalty any time, so if you were otherwise going to be saving/investing, there's no reason not to use an IRA as the vehicle up to the limit.

Everyone has different burdens, lifestyles, levels of frugality, goals, etc. It's probably smart to always shoot for a minimum of 5% to 10% of your income saving for retirement to get in the habit, but certainly there's no rule that you need to be aggressively planning to retire as soon as you start your first job.

I am though. Still planning to retire by 30.


if serious, curious how much you'll be worth at that point (through BigLaw I assume)

Also how much liquid? I mean having a couple mil in real estate is great but still tough to live like a retired king when you're spending all your rent checks on mortgage payments just building equity

anon because similar aspirations, decent worth right now but dont want to out my financial situation

When you have no earned income you should not have a mortgage. (Unless for tax/leverage purposes)


wtf? why would you assume he, I, or anyone would not have any income 4+ years out of law school and in biglaw

Note that this discussion involved retirement

User avatar
thesealocust
Posts: 8442
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:50 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby thesealocust » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:31 pm

As I will retire to blog about Ron Paul '08!~~ from a cabin in the woods, I imagine I will not have any income upon my retirement at the age of 30.

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3139
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: 160K after taxes, NYC, and living costs?

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:46 pm

These threads are always such shit shows. People get so defensive trying to justify their decisions.

As between NYC and just about any other market, NYC makes less financial sense, at least in the short and medium term and putting aside things like salaries at your likely exit options. NYC taxes and expenses are higher than anywhere else; maybe DC and SF are close, but any true "secondary" market will be cheaper. Yes, you really will pay 40% of your gross income in taxes. If you are really, really torn between two places and money is the deciding factor, then go to Not New York.

That said, you will live VERY comfortably in NYC on a biglaw salary, and when people suggest otherwise it's not only misguided, it's actually insulting to the VAST, VAST majority of people in the city who make MUCH less.

What people actually have a problem with, when they complain about this stuff, is the experience of living in NYC. So if you don't want to live in New York... then, don't live in New York. Problem solved. Otherwise, I'd suggest that, if you do want to live in New York and are reasonably informed about the tradeoffs that entails versus most places in America for everyone who isn't worth at least $10 million, then you will do just fine in biglaw, financially.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.