Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple earning €105,000 p.a.

Options
1…78101213

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Danonino.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭Danonino.


    I notice people tend to mention mortgage and loan repayments and make it sound like after these payments the disposable income left is worse or equal to someone without these debts.

    Problem being they have mortgage and loan repayments for a reason, they received the money and in turn bought assets or funded a better standard of living. Which others don't have or could afford.


  • Options
    #273
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    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?

    Best. Sarcasm. Ever.


  • Options
    #274
    Clearlier
    Registered Users Posts: 4,454 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    Ellie2008 wrote: »
    Are they considered wealthy or middle income?

    I read through a few pages of this thread getting increasingly baffled at the inability of some to understand the difference between wealth and income.

    Having just returned to the original post I think that I have just realised the reason for the confusion. 'Wealthy' and 'middle income' are not either/or conditions. You can be wealthy and have a low, middle or high income. You can have a middle income and be wealthy or not wealthy. It's literally nonsense to ask if they're wealthy or middle income as they can be both, either or neither.

    Given your subsequent responses I suspect that you actually meant to ask if a couple on £105k are considered to have a high income or middle income?

    FWIW I would have said that a couple on 105k is on the upper side of middle income.


  • Options
    #275
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Clearlier wrote: »
    I read through a few pages of this thread getting increasingly baffled at the inability of some to understand the difference between wealth and income.

    Having just returned to the original post I think that I have just realised the reason for the confusion. 'Wealthy' and 'middle income' are not either/or conditions. You can be wealthy and have a low, middle or high income. You can have a middle income and be wealthy or not wealthy. It's literally nonsense to ask if they're wealthy or middle income as they can be both, either or neither.

    Given your subsequent responses I suspect that you actually meant to ask if a couple on £105k are considered to have a high income or middle income?

    FWIW I would have said that a couple on 105k is on the upper side of middle income.

    Top 14% is the upper side of the middle? Really?


  • Options
    #276
    twowheelsonly
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭twowheelsonly


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    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.


    If they live elsewhere then they most likely will have to work elsewhere on possibly less wages - if they can get a job elsewhere. . Catch 22

    You've said yourself that you're single and on 40k but don't detail your expenses.
    Are you living at home or rent free? Mortgage repayments are hardly irrelevant in the real world.

    You ignored my earlier post that said that you most likely have a larger disposable income than I have despite my earning more and my household income being a lot more.
    If I was single, living rent free on 40k with very little outgoings I'd consider myself well off and consider those on 105k as being loaded. Until I actually thought about it...

    I'm still undecided whether you're a massive troll or you genuinely don't understand the difference between income and wealth and how different people have different expenses/taxes/outgoings. It's not that complicated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    junior_apollo
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭junior_apollo


    Clearlier wrote: »
    I read through a few pages of this thread getting increasingly baffled at the inability of some to understand the difference between wealth and income.

    Having just returned to the original post I think that I have just realised the reason for the confusion. 'Wealthy' and 'middle income' are not either/or conditions. You can be wealthy and have a low, middle or high income. You can have a middle income and be wealthy or not wealthy. It's literally nonsense to ask if they're wealthy or middle income as they can be both, either or neither.

    Given your subsequent responses I suspect that you actually meant to ask if a couple on £105k are considered to have a high income or middle income?

    FWIW I would have said that a couple on 105k is on the upper side of middle income.

    Finally someone seeing the wood through the trees and making some sense...
    Income ! = Wealth, and it is what you do with your income can affect your wealth.
    I would also agree that they are on the upper side of middle income 'household'. (IE. it might be only one of them is paid highly... as one may be on 70 while the other on 35 (I know numerous people in this type of situation))


  • Options
    #278
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Laois6556 wrote: »
    It's more than the majority make in Dublin aswell of outside Dublin.

    Average industrial wage according to CSO
    €35,783.8 x 2 (€71,567.6)
    Net: €56,899

    €57,500 x 2 (€105,000)
    Net: €73,281

    The couple on 105k get an extra €315 a week. Better wage? Yes. Wealthy? No.

    It's also worth noting that public sector employees get an average of €47,780.72 a year where private sector employees get an average of €32.344. The couple in question could be a Guard and a Nurse. Which most people would certainly not class as wealthy by any means, especially with pension levy which would wipe out most of that extra 'wealth'.


  • Options
    #279
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Tarzana wrote: »
    How do your average 100k+ imagine they are struggling when your average couple with similar outgoings statistically lives on far less?

    If a 100k+ household is struggling then there's not a hope in hell of a lower income family surviving if they have similar outgoings. 2 different couples having 2 different mortgages does not equal similar outgoings.


  • Options
    #280
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    smash wrote: »
    Average industrial wage according to CSO
    €35,783.8 x 2 (€71,567.6)
    Net: €56,899

    €57,500 x 2 (€105,000)
    Net: €73,281

    The couple on 105k get an extra €315 a week. Better wage? Yes. Wealthy? No.

    It's also worth noting that public sector employees get an average of €47,780.72 a year where private sector employees get an average of €32.344. The couple in question could be a Guard and a Nurse. Which most people would certainly not class as wealthy by any means, especially with pension levy which would wipe out most of that extra 'wealth'.

    Something in the region of 60% of households earn less than the mean. Getting 1200 a month more after tax than someone comfortably in the top half for earnings is bloody good going.

    And can we please stop talking about mortgage payments? They're an investment in property, not a sunk cost. If you're paying 1800 a month on a 25-year term, you're building equity by over a thousand quid a month. When the mortgage is done, you have a HOUSE.


  • Options
    #281
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Top 14% is the upper side of the middle? Really?

    Personally I would say a couple taking in 105k gross between them are nothing more than middle income, I wouldn't say they are even on the upper side of middle income. Around 50k each gross per year is not massive money by any means.

    Also I wonder how many households only have one income by choice? This will pull down the average considerably and skew the figures compared to if both were working.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Top 14% is the upper side of the middle? Really?

    Top 14% is a nonsense figure because 98% of the countries wealth is owned by 2% of the people. So take 2% away as being wealthy, then there's 50% on minimum wage if I go by Laois6556's figures (which are probably wrong) which means that 48% of the country are the middle. Their incomes puts them on the upper side of the middle!


  • Options
    #283
    TheSheriff
    Registered Users Posts: 1,108 ✭✭✭TheSheriff


    So by peoples logic here where does "wealth" actually begin?

    What if their earning 200k per year, but they have a bigger house, a nicer care and ultimately are left with the same money the 105k couple are left with.

    These 105k people are extremely well off.

    Call it whatever you want, they have more money than the majority and therefore are perceived as wealthy.


  • Options
    #284
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Something in the region of 60% of households earn less than the mean. Getting 1200 a month more after tax than someone comfortably in the top half for earnings is bloody good going.
    1200 a month after tax. Then you have pension levys, healthcare costs etc.
    desertcircus wrote: »
    And can we please stop talking about mortgage payments? They're an investment in property, not a sunk cost. If you're paying 1800 a month on a 25-year term, you're building equity by over a thousand quid a month. When the mortgage is done, you have a HOUSE.
    Well that really depends when you bought the property doesn't it. By the time I'm finished paying my mortgage with interest etc over the years I'll have paid the bank back nearly 900k. The house is currently worth 150 less then I paid for it. So yes I'll have an asset in years to come, but it's not going to be worth what I paid for it. Hardly an investment...


  • Options
    #285
    junior_apollo
    Registered Users Posts: 740 ✭✭✭junior_apollo


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Something in the region of 60% of households earn less than the mean. Getting 1200 a month more after tax than someone comfortably in the top half for earnings is bloody good going.

    And can we please stop talking about mortgage payments? They're an investment in property, not a sunk cost. If you're paying 1800 a month on a 25-year term, you're building equity by over a thousand quid a month. When the mortgage is done, you have a HOUSE.
    smash wrote: »
    1200 a month after tax. Then you have pension levys, healthcare costs etc.


    Well that really depends when you bought the property doesn't it. By the time I'm finished paying my mortgage with interest etc over the years I'll have paid the bank back nearly 900k. The house is currently worth 150 less then I paid for it. So yes I'll have an asset in years to come, but it's not going to be worth what I paid for it. Hardly an investment...


    Exactly... having a mortgage and paying €1800 a month does necessarily mean you are gaining €1000 equity a month...
    Talking about mortgages is pointless as perhaps it is hugely in negative equity and it is the start of the mortgage so you are effectively only paying the interest charges each month and not gaining any equity...
    Or perhaps you are near the end of the mortgage and effectively every payment is gaining you equity ... increasing your wealth.

    The OP referred to whether a couple on 105K was wealthy.
    We pointed out that their income does not dictate their wealth. - So the question is impossible to answer - we do not know their outgoings, nor their assets so we cannot comment on their wealth.

    We pointed out that the question should really have been asking if their income was high, or at least high in other people's opinions.

    In my opinion it is on the high side of middle income household.
    I know people with a higher household income, but I know more people with a lower household income. They range across the country and none of them I would consider well-off because of their outgoings. They have not accumulated enough money or assets to outway their debts, to be considered wealthy either.


  • Options
    #286
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    So by peoples logic here where does "wealth" actually begin?

    What if their earning 200k per year, but they have a bigger house, a nicer care and ultimately are left with the same money the 105k couple are left with.

    These 105k people are extremely well off.

    Call it whatever you want, they have more money than the majority and therefore are perceived as wealthy.


    They don't have more money than the majority if their outgoings exceed their available finances.

    Wealth begins when you can afford your lifestyle without having to work in paid employment to fund your lifestyle. The couple earning a total household income of €105k are hardly well off. In fact they would be considered to have an average household income.

    You can suggest they are wealthy, but without context, you really can't say they actually have more money than the majority. They may indeed owe more money than the majority in order to create the perception they are wealthy - classic 'keeping up with the jones' mentality which had people on average incomes borrowing well beyond their income level and later being unable to sustain their lifestyle.

    Perception of wealth, doesn't mean they actually are wealthy.


  • Options
    #287
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    TheSheriff wrote: »
    ...Call it whatever you want, they have more money than the majority and therefore are perceived as wealthy.

    It is certainly true that those people would be perceived as wealthy, but as I said earlier in the thread this is largely because most Irish people do not understand what "wealth" is.


  • Options
    #288
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    jimgoose wrote: »
    It is certainly true that those people would be perceived as wealthy, but as I said earlier in the thread this is largely because most Irish people do not understand what "wealth" is.

    Or rather because they use the word in a more liberal fashion than perhaps they ought. The meaning however of what they are trying to convey is not at all unclear IMHO.


  • Options
    #289
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Or rather because they use the word in a more liberal fashion than perhaps they ought. The meaning however of what they are trying to convey is not at all unclear IMHO.

    Be that as it may. However, in my opinion words like "wealthy" are very dangerous when bandied about with wild abandon like that. Governments don't need much encouragement to tool up with the pickaxe-handles and sawnoff Purdeys. :pac:


  • Options
    #290
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    smash wrote: »
    1200 a month after tax. Then you have pension levys, healthcare costs etc.


    Well that really depends when you bought the property doesn't it. By the time I'm finished paying my mortgage with interest etc over the years I'll have paid the bank back nearly 900k. The house is currently worth 150 less then I paid for it. So yes I'll have an asset in years to come, but it's not going to be worth what I paid for it. Hardly an investment...

    Pension levies are to pay for a pension! Healthcare costs are something the bulk of the country already do without! How are we still pretending that people earning more than over 85% of the population are anything other than well-off? Most people don't have pension entitlements beyond the very basic. Most people don't have health insurance. The money spent on these doesn't bloody vanish: it buys products most of us don't have!

    And I sympathise with your quandary regarding your mortgage: that's why I originally said that a family unlucky enough to get caught by negative equity were an exception. But the fact remains: of the money you pay into your mortgage each month, a chunk of it accrues as equity in your home. It's not all sunk cost.


  • Options
    #291
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Pension levies are to pay for a pension!...

    Pension contributions are to pay for a pension. Pension levies are another example of the Government blowing the bladdy doors orf! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    €105k for a couple, be they burdened with a massive mortgage, or reasonable one, are by no means wealthy. I've no idea why 20 pages on there's people who are saying it is.


  • Options
    #293
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    €105k for a couple, be they burdened with a massive mortgage, or reasonable one, are by no means wealthy. I've no idea why 20 pages on there's people who are saying it is.

    Perhaps because your opinion is not a fact.


  • Options
    #294
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Pension levies are to pay for a pension!

    The public service pension levy is nothing more than a tax, it has nothing to do with the pension. Pension deductions are separate and in addition to the levy. Not one cent of the pension levy will be paid back when a pension is drawn down.
    desertcircus wrote: »
    Most people don't have health insurance.

    The CSO estimate 42% of the population had health insurance on the 1st of Jan 2014. That's a significant amount of people, especially if you exclude medical card holders.


  • Options
    #295
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Pension levies are to pay for a pension!
    Nope.
    desertcircus wrote: »
    Healthcare costs are something the bulk of the country already do without!
    Not true.
    desertcircus wrote: »
    How are we still pretending that people earning more than over 85% of the population are anything other than well-off?
    Forget 85% of the population. Look at the workforce. Combine the average wage for public and private workers and you get an average of 40,062.36. This couple are earning 23.69% above the average wage. This does not make them rich, it makes them higher earners and only marginally really because the average wage above does not consider bonuses or overtime.
    desertcircus wrote: »
    And I sympathise with your quandary regarding your mortgage: that's why I originally said that a family unlucky enough to get caught by negative equity were an exception. But the fact remains: of the money you pay into your mortgage each month, a chunk of it accrues as equity in your home. It's not all sunk cost.
    It's only not a sunk cost if I can sell it for a profit. Now consider that of those with mortgage, if you buy a house for 200k and end up paying say a total off 500k for a house by the end of the mortgage term, with taxes etc you'd have had to earn nearly a million in order to pay for it. If you can't sell it for a million then you're at a loss really. It's the same as paying 25k for a car, keeping it for 30 years and selling it for a fraction of the cost and saying "but sure it's paid for, it doesn't owe me!".

    Buying a house, I didn't consider this because I didn't buy to flip for a profit. I bought so that in a certain amount of years I wouldn't have to pay for rent any more. Of course with the household charge now, I'll still pay a small cost for the rest of my life.


  • Options
    #296
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    Why on earth would you only compare to people with jobs? Do unemployed people just not exist?


  • Options
    #297
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Why on earth would you only compare to people with jobs? Do unemployed people just not exist?

    We're talking about the average income. Why include people that don't have any? Well none that they actually work for!

    If I had 100 people and 90 were unemployed and the other 10 were on 50k a year it doesn't mean the average wage is 5k. It means the average wage is 50k!


  • Options
    #298
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,176 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    smash wrote: »
    We're talking about the average income. Why include people that don't have any? Well none that they actually work for!

    If I had 100 people and 90 were unemployed and the other 10 were on 50k a year it doesn't mean the average wage is 5k. It means the average wage is 50k!

    The modal income is 10k. The median income is 30k. The mean income is 14k. Be careful with "averages" too! :D


  • Options
    #299
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    smash wrote: »
    It's only not a sunk cost if I can sell it for a profit. Now consider that of those with mortgage, if you buy a house for 200k and end up paying say a total off 500k for a house by the end of the mortgage term, with taxes etc you'd have had to earn nearly a million in order to pay for it. If you can't sell it for a million then you're at a loss really. It's the same as paying 25k for a car, keeping it for 30 years and selling it for a fraction of the cost and saying "but sure it's paid for, it doesn't owe me!".

    Buying a house, I didn't consider this because I didn't buy to flip for a profit. I bought so that in a certain amount of years I wouldn't have to pay for rent any more. Of course with the household charge now, I'll still pay a small cost for the rest of my life.

    Except none of this is relevant because it applies universally. Everyone gets taxed, so your mention of how much tax you pay on income before spending it on your mortgage is irrelevant. Everyone with a mortgage pays interest on it. None of what you say does anything to invalidate the fact that a family with a bigger mortgage payment is usually building up equity and therefore wealth faster than a family with a smaller mortgage.


  • Options
    #300
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    smash wrote: »
    We're talking about the average income. Why include people that don't have any? Well none that they actually work for!

    If I had 100 people and 90 were unemployed and the other 10 were on 50k a year it doesn't mean the average wage is 5k. It means the average wage is 50k!

    We're talking about whether people are wealthy compared to the rest of the country. The rest of the country is generally not understood to exclude people without jobs. And hilariously, you fail to realise that in your example, all ten people with jobs are enormously wealthy compared to the population as a whole.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    desertcircus wrote: »
    We're talking about whether people are wealthy compared to the rest of the country..

    But as others have said, income is not a good indication of wealth, the cost of living for them or the amount of disposable income they have or money they can save.

    Someone on 40k living at home for free and getting most of their meals at home are in a far better position than a couple on 105k with two kids and a big mortgage.

    Neither are even on the same planet as wealthy though.


Advertisement