Primetime 24/11: Since when is 55,000 not a good wage?

hellboy99

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you know whats really perverse?
shes (and other PS buddies) want the whole country to keep getting into deeper debt for longer so her debt fueled lifestyle can be sustained

does anyone else see a problem with that?

That's just it, "gimme, gimme" attitude but you better not come looking to take anything from me, I want to keep my lifestyle with no cuts

The problem for many people that are not working in the public sector is that for years they have seen and heard them complain and strike, at the end of the day they got most of what they wanted, pay increases and wages more to that of other EU countries. We now see and hear you on the media, many with big fancy houses, apartments abroad, fancy cars etc... you come across as not willing to make any sacrifices, i.e. get rid of the fancy car and go for something smaller, get rid of second car, stop living in fantasy land and not living way beyond your means.

People, be it public sector, private sector, many were foolish during the boom years, got ridiculous amounts of money loaned to them, wanted the fancy lifestyle and car, you could have it all as the banks would loan you anything. Yes the banks are partly to blame but it's the people that took out these big loans and mortgages that should be blaming themselves first and now need to take reasonability for their ill judged actions, it's not as if the bank held a gun to your head and said you have to take this money.

It's not that the majority of people in this country begrudge these people, alright you will always have the ones that do, it's just a lot seen what was coming and had sense and were not greedy nor had a need to live a lifestyle they could barely afford. A lot of the problem lies with NAMA, "why should this be in place and I not be bailed out too", understandable, but you have to realise too that you have to take reasonability for your own actions, you had a choice, you made the wrong one, you can't expect to sail through life with the attitude that when the crap hits the fan you don't have to worry and that someone will come along and make it all right, it just doesn't happen.

anon41

muboop1 wrote: »

No but you should respect that all things are relative to your situation!

Im really shocked by this thread, people choose to PURCHASE items, goods whatever, this was their own personal choice, their lifestyle!!... if they couldn't afford them or got carried away, that surely is their own issue?..E55,000 is an extremely good WAGE to be on in fairness.. just because you got yourself a big car loan, big mortgage went and had a few more kids, dont come to the rest of us now who are just getting by without any of the extras for a handout..It's insane the neck some people have...I would have liked those things too but couldnt afford them!. period.

anon41

hellboy99 wrote: »

That's just it, "gimme, gimme" attitude but you better not come looking to take anything from me, I want to keep my lifestyle with no cuts

The problem for many people that are not working in the public sector is that for years they have seen and heard them complain and strike, at the end of the day they got most of what they wanted, pay increases and wages more to that of other EU countries. We now see and hear you on the media, many with big fancy houses, apartments abroad, fancy cars etc... you come across as not willing to make any sacrifices, i.e. get rid of the fancy car and go for something smaller, get rid of second car, stop living in fantasy land and not living way beyond your means.

People, be it public sector, private sector, many were foolish during the boom years, got ridiculous amounts of money loaned to them, wanted the fancy lifestyle and car, you could have it all as the banks would loan you anything. Yes the banks are partly to blame but it's the people that took out these big loans and mortgages that should be blaming themselves first and now need to take reasonability for their ill judged actions, it's not as if the bank held a gun to your head and said you have to take this money.

It's not that the majority of people in this country begrudge these people, alright you will always have the ones that do, it's just a lot seen what was coming and had sense and were not greedy nor had a need to live a lifestyle they could barely afford. A lot of the problem lies with NAMA, "why should this be in place and I not be bailed out too", understandable, but you have to realise too that you have to take reasonability for your own actions, you had a choice, you made the wrong one, you can't expect to sail through life with the attitude that when the crap hits the fan you don't have to worry and that someone will come along and make it all right, it just doesn't happen.

very well said

Jaysoose

Never mind the 55k lady what about poor shane on 29K a year the poor lad cant afford to have kids if the cuts come in!!

Primetime selected the wrong people to champion this cause.

1. A teacher who took out a huge mortgage...whos fault is this?

2. A physiotherpist on 55K that took out a huge mortgage and see its as anybodies fault but hers.

3. Shane the poor public servant who for some reason has not had a promotion in ten years and ONLY earns 29K (read... lazy). Who for some reason is trying to pull on the heartstrings by claiming he is unable to have kids if the cuts come in!

Are these people actually real or are they actors hired by primetime and told to ham it up?

muboop1

anon41 wrote: »

Im really shocked by this thread, people choose to PURCHASE items, goods whatever, this was their own personal choice, their lifestyle!!... if they couldn't afford them or got carried away, that surely is their own issue?..E55,000 is an extremely good WAGE to be on in fairness.. just because you got yourself a big car loan, big mortgage went and had a few more kids, dont come to the rest of us now who are just getting by without any of the extras for a handout..It's insane the neck some people have...I would have liked those things too but couldnt afford them!. period.

Hmm... You see how your kinda off topic don't you?

The question was is it a good salary.

I said its relative.

It is!

It doesn't immediately make you well off! hell define rich?
Someone earning over 40k a year, 100k a year? i think someone who earned 80 a year would think they are doing alright but not rich, whilst someone with 40 would say the person with 80 was rich and so on...

Like i really don't see how you can argue its not relative!

Iago

The only thing it's relative too is the cost of living in the country. The cost of living is a direct consequence and in direct co-orellation to the average wage in a country.

If the average wage is circa €33-€38k and someone is earning €55k then they are on a very good wage and can expect to have a higher standard of living in that country than someone earning the average wage.

So in Ireland, €55k is a very good wage.

Stark

AARRRGH wrote: »

Is 55k a good wage? Yes.

Is it enough money for a man with a couple of kids and some debt? That's a different question.

The thing is the debt is his problem and not the taxpaying public's. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to pay off his debt.

bandraoi

ssaye wrote: »

Its all relative, with deductions in the Public Sector at the moment somebody on 55k can be earning 650 per week.

How?

http://taxcalc.eu/

Putting E55K in here for a single person (worst possible scenario) and allowing for the pension levy take home pay is € 705.40. You can't come out with E650 a week no matter what way you swing it.

As for the public servant on E29K after 10 years.
I'm not sure that's even possible.
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/ContentBuilder/RevisedSalaryScale.pdf
Has the clerical officer salary scales on it (page 3).
As far as I'm aware the clerical officer post is the bottom run of the public service ladder, and it starts on E24K. After ten years he should be on E34,643.

I'd like some further explanation about the job he does and the hours he works before I attach credence to his story.

nesf

bandraoi wrote: »

As for the public servant on E29K after 10 years.
I'm not sure that's even possible.
http://www.cpsu.ie/images/ContentBuilder/RevisedSalaryScale.pdf
Has the clerical officer salary scales on it (page 3).
As far as I'm aware the clerical officer post is the bottom run of the public service ladder, and it starts on E24K. After ten years he should be on E34,643.

I'd like some further explanation about the job he does and the hours he works before I attach credence to his story.

County Council staff like binmen maybe? Not everyone in the public service is a civil servant!

funnyname

Where can i sign up for a €55k job, I'll work 40hours a week, I won't strike and I won't grumble about having to help get the country back on it's feet.

Iago

bandraoi wrote: »

How?

http://taxcalc.eu/

Putting E55K in here for a single person (worst possible scenario) and allowing for the pension levy take home pay is € 705.40. You can't come out with E650 a week no matter what way you swing it.

yes you could, but it would involve AVCs, TaxSaver travel, Health premiums etc...

so while the "take home" is lower, it's down to personal choice and other benefits that you are accruing.

Riskymove

Eh no, common sense. If you earn 55k a year and think its not a good wage, its tin foil hat territory.

as I say its a bit strange to get involved in a discussion by saying anyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or mad

but my question remains, whats the point of this discussion I dont believe anyone says that 55k is not a good wage so why are we wasting all this time?

By the way, do you think its a good wage? You never said.

actually I did, you must have missed that

Riskymove

Iago wrote: »

yes you could, but it would involve AVCs, TaxSaver travel, Health premiums etc...

so while the "take home" is lower, it's down to personal choice and other benefits that you are accruing.

in fairness I think takehome should include any discretionary spending which would include choices around AVCS, health insurance etc

bandraoi

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness I think takehome should include any discretionary spending which would include choices around AVCS, health insurance etc

precisely.

nesf

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness I think takehome should include any discretionary spending which would include choices around AVCS, health insurance etc

Aye. At home when I was growing up we had to drop VHI to make ends meet for a year or two. Of course one month after rejoining I get rushed in for an emergency operation that couldn't have been predicted (I was 8). The VHI were good about it and covered it but it was a nervous time, 1,500 pounds in 1989 was a lot of money especially with a second operation scheduled for six months afterwards. At the time, you couldn't claim for hospital charges during your first three months or something of health coverage, to stop people joining just when they needed hospital work done etc. The VHI made an exception for my parents and myself thankfully.

gurramok

Riskymove wrote: »

as I say its a bit strange to get involved in a discussion by saying anyone who disagrees with you is either a liar or mad

I didn't see anyone disagree with the statement that it is not a good wage, did you?

Riskymove wrote: »

but my question remains, whats the point of this discussion I dont believe anyone says that 55k is not a good wage so why are we wasting all this time?

Ask the OP

Riskymove wrote: »

actually I did, you must have missed that

Good to hear

Riskymove

bandraoi wrote: »

precisely.

we had to drop VHI to make ends meet for a year or two

exactly I had to take a look at such expenses and see what i could do in order to offset the reduction in my take home following the levy

you have to decide on priorities

I have been paying VHI since I was 20 without ever using it (though I wouldnt risk it now either:pac)

Iago

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness I think takehome should include any discretionary spending which would include choices around AVCS, health insurance etc

bandraoi wrote: »

precisely.

nesf wrote: »

Aye. At home when I was growing up we had to drop VHI to make ends meet for a year or two. Of course one month after rejoining I get rushed in for an emergency operation that couldn't have been predicted (I was 8). The VHI were good about it and covered it but it was a nervous time, 1,500 pounds in 1989 was a lot of money especially with a second operation scheduled for six months afterwards. At the time, you couldn't claim for hospital charges during your first three months or something of health coverage, to stop people joining just when they needed hospital work done etc. The VHI made an exception for my parents and myself thankfully.

I completely agree, but in my experience people tend to discount these when stating what they take home and only include what actually arrives in their pay packet/bank account/cheque afterwards.

So you could say your take home is €650 but you wouldn't be telling the whole truth

jmayo

ssaye wrote: »

Its all relative, with deductions in the Public Sector at the moment somebody on 55k can be earning 650 per week. If you are now the sole income in your household with 3 kids on a 2000 euro mortgage you now have 600 a month to live. T...

55k a year and no debts, you're laughing.

So are wages and salaries now meant to be dictated by how much outgoings people have, rather than what they do, how valuable and in demand their skills are and how hard they work ?

Riskymove wrote: »

did someone say that?

on other threads I think the point was that someone on 55K said they could not afford a cut, given their particular circumstances

Must be a politican with a comment like that ?
As above are people's salaries and thus taxes meant to be determined by how much they spend, how much they are in hock because they don't know how to manage their money ?

muboop1 wrote: »

No but you should respect that all things are relative to your situation!

Yes true it is all relative.
People should learn not to often spend too much of other people's money and not get too far into debt :rolleyes:
Live within your means would be the first realtive lesson. :rolleyes:

nesf

Iago wrote: »

I completely agree, but in my experience people tend to discount these when stating what they take home and only include what actually arrives in their pay packet/bank account/cheque afterwards.

So you could say your take home is €650 but you wouldn't be telling the whole truth

I agree. They shouldn't call it their take home but they do. It's a bit like a private sector worker saying they only get X take home but not bothering to mention they're funding a good pension too.

LoLth

55k is a good wage. gimme.

However, as said by others in this thread, it really does depend on your circumstances (and yes, I know you dont get paid according to your circumstance but with the lack of other qualifiers - what skillset is involved? experience level? usefulness? then you have to take circumstance into account. The OPs question is too vague to determine if 55k is good on any level other than a personal one.)

Is it a good wage for someone working in manufacturing for one year: yes
Is it a good wage for a nuclear physcicist with 25 years experience: I would say no

Is it a high utility wage for a graduate with one year of experience?: yes
Is it a high utility wage for someone with 3 dependant children and a non-earning spouse? yes but nowhere near as much as the prior example.

a similar question would be: Is €1000 a good wage. the answer would have to be "depends on what its for".

Riskymove

Iago wrote: »

I completely agree, but in my experience people tend to discount these when stating what they take home and only include what actually arrives in their pay packet/bank account/cheque afterwards.

So you could say your take home is €650 but you wouldn't be telling the whole truth

well whatever about overlooking a weekly contribution to your health insurance or your union sub...i think if people are conveniently overlooking AVCs or savings etc that'd be very dishonest

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

Must be a politican with a comment like that ?
As above are people's salaries and thus taxes meant to be determined by how much they spend, how much they are in hock because they don't know how to manage their money ?

huh? whats all this about?


The OP aks "since when is 55k not a good wage?"


I asked did anyone say it wasn't?

avalon68

Riskymove wrote: »

huh? whats all this about?


The OP aks "since when is 55k not a good wage?"


I asked did anyone say it wasn't?

I was just going by the tone of that show last night where an individual who was earning 55k as a physio was indicating that under no circumstances could she afford to take a cut of any kind. I took from that, that she feels that 55K is not a great wage to begin with (Im not trying to start a public V private sector row ). I was just wondering if that was a common perception.

jmayo

Riskymove wrote: »

huh? whats all this about?


The OP aks "since when is 55k not a good wage?"


I asked did anyone say it wasn't?

Didn't you say something about on other threads people had argued that they couldn't afford to take cuts becuase of their circumstances and I said in reply to that comment, that the only ones I have heard saying that their circumstances didn't allow them take a cut were politicans.
A FG spokesperson, amongst others, used the line after Kenny took his own paycut.

Riskymove

jmayo wrote: »

Didn't you say something about on other threads people had argued that they couldn't afford to take cuts becuase of their circumstances and I said in reply to that comment, that the only ones I have heard saying that their circumstances didn't allow them take a cut were politicans.
A FG spokesperson, amongst others, used the line after Kenny took his own paycut.

No, i didnt say she could not take a paycut


as above, this woman said she cannot afford a paycut due to her circumstances, presumably her mortgage, other loans etc

it really has nothing to do with the salary being 55k or 100k or 20k or it being good or bad

I wanted to know if she, or anyone else on the show, suggested that 55k was not a good wage...its clear now that noone did

I am sure we could find people on 55k who have a great lifestyle and others on higher salaries who dont due to the variables at play

Bandit12

Since when was 30k not a good wage. I wish to god i could get a job with sheets like that.

ronbyrne2005

Salaries alone in public sector are miles ahead of the private BEFORE the brilliant lotto win style pension is factored in and the job security for life is factored in.
The Public sector workers texting radio shows and talking to media all seem to understate their income. Many have loan repayments,vhi etc deducted at source which means they bring home a lot less than Gross pay but all major bills are payed already.

I do feel sorry for those mainly young public servants on massive mortgages getting big cuts in net pay and maybe a scheme could be set up to stop any PS workers getting repossessed but even these younger public servants have it much better than their private sector equivalent who has high chance of unemployment etc.

irish_bob

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Salaries alone in public sector are miles ahead of the private BEFORE the brilliant lotto win style pension is factored in and the job security for life is factored in.
The Public sector workers texting radio shows and talking to media all seem to understate their income. Many have loan repayments,vhi etc deducted at source which means they bring home a lot less than Gross pay but all major bills are payed already.

I do feel sorry for those mainly young public servants on massive mortgages getting big cuts in net pay and maybe a scheme could be set up to stop any PS workers getting repossessed but even these younger public servants have it much better than their private sector equivalent who has high chance of unemployment etc.

they are well briefed by their unions on how to spin the figure re_ thier salary , its noticable how many of them quote NET salary , you get nurses talking about 600 a week net which is close to a grand a week gross , a guard in after hours claimed he was on 200 quid a week , turned out he was deducting his car insurance , hours insurance and mortgage repayments :eek:

SLUSK

thebiglad wrote: »

Yes €55k is a decent wage but...

If you suddenly receive that today - have previously earned €20k then happy days.

If however you previously earned more then you have probably cut your cloth based on the higher salary - it is more difficult and many previously higher earners have lost their jobs or seen their salary reduced.

Please do not start with the well I earned €27k and reduced to €x cos that is not the point I am going to make.

Based on the earnings of €55k pa rightly or wrongly they have probably gotten a mortgage which is around €2k per month in repayments. Add to that a car loan (which a lot of us have) and then the utility bills and basically they are no better off than the rest of us and have a lot further to fall if they do lose that €55kpa job - there are even less of them than there are in the €25k - €30k bracket

If you do not have a mortgage (or a lower cost mortgage) then it is very good, if not then it is possible to struggle with an income of €55k as much as the next guy - it is all relative.

Doubtless many will shoot down this logic as they do not believe anyone should be entitled to spend money on a larger house or earn such salaries but the question was, is this a good salary.

Answer yes but as I came in with, one adjusts living to their salary and it goes no further once the mortgage is paid.

No offense but if you get a loan to buy a car you're a moron. Why the hell would anyone take a loan to by a rapidly depreciating asset? There are cars for a couple of thousand euros you can afford to buy without a loan.