Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

jank

I would not classify that salary as wealthy or rich at all. Middle income earners more than anything!

Flasche

My wife and I are on a combined salary of 80k. We barely have enough money to pay our bills. Creche costs 1300 per month then you have mortgage of 1100 and the rest of the bills. So I really wouldn't clarify 10th as wealthy.

smash

Clearlier wrote: »

Assets are wealth.

Well you could say you have a wealth of assets but that doesn't mean your assets make you wealthy!

Streetwalker

Wealthy imo.

One eyed Jack

Clearlier wrote: »

Assets are wealth. I wonder if it would help if I clarified that a house that would sell for 300k that has a mortgage of 240k is an asset worth about 60k (and that's before you take into account the costs associated with selling).

Obviously, appearing to be wealthy and being wealthy are two quite different things.

Assets are capable of generating wealth, certainly, but that house hasn't generated any wealth unless you actually sell it for €300k, or more than (€260 + fees) at least.

A good example would be one you alluded to earlier -

A person who worked in the public service for 40 years, built their house in the '70's for €30k, five years ago was offered €700k for it, refused to sell, then retired in the meantime, now cannot afford the upkeep on the house, and can't sell it either because it's fallen into disrepair and selling it wouldn't generate enough wealth to see them enjoy their retirement.

They're not exactly enjoying their retirement as it is, because they cannot get employment, and their pension is insufficient to cover their lifestyle to which they were accustomed to.

The property has become a massive liability even though it has already been paid for, because it has very little market value, and is costing a small fortune to maintain. It's no longer an asset, and while the house might appear to be structurally sound, and from the outside gives the appearance of wealth, the owner is far from wealthy.

pwurple

desertcircus wrote: »

Okay: show me a household budget for a family with two children earning 105k a year, and let's take a look through the items you think exclude them from wealth.

According to the pwc budget calculator, a family earning 105k per year will be seeing net combined, around 5,800 per month. (I assumed 300k house, in dublin city for property tax, and 2% each in pension payments)

So, of that 5800:
If they are working, chances are they have creche fees, at 50 quid a day, that's 2000 per month on creche.

Mortgage, probably? ~1500. Lots of people paying more than that though. We'll keep it conservative.

Both commuting, 200 per month on petrol.
Have they a car loan, insurance, tax and NCTs? 500 per month between them cover that?
=700

Electricity -100
Gas -80
Water ? none yet.
No sky for these guys, they can have freeview. Will we give them netflix? Nawww.
Broadband - 50
Phones maybe... 40 quid each per month? = 80
=310


Now, I guess we should feed them. If they eat at work, that could be 7 or 8 quid a day, no posh coffee allowed. That's 320 per month.
Should we let them eat at home, and maybe the children too? What's about right for 4 people for food... 120 a week?
= 800 pm

No holidays I think, not with those car bills.
No swimming lessons or gaa kits allowed.
No health insurance - splurge-ville.

1 pair of shoes per child every second month (would they ever stop growing!) = 50 euro.

So, totals are:
2000
1500
700
310
800
50
----
5360


440 euro left over per month for broken washing machines, general house maintence, and enough clothes to get 4 people through work/getting taller. No zoo trips for them either.


I don't think I'd call them wealthy.

mloc123

pwurple wrote: »

2% each in pension payments

More like 10-15% if we are being realistic.

miezekatze

Like someone else has mentioned previously, I would call someone wealthy that can make big purchases like a new car or frequent foreign holidays without having to worry if they are actually able to afford it. Someone who most likely doesn't even know how much is in their bank account, even rounded to the nearest 1,000. I don't think this is likely to be the case for a couple that earns 105k between them. It may sound like a lot of money to a lot of people, but your income usually increases gradually and you really adjust to it. Over time, you get a nicer car, maybe a nicer house/apartment, you spend more on your clothes, maybe eat out more often, etc. It happens so gradually and you don't really end up with a lot more spending money than you did before. So many people here have said 'oh, but they could just spend less, then they would be wealthy' - that's not what happens in the real world though to most people.

Our income would be a good bit lower than that, but even if we were to end up with this kind of income in a few years, I don't think I'd think I was wealthy. I'd call it comfortably well off. 'Wealthy' would probably take a good bit more money still. I think that point would be somewhere between 150 and 200k though.

OldNotWIse

Wealthy for me is having enough money to not have to think about it.

pwurple

mloc123 wrote: »

More like 10-15% if we are being realistic.

5% usually, but I was being fairly conservative there in the spending, including pension.

I gave them no specific tech spend (so they have no tv for example), no clothes, no holiday, no health insurance, no cinema, no eating out, no pub, no pets, no birthday cakes or christmas pressies.

All of it has to come from the 110 per person per month.

smash

pwurple wrote: »

5% usually, but I was being fairly conservative there in the spending, including pension.

I gave them no specific tech spend (so they have no tv for example), no clothes, no holiday, no health insurance, no cinema, no eating out, no pub, no pets, no birthday cakes or christmas pressies.

All of it has to come from the 110 per person per month.

It doesn't really matter. There's been a few examples like yours throughout the tread and there's still those who believe that the couple in question are wealthy just because of their gross earnings.

pwurple

smash wrote: »

It doesn't really matter. There's been a few examples like yours throughout the tread and there's still those who believe that the couple in question are wealthy just because of their gross earnings.

People forget about the poverty trap that has been created here by tax individualisation, and social welfare creep. It is expensive to work here, especially if you have children. Public transport is poor for our spread out housing, and we are an expensive little country for a lot of day to day items.

mloc123

pwurple wrote: »

5% usually, but I was being fairly conservative there in the spending, including pension.

I gave them no specific tech spend (so they have no tv for example), no clothes, no holiday, no health insurance, no cinema, no eating out, no pub, no pets, no birthday cakes or christmas pressies.

All of it has to come from the 110 per person per month.

Is 5% the the national average for PRSA? That is much less than I would have expected.

doc11

pwurple wrote: »

According to the pwc budget calculator, a family earning 105k per year will be seeing net combined, around 5,800 per month. (I assumed 300k house, in dublin city for property tax, and 2% each in pension payments)

So, of that 5800:
If they are working, chances are they have creche fees, at 50 quid a day, that's 2000 per month on creche.

Mortgage, probably? ~1500. Lots of people paying more than that though. We'll keep it conservative.

Both commuting, 200 per month on petrol.
Have they a car loan, insurance, tax and NCTs? 500 per month between them cover that?
=700

creche fees of 25k a year added to take away a third of their income, a child only needs a creche for a relatively short period and a fair portion of working adults leave them with relations. Even with a high mortgage your payments will stay static yet your income will be increasing well into the future and you'll also have asset

smash

doc11 wrote: »

a child only needs a creche for a relatively short period

For a few years and then you still have afterschool costs.

doc11 wrote: »

and a fair portion of working adults leave them with relations.

It's an old Irish attitude, probably more so down the country. I know when I retire I don't want grand kids running around my house every day, it's no way to spend your retirement.

Menas

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wealthy for me is having enough money to not have to think about it.

Take a bow dad, you have nailed the definition of wealthy for me.

doc11

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wealthy for me is having enough money to not have to think about it.

Do you think Denis O'Brien doesn't think about money? I'd go as far as to say the more you have the more you think about it, in terms of investments etc you have far more to lose.

awec

doc11 wrote: »

Do you think Denis O'Brien doesn't think about money? I'd go as far as to say the more you have the more you think about it, in terms of investments etc you have far more to lose.

Not in the same way.

O'Brien isn't thinking if he will be able to afford that three bedroom house in the Dublin suburbs, or whether it makes more sense to pay childcare or just have 1 stay-at-home parent etc.

pwurple

doc11 wrote: »

creche fees of 25k a year added to take away a third of their income, a child only needs a creche for a relatively short period.

Schools days, and terms are much shorter than the average working year. Afterchool care, summer holiday care, easter, christmas, mid term breaks x 3. Where do you think children go at those times? Fend for themselves in the forest?

And a child needs creche for about 4 years of their lives if both parents are working. 2 children... that's 8 years of creche payments.

Even with a high mortgage your payments will stay static yet your income will be increasing well into the future and you'll also have asset

An asset you can't sell, or make any income from, because you are living in it. Your children will also get bigger, and you may need to extend the house, or get a bigger one. The maintenance involved in owning any building is not to be sniffed at either. Replacing a roof in 20 years time, upgrading the insulation.

mloc123

doc11 wrote: »

Even with a high mortgage your payments will stay static yet your income will be increasing well into the future and you'll also have asset

Tell that to the people that were on a 2% variable rate 5 years ago and are now on a 5% rate...

OldNotWIse

doc11 wrote: »

Do you think Denis O'Brien doesn't think about money? I'd go as far as to say the more you have the more you think about it, in terms of investments etc you have far more to lose.

I meant "not have to think about it" in the sense that not having it is not an issue. Thinking, hummm I'll pay half that ESB bill now and half next week or I better not get the new winter coat yet as the kid needs his new school shoes this week. As opposed to having so much that it consumes you.

Micky Dolenz

Pfft, €105,000 pa. My senior servants are pulling in that kind of salary.

doc11

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I meant "not have to think about it" in the sense that not having it is not an issue. Thinking, hummm I'll pay half that ESB bill now and half next week or I better not get the new winter coat yet as the kid needs his new school shoes this week. As opposed to having so much that it consumes you.

Struggling to pay an ESB or buy school shoes is something a couple on 105k wouldn't NEED to do.

One eyed Jack

doc11 wrote: »

Struggling to pay an ESB or buy school shoes is something a couple on 105k wouldn't shouldn't NEED to do.

Then again, the same could be said for anyone, regardless of their income level. This requires budgeting, something that yes, even wealthy people will acknowledge as important, because without it, they stand to become unwealthy - I.e. struggling to meet the basic necessities and bills as they fall due.

wobbles

If a couple are on that kinda of money and are not living very comfortable then they have made some seriously bad decisions financially.

kowloon

Stroke Politics wrote: »

Is their flat-screen TV bigger than the book-case?

Are their flat screen TVs bigger than their library?

DarkyHughes

Redistribute wealth. To do that we need a society where socialism works from the bottom upwards after the workers have taken over their workplaces & created workers councils.

One eyed Jack

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Redistribute wealth. To do that we need a society where socialism works from the bottom upwards after the workers have taken over their workplaces & created workers councils.

The janitor might support your socialist idealism, but I'm not sure the Managing Director would. Wealth redistribution just wouldn't work, and couldn't work, in a society where if you want to become wealthy, you have every opportunity to do so without expecting that you should be entitled to wealth someone else has accrued through their taking advantage of opportunities they made for themselves.

JC01

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Redistribute wealth. To do that we need a society where socialism works from the bottom upwards after the workers have taken over their workplaces & created workers councils.

Head off and start a new communist regime somewhere then, I despise this thinking that seems to be gaining a foothold in Ireland. If you want wealth go out and earn it like 95% of the wealthy people in this country have. Nobody is entitled to be looked after by the state all there lives.

And define the "workers" you make it sound like everyone is working in 1940s coalmines for 50c a day. I don't even know what to make of your "take over the workplaces" comment.

DarkyHughes

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Redistribute wealth.

Why should people go out an make money only for it to benefit other people? Pure nonsensical socialist horse s*it.

If you want to make money make it yourself and if you make money you should be keeping the majority of it not handing it over.