$96000
#16
Re: $96000
Don't think either currency figures are particularly "rich".
That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.
That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.
#17
Re: $96000
Don't think either currency figures are particularly "rich".
That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.
That said, I'd be hard pushed to complain if that was my personal income.
#18
Re: $96000
The original BBC article headline stated £60K as "not rich", the flipside of which is indeed not poor. The figure is in the context of where tax rises should be applied, and Labour is suggesting that at £50-60K (well above median income) people are not rich, and implying that above £60K they can start to be considered rich. 30-60K is midrange income in the UK; 60-120K is upper range; beyond that true richness starts!
But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.
#19
Re: $96000
Fair enough, but you should be honest enough to admit that your original post was misleading.
But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.
But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.
#20
Re: $96000
Single male $33.5k, single female $32.9k but together = $76k.
Is there some kind of bonus for marrying?
From the same table you get married couple income (no kids) according to none working, one working or both working. Both working says $83.3k. The lower $76k is some sort of figure involving something other than both working.
So the 'average' income for a couple with no kids, both working is now $83.3k. While average for singles is $29k to $33k.
Perhaps one of the forum's stats experts can explain this in a way that my puny brain can handle.
#22
Re: $96000
$33.5K is an unattached male (including non-earners)
$32.9K is an unattached female (earners only)
These are different categories, and they can't be added to represent a couple because by definition, the individuals are "unattached".
$76.1K is for all married couples (no kids, irrespective of earning or not); $83.3K is the DINKS figure.
Last edited by Shard; Sep 22nd 2013 at 6:55 pm.
#25
Re: $96000
And then if that puts his money up, hers might be lower or nothing - especially if she's one of those TV housewives.
We still have average male/average female earnings being less than average male and female incomes when married.
Age could be a factor if people did marry at an older age and stay married.
I'm not convinced.
#29
Re: $96000
Fair enough, but you should be honest enough to admit that your original post was misleading.
But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.
But I'd still disagree that GBP 120K = (roughly) $190K is "true richness". The latter is better defined in terms of wealth, not income and I'd suggest a working definition of >$100million.
Last edited by jimf; Sep 23rd 2013 at 4:21 pm.