Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Australia
Reload this Page >

$150k / year = 'rich'?

View Poll Results: Do you think a household income of $150k makes you 'rich'?
Damn straight
65
34.03%
Unlikely
126
65.97%
Voters: 191. You may not vote on this poll

$150k / year = 'rich'?

Old May 18th 2008, 3:45 am
  #16  
BE Forum Addict
 
NedKelly's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
NedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by Budawang
With $150K income evenly spread between two earners you would be very comfortably off. If it was a one earner family then it wouldn't be so good, but still comfortable. I agree that government shouldn't be handing out money to people on or above that income level.

The reality is that Australia has an equitable tax system which provides a lot of support for families on low to middle incomes. This is in contrast to countries like the US. There is broad public support for this as it helps promote social cohesion.
I understand that the number of working individuals earning over $150,000 is about 2%. You will probably find that these 2% of earners contribute something like 30% to the tax take. In reality, very few people will be affected, so why be so mean and do it. The administration of it will probably cost more than it will save the taxpayer. This is the politics of envy that is typical of labor governments. This does nothing to promote social cohesion, that's complete bolox. All it does is take away the incentive to work and improve ones lot in lot in life.
NedKelly is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 4:26 am
  #17  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
BadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond reputeBadgeIsBack has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by MartinLuther
I would say "Well off".

Even if you live in Sydney.
Or, certainly, you'd be doing well compared to the average. I am sure some families make more.
BadgeIsBack is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 5:01 am
  #18  
Auntie Fa
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,344
Kooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by yanH
Not in Sydney with a mortgage you wouldn't.
Agreed.

Originally Posted by Budawang
The real issue is whether you managed to get in on the property market when prices were still reasonable - i.e. before 2001. If you are planning to buy now and you have two kids you would only just be comfortable with a combined 150K in the big cities.
Again, as a newcomer, this is the impression I get. Also whether you came here with much capital to speak of; we don't have kids and I'm fast realising I will need to work if we want to buy.

Originally Posted by Budawang
If you bought in 2000 then you would be doing very nicely with enough discretionary income for overseas trips every year or two, weekend getaways, the occasional high class restaurant etc.
Bugger, is my lifestyle going to have to change.
Kooky. is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 5:29 am
  #19  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,375
jad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond reputejad n rich has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

The govs perception of rich is 150,000 before tax not after it, so it really beggars belief that anyone with a family on that is rich.

Its highly discouraging for any family to do well and yet even more encouragement for aussies who work hard to take their hard work and skills overseas where it might be appreciated.

Tax rates on that sort of income are high enough as it is, Rudd needs to stop knocking people who work hard , its their tax that supports the incredible amount that dont work. Someone just quoted 2% of the population earn over 150,000, yet 40%+ of australians are claiming enough welfare to have a health care card.
jad n rich is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 5:29 am
  #20  
Ex BE ***** Addict
 
arkon's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,770
arkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond reputearkon has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by Budawang
With $150K income evenly spread between two earners you would be very comfortably off. If it was a one earner family then it wouldn't be so good, but still comfortable. I agree that government shouldn't be handing out money to people on or above that income level.

The reality is that Australia has an equitable tax system which provides a lot of support for families on low to middle incomes. This is in contrast to countries like the US. There is broad public support for this as it helps promote social cohesion.
How the hell is people on high incomes paying more tax an equitable system?
It would be equitable if higher earners paid the same rate of tax as the low earners. If people on more than 150k that are now not going to get the benifits their tax has contributed no longer had to pay tax on anything over 150k, now that would be fair.

What some seem to forget is by it's very nature of being a percentage the tax system means that people already pay more tax the more money they earn. They are already more than pulling their weight.

Luxury car tax hikes! WTF is that all about? The car costs more anyway, you are already paying more tax by default, so why does it have to be doubly unfair just cos it costs more? Wan***s! (Govt.s that is)
arkon is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 6:12 am
  #21  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Oz -> UK -> San Diego
Posts: 9,912
Ozzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond reputeOzzidoc has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

In my eyes, being rich is not based on income as such, but being in a position where one can choose not to work and still maintain the desired standard of living.
Ozzidoc is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 6:25 am
  #22  
Crazy Cat Lady
 
moneypenny20's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
moneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Maybe the word 'rich' shouldn't have been used in the budget. I think it's a fair line to draw for benefits to stop on though but I don't consider $150k to be rich, it's definitely on the comfortable scale and one we're well below Obviously those on 150k and above don't consider themselves rich, simply because their mortgage and lifestyle will be up to the limit so they'll be struggling just as much as those below, just struggling in a slightly different way.

I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
moneypenny20 is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 6:37 am
  #23  
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
 
wmoore's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
wmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by moneypen20
Maybe the word 'rich' shouldn't have been used in the budget. I think it's a fair line to draw for benefits to stop on though but I don't consider $150k to be rich, it's definitely on the comfortable scale and one we're well below Obviously those on 150k and above don't consider themselves rich, simply because their mortgage and lifestyle will be up to the limit so they'll be struggling just as much as those below, just struggling in a slightly different way.

I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
I suspect the word 'rich' was deliberately thrown in there by KRudd's PR people so that the 'not rich' would band together and say 'yeah, right on. They can afford it man', or some such crap.
wmoore is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 6:45 am
  #24  
BE Forum Addict
 
NedKelly's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,584
NedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond reputeNedKelly has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by moneypen20
Maybe the word 'rich' shouldn't have been used in the budget. I think it's a fair line to draw for benefits to stop on though but I don't consider $150k to be rich, it's definitely on the comfortable scale and one we're well below Obviously those on 150k and above don't consider themselves rich, simply because their mortgage and lifestyle will be up to the limit so they'll be struggling just as much as those below, just struggling in a slightly different way.

I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
The Labor party deliberately uses the word 'rich' as they see being 'rich' as something rotton and anti-social, they also use the words 'working families' in a manner that implies it is only poor people who work. This fits their socialist agenda and creates class resentment. You just have to look at labors luxury car tax, it is a deliberate swipe at the rich ( even though it will affect 'working families' as well as it is inflationary)

As for James Packer, I wonder if Erica Baxter would have married him if he was just from a 'working family'.

Last edited by NedKelly; May 18th 2008 at 6:47 am.
NedKelly is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 7:07 am
  #25  
Auntie Fa
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,344
Kooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond reputeKooky. has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Yeah, 'cos her beauty is all natural, isn't it?

(Disclaimer: Never heard of her, just going on that photo, and sure that with his money he could end up looking just as plastic, er I mean pretty.)

Despite the shallow expat-wife persona I sometimes project, I don't care about being rich. I care about being comfortable, fed, and happy, and to be able to ensure that my loved ones are in a similar state.
Kooky. is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 7:07 am
  #26  
Crazy Cat Lady
 
moneypenny20's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 65,493
moneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond reputemoneypenny20 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by NedKelly
The Labor party deliberately uses the word 'rich' as they see being 'rich' as something rotton and anti-social, they also use the words 'working families' in a manner that implies it is only poor people who work. This fits their socialist agenda and creates class resentment. You just have to look at labors luxury car tax, it is a deliberate swipe at the rich ( even though it will affect 'working families' as well as it is inflationary)

As for James Packer, I wonder if Erica Baxter would have married him if he was just from a 'working family'.http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/..._470x403,0.jpg
Having a miaow moment, she's hardly an oil painting either, maybe they suit each other.

The working families bit confused me to be honest. Anyone, who has children, who works, who possibly has a partner is surely a 'working family' regardless of income earned.
moneypenny20 is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 8:16 am
  #27  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 131
dpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to alldpande is a name known to all
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by Budawang
With $150K income evenly spread between two earners you would be very comfortably off. If it was a one earner family then it wouldn't be so good, but still comfortable. I agree that government shouldn't be handing out money to people on or above that income level.

The reality is that Australia has an equitable tax system which provides a lot of support for families on low to middle incomes. This is in contrast to countries like the US. There is broad public support for this as it helps promote social cohesion.
sorry- being a bit thick- why should it make a difference whether the total income is from one or both earners?

We will initially be on just my income- I presume single earner families pay more tax to take account of the fact that they don't pay for child care and such like?.......but even so, does that turn the same income from being classed as 'rich' to 'not rich'?

BTW in GBP that's 72K per year before tax- that's almost double what our total income is here in the UK and we are reasonably comfortable now. I think a lot of it is about getting used to a certain level of income and then deciding you need more and more.
dpande is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 8:18 am
  #28  
BE Enthusiast
 
MartinH's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 532
MartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to beholdMartinH is a splendid one to behold
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

To be honest it makes me sick how much tax I pay with two children in private education AND paying my own private health care I am less of a burden on the state that most.

I did not inherit any money.
I did not make any money in property.

I work hard and get fleeced for the privilege.

"Fair" and "Tax" are two words that should NEVER be used in the same sentence.



















I'll get me coat.
MartinH is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 8:24 am
  #29  
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
 
wmoore's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
wmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond reputewmoore has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by MartinH
To be honest it makes me sick how much tax I pay with two children in private education AND paying my own private health care I am less of a burden on the state that most.

I did not inherit any money.
I did not make any money in property.

I work hard and get fleeced for the privilege.

"Fair" and "Tax" are two words that should NEVER be used in the same sentence.

I'll get me coat.
But surely you get a nice lump back after July for paying those fees up front?

I agree - fair and tax rarely go together.
wmoore is offline  
Old May 18th 2008, 8:29 am
  #30  
BE Enthusiast
 
tictac's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Pine Rivers
Posts: 845
tictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond reputetictac has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?

Originally Posted by Budawang
The real issue is whether you managed to get in on the property market when prices were still reasonable - i.e. before 2001. If you are planning to buy now and you have two kids you would only just be comfortable with a combined 150K in the big cities. If you bought in 2000 then you would be doing very nicely with enough discretionary income for overseas trips every year or two, weekend getaways, the occasional high class restaurant etc.
Exactly! Especially if you're a first time buyer...
tictac is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.