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

Johngoose

In Dublin that kind of money is what a couple would need to survive.Middle-class income,in my opinion,albeit slightly higher than average middle class incomes.

awec

It depends on location.

105,000 a year in Dublin is a lot different to 105,000 a year in the middle of nowhere.

AndonHandon

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that both the incomes you mentioned exceed the average wage in the state. Moreover your experience is just that, yours. Countless people in this state may know no one with a permanent job.

I'm going to use the word wealthy in the general, lose way you have. If what the majority of the population earns doesn't influence what is considered 'wealthy' what on earth does?

As a general point, some people on this thread seem to want to have it both ways they are both arguing that we can't possibly know if a couple who earns 105k are 'wealthy' because we need more information yet they then proceed to argue that this couple are positively not 'wealthy' in the same information void. That is not consistent. 105k between two is like it or lump it, agree or disagree a high income in this country, it is substantially higher than the average wage.

Countless hmmmm I think you should change the phrasing.

[Deleted User]

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Good for you. That doesn't change the fact that both the incomes you mentioned exceed the average wage in the state. Moreover your experience is just that, yours. Countless people in this state may know no one with a permanent job.

Firstly I wasn't talking about myself when I said there are loads of households earning 100k, however I would see it as a very achievable number to be reaching and even exceeding down the line (from two incomes I mean).

I doubt very much there is anybody in the country who doesn't know multiple people in a permanent job. I hardly know anyone who is out of work and most people I know are in permanent jobs (I'm actually only on a contract myself incidentally but I'd be an exception).

shruikan2553

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Less than one in a hundred people in the world are wealthier than them though.

That's a poor comparison. Someone on minimum wage is wealthy compared to most people in the world.

SaveOurLyric

shruikan2553 wrote: »

That's a poor comparison. Someone on minimum wage is wealthy compared to most people in the world.

And wealthy in an absolute sense also.

doc11

When almost half the population have medical cards with income limits of 266 a week for a couple, I think a couple living of 105000 gross a year could be described as wealthy/well off compared to the vast majority of the population.

dub_skav

doc11 wrote: »

When almost half the population have medical cards with income limits of 266 a week for a couple, I think a couple living of 105000 gross a year could be described as wealthy/well off compared to the vast majority of the population.

And yet which of those 2 groups does not need to worry about an unforeseen medical bill? It's a funny old world

jobbridge4life

Crystal Zealous Bath wrote: »

Firstly I wasn't talking about myself when I said there are loads of households earning 100k, however I would see it as a very achievable number to be reaching and even exceeding down the line (from two incomes I mean).

I was referring to your claim about knowing loads of households with plus 100k incomes. You see it as very achievable. For an unemployed person with limited education it probably is considerably less achievable.

Crystal Zealous Bath wrote: »

I doubt very much there is anybody in the country who doesn't know multiple people in a permanent job. I hardly know anyone who is out of work and most people I know are in permanent jobs (I'm actually only on a contract myself incidentally but I'd be an exception).

Based on? There are blackspots of unemployment in this country where unemployment is not only a long term problem it is generational. You are extrapolating your experience onto the nation for no reason and in fact against the evidence presented to you.

jobbridge4life

shruikan2553 wrote: »

That's a poor comparison. Someone on minimum wage is wealthy compared to most people in the world.

Not necessarily.

doc11

dub_skav wrote: »

And yet which of those 2 groups does not need to worry about an unforeseen medical bill? It's a funny old world

Health insurance @ 2k, without it the most you'll pay in hospital is 750 a year and 144 a month in drugs per family. And even at that the medical expenses are tax deductible. On 105,000 an unforeseen bill shouldn't be a problem unless your reckless with money.

jobbridge4life

dub_skav wrote: »

And yet which of those 2 groups does not need to worry about an unforeseen medical bill? It's a funny old world

That is a choice we have made as a society. It doesn't have to be that way. Certainly begrudging those with medical cards will benefit no one.

Frank Lee Midere

doc11 wrote: »

Health insurance @ 2k, without it the most you'll pay in hospital is 750 a year and 144 a month in drugs per family. And even at that the medical expenses are tax deductible. On 105,000 an unforeseen bill shouldn't be a problem unless your reckless with money.

Unless they are living in the real world with taxes, mortgages, crèche fees etc. As well as saving for college and pensions.

If course they could be comfortable if 55 and the mortgage is paid off. On the other hand they could be fairly squeezed if young or early middle aged.

The fact remains that they are not rich or anywhere near it. If mid 30's-40's they will have money worries and live in average houses - houses not much different from the "poor" a few miles away. A house bought with that salary would be on the northside or past the M50. Nobody is going to feature it on vogue, GQ, or grand designs.

In many ways pre-tax (particularly PAYE) income tells you little about disposable and nothing about wealth.

Frank Lee Midere

Laois6556 wrote: »

It is wealthy, just because you keep denying it doesn't make it so.
I've asked already but no one answered, what would you describe the different brackets then. You think 150 million is supper wealthy, what is 100 million? 1 million? 100,000? 50,000? 30,000?
I'm not comparing it to what I earn. 24% of people earn over 50k, just 24%. That's the only way we can get the objective view. I wonder what % of couples earn more than 100k, I wouldn't say it's very high.

What percentage of couples earn more than 100k given 24% of people earn 50k. Could be as high as 24% of couples.

I answered. Below 100k is poor. I notice you didn't. Apparantly you believe the wealthy start at 50k and up to 150M ( plenty of wealthy people have more than that).

Although you are confusing income and wealth here you are saying the wealthy earn from 0.03% of 150M to 100% of 150M and above. That's absurd statistics.

TheSheriff

I suspect alot of people commenting here dont actually have 105k per annum to spend? I dont and thus I wouldnt know the ins and outs but what I can say is someone very close to me does have this kinda money, young family and they live extremely comfortably.

Also ^^^Frank Lee above - their house will be past the m50 or on the northside? Absolute rubbish, try Terenure, Rathfarnham etc

Frank Lee Midere

If I were to put a dividing line in Dublin I would put middle class at the kind of people who buy houses worth about 1M. Lawyers, barristers, top bankers, top managerial staff etc. Above that are the rich who buy more expensive houses for cash.

Another reason why this debate is absurd is because it ignores inheritance and background. When I worked in London I worked with an intern who owned a house in Knightsbridge. Inherited. Those houses cost 1-2M. It was a gift. Age assured us however that she lived off her wages which were slight. Lower than mine.

We called her the rich girl.

HamsterFace

I was on the Dole four years ago and would have considered income of 105k to be a huge sum.

I got a job at 18 k and over 3 years have increased to 47k, my partner on the same. So we aren't far off the 100k mark, but I certainly would no longer consider that a huge sum when you take tax, rent, pension contributions, the requirement of running two cars, saving for a mortgage that will require a 20% deposit and the general cost of living in Dublin.

I went out more when I was on the dole but yes, I do wear nicer clothes and eat nicer food now.

105K is far from wealthy but should afford you to live and save a bit in Dublin . That's about it.

If I had it in the west where I am from I would be minted by the way.

Frank Lee Midere

TheSheriff wrote: »

I suspect alot of people commenting here dont actually have 105k per annum to spend? I dont and thus I wouldnt know the ins and outs but what I can say is someone very close to me does have this kinda money, young family and they live extremely comfortably.

Also ^^^Frank Lee above - their house will be past the m50 or on the northside? Absolute rubbish, try Terenure, Rathfarnham etc

They could get 350k in a mortgage.
If they scraped together the 20% deposit here's a place in Drumcondra.

http://daft.ie/1952301

A 3 bed in Terenure is way beyond them.

http://daft.ie/1997492

Frank Lee Midere

4 bed in Terrenure at 850k would need joint salary of about 200k. Which is say two doctors etc. That's middle class alright.

http://daft.ie/1995417

Frank Lee Midere

Close to M50 a house near enough to 380k in Walkinstown would suit this super rich couple.

http://daft.ie/11004569

Frank Lee Midere

Of course you could argue that Dublin house prices haven't come to terms with the new mortgage rules yet.

walshyp

105,000 outside of Dublin a couple would be rich.
105,000 in Dublin a couple would not be rich.

Basically sums up the thread. Outside of Dublin you can get a house like this for less than 100k

http://www.daft.ie/sales/shandra-woods-portarlington-laois/1001016/#img=4

Other things to take into account obviously like kids etc.

A_Sober_Paddy

This thread depresses me...Earning my 22k a year before earning a pittance they call a bonus(roughly 150€ monthly/1,900€ annually) if i get it each month...

Frank Lee Midere

Way outside the M50 although still managing to be in Castleknock this nicely appointed 4 bed is way past the means of our rich couple at 660k.

http://daft.ie/1967927

Yes Dublin is crazy. But there are people buying those 660k houses and they're not really "the rich" either.

Frank Lee Midere

walshyp wrote: »

105,000 outside of Dublin a couple would be rich.
105,000 in Dublin a couple would not be rich.

Basically sums up the thread. Outside of Dublin you can get a house like this for less than 100k

http://www.daft.ie/sales/shandra-woods-portarlington-laois/1001016/#img=4

Other things to take into account obviously like kids etc.

Yes. And somebody paying a 50k mortgage on that perfectly adequate house with fewer kids could easily have more disposable than the rich couple of the thread title.

My guess is most people who think the couple are rich are not in Dublin. It's all about where you are. People on $200k in New York live in cockroach infested 2 beds in a city where there are people living in 20,000 sq ft apartments over looking Central Park.

blacklilly

Laois6556 wrote: »

Seems like you all want to come up with your own definition of wealth. I've done some quick searches on google, your definition doesn't match what I've found.

Is it just me or are other people finding posts like the above from this poster reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaally annoying?

Laois6556

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

What percentage of couples earn more than 100k given 24% of people earn 50k. Could be as high as 24% of couples.

I answered. Below 100k is poor. I notice you didn't. Apparantly you believe the wealthy start at 50k and up to 150M ( plenty of wealthy people have more than that).

Although you are confusing income and wealth here you are saying the wealthy earn from 0.03% of 150M to 100% of 150M and above. That's absurd statistics.

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.

Laois6556

awec wrote: »

It depends on location.

105,000 a year in Dublin is a lot different to 105,000 a year in the middle of nowhere.

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

stateofflux

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

Laois6556

blacklilly wrote: »

Is it just me or are other people finding posts like the above from this poster reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaally annoying?

What's your problem? The wealthy don't like interacting with us poor people on this thread it seems. Well sorry, you can't get one of your security men to escort me from your estate on the internet.