Top Law Schools

HELP!!!!!!!!!

ARE TAXES HIGHER IN DC OR CHICAGO??????????????

Can someone give me the breakdown???? I need to choose between these two cities which I like equally. People say DC is more expensive, but I think the two are both equally expensive. And I'd like to make clear that I rarely go out--- I just want to pay my loans off an lay low! WHICH CITY IS CHEAPER? CAN SOMEONE GIVE ME THE TAX BREAKDOWN???

Also I don't have a car---- which city is easier to get around in by bus/subway?

Me: no dependents, just would have SS, federal, state, and medicaid withheld, also 401k, separate Roth IRA elsewhere. So can I expect atleast 70% of my earnings in either city or is it just 60% in DC?

WHICH CITY WINS?????????

I don't have any firsthand knowledge but since you seem really frantic, I thought you might want to play around with this website:

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/

1. Chill out
2. I use this as a rough baseline http://www.nalp.org/buying_power_index_class_of_2010
3. DC costs more.

MUAH!

thanks a ton

Anonymous User wrote: Me: no dependents, just would have SS, federal, state, and medicaid withheld, also 401k, separate Roth IRA elsewhere. So can I expect atleast 70% of my earnings in either city or is it just 60% in DC?

70% after taxes?? Of course not.


And DC is more expensive. Even if you plan to lay low you still have to buy groceries unless you plan to eat beans and franks every day. Groceries are more expensive in D.C. for sure. So is rent.

Please refrain from smoking crack before posting on TLS...

Use this: --LinkRemoved--

DC has higher taxes. Assuming you're making $160k, with no allowances (probably not the case, I know, but say it is just for the sake of comparison), DC is $8157 in net pay per month. Chicago is $8523 in net pay per month. Which means you can expect 61% of gross earnings in DC, and 64% in Chicago

Also stop yelling.

JamesDean1955 wrote:Please refrain from smoking crack before posting on TLS...

Sorry you didn't get a job from OCI.

Taxes are mostly a wash, pretty similar depending on if you live in DC/VA/MD. Housing in DC is considerably more expensive. A solid 1 bed near where you'd work is probably 700-800 more a month in DC metro.

Anonymous User wrote:

JamesDean1955 wrote:Please refrain from smoking crack before posting on TLS...

Sorry you didn't get a job from OCI.

Actually I'm an 0L, didn't even realize what forum this was in lol. Why the anonymity y'all?

Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

It's got to be ATL, though as you point out, you probably don't start at $160 there (or at least not as often).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:It's got to be ATL, though as you point out, you probably don't start at $160 there (or at least not as often).

Yeah. I forgot to add Houston/Dallas but not many big firms there so I didn't include.

Also have to consider supply/demand in these cities.

BlaqBella wrote:Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

Texas 160K > Atlanta (160-145) > Chicago > Atlanta (below 145K) > Chicago 145K > San Fran > LA = DC >> NYC

BlaqBella wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:It's got to be ATL, though as you point out, you probably don't start at $160 there (or at least not as often).

Yeah. I forgot to add Houston/Dallas but not many big firms there so I didn't include.

Also have to consider supply/demand in these cities.

Are there really that many more big firms in ATL than Houston/Dallas?

Desert Fox wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

Texas 160K > Atlanta (160-145) > Chicago > Atlanta (below 145K) > Chicago 145K > San Fran > LA = DC >> NYC

TCR

Boss use of the anonymous function. Of course, if I wrote like a rhesus monkey on meth, I'd probably wanna hide my ass too.

Desert Fox wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

Texas 160K > Atlanta (160-145) > Chicago > Atlanta (below 145K) > Chicago 145K > San Fran > LA = DC >> NYC

I'd argue SF is more expensive than either LA or DC. Housing is ridiculous (see: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/ ... price.html)

imchuckbass58 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

Texas 160K > Atlanta (160-145) > Chicago > Atlanta (below 145K) > Chicago 145K > San Fran > LA = DC >> NYC

I'd argue SF is more expensive than either LA or DC. Housing is ridiculous (see: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/ ... price.html)

No, you are right. I just fucked up the ordering because I'm probably dyslexic. San Fran is considerable more expensive than LA and DC. The general bay area is closer to LA DC

Bay Area is not as expensive as NYC? What about Palo Alto?

Basically if you get NYC market anywhere but NYC your well off

kryptix wrote:Basically if you get NYC market anywhere but NYC your well off

I know the official buying power/medians say that NYC is more expensive, but if you're willing to live in Brooklyn or even the LES (if you work in the Financial District) or Queens (if you work in midtown), I think you'll actually find SF, DC, and potentially even LA more expensive.

CA has really high taxes, and all of those cities have expensive housing. Plus the cost of a car >> cost of the subway, and people underestimate the diversity of housing prices in NYC + how quickly the subway can bring you to a less expensive (though not necessarily cheap) neighborhood. You'll be driving for longer in DC, SF or LA to get to a neighborhood with similar cost-reductions, and you can't read while driving your car.

okinawa wrote:

kryptix wrote:Basically if you get NYC market anywhere but NYC your well off

I know the official buying power/medians say that NYC is more expensive, but if you're willing to live in Brooklyn or even the LES (if you work in the Financial District) or Queens (if you work in midtown), I think you'll actually find SF, DC, and potentially even LA more expensive.

CA has really high taxes, and all of those cities have expensive housing. Plus the cost of a car >> cost of the subway, and people underestimate the diversity of housing prices in NYC + how quickly the subway can bring you to a less expensive (though not necessarily cheap) neighborhood. You'll be driving for longer in DC, SF or LA to get to a neighborhood with similar cost-reductions, and you can't read while driving your car.

DC has a perfectly functional subway system too. And you can live in Arlington, or other suburbs and save money too.

Just as an FYI, ATL starts at 135 with only two firms (both with tiny summer classes) at 150. Also, a lot of the Texas firms besides the major international names start below 160... Still, at starting salaries ATL/Texas blow everything else out of the water. In later years, however, things equal out. A 4th year in ATL or a non-big name Texas firm makes only 150 or 155 but in Boston/CHI/LA they are making 210.

Desert Fox wrote:

BlaqBella wrote:Piggy-backing off of OPs question, of the following cities which would stretch a 160k starting salary the furthest:

NYC
SanFran
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC
ATL (do they even start at 160k in ATL?)

Texas 160K > Atlanta (160-145) > Chicago > Atlanta (below 145K) > Chicago 145K > San Fran > LA = DC >> NYC

SF is more expensive than LA and about on par with DC.

But more importantly, this forum is not for 0Ls and definitely not for 0Ls who don't have properly functioning caps lock keys.