Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Repayments would be over $6000 a month
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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

It was you who mentioned the $150k pa folks are "rich":rofl:

I don't have time for the RSL...I'm effin earning $150k and working my bleedin bollox off:rolleyes:

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:blink:

And not paying Tax when earning this amount:rofl: Please give me the name of your Accountant:rofl:

No logic. Tall poppy syndrome:)

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.

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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Excellent points. Reality is unless you're a millionaire, then you pay your Tax like everyone else. We're all working class unless you don't have to work. Up until that point we're all equal:)

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.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Yes, and it was you who made the comment about the Aldermans.

I weep for you! :rofl:

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.

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:thumbup:

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???:eek:

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!

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.

Sure, I am not saying they shouldn't. I simply want to dispel the myth that all high earners pay whacking amounts of tax, and that the highest earners pay the most amount of tax. It's just not true.

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.

I don't see the $150k+ earners being taxed more in this budget, so your polemic is irrelevant.

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.

I won't lose any sleep over it.

:)

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Fair points, well made.

Good post. :)

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I know. What a life. AND I'm in Australia....someone's gotta live it:lol:

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.

:rofl: People requiring Baby bonus...paid Tax for years....yeh if they're having babies at 50 :rofl: 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:)

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Wouldn't that be divine justice if their kids had his looks and her brains.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

You're right. I'd forgotten about that essential comfort :D

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

You looked at the wrong table, you looked at table 2 instead of table 1. Table 2 excludes individuals who are dependents of other taxpayers and taxpayers with negative income are excluded from the analysis in table 2 , so the fiqures of top 1% of earners pay 33.6% and the top 5% pay 54.0% are correct as i stated. You are wrong.

Wrong again, he said he pays at a lower rate not less tax .

Means testing has the same effect as increasing tax of the better off.