Monthly Cost of Owning in Each Major US City

Owning a median-priced home in San Francisco costs $8,954 per month when principal, interest, taxes, insurance (PITI), and maintenance are combined — that consumes 71.6% of a $150,000 annual gross income before a dollar goes to food, transportation, or retirement savings. Across the same ten major markets, that figure drops to $2,688 in Chicago. The gap between those two numbers is almost everything you need to know about why city selection is the single largest financial lever available to a high-income household.

What follows is a city-by-city cost breakdown using verified median home prices, the current 30-year mortgage rate, effective property tax rates, state insurance data, and a 1% annual maintenance allowance. Every figure in the analysis feeds into the Finluxy Housing Affordability Index — total monthly cost as a percentage of $150k gross income — so comparisons across metros are directly comparable.

Key Numbers at a Glance

Sources: NAR Q4 2025 Metro Median Home Price Report (San Francisco, Los Angeles); Zillow ZHVI (all other metros, Q4 2025–Q1 2026); Freddie Mac PMMS May 28, 2026 (mortgage rate 6.53%); Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study 2024; ATTOM 2025 Annual Property Tax Analysis; NerdWallet 2026 homeowners insurance state averages. Price-to-income ratios use Census ACS 2023–2024 metro median household income estimates.

The Finluxy Housing Affordability Index

The Finluxy Housing Affordability Index measures monthly PITI plus maintenance as a percentage of $12,500 gross monthly income (the $150k/year target income). The mortgage industry’s front-end debt-to-income (DTI) limit — the maximum lenders will generally approve for housing costs alone — is 28%. Markets above 40% are functionally unaffordable for this income level. Markets above 50% indicate that even a dual-income professional household would be stretched severely.

Four cities breach the 40% threshold: San Francisco at 71.6%, Los Angeles at 51.6%, Seattle at 43.8%, and Boston at 38.4% — which rounds within a few dollars of the 40% boundary. Every remaining metro falls between 21.5% and 31.9%, meaning the coastal premium is not distributed evenly across the country; it is concentrated heavily in a handful of supply-constrained markets.

The contrast is sharpest between San Francisco and Austin. Despite Austin’s home price being only 33% of San Francisco’s, the gap in the index is 43 percentage points — because Texas’s effective property tax rate of roughly 1.70% in Travis County adds $607 per month in taxes on a $428,000 home, nearly as much as San Francisco adds proportionally on a per-dollar-of-home basis. Property tax is the variable most buyers underestimate when comparing Sun Belt affordability to California.

Cost Breakdown by Market

San Francisco: $8,954/Month

The NAR reported a median single-family home price of $1,305,000 for the San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward metro in Q4 2025, a 0.8% decline year over year. At 6.53% on a 30-year fixed mortgage with 20% down, principal and interest alone total $6,621 per month on the $1,044,000 loan. Property tax at California’s effective new-buyer rate of approximately 0.70% adds $761 monthly. Homeowner insurance, scaled from California’s $1,335 state average for $300,000 in dwelling coverage to match replacement cost at this price point, adds roughly $484. Maintenance at 1% of value annually is $1,088. Total: $8,954 per month.

That 71.6% index reading is not a rounding error. A $150k earner cannot buy the median home here without a substantial down payment supplement, additional income, or both. The price-to-income ratio of 9.5× further confirms it: the mortgage industry’s maximum qualifying income for this purchase at 6.53% would be approximately $190,000 annually, well above the metro median and 27% above the $150k target.

Los Angeles: $6,444/Month

Los Angeles presents the analysis with its most counterintuitive finding. The NAR reported a Q4 2025 median of $939,700 for the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale metro — flat year over year. At 6.53%, the monthly mortgage payment is $4,765. But the price-to-income ratio is 11.1× — higher than San Francisco’s 9.5× — because Los Angeles median household income sits around $85,000, well below the Bay Area’s $137,100. The city’s homes cost almost as much relative to local wages as San Francisco’s, despite carrying a lower absolute price tag. A $150k earner is not the typical LA buyer; at a PIR of 11.1×, they are above average for the market but still well below what the median home demands.

California’s Proposition 13, which caps annual assessed value increases at 2%, generates a significant hidden subsidy for longtime owners. A neighbor who bought in 2010 might pay $4,000 annually in property taxes on an identical home; a buyer at today’s median pays $6,578 annually. For a household entering the market now, that $2,578 annual gap represents a permanent competitive disadvantage versus existing owners in the same neighborhood.

Seattle: $5,474/Month

The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metro Zillow ZHVI stands at $767,553, up 1.3% year over year as of early 2026 — one of the few major Western markets to post a gain after the post-pandemic correction. Monthly P&I of $3,892 is joined by $543 in property taxes (effective rate approximately 0.85%), $399 in insurance, and $640 in maintenance. The 43.8% index reading puts Seattle above the 40% unaffordability threshold for a $150k earner. Washington state applies no income tax, which partially offsets the housing burden in take-home pay terms — but that benefit does not change the raw monthly cash requirement. The Seattle real estate market remains supply-constrained, and inventory remains below pre-pandemic norms.

Boston and New York City: Nearly Identical Outcomes, Very Different Reasons

Boston and New York City (metro) produce almost identical Finluxy Housing Affordability Index readings — 38.4% and 38.8%, respectively — despite a $100,000 difference in median home price. Boston’s $713,000 median (Zillow, January 2026) is offset by one of the lowest effective property tax rates among major metros, roughly 0.50% per the Lincoln Institute 2024 study, placing Boston in the “half the national average or less” category. Monthly property tax: $297.

New York City’s metro ZHVI of $613,276 is lower, but the effective property tax rate is approximately 1.60%, and the NYC tax structure is notoriously complex: assessment caps created under New York City’s system since 1981 benefit longtime owners heavily, while new buyers absorb a disproportionate share of the tax base. Monthly property tax for a new buyer at $613,276: $817 — nearly three times Boston’s. That single variable closes most of the cost gap between the two cities. For a comparison of New York City versus Miami in depth, see the full market analysis.

The Boston versus Philadelphia real estate analysis illustrates how low effective property tax rates, combined with tight inventory, allow a metro to sustain very high home prices with lower monthly burdens than their sticker prices suggest.

Chicago: $2,688/Month — the Outlier

Chicago’s Zillow ZHVI of approximately $336,000 represents the most affordable major metro in this analysis. Monthly P&I of $1,704, combined with $470 in property taxes, $234 in insurance, and $280 in maintenance, produces a total of $2,688 per month. The 21.5% index reading is comfortably below the 28% front-end DTI threshold — meaning a $150k earner could cover the median Chicago home well within standard underwriting limits. The price-to-income ratio of 4.3× is the lowest in this set.

The catch: Illinois carries the second-highest effective property tax rate among states per ATTOM’s 2025 analysis at 1.84%, trailing only New Jersey at 1.58%. Chicago’s affordability is a function of suppressed home values, not a favorable tax environment. For the Chicago versus Washington, D.C., homeownership cost comparison, the property tax divergence is the central story — DC’s effective rate of roughly 0.55% on owner-occupied homes cuts the monthly tax burden dramatically versus Chicago despite a higher home price.

Sun Belt Markets: Miami, Austin, Nashville, Denver

The four Sun Belt and Mountain West metros in this analysis — Miami, Austin, Nashville, and Denver — cluster between 23.7% and 31.9% on the Finluxy index, all below the 28% front-end DTI threshold at $150k income, or close to it. Each gets there differently.

Miami’s $455,761 metro median (Zillow ZHVI, current) reflects a decline of roughly 4.3% year over year as of January 2026, per Zillow’s market report. Insurance drives the cost structure: Florida’s hurricane exposure pushes homeowner premiums sharply above national norms, with the statewide average in a wide range depending on location and coverage level. The figure used here ($4,400 annually) represents a reasonable estimate for a Miami-area property at this price point, acknowledging that coastal proximity increases this figure significantly. Miami’s 27.5% index reading is misleading for buyers close to the water — both insurance and effective property tax for new buyers (Florida’s Save Our Homes cap works similarly to California’s Prop 13, benefiting longtime owners while exposing new entrants to market-rate assessments) can push real costs meaningfully higher. The full Sun Belt real estate cost benchmarks show how rapidly costs diverge within Florida between coastal and inland properties.

Austin’s 28.2% reading deserves context. The median is down nearly 6% from peak per Zillow, which has brought this metro closer to affordability for $150k earners than it was in 2022 or 2023. But Texas’s property tax structure adds friction that surprises buyers relocating from California or the Northeast: the $607 monthly tax on a $428,390 Austin home is higher than San Francisco’s $761 monthly tax on a $1.3 million home in percentage-of-income terms, because SF’s effective rate is lower and the California baseline rewards existing owners through Prop 13. A $150k buyer in Austin owes $7,284 annually in property taxes. A longtime SF homeowner on an equivalent income might owe $2,400 annually on a much more valuable property.

Nashville at 23.7% and Denver at 31.9% represent opposite trajectories. Nashville’s effective property tax rate of 0.48% — one of the lowest in the country, confirmed by both Lincoln Institute 2024 data and ATTOM 2025 reporting (Tennessee at 0.50%) — substantially reduces the monthly carry despite a $436,866 median. Denver’s index is elevated not by home prices but by Colorado’s insurance environment: the state’s cumulative home insurance premium increase of 76.6% from 2019 to 2024 (LendingTree, 2025) has made Colorado the state with the fastest premium growth nationally. The $4,175 annual average (NerdWallet 2026) adds $348 monthly, which pushes Denver’s index higher than its home price alone would suggest.

Sources: NAR Q4 2025 (San Francisco, Los Angeles); Zillow ZHVI Q4 2025–Q1 2026 (all others); Freddie Mac PMMS 6.53% May 28, 2026; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study 2024; ATTOM 2025 Annual Property Tax Analysis; NerdWallet 2026 homeowners insurance state averages (scaled proportionally to home value); 1% annual maintenance standard applied to all markets. All calculations assume 20% down payment and single-family home, no HOA.

The Overlooked Variable: Insurance Is No Longer a Rounding Error

Most affordability analyses treat insurance as a minor line item. At today’s rates in several markets, that assumption is wrong. Colorado’s cumulative 76.6% premium increase from 2019 to 2024 — the highest in the country per LendingTree’s 2025 State of Home Insurance report — means Denver buyers pay $4,175 annually on average, just $410 less than Austin buyers in Texas, where the state average is $4,585 annually (NerdWallet 2026). For Miami, insurance risk is existential: the full statewide average in one estimate exceeds $10,000 annually (MoneyGeek 2026), though mid-range estimates for typical MSA properties run $4,000–$5,000.

Contrast these with Boston and Chicago, where insurance averages $1,460 and $2,505 annually per NerdWallet. The insurance gap between Nashville and Denver is roughly $2,040 per year — not enough to move the Finluxy index by more than two or three percentage points, but meaningful over a 10-year ownership horizon, where it compounds to over $20,000 in additional cost.

This is the variable most ignored in city-to-city comparisons. A buyer comparing Austin to Nashville on home price alone is missing a cost difference that tilts meaningfully toward Nashville when property tax (Austin: $607/mo vs. Nashville: $175/mo) and insurance ($382/mo vs. $208/mo) are layered in. Nashville’s total monthly cost is $556 less per month than Austin’s — $6,672 per year — despite only a $8,476 difference in home price. The Nashville real estate cost profile is more compelling than the headline price suggests.

Context for $150k+ Households

A $150,000 gross income does not go equally far in these markets, and not just because of housing costs. Two metro areas — San Francisco and Los Angeles — are effectively closed to this income level for the median-priced home without substantial additional equity or income. San Francisco’s 71.6% index reading leaves only 28.4% of gross income for every other category of spending, before taxes. Los Angeles at 51.6% is marginally less severe but still requires either a significant equity contribution from a prior home sale or a household income well above $150k.

The markets that offer both a meaningful lifestyle and genuine financial headroom for this income tier are Chicago (21.5%), Nashville (23.7%), Miami (27.5%), and Austin (28.2%). Each is at or just at the front-end DTI boundary. For households targeting affordable luxury real estate markets, these metros offer the combination of meaningful price points, reasonable tax environments (except Austin), and housing stock that doesn’t require a $400,000 down payment to access.

For dual-income $150k+ households — say, two earners at $85,000 and $80,000 — the calculus changes. At $165,000 combined, the monthly gross is $13,750. Boston’s $4,797 monthly cost drops to a 34.9% index reading, Seattle falls to 39.8%, and New York City to 35.3%. All three enter a range where a disciplined household can manage the housing burden while still funding retirement and building net worth. But a single-income $150k earner in Boston or Seattle is operating near the limit without financial strain.

One structural factor the analysis does not capture: the asset appreciation differential. San Francisco’s price appreciation has historically outrun nearly every other market over multi-decade horizons. A buyer who stretches to 71.6% of income in 2026 may be buying into an asset with substantial long-term appreciation potential. That doesn’t make the monthly cash flow sustainable, but it does mean the decision isn’t purely a cost calculation — it’s a bet on market trajectory, which requires a separate analysis of US city real estate cost and return comparisons.

The most data-supported observation in this analysis: property tax variation across states is the most underweighted variable in buyer decision-making. A $150k earner moving from New York City to Nashville saves $642 per month in property taxes alone ($817 versus $175), on homes with comparable price tags. That’s $7,704 annually — the equivalent of a meaningful 401(k) contribution — returned to the household every year, indefinitely. The full picture of how property tax varies across US metro areas shows this effect clearly.