- Jun 21, 2009
- AFL Club
I haven't met anyone on under 90k for years
Closes after next weekend - make Chief laugh (the most) and win a prize!
You can now upload videos to your posts. Just click "Attach files" and upload!
In order to be enacted the bill needs to pass through both houses of parliament.Can someone explain this to me. Their vote doesn't count, right? Like the government have the majority vote so why would it even matter if they said nope?
Probably not living in a North Shore bubble.Don't know what I'm doing differently to others.
One interesting thing, says Dr Jill Sheppard, lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University, is that people in the middle of the income range know they are in the middle, “but people at the fringes get it wrong”.
“Those who are making a lot of money – $90,000 to $150,000 – don’t realise how well off they are,” she says.
It’s easy to see why. The middle covers a relatively small range of income – from about $40,000 to $80,000. In all likelihood, if you are in that range, so are those in your social circle, give or take $20,000. But once you get above that level, it’s very different. The top 10 per cent of the income scale encompasses a much broader range of income – from $94,000 to Gina Rinehart.
So if you’re earning, say, $100,000, you are likely working and socialising with people whose income and wealth are multiples of yours. In monkey terms, you’re in the cage adjoining the grape eaters.
And that is apt to make you feel poorer than you are. As the social researcher Rebecca Huntley noted in a blog for MLC last year, the result is that 60 per cent of households with incomes of about $145,000 misidentified themselves as being middle class.
They considered a middle-class lifestyle to include annual overseas trips, private schools and expensive extracurricular activities for their children, regular dining out, new cars and the latest household technology. All the while, they complained about the cost of living.
These people are rich, but no politician dares tell them, for fear of being resented.
In 2006, Maserati sold 107 cars in Australia. Last year, the Italian brand sold 483, an almost fivefold increase. Sales of other luxury cars have also enjoyed booming sales over the past decade. Porsche sales quadrupled to 4434. Audi went from 5770 to 24,258. BMW almost doubled to more than 28,000, and Mercedes-Benz more than doubled to more than 41,000. Add in Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls-Royce and you get about 100,000 sales, each one involving more money than 90 per cent of Australians earn in a year.
“Demand is very, very strong, particularly for what we call heavy metal – that is, stuff over $150,000,” says David McCarthy, senior manager, product, public relations and corporate communications for Mercedes.
“The traditional buyers are established business owners, but in the past few years we’ve seen small- to medium-sized business owners buying themselves expensive cars as a reward.”
Another noticeable trend among high-income earners, Sheppard says, is that they increasingly do not fit our customary measures of “class’’.
“Traditionally we’ve equated occupation with class,” she says. “But now tradespeople have started to make good money, and that is decoupling perceptions of class from occupation.”
That has wider social and political ramifications, as was recognised more than a decade ago by the then prime minister, John Howard. He realised a growing number of workers who had traditionally been Labor voters were in many ways natural conservatives, previously bound to Labor on financial grounds. But as their incomes grew, as ever more became independent contractors in a deregulated workplace, they were ripe for the wooing.
He called them “aspirational” voters. Tony Abbott also went out of his way to attract them. Remember “Tony’s tradies”?
More recently, though, many have found a new political home: One Nation.
As David Marr notes in his recent Quarterly Essay on Pauline Hanson’s party, its voters are not like the left-behind working poor who voted for Donald Trump. He cites data from the Australian Election Study held after the most recent federal election.
Most of the people who voted for Hanson had actually done quite well for themselves. They were half as likely to have gone to university, but twice as likely to have a trade qualification.
Interestingly, the highest percentage of self-identified members of the working class were One Nation supporters, at 66 per cent, compared with 45 for Labor, 46 for the Nationals and 32 per cent for the Liberal Party.
But perhaps their most telling demographic characteristic is that they are malcontented.
In response to the survey question: “How does the financial situation of your own household compare with what it was 12 months ago?”, 68 per cent of One Nation voters responded that it was worse. That compares with 25 per cent for Nationals voters, 27 for the Greens, 29 for Liberals and 38 for Labor.
And when asked about the state of the economy generally, they were even more pessimistic. Almost three-quarters – 73 per cent – thought it worse than a year ago.
And yet, as Marr notes, the Australian Election Study showed them to be marginally more prosperous than the average Australian.
Just when you thought Australians could not get any more deluded about their relative good fortune, along comes a whole new cohort of well-to-do whingers.
Our leaders really should tell them they have not got much to complain about. Although that seems unlikely: we’re still not ready to even talk about what “rich” means.
What do your expenses include?I'm confused by posters in here. My partner and I are on roughly 96k combined before tax. We live quite well off and go on an annual holiday and splurge. We don't have to budget. We have money left over every fortnight to save. Don't know what I'm doing differently to others.
96k after tax? That's basically what I live on. As I said I'm comfortable but I wouldn't say wealthy.I'm confused by posters in here. My partner and I are on roughly 96k combined before tax. We live quite well off and go on an annual holiday and splurge. We don't have to budget. We have money left over every fortnight to save. Don't know what I'm doing differently to others.
I'm amazed you're able to type with such a big chip on your shoulder.You guys with your non-stop talk about '90k isn't good money' or 'AFL players aren't rich' sit there watching Suits with your hand on your cock?
Yeah and I support it mate, if anything it should be heavier. Don't give me oh woe anything. You acting like you're a victim while you and your new mate brag about income and name drop having a partner is ludicrous and actually offensive. The world is harsh and things are difficult for a lot of people. A full time job is a nice thing and 90k is a lot of money.I'm amazed you're able to type with such a big chip on your shoulder.
Do you understand the concept of a progressive tax system and what it does to income?
His Mrs obviously doesn't spend the 14,000 per year on beauty products / services.96k after tax? That's basically what I live on. As I said I'm comfortable but I wouldn't say wealthy.
EDIT: Before tax I find it incredibly hard to believe you live comfortably in any sort of suburban area. $350-400 a week in rent for a one bedroom apartment is almost $20k a year, before power, gas, internet, food, and travel expenses.
I'm... Not. I'm explaining why me on 85k and him on what sounds like 50k take home a similar amount after tax.Yeah and I support it mate, if anything it should be heavier. Don't give me oh woe anything. You acting like you're a victim while you and your new mate brag about income and name drop having a partner is ludicrous and actually offensive. The world is harsh and things are difficult for a lot of people. A full time job is a nice thing and 90k is a lot of money.
As I said: it's offensive. People toil for a lot less. I know this is all a big stroke but seriously, it is offensive to people who don't make much money.
Nobody's losing 50% in income taxes, Liberal liar.Why is everything so binary these days? There's a whole bunch of people called 'middle income earners' for a reason. They ain't rich, and they ain't poor.
$90k is an above average and above median wage. It's nothing to sneeze at but it's hardly sending Giles down to the market to buy the foie gras territory. If you can't survive off $90k then you need to seriously look at your expenditure. Maybe even check yo' privilege. But it's not 1% territory.
The old adage of 'if you're not a commy when you are young you have no heart, if you aren't a capitalist when you are old you have no brain' has some merit. I remember my weekly tax contribution being tens of dollars and then getting it all back in July anyway. Once you start paying thousands, multiple thousands, tens of thousands you start to get annoyed at people telling you how well off you are. I implore anyone who thinks 'tax the rich!' to go and and work away, do long hours in s**t conditions and then watch 30, 40, 50% of it get taken away by the govt. Might give them an appreciation of what it takes to get ahead of the game somewhat.
We have wayyyy bigger taxation problems than people earning $90k and only giving 20-30% of it to the govt.
|Taxable income||Tax on this income|
|0 – $18,200||Nil|
|$18,201 – $37,000||19c for each $1 over $18,200|
|$37,001 – $90,000||$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000|
|$90,001 – $180,000||$20,797 plus 37c for each $1 over $90,000|
|$180,001 and over||$54,097 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000|