Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

Laois6556

stateofflux wrote: »

i would have thought circa 50k a year would be the norm for Tradesmen, Gardai, experienced nurses etc...but i could be wrong. i don't think 105k is huge money for a couple

Is there anywhere we can find the stats?

blacklilly

Laois6556 wrote: »

What's your problem? The wealthy don't like interacting with us poor people on this thread it seems.

Yes, for once you're correct. Now go do my errands and kiss my feet while you're at it

HamsterFace

stateofflux wrote: »

i would have thought circa 50k a year would be the norm for Tradesmen, Gardai, experienced nurses etc...but i could be wrong. i don't think 105k is huge money for a couple

You'd be right, I know from friends that teachers and gardai with nearly 10 years experience would be on 50k. By the time they finish their careers they'll be super rich...

Laois6556

Laois6556 wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can find the stats?

So I'm going to answer my own question. I googled and I've found that 14% of households have an income of 100k+.
2% earn above 200,000.
The argument that those over 100k are not wealthy looks even more ridiculous when you see some of these other figures.
33% of households have a gross income of less than €30,000.
56% of households have a gross income of less than €50,000
62% of households have a gross income below the average (mean) household income of €56,500.
Then for single people:
50% of individuals have a gross annual income of less than €18,000.
The top 10% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €60,000 per annum.

Laois6556

blacklilly wrote: »

Yes, for once you're correct. Now go do my errands and kiss my feet while you're at it

Atleast you haven't ordered me to wipe your arse like last week.

Laois6556

HamsterFace wrote: »

You'd be right, I know from friends that teachers and gardai with nearly 10 years experience would be on 50k. By the time they finish their careers they'll be super rich...

Yet only 14% of households earn 100k plus and the top 10% of individuals earn 60k plus.

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

So I'm going to answer my own question. I googled and I've found that 14% of households have an income of 100k+.
2% earn above 200,000.
The argument that those over 100k are not wealthy looks even more ridicules when you see some of these other figures.
33% of households have a gross income of less than €30,000.
56% of households have a gross income of less than €50,000
62% of households have a gross income below the average (mean) household income of €56,500.
Then for single people:
50% of individuals have a gross annual income of less than €18,000.
The top 10% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €60,000 per annum.

It's a pity they can't buy average houses isn't it?

The more I look into this the more I realise that pre tax income has nothing to do with actual real wealth. If 100k were wealthy for people in the boards demographic they would he buying the top 10% of houses.

Probably you are better off in the Laois sticks in terms of disposable income than the " rich" on slightly above average Dublin salaries.

awec

Laois6556 wrote: »

It's more than the majority make in Dublin aswell of outside Dublin.

So?

wiseoldelf34

is that you Joe duffy ?

awec

Laois6556 wrote: »

So I'm going to answer my own question. I googled and I've found that 14% of households have an income of 100k+.
2% earn above 200,000.
The argument that those over 100k are not wealthy looks even more ridiculous when you see some of these other figures.
33% of households have a gross income of less than €30,000.
56% of households have a gross income of less than €50,000
62% of households have a gross income below the average (mean) household income of €56,500.
Then for single people:
50% of individuals have a gross annual income of less than €18,000.
The top 10% of individuals in the income distribution have an income of more than €60,000 per annum.

Being wealthy has nothing to do with that.

90% of the population could have an income of 10,000 a year and live in the middle of nowhere where the yearly mortgage costs 50 quid.

That doesn't mean that the 10% who earn 50,000 a year and live in the city where rent costs 40,000 a year are wealthy.

You are oversimplifying and comparing the wrong thing.

Laois6556

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's a pity they can't buy average houses isn't it?

The more I look into this the more I realise that pre tax income has nothing to do with actual real wealth. If 100k were wealthy for people in the boards demographic they would he buying the top 10% of houses.

Probably you are better off in the Laois sticks in terms of disposable income than the " rich" on slightly above average Dublin salaries.

Why can't they buy average houses?

The average household income is 56,500, 62% of households are below this. This 105,000 couple are earning close to double the average. They're on crazy money.

Maybe I'm better off in Laois, don't think the neighbours in Dublin would be too friendly if this thread is anything to go by!

Laois6556

awec wrote: »

So?

It's loads of money no matter where you are.

awec

Laois6556 wrote: »

It's loads of money no matter where you are.

It really isn't.

"No matter where you are" has to be the most nonsense thing you've posted so far. You cannot just disregard where someone lives.

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

Could be but we know it's not. A very small percentage of couples earn that much would be a reasonable assumption.

I didn't see your answer and you obviously didn't see mine. I don't have a clue what you're on about. I gave numbers for different levels like poor, wealthy, super wealthy and all that.

And your numbers are bollocks. You don't understand what wealth is, you confuse it with income. You don't understand that people don't earn their gross pay. You don't understand that if you are to compare earnings it should be disposable income after tax and housing costs. Lastly you don't understand that's it's a fallacy when talking about the rich to look at the percentage of people who are above a certain gross income of wealth, you look instead at the wealth distribution itself. If 1% if the population had 98% of the wealth then being in the top 10% of the population would still be poor as there is only 2% of the wealth left.

You don't understand power distributions.

The "rich" are not scraping money together to buy 2 down 3 up semi-d in the outer lower middle income suburbs.

Laois6556

awec wrote: »

Being wealthy has nothing to do with that.

90% of the population could have an income of 10,000 a year and live in the middle of nowhere where the yearly mortgage costs 50 quid.

That doesn't mean that the 10% who earn 50,000 a year and live in the city where rent costs 40,000 a year are wealthy.

You are oversimplifying and comparing the wrong thing.

Do all the top earners live in 'the city'? What city is this by the way?

These people are wealthy and then choose to spend their wealth on a house in 'the city'.

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

Why can't they buy average houses?

The average household income is 56,500, 62% of households are below this. This 105,000 couple are earning close to double the average. They're on crazy money.

Maybe I'm better off in Laois, don't think the neighbours in Dublin would be too friendly if this thread is anything to go by!

Who knows why the can only buy average houses but they can only buy average houses. I think that's a joke too but while they can only afford average properties they are not rich. Otherwise we have to make up absurd terms like "super rich" for people who can buy million euro houses with cash.

Just like being rich in Loas is not the same as being rich in Laois, being rich in Laois is not the same as being rich in Dublin.

Laois6556

awec wrote: »

It really isn't.

"No matter where you are" has to be the most nonsense thing you've posted so far. You cannot just disregard where someone lives.

No, you compare it to others living in the same area.

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

Do all the top earners live in 'the city'? What city is this by the way?

These people are wealthy and then choose to spend their wealth on a house in 'the city'.

These people are not wealthy and can only buy average houses because where they live - unlike where you live - stuff is more expensive. I say remedially.

Why don't you tell us you salary and mortgage repayments so we can work out how much better off the rich couple are.

Laois6556

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

And your numbers are bollocks. You don't understand what wealth is, you confuse it with income. You don't understand that people don't earn their gross pay. You don't understand that if you are to compare earnings it should be disposable income after tax and housing costs. Lastly you don't understand that's it's a fallacy when talking about the rich to look at the percentage of people who are above a certain gross income of wealth, you look instead at the wealth distribution itself. If 1% if the population had 98% of the wealth then being in the top 10% of the population would still be poor as there is only 2% of the wealth left.

You don't understand power distributions.

The "rich" are not scraping money together to buy 2 down 3 up semi-d in the outer lower middle income suburbs.

They're not my numbers, I gots them on the interwebs. You can ignore the numbers all you want and go with your own list, cover your eyes and maybe they'll dissapear.
The poor aren't buying "2 down 3 up semi-d in the outer lower middle income suburbs", that's for sure.

Laois6556

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Who knows why the can only buy average houses but they can only buy average houses. I think that's a joke too but while they can only afford average properties they are not rich. Otherwise we have to make up absurd terms like "super rich" for people who can buy million euro houses with cash.

Just like being rich in Loas is not the same as being rich in Laois, being rich in Laois is not the same as being rich in Dublin.

You can only decide what level individuals or couples are at in comparison to others.

I really don't understand the second part of your post.

Laois6556

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

These people are not wealthy and can only buy average houses because where they live - unlike where you live - stuff is more expensive. I say remedially.

Why don't you tell us you salary and mortgage repayments so we can work out how much better off the rich couple are.

They are wealthy, where they live is a seperate argument but they can live elsewhere if they want.

I'm on 40k, mortgage repayments are irrelevant.

jam_mac_jam

Laois6556 wrote: »

They're not my numbers, I gots them on the interwebs. You can ignore the numbers all you want and go with your own list, cover your eyes and maybe they'll dissapear.
The poor aren't buying "2 down 3 up semi-d in the outer lower middle income suburbs", that's for sure.

No..the poor aren't, middle earners are which is who you are talking about.

You would have to be on double 100K for a couple to be wealthy. Have a look at definitions for wealth, mean, average and come back.

desertcircus

Assuming that a couple earning 105,000 doesn't have outgoings significantly above standard, then they bloody should be wealthy. Over half of Irish households have earnings of less than 50k; even if outgoings for our hypothetical couple were fifty thousand a year higher than for the bottom half of the population, they'd still be comfortably in the top half as far as disposable income is concerned. Mortgage spending should only come into consideration in the event of significant negative equity, as a couple paying 2k a month on a three-bed in Ranelagh is building up equity at a far faster rate than a couple paying half that on a two-bed in Hazelhatch. If interest is 25% of the payments in each case, then the Ranelagh couple have built up additional equity of 18k compared to the 9k our Hazelhatch couple manage - and the Ranelagh couple's house is probably more resilient to price shocks.

Whenever these threads come up, a consistent pattern emerges; people select a sum that's vastly more than median household income - usually around the 100k mark, actually - and furiously argue that a couple earning that aren't really wealthy, once you take into account their mortgage, their children's private school fees, their pension contributions and their comprehensive health insurance. This neatly bypasses the fact that both mortgages and pensions represent a building up of wealth, and that private school fees and health insurance are products huge swathes of the population simply can't afford. They might feel absolutely necessary to the families paying for them, but the majority of the country does without them and doesn't get whatever benefit out hypothetical family does from them.

If you earn 105k in Ireland as a family, you're wealthy by Irish standards. You might not be wealthy by Ranelagh or Clontarf standards, but then you could always move two miles down the road and be instantly back to being wealthy. And living in Ranelagh or Clontarf is something people pay significant sums of money to do; again, most of the population can't afford to live there. The claim that a family on that money isn't wealthy tends to boil down to "once we ensure we live in a trendy suburb with nice restaurants and no real crime, send our children to private schools, make sure we don't have to resort to a public healthcare system and stick a chunk of money into our pension so we're not reliant on the state pension, we don't have that much money left". Fair enough. Stop spending on those things, then.

desertcircus

It bears repeating: only 14% of Irish households have annual earnings over 100k. If you live in a family that has those earnings, your starting point for earnings is higher than six out of seven other families. You're a decent raise away from entering the top 10%. Unless you have made a truly spectacular mess of your financial planning, or were unlucky enough to get caught with a huge mortgage right at the top of the market, you are wealthy. You'd need to lose more than a full third of your income to fall outside the top third.

noodler

High income household.


Their expenditure choices are their own.

Laois6556

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

No..the poor aren't, middle earners are which is who you are talking about.

You would have to be on double 100K for a couple to be wealthy. Have a look at definitions for wealth, mean, average and come back.

I don't know who's buying the 'average houses', who decides it's an average house anyway?

Only 2% of households earn 200k or more. So only 2% of households are wealthy in your opinion?

Tarzana

Johngoose wrote: »

In Dublin that kind of money is what a couple would need to survive.

My BF and I survive on half that in Dublin. And aren't struggling.

Tarzana

desertcircus wrote: »

Assuming that a couple earning 105,000 doesn't have outgoings significantly above standard, then they bloody should be wealthy.

Yep. Sure, some 100K+ couples will have large enough outgoings to mean they're not comfortable. But the average 100K+ couple should be very comfortable indeed, even with some kids and even living in Dublin.

HamsterFace

Tarzana wrote: »

My BF and I survive on half that in Dublin. And aren't struggling.

Good on you.

But if you had a mortgage, a couple of kids, needed two cars and given the fact you work so hard also took these three people on a holiday every year etc would you still consider yourself rich?

Tarzana

HamsterFace wrote: »

Good on you.

But if you had a mortgage, a couple of kids, needed two cars and given the fact you work so hard also took these three people on a holiday every year etc would you still consider yourself rich?

I don't consider myself rich.

But anyway, yeah if I had kids I'd want to earn more but on 100K+ as a couple a year, I wouldn't be grumbling.

Lots of Dublin-based couples with kids and two cars live on far less than 100k+. How do your average 100k+ imagine they are struggling when your average couple with similar outgoings statistically lives on far less? Perspective, people! And as said above, a lot of 100k+ couple's outgoing are things people on less couldn't hope to afford. They are sort of discretionary necessities.