Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Wow do you get a tax rebate for paying school fees now?

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Tax, dear <g>.

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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I have no idea. I assumed you did. You should, surely?

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Single or double income...

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

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Tax, dear <g>.

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.

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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

It wouldn't be that difficult.

"Do you want to go on the trip? OK get a job, then we'll talk about it"

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I could probably go and get a $750k mortgage .. actually probably not .. I could go and get a $650k mortgage but does that make me rich? Far from it, broke more like.

I completely disagree that the size of your mortgage decides whether you are rich or not.

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.

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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I went through a spell in the UK where I was loaned up to the gills but managed to maintain my lifestyle (just about). I certainly didn't feel in any way rich. Surely being rich involves having spare cash after the bills have gone out? I doubt the Aldermans have much of that.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I am willing to bet that those 2% contribute a lot less than 30% to the tax rate.

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.
Source.

And some of them pay virtually no tax at all - like this guy.

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?

I guess that explains why the unemployment rate is so high.

Oh wait...

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Then you weren't truly living within your means.

Yes, absolutely. Otherwise it's not sustainable.

They seem happy enough, and they know they'll be even better off under this budget. I didn't hear any complaints, did you? Fair play to the Aldermans for managing their money, that's what I say.

I rate them higher than these guys.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

:rofl: You have got to be kidding:rofl:

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:rofl:

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 :rolleyes:

Yeh sure.These "rich" $150 grand a year folks are as happy as pigs in shit.The future looks rosey.

They're luvvin it:thumbsup:

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.