How MagnifyMoney Gets Paid

Advertiser Disclosure


Where U.S. Taxpayers Get the Biggest Refunds and Tax Bills

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It may not have been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Written By

The 2019 tax season officially kicked off January 28, and 150 million tax returns are expected to be filed this year. While most filers will look forward to getting a refund, others might be worried that they’ll owe taxes to the IRS. Whether you can look forward to a refund is probably tied to where you live, according to the latest MagnifyMoney annual tax study (see 2018 results here). We analyzed IRS tax data for 100 of the largest U.S. metros over a five-year period (2013-2017) to find out where people owe the most taxes at the time they file their return — and where people are getting the biggest refunds.

Key findings:

Taxpayers are getting slightly smaller refunds while tax bills are increasing. On average, we found taxpayers in the 100 largest metros who owed taxes faced a federal tax bill of $5,307 when they filed, while those taxpayers who got a refund averaged $3,016. Compared to last year’s study, which reported an average tax bill of $5,294 and average refunds of $3,052 for returns filed 2012 to 2016.

Nearly one in five taxpayers owes Uncle Sam when he or she files. Among the 100 metros analyzed, 19% of taxpayers owed taxes and 77% got a refund. This shows a trend of more people owing taxes and fewer receiving refunds, as our previous study found 17% of city-dwelling residents owed taxes and 78% received refunds.

High tax bills could correlate to more itemized returns. As in last year’s study, an average of 33% of taxpayers itemized their taxes each year during the study period. But a greater proportion of filers itemized their returns in the 10 metros where taxpayers owed the most. In these cities, on average, 39% of filers itemized their taxes.

In San Francisco, the second-ranking metro with filers who owed the most, some 40% of taxpayers itemize. The exception was Sarasota, Fla. Although the 27% of taxpayers who itemize there was below the national average of 33%, the share of Sarasotans who owed taxes was greater than the national average (21% versus 19%).

Of course, with the 2018 tax reform changes, fewer people will likely itemize when they file taxes this year since the standard deduction was raised.

More people face tax bills in the West. Eight of the top 10 metros where taxpayers owed the IRS were located in the Western United States. California metros took three of the top spots. But Denver was in a three-way tie for second place along with Sacramento and San Diego, where 22% of taxpayers owed Uncle Sam in all three metros. However, Denver has slightly bigger problems, given the average taxpayer there owes more — $5,642 on average, compared with San Diego ($5,298) and Sacramento ($4,299).

San Francisco ranks high on the list among those who owe taxes. One in four San Francisco taxpayers owes taxes when he or she files, we found, with an average tax bill of $7,261. That’s about 37% greater than the national average. San Franciscans might pay a lot come tax season but they also take home the sixth-largest tax refund – $3,506 vs. the $3,058 national average.

Where taxpayers are getting the biggest refunds

Overall, tax refunds fell slightly from a $3,052 average in last year’s study to $3,016 this year.

While the 10 cities where taxpayers receive the largest refunds are the same year-over-year, however, refunds didn’t grow in every metro area. Tax refund amounts trended down in three Texas cities: McAllen, Houston, and Corpus Christi. San Francisco residents, on the other hand, saw the biggest increase in their tax refunds, getting back $40 more ($3,506 in this year’s study compared to $3,466 in last year’s study).

Where filers are most likely to owe taxes

When looking at the cities where more people ended up owing the IRS at the time of filing, not much has changed.

The average overall size of a tax bill in all top 100 metro areas jumped this year to $5,307 from $5,294. Similarly, the individual averages owed in each of these 10 cities went up. Boise, Idaho’s $120 jump in its average tax bill is the largest increase, dollar-for-dollar.

Higher tax bills correlate with larger tax refunds

A look at the average tax bills and refund amounts in each city reveals an interesting trend: higher tax bills are correlated positively with higher tax refunds.

In other words, the cities where people get fatter refund checks are also where filers who owe taxes will pay the most. The scatter plot below shows this relationship between high refunds and high tax bills.

Take Ft. Myers, Fla. as an example. This city has the largest tax refunds at $3,833 — but it also has the highest average tax bill of any city, at $8,194.

Tax year 2018 will bring big changes

This study highlights some big trends and differences in tax burdens by city, but it’s based on a past iteration of the American tax code. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made sweeping changes to the U.S. tax code that officially took effect for the 2018 tax year (which is outside the five-year period looked at in this study).

So the 2019 tax season is the first time taxpayers will file a return under this new tax code, and the rule changes will bring surprises to many. Only 5% of taxpayers are expected to see their tax costs increase, according to the Tax Policy Center. But confusion over how the tax changes impacted withholding calculations could mean that many taxpayers have already paid too much or too little in taxes.

The proportion of itemized returns is also likely to decrease this tax season. The tax code overhaul included nearly doubling the standard deduction. Since filers have the option to take a standard deduction or itemize their returns, a higher standard deduction is likely to incentivize more of them to do the latter. As a result, itemized tax returns are expected to decrease from 26.4% to just 10.9% among filers, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Tips for filing taxes in 2019

Because the new tax laws will bring many changes, you should expect the unexpected this tax season. And on top of these new changes, the recent federal government shutdown could impact IRS functions and return processing. Here’s what you can do to get ahead of these major tax changes when filing your 2018 return.

File as early as you can. With potential delays at the IRS, it’s even more important to do your part to get your tax refund as soon as you can. The best way to do this is to file as early as possible — don’t put it off until the April 15th deadline. As a bonus, filing early is also a smart way to protect yourself from tax refund theft. And if you end up owing, you’ll also have more time to gather the funds needed to settle your tax bill by the deadline.

Get familiar with new tax forms. The previous years’ tax forms 1040A and 1040EZ are gone, replaced by Form 1040. The new 1040 will be simpler for many tax filers, but not all. Many people will need to file additional schedules with their Form 1040 to adjust taxable income or claimed some tax credits. It’d be wise to review these new forms and changes ahead of completing your return so you know what to expect.

Expect your tax situation to change. With the major changes to the tax code and withholdings in the 2018 tax year, taxpayers should not expect filing to be business as usual. Your tax refund could be higher or lower than it has been in previous years, or you might wind up owing a tax bill. Take a second look at your finances and budget and make a plan for how you’ll manage if you don’t get your usual refund.

If you owe a tax bill, pay it. If you find that you owe a tax bill, pay it as soon as you can. You can file for an extension to give yourself more time to complete a return, but at least 90% of your tax bill will still be due by the April 15th deadline. If you underpay, you’ll owe another 0.5% of the outstanding balance for each month your tax bill goes unpaid.

Consider hiring a professional. With so many tax code changes to grapple with at once, preparing your own taxes could come with more headaches and complications than usual. It could be a good year to hire the help of an accountant or other tax professional. They can review your tax situation, ensure your tax return is prepared correctly and help you identify any potential credits or deductions you might have missed on your own.

Read more: The Best Tax Software of 2019


Using IRS Statements of Income data, we aggregated the data for five years, for returns filed from Jan. 1, 2013 – Dec. 31, 2017 in the 100 largest U.S. metros.

How MagnifyMoney Gets Paid

Advertiser Disclosure

Personal Loans

Rising Incomes Outpace Increasing Housing Costs in Every Major American City

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It may not have been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Written By

Most U.S. workers’ real wages have been stagnant over the past four decades, according to analysis from the Pew Research Center. With the prices of crucial expenses such as housing and healthcare increasing over these decades as well, consumers’ purchasing power today is about the same as in the 1970s. These circumstances have contributed to the belief that overall, Americans’ incomes aren’t keeping up with the rising costs of living.We set out to analyze U.S. Census Bureau data for America’s 100 largest metros to compare incomes to housing costs. Our findings show that this trend might be reversing — at least for residents of America’s biggest cities.

Compared to three years ago, the typical household in these cities has more money left over after paying for housing. In other words, even though housing costs have risen over the last three years, the dollar amount of wages have grown faster and exceeded the dollar pricing increases for both renting and owning a home.

In fact, famously-expensive metros saw the biggest jumps in the gap between income and housing costs. This trend also holds in places where rents take a greater share of household income.

Key findings

  • The median household in each of the 100 largest metros takes home more cash after paying for housing than they did three years ago.
  • Households in San Francisco saw the biggest gain in gross income after housing costs, up $10,642 more per year compared to three years previous. For renters, the amount is $9,982, and for homeowners with a mortgage the amount is $12,178.
  • Annual savings at the other end of the list are still substantial. The median household in Albuquerque, N.M. has an extra $1,750 a year — $1,438 for renters and $2,194 for homeowners with a mortgage.
  • Rent costs are increasing at a faster rate than costs for households who own their own homes and still have a mortgage in every metro. Even so, wage growth has outstripped those increases.
  • The 2017 homeownership costs in most metros exceeds the 30% marker that is traditionally used as a guideline for affordable housing costs. This suggests that homeownership is still not affordable for most households in those metros.
  • In a few places, the percentage of a household’s income spent on rent has increased — such as in Denver; Colorado Spring, Colo.; and San Jose, Calif. Even so, these households still take home more dollars after paying rent than they did three years ago.
  • The effect is especially pronounced in famously expensive cities; the first seven metros on our list, from San Francisco to Boston, are notorious for high rent costs.
  • Median housing costs have actually dropped in a handful of cities, such as Atlanta (down by $24 per year), Birmingham, Ala. ($24), Chicago ($24), Cleveland ($84), Detroit ($144), Jacksonville, Fla. ($36) and Las Vegas ($216).
  • Rents have risen at a faster rate than homeownership costs, but median costs for the latter are still higher across the board. As a result, homeowners today have more funds leftover after paying their mortgages and property expenses, even though they are spending a greater percentage of their incomes on housing.
  • Median rents in every metro lie comfortably below the 30% mark of median gross income, but homeownership costs exceed the 30% rule in most places.

Our study compared local incomes to housing costs in the top 100 metros. We then ranked them based on how much local wages have increased compared to housing costs, dollar for dollar, with the highest increase starting at 1 (in green on the map above) and going to the lowest at 100 (in red).

Hover over the map to see the ranking of each city and how much incomes after housing costs have increased in the past three years.

10 cities where incomes are rising faster than housing costs

When income rises faster than housing costs, our study found, this puts thousands more dollars per year into people’s pockets.

With these extra funds, households might find they have more funds available to cover other living expenses, from groceries to utilities to healthcare. This money can ease the demands placed on households by consumer debt such as credit cards, auto loans or personal loans. It could even grant them more room in their budgets to save, get out of debt or invest.

Here, we highlight the 10 cities in which the gap between median incomes and housing costs is growing the fastest.

1. San Francisco

San Francisco has become notorious in the past decade for its soaring housing costs, but it appears that local incomes are finally catching up. This city had the highest increase in local incomes left over after housing costs — for both renters and homeowners.

Overall, San Franciscans have $10,642 more in gross income after paying for housing than they did three years ago. That translates to a gain of $9,982 for renters, and $12,178 for homeowners.

Despite these high dollar amount increases, the percentage of the median gross income required to cover the median rent has remained mostly unchanged, falling just 0.2%. By contrast, San Francisco had the steepest decline in the percentage of a local median income required to cover homeownership costs — down 12.3% from three years ago.

2. San Jose, California

Neighboring San Francisco is San Jose, the next city where residents saw the largest increases in incomes overall, rising $12,849 in the past three years. This increase helped typical workers pocket $9,909 more in gross annual income after paying housing costs, compared to three years previous.

Rent costs rose faster than home owning costs over those years, too. Renters’ after-housing income rose $9,117 in the past three years, compared to $11,913 more for homeowners.

Despite having one of the largest increases dollar-for-dollar, however, San Jose’s numbers are less impressive when comparing housing costs directly to income. The percentage of the city’s median gross income required to cover median housing costs fell by just 0.8% in the past three years — the smallest decrease of any city we surveyed.

3. Seattle

In Seattle, the median gross income increased by $8,300 per year in just three years. Local workers’ paychecks increased far faster than their housing costs, which were up $1,164 during the same period — resulting in a net gain of $7,136 overall.

During the three years we looked at, Seattle homeownership costs decreased by 10.3% relative to income while rent costs were up 2.6% compared to incomes. The three-year increase in income after housing costs was $6,272 for renters, and $8,180 for homeowners. In actual dollars, this meant homeowners netted $1,908 more per year from rising incomes than their renting neighbors.

4. Austin, Texas

At No. 4 is Austin, where the amount of a median gross income left over after paying median housing costs increased by $6,737 per year. This number specific to renters is $6,125, and homeowners are taking home $7,025 more after housing costs per year.

This is thanks again to rising local incomes, which shot up $7,817 from 2014 to 2017 while median housing costs increased by just $1,080.

Overall, the percentage of a gross median income required to cover Austin’s median housing costs fell by 4.5% over those three years.

5. Portland, Oregon

Portland is No. 5 among cities where incomes have increased the most compared to housing costs in over the past three years. This net gain in dollars is $6,733, reflecting median incomes that increases $7,825 per year compared to a rise of just $1,092 in annual housing costs.

Homeowners in Portland saw the biggest gains; the percentage of the median income required to cover the costs of owning a home fell by 11.2%. In dollars, homeowners here had an average of $7,693 more of their gross income leftover after covering housing costs than three years previous. For renters, this figure is $6,025.

Notably, Portland ranked No. 7 out of 50 in our rankings of the places where Americans live the most balanced lifestyles.

6. Denver

Next is the Mile High City, Denver, where increases in income outstripped the rise in housing costs to grant locals an average of $6,418 more in annual income, after housing costs. This is based on the $7,678 rise in Denver’s median income in the past three years, which outsrippted the $1,260 rise in housing costs during the same period.

Rising rent costs, however, have countered some of the income gains for Denver residents. For workers earning the local median income, the percentage of their pay that would be devoted to rent costs actually rose by 7.7% over three years — the steepest increase of any city we surveyed. Compare that to a 3.1% fall in costs-to-income for homeowners.

7. Boston

Another high cost-of-living city makes the list with Boston. Fortunately, the median annual income was up $7,344 from 2014 to 2017, helping to make up for some of the city’s high costs. Housing costs rose $1,008 per year during the same period.

In all, a typical Bostonian has $6,336 more in gross income leftover after paying for housing, compared to three years ago. This same figure is $5,952 for renters, specifically, and $7,128 for homeowners.

8. Bridgeport, Connecticut

In the city of Bridgeport, slower-rising housing costs are also contributing to a widening gap between housing costs and incomes. Here, annual housing costs are just $432 higher than they were three years ago — the smallest increase in housing costs among the top 10 cities.

That means that more of the $6,610 increase in incomes from 2014 to 2017 will make its way into Bridgeport resident’s pockets being eaten up by housing costs.

In all, the three-year increase in incomes after accounting for housing costs is $6,178 .This number is actually higher for local homeowners, at $7,018, and lower for renters,$5,266.

9. Nashville, Tennessee

Nashville locals have $5,984 more in gross income after paying housing costs today than they did three years ago. Housing costs rose $576 during that time, while incomes were up $6,560.

While this isn’t the highest dollar amount, it reflects a drop of 6.7 percentage points in the ratio of housing costs to income. In other words, Nashville is the top 10 city where locals who saw the biggest increase in the percentage of their income they get to keep rather than pay toward housing.

10. Salt Lake City

Rounding out the list is Salt Lake City, which ranked in the top cities to live out your golden years. Despite a boom in housing costs in the past 15 years, wages in this Utah city have also increased. From 2014 to 2017, the median household income rose $6,309, exceeding the $456 rise in housing costs for a total gain of $5,853 for Salt Lake City locals.

In all, Salt Lake City residents are still coming out ahead, with more money leftover after paying for housing compared to three years previous.

Understanding the metrics

Comparing data from the American Community Survey for 2017 to 2014, analysts subtracted the change in median household income from the change in median housing costs (annualized) to determine the three-year change in gross income left over after paying for housing.

In addition, we also calculated the change in the percentage of income a median household would spend on median housing costs, and then we repeated the exercise for median rents and median costs for homeowners who have mortgages. In all, this generated the following findings for each city:

  • 3-Year change in gross income left over after housing costs (annual)
  • 3-Year change in gross income left over after rent (annual)
  • 3-Year change in gross income left over after homeownership costs, including mortgage (annual)
  • 3-Year change in the percentage of the median gross income required for median housing costs
  • 3-Year change in the percentage of the median gross income required for median rent
  • 3-Year change in the percentage of the median gross income required for median homeownership costs, including mortgage

Scroll to the end of this piece for a table that includes these full study findings for each city.

The median housing cost estimate is inclusive of every household within a Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which may include a city and surrounding communities. The rent estimate is limited to people who pay rent, and we limited the homeownership costs (which includes costs such as taxes and insurance) to those with a mortgage. We excluded homeowners without a mortgage, as their housing costs are likely to stay close to flat and wouldn’t reflect area changes in housing costs.

In several instances, we found that a higher proportion of median income was required to pay the median rent in 2017 than it was in 2014. Even in these cases, the median households brought home more money after paying rent.

Conventional wisdom says that households should spend no more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. In every metro we reviewed, the ratio of median income required to pay median rent fall comfortably below this line. Yet rents were more likely to have increased on pace with wages, meaning renters saw smaller gains in after-housing income than homeowners.

The ratio of housing costs to income homeowners, however, exceeds that limit in most metros, implying that homeownership is still not affordable for the typical household. Together, these findings suggest that while homeowners’ housing costs rise more slowly than renters’, they must use a large chunk of income to cover those costs than do renters.

Full rankings

Below is a table with the full findings for all 100 cities in our study. After the column listing the city, the leftmost three columns shows the change, in dollars, of gross income left after paying for housing costs. The rightmost three columns show the change in the percentage of the median income needed to pay for the median housing costs in that city.


Researchers compared 2017 and 2014 median household income, as well as 2017 and 2014 median housing costs, median gross rent, and median housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage.  The results were aggregated to the 100 largest municipal statistical areas, and the data is from the American Community Survey 5-Year estimates from the U.S. Census.

Get Personal Loan Offers
Up to $50,000


Won’t impact your credit score

How MagnifyMoney Gets Paid

Advertiser Disclosure

Life Events

Places Where Adults Still Live With Their Parents

Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone. It may not have been previewed, commissioned or otherwise endorsed by any of our network partners.

Written By

Moving out of your parents’ home has long been considered the ultimate rite of passage into full-fledged adulthood.

But today’s young adults are more likely to live in a parent’s household — and to live with their parents for a longer period, according to the Pew Research Center. A range of potential explanations has been offered for this generation’s “failure to launch,” from a desire to prolong adolescence to an aversion to marriage and commitment.

While these factors might play some role, the reality for most adults ages 25 to 40 living with their parents is that they lack the money to move out and establish their own households. Some might be unemployed and looking for work, while some have left the labor force altogether. Other young adults have their own children and live with parents out of a need for child care and support.

MagnifyMoney wanted to find out where U.S. adults are most likely to still be living with their parents, and what factors could be holding them back from leaving the nest.

We surveyed the 50 largest metros in America to identify the largest portion of adults ages 25 to 40 living with their parents along with some other statistics about them. We excluded people in this age group who identified themselves as active students.

Key findings

  • In Riverside, Calif., 28% of adults ages 25 to 40 live with their parents, earning this city the No. 1 spot on our list. High unemployment among these young adults – and for the metro, more generally – appears to be a leading factor.
  • Young adults in Miami, Los Angeles and New York follow, with more than 1 in 4 residents ages 25 to 40 living in their parents’ home.
  • Minneapolis stands at the other end of the spectrum, with fewer than 12% of young adults in this age range living with their parents.
  • Seattle is another city with just under 12% of young adults (ages 25 to 40) living under their parents’ roofs. Then there’s a four-way tie for third place among cities where adults are least likely to live with parents: Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Mo. and Raleigh, N.C. all have 12.3% of these adults living at home.
  • Across the board, about 1 in 4 adults living with their parents have children of their own in the home.
  • Men between the ages of 25 and 40 are more likely to live with their parents in every metro we reviewed (except Austin, Texas).
  • The average unemployment rate for this age group across the 50 metros is 8.6%. That’s more than twice the national unemployment rate of 4% as of January 2019.
  • Nearly 1 in 5 adults who live at home don’t participate in the labor market at all, on average across the 50 metros.
  • Adding together the unemployed and the people who don’t participate in the labor force, only 72% of these adults are currently working while living with parents.

Understanding the metrics

The list is ranked strictly on the percentage of adults aged 25 to 40 who live with their parents. To inform our findings, we also present the following information for this same population (which did not affect rankings). We excluded anyone from the analysis who was identified as a student.

  • Percentage who have their own children at home.
  • Percentage who are unemployed. This refers to people who want to work but are unable to find work. They are part of the active labor force in their communities.
  • Percentage who don’t participate in the labor force. These are people who don’t work outside of the home and are not seeking to work. This is different from the unemployment rate, and people counted in that rate are not included in this metric. We excluded people who are identified as students from our analysis as well, so these statistics don’t include people not looking for work due to educational pursuits.
  • Breakdown of people who live with their parents by sex.

In the 10 cities with the largest shares of young adults ages 25 to 40 living in their parents’ homes, eight were split between two regions: the South and the Northeast. In the South, more adults live with parents in Miami, San Antonio, New Orleans and Orlando, Fla. The four top cities in the Northeast include New York, Philadelphia, Providence, R.I. and Baltimore.

Here are some other highlights of these 10 cities with the highest portions of adults (ages 25 to 40) living with parents:

  • San Antonio, Orlando and Riverside had the highest rates of parenthood among young adults living with parents, out of the top 10 cities overall. In these cities, nearly three in 10 young adults who live at home with parents also live with a child of their own.
  • Of the top 10 cities where more adults are living with parents, the highest unemployment rates among this cohort are found in New Orleans (11.2%), Riverside (10.8%) and Baltimore (10.6%). In these cities, more than 1 in 10 of these adults living under their parents’ roofs are unemployed and actively seeking work.
  • The cities among the top 10 with the highest rates of nonparticipation in the labor force among adults living with their parents are San Antonio (25.3%), New Orleans (24.1%) and Orlando (19.5%).
  • Across the board, men make up the bigger share of adults who live with their parents, but the difference was more pronounced in some of the top 10 cities. In both Providence and Philadelphia, men make up a larger majority (56.7%) of adults living with parents. New York follows close behind, with a 56.2% male majority of adults living with their parents.

Then there are the cities where fewer adults (ages 25 to 40) are living with their parents, and are more likely to be living on their own. Four of these cities are located in the Midwest: Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Mo. and Columbus, Ohio. The South and West are also well represented in this list. In each region, there are three cities where these adults are less likely to be living in their parents’ homes.

Here is a closer look at other metrics that can inform these top 10 cities and their low rates of adults living with parents:

  • In these 10 cities, adults living with parents were more likely to be parents themselves, compared with the 10 cities where more adults live with parents. In Austin and Denver, 30% of adults living with parents had at least one child of their own living with them.
  • Raleigh and Indianapolis had the highest unemployment rates among these adults of the top 10 cities, at right around 12%. Austin and Kansas City had the lowest rates of unemployment among adults living with parents, at 5.4% and 5.6% respectively.
  • Among these 10 cities, Austin did have the highest share of adults living at home who aren’t participating in the labor force, however, at 22.5%. Portland and Indianapolis also had higher rates of labor nonparticipation among these adults living in parents’ homes, at just over 20%.
  • Minneapolis and Portland have the most uneven breakdown by sex of adults living with parents. Austin, on the other hand, is the only city we surveyed where a majority of adults living with parents are women, at 51.1%.

Full rankings

Our rankings surveyed the 50 most populous metro areas in the U.S. to find the proportion of adults (ages 25 to 40) living with their parents for each. See the table below for the full rankings for all 50 cities, along with key statistics on local adults who live with their parents.

How to prepare your money to move out on your own

Most adults living with parents hope to eventually move out on their own. If that’s you, careful planning can help you prep your finances, pay down debt and save enough money to make this happen sooner.

Here are some specific steps to take while you’re living with your parents to get financially healthy and launch your solo stage of life.

Make a plan to deal with debt

If you’re hoping to move out, you’ll have to deal with your debt first. The monthly payments on debt can be a burden that makes it harder to afford to live on your own.

Living at home is the perfect time to make extra payments toward debt and pay off some balances. Target your high-interest debt first, such as credit cards — these balances will cost you the most to carry from month to month.

Paying down debt is a great start, but your payoff date might still be years away while you’re hoping to move out much sooner. In these cases, you could refinance or consolidate debt to adjust your monthly payments or even secure a lower interest rate. Here are some options worth looking into:

Seek out a better job or side hustle

Unemployment, underemployment or exiting the labor force are among the biggest reasons adults live with their parents — and can’t move out. The only way to find your next gig is to apply, so keep your hopes and efforts up.

Applying for jobs can be tough, however, especially if you’re met with rejections. If your efforts seem to be going nowhere, see what you can do to make yourself a more attractive job candidate. Read up on job-seeking advice and ask for feedback from mentors or potential employers to improve your resume and prep for your next opportunity.

On top of actively seeking new or better employment, you can also consider picking up a side hustle or part-time job. This can help you develop new skills, build a portfolio and avoid a gap in employment — all while earning additional income and keeping money coming in.

Take advantage of low-cost living with parents

Living with parents isn’t always easy, but it comes with one major perk: low costs. Most adults who live with parents do so to benefit from either sharing living costs or skipping typical bills such as rent, groceries or utilities.

This lack of costs leaves more of your money available to tackle other financial goals. You can start building your move-out fund, saving for expenses like a deposit on an apartment and purchasing furnishings for your own place. Having an emergency fund in place before moving out can also be a wise move. Or you can use savings from living at home to pay down student loans or other debt.

Whatever your goal, set your sights and start using your freed-up funds to work toward it.


Analysts used 2017 American Community Census microdata hosted on IPUMS to calculate the following percentages for people aged 25 to 40 and who did not identify as students: 1) Percentage who live in the same household with at least one of their parents. For those who both do and do not live with their parents, we separately calculated: 1) Percentage who live with their own children, 2) percentage who are unemployed, 3) percentage who are not part of the labor force, 4) percentage who are men, 5) percentage who are women.