Does earning $180,000 make you rich? Let's not pretend about who's rich and who's poor

It looks like you chosen to take things in a way that support your belief system. I am not supporting you in anything, on the contrary, I have a problem with you having a problem with tax paying Australians not receiving any government benefits. After all, they have contributed to the fund so they can be taken care of when they aren't working for reasons beyond their control.

This forum never ceases to surprise me with the breadth of the spectrum of average understanding of facts. I, and a fair few people I know, would ask, why on Earth, should generations of families keep getting welfare (and free housing!) when most of them have chosen not to work and haven't contributed to the government's fund of welfare distribution.

It definitely doesn't look like you are in touch with reality. But as you say, you further choose to remain ignorant. Hopefully the dictionary lookup taught you it isn't a safety net. Someday, from what little I know, I would love to educate masses on the philosophy of social welfare, but I imagine most wouldn't want to.

 

@aussieB - methinks there's a lot of tongue in cheek from @Blacky - does anyone seriously believe that they should be getting welfare or tax relief or other concessions if they have an income which affords them more than a reasonable lifestyle?

So it's reasonable to expect concessions, pay or benefits when household income is quite high? No wonder Australia is incompatible on a world market when people elsewhere are prepared to work for a living not a lifestyle.

 

I think we are actually on the same point here, we are just arguing it from different perspectives.
Firstly let me clarify, I never stated that someone on $180k should recieve no Govt benifit. Public schooling, health care, etc etc etc. All Govt benifits for the benifit of all. However, welfare handouts? Please...
I am arguing that people should be cared for for reasons beyond their control.
And I disagree that people who choose not to work, should be fully funded.
I think we both agree on these points.

Welfare SHOULD be a safety net.... not a lifestyle choice.
The fact it isnt is the problem.

Blacky

 

"I earn $200,000 a year and I am absolutely NOT rich!

We live in a run-down house 90-year-old that we will never get to renovate -- do you have any idea how much it costs to do up six bed/two baths? Kid's school fees are a nightmare. The wife drives a 2013 Prius and I drive SECOND-HAND Lexus. We have one family holiday a year and is NOT abroad as my word has me flying somewhere once-a-month anyway. And speaking of my work: I earn every penny of that $200,000!!! I leave at 7am, drop kids to their swim coach, spend an hour in traffic and I'm never home before 7pm. Between that and thrice-weekly squash I barely see my family.

We are well off, I fully admit that. But not well off enough to be called anywhere near rich".

Unfortunately, even that over-the-top satire is almost indistinguishable from what a lot of people earning around 180k say. Everyone in Australia loves to see themselves as middle class. Low income earners tend to overestimate their own position in the income distribution, while high-income earners tend to underestimate theirs.

 

Would like to know why you consider it reasonable for a couple earning 180k combined to receive welfare?

I can see one possible reason such as if you think everyone should pay more tax and then everyone should receive a basic payment for living expenses from the government to make sure everyone has enough to live on. We don't currently have that in our society but I can see that as a reason why everyone (including those on high salaries) would be receiving a payment from the government. I suppose this idea might lend itself to the giving money every month for raising of all children regardless of the parents wealth/income in a similar way.
This way would indicate that welfare is not a safety net but more of a socialist construct to increase income equality.

But I am curious to hear what you meant.

 

Agreed the welfare system is not perfect. But why is a couple working hard and earning a good wage and having children considered a "lifestyle choice"? When someone who doesn't work or earns a lower wage and has children becomes automatically entitled to "welfare".

Lets face it our welfare system is all about lifestyle choices otherwise no one with children should receive any benefit in relation to raising kids! Personally i think children are very important for our future and don't begrudge tax payer money going to them but still think people should not have children if they cannot afford them and then rely on the government to pay for them.

 

I forgot about the daylight saving switch overnight & turned up at Repco for headlight/brake bulbs an hour earlier than opening time!....how smart am I again?
So drove further into Bayswater & parked to get a coffee.
Saw the old homeless guy sitting on a milk crate near the new railway station development, I occasionally see him in Baysie as I drive thru before 5am to work. Often he sleeps on cardboard sheets in various store doorways or is just wandering down Mountain Highway with his pack on his back. Grabbed him & bought us both a Big Breakfast at a cafe.
Am I rich? I'd say no way, but compared to him I am.

 

What would make you think its unreasonable ?

I think its reasonable, relatively. The couple I am talking about are average hard working people paying their taxes honestly. Possibly doing more than one job. I am not aware of all payments available, but I am all for wo/men receiving paid parental leave. If I have to objectively look at two people who get PPL, I would feel less pained to see someone who has paid taxes get this payment rather than who hasn't paid any taxes/lesser tax for reasonable reasons.

 

With maternity/ paternity leave, once you reach exec level pay, the company will have its own perks anyways.

Centrelink didn't approve my paternity pay. Instead, the company paid my salary in full during my 3 months paternity leave. Have to love this country

 

180k makes you well off but not rich

 

Yeah that makes sense.
I guess the idea behind it is that in that case the money is not there as a safety net for those who are having problems getting back on their feet, but more of a way to increase social equality. The idea is a nice one and I suppose the problem people may have with it is where they saw the money as being purely for helping disadvantaged people who are unable to help themselves at a particular time of need and this does not fit that concept.
But yea I like the idea of both concepts being in play.

 

I'd like to see a poll on what people consider rich. How rich you are might correlate to money you earn or have. I think wealth, however, is more correlated to things money helps achieve:

• Availability of time
• The degree of freedom you have (for e.g. if you want a sporadic 3 month trip to Portugal, can you do it?)
• The degree of luxury of choice (for e.g. if you want to buy a car, can you pick almost whatever you want? Maybe you're locked into Prius or Hyundai?)

 

Getting back to the Poll. The question "does earning $180k make you rich". I would think anybody who is earning $180k wuld think they are well of as they can enjoy these funds to afford a better lifestyle than mr/mrs average. The problem comes when they suddenly loose their job and still have minimum or no reserves. Hey guess what they weren't rich after all because as soon as they stopped working 40-60hours a week they had nothing.

As far as the side discussion re welfare. IMHO we have are to much welfare in the country and most western socialist type societies. We are giving handouts to one and all with more excuses invented by the day. Everybody seems to forget that all of these handouts need to be funded and in the end there is only so much money to go around.

In a big way the whole subsidy mentality can be laid at the feet of successive governments who have continued to push for economic growth such that the need for total family income has grown enormously. Years ago 1 wage was enough to afford the lifestyle including purchasing a house this has now scaled up to minimum of 2+ wages etc. This has led to the need for lifestyle welfare and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

 

I guess, it depends on where are you living.
If it is in Sydney, then yes that amount of money is medium or just enough to own a home and raising your kids (2 max). in a private school.
If it is outside Sydney, Perth and Melbourne, then that amount of $180k is more than enough.

 

It also depends on whether people are considering Gross or Net..... I'd like to know how many that voted actually Net over 180k.

 

Labour force participation and fertility rates are strongly linked to GDP. There is a reason the govt provides these incentives you see as welfare.

 

My concern is not welfare at all. I just don't think the government should have to pay for someone who doesn't work to have 5 kids in childcare when a well off working couple receiving the rebate is looked upon as a lifestyle choice.

 

To who?

 

To people who want a nice clean car. Low ball a desperate seller, clean it up, put the higher price on it and sit and wait. Kind of like doing a cosmetic Reno on a 10 year old house. Flipping. Some aren't even in his possession long enough for registration to go into his name. Bought and sold within a week.

 

Netting over $180k easier for a couple when you reach Super preservation age with tax free Super pension and personal tax free thresholds. Oh dear I can hear howls of protest now about welfare for retirees.

People can debate / argue forever about the what's the meaning of rich and poor, welfare and the like and never see eye to eye. I have no desire to waste precious energy and time on this. The rules are what they are so time better spent in finding ways to best take advantage of them. The rules like always will continue to change. There will always be winners and losers. All one can do is adapt and make the most of it.

I'm one of those weirdos who come budget night will be looking at all the proposed changes (and importantly super / tax expert commentary) not only to see what might be taken away from us but also to see what opportunities there may be.

One of the greatest quotes that I subscribe to:

Personally I think money is the lesser part of what wealth truely means. Having money is one thing but TIME (along with health, relationships, happiness etc) is ones most precious asset. No amount of money can buy back TIME.