nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

Ellie2008

Are they considered wealthy or middle income?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Laois6556

smash wrote: »

You need to read this bit over and over until you get it. "a great quantity or store of money" - earning 105k a year does not mean that the couple in question have 105k a year to store away. It means after tax they have around 60k if even to LIVE on.

Take away 24k for childcare and say 22k for mortgage it leaves 14k. Lets assume 300 a month in bills (gas/esb/TV) and it leaves them with 10400. Minus water charges and TV license it's 10k, then minus petrol at a very modest 50 a week it's 9400. if you assume loans (car, personal, credit cards) at 350 a month it's now at 5200. savings of 200 a month? they now have 2800 a year for food and clothing. Jesus they're crazy wealthy when they have just under €54 a week disposable income.

I didn't even add in the household charge

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.

tastyt

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 costs because they are wealthy enough to afford them

jobbridge4life

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

At best that means they are illuquid it doesn't necessarily follow that they aren't wealthy? Asset rich, cash poor.

Sugar Free

strobe wrote: »

Out of curiosity, in general in threads like this, are the wages people talk about net or gross? Like in the OP, is the assumption to make 105,000 after tax or before? I never know which.

It's gross income though I always thought it made more sense to discuss total compensation rather than just salary.

Granted the things that comprise total compensation aren't strictly necessary, however most of them can be very valuable to have i.e. health insurance and pension. Others can be signifcant cost savers e.g. company car with reasonable personal use allowed.

These are often things that the 'couple' in this scenario would be paying for with their net income.

jobbridge4life

smash wrote: »

In order for the format of their wealth to be money in the first place, they'd need to have it as a lump sum. Because that's what wealth through money is; a large sum of money!

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

wersal gummage

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.

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

smash

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.

In order for the format of their wealth to be money in the first place, they'd need to have it as a lump sum. Because that's what wealth through money is; a large sum of money!

diomed

Wealth is income not spent. If it is inherited then it is income not spent by someone else. Saying something is "money" or "income" as if it has no connection to wealth is childish.
If you have €105k a year, and no wealth, I have no sympathy.
You can save into your pension and those deductions save income tax (If you are never going to be old this does not make sense.)

Dravokivich

strobe wrote: »

Out of curiosity, in general in threads like this, are the wages people talk about net or gross? Like in the OP, is the assumption to make 105,000 after tax or before? I never know which.

Lets assume it's after, then try to find what expenses we'd expect them to pay out on 8750 a month to make'em bust.

That's the game we're playing here right?

jobbridge4life

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.......

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.

wersal gummage

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

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.......

Valetta

Laois6556 wrote: »

That's them choosing how they spend their wealth, like if a couple were earning a million and they're spending 999,000 of that on different things throughout the year, are they no longer wealthy?

If they spend it on things of value that they can sell again, then they are accumulating wealth.

If they spend it on coke and hookers, then they are not wealthy, regardless of the amounts.

smash

Laois6556 wrote: »

Just taking a few things from your own links wealth is: a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
A great amount; a profusion

105,000 a year is wealthy.

You need to read this bit over and over until you get it. "a great quantity or store of money" - earning 105k a year does not mean that the couple in question have 105k a year to store away. It means after tax they have around 60k if even to LIVE on.

Take away 24k for childcare and say 22k for mortgage it leaves 14k. Lets assume 300 a month in bills (gas/esb/TV) and it leaves them with 10400. Minus water charges and TV license it's 10k, then minus petrol at a very modest 50 a week it's 9400. if you assume loans (car, personal, credit cards) at 350 a month it's now at 5200. savings of 200 a month? they now have 2800 a year for food and clothing. Jesus they're crazy wealthy when they have just under €54 a week disposable income.

I didn't even add in the household charge

strobe

Out of curiosity, in general in threads like this, are the wages people talk about net or gross? Like in the OP, is the assumption to make 105,000 after tax or before? I never know which.

Frank Lee Midere

diomed wrote: »

What?

He should have said income not wealth.

Frank Lee Midere

And as people pointed out a pig farmer on 10K a year sitting on land worth 500K is richer than somebody on 105K a year paying a Dublin mortgage with no or negative equity. Because that's what wealth is, stored assets. Similarly a pensioner on state pension with a 2M euro house is clearly rich.

Furthermore I can easily see a future where these people, not really having much in the way of disposable, would have meagre savings in retirement. Worrying about retirement is not an attribute of the rich.

diomed

smash wrote: »

MONEY... They're spending their MONEY not their wealth!

What?

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

It does match most people on this thread.

Laois6556 wrote: »

You go through it then.
Under 30,000 = ?
30,000 - 50,000 = ?
50,000 - 80,000 = ?
etc

Different gradients of poor.

diomed wrote: »

Very wealthy imo. They have the ability to accumulate money, which many do not. The ability to accumulate is my idea of wealth.
I am single and paid a mortgage on an average income, and drove a car as that was needed to get to work. After I paid off my mortgage I put 20% of my gross into my pension , while saving €30k over 15 years.
They are loaded on €105k a year. My guess is they spend the lot, and borrow more.

These people don't really exist. The question is if a couples on 6K a year is rich. Guessing what fictional couples might spend is fantasy talk.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Just taking a few things from your own links wealth is: a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
A great amount; a profusion

105,000 a year is wealthy.

No. It might seem a lot in the sticks. I tend to do a simple formula for "The Rich" - can this couple or person buy a house where we acknowledge actual rich people live. Dalkey. Top of Howth. Ranelagh.

In fact with the latest rules they could just about borrow 300-350. Which is right given their income. Which places them in the running for a 3 up 2 down in Meath.

The rich employ people at 100K. In fact the super rich employ people who earn lots more than that, up to millions, as Roman Abronovich would attest.

smash

Akrasia wrote: »

Of course they would. A couple on 105kpa will certainly have a very good life assurance policy

Only if they've actually taken out a very good life assurance policy, if they can afford one after expenses.

Akrasia wrote: »

6k a month after tax is more than 3 times what a lot of hard working people have to work with. If they're paying a massive car loan and a massive mortgage and saving to go on luxury holidays several times a year, then it's a big stretch to claim to be the 'hard pressed middle'

6k a month minus an average mortgage on a 3 bed semi and say 2 kids in full time childcare leaves around 2.2k to 2.5k for food, bills, loans, transport, savings. It's by no means a large amount.

Laois6556 wrote: »

Might! They have a plentiful supply of money, that means they're wealthy. If they purchase stuff like buying a big house then they are spending their wealth.

Plenty, really? read above!

Laois6556 wrote: »

That's them choosing how they spend their wealth

MONEY... They're spending their MONEY not their wealth!

folan

Congratulations to the couple, by the way.

ThisRegard

MouseTail wrote: »

But if it is a middle aged couple, mortgage paid off, children grown, educated and self sufficient, then the couple are comfortable, perhaps even affluent, but I agree, not wealthy.

What constitutes midde age ? Late 30s, early 40s ? Most people in that bracket, well in my circle of friends and acquaintances anway, have kids that are only starting primary school at this point or are still in creche.

Many would have spent their time in college, worked hard to get a reasonable job, partied and had fun, and only then decided to settle down for a family before they're too old to manage.

jimmycrackcorm

suicide_circus wrote:

Did this couple meet in coppers by any chance?

Actually we met in the Olympia

The Rugged Chuck Norris

My Beard earns more than that.

Laois6556

wersal gummage wrote: »

What other choices can they make? I know people with mortgages and crèche feel like this, they don't live in posh areas. They've got stung and are stuck now. What are the options that involve not spending mortgage and crèche fees?

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

Laois6556

junior_apollo wrote: »

You are basing your view of 'wealth' as how much a person earns... which is wrong...

Wealth is "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 it makes no difference what they earn, if they have no assets or no resources free of debt, then they have no wealth... someone with no earnings could be much wealthier than the OP's hypothetical couple easily.

Just taking a few things from your own links wealth is: a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches.
an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount
An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
The state of being rich; affluence.
A great amount; a profusion

105,000 a year is wealthy.

diomed

Very wealthy imo. They have the ability to accumulate money, which many do not. The ability to accumulate is my idea of wealth.
I am single and paid a mortgage on an average income, and drove a car as that was needed to get to work. After I paid off my mortgage I put 20% of my gross into my pension , while saving €30k over 15 years.
They are loaded on €105k a year. My guess is they spend the lot, and borrow more.

riclad

THE average wage is 30k,
so 2x30= 60k.
SO any couple earning 100 k, is definitely middle class .
The size of your mortgage is based on where you choose to live,
did you buy in the boom years.
OF course the middle class is getting smaller.
many jobs are getting replaced by computers ,
many graduates end up working for low wages ,as interns etc
Maybe
00000.1 per cent centof the population win the lottery,
You cant base opinions on such a tiny minority.
IN the boom ,carpenters, bricklayers,plumbers, could earn more than some middle class
people , as wages were high.
Wealth is net worth,savings and assets you own,minus debt,
having a large mortgage does not equal wealth.
Being wealthy means you can pay all your bills on time,
buy luxury items,
eg a 60k car, without borrowing the money to do so,
and afford to buy a house where you want to .

wersal gummage

Laois6556 wrote: »

That's them choosing how they spend their wealth, like if a couple were earning a million and they're spending 999,000 of that on different things throughout the year, are they no longer wealthy?

What other choices can they make? I know people with mortgages and crèche feel like this, they don't live in posh areas. They've got stung and are stuck now. What are the options that involve not spending mortgage and crèche fees?

Quin_Dub

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.

junior_apollo

Laois6556 wrote: »

All those links back up what I've said and contradict others on this thread who've come up with alternative definitions. Was that your aim of posting those links? If so, thank you.

You are basing your view of 'wealth' as how much a person earns... which is wrong...

Wealth is "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 it makes no difference what they earn, if they have no assets or no resources free of debt, then they have no wealth... someone with no earnings could be much wealthier than the OP's hypothetical couple easily.