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'?
May 18th 2008, 9:54 am
#32
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.
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.
Total tax on two earners will be lower since each gets the allowance and each goes through the tax bands. A single earner has one allowance and quickly passes each band to the top rate.
May 18th 2008, 9:54 am
#33
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
May 18th 2008, 9:54 am
#34
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,526
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
One of my kids came home wanting to go on a school trip to Italy next year based around Music and language, (she is probably the best violinist in her school and great at Italian so it's going to be very difficult to say no).... cost 6.5 k
I dont think 100k is exactly comfortable when you've got kids.
The bloody fees at our supposed state school are ridiculous
May 18th 2008, 9:55 am
#35
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Total tax on two earners will be lower since each gets the allowance and each goes through the tax bands. A single earner has one allowance and quickly passes each band to the top rate.
May 18th 2008, 9:59 am
#36
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
The ABC's budget analysis contained an interview with a couple earning a joint income $120k ("The Aldermans"). Their mortgage was $750k. They have one child, and one on the way. They still get the baby bonus, and they'll be better off under this budget.
Now, speaking personally, I think that a $750k mortgage on $120k p.a. is sheer madness. But if that's what you can achieve on $120k, then $150k = "rich" in my book. Particularly if it's for a childless couple or a single earner.
You don't often read about the starving millions of Mosman Park.
May 18th 2008, 10:00 am
#37
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
"Do you want to go on the trip? OK get a job, then we'll talk about it"
May 18th 2008, 10:05 am
#38
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
I would.
The ABC's budget analysis contained an interview with a couple earning a joint income $120k ("The Aldermans"). Their mortgage was $750k. They have one child, and one on the way. They still get the baby bonus, and they'll be better off under this budget.
Now, speaking personally, I think that a $750k mortgage on $120k p.a. is sheer madness. But if that's what you can achieve on $120k, then $150k = "rich" in my book. Particularly if it's for a childless couple or a single earner.
You don't often read about the starving millions of Mosman Park.
The ABC's budget analysis contained an interview with a couple earning a joint income $120k ("The Aldermans"). Their mortgage was $750k. They have one child, and one on the way. They still get the baby bonus, and they'll be better off under this budget.
Now, speaking personally, I think that a $750k mortgage on $120k p.a. is sheer madness. But if that's what you can achieve on $120k, then $150k = "rich" in my book. Particularly if it's for a childless couple or a single earner.
You don't often read about the starving millions of Mosman Park.
I completely disagree that the size of your mortgage decides whether you are rich or not.
May 18th 2008, 10:10 am
#39
no stressin no fussin....
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Fantasy Island....
Posts: 12,616
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
$150k PA is not rich. It's not poor but it is by no means rich.
As for someone on a $750k mortgage on that salary. They must have had a big down payment as $120k PA salary would not pay for the mortgage plus bills plus food.
The other thing is on this salary you either have to take out private healthcare or pay extra Tax levy at the end of the year if you are with Medicare.
As for someone on a $750k mortgage on that salary. They must have had a big down payment as $120k PA salary would not pay for the mortgage plus bills plus food.
The other thing is on this salary you either have to take out private healthcare or pay extra Tax levy at the end of the year if you are with Medicare.
May 18th 2008, 10:15 am
#40
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
You might not be able to handle a huge mortgage, but they can. Being rich is not just about the amount of money coming in; it's also about your ability to maintain your chosen lifestyle.
I completely disagree that the size of your mortgage decides whether you are rich or not.
May 18th 2008, 10:19 am
#41
What's happening dudes?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Bayside Brisbane
Posts: 20,647
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
I agree. Nevertheless, these people can afford it. They are not struggling, and they believe they'll be better off under the latest budget.
You might not be able to handle a huge mortgage, but they can. Being rich is not just about the amount of money coming in; it's also about your ability to maintain your chosen lifestyle.
That's not what I said.
You might not be able to handle a huge mortgage, but they can. Being rich is not just about the amount of money coming in; it's also about your ability to maintain your chosen lifestyle.
That's not what I said.
May 18th 2008, 10:32 am
#42
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
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.
It is well known that the richer you are, the easier it is to minimise your tax. Historically, the highest earners have always paid ridiculously low amounts of tax because they have access to tax minimisation schemes from which the average punter is excluded by default.
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.
Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter.
If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”
And some of them pay virtually no tax at all - like this guy.
This is the politics of envy that is typical of labor governments. This does nothing to promote social cohesion, that's complete bolox.
If that's not envy, what is?
All it does is take away the incentive to work and improve ones lot in lot in life.
Oh wait...
May 18th 2008, 10:42 am
#43
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Surely being rich involves having spare cash after the bills have gone out?
I doubt the Aldermans have much of that.
I rate them higher than these guys.
May 18th 2008, 10:58 am
#44
no stressin no fussin....
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Fantasy Island....
Posts: 12,616
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
You have got to be kiddingKevin Rudd [Milky Bar Kid] is nowhere to be seen now he's in power. One thing you can say about Howard, he may have been old school but at least he kept things in order and stood up to be counted. We don't see our Kevin for dust now he's in power. I suppose he'd be embarrassed by the shit state the country is in now he's in charge. Of course, if we perpetuate the blame culture, lets put it down to a global downturn
Petrol, food prices and interest rates have all gone up and will continue to do so. The workforce is about to witness union scare mongering like not seen in years which in turn will have a knock on effect in terms of job losses, or certainly not increases. Although this will of course be hidden by useless Government data still bleating on <5% are unemployed. Unions are increasingly using scare tactics which are fairly well substantiated due to lack of managements ability to understand H&S standards, think smart, work smart and act smart and the Government will continue to smokescreen by focussing on issues fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, like creating "tall poppy" bollocks about people being rich when they earn $150k a year.I'm not saying $150k is poor, but it sure aint rich either
Yeh sure.These "rich" $150 grand a year folks are as happy as pigs in shit.The future looks rosey.
They're luvvin it
May 18th 2008, 11:03 am
#45
Fighting my corner
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 11,948
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Don't talk to me, talk to the Aldermans. It's not my fight.
Speaking personally, I would have voted for Howard in the last election. But that's a story for another time, and I'm not here to trade political rants. Save it for your local RSL Club.
The Aldermans aren't on $150k a year. They're on $120k a year. And how have the $150k a year people been disadvantaged? Not in any way that I can see. Losing the baby bonus? No big deal.
I just can't manage to squeeze out the tears for those top 2% earners.
Kevin Rudd [Milky Bar Kid] is nowhere to be seen now he's in power. One thing you can say about Howard, he may have been old school but at least he kept things in order and stood up to be counted. We don't see our Kevin for dust now he's in power. I suppose he'd be embarrassed by the shit state the country is in now he's in charge. Of course, if we perpetuate the blame culture, lets put it down to a global downturn
Petrol, food prices and interest rates have all gone up and will continue to do so. The workforce is about to witness union scare mongering like not seen in years which in turn will have a knock on effect in terms of job losses, or certainly not increases. Although this will of course be hidden by useless Government data still bleating on <5% are unemployed. Unions are increasingly using scare tactics which are fairly well substantiated due to lack of managements ability to understand H&S standards, think smart, work smart and act smart and the Government will continue to smokescreen by focussing on issues fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, like creating "tall poppy" bollocks about people being rich when they earn $150k a year.I'm not saying $150k is poor, but it sure aint rich either
Petrol, food prices and interest rates have all gone up and will continue to do so. The workforce is about to witness union scare mongering like not seen in years which in turn will have a knock on effect in terms of job losses, or certainly not increases. Although this will of course be hidden by useless Government data still bleating on <5% are unemployed. Unions are increasingly using scare tactics which are fairly well substantiated due to lack of managements ability to understand H&S standards, think smart, work smart and act smart and the Government will continue to smokescreen by focussing on issues fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, like creating "tall poppy" bollocks about people being rich when they earn $150k a year.I'm not saying $150k is poor, but it sure aint rich either
Yeh sure.These "rich" $150 grand a year folks are as happy as pigs in shit.The future looks rosey.
They're luvvin it
They're luvvin it
I just can't manage to squeeze out the tears for those top 2% earners.
