So what is your quibble with the source I quoted?
The "quibble" stems from that the source alludes that one can actually live in the Bay Area on $29K as a single person. When those figures cited are added up, they come close to $29K.
What about payroll taxes?
I'm simply saying that the $29K isn't reality – the minimum amount needed is actually more when payroll taxes are factored in.
Does "living" mean staying in one's apartment and no entertainment (cable, movies, dining out...becuase that is all one can afford) AND living in very dangeous and sketchy neighborhoods (...because for $29K those are the only areas where one can live in the Bay Area) really "living"?
I think not.
