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'?
#46
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
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.
Net Income would be 7775 a month.
1775 a month for all other expenses would be madness but how else would you afford to live in Sydney?
Your point about Mosman is true. Interestingly though that the new rich suburbs are now increasingly getting into debt stress. These include Paddington, Newtown etc. Traditional rich suburbs where people got into prior to the housing bubbles of the eighties and nineties are doing well.
Last edited by IvanM; May 18th 2008 at 11:12 am.
#47
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
It was you who mentioned the $150k pa folks are "rich"
I don't have time for the RSL...I'm effin earning $150k and working my bleedin bollox off
Who said they should be paid the baby bonus? My argument is that people on $120k pa are not "rich". Perhaps they shouldn't be paid the bonus but should get it Tax deducted. Let's look at it another way. At least they are paying Tax, someone on benefits contributes nothing but gets the bonus. Now where's the fairness and equity in that
And not paying Tax when earning this amount Please give me the name of your Accountant
No logic. Tall poppy syndrome
And not paying Tax when earning this amount Please give me the name of your Accountant
No logic. Tall poppy syndrome
#48
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Too many people choose to buy a ludicrously expensive house because they're too impatient to buy a cheaper one and work their way up the property ladder. It's the curse of the credit society; people want instant gratification; the "best they can buy", right now - and to hell with the consequences.
I appreciate that Sydney prices are much higher than other states. But if anything, that's a reason to be more circumspect. It's not a green light to max out your credit and squeeze the very last cent out of your bank manager.
#49
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
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.”
[/indent]
How is it "the politics of envy"? The $150k+ earners can pay their own way; why are they begging for welfare handouts? Seems to me that the only "envy" here is from the high earners towards the low earners. "I want the baby bonus too! I want government handouts AND a premium income that keeps me within the top 2%!"
If that's not envy, what is?
#50
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
I would like to know the actual figures but in the USA the top 1% of earners pay 33.6% and the top 5% pay 54.0% of the total tax paid. I doubt it is much different here. You can download the document here.
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
Why shouldn't high earners minimise their tax, they pay enough as it is.
He still pays more tax even though it may be at a lower rate, in any case, what would you expect him to say at a Clinton Fundraiser. He is only sucking up because there is something in it for him.
I don't see $150k+ earners begging, all I see is the envious scumbags voting to tax the $150k+ earners more so they can get their plasmas and layabout lifestyle funded without doing a days work.
Yes, wait and see. Labor have already said there will be an increase in unemployment after the budget.
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
Why shouldn't high earners minimise their tax, they pay enough as it is.
He still pays more tax even though it may be at a lower rate, in any case, what would you expect him to say at a Clinton Fundraiser. He is only sucking up because there is something in it for him.
I don't see $150k+ earners begging, all I see is the envious scumbags voting to tax the $150k+ earners more so they can get their plasmas and layabout lifestyle funded without doing a days work.
Yes, wait and see. Labor have already said there will be an increase in unemployment after the budget.
#51
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
As I will find out when my wife goes back to work. She'll squeeze more dollars out in some ways even on a lower income.
#52
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
Yes, and it was you who made the comment about the Aldermans.
I weep for you!
I didn't say that people on $120k pa were rich.
The idea is that it's not fair and equitable to deny family support to people on a lower income. Like it or not, that's the rationale.
Many people on benefits are people who've paid tax into the system for years, and are now on benefits through no fault of their own (redundancy; disability; illness, etc.) But sure, there's a lot of bludgers too. I would welcome a change to the baby bonus which ensured that it was not paid to people with a history of avoiding work.
I didn't say that nobody was paying tax when earning $150k.
Empty rhetoric is no substitute for a rational argument.
Tell me why I should feel sorry for people in the top 2% income bracket.
I don't have time for the RSL...I'm effin earning $150k and working my bleedin bollox off
Who said they should be paid the baby bonus? My argument is that people on $120k pa are not "rich".
Perhaps they shouldn't be paid the bonus but should get it Tax deducted. Let's look at it another way. At least they are paying Tax, someone on benefits contributes nothing but gets the bonus. Now where's the fairness and equity in that
Many people on benefits are people who've paid tax into the system for years, and are now on benefits through no fault of their own (redundancy; disability; illness, etc.) But sure, there's a lot of bludgers too. I would welcome a change to the baby bonus which ensured that it was not paid to people with a history of avoiding work.
And not paying Tax when earning this amount Please give me the name of your Accountant
No logic. Tall poppy syndrome
Tell me why I should feel sorry for people in the top 2% income bracket.
#53
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
This has been good to read and I have to say my oh and I have worked our guts out to get to where we are today
We both had massive debts and just felt we were on a constant treadmill of work and no money to show for it after mortgage, household bills, cars etc..and knew this was not how we wanted to live our lives.
We both went back to education to improve ourselves and get a better job that could afford us a better lifestyle.(We did this one at a time and did not claim any benefits or grants, it was self funded) After all that my OH who is a contract worker still works his backside off and we both feel really sick to see a lot of that hardwork swallowed up by tax. We dont have kids, had to put 20% deposit down on our house, which wiped out our savings (No credit history here, contract work etc..) We have never claimed anything off either the UK or Australian goverment and dont look too.
Its just feels that all the hardwork we put in to improve ourselves through education and training has no encouragment what so ever, at times its the better you do you more big brother will come after you. I know this isnt what people want to hear, but there must be a fairer system for all???
We both had massive debts and just felt we were on a constant treadmill of work and no money to show for it after mortgage, household bills, cars etc..and knew this was not how we wanted to live our lives.
We both went back to education to improve ourselves and get a better job that could afford us a better lifestyle.(We did this one at a time and did not claim any benefits or grants, it was self funded) After all that my OH who is a contract worker still works his backside off and we both feel really sick to see a lot of that hardwork swallowed up by tax. We dont have kids, had to put 20% deposit down on our house, which wiped out our savings (No credit history here, contract work etc..) We have never claimed anything off either the UK or Australian goverment and dont look too.
Its just feels that all the hardwork we put in to improve ourselves through education and training has no encouragment what so ever, at times its the better you do you more big brother will come after you. I know this isnt what people want to hear, but there must be a fairer system for all???
#54
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
You can buy a residential property in Sydney for less than $750k. And let's be honest; not everyone needs to live within 10 minutes of the CBD. There is such a thing as suburbs, and there is such a thing as commuting.
Too many people choose to buy a ludicrously expensive house because they're too impatient to buy a cheaper one and work their way up the property ladder. It's the curse of the credit society; people want instant gratification; the "best they can buy", right now - and to hell with the consequences.
I appreciate that Sydney prices are much higher than other states. But if anything, that's a reason to be more circumspect. It's not a green light to max out your credit and squeeze the very last cent out of your bank manager.
Too many people choose to buy a ludicrously expensive house because they're too impatient to buy a cheaper one and work their way up the property ladder. It's the curse of the credit society; people want instant gratification; the "best they can buy", right now - and to hell with the consequences.
I appreciate that Sydney prices are much higher than other states. But if anything, that's a reason to be more circumspect. It's not a green light to max out your credit and squeeze the very last cent out of your bank manager.
The reason people want to get the right place up front is that on a 600,000 place you pay over 20,000 in stamp duty. If you move too often that takes a lot out of your cash.
I was agreeing to your point about it being nuts how much people overextended themselves. The areas in Sydney in which house prices soared disproportionately to income are now crashing and debt is strangling households.
The big problem in Sydney is the lack of planning and infrastructure, especially transport, to the newer areas. The hills is a public transport black hole yet a huge proportion of Sydneys recent housing has gone there. A new metro line there has been announced but a heavy rail line was also announced and cancelled. It has been on the cards for years but no land had been acquired. SW Sydney is good for those that do not care about their surrounds and are happy with Westfields being the highlight of their lives.
Living down the property ladder is all well and good but best done in a city where property prices as a proportion income are a lot lower. You don't want to be climbing a ladder that is falling down all the time.
The recent repricing of debt will hopefully curb some of societies irresponsible borrowing. Maybe the banks might even lend responsibly!
#55
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
I would like to know the actual figures but in the USA the top 1% of earners pay 33.6% and the top 5% pay 54.0% of the total tax paid. I doubt it is much different here. You can download the document here.
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf
So it's true; the highest earners pay the least amount of tax. Thanks for proving my point.
Why shouldn't high earners minimise their tax, they pay enough as it is.
He still pays more tax even though it may be at a lower rate, in any case, what would you expect him to say at a Clinton Fundraiser. He is only sucking up because there is something in it for him.
I don't see $150k+ earners begging, all I see is the envious scumbags voting to tax the $150k+ earners more so they can get their plasmas and layabout lifestyle funded without doing a days work.
Are people on $120k really "envious scumbags voting to tax the $150k+ earners more so they can get their plasmas and layabout lifestyle funded without doing a days work"?
Was the baby bonus means test actually announced as a policy in the last election? Because if not, you cannot claim that "envious scumbags" were voting for it.
Yes, wait and see. Labor have already said there will be an increase in unemployment after the budget.
#56
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
In a suburb within a decent commute to Sydney by public transport (under an hour), facilities and OK schools you need over 600k for a house and that is really pushing it. That is what I am in the market for.
The reason people want to get the right place up front is that on a 600,000 place you pay over 20,000 in stamp duty. If you move too often that takes a lot out of your cash.
I was agreeing to your point about it being nuts how much people overextended themselves. The areas in Sydney in which house prices soared disproportionately to income are now crashing and debt is strangling households.
The big problem in Sydney is the lack of planning and infrastructure, especially transport, to the newer areas. The hills is a public transport black hole yet a huge proportion of Sydneys recent housing has gone there. A new metro line there has been announced but a heavy rail line was also announced and cancelled. It has been on the cards for years but no land had been acquired. SW Sydney is good for those that do not care about their surrounds and are happy with Westfields being the highlight of their lives.
Living down the property ladder is all well and good but best done in a city where property prices as a proportion income are a lot lower. You don't want to be climbing a ladder that is falling down all the time.
The recent repricing of debt will hopefully curb some of societies irresponsible borrowing. Maybe the banks might even lend responsibly!
The reason people want to get the right place up front is that on a 600,000 place you pay over 20,000 in stamp duty. If you move too often that takes a lot out of your cash.
I was agreeing to your point about it being nuts how much people overextended themselves. The areas in Sydney in which house prices soared disproportionately to income are now crashing and debt is strangling households.
The big problem in Sydney is the lack of planning and infrastructure, especially transport, to the newer areas. The hills is a public transport black hole yet a huge proportion of Sydneys recent housing has gone there. A new metro line there has been announced but a heavy rail line was also announced and cancelled. It has been on the cards for years but no land had been acquired. SW Sydney is good for those that do not care about their surrounds and are happy with Westfields being the highlight of their lives.
Living down the property ladder is all well and good but best done in a city where property prices as a proportion income are a lot lower. You don't want to be climbing a ladder that is falling down all the time.
The recent repricing of debt will hopefully curb some of societies irresponsible borrowing. Maybe the banks might even lend responsibly!
Good post.
#57
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
I know. What a life. AND I'm in Australia....someone's gotta live it
So you don't think they're rich but you think they get away with not paying Tax and don't think they should receive baby bonus even though they contribute to the Tax coffers?
That is so funny. Do you know anything about benefits here in Aus Vash? Did you know someone on $120k pa could be made redundant and get nothing from Centrelink as the benefits are based on incoming earnings not outgoing bills. In essence, if someone who is a high earner is made redundant and can't pay their mortgage then it's tough shit. In fact anyone over $46k are asked to not even fill in the paper work. It's not worth Centrlinks time filling in the forms as you wont get benefits.
People requiring Baby bonus...paid Tax for years....yeh if they're having babies at 50 And those made redundant see above and for others made disabled or ill....I hope to God they have insurance cos they sure as hell wont get the help they think they will.
I'm not sure I agree with that either Vash. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm simply saying unless stinking rich, then you are working and paying Tax and should be entitled to the same as those on genuine and not so genuine benefits.
Really. Play on words
You said it
No one requires you to be sorry. Perhaps take the emotion out of your argument and look at the rationale behind the decision making. Tall poppy syndrome. Quite a common trait
So you don't think they're rich but you think they get away with not paying Tax and don't think they should receive baby bonus even though they contribute to the Tax coffers?
Really. Play on words
You said it
No one requires you to be sorry. Perhaps take the emotion out of your argument and look at the rationale behind the decision making. Tall poppy syndrome. Quite a common trait
#58
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
#59
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
You're right. I'd forgotten about that essential comfort
#60
Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
This report proves my point. I have argued that the highest earners pay the least amount of tax. And sure enough, the US report shows that the top 1% of earners had an income tax liability of only 18.6%. That's less than half the tax liability of the top 5%.
So it's true; the highest earners pay the least amount of tax. Thanks for proving my point.
So it's true; the highest earners pay the least amount of tax. Thanks for proving my point.
Say what you like; the man puts his money where his mouth is. Largest charity donor on the planet, if I remember correctly (and of course, it's all tax deductible). The bottom line is that his point about tax is entirely true. He pays less tax than his receptionist. It's a nice little setup.
Means testing has the same effect as increasing tax of the better off.