Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by elru21:
But when you are self-employed your hourly rate * hours worked does not equal your take home pay. You have to take all of your costs (overhead, equipment, expenses, blah, blah, blah) out of your revenues in order to get to anything resembling a profit/take home pay.
|
...that's why I said "plus expenses". I know all about self-employment. Trust me. |
I'm sure you do. I'm just saying that you can't take an $86/hour billable rate and multiply it times 2000 hours (a "fulltime job") and come up with a comprable $172,000 salary. That would be $172,000 gross of all expenses.
Let's say $100,000 operating budget is not unreasonable for a full time freelance photog (depends on your area, etc.) Then, a $72,000 take home salary doesn't seem that out of line. Roughly speaking, I mean.
eta - I posted this quickly (damn you guys post fast and I try to keep up ;)) but you can play with the numbers either way. I have a studio business so my operating expenses may be higher than what you guys are calling "freelance" photography. Travel I would think would really add up, though, depending on what you shoot.
Liza
Message edited by author 2007-09-05 22:06:00. |
