Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

smash wrote: »

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

Ah it does, that's the whole point.

smash

Laois6556 wrote: »

Wealth is an abundance of valuable possessions or money.

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

Hint: look up taxes and living expenses.

wersal gummage wrote: »

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?

It is to the homeless.

wersal gummage wrote: »

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

Still 'wealthier' than a couple on the average wage going into a bank.

Frank Lee Midere

Calibos wrote: »

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.

Or, comfortable but *not* rich.

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

No it isn't. €105,000 p.a. will just about buy you the chance to sink into a €600,000 debt for a three-bed semi-D in a survivable part of Dublin.

NewCorkLad wrote: »

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.

No, they are wealthy/well off and then choose how to spend that wealth.

smash

jimgoose wrote: »

No it isn't. €105,000 p.a. will just about buy you the chance to sink into a €600,000 debt for a three-bed semi-D in a survivable part of Dublin.

Not any more. You'd be lucky to get the chance to sink into a 350k three-bed semi-D in a shítty area or surrounding county.

Laois6556 wrote: »

No, they are wealthy/well off and then choose how to spend that wealth.

Wealth is something you accumulate, not spend!

smash wrote: »

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?

Hell yeah and if there's any women out there interested send me a pm.

Quin_Dub

Akrasia wrote: »

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'

Fair enough... I guess it comes down to not having to worry about money.

Are the couple on €105k still shopping in Aldi - Almost certainly , They might be able to hop over the road to the nice deli or butchers and buy a few high cost items , but they're still watching the outgoings...

smash wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Hint: look up taxes and living expenses.

Hint: Other people have those too.

Valetta

Laois6556 wrote: »

No, they are wealthy/well off and then choose how to spend that wealth.

Wealth can be measured in Euro.

What is the value of their wealth?

Laois6556 wrote: »

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...

Someone on the dole living in crappy bedsit is rich in comparison with someone living in a mudhole in the Congo. That's hardly the point. And who is this "we" that uses this strange definition of wealth? Wealth has an objective definition, independent of any particular income figure, which functions equally well anywhere in the world with any economy.

jimgoose wrote: »

No it isn't. €105,000 p.a. will just about buy you the chance to sink into a €600,000 debt for a three-bed semi-D in a survivable part of Dublin.

And 33,000 p.a would buy you???????

Laois6556 wrote: »

And 33,000 p.a would buy you???????

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

NewCorkLad

Laois6556 wrote: »

No, they are wealthy/well off and the n choose how to spend that wealth.

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.

junior_apollo

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.

wersal gummage

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is to the homeless.

Still 'wealthier' than a couple on the average wage going into a bank.

Right so ted.

The couple on the average wage are wealthier than those on less than the average wage. Is wealthier therefore the same as wealthy?

Wealthy is also defined by comparison to the homeless? In that case surely almost everyone in this country is wealthy.

I've said from the start that a couple on 105 ought to be comfortable and have a good quality of life. They are not wealthy in all likelihood.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Anything over twice the average industrial wage is middle class.

The average industrial wage is €30,000

Do the math

I always say 'maths'

Riskymove

you can loook at this form all sorts of angles and but here are some figures to consider

some 76% of income earners earn less than 50k a year

therefore just 24% earn over 50k

twowheelsonly

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

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.

Laois6556 wrote: »

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.

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.

holystungun9

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Anything over twice the average industrial wage is middle class.

The average industrial wage is €30,000

Do the math

48,567.52 ??

54,567.52 ??

Am I getting warmer?

One eyed Jack

Laois6556 wrote: »

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

What wealth though? What wealth are you actually talking about?

I've already said - he died owing more than he owned, ergo, he was by no means as wealthy as he portrayed himself to be, because he was living on borrowed money. Being wealthy would have meant he was actually able to afford his lifestyle without borrowing. Being wealthy means being able to afford your lifestyle regardless of already accumulated assets that you own.

Not sure how much simpler I can make that.

wersal gummage wrote: »

Right so ted.

The couple on the average wage are wealthier than those on less than the average wage. Is wealthier therefore the same as wealthy?

Wealthy is also defined by comparison to the homeless? In that case surely almost everyone in this country is wealthy.

Can you give a logical reason why the worst off ought to be excluded from any determination on what constitutes wealth?

wersal gummage wrote: »

I've said from the start that a couple on 105 ought to be comfortable and have a good quality of life. They are not wealthy in all likelihood.

You keep referring to wealth as though there was some objective, material standard or definition. There isn't. It is utterly subjective. That might not be convenient for your mind, but it is true.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

...You keep referring to wealth as though there was some objective, material standard or definition. There isn't. It is utterly subjective. That might not be convenient for your mind, but it is true.

The definition I gave earlier in the thread is the most useful I've encountered. Also, the following example, although American, may prove instructive:

http://www.moneycrashers.com/wealth-and-income-difference/

jimgoose wrote: »

The definition I gave earlier in the thread is the most useful I've encountered. Also, the following example, although American, may prove instructive:

http://www.moneycrashers.com/wealth-and-income-difference/

I accept that we can have a definiton such as 'an abundance of', what constitutes an abundance however is again, subjective.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I accept that we can have a definiton such as 'an abundance of', what constitutes an abundance however is again, subjective.

I'm not talking about that one, although that isn't bad either. I'm referring to post# 20. And Merriam-Webster defines an "abundance" in Sense 2 thus:

an amount or supply more than sufficient to meet one's needs

What this amount actually is numerically will of course vary in different times and in different parts of the world, but the concept is the same.

smash

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Can you give a logical reason why the worst off ought to be excluded from any determination on what constitutes wealth?

Yes, it appears that they aren't smart enough to understand it's meaning.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You keep referring to wealth as though there was some objective, material standard or definition. There isn't. It is utterly subjective. That might not be convenient for your mind, but it is true.

No, it's completely false.

Stroke Politics

Is their flat-screen TV bigger than the book-case?