New Median Income Figures

[LostOne0069]

that makes no sense. If a state is expensive, salaries need to rise so people can afford those expenses. NYC landlords couldn't charge $2g's rent per month, if everyone made $6/hr. Basic economics.

r

Actually, a median income DOES have some relation to how expensive a state is. New Jersey has the highest median income in the country... but it also has one of the highest cost of living.

It's not a direct relationship... meaning the 1st highest median income state is not necessarily the 1st highest cost of living state and the 30th highest median income sate isn't the 30th highest cost of living state... But generally you'll see that wherever it costs the most to live has the higher incomes.

Those of you in Cali got to remember that not everywhere in California does it cost $1.2 million for a 1200 square foot starter home. Cali is a HUGE state and, believe it or not, most of it has more reasonable costs. That doesn't help those of you who live in the expensive areas, but it does explain why you have a lower median income in the state.

The median income to cost of living relationship is much easier to see out here in the East where the states are smaller and more developed (I'm not talking 3rd world vs. 1st world here, I mean less "open" space and more "urban sprawl".). There's less land available and so it tends to be more expensive. California may have a ton of people living in it... but it's a HUGE state and a lot of people live where you can buy a house at a more reasonable cost.

The median income figures, believe it or not, are not just "made up". They're created using census data and the BK courts have no input on the numbers.

The thing that $%#$% me off about it all at the moment is that the census data on median incomes specifically does NOT include medical benefits... but due to the way my company lists my medical benefits on my pay stub, I may have to include it as part of my income.... and thus be forced into a chapter 13 even though I have absolutely NO assets to protect.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I really hope that noone else is getting cought by this drop in median income. I only needed 1 more month before I would have been below the median even with the medical... I'm a REALLY depressed boy at the moment.

[no_it_all]

that makes no sense. If a state is expensive, salaries need to rise so people can afford those expenses. NYC landlords couldn't charge $2g's rent per month, if everyone made $6/hr. Basic economics. r

NYC is not a state, but if it were, I am sure the median income would be very high. New York has huge rural areas, especially in Western and Northern parts of the state that are very inexpensive to live in and (apparently) the people living there don't need to make much money. About a dozen states have higher median incomes than New York..

There is also something called an "affordablity index" that relates income to living expenses. The data collected indicates that salaries do not necessarily rise to compensate for increased living expenses. Nor do salaries drop to reflect lower living expenses. Otherwise it would cost the same (relatively speaking) to live anyplace. That is not true. An example would be Portland, Maine. One of the most unaffordable areas in the country to live. Why? Because when you compare the cost of a home in Portland with the median income of a resident of Portland, the difference is the highest (!) in the country. As a result, living in Portland is very expensive, and the wages have not compensated for it.

[razorguns]

Those of you in Cali got to remember that not everywhere in California does it cost $1.2 million for a 1200 square foot starter home. Cali is a HUGE state and, believe it or not, most of it has more reasonable costs. That doesn't help those of you who live in the expensive areas, but it does explain why you have a lower median income in the state.

exactly. You can't compare costs of living in la -- to living in baker, ca.

And to provide a BLANKET figure is incompetance at it's highest level. Then again, it is the government.

It's insane to think you could work and live in la - and be above the poverty line - then move to CT and be in poverty even tho your expenses dropped 60%. Too silly.

r

[anonymuse]

For a single filer in Colorado, the median income wenth up $143 (from 41,401 to 41,544). Two, three, and four family incomes went up 2856, 1069, and 1376, repectively.

[no_it_all]

exactly. You can't compare costs of living in la -- to living in baker, ca.

And to provide a BLANKET figure is incompetance at it's highest level. Then again, it is the government.

r

Actually, you can compare the costs..and that is exactly what the government has done by publishing the <local standards> and requiring that those local standards be used when filling out the Means Test Calculation worksheet.

For example: Living in one particular county will allow you to claim over $1,800 per month in rent. Living in another county you could claim only $430 per month rent. These are the figures you include in your Means Test Calculations. To say that government has a <blanket> figure for all of California is incorrect. There are about twenty-five or so different figures, depending on where you live in California..

So yes, there is a <median> income that covers all of California. But, by using <local standards> the government has taken local economic factors into the equation...There is no <blanket>..

[miss puff]

Wow, MN went up $1405. We were under with the previous figures so it doesn't matter much to me but we were close.

[razorguns]

For example: Living in one particular county will allow you to claim over $1,800 per month in rent. Living in another county you could claim only $430 per month rent. These are the figures you include in your Means Test Calculations. To say that government has a <blanket> figure for all of California is incorrect. There are about twenty-five or so different figures, depending on where you live in California..

where was that located? The link I saw had blanket incomes for state by state.

r

[no_it_all]

You are correct. Incomes are blanket across the state. That is the definition of <median>. What you may be having a hard time with is the actual workings of the Means Test Calculations as they apply to a bankruptcy.

Although the incomes are blanket across a state, the allowable expenses are not. The net effect is <exactly> the same as if there was no state median income and instead there were twenty-five (in the case of CA) different income limits, depending on where in CA you lived.

To see the <local standards> and the incredible range offered just in Kalifornia($430 to over $1,800) for rents, click on the link posted by SF and scroll down to <local standards>. Chose a particular state and notice all the different expenses allowed, depending on what county you live in....Hope this helps....NIA

[SinkingFast]

NIA is right.

Even tho the Gov't is assigning one blanket income level for each State, there is recognition that costs of living vary depending on where you live.

California, for example,............

Median Income for the State is $70,626/yr for a family of 4 (until 9/30/06).

If you live in Modoc County, the allowable for Rent/Mortgage is $583/mo and $435/mo for utilities. Total of $1018/mo.

If you live in Alameda County, the allowable for Rent/Mortgage is $1872/mo alone. Utilities allowable is $601/mo. Total of $2473/mo.

That's a $1455/mo expense difference/swing for Rent/Mortgage and Utilities within the same State on the same Median Income.

[razorguns]

Is there a link to these 'allowable expenses allowed' by state?

r

[LostOne0069]

Is there a link to these 'allowable expenses allowed' by state?

r

Here ya go:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/meanstesting.htm

Scroll down towards the bottom of the page, you'll see the drop boxes where you select your state.