Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

To expand on that the value of the house does not really indicate how rich you are either.

A few years ago here in Wait Awhile the state labour govt decided that anyone with a house worth $1 mill would pay something like 2% as a wealth tax,it was ran up the flagpole to test out reactions so to speak.Penalise the rich get everybody on our side,you know the drill.

Now I am out and out left wing.My state MP is from NW england,from the day he came here the union has been his stepping stone to politics for a cushy job.I crossed swords with him first on a job when he came down full of wind and piss stating he would close the company down,,take them to the cleaners,you know the drill.

After 10 mins I was sick of his bullshit and told him so,they were a very reasonable company,this was the first bit of trouble we had had,it was pretty much a storm in a teacup, and I didn't think it would take much to solve the problem.

A few more minutes of him ranting and raving about closing the company and I told him he was a fool ,and closing the company would put me and 100 others out of work.Of course it was explained to him in shipyard language,Billy Connolly would have been embarrased by the language.Politely told him that a union was a democracy,not a dickheads dictatorship,and proposed a vote that said dickhead dictator should be thrown off site.As you can imagine I was number 1 in his book and continued to cross swords with him over the years.

When this wealth tax was proposed I decided I would cross swords with him again.I asked him how he imagined that anyone with a large mortgage and possibly starting off in life could be rich.

Some old people bought houses in suburbs 40 or 50 yrs ago,worked hard to pay the mortgage off,raised kids,had happy memories of living there etc.Now by pure luck they are sitting on land worth $1 mill,the house is still 50 years old and worthless.They are living on a pension,the old asset rich ,cash poor.Would he suggest that these people are rich and must pay a 20K wealth tax.Would he suggest that they move to a cheaper suburb,could he think of any more ways to disrupt their lives and cause them worry.

The idea was eventally dropped,he still shoots his mouth off without thinking and I'm still number 1 in his book.I bought him a little black book years ago to take the piss.There you go I said,Jack Charlton says he has one,you've got one now,I've written my name in large letters on page one.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

[QUOTE=geordie downunder;6370736My state MP is from NW england,from the day he came here the union has been his stepping stone to politics for a cushy job.[/QUOTE]

Why do all the left wing union agitator types in Australia come from Scotland or the North of England? They should piss of to Russia if they like communism that much.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

As a household we have an income of around the 150 mark, with 120 coming from my wage. We are most definately not rich.....

There seems to be some issues around whether the higher earners pay more tax. It's simple really. If you earn more you pay more as a percentage, which is more as a dollar figure. The figures stating (from memory) that the top 2% of earners are paying whatever % of the total tax intake is absolutely correct. I don't care if my total tax burden as a percentage is lower than someone earning 35K a year. I pay more in dollars, which is what is actually important. Dollars is what buys things, not percentages. So Vash, if you are so keen on percentages, would you rather have a 10% payrise on a wage of 50K a year, or an 8% rise on 150K?
Thought so.........

I still firmly believe (and still would if I wasn't affected by it) that there should be no means testing on the baby bonus. I pay more money into the government coffers, and get less back for it. The baby bonus was supposed to be a way of encouraging people to help increase the population, which the govt. has been loathe to do by not mandating statutory materninty pay. It was also to help people pay the high costs associated with having a child (I hope the hospital doesn't mind when I ask to put my medical bills on lay-by after we have children as I will only be able to pay them off a bit every fortnight).

I am a labor voter (maybe foolishly) and apart from the baby bonus, am not too upset about the budget, but I do wonder about the logic behind some of the changes. I don't think people should be penalised for working hard and progressing their careers, and that is what will happen more and more if the "Aussie Battlers" get their way. Hopefully the Liberals will have a more viable leader by the next election and we can get some better promises out of both parties. I have never seen a nation opf people with such a tall poppy complex and it really is a very unflattering trait......

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

All I want is a structurally sound house in an area with decent public transport under an hour from Sydney. Nowhere have I stated that I want anything else let alone the harbour mansion that your imagination thinks I want. I also do not want some monstrous McMansion in the hills next door to Ned Flanders. Just 3 beds on a decent block of land, decent schools nearby and established facilities.

I know quite a few people that have moved from the Hills because getting to work was such a pain in the arse.

Kindly get to know what you are talking about first before assuming I want water views in a harbourside suburb. My hopes are very modest and involve living somewhere with an established community.

I just feel sorry for those starting out on the market without any hope. BTW the migration away from Sydney of younger Australians is largely due to the housing market.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Communism collapsed in Russia a long time ago but your comment is as knowledgeable as any other you have ever placed in this forum.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

And some space for the bodies

Hope you dont mind me asking (tough if you do:p) are you renting now or homeowner? You had your finger on the pulse in a previous incarnation what think you of the Eastern Suburbs market at the mo?

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Perhaps Mount Druitt or Bankstown would be to your liking. They are well established.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Well, whatever.

Good luck in your quest. By the way I just rode to work on the north shore in 30 mins flat ;)

Graham

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

I reckon you'd be well off if you lived sensibly, but as we all know the more you earn, the more you spend on unnecessary junk.

We've all seen those 'soccer moms' with prada handbags driving their massive 4X4s?

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Renting a unit in the Eastern burbs at the moment. Rental market is tight. I used to look at 3 bed units but decided we need space so I don't know the market as well as other areas. Sydney market is a tale of 2 cities. One is burbs with good transport and access to the city. These burbs are doing well as more people want to live closer to the city and regard travel time as a QOL sapper. Prices are still going up there. Eastern Suburbs has good access to the city, great facilities, community, beaches, good private schools (public schools not so good) but the place is not for those looking for space.

The other is the outer burbs nearer to new land releases and a pain to get to the city. Incomes are a lot lower and houses were priced as a muliple of earnings much higher. Repossessions have shot up in the areas as families have moved there with unrealistic mortgages and, unlike established areas, have not built up equity. Prices are dropping in those areas.

Right now I am incredibly thankful to not have moved from the Eastern Burbs. The Mrs is incredibly ill and being treated at Royal Hospital for Women (she is also 36 weeks pregnant) which is only 15 mins away.

I earn under 100k and my boy cannot go into childcare due to other issues so however much I would like to live in a harbourside mansion my aims are much humbler. A motorbike is also out of the question as I have seen the way people regard looking at the blindspot as optional.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Its funny how different people see things. There are some people that would consider you rich if you could impulse buy a new pair of shoes or a play station game.

I think on a 150k you could live happily and not worry too much about fluctuations in living expenses so you would be comfortable. Rich for me means you can give up work and earn nothing and still live a comfortable life

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

you'd be certainly be well off on $150k.

no one forces us to have huge mortgages, drive larger cars or put our kids through private education, (not that mine do).

How ever, I would be more than willing to give up the "fringe" benefits of baby bonus etc. if I was properly looked after if I ever became unemployed.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

Rich in OZ would put you in the Frank Lowy league.You rake in around $175 million in dividends from westfield shares,every year,and donate a lot to charity.

Wealthy would be the mcquarrie bank league,you retire as chairman,take up your stock options in the company and start micro banks in underdeveloped countries.Lending people $20 or so so they can buy a sewing machine and get on their feet,get a bit of money coming in.

Mega rich would be the Warren Buffett model.Have great fun playing the financial markets and leave 10,s of billions to charity,go in to competition with Bill Gates to see who can leave the most for charity.

Special mention would go to Kerry Packer before he died,see a group of kids and wonder why they are all bald.Find out they all have cancer and charter a couple of 747,s to send them all off to Disneyland,nurses,parents, the lot,all expenses paid.

How could you earn nothing and still have a comfortable life?

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

As somebody earning more than that amount of money - I dont consider myself rich ...... (45% tax hurts!:thumbdown:) ..... but I do consider myself lucky to be able to SPEND!:D (Tiffany's just opened in perth and I couldnt resist - the devil made me do it ;))

The one thing that really annoys me is that I have a A$4000 credit card (enough to afford a flight back to UK - that's all I need - my partner has the same) and keep getting offers to have a credit limit of A$25000 (as does my partner) as well as offers on mortgage rates with "cheap" interest IF i increase my mortgage to A$1.2 million:ohmy: WTF:mad: no way!

If you add my partners wages in.... well lets just say we're on a 6 figure salary and it doesnt include the number 1 or the number 2. But somehow the savings account doesnt reflect that - Cant think why:wub: So 'NO' we're not rich.

Re: $150k / year = 'rich'?
 

i earn a third of that so i would call it rich....