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'?
#16
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.
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.
#17
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
#18
Auntie Fa
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,344
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Agreed.
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.
Bugger, is my lifestyle going to have to change.
Bugger, is my lifestyle going to have to change.
#19
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,375
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.
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.
#20
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.
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.
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)
#21
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Oz -> UK -> San Diego
Posts: 9,912
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.
#22
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
I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
#23
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
I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
#24
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
I believe James Packer is rich, if that helps
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.
#25
Auntie Fa
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,344
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.
(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.
#26
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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
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
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.
#27
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 131
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.
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.
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.
#28
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.
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.
#29
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.
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.
I agree - fair and tax rarely go together.
#30
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.