Earn less than $200K? Your family can afford to live comfortably in only 7 states, report finds
(NEXSTAR) – Earning enough to feel comfortable can mean different things and require a very different income, especially based on where you live. A recent report shows that, in some cases, that means earning more than a quarter of a million dollars.
Personal finance site SmartAsset reviewed data from the MIT Living Wage Calculator and applied it to a common budgeting method known as the 50/30/20 rule — 50% of your budget should cover your needs, 30% goes toward 'wants,' and 20% for debt, saving, or investing — to find the pre-tax salary necessary for Americans to 'live comfortably.'
A portion of the analysis was focused on the income a family of four, comprised of two working adults and two children, would need to live comfortably throughout the U.S.
Nowhere was it more expensive than Massachusetts, where a family would need an income of more than $313,000 to achieve the aforementioned definition of comfortable living. This was the only state where a family's necessary income was found to be over $300,000. Hawaii wasn't far behind, though, at nearly $294,400.
The costs of wants, needs, and saving money aren't that high everywhere, however.
In total, SmartAsset found seven states in which a family earning less than $200,000 could still afford to live comfortably.
At the top of that list was Mississippi, where a family of four would require an income of less than $186,700 based on the 50/30/20 rule. While less than what that same family would need in Massachusetts, it's a nearly 5 percent increase over the $177,800 determined to be necessary in Mississippi in SmartAsset's 2024 report.
The remaining affordable states were primarily east of the Mississippi River. Narrowly falling within the group was Louisiana, where a family of four requires an income of about $199,600.
The states SmartAsset found to be most affordable for a family were:
In a handful of states, a family's cost of living comfortably has declined since SmartAsset's 2024 report.
Iowa has experienced the largest decrease, going from a necessary salary of $211,400 to about $202,700, according to SmartAsset, marking a roughly 4 percent drop. A fellow Midwestern state, Michigan, saw a similar drop of about 3.2 percent, going from $214,500 to $207,600.
Other states where the costs for a family to live comfortably have declined were Delaware (2.5 percent), Georgia (0.9 percent), New York (0.7 percent), and Hawaii (0.08 percent).
Three states, meanwhile, saw noticeably larger jumps. SmartAsset found that a family of four in Vermont, for example, now needs an income of $286,800 to live comfortably. That's nearly 15.5 percent more than last year, when an income of $248,400 would suffice.
New Jersey and Montana also saw large increases, with 12.5 percent and 11.1 percent increases, respectively.
You can view SmartAsset's full report here.
Nationally, SmartAsset found the median salary needed for a family of four to live comfortably was around $223,100.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Is it possible to boost the US birth rate? Here's what other countries have tried
(NEXSTAR) – The Trump administration is reportedly seeking ways to raise the American birth rate, considering incentives ranging from a $5,000 cash 'baby bonus' to a 'National Medal of Motherhood' awarded to women with more than six children. Would a trophy or tax break be enough to convince Americans to have more children? Countries around the world with plummeting birth rates have test driven all sorts of strategies to promote procreating, and it turns out it's a tough task. People and policymakers may want to boost the birth rate for a variety of reasons, from cultural to economic. The primary economic concern is that if a country's birth rate drops too low, and there isn't enough immigration to bring in younger workers, the country will be left with an aging population that needs support but a smaller tax base of workers to support them. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports the U.S. birth rate dropped to 1.6 children per woman in 2023 – a new historic low. To be at replacement levels, the birth rate would have to be a bit higher at 2.1. That's generally accepted as the level at which each generation ensures it replaces itself. While the U.S. birth rate is lower than it has ever been before, it's still higher than our North American neighbors to the north and dozens of other countries around the world. Canada's fertility rate is at 1.3, according to World Bank Data. Any countries around Europe and Asia have rates that are even lower, including Italy (1.2), Spain (1.1), Japan (1.2) and Korea (0.7). Australia and New Zealand also have fertility rates lower than the United States'. The U.S. is far from the first country to show concern over a shrinking population. Singapore, which has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, has tried doling out sizable cash incentives. Couples get the equivalent of about $8,500 for their first and second children, CNBC reports, and $10,000 for their third child and beyond. Those bonuses don't go very far, however, with Singapore's ultra-high cost of living. The cost of raising a child isn't cheap here either. LendingTree recently estimated it costs about $29,000 a year. 'The one-time bonuses are definitely not very effective, and that's pretty widely shown,' Karen Benjamin Guzzo, director of UNC's Carolina Population Center, told PBS. For what it's worth, Singapore has also tried some less conventional routes. They once got desperate enough to make a PSA (complete with a song) encouraging couples to do their 'civic duty' by getting busy in the bedroom and 'letting their patriotism explode.' In Japan, where the fertility rate is dropping faster than projected, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has described the situation as 'a silent emergency.' The government has promised to promote more flexible working environments and other measures that would help married couples to balance work and parenting, especially in rural areas where family values tend to be more conservative and harder on women. The younger generation isn't just reluctant to have kids, but also to get married due to bleak job prospects, a high cost of living and a gender-biased corporate culture that adds extra burdens for women and working mothers, experts say. While cash incentives and catchy songs haven't proven very effective at convincing people around the world to have children, one thing experts believe might work is cheap or free childcare. In a report last year, the U.S. Department of Labor described childcare as 'an almost prohibitive expense.' Even in affordable states, child care costs thousands of dollars a year. In pricier coastal communities, the median cost of infant care tops $30,000 a year. Though it's hard to predict if it would be a silver bullet, easing the child care cost burden – or completely eliminating it – is 'probably the thing that is most likely to have the impact on birth rates,' Guzzo said. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Poll: Americans disapprove of Trump's performance, as Republicans manage splits over spending plans
President Donald Trump's second-term approval rating remains stuck in negative territory, along with general attitudes toward his administration's policies, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll powered by SurveyMonkey. But immigration and border security remains an exception, as the president tries to drive national attention back toward his strongest issue — though Americans are closely divided even on that area of relative strength. Americans' ratings of two of the other defining projects of Trump's second term, tariffs and the Department of Government Efficiency, are more negative. And as Congress works on another major Trump initiative, a massive tax and spending plan, the poll illustrates how Republicans must manage internal differences over competing priorities on taxes and government debt. A majority (55%) of all adults over 18 years old said they disapprove of the way Trump's handling his job as president, while 45% approve, unchanged from April's NBC News Stay Tuned Poll. While the overall number was stable, under the surface there are small signs of waning enthusiasm for the president, with the share of adults who strongly approve decreasing slightly since April. The share who strongly disapprove also fell slightly, though intense negative feelings remain stronger than intense positive feelings in this poll. Republicans were 5 percentage points less likely to say that they strongly support the president compared to April, with much of this movement coming from Republicans who say they identify as being part of the MAGA movement moving into the "somewhat approve" category. The poll was conducted May 30-June 10, surveying 19,410 adults online nationwide with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. When asked to identify emotions about the president and his actions, fewer MAGA supporters picked "thrilled" compared to April, too. Thirty-seven percent said they're thrilled about the actions the Trump administration has taken so far during its term, down from 46% in April. In contrast, a majority (51%) of Democrats say they are "furious" at the Trump administration's actions, showing a disparity in the intensity of feeling between the two parties. Indeed, Republicans shifted 7 percentage points away from being thrilled toward more neutral feelings about the president since April. This type of intensity gap has played a major role in past nonpresidential election cycles, and it may prove notable in off-cycle elections in New Jersey and Virginia this November, which generally see relatively lower turnout. Congressional Republicans and Trump will want to drive up enthusiasm among their base as they prepare to defend seats in the 2026 midterm elections. A majority of independents said they feel dissatisfied, angry or furious with the actions of the administration. That's reflected in independents' approval rating of the president, with 65% saying they disapprove of his performance. A majority of Americans said they approve of Trump's handling of border security and immigration, though the public is closely split on even his strongest issue, with 51% approving of his handling of immigration and border security and 49% disapproving. While the survey was being conducted, Trump deployed National Guard troops and Marines to the Los Angeles area due to mounting protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in the county. He has spoken repeatedly about the issue in recent days. While the public overall is divided on Trump's immigration policy, his base is motivated by the issue and his handling of it. While 9% of Americans overall said immigration is the issue that matters most to them right now, 20% of MAGA supporters said immigration is the most important issue, second only to the economy. Trump's overall numbers on immigration were similar to the April poll, but Republicans, MAGA Republicans and independents were all slightly more likely to say now that they strongly approve of the way Trump is handling border security and immigration. In recent months, the administration's immigration policies have overlapped with its higher education policies, especially those aimed at foreign students across the United States. The poll found a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of issues related to college and universities, with 56% disapproving of Trump's actions toward universities, including a 42% plurality who said they strongly disapprove. Trump's base, however, strongly approves of his handling of universities. MAGA supporters overwhelmingly approve, including 72% who said they strongly approve. Most Republicans also approve, including 57% who strongly approve of Trump's handling of the issue. On the question of how institutions like Harvard University affect the U.S., a plurality of Americans said they help the country (44%) and about a quarter (24%) said they hurt the country. Another 31% said colleges and universities like Harvard are not making a difference. Harvard has been at the forefront of legal battles with the Trump administration over grant money and the ability to enroll foreign students. A majority of MAGA supporters (65%) and Republicans (53%) said universities like Harvard are mostly hurting the country, whereas three-quarters of Democrats said they help the country. Among independents, 46% said colleges and universities aren't making a difference and 42% said they're helping the country. Americans gave Trump negative ratings on how he's handling several other issues, including tariffs (40% approve, 60% disapprove), cost of living and inflation (39%-61%) and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts (44%-56%). A slight majority of Americans (51%) said maintaining current spending levels on programs like Medicaid is the most important matter as Congress considers Trump-backed budget legislation this year. But it's closely split, within the margin of error, against a combined 49% who say a pair of Republican-aligned priorities are most important to them. The poll also illustrates how Republicans are trying to balance priorities and the demands of different parts of their narrow congressional majorities as they design the package. Mirroring the divisions among the Republican lawmakers negotiating the bill, 40% of Republicans said they care most about ensuring the national debt is reduced, while an almost identical share (39%) said they care most about continuing and expanding income tax cuts and credits enacted in 2017 by Trump. Another 2 in 10 Republicans said maintaining current spending is their most important budget priority. The findings come after a brief but explosive online feud between Trump and his former billionaire adviser, Elon Musk, who tarred the Republican legislation as a "disgusting abomination" over its spending levels. Several Republican senators have also expressed concerns about spending levels in the bill, even while backing the idea of extending the 2017 tax breaks and enacting some new ones. Senate Republicans, who have a 53-seat majority, are aiming to pass their version of the legislation by July. Democrats surveyed in the poll overwhelmingly said their priority is maintaining current spending levels on programs like Medicaid (79%), as do a slight majority of independents (53%). Meanwhile, Americans' assessment of Musk's efforts with DOGE to reduce spending and the size of the federal government declined slightly since April. In the most recent survey, 44% rated it as a success or partial success, down from 47%, while 56% rated it a failure or partial failure, up from 52%. The change included an erosion among Trump's most fervent supporters on DOGE, with 49% of MAGA supporters now saying the effort is a success, down from 66% in April. The survey was in the field during Trump and Musk's recent feud, though the results on this question did not change appreciably over time. Economic ratings remain lukewarm: 45% of Americans said their personal financial situation is the same as one year ago and 34% said it's worse. Another 21% said they're financially better off than they were a year ago. The findings were almost identical in April. A bare majority of Americans (51%) think Trump's tariffs will make their personal finances worse in the next year. This number is slightly down from April, and most groups shifted toward saying that the tariff policies will result in their finances being "about the same." That finding comes as inflation was largely steady in May, with the impact of many on-again, off-again tariffs and ongoing negotiations with trade partners still unclear.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal
Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' doesn't include his biggest Social Security proposal Social Security needs some major changes, but they aren't in the new tax bill. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Social Security is one of the biggest issues politicians in Washington must address in the next few years. Many retirees are feeling the pressure on their budgets due to rising inflation, despite automated cost-of-living adjustments for their monthly benefits. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund is in danger of depletion by early next decade if Congress fails to make any reforms to the program. Not only will that impact the amount future retirees will receive, but it'll cut benefits for the tens of millions of people relying on retirement benefits right now. President Donald Trump made several promises to voters about Social Security during his 2024 campaign. He said the government won't cut benefits, and it won't raise the retirement age for new beneficiaries (which is just another form of cuts). His biggest promise of all, though, aimed to help stretch each dollar of Social Security further for retirees. Trump proposed doing away with taxes on Social Security benefits. Not only are taxes on Social Security income complicated, they can significantly reduce the value of each retiree's monthly checks. But in the version of the new tax bill the House of Representatives just passed last month, there's no tax cut on Social Security benefits at all. While many retirees may find that disappointing, the truth is that they may be better off without it. How the government taxes Social Security As mentioned, taxes on Social Security income can be quite complex. The government uses a metric called combined income to determine what percentage (if any) of your Social Security benefits count as taxable income. Combined income is equal to half your Social Security income, plus your adjusted gross income, plus any untaxed interest income. If your combined income exceeds certain thresholds, you'll have to pay taxes on up to 85% of your Social Security benefits. Here's how it breaks down. As you can see, the thresholds are extremely low. That's because they haven't been updated for inflation since they went into effect over 30 years ago. Nonetheless, Social Security benefits have gotten annual adjustments to the point where the average retiree collects about $2,000 per month from Social Security. As such, more and more retirees are facing a tax bill on their Social Security income each year. Eliminating that tax sounds like a great relief for many seniors, but the policy could actually harm lower-income retirees the most over the long run, while leaving very few Americans better off. The unfortunate truth about Social Security's future As mentioned, Social Security is facing a significant shortfall if Congress fails to reform the program. Demographic shifts and extending life expectancies have led to higher cumulative benefits payouts without the requisite income to support those payments. The latest Trustees Report estimates the Social Security trust fund for retirement benefits will drop to $0 by 2033. At that point, the incoming funds will only support about 79% of benefits due. There are three components of how the Social Security trust fund generates revenue to support benefits payments. First is the tax on wages that's usually split between employers and employees. Every dollar of wages in America (up to $176,100 per person in 2025) incurs a 12.4% tax that goes directly to Social Security. That brought in $1.1 trillion last year. The second source of income comes from investing the funds held in the trust in government bonds. Net interest income totaled almost $64 billion last year. The third source of income is taxation on benefits themselves. In other words, Trump's plan to get rid of the tax on Social Security benefits will accelerate the depletion of the Social Security trust fund. And while those taxes generated just $54 billion last year, they're a growing source of revenue, and the impact is very noticeable. It could accelerate the trust fund depletion by over a year and require a 25% cut in benefits (instead of 21%), according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Eliminating taxes on Social Security will harm everyone in the long run, but the policy will only benefit a small percentage of Americans in the near term. Low-income households pay very little taxes on Social Security income. The bottom 40% of households by income receiving benefits pay an average of less than 1% in taxes on their benefits. Even high-income households don't face significant tax burdens. The top quintile of retirees, those with more than $205,800 in household income, pay just 20% in taxes on Social Security benefits, on average. Here's what the "One Big Beautiful Bill" offers instead Instead of cutting taxes on Social Security benefits, Americans age 65 and older will get an additional $4,000 tax deduction as long as their income remains below certain thresholds. That could give seniors some relief without as much negative impact on Social Security in the long run. As a result, most seniors will be better off under the current plan than if Trump got his way and fully eliminated taxes on Social Security. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
