what is a good wage these days?

WIZE

Im on 36k which gives me 2400 every month after tax. am better off asking for a decrease to 31K?

davidholla

WIZE wrote: »

Im on 36k which gives me 2400 every month after tax. am better off asking for a decrease to 31K?

Why? extra 200 a month although nearly 3600 gone to pay berties pension

The Corinthian

Carlowgirl wrote: »

Just wondering what is considered a decent average take home wage these days for both males and females. I know during the boom 750 e may have been average. but surely that has come down now. also what makes an irish person middle class these days.? just wondering? I was thinking 500-550 as an average?

Pointless question; how can you compare a graduate in IT, with a plumber with 15 years experience, with a senior partner in a solicitor's firm, for a start? Then of course is €25k p.a. good for a single person living in Ballygospittlebackwards and the same €25k p.a. for a married person, with a family to support, in Dublin?

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

52% of income earned after €32,800 is lost
Vat rate of 23%,
DIRT rate of 33%
stealth taxes - water, property, motor tax etc.

Essentially so much our income after the SRCOP is taken that it kind of becomes an equaliser of sorts.

Net income from €32.8k is €26,613.20
But a person earning €40k gross gets to keep €30k net
And a person earning €50k gross gets to keep €34.8k net


So for all the extra responsibility and pressure which that €50k job demands, you're not even 8k per year better off than the person earning €32k.

This is why I personally don't see the point in worker harder or taking on more responsibility or pressure once you reach the SRCOP.
There is insignificant financial incentive to work harder past that point.

Utterly depressing.

I figured out, a long time ago, that Ireland is a good country to be young in; that is, it's a good place to start your career as it has, at least it had, good opportunities for graduates, where in many other countries graduate jobs were thin on the ground.

However, once you reach a certain level, say middle management, there's precious incentive to remain; opportunities are fewer and you get crucified on tax the moment you're above subsistence level.

So it's hardly surprising that once you reach 35, quite a few of us leave. I did so and am certainly not the only one who did.

On top of this Ireland isn't cheap by international standards - correction Dublin isn't, but let's be honest, lose your job in Ballygospittlebackwards and what are the chances you'll get another job in your area locally? How many end up either having to move or commute five hours a day?

And of course, there's the commute and there Ireland is an international disgrace; not only do we have a disastrous public transport system - slow, infrequent, disorganized with little or no integrated ticketing - but, for example, transport (not just public transport, but including your own car) is cheaper in Geneva than in Dublin. I won't tell you what income tax or salaries are there as you'll just cry.

It's a no-brainer; once you consider salaries, cost of living and tax, Ireland is not very attractive once you're at a certain level of earning.

I doubt I'll be coming back in a hurry, TBH. Maybe for holidays mind you.

Sleepy

El Gato wrote: »

I simply averaged it at a 40 hour week

Which means you got an erroneous result

Cody Pomeray

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

52% of income earned after €32,800 is lost
Vat rate of 23%,
DIRT rate of 33%
stealth taxes - water, property, motor tax etc.

Essentially so much our income after the SRCOP is taken that it kind of becomes an equaliser of sorts.

Net income from €32.8k is €26,613.20
But a person earning €40k gross gets to keep €30k net
And a person earning €50k gross gets to keep €34.8k net


So for all the extra responsibility and pressure which that €50k job demands, you're not even 8k per year better off than the person earning €32k.

This is why I personally don't see the point in worker harder or taking on more responsibility or pressure once you reach the SRCOP.
There is insignificant financial incentive to work harder past that point.

This presumes that the person earning €32k and the (same) person earning €50k down the line are in similar circumstances.

If you're married and have kids, and make a small pension contribution, as many €50k earners are, and do, then you're taxed considerably more favourably. You should be paying about €5k less in tax, therefore earning closer to, or even above €40k.

I have limited sympathy for a €50k single person "getting by" on €35k. I think we can go much further.

djpbarry

Carlowgirl wrote: »

I only work part time.. but with a good hourly rate.. but during the year I took temporary work in an office with a take home pay of 300 e per week.. It was just pocket money .. I could simply not live on it..

Carlowgirl wrote: »

thanks for your reply.. yes my friend is living in Dublin earning about 15 e an hour but paying 850 a month for a two bed apartment... she shares with her partner.. her half of the rent is nearly our total amount of rent for a four bed house in a village...

So your share of the rent is, what, €50 per week? Which leaves you with about €250 out of your pay. Bills notwithstanding, how can someone with no dependents not get by on €250 per week?

djpbarry

El Gato wrote: »

If you take the average hourly earnings, the average annual salary is €46,404.80 (based on a 40 hour week)...

Well, no, because the calculation of the average hourly rate would included people who work considerably less than 40 hours per week.

gaius c

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This presumes that the person earning €32k and the (same) person earning €50k down the line are in similar circumstances.

If you're married and have kids, and make a small pension contribution, as many €50k earners are, and do, then you're taxed considerably more favourably. You should be paying about €5k less in tax, therefore earning closer to, or even above €40k.

I have limited sympathy for a €50k single person "getting by" on €35k. I think we can go much further.

You mean increase tax on them even more?
How about getting the lower tax band to pay their fair share of tax? A household with a married couple only pay 20% up to €41,800. That's not a fair reflection on the use of public services.

In other news:

Government Finance Statistics Quarterly Results
Government revenue: up €973 million
Government expenditure: up €1,299 million
The deficit is up 2.5%

Since the government can't seem to control spending, they have no option but to increase taxation and right now, it's families in the middle who are most squeezed.

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I have limited sympathy for a €50k single person "getting by" on €35k. I think we can go much further.

Yeah, let's keep going until someone on €50k takes home the same amount as someone on €32k.

El Gato

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no, because the calculation of the average hourly rate would included people who work considerably less than 40 hours per week.

That's why I based my calculation on a 40 hour week (I was supposing all being equal that full time employed people work a 40 hour week....there will of course be people who work 60 or 80 hour weeks and those who work a 20 hour week) then you are getting into full time/part time statistics

Cody Pomeray

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, let's keep going until someone on €50k takes home the same amount as someone on €32k.

if they're in different family circumstances, absolutely.

Or lets go even further.

djpbarry

El Gato wrote: »

That's why I based my calculation on a 40 hour week (I was supposing all being equal that full time employed people work a 40 hour week....there will of course be people who work 60 or 80 hour weeks and those who work a 20 hour week) then you are getting into full time/part time statistics

The average working week is stated in the report as being 31.2 hours. €22.21 times 31.2 gives €696 per week, or about €36k per year.

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

if they're in different family circumstances, absolutely.

Family circumstances should have absolutely no bearing on how much tax an individual pays.

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

if they're in different family circumstances, absolutely.

So why should anyone bother to study (without pay) for years or work hard when employed or even seek promotion or additional responsibility when there is no reward?

Before you say something about self-fulfilment, let me remind you that Star Trek is fictional.

El Gato

djpbarry wrote: »

The average working week is stated in the report as being 31.2 hours. €22.21 times 31.2 gives €696 per week, or about €36k per year.

I see the figures, I simply don't see how they can be correct IMO.

Cody Pomeray

djpbarry wrote: »

Family circumstances should have absolutely no bearing on how much tax an individual pays.

Ok I disagree. I think working parents do important work and their social contribution should be reflected in their tax take. I say that as a non-parent, and indeed non-prospective parent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So why should anyone bother to study (without pay) for years or work hard when employed or even seek promotion or additional responsibility when there is no reward?

Before you say something about self-fulfilment, let me remind you that Star Trek is functional.

I am not suggesting family circumstances kick in when you reach the marginal rate of tax. The person on €30k with 2 kids and a wife (or husband, or civil partner) ought still be on more than the €30k earner with no dependents, as is the case currently.

djpbarry

El Gato wrote: »

I see the figures, I simply don't see how they can be correct IMO.

I’ve just demonstrated that they’re correct? What’s the problem?

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Ok I disagree. I think working parents do important work and their social contribution should be reflected in their tax take.

Well, I have to disagree. The state should not be effectively paying people to have kids.

If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The person on €30k with 2 kids and a wife (or husband, or civil partner) ought still be on more than the €30k earner with no dependents, as is the case currently.

Which is utterly, utterly wrong. It’s blatant discrimination against single, childless people.

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I am not suggesting family circumstances kick in when you reach the marginal rate of tax. The person on €30k with 2 kids and a wife (or husband, or civil partner) ought still be on more than the €30k earner with no dependents, as is the case currently.

Actually, you suggested penalizing people on the basis that they earned 'too much' and because they hadn't children.

By that logic, we should simply give up on higher education or careers and just screw like bunnies.

Or would you care to qualify what you said?

gaius c

Also, there's a difference between kids who live at home and those who don't. Or kids who bring in income of their own while living in the same household.

Total can of worms.

Brussels Sprout

gaius c wrote: »

A household with a married couple only pay 20% up to €41,800. That's not a fair reflection on the use of public services.

If they both have jobs do they both get that higher upper band or i that case doe sit revert back to 32k for both of their incomes?

Dannyboy83

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If they both have jobs do they both get that higher upper band or i that case doe sit revert back to 32k for both of their incomes?

The band can go up to €65,600 for married, dual income

The following example is helpful

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/how_your_tax_is_calculated.html

Example of standard rate cut-off point for a married couple or civil partners with two incomes
In 2013, the standard rate cut-off point for a married couple or civil partners is €41,800. If both are working, this amount is increased by the lower of the following:

• €23,800 in 2012 or
• The amount of the income of the spouse or civil partner with the smaller income

If one person is earning €48,000 and their spouse or civil partner is earning €25,000:

The standard rate cut off point for the couple is €41,800 plus €23,800. The increase in the standard rate band is not transferable between spouses or civil partners, so the first spouse or civil partner's tax bands would be calculated as €41,800 @ 20% = €8,360 and €6,200 @ 41% = €2,542. The second spouse or civil partner's tax bands would be calculated as €23,800 @ 20% = €4,760 and €1,200 @ 41% = €492.

pookiesboo

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

Seanachai

OMD wrote: »

Hard to call the Nevin institute independent.

Rember in an ideal world 50% of people would be below average. . Bit like saying 50% of people are below average intelligence. Of course they are but it can take a second or two to accept that.

In the same way saying 60% of the population are below national average sounds high but isn't really. Especially as this figure includes the unemployed.

You've hit on a point there and the statement may be true in terms of academic aptitudes and a certain kind of intelligence. It's just tragic that a certain number of those in the top 50% use their intelligence to exploit and abuse the other people in the so called lower brackets. I'm not against wealth , I know a few wealthy people who are down to earth , I can't stand people who are wealthy and think that they have some sort of genetic superiority over so called regular people.

Cody Pomeray

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you suggested penalizing people on the basis that they earned 'too much' and because they hadn't children.

You're mistaken, or jumping to conclusions. Either way you're incorrect, I don't support penalizing such people. I support granting tax rebates to workers who, at their own general expense, perform important social functions: I'd extend this to students, carers, and altruistic or charitable donors, as well as parents. It's not about punishing non-parents like myself, it's about rewarding workers who perform acts at personal cost, and where those acts contribute in a material way to social welfare.

By that logic, we should simply give up on higher education or careers and just screw like bunnies.

I'm sure it would suit you if that's what I were suggesting. However, any civilized society of which I am aware does already reward working parents, among other workers, for their social roles.

I am merely suggesting a more redistributive tax system which continues to take, inter alia, family life into account.

The Corinthian

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm not against wealth , I know a few wealthy people who are down to earth , I can't stand people who are wealthy and think that they have some sort of genetic superiority over so called regular people.

And the Irish disease finally rears its ugly head.

pookiesboo wrote: »

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

Unless you're in a role that has a predefined pay scale based upon years served (i.e. the public sector), you're entitled to nothing; it's up to you and what you can negotiate, which in turn is based upon your value to the company.

The Corinthian

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're mistaken, or jumping to conclusions. Either way you're incorrect, I don't support penalizing such people. I support granting tax rebates to workers who, at their own general expense, perform important social functions: I'd extend this to students, carers, and altruistic or charitable donors, as well as parents. It's not about punishing non-parents like myself, it's about rewarding workers who perform acts at personal cost, and where those acts contribute in a material way to social welfare.

You suggested a scenario whereby someone (presumably single) on €50k p.a. should take home the same as someone (presumably with dependants) on €32k p.a.

Rewarding, through tax breaks, those who carry out social functions, is laudable and actually already practised, but what happens when you reach a point where those who do not are penalized to such an extent?

Either the incentive turns not to work harder, take on greater responsibility or gain greater qualifications or experience, but to profit from those tax breaks instead; why do an 80 hour week to climb up the corporate ladder or even a degree when you can just make babies and bring home the same amount of money? Or just leave the country to live somewhere where your hard work and not sperm count is rewarded.

That is where I would see a very serious flaw in your thinking.

Cody Pomeray

The Corinthian wrote: »

You suggested a scenario whereby someone (presumably single) on €50k p.a. should take home the same as someone (presumably with dependants) on €32k p.a.

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.

Either the incentive turns not to work harder, take on greater responsibility or gain greater qualifications or experience, but to profit from those tax breaks instead; why do an 80 hour week to climb up the corporate ladder or even a degree when you can just make babies and bring home the same amount of money? Or just leave the country to live somewhere where your hard work and not sperm count is rewarded.

I find it strange how people tend to respond to social policies which are not focused on the generation of private profits with the alarm call that private profits may suffer, which is what I suspect is emerging from that point.

Private profits may well suffer - but incentives to economic participation already suffer because of inaction on this point.

An extraordinary amount of human labour and social welfare is already leaking down the gutter through non-participation, largely because of inadequate rebates for those who want to improve their skills, raise families, or perform socially constructive roles in enterprise. A clear example is the amount of families in which the mother (and it is, generally, the mother) do not participate fully in society because the family cannot afford childcare.

Look at what djpbarry is suggesting - he suggests that it is discriminatory to reward individuals for raising a family. This is ridiculous. What is it we want from this society? What I am sure most people do not want is a society where those workers performing important social roles are excluded from a comfortable life, or personal dignity, because they answer a basic human instinct to gather a family, which subsequently supports their, or other's old age and contributes to the common good more generally.

What these incentives do, and can do to a greater extent, is encourage all workers to participate in the society in which they live, in whatever way they are able. I am not condemning workers who do not have an outlet for social contributions, the last resort is simply that they find another way to contribute, i.e. via an increased tax payment.

Jawgap

pookiesboo wrote: »

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

That's something between you and your employer. Unless you've agreed it with the employer, either individually or as part of a collective agreement, you've no automatic right to an increase after x years working for them.

PS workers - until recently - generally received increments and a cost of living increase. Increments are now stalled and there's been a pay cut.

OMD

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.
.

What jobs are constructive and what jobs are not?