what is a good wage these days?

Brussels Sprout · 19-07-2013 1:56pm

gaius c wrote: »

A household with a married couple only pay 20% up to €41,800. That's not a fair reflection on the use of public services.

If they both have jobs do they both get that higher upper band or i that case doe sit revert back to 32k for both of their incomes?

Dannyboy83 · 19-07-2013 2:12pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If they both have jobs do they both get that higher upper band or i that case doe sit revert back to 32k for both of their incomes?

The band can go up to €65,600 for married, dual income

The following example is helpful

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/income_tax/how_your_tax_is_calculated.html

Example of standard rate cut-off point for a married couple or civil partners with two incomes
In 2013, the standard rate cut-off point for a married couple or civil partners is €41,800. If both are working, this amount is increased by the lower of the following:
€23,800 in 2012 or

The amount of the income of the spouse or civil partner with the smaller income

If one person is earning €48,000 and their spouse or civil partner is earning €25,000:

The standard rate cut off point for the couple is €41,800 plus €23,800. The increase in the standard rate band is not transferable between spouses or civil partners, so the first spouse or civil partner's tax bands would be calculated as €41,800 @ 20% = €8,360 and €6,200 @ 41% = €2,542. The second spouse or civil partner's tax bands would be calculated as €23,800 @ 20% = €4,760 and €1,200 @ 41% = €492.

pookiesboo · 19-07-2013 2:18pm

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

Seanachai · 19-07-2013 2:24pm

OMD wrote: »

Hard to call the Nevin institute independent.

Rember in an ideal world 50% of people would be below average. . Bit like saying 50% of people are below average intelligence. Of course they are but it can take a second or two to accept that.

In the same way saying 60% of the population are below national average sounds high but isn't really. Especially as this figure includes the unemployed.

You've hit on a point there and the statement may be true in terms of academic aptitudes and a certain kind of intelligence. It's just tragic that a certain number of those in the top 50% use their intelligence to exploit and abuse the other people in the so called lower brackets. I'm not against wealth , I know a few wealthy people who are down to earth , I can't stand people who are wealthy and think that they have some sort of genetic superiority over so called regular people.

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 2:32pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you suggested penalizing people on the basis that they earned 'too much' and because they hadn't children.

You're mistaken, or jumping to conclusions. Either way you're incorrect, I don't support penalizing such people. I support granting tax rebates to workers who, at their own general expense, perform important social functions: I'd extend this to students, carers, and altruistic or charitable donors, as well as parents. It's not about punishing non-parents like myself, it's about rewarding workers who perform acts at personal cost, and where those acts contribute in a material way to social welfare.

By that logic, we should simply give up on higher education or careers and just screw like bunnies.

I'm sure it would suit you if that's what I were suggesting. However, any civilized society of which I am aware does already reward working parents, among other workers, for their social roles.

I am merely suggesting a more redistributive tax system which continues to take, inter alia, family life into account.

The Corinthian · 19-07-2013 2:33pm

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm not against wealth , I know a few wealthy people who are down to earth , I can't stand people who are wealthy and think that they have some sort of genetic superiority over so called regular people.

And the Irish disease finally rears its ugly head.

pookiesboo wrote: »

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

Unless you're in a role that has a predefined pay scale based upon years served (i.e. the public sector), you're entitled to nothing; it's up to you and what you can negotiate, which in turn is based upon your value to the company.

The Corinthian · 19-07-2013 2:42pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're mistaken, or jumping to conclusions. Either way you're incorrect, I don't support penalizing such people. I support granting tax rebates to workers who, at their own general expense, perform important social functions: I'd extend this to students, carers, and altruistic or charitable donors, as well as parents. It's not about punishing non-parents like myself, it's about rewarding workers who perform acts at personal cost, and where those acts contribute in a material way to social welfare.

You suggested a scenario whereby someone (presumably single) on €50k p.a. should take home the same as someone (presumably with dependants) on €32k p.a.

Rewarding, through tax breaks, those who carry out social functions, is laudable and actually already practised, but what happens when you reach a point where those who do not are penalized to such an extent?

Either the incentive turns not to work harder, take on greater responsibility or gain greater qualifications or experience, but to profit from those tax breaks instead; why do an 80 hour week to climb up the corporate ladder or even a degree when you can just make babies and bring home the same amount of money? Or just leave the country to live somewhere where your hard work and not sperm count is rewarded.

That is where I would see a very serious flaw in your thinking.

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 3:00pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

You suggested a scenario whereby someone (presumably single) on €50k p.a. should take home the same as someone (presumably with dependants) on €32k p.a.

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.

Either the incentive turns not to work harder, take on greater responsibility or gain greater qualifications or experience, but to profit from those tax breaks instead; why do an 80 hour week to climb up the corporate ladder or even a degree when you can just make babies and bring home the same amount of money? Or just leave the country to live somewhere where your hard work and not sperm count is rewarded.

I find it strange how people tend to respond to social policies which are not focused on the generation of private profits with the alarm call that private profits may suffer, which is what I suspect is emerging from that point.

Private profits may well suffer - but incentives to economic participation already suffer because of inaction on this point.

An extraordinary amount of human labour and social welfare is already leaking down the gutter through non-participation, largely because of inadequate rebates for those who want to improve their skills, raise families, or perform socially constructive roles in enterprise. A clear example is the amount of families in which the mother (and it is, generally, the mother) do not participate fully in society because the family cannot afford childcare.

Look at what djpbarry is suggesting - he suggests that it is discriminatory to reward individuals for raising a family. This is ridiculous. What is it we want from this society? What I am sure most people do not want is a society where those workers performing important social roles are excluded from a comfortable life, or personal dignity, because they answer a basic human instinct to gather a family, which subsequently supports their, or other's old age and contributes to the common good more generally.

What these incentives do, and can do to a greater extent, is encourage all workers to participate in the society in which they live, in whatever way they are able. I am not condemning workers who do not have an outlet for social contributions, the last resort is simply that they find another way to contribute, i.e. via an increased tax payment.

Jawgap · 19-07-2013 3:11pm

pookiesboo wrote: »

Quick question. Are people entitled to a pay rise if they have been working in the same place for several years or is it up to the employer if they get one?

That's something between you and your employer. Unless you've agreed it with the employer, either individually or as part of a collective agreement, you've no automatic right to an increase after x years working for them.

PS workers - until recently - generally received increments and a cost of living increase. Increments are now stalled and there's been a pay cut.

OMD · 19-07-2013 3:13pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.
.

What jobs are constructive and what jobs are not?

The Corinthian · 19-07-2013 3:23pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I go further. Someone who is not contributing to society in a way that the society deems to constitute 'constructive participation' should be taxed above 50% effective.

I find it strange how people tend to respond to social policies which are not focused on the generation of private profits with the alarm call that private profits may suffer, which is what I suspect is emerging from that point.

Private profits may well suffer - but incentives to economic participation already suffer because of inaction on this point.

Problem is, as I pointed out, that what you propose would likely harm not only private profits but society too.

Economies are like donkeys; slap one on the rump and it should move forward, but slap it too hard and it'll probably kick you in the face.

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 4:02pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is, as I pointed out, that what you propose would likely harm not only private profits but society too.

Selection bias.

Society is already being harmed through disincentives. Capitalism's or corporatism's interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, who sometimes place higher values on social functions than the economic system can ever answer by itself.

Off the top of their heads, most people only focus on those disincentives that are in danger of affecting us or our immediate social circle, or the organization we work for.

I'm alright Jack.

OMD wrote: »

What jobs are constructive and what jobs are not?

It doesn't matter. It only matters that some roles are generally and adequately constructive to social welfare at any one point in time, and others are less constructive.

From my own point of view I would add working parents with dependents in education, college students during the course of their education, charitable donors, innovators, and those who create employment in the production of environmentally friendly resources or green energy, and those emerging from reliance on social transfers for a period. I wouldn't be opposed to going further and incentivizing socially important work like law enforcement, social care, nursing and education.

Individuals working in tax arbitrage, accountancy, and property would find it hard to get on the list.

Opponents argue that would complicate the income tax system. Of course it would. But Revenue make Vat determinations on every product and service subject to Vat in the Irish economy without much heartache, I don't feel this is a major obstacle.

djpbarry · 19-07-2013 4:02pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Look at what djpbarry is suggesting - he suggests that it is discriminatory to reward individuals for raising a family. This is ridiculous.

Only if you believe that there is some sort of moral obligation for people to have children.

Interesting that you've decided I'm a "he", by the way.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What is it we want from this society? What I am sure most people do not want is a society where those workers performing important social roles are excluded from a comfortable life, or personal dignity, because they answer a basic human instinct to gather a family, which subsequently supports their, or other's old age and contributes to the common good more generally.

Or we can let migrants plug the gap. Why not offer tax breaks to (young) immigrants?

The Corinthian · 19-07-2013 4:10pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Society is already being harmed through disincentives. Capitalism's or corporatism's interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, who sometimes place higher values on social functions than the economic system can ever answer by itself.

Logical fallacy. Just because Capitalism's (not corporatism because that's actually a political system associated with Fascism) interests do not run totally parallel to those of the wider society, does not mean that they never do. So if you penalize self-interest sufficiently, then you end up penalizing those areas of overlap and thus society suffers.

As such, I see your point, but you're adopting an extreme application of such policies, which ultimately is harmful overall.

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 4:10pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Only if you believe that there is some sort of moral obligation for people to have children.

No. I believe there is a natural instinctive desire to raise a family for very many individuals of our species. I think constraining that in an absolute way, by outright financial disincentives, is ineffective. People are just going to raise families and then not be able to rear them in a way society would like to see its children brought up.

I think children add to the common good in more than just the skills they bring to the economy. I think young people have a cohesive effect on society generally, not just on the families who raise them, and I don't think this is adequately replaced by migrants.

wolfpawnat · 19-07-2013 4:13pm

It would depend on the job, hours, location of employment, family or single etc. National Industrial Wage is now circa 37,000 a year. (€36,179.00 according to the journal.ie business section) I personally would run at that with open arms and no questions asked for a 40 hour week, but to others thats a pittence.

It also depends on the job stresses. It was recently reported some hospital doctors do 72 hour shifts and lets face it, the responsibility they carry is beyond pressure IMO, so there is not enough money on the planet for me to want to do that job. I know a doc personally that is 7am-10pm 5 days a week and at least 2 weekends a month, who is high up and I have seen the payslips, not worth it, good money, but not for the hours worked and pressure.

OMD · 19-07-2013 4:25pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

.

It doesn't matter. It only matters that some roles are generally and adequately constructive to social welfare at any one point in time, and others are less constructive.

From my own point of view I would add working parents with dependents in education, college students during the course of their education, charitable donors, innovators, and those who create employment in the production of environmentally friendly resources or green energy, and those emerging from reliance on social transfers for a period. I wouldn't be opposed to going further and incentivizing socially important work like law enforcement, social care, nursing and education.

That is just about everyone. How about accountants with children in education who employ a secretary and give to charity?

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 4:49pm

OMD wrote: »

That is just about everyone. How about accountants with children in education who employ a secretary and give to charity?

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element.

I know accountants and tax advisers, and even some barristers who occasionally pet a waiting dog or smile at an elderly person in a non-sinister way.

The simple fact of having a remotely useful aspect to your role in society isn't enough. It has to be some overarching feature of your focus, like raising a child and holding down a job, or caring for a parent in the family home, for example.

jesus_thats_gre · 19-07-2013 4:52pm

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

52% of income earned after €32,800 is lost
Vat rate of 23%,
DIRT rate of 33%
stealth taxes - water, property, motor tax etc.

Essentially so much our income after the SRCOP is taken that it kind of becomes an equaliser of sorts.

Net income from €32.8k is €26,613.20
But a person earning €40k gross gets to keep €30k net
And a person earning €50k gross gets to keep €34.8k net

So for all the extra responsibility and pressure which that €50k job demands, you're not even 8k per year better off than the person earning €32k.

This is why I personally don't see the point in worker harder or taking on more responsibility or pressure once you reach the SRCOP.
There is insignificant financial incentive to work harder past that point.

I would prefer the 8k a year in my hand. I would prefer to have the option to get a reasonable mortgage too.

Finally, if you can reach 50k, there is feck all stopping you from reaching 75k down the line once sufficiently motivated.

jesus_thats_gre · 19-07-2013 4:54pm

El Gato wrote: »

I really love when the CSO comes out with these figures.

Independent studies show that over 60% of the population are below the 'national average'

If you take the average hourly earnings, the average annual salary is €46,404.80 (based on a 40 hour week) but if you take the average weekly rate, the figure is €36,244. (which would make the average hourly rate 17.43)

Just goes to show number may be manipulated to suit.

Would be interesting to see, in reality, how many PAYE earners are getting almost €700 per week

Do they list 40 hours as the average contracted working week?

drkpower · 19-07-2013 6:14pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element. .

There's a bit of the 'college debating society' to this concept; all very interesting but not at all practicable.

Take for instance the nurse (who you suggest should benefit from a tax break on the basis of constructivism). That's all well and good. But what about the risk manager (administrator) who develops policies to reduce risk to patients? And then what about the hr manager who ensures that staffing levels of nurses are kept at appropriate levels? And then what about the CEO who runs the hospital and makes sure healthcare is delivered efficiently? And then what about the accountant who manages the hospitals accounts and tax affairs in a way which allows the hospital to deliver more resources to patient care? And then what about the business consultant who develops ways in which the hospital can deliver care more effectively? And then what about the lawyer who advise the hospital on how to mitigate and reduce risk thus allowing the hospital to spend more money delivering healthcare.

So who gets the tax break and why? And if they all do, well then, what's the point?

Cody Pomeray · 19-07-2013 6:42pm

drkpower wrote: »

There's a bit of the 'college debating society' to this concept; all very interesting but not at all practicable.

Take for instance the nurse (who you suggest should benefit from a tax break on the basis of constructivism). That's all well and good. But what about the risk manager (administrator) who develops policies to reduce risk to patients? And then what about the hr manager who ensures that staffing levels of nurses are kept at appropriate levels? And then what about the CEO who runs the hospital and makes sure healthcare is delivered efficiently?

The principle that I am using is input based, not output based. I don't find myself particularly concerned about HR managers, for example. While their outcomes might be valuable, their inputs are generally less than extraordinary in terms of personal dedication and hardship in executing a public service, and taking salaries into account at the same time.

I knew someone would go down this line though. Which is why I have already said that it doesn't particularly matter to this debate which individuals benefit and which cannot.

Society has already created a reasonably long list of tax rebates or associated reliefs, from the cycle to work scheme to revenue job assist to tax reliefs for tenants who were renting at a certain period in time. The notion that all tax systems have to be cleanly and clinically delineated in machine-decipherable-logic in just nonsense.

The current system certainly is not. There are plenty of situations under the current regime where we can point to lapses of logic. That's an inevitable feature of any human decision making process requiring personal judgement.

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:07pm

El Gato wrote: »

I see the figures, I simply don't see how they can be correct IMO.

You seem to be doubting the work of the CSO??

Read the Background Notes at the end to see how they conduct their work.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2013/earnlabcosts_q12013.pdf

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:10pm

I am surprised that average annual earnings in FIRE Finance, Insurance and Real Estate has risen by 4.2% between 2009 and 2012, to reach 51,389.

That's an average earning of nearly 1,000 pw in these sectors.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:13pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Family circumstances should have absolutely no bearing on how much tax an individual pays.

Note that in most modern societies, it is accepted that some amount of horizontal redistribution occurs, so transfers to families with children are the norm.

Be it via paying less tax, getting cash benefits, or getting subsidised services, e.g. childcare.

DellyBelly · 19-07-2013 10:13pm

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:15pm

davidholla wrote: »

Top 20% of the country who earn a lot of money will bring those figures way up

Yes, they do.

It would be interesting to see the median hourly wage, as well as the mean.

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:17pm

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

First of all, it's not.

Why don't you read the CSO to find out?

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

Second, PS wages have already been cut three times.

Geuze · 19-07-2013 10:19pm

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

spank_inferno · 19-07-2013 11:25pm

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

The above is for the entire labour market.
It includes both private & public sectors.

Public on its own would be higher.

barneystinson · 19-07-2013 11:41pm

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

Oh, that's what you believe - I see... and do all the things you believe happen to be so?

If so you wouldn't believe that I'm gonna win the lotto tomorrow night for me, would you? Sound... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, it is outrageous alright, that you'd believe that, given the amount of numbers that have been bandied about as average PS earnings in the last few years, and none of which were anything like 70k.

OMD · 20-07-2013 8:26am

Geuze wrote: »

This is incorrect.

Average earnings are as follows:

Public Admin and Defence = 48,118
Education = 43,664
Human Health and Social Work = 36,737

See here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/earnings/2012/earnlabcosts2012.pdf

Average earnings for full time worker, (excluding overtime) in Public Sector is €56,000

srsly78 · 20-07-2013 9:08am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, I think I left out just about everyone. The test is that the role be adequately constructive in the public mind, not that it bear any remote constructive element.

I know accountants and tax advisers, and even some barristers who occasionally pet a waiting dog or smile at an elderly person in a non-sinister way.

The simple fact of having a remotely useful aspect to your role in society isn't enough. It has to be some overarching feature of your focus, like raising a child and holding down a job, or caring for a parent in the family home, for example.

Your ideas are incredibly short-sighted. You essentially want to line accountants and others against the proverbial wall. Noone is a fan of accountants but you surely must realise their entire purpose is to facilitate the smooth function of the economy, especially regarding taxation?

"Constructive in the public mind" - so basically you mean let Joe Duffy run the country? Oh dear...

They tried something like this in Cambodia I think, they got rid of everyone except farmers.

drkpower · 20-07-2013 9:10am

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The principle that I am using is input based, not output based. I don't find myself particularly concerned about HR managers, for example. While their outcomes might be valuable, their inputs are generally less than extraordinary in terms of personal dedication and hardship in executing a public service, and taking salaries into account at the same time.

I knew someone would go down this line though. Which is why I have already said that it doesn't particularly matter to this debate which individuals benefit and which cannot.

Society has already created a reasonably long list of tax rebates or associated reliefs, from the cycle to work scheme to revenue job assist to tax reliefs for tenants who were renting at a certain period in time. The notion that all tax systems have to be cleanly and clinically delineated in machine-decipherable-logic in just nonsense.

The current system certainly is not. There are plenty of situations under the current regime where we can point to lapses of logic. That's an inevitable feature of any human decision making process requiring personal judgement.

What is it about the nurses input that makes it more extraordinary and demonstrates more personal dedication than the CEO, or the management consultant, or the risk manager, or the cleaner who keeps the ward spic and span?

Jawgap · 20-07-2013 9:20am

DellyBelly wrote: »

I believe the average public sector wage is almost 70k which is outrageous. They need to be slashed big time

......and leaving aside the cuts already imposed, where can I find the data that backs this belief up?

I believed in Santa Claus for a while, turns out he doesn't exist.

Cody Pomeray · 20-07-2013 1:44pm

srsly78 wrote: »

Your ideas are incredibly short-sighted. You essentially want to line accountants and others against the proverbial wall. Noone is a fan of accountants but you surely must realise their entire purpose is to facilitate the smooth function of the economy, especially regarding taxation?

If you haven't noticed, my suggestion is a way of closer aligning economic activity with the common good. Capitalist economic activity is already widely facilitated in accordance with how the state organises the affairs of society. We build institutes of technology, offer low tax rates for corporates, offer them limited liability and legal protection, and protect private property in the interests of conforming to capitalist requirements.

However, the economy does not have a way of encouraging altruism and personal dedication in a way that is not easily marketable. e.g. donating to charity, or becoming a nurse instead of a consultant on corporate tax arbitrage, or going to work instead of staying at home because you cannot afford childcare. All I am suggesting is that we occasionally recitify what the economy cannot rectify.

I am not suggesting we dismiss economic requirements. But even the current government are not slaves to economic fortune. Almost everyone recognizes that corporate and economic interests need to be balanced with the common good.

drkpower wrote: »

What is it about the nurses input that makes it more extraordinary and demonstrates more personal dedication than the CEO, or the management consultant, or the risk manager, or the cleaner who keeps the ward spic and span?

It's really not up to me. It;s up to society to decide that. Personally, I don't think they even have to give a reason. They just have to place a higher value on one type of work and there you go. After all, that's part of the basis for determining salaries. Some of it is supply and demand, some of it is recognition for specific work based on social values, i.e. the value society puts on that work.

The really odd thing is that what I am suggesting is just taking the current system of rebates and reliefs and social judgement marginally further than already exists. We already do reward certain work via reliefs. We already do offer tax reliefs for families.

You could say black is black on these boards and someone would jump up and down about it.

AllthingsCP · 20-07-2013 1:46pm

About 1200-1500 every two weeks Security

drkpower · 20-07-2013 4:19pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It's really not up to me. It;s up to society to decide that. Personally, I don't think they even have to give a reason. They just have to place a higher value on one type of work and there you go. After all, that's part of the basis for determining salaries. Some of it is supply and demand, some of it is recognition for specific work based on social values, i.e. the value society puts on that work.

You were proposing this system earlier so I thought you might be able to provide some kind of argument or rationale for the system. Or at least something beyond 'well, sure, 'society' will decide which occupations gets tax breaks and which won't without any apparent justification.

I have to say its not hugely convincing!

The Corinthian · 20-07-2013 4:27pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you haven't noticed, my suggestion is a way of closer aligning economic activity with the common good.

What you suggested earlier wouldn't actually do that though - quite the opposite.

JohnMearsheimer · 21-07-2013 2:19am

Reading this thread has depressed me a little. I make 18,500 euro working 35 hours a week for a multinational insurance company. After deductions I'm left with 1,381 euro a month. Out of that I pay 285 euro in rent plus bills. I'm fortunate I do not have any debt and I do not run a car. I get by month to month, I can't really save a whole lot on my earnings. I note the Morgan McKinley salary survey states the low end of the pay scale for my job is 25,000 euro. I'd love to be making in the region of 25,000 plus.

Morrisseeee · 21-07-2013 11:09am

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

Reading this thread has depressed me a little. I make 18,500 euro working 35 hours a week for a multinational insurance company. After deductions I'm left with 1,381 euro a month. Out of that I pay 285 euro in rent plus bills. I'm fortunate I do not have any debt and I do not run a car. I get by month to month, I can't really save a whole lot on my earnings. I note the Morgan McKinley salary survey states the low end of the pay scale for my job is 25,000 euro. I'd love to be making in the region of 25,000 plus.

But.............if you were offered a different job in the morning, say €36k gross, you'd probably go and buy a car, settle down with a partner, maybe get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and then.............you're back to square one, like before, ie. struggling to support your lifestyle.

Alot of people are in your scenario or the scenario above and are finding themselves being squeezed out of existence.

fly_agaric · 21-07-2013 11:12am

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But.............if you were offered a different job in the morning, say €36k gross, you'd probably go and buy a car, settle down with a partner, maybe get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and then.............you're back to square one, like before, ie. struggling to support your lifestyle.

Alot of people are in your scenario or the scenario above and are finding themselves being squeezed out of existence.

lol so they'd be in exactly the same situation except he/she would now have the means for a car, a house and some kids!!
That argument about how extra earnings are somehow not much benefit because they are swallowed up by a "lifestyle" is funny.
The main benefit of extra earnings is surely the ability to support a better lifestyle with more options (as opposed to having the extra cash mouldering in a bank or under a mattress!).

The Corinthian · 21-07-2013 11:24am

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But.............if you were offered a different job in the morning, say €36k gross, you'd probably go and buy a car, settle down with a partner, maybe get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and then.............you're back to square one, like before, ie. struggling to support your lifestyle.

Certain costs do increase as you grow older, however the 'costs expand to meet new income' syndrome in general tends to be something you find in people who've never learned how to be fiscally responsible - typically because they've never had dry patches or never really had to support themselves as they always had someone they could turn to to bail them out.

I knew a chap who was project managing (contract) with a major bank. Two kids, five-bed house, stay-at-home-yummy-mummy (you know the type; talks about re-entering the workplace and actually use that psychology degree she took, but never will), nanny for the kids, cleaner, skiing three times per year and so on.

His contract wasn't renewed and he had to take the first job he could ASAP, because he's saved bugger all and unemployment insurance wasn't going to even cover the rent of the house. Daft way to live.

Tazz T · 21-07-2013 11:56am

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But.............if you were offered a different job in the morning, say €36k gross, you'd probably go and buy a car, settle down with a partner, maybe get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and then.............you're back to square one, like before, ie. struggling to support your lifestyle.

Alot of people are in your scenario or the scenario above and are finding themselves being squeezed out of existence.

This is called 'growth'. The more people do this, the better it is for the economy. The car, the partner, the kids, the house... all support businesses and jobs. Which in turn leads to other people getting the 36k and doing the same. Stay on the low income and fewer people get jobs and fewer people move up the ladder so to speak.

JohnMearsheimer · 21-07-2013 12:29pm

Morrisseeee wrote: »

But.............if you were offered a different job in the morning, say €36k gross, you'd probably go and buy a car, settle down with a partner, maybe get married, have kids, get a mortgage, and then.............you're back to square one, like before, ie. struggling to support your lifestyle.

Alot of people are in your scenario or the scenario above and are finding themselves being squeezed out of existence.

I'd still jump on a 36k per year position. The combined income of myself and my girlfriend would be 70k gross in that scenario. As long as we didn't do anything stupid I'm sure we could get married, get a mortgage etc...

My current salary doesn't really afford me much of a lifestyle. I don't do much more than exist off it. Other people I work with have loans and cars etc. I have no idea how they survive on our salary. Even being on 22/23k instead of 18.5 k a year would be a vast improvement for me as I'd have a bit of breathing room. I got paid more for my first job out of college, I feel I'm going backwards if anything.

Gumbo · 21-07-2013 2:41pm

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

Reading this thread has depressed me a little. I make 18,500 euro working 35 hours a week for a multinational insurance company. After deductions I'm left with 1,381 euro a month. Out of that I pay 285 euro in rent plus bills. I'm fortunate I do not have any debt and I do not run a car. I get by month to month, I can't really save a whole lot on my earnings. I note the Morgan McKinley salary survey states the low end of the pay scale for my job is 25,000 euro. I'd love to be making in the region of 25,000 plus.

€10 per hours does seem quite low for an office job, my mam gets 25% more than that in retail.

Where are you based?

Geuze · 21-07-2013 2:46pm

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

Reading this thread has depressed me a little. I make 18,500 euro working 35 hours a week for a multinational insurance company.

Min wage 8.65 * 39hrs * 52 wks = 17,542 pa.

So 18.5k is what I would call a low wage, even a very low wage.

In 1998 I was earning 9300 IRL as an entry-level underwriting assistant at a national insurer. That's 11,800 in euro in 1998, that's 15 years ago.

I personally can't believe that a MNC insurer is paying so little.

(I don't mean that I don't believe you - I mean that I presumed maybe 24k would be a typical starting wage)

JohnMearsheimer · 21-07-2013 2:50pm

kceire wrote: »

€10 per hours does seem quite low for an office job, my mam gets 25% more than that in retail.

Where are you based?

I'm based in Galway, in the city. I'm not sure if I can name the company I work for on here but they sponsor a stadium in Dublin that used to be called Lansdowne Road.

JohnMearsheimer · 21-07-2013 3:00pm

Geuze wrote: »

Min wage 8.65 * 39hrs * 52 wks = 17,542 pa.

So 18.5k is what I would call a low wage, even a very low wage.

In 1998 I was earning 9300 IRL as an entry-level underwriting assistant at a national insurer. That's 11,800 in euro in 1998, that's 15 years ago.

I personally can't believe that a MNC insurer is paying so little.

(I don't mean that I don't believe you - I mean that I presumed maybe 24k would be a typical starting wage)

I wouldn't believe it either if I didn't work there. When the job was advertised there was no mention of the salary. When I applied for the job I assumed it would be about 24/25k per year (the Morgan McKinley report would seem to support this). I'm not servicing any debts so I would have been more than happy with that kind of salary. My jaw nearly hit the floor when they told me the pay would only be 18.5k per year when I was offered the job. The vast majority of people I work with are graduates. We have a solicitor and a few teachers in our ranks all on 18.5k.

Brussels Sprout · 21-07-2013 6:02pm

JohnMearsheimer wrote: »

I'm not sure if I can name the company I work for on here but they sponsor a stadium in Dublin that used to be called Lansdowne Road.

That reminds me of a comedian who was doing a joke about the worst job he ever had. He said "It's a major high-street bank. I can't say which one but it rhymes with "Twat-fest"

what is a good wage these days?

Comments