Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

Options
1…34689…13

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Provide one. Just one, that isn't ultimately dependent on subjective judgement.

    Here's two:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92619048&postcount=20

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92619182&postcount=25


  • Options
    #153
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Sugar Free wrote: »
    Adam managed to turn a maximum of $6000 per annum (10% of his current salary) into $1.5 million?

    That's some return! He's in the wrong profession slaving away for $60K!

    He'd probably disagree. He'd probably consider it a low-risk strategy leaving him with sufficient free time to live as he wants.


  • Options
    #154
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Provide one. Just one, that isn't ultimately dependent on subjective judgement.

    If I earn 100k a year and have a lot of expenses, then a homeless person might consider me wealthy based solely on the initial figure of 100k which he perceives I have. The truth is that I don't have 100k. I have a very small percentage of it because of my expenses and taxes. Expenses which are not creating wealth. If said homeless man was in my position he would not consider himself wealthy. More fortunate, maybe but nowhere near wealthy.


  • Options
    #155
    Sugar Free
    Registered Users Posts: 1,639 ✭✭✭Sugar Free


    jimgoose wrote: »
    He'd probably disagree. He'd probably consider it a low-risk strategy leaving him with sufficient free time to live as he wants.

    I agree, just making a tongue-in-cheek comment regarding how he managed to get such a return on his investment. I doubt he could have accumulated that using only low-risk investment options. :pac:


  • Options
    #156
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Sugar Free wrote: »
    I agree, just making a tongue-in-cheek comment regarding how he managed to get such a return on his investment. I doubt he could have accumulated that using only low-risk investment options. :pac:

    Maybe Adam lived during a time when there was a property market that functioned properly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    jimgoose wrote: »
    A dilapidated dunny in Meath. Thank you, call again! :pac:

    So those earning 33,000 are worse off than those on 105,000, since the average is 33,000 then the majority of people are far worse off than those on 105,000. Hence those on 105,000 are wealthy.


  • Options
    #158
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Go and google Income vs Wealth you will find a wealth of information on the difference between income and wealth.

    A couple on 105K I would however say are medium to high income earners but thats just from my point of view.

    The average wage is 33,000, 105,000 is more than 3 times that.


  • Options
    #159
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    junior_apollo wrote: »
    May as well be p1ssing in the wind here lads... they cannot grasp the idea that your income does not define your wealth.

    What you do with your income after your outgoings, can influence/increase your wealth, but income != wealth.

    It's actually comical reading the replies at this point, so will leave them to it... lost causes.

    It's comical that the wealthy come up with all sorts of expenses to try and claim they're hard done by when everyone else has similar expenses but are earning far less money.


  • Options
    #160
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    So those earning 33,000 are worse off than those on 105,000, since the average is 33,000 then the majority of people are far worse off than those on 105,000. Hence those on 105,000 are wealthy.

    This quote sets out the basic problem really

    as long as we try and pigeonhole "wealthy people" based purely on a salary point it will never work

    Just as "poverty" has a range of measures so should "wealthy"


  • Options
    #161
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    The average wage is 33,000, 105,000 is more than 3 times that.

    the OP is about a couple on €105,000

    a couple on the average industrial wage is €66,000

    suddenly it doesn't look such a difference

    if you look at net wages the gap would be even less


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    twowheelsonly wrote: »
    Don't let that fool you - Average Industrial Wage includes part-time workers such as bar/waiting staff, kids in school, college etc. earning a few quid a week to pay their way. Take those out and include only full-time workers on full time wages and that number will increase significantly. IMO it's also a mechanism to maintain the higher tax-rate of a ridiculous 40% at a crazy low figure of €33,800.




    On the contrary as a single man in his 30s' your nett wages would be damn close to mine - your disposable income most likely more than mine, ergo you're also rich. I'll bet that it doesn't feel like that though. It all depends on where you're living, (at home with parents, renting a flat/house, paying mortgage on your own) as well as your other commitments, wife, kids etc.

    Circumstances matter whether you think so or not.

    Look at the statistics in post just above yours, it says:
    some 76% of income earners earn less than 50k a year
    therefore just 24% earn over 50.

    You decide your circumstances by the amount of wealth you've accrued.


  • Options
    #163
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    smash wrote: »
    If I earn 100k a year and have a lot of expenses, then a homeless person might consider me wealthy based solely on the initial figure of 100k which he perceives I have. The truth is that I don't have 100k. I have a very small percentage of it because of my expenses and taxes. Expenses which are not creating wealth. If said homeless man was in my position he would not consider himself wealthy. More fortunate, maybe but nowhere near wealthy.

    Your reply is not a definition. Your reply suggests I am conflating income and wealth; I am not, if I have given that impression it was not my intention. Your reply only goes to prove my assertion that 'wealth/wealthy' are indeed utterly subjective concepts.

    If you possess net assets of 100,000 euro (leaving aside income altogether) a homeless person may consider you wealthy. You may not. You with net assets of 100,000 might consider an individual with net assets of 1,000,000 wealthy. They may not. The individual with net assets of 1,000,000 may consider an individual with net assets of 10,000,000 euro wealthy. They may not. The individual with net assets of 10,000,000 euro may consider... and so on and so forth.


  • Options
    #164
    crannglas
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭crannglas


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    Anything over twice the average industrial wage is middle class.

    The average industrial wage is €30,000

    Do the math
    Average? Does that mean I am porper standard? I am well well below that. Lol


  • Options
    #165
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    You decide your circumstances by the amount of wealth you've accrued.

    But if you've earned 105k between 2 people (before taxes) and have not invested it in an asset or savings then you've accrued NOTHING!


  • Options
    #166
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    So those earning 33,000 are worse off than those on 105,000, since the average is 33,000 then the majority of people are far worse off than those on 105,000. Hence those on 105,000 are wealthy.

    I have more limbs than an amputee, therefore I am an elephant.


  • Options
    #167
    crannglas
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭crannglas


    To me you two are loaded. But in Ireland today with all the extra crap I think you would be lower. I reckon everyone should be rated on actually how much you have in bank and what you are left with after bills.


  • Options
    #168
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    Riskymove wrote: »
    This quote sets out the basic problem really

    as long as we try and pigeonhole "wealthy people" based purely on a salary point it will never work

    Just as "poverty" has a range of measures so should "wealthy"

    What is the problem? Wealthy people feel hard done by so by making it seem they're not wealthy they might get a better deal?


  • Options
    #169
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Your reply is not a definition. Your reply suggests I am conflating income and wealth; I am not, if I have given that impression it was not my intention. Your reply only goes to prove my assertion that 'wealth/wealthy' are indeed utterly subjective concepts.
    No, my reply is an example because you just refuse to accept the dictionary definition of what wealth actually is.
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    If you possess net assets of 100,000 euro (leaving aside income altogether) a homeless person may consider you wealthy. bla bla bla

    The thing is that we're talking about a couple earning 105k. Not having assets of 100k.

    Even in saying that. Having an asset worth 100k and pre-tax earnings of 105k but loans of 350k does not make you wealthy does it...


  • Options
    #170
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    OSI wrote: »
    You're missing the very vital distinction that the average wage is per person, and includes part-time workers. 105,000 between 2 adult full time workers really isn't that much.

    It's a lot of money. Only 24% of people earn over 50k so this couple are both in that bracket.


  • Options
    #171
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Here's two:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92619048&postcount=20

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92619182&postcount=25

    I asked for a definition of wealth that demonstrated and objective material standard of wealth. In response you link me to two unsourced definitions that you wrote, that both highlight the subjective nature of wealth. At least you managed to provide the definition of irony.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ec18
    Registered Users Posts: 2,702 ✭✭✭ec18


    Chris rock said it best when talking about shaquille o'Neill,

    Shaq is rich, the guy that signs Shaq's cheques is wealthy.


    So the answer is no these people are not wealthy or even rich.....They are comfortable at best


  • Options
    #173
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    smash wrote: »
    No, my reply is an example because you just refuse to accept the dictionary definition of what wealth actually is.

    I haven't, I've just reiterated that the dictionary definition is still dependent on subjectivity.


  • Options
    #174
    homerjay2005
    Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    it all depends on their outgoings.

    "wealth" is only a measure of how much they can spend without paying back debt. i know somebody who is on huge money (150k+ i reckon) but his outgoings are also huge.

    take out the obscene taxes that he pays,a huge mortgage, private schools for his sons, 2 cars and a he hasnt got much more money at his disposal than somebody on 1/4 of his salary.

    he is by no means rich or well off, in fact he is under pressure sometimes but in the eyes of everybody else he is somebody who we can use to keep the country going.


  • Options
    #175
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I haven't, I've just reiterated that the dictionary definition is still dependent on subjectivity.
    wealth: an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

    abundance: a very large quantity of something.

    wealth: A measure of the value of all of the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country. Wealth is found by taking the total market value of all the physical and intangible assets of the entity and then subtracting all debts.

    So before you say a couple on 105k a year are wealthy what you have to do is take the value of all their assets, subtract their debts and then see if what's left over is a very large quantity of money. Even a homeless person will realise that a few grand is not a very large quantity of money!


  • Options
    #176
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    o1s1n wrote: »
    Do they wear top hats and use monocles?

    You forgot to mention a cane. Wearing a top hat & monocle without a cane, would be akin to wearing a Saville Row suit without trousers.


  • Options
    #177
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    smash wrote: »
    wealth: an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

    abundance: a very large quantity of something.

    And what is a very large amount of money? To me its x to you its y... Still subjective.
    smash wrote: »
    wealth: A measure of the value of all of the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country. Wealth is found by taking the total market value of all the physical and intangible assets of the entity and then subtracting all debts.

    I haven't and don't question this.
    smash wrote: »
    So before you say a couple on 105k a year are wealthy what you have to do is take the value of all their assets, subtract their debts and then see if what's left over is a very large quantity of money. Even a homeless person will realise that a few grand is not a very large quantity of money!

    Are you homeless? Have you been homeless? Regardless, I haven't said whether a couple earning 105K a year are wealthy or not in my opinion. In my opinion given the dearth of information provided in the OP it is not possible to adjudicate.


  • Options
    #178
    Riskymove
    Registered Users Posts: 10,887 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    What is the problem? Wealthy people feel hard done by so by making it seem they're not wealthy they might get a better deal?

    what are you on about?

    who said anything about "hard done by"?

    The issue is trying to decide a measure of what we consider "wealthy people" to be. Obviously people consider other people who earn a lot more than them "wealthier" but we are talking about looking at it from an overall view



    The problem with saying "wealthy" is anyone earning over €100,000 is that if fails to take into account other factors

    someone earning less, let's say €80k could be far "wealthier" if they have less costs

    wealth is more than your salary


  • Options
    #179
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    ...I haven't said whether a couple earning 105K a year are wealthy or not in my opinion. In my opinion given the dearth of information provided in the OP it is not possible to adjudicate.

    Bingo. This is precisely the point, you see. A dog with a mallet up his hole wouldn't attempt to argue that €105,000 p.a. is handsome money indeed coming into any house. It is not however, wealth, and people earning such money are not necessarily wealthy.


  • Options
    #180
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    OSI wrote: »
    Indeed, if you take a couple earning €33,000 each. After tax they'll have a combined income of about €52k. Take the couple from the OP earning 105,000 or 52,500 each, they come out with about €72k. Really not a massive difference.

    That's almost the average industrial wage in difference, that's huge!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Laois6556
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Laois6556


    jimgoose wrote: »
    I have more limbs than an amputee, therefore I am an elephant.

    But a wealthy elephant.


Advertisement