Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

Laois6556

wersal gummage wrote: »

Wealthy couple conversation.

Mr wealthy : want to spend our wealth on a three bed house in the suburbs (not affluent areas such as d3,4 or 6) and maybe have two kids,

Ms wealthy : oh no, if we spend our massive wealth doing that we will have very little money left over.

Mr wealthy : good point. We can't really afford to have a house and kids. I'm so glad we are so wealthy.


Your logic is impressive.......

Buying houses, having kids and whatever else is irrelevant to the 105,000. The 105,000 means they're wealthy.

Valetta

Laois6556 wrote: »

They have great wealth, they then choose what to spend that great wealth on.

Again, the €105,000 is income.

At what point do they become wealthy? In January, February, when?

If they were both on the dole and got the jobs that paid then the €105,000 p.a., do they suddenly become wealthy, even though they don't have a cent between them?

shruikan2553

I think people are getting mixed up with 105k per person vs 105k between a couple.

smash

jobbridge4life wrote: »

According to what definition? An abundant supply of something valuable is a definition of wealth?

Yes:

wealth
wɛlθ/Submit
noun
1. an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=definition+of+wealth&oq=definition+of+wealth

Laois6556

wersal gummage wrote: »

Yes because this wealthy couple had a massive pot of money accumulated, while paying high rent in Dublin. They aren't going to borrow, by way of mortgage, for the home.... Jesus. If you read the thread, I said people have massive mortgage payments. Laois person says they shouldn't spend their income servicing a mortgage or rearing children.... Keep up

Didn't say that, you keep up.

Valetta

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Surely the assets held by the company are the more important factor, I mean you have countless loss making businesses that I wouldn't hesitate to call wealthy. (Although that adjective is not really fully appropriate to businesses). Look at Amazon for instance.

That's my point.

Wealth is "Net Assets" i.e. total assets less liabilities.

It has nothing to do with income.

Income is only a possible means to become wealthy.

Calibos

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's only when I read threads like this that I realise I'm essentially destitute.

Me too. Always fills up with posts by the boards demographic in their late 20's/30's in middle management IT/Finance positions who wouldn't get out of bed for less than 60-70 grand each. Nearly on the breadline so they are.

Frank Lee Midere

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Sorry your logic is that if the convert the format of their wealth ie from cash to property it disappears? That is even more impressive.

his logic is if they are worrying about not living in a "big house" then they are not rich.

Jesus wept.

mloc123

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In your opinion. Others might perceive it (the standard of living you have described) as being wealthy.

True enough, to a couple on 60k a year it seems like a like. To the couple on 105k a year I guess 200k seems a lot and so on.

One eyed Jack

Laois6556 wrote: »

You can make up number about anyone. I could make up numbers of someone earning 500,000 and how they spend their wealth and then claim they're not wealthy. Doesn't mean it's true.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Gerry Ryan was a classic example of someone who was perceived to be wealthy, given that his annual salary was €1M, give or take a few euro. He gave all the appearances of an affluent lifestyle, yet died owing more than he owned.

A person's income from employment isn't a realistic measurement of their wealth. On it's own, it tells you absolutely nothing. When you measure their current and long term assets against their total liabilities and financial obligations, you can get a better idea of how wealthy they are, how wealthy they appear to be, or indeed how impoverished they are.

Essentially, 'wealthy' is a relative term that only carries any meaning when taken in the context of affordability of the person's whole lifestyle.

smash

tastyt wrote: »

105,000 is wealthy. Of course it is . I know that people have costs but by that argument if I have 10 million I'm not wealthy if my house is worth 9 million and I have a Ferrari and a yacht. People have these cocts because they are wealthy enough to afford them

By your logic you'd have 10 million in cash and 9.2 million in assets. That's wealth.

Having 105k to last a year before tax and expenses is not wealthy.

Laois6556 wrote: »

They have great wealth, they then choose what to spend that great wealth on.

It's like talking to a wall.... You build wealth by spending money. You don't spend wealth.

Laois6556

Valetta wrote: »

Again, the €105,000 is income.

At what point do they become wealthy? In January, February, when?

If they were both on the dole and got the jobs that paid then the €105,000 p.a., do they suddenly become wealthy, even though they don't have a cent between them?

Their monthly salary is far higher than the majority. Is someone on 200,000 a year wealthy? 500,000?

twowheelsonly

Laois6556 wrote: »

Ah they're wealthy, 105,000, come on that's a huge amount. I think 150,000 up would be classed as super-wealthy. 50,000-80,000 would be considered rich, 30,000-50,000 are middle earners and then below 30,000 are poor. My terms of description can be changed a bit and the numbers a small bit but you get the general outline.

That's great - by your estimation I'm rich. Combine my wifes meagre income and I'm actually wealthy!! Strangely enough it doesn't feel like that. Maybe it's because Income Tax, PRSI, USC, Pension Levy, MANDATORY pension deductions on the other side of my docket takes half my wages before I even start to pay any bills or put food on the table.

Laois6556 wrote: »

That's your definition, it doesn't match most people's definition.

It does actually..

Laois6556 wrote: »

Maybe they could live in a smaller house? Did anyone force them to have kids?

Great suggestion, we'll all live in tiny cottages and stop breeding.

Nobody forces me to pay my ESB bill, nobody forced me to buy a computer or a television. Nobody forces me to drive or even to eat. Essentially though it's called living.

Genuine question @Laois6556 - What age are you and are you in the workforce yet?

Valetta

Laois6556 wrote: »

Their monthly salary is far higher than the majority. Is someone on 200,000 a year wealthy? 500,000?

I don't know, because you haven't said what assets they have.

Income isn't wealth.

Laois6556

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Gerry Ryan was a classic example of someone who was perceived to be wealthy, given that his annual salary was €1M, give or take a few euro. He gave all the appearances of an affluent lifestyle, yet died owing more than he owned.

A person's income from employment isn't a realistic measurement of their wealth. On it's own, it tells you absolutely nothing. When you measure their current and long term assets against their total liabilities and financial obligations, you can get a better idea of how wealthy they are, how wealthy they appear to be, or indeed how impoverished they are.

Essentially, 'wealthy' is a relative term that only carries any meaning when taken in the context of affordability of the person's whole lifestyle.

He may have wasted his wealth, maybe he had the view that he got the most out of his wealth.

smash

Laois6556 wrote: »

Their monthly salary is far higher than the majority. Is someone on 200,000 a year wealthy? 500,000?

If I earn 25k a year and own my house outright with a market value of 105k am I wealthy?

Laois6556

smash wrote: »

By your logic you'd have 10 million in cash and 9.2 million in assets. That's wealth.

Having 105k to last a year before tax and expenses is not wealthy.



It's like talking to a wall.... You build wealth by spending money. You don't spend wealth.

It is like talking to the wall. If 105k a year is not wealthy then what is 60k a year? 30k a year?
Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Idbatterim

the couple would be coming out with 73k a year for a start, then secondly it depends on where they liver or want to live, have they inherited property or money.

If you are a couple earning 105k a year in Dublin, safe to say it is likely you will want to live in an area, where a property that you would want to purchase will be €500,000 minimum, if you have children, at that income and ones far far lower, you wont be qualifying for the whole host of handouts that others will get (as you are paying for them)...

if the couple on that amount are good with money, then yes over 15-20 years (not taking any inheritance etc into account), you could maybe define them as wealthy...

jimgoose

Laois6556 wrote: »

It is like talking to the wall. If 105k a year is not wealthy then what is 60k a year? 30k a year?
Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Quite so. And €105,000 p.a. is an abundance of sod-all in this part of the world! Hint: look at the definition of "abundance". :pac:

smash

Laois6556 wrote: »

It is like talking to the wall. If 105k a year is not wealthy then what is 60k a year? 30k a year?
Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Listen to yourself would you! Earning 105k a year does not equate to having an abundance of valuable possessions or money!

jobbridge4life

This is all a bit pointless (even by the standards of a forum discussion) the OP used the term 'wealthy' but then contrasted it with 'middle income'. The question is posed in a confused way. To my mind the intention was to enquire whether a couple earning 105,000 p.a. would be considered high or middle income earners. The semantic battle of the term wealthy has distracted from the original intent.

Laois6556

twowheelsonly wrote: »

That's great - by your estimation I'm rich. Combine my wifes meagre income and I'm actually wealthy!! Strangely enough it doesn't feel like that. Maybe it's because Income Tax, PRSI, USC, Pension Levy, MANDATORY pension deductions on the other side of my docket takes half my wages before I even start to pay any bills or put food on the table.




It does actually..



Great suggestion, we'll all live in tiny cottages and stop breeding.

Nobody forces me to pay my ESB bill, nobody forced me to buy a computer or a television. Nobody forces me to drive or even to eat. Essentially though it's called living.

Genuine question @Laois6556 - What age are you and are you in the workforce yet?

Think about what it'd be like for someone earning far less than you. You're rich in comparison and that's what we go on. The average wage is 33,000 I think, you're far above that.

It only seems to match the definition of the wealthy in this thread.

I was only making a sujestion, people don't have to buy a massive house and have loads of kids if they don't want to. It has nothing to do with my point that those on 105,000 a year are wealthy.

Nobody forces those on any amount of money to spend on the things you've listed but you have far more money to spend on them than others. This makes you rich.

I am in my 30's and in the workforce and I'm comfortable earning 40,000 per year.

Akrasia

Quin_Dub wrote: »

People here seem to be conflating "Wealthy" with "Not Struggling"

They are very different things..

A couple on €105k should be at a minimum ,comfortable. By that I mean , all the bills get paid without fuss , the kids can go to a few after school things (Sports membership fees , dancing classes , art classes or whatever) and there will typically be a few quid available for a meal out a few times a month or similar.

However they will still need to be careful with their money and a few unexpected bills could have them under short/medium term pressure - A big car/house repair bill or something.

They are still people who need to keep a regular eye on the bank-balance and who will have to hold off on certain expenses until they can afford them.

Generally though , they are doing ok and aren't lying awake at night worrying about how to pay the mortgage.

Wealthy doesn't mean "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" in my view..

For me Wealthy means that you never really bother checking your bank account , if an expense comes up you just pay it and don't need to think about if you can afford it this week or if you should wait until the end of the month.

A Couple on €105k are not Wealthy.

Define 'an expense'

An expense could be 'having to pay the marina fees for your yacht'. Are you suggesting someone isn't wealthy if they feel the need to query the cost of their marina fees?

I consider someone wealthy if they buy golden vale milk instead of own brand. the're basically saying 'fu*k you extra 80 cents, i'll just throw money way without thinking about it'

NewCorkLad

Laois6556 wrote: »

It is like talking to the wall. If 105k a year is not wealthy then what is 60k a year? 30k a year?
Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

You really dont understand what you are quoting. Your income isnt an asset or a possession. Your income is a potential assets but it depends how much you can save after all the necessary expenses.

So a couple on 105k a year have the potential to become wealthy/welloff by saving and putting their money into pensions and property, but if they blow it all on hookers and drugs they will never be wealthy, they will just be a couple on a very good wage who like to have a good time.

Laois6556

Valetta wrote: »

I don't know, because you haven't said what assets they have.

Income isn't wealth.

Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

percy212

105k is a living wage for an average sized family. Nothing more. Wealth is in OTHER COUNTRIES!

Laois6556

smash wrote: »

If I earn 25k a year and own my house outright with a market value of 105k am I wealthy?

Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

smash

Laois6556 wrote: »

I am in my 30's and in the workforce and I'm comfortable earning 40,000 per year.

And do you think that if you met someone earning 60k, bought a house and had a kid that you'd be a wealthy couple?

wersal gummage

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

his logic is if they are worrying about not living in a "big house" then they are not rich.

Jesus wept.

Central Bank rules from 1st January are 3.5 times combined income. That's 367 thousand. Who said anything about a big house? Is a three bedroom home with 1100 square feet a big house?

Go into a bank with 105 grand combined salaries and see how wealthy you are and where you can afford to live.

Laois6556

jimgoose wrote: »

Quite so. And €105,000 p.a. is an abundance of sod-all in this part of the world! Hint: look at the definition of "abundance". :pac:

105,000 is an abundance. Hint: Look up the average industrial wage.