Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

And where is this wonderful society? Do you have an address? Is it at the bottom of the sea, is it Rapture?

Reindeer

tastyt wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous. So the argument is if you earn 105k and spend it all on things then your not well off.

If you earn 105k but don't buy as big or as shiny things with it you will be well off. Now, case closed!!

If you make 105K take home pay after taxes, you are doing rather well.

Having said this, I have a relative in the States that gives his daughter $10K/month in a trust. She blows it all by months end easily. I do not consider her wealthy, but I sure as hell consider her father wealthy.

jobbridge4life

Reindeer wrote: »

If you make 105K take home pay after taxes, you are doing rather well.

In your opinion.... However by reference to the average wage (before tax I'll add) in the State you are doing exceptionally well.

Valetta

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And where is this wonderful society? Do you have an address? Is it at the bottom of the sea, is it Rapture?

It wasn't described as wonderful in the post , but it's right here in Ireland.

Tigger

in a socialist society the doleys would have to clean toilets and sort recycling
the workers would be better off and the irish water consultants would leave

jobbridge4life

Valetta wrote: »

It wasn't described as wonderful in the post , but it's right here in Ireland.

Sweet Jesus above you can't in all seriousness believe that?

Valetta

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Sweet Jesus above you can't in all seriousness believe that?

Which particular part of the post that you responded to do you find unbelievable ?

Danonino.

Ha ha just read the €188 euro income a week with €100 expenses leaving €88 quid surplus... Seriously.

Did the person who wrote that ever even think about living on €100 a week never mind actually doing it, I mean outside of some very very fortunate circumstances that's pretty close to impossible. I mean to cover all your expenses with €400 a month leaving the rest as luxury money... really?
The vast majority of people that I know on social welfare live week to week. Literally. The occasional €30 or so freed up between bills may come along but €88 to slop weekly??

Are people writing this nonsense on drugs or what?

One eyed Jack

Danonino. wrote: »

Ha ha just read the €188 euro income a week with €100 expenses leaving €88 quid surplus... Seriously.

Did the person who wrote that ever even think about living on €100 a week never mind actually doing it, I mean outside of some very very fortunate circumstances that's pretty close to impossible. I mean to cover all your expenses with €400 a month leaving the rest as luxury money... really?
The vast majority of people that I know on social welfare live week to week. Literally. The occasional €30 or so freed up between bills may come along but €88 to slop weekly??

Are people writing this nonsense on drugs or what?

I wrote it, and I stand by it too, as there are a number of people I know who are well capable of living quite comfortably and happily on €100 pw with €88 for savings, or nights out, etc, or even drugs, but I don't know too many of those people.

A young unemployed person with no dependents is entitled to €100 pw on social welfare, and it's only supposed to last from week to week as social welfare isn't actually supposed to become a young person's primary source of income.

If the people you know cannot manage their finances and their budget and live within their means, the problem isn't that their social welfare payment is too low; the problem is that they cannot afford the lifestyle they aspire to on their current income, which isn't helped by their attitude to money if they can't afford to live on €100 pw, let alone €188 pw.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wrote it, and I stand by it too, as there are a number of people I know who are well capable of living quite comfortably and happily on €100 pw with €88 for savings, or nights out, etc, or even drugs, but I don't know too many of those people.

Seriously what is it with people on this website and people they know. We all know people. I know plenty of people who can't survive on €188. So now what?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A young unemployed person with no dependents is entitled to €100 pw on social welfare, and it's only supposed to last from week to week as social welfare isn't actually supposed to become a young person's primary source of income.

And your point is...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the people you know cannot manage their finances and their budget and live within their means, the problem isn't that their social welfare payment is too low; the problem is that they cannot afford the lifestyle they aspire to on their current income, which isn't helped by their attitude to money if they can't afford to live on €100 pw, let alone €188 pw.

If €188 is a sufficient income for people to live on then why is the minimum wage almost double it? Why is the 'living wage' even more?

SaveOurLyric

As with Boris Johnson Johnson and his £250,000 p.a for writing articles being chicken feed, €105,000 is only a third of that, so really just scraping-by sort of money, and surely doesnt allow one to live to any reasonable standard. The recession has done hard things to people.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Seriously what is it with people on this website and people they know. We all know people. I know plenty of people who can't survive on €188. So now what?

So now all we have is that we all know people, some people who can manage quite comfortably on €188 pw, some people who can't -

Danonino. wrote: »

The vast majority of people that I know on social welfare live week to week. Literally.

And your point is...

If you had read the post I was responding to, you wouldn't have to ask what my point is. What is it with some people on this website who will take immediate issue with a post without having understood the context?

My point is that the previous poster was suggesting that the people the vast majority of people they know claiming social welfare have no money left at the end of the week, as if this isn't the way it should be. It absolutely should be this way as social welfare is only supposed to be an allowance - 'Job Seekers Allowance', clue is in the payment title.

If €188 is a sufficient income for people to live on then why is the minimum wage almost double it? Why is the 'living wage' even more?

Because people who are working are entitled to a minimum standard of living. Minimum wage agreements aren't something I personally agree with as it encourages a burger flipper to remain a burger flipper rather than motivates them to want to do better for themselves, in the same way an excess social welfare payment encourages people to refuse employment as they lose out financially speaking. It's been a long and ongoing issue in this country that has yet to be addressed.

Before you jump down my throat, ask yourself one question. Which would you rather -

Control over your own level of income, or, leaving yourself at the mercy of whatever Joan Burton decides shall be your income?

I know I'd rather control my own income than crap myself every time budget day comes round and I'm crapping myself in case Michael Noonan announces that the JSA will be reduced by €5. We all had a bit of a chuckle at the €5 added to child benefit (not something I agree with either, for the reasons stated above - if I have a child, that is MY choice, and I shouldn't expect the State to fund my lifestyle choices), but if the JSA were reduced by €5, spit venom all you want, but there's SFA you could realistically do about it.

Once you get to a certain level in employment, you have even more control over setting the value of your employment to your potential employer, so you can negotiate that €105k salary if that's the level you want to get to. You can negotiate for even higher if you think you're worth it.

marco_polo

Two people on the average industrial wage would be on what about 70000 pa gross? It seems bizzare that a couple on just 50% above that could be considered "wealthy" by any stretch. Don't get me wrong, because most earning above average is likely disposable income even allowing for mortgage/rent/kids you can certainly fund a reasonably comfortable lifestyle if both stay heathly and don't make silly financial decisions etc, put something away for a rainy day, but rich you most certainly are not.

bmm

What does a garda get paid? about 50k
What does a nurse get paid? about 50k

What does a teacher get paid? about 50k

What does a mid grade civil servant get paid? about 50k

What does a mid grade civil servant get paid? about 90k

What does a doctor get paid? about 150k

What does a surgeon get paid? about 250k

I am sure all of the above might call themselves middle income , but what wud u call them??

If you were working as a cashier in a shop earning 12k, you might say they were high earners & you might also say:

No wonder the country is broke!

WILL NEVER LOG OFF

My partner and I would be in this neck of the woods in combined earnings. We both work very hard and pay €40k in taxes between us,and as I am self-employed I pay 55% taxes at the higher rate.

I work 6 days a week, and from the start of the week until wednesday noon, every cent goes to michael noonan. then the bills are paid.

We are very fortunate to have low home rent, but if we were looking to buy in Dublin, we'd not afford a mortgage for a 3-bed semi.

Is that well off? Absolutely not. I have full sympathy for the unemployed but couples at this income are paying more than a fair whack in tax.

some doctrinaires need to lay off a bit. are some of you kids?

Danonino.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wrote it, and I stand by it too, as there are a number of people I know who are well capable of living quite comfortably and happily on €100 pw with €88 for savings, or nights out, etc, or even drugs, but I don't know too many of those people.

A young unemployed person with no dependents is entitled to €100 pw on social welfare, and it's only supposed to last from week to week as social welfare isn't actually supposed to become a young person's primary source of income.

You're picking a rediculously small amount of people. They would have to be living practically rent free, or let's say €50 a week for rent or to parents if you like. I can't actually think of a situation where paying €50 rent a week would happen outside of 4 sharing a house. Let's give them a €30 food budget although I guess a debate for noodles and bread could be made at under €20 a week, that's approx €70-80 of their €100 living costs. The remaining 20 to cover esb/gas/TV/bins/fuel/water? And they are left with €88 quid to slop? That's cutting it fine even at those numbers.

Are you strictly talking about young people living at home? I mean, I agree it should be week to week, what I don't agree with is how easy you make living on €100 a week sound, have you ever tried it? I have and its a serious stretch that I would never want to repeat. I didn't have a family home to bunk into at the time, I got lucky (very) and managed a house share where I was at around €60 a week rent, I was paying utilities and bin charges etc
The reason I was trying to live under €100 was to pay the fees for college that the BTEA wouldn't cover (back then) NOT nights out, beer, drugs or whatever else people seem to imagine. I stand by my point that you are taking a small percentage of fortunate folk who can manage to get by almost rent/utility free and only worry about feeding themselves and getting high. Anyone over a certain age, or without a family home to jump into will be hard pressed to find accommodation, utilities and food at €100 a week.

If the people you know cannot manage their finances and their budget and live within their means, the problem isn't that their social welfare payment is too low; the problem is that they cannot afford the lifestyle they aspire to on their current income, which isn't helped by their attitude to money if they can't afford to live on €100 pw, let alone €188 pw.

Attitude to money let alone €188 pw, lifestyle they aspire to and their attitude to money... wow. No. The problem is at that low of an income it is very very hard to get a foothold to climb back into a reasonable income, reasonable lifestyle and gain traction to improve. Especially without parents to fund college or leave an asset/inheritance, an offer cheap accommodation, no need for the use of transport etc. Heck even my above example is well under what even shared student accommodation costs weekly.

I have gone way off topic. I just find it strange how you think €100 a week could have someone live 'comfortably' when as far as I ever experienced it is far from comfortable outside the rare examples like the one above. You make it sound like the majority of people on social welfare should be able to save up to €88 a week, and I say bull****. Lets agree to disagree.

One eyed Jack

Danonino. wrote: »

Lets agree to disagree.

That's probably for the best, as my original post you were actually addressing was merely using simple figures to illustrate wealth, and not whether it was feasible for a person to live on Job Seekers Allowance or not. That's why I wasn't including any additional potential allowances or entitlements such as Rent Allowance to help cover the rent, GP or medical card, Fuel Allowance, etc, etc.

I was merely making the point that just because a person is employed and earning a higher income than someone who is unemployed and in receipt of JSA, doesn't mean that the person on the higher income from employment is actually wealthier than the person in receipt of JSA.

In order to determine their actual wealth, you would have to examine their whole lifestyle and then determine which person could sustain their lifestyle in the long term, and which person would be greater impacted by any change in their circumstances.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because people who are working are entitled to a minimum standard of living. Minimum wage agreements aren't something I personally agree with as it encourages a burger flipper to remain a burger flipper rather than motivates them to want to do better for themselves.

What's it to you if someone wants to be a burger flipper and is happy with that? Why do they have to do better for themselves? Just curious

al22

My opinion - minimum wages guaranteed is a wrong idea. It should be negotiable and everybody with appropriate skills and knowledge can negotiate 100,000+ per year if he/she worth it. It should be not increased just because of years in employment, but increasing with an actual productivity & quality of work done.

Social welfare should not be a main source of income and for life unless a real disability preventing to work. Or, it should be paid if one actually do any work at a very low wages, then to get paid extra to a minimum living.

Cost of foods, clothes, cars, rents, houses etc directly depends on the level ofincome. The higher incomes - the more expensive is everything.

One eyed Jack

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What's it to you if someone wants to be a burger flipper and is happy with that? Why do they have to do better for themselves? Just curious

Well, since you're just curious, it's absolutely none of my business if someone is happy to flip burgers for minimum wage. When they make it my business however by telling me they are not happy flipping burgers for minimum wage and they want either more money for flipping burgers, or they want to get a job that pays better, that's when it becomes my business.

If someone is happy doing what they do, more power to them, but if they're unhappy doing what they're doing and they tell me they want to better for themselves, or they want more for themselves, that's when they have chosen to make it my business.

Tail Docker

So, have we decided are the feckers wealthy or not?

jameshayes

Tail Docker wrote: »

So, have we decided are the feckers wealthy or not?

Lol - the thread de-railed because of a poorly worded OP.

Are they considered wealthy or middle income?

Should have been:

Are they considered high income or middle income?

And the answer seems to be they are in the upper scale of the middle income bracket but are in fact a long way from the high income bracket because the milestones get further apart the further up the income scale you move...

twowheelsonly

smash wrote: »

Average industrial wage according to CSO
€35,783.8 x 2 (€71,567.6)
Net: €56,899

€57,500 x 2 (€105,000)
Net: €73,281

The couple on 105k get an extra €315 a week. Better wage? Yes. Wealthy? No.

It's also worth noting that public sector employees get an average of €47,780.72 a year where private sector employees get an average of €32.344. The couple in question could be a Guard and a Nurse. Which most people would certainly not class as wealthy by any means, especially with pension levy which would wipe out most of that extra 'wealth'.

Geuze wrote: »

Please note that average earnings are 36k approx.

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elcq/earningsandlabourcostsq12014finalq22014preliminaryestimates/#.VD-xN_ldWSo

690 pw = 36,000 pa

Those numbers are slightly skewed as well though as according to the CSO stats the average working week is 31 hours.
Everyone in the Public Service (bar some on Job Sharing maybe) would be in full time employment and working 37hr plus, usually 39 or 40. in my own case, with fixed annualised hours it's an average of 48 hours per week.

The figure for private sector includes part-time workers though so that drags the hours, and the avg wage, downward.

Stats however can say whatever you want them to say, between Modal, Median and Average any argument can be re-arranged!!

'Average' wage €36k where avg hours is 31 and avg wage €47k where avg hours is prob 39/40. Same thing really but it's all down to interpretation of statistics.