First, Massachusetts is now below average for teh USA in terms of total tax burden. The concept of Taxachusetts is about 20 years out of date.

The rest of what you say is true for the 128 belt. Remember that Western Mass is rural so cost of living is MUCH cheaper.

But yeah, Eastern Mass, it's 100k plus to be "well paid" or whatever.

Just as a frame of reference, there are no cities in the US with a population of 10,000 or more that have ever had a median household income of $200,000+.

There is only one city in with a population of 3,500 or more that has ever had a median household income of $200,000+.

There are currently no cities in the US with populations of 3,000 or more that have a median household income of $200,000+.

Number of states with a Per Capita income of >$50,000: 1
Number of states with a Per Capita income of >$40,000: 13
Number of states with a Per Capita income of <$30,000: 2

Well, ok, we will talk taxes elsewhere.

As far as Western Mass being cheaper, that is 10 years out of date. New Yorkers have inflated housing costs in the Bershires to the same levels as the 128 belt. I live on a lake here, and the only neighbors I have are seasonal or retired New Yorkers from Lonk Eyeland or a couple of doctors from Boston. Also seasonal. These are year round homes, but my neighborhood is empty all winter except for the families that ski. No way the locals can afford a home here. I only did because I transplanted from Eastern Mass.

Further, food costs, etc are much HIGHER than eastern Mass. because this is considered a "resort area".

The average American earns about 26 gallons of gasoline per day, or about 20 gallons after taxes.

You will for about a year, then you will get used to it and it won't seem like it is that much.

Yep. When you make $63K, you're sure that you'd have it all if you could just make $80K.

Location, location, location.

There are places where you could live pretty damn good on 50K. Hell, you could go to Costa Rica and live like a freaking king on 50K. But move to San Francisco and you better be prepared to struggle on those wages.

Where I live, I'd say 75K+ would qualify as upper middle. Maybe 125K as joint income.

I will say that when I graduated from college 10 years ago, I made $32K. I had a paid-for car, no debt, and I split an $800/mo apartment with a roommate. I felt like I was a f***ing millionaire.

It cracks me up that half the people here act like they would look at a job that pays $70,000 and think "that job doesn't pay well."

I'm guessing that, in reality, 80% of the people on here would crawl on their hands and knees for a job paying $70,000. I can pretty much guarantee that a strong majority of the people on here would be getting a nice raise if their pay changed to $54,000 tomorrow yet fewer than one in six have categorized that as a job that pays well.

I think that has a lot to do with the interpretation of the question. Myself, I'm not sure how to interpret it so I didn't fill in the poll. It's safe to say though, that a job paying 50K annually is a job that pays more than what most Americans earn.

For me, up to $55k would be paying well. Whatever allows me to pay my bills and live the way I would like.

I just did a few K less than what I think my dad makes, which would be fine for me, because my parents lifestyle, income-wise, is what I would be comfortable with.

Is that per wage earner or per capita?

26 gallons * $3.50 per gal = $91 per day

$91 per day / 8 hrs worked per day = $11.375 per hr

52 wks per year * 40 hrs worked per wk = 2,080 hrs worked per year

2,080 hrs worked * $11.375 =

$23,660 a year, seems a little low to me?

I'd say that's the average around here.