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
Primetime 24/11: Since when is 55,000 not a good wage?
Options
Comments
-
55K is a good wage, certainly not 'rich' territory though. As previous posts have mentioned, its all relative. I earn 55k but with a stay at home wife and 2 kids it does not keep me in a luxury lifestyle if you know what i mean.
Only having one person in the family working by choice would be a luxurious lifestyle for so many people.I guess during the 'boom' the more you earned the bigger your debt, house and car etc. so someone earning 30K may well be in the same boat as someone on 80K.
Not for those that didn't accept or go looking for loans.
The reality is many of these people will have to just accept that they are in financial difficulty and will likely lose their homes as there is no money to pay for their lifestyles which were unsustainable if any kind of cut will leave them unable to service their debt.
People that didn't buy into all that can't be expected to bail them out. Its not that I'm don't have any sympathy for them but people have to accept personal responsibility for their situations. The same people will demand other people take cuts in the form of wages or taxes so they don't have to so its all swings and round abouts.
Its not the end of the world to be in financial difficulties, its only money. People need to realise that an realise that they will be able to start over again after they get through the mess.
If someone can't budget to leave on 50K a year they have massive problems with managing their finances and probably shouldn't be trusted with a job with a level of responsibility that pays 50K a year if they believe wages can only go up and there is no such thing as rainy days.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30620
In all fairness- a lot of the problem is the perceived unfairness of our banks and financial institutions being bailed out, while the man on the street is left to fare for him/herself. Our personal bankruptcy laws (despite the 1994 revision) are still in the main based on Victorian law- holding a citizen responsible in whole for their debts for a 12 year period (during which time a person's salary, social welfare entitlements or pension may be purloined to satisfy the original debt, and a person may not hold a credit card, a bank overdraft or procure credit of any nature.
People were pushed into purchasing what was very often, wholly unsuitable property- on the premise that if they didn't 'get their foot on the property ladder' they would never be able to. This was hammered home in the Irish psyche by pronouncements from gombeen politicians- and a media who had a stake in the effervescent property sector.
There are a whole generation of folk out there living in largely unsuitable accommodation- barely able to keep their heads above the water, often with loans and credit that was procurred during the good times- when there were multiple incomes in a household, now down to a single income, with interest rate rises on the horizon, and the certainty that their property is in negative equity.
This is across the board- people in all walks of life are affected similarly. Those who either out of choice never purchased property- or were incapable of doing so- are in fact the lucky ones.
People in the public and private sector need to stop sniping at each other, and pressurise their elected representatives to revisit Irish personal bankruptcy law- perhaps based on the UK model (on which most of our statute book is based anyhow).
The unfairness of the elite getting off scott free- while the ordinary folk and indeed future generations are left to shoulder the price of our irrational exuberance, is the issue. It suits politicians and others to have ordinary folk hurl abuse at each other- when Sean Dunne and others are getting their billions safeguarded........0 -
Here's the link to Primetime, http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1124/primetime_av.html?2655602,null,230
Hilarious, the poor mouth stories.0 -
The OP asked the question and you have your answer. It works out at 3,400 a month, http://www.hookhead.com/Tools/tax2009b.jsp.
Anyone who says it is not a good wage is lying.
There's something wrong with that calculator. I put in my salary and it says I earn €400 more a month than I do. It seems to overestimate monthly take home pay.0 -
There's something wrong with that calculator. I put in my salary and it says I earn €400 more a month than I do. It seems to overestimate monthly take home pay.
Try this one? http://www.taxcalc.eu/
This gives 3209 per mth, still a very good wage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Try this one? http://www.taxcalc.eu/
This gives 3209 per mth, still a very good wage.
As a public sector worker, taking into account my only voluntary deduction from my salary is a Taxsaver travel pass it still overestimates my salary by just over €200 a month. The calculator is wrong or I am being done each month by payroll. Better get my calculator out over the weekend.
One other point. Haven't previous threads demonstrated that it is possible to pull in excess the equivalent of a €55,000 salary when unemployed with 2 children?0 -
The calculator does not take into account tax free allowances, unless you explicitly add them in, not does it take into account (for the public service) spouse and child pension contribution, standard pension contribution (not in the levy but the actual contribution which contrary to much believe public servants do contribute to) as well as other "personal choice" deductions.
I would think that the guy earning 55k, saying he takes home 650 a week isnt lying. the taxcalc may say he should be taking home more, but it wouldnt allow for pension and spouse and child pension contribution which would probably make up the difference between both figures.
Sorry, that was an aside.
55k is a very good wage, as said, whether it is enough to live on is completely dependent on circumstances.0 -
Sarn wrote:As a public sector worker, taking into account my only voluntary deduction from my salary is a Taxsaver travel pass it still overestimates my salary by just over €200 a month. The calculator is wrong or I am being done each month by payroll. Better get my calculator out over the weekend.
It does take into account the pension levy, just tick the box. Its nearly 200 quid less at 3056. Still 3k a month which is a very good wage to have a good lifestyle.kippy wrote:The calculator does not take into account tax free allowances, unless you explicitly add them in, not does it take into account (for the public service) spouse and child pension contribution, standard pension contribution (not in the levy but the actual contribution which contrary to much believe public servants do contribute to) as well as other "personal choice" deductions.
I would think that the guy earning 55k, saying he takes home 650 a week isnt lying. the taxcalc may say he should be taking home more, but it wouldnt allow for pension and spouse and child pension contribution which would probably make up the difference between both figures.
Ah, that pension thing again. You pay what you contribute to your pension like everyone else. Its a personal expense.
650 a week is 2600 a mth after extra personal expenses, anymore we should deduct to make 55k a bad wage? :rolleyes:kippy wrote:55k is a very good wage, as said, whether it is enough to live on is completely dependent on circumstances.
Circumstances which are personal spending habits hence that personal responsibility thing which soley relies on the person who took out the debts in the first place, not the employer paying the wages.0 -
Gurramok,It does take into account the pension levy, just tick the box. Its nearly 200 quid less at 3056. Still 3k a month which is a very good wage to have a good lifestyle.
Ah, that pension thing again. You pay what you contribute to your pension like everyone else. Its a personal expense.
650 a week is 2600 a mth after extra personal expenses, anymore we should deduct to make 55k a bad wage? :rolleyes:
Circumstances which are personal spending habits hence that personal responsibility thing which soley relies on the person who took out the debts in the first place, not the employer paying the wages.
Stop being so defensive. I amnt saying its not a personal expense or anything else, just point out where he is losing that extra few euros between that the taxcalc said he should be taking home and what he said he was taking home. No need for the roll eyes either......
The pension contribution is not a "personal choice" per se in the public sector, it is taken off whether you want it taken off or not. I do realise it is differed income, but seriously am just pointing out where the discrepancies in figures are coming from.
"You pay what you contribute" - indeed you do.......
I never said 55k wasnt a bad wage either.........
Seriously take the blinkers off and at least read what people post........
Totally agree with the last part however lots and lots of circumstances hit people which are not personal spending habits........not condoning it, just saying that for some people 55k is not enough to live on, for the majority I would hope it would be well more than enough.......0 -
Is €55k a good wage? In the private sector, that depends entirely on your skills, experience, abilities & market forces. It also depends on what YOU consider a good wage. For a cleaner, it would be amazing. For a highly qualified & experienced architect, it wouldn't.0
-
Advertisement
-
starbelgrade wrote: »Is €55k a good wage? In the private sector, that depends entirely on your skills, experience, abilities & market forces. It also depends on what YOU consider a good wage. For a cleaner, it would be amazing. For a highly qualified & experienced architect, it wouldn't.
I'd say many architects would do anything for that kind of money at the moment.0 -
+1 times ten thousand
im sick of all this , but is it a good wage for someone with ten kids business , if we were to set wage levels based on a persons expense commitments , it would open up can of worms with countless implications
I'm not quite sure what you think you are sick of.
No one is suggesting that people should be paid on their "expense commitments"0 -
For a highly qualified & experienced architect, it wouldn't.
This is not in the least bit relevant to the thread. It doesnt realy matter what an architect "expects" the question is this: for a generic person on 55K is that a liveable wage, sure it is.0 -
This is not in the least bit relevant to the thread. It doesnt realy matter what an architect "expects" the question is this: for a generic person on 55K is that a liveable wage, sure it is.
Just because you have decided it's irrelevant, doesn't make it so. And the question was not if €55k is a liveable wage, but a good wage.
Personally, I would think it is liveable as I could probably get by on it, but I wouldn't consider it a good wage for what I do.0 -
Personally, I would think it is liveable, but I wouldn't consider it a good wage for what I do.
The thread title is not, however, Since when is 55,000 not a good wage ( except for people like starbelgrade).
I have no idea what you do, I imagine you are in the protected sector, however. And you are not "owed" anything. in fact society should be trying to reduce the wages of protected professionals, if anything.0 -
The thread title is not, however, Since when is 55,000 not a good wage ( except for people like starbelgrade).
I have no idea what you do, I imagine you are in the protected sector, however. And you are not "owed" anything. in fact society should be trying to reduce the wages of protected professionals, if anything.
I don't work in a protected sector, nor am I a protected professional - I own & run my own design company and my income is as it is, not because I work hard, not because I have a good client base (though these are factors), but because of the market forces ie., because what people are willing to pay for my work, make it so.
The public sector has benchmarking, but the private sector pay is determined by what people are willing or able to pay for their goods & services. That is a free market.
And to answer the original question - since when is €55k not a good wage? I can only speak for myself, and my answer would be... around about 2003.0 -
Fair enough SB - I believe that entrepreneurs deserve whatever they earn since they create employment and generate tax via wages and profits.
2003 is coming back next year in terms of house prices, and other things. Unfortunately 1992 is coming back in terms of tax.0 -
Fair enough SB - I believe that entrepreneurs deserve whatever they earn since they create employment and generate tax via wages and profits.
One of the sad things is though, is the amount of taxes that we've been allowed to write off for years - all legally too. When times were good for the economy, tax bills went down, when they should have been going up. It seems that the more you could afford to pay, the less you had to - especially if your accountant was any good.2003 is coming back next year in terms of house prices, and other things. Unfortunately 1992 is coming back in terms of tax.
I'm not bothered - I'll be too busy out, buying up reposessed homes at knockdown prices! I'm joking about that - but I know of a few people who are planning to this over the next while. I find it abhorrent that we've let the country get to the stage where these practises will soon be commonplace.
Whilst I've benefitted greatly from this country, I hate how it has been mismanaged, run into the ground & now set worker against worker, when the real issues are being completely avoided.
It wouldn't surprise me if the government organised the floods as a smokescreen for the budget (OK, maybe not, but you get my drift).0 -
whilst I personally can't recall anyone on the program saying that 55,000 wasn't a good wage the teacher and the physio clearly weren't on prime time to tell everyone about the great wages they were getting in the public sector!
I do recall Peter Mcloone saying that anyone earning less than 60k could be considered lower paid.0 -
starbelgrade wrote: »It wouldn't surprise me if the government organised the floods as a smokescreen for the budget (OK, maybe not, but you get my drift).
Hah! The floods have been bringing worker and worker together! Any comment I've heard about public servants since has been prefaced with, except for those emergency workers, it's a sin to cut their wages, and similar. We've had public and private sector workers pitching in and getting what needed to be done done down here in Cork and in the South and West in general. Etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hah! The floods have been bringing worker and worker together! Any comment I've heard about public servants since has been prefaced with, except for those emergency workers, it's a sin to cut their wages, and similar. We've had public and private sector workers pitching in and getting what needed to be done done down here in Cork and in the South and West in general. Etc.
Cool. Sad that it had to take a national (or partly national) natural disaster for that to happen, but that's cool. If only everyone could see that the country is drowning in other ways & pull together in the same way.0 -
€100,000 is not 'rich' when the bills are huge
By Charlie Weston, Personal Finance Editor
Thursday November 26 2009
IF only someone had told me. I was rich before my wife was laid off from her job at the start of this year, but no one bothered to let me in on it.
There we were struggling to meet the repayments on our jumbo mortgage, pay our creche costs and other bills and we were rich all along and we did not know it.
Because when Emer still had a job we earned just more than €100,000 combined -- what appears to be the Greens' definition of being rich.
According to the deputy leader of the Greens, Mary White TD, those on more than €100,000 are the well-off.
Asked on the 'The Week In Politics' on RTE television by Sean O'Rouke what her definition of very wealthy was, Ms White replied: "Well, anyone earning over €100,000."
What was not clear was if this is made up of two incomes or one.
The indications are that in the Budget child benefit will be altered and will be paid at three levels -- one for low-income families, one for middle-income and one for the well-off.
These people are likely to see their monthly child benefit payments cut in half.
The idea that someone on €100,000 is "very wealthy" is simplistic, to put it kindly. To be more crude about it, it is economic illiteracy.
The reality is that most families on that sort of an income -- whether there are two or just one earner in the household -- are drowning in a sea of debt.
They are the very ones who heeded the calls to borrow and borrow heavily. So they have jumbo mortgages from buying or trading up at the height of the boom. They are now likely to be stuck in negative equity.
OK, they made a mistake by over-borrowing, but they have to live with that now.
They are also likely to be in deep when it comes to credit card debts and overdrafts.
And childcare is a massive expenditure for families with young children.
Monthly childcare costs of €800 per child in Dublin, and €700 to €750 a child outside the capital are fairly typical, according to the head of policy at the National Women's Council, Orla O'Connor.
A family with three children will be shelling out €2,100 a month if both parents are lucky enough to be in a job.
If both of these parents are earning €50,000 they will be judged, it appears, as wealthy, according to the deputy leader of the junior coalition party.
Mortgage
Tax, the cruel income levy, the health levy, and PRSI will leave this family with an after-tax income of around €74,000.
But what really matters when it comes to family finance is what you have left after tax, after paying your mortgages and after meeting other big bills like childcare and health insurance. This means that a couple grossing €60,000, but whose mortgage is low or paid off, will be far better off than a €100,000 couple with a big mortgage and childcare costs.
The really rich are able to employ clever accountants to keep their tax bills down.
No so for the "mugs" in the middle. And that includes those on €100,000 and over.
Cutting their child benefit in half might just push many of these "very wealthy" families over the edge financially.
Politicians who think that a family on €100,000 is very rich really need to get out more.
- Charlie Weston, Personal Finance Editor
Irish Independent
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/8364100000-is-not-rich-when-the-bills-are-huge-1953730.html
Now, to me 100k is a very good household income. But the article is saying that it doesn't get you very far, and the two examples given are child care and mortgage repayments.
In the case of mortgage repayments, its pretty obvious that people were buying in an inflated market because of easy credit, and I don't have too much sympathy for these people. But the government could implement a policy so this doesn't happen again by setting regulations as to how much people can borrow, or over how long a term. Personally I think a 25 year term should be the maximum, and only being able to borrow 80% of the purchase price.
With regards to childcare, perhaps there could be more competition in the market? I don't know too much about it, how they operate, how many children to minder etc, but having lived abroad, I have never heard the same groaning about it as I do in this country. Other countries seem to be able to get on with it ok, so why can't we?
I think in general, we really have to look at our costs in this country. The wages some people earn are very good, but costs have gone out of control in recent years, both by our own standards and internationally. For example, a litre of petrol here costs around E1.20 here, yet in Australia, it costs around $1.20. Given the exchange difference, why is something that is not produced in either country, and merely imported so much more expensive here?0 -
Alway's makes me giggle when i see someone on a huge wage 50k-100k try and say it's not a big wage by throwing in "the child minding fees" or "the huge mortgage". Don't these people realise that people on an ordinary wage have these overheads also.0
-
With a single income of €100k, childcare costs nothing because one parent isn't working so theres no need for it.With regards to childcare, perhaps there could be more competition in the market? I don't know too much about it, how they operate, how many children to minder etc, but having lived abroad, I have never heard the same groaning about it as I do in this country. Other countries seem to be able to get on with it ok, so why can't we?
With 2 incomes adding up to 100k, paying €1200 per month on childcare (average for 3 kids) accounts for ~25% of their gross earnings, as there is no tax relief on childcare - even though it is an expense directly related to having a job.
Goes right back to the way the government are trying to arrange the economy - into single income families.
Take a simple example:
A 2 income family earning €50k each find they've reached a taxation / cost of working situation where they will actually have more money in their pocket if one of them quits. That person won't be entitled to any social welfare as their spouse is still earning €50k.
A person on the dole takes the job, taking 2 people off the live register (newly employed worker + spouse).
Looks great, doesn't it - the live register is down and it cost us nothing.
*But* the tax take on those two jobs is massively reduced, both families are now in the lower tax bracket. Further, the childcare facility is down €14.4k a year (not sure if there is VAT on childcare) - this is the bulk of a minimum wage job.
At best, this re-arrangement of jobs is income-neutral for the government.0 -
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/8364100000-is-not-rich-when-the-bills-are-huge-1953730.html
Now, to me 100k is a very good household income. But the article is saying that it doesn't get you very far, and the two examples given are child care and mortgage repayments.
In the case of mortgage repayments, its pretty obvious that people were buying in an inflated market because of easy credit, and I don't have too much sympathy for these people.
I think that is being very simplisitic as my example will demonstrate.
I was going to buy in 2001 which was about 5 or so years of large property inflation. The prices that were being asked for then were in my opinon way over the top. Something like £145k for a 3 bed in an alright part of Tallaght. I thougth then that they were over priced so I said shag that and went travelling for a couple of years with the house deposit (I was young enough).
When we came back prices had only continued to go up and there was no sign that they would stabalise any time soon. So, we made a decision and bought in 2003. We did not overstretch and were (and still are) very comfortable with our mortgage repayements. We still ended up paying 70k more for a house in a commuter county which was a lot smaller than the one we originally looked at.
Unfortunately, until 2005 (at least) there was no signs of the market evening out - it looked like it was going to continue to raise for some time (remember our lending policies were nowhere near as aggressive as some other countries). Apart from "odd-balls" on the internet, no one thought we were headed for a crash (except maybe McWilliams who just thought if he predicted a crash enough times he would eventually be right).
So, people had a choice - if I had of waited for the crash I would have being waiting 6 years (from when I first wanted to buy in 2001). But then I would still have to be renting today as prices are still going down. So, all in all, I would probably have to wait from 2001 till 2011 to buy. While economically that may make sense, in the real world with families and commitments, it doesn't.
I think that people who make comments about no sympathy for people who bought an small to average house may be a little wet behind the ears.0 -
tomcollins97 wrote: »How would you have got a mortgage costing 2000 a month on a 55k salary?
pretty easily... I had an 1800 month habit on half that salary...0 -
I think that is being very simplisitic as my example will demonstrate.
I was going to buy in 2001 which was about 5 or so years of large property inflation. The prices that were being asked for then were in my opinon way over the top. Something like £145k for a 3 bed in an alright part of Tallaght. I thougth then that they were over priced so I said shag that and went travelling for a couple of years with the house deposit (I was young enough).
When we came back prices had only continued to go up and there was no sign that they would stabalise any time soon. So, we made a decision and bought in 2003. We did not overstretch and were (and still are) very comfortable with our mortgage repayements. We still ended up paying 70k more for a house in a commuter county which was a lot smaller than the one we originally looked at.
Unfortunately, until 2005 (at least) there was no signs of the market evening out - it looked like it was going to continue to raise for some time (remember our lending policies were nowhere near as aggressive as some other countries). Apart from "odd-balls" on the internet, no one thought we were headed for a crash (except maybe McWilliams who just thought if he predicted a crash enough times he would eventually be right).
So, people had a choice - if I had of waited for the crash I would have being waiting 6 years (from when I first wanted to buy in 2001). But then I would still have to be renting today as prices are still going down. So, all in all, I would probably have to wait from 2001 till 2011 to buy. While economically that may make sense, in the real world with families and commitments, it doesn't.
I think that people who make comments about no sympathy for people who bought an small to average house may be a little wet behind the ears.
I think plenty of people knew that there was a bubble, yet bought because of fear (if I don't buy now they will just become more expensive), or greed (property prices keep going up so I need to get in on it now).
I'm 28, so maybe am a little wet behind the ears. But I don't see the obsession with property. I mentioned that I'm just back from Australia, and few of my bosses there owned their own houses/apartments. All had good jobs (I'm an accountant), but were happy to rent. Some had ambitions to buy, but were not going to do so at any cost, something that is quite different (I think) to Ireland.
If someone took out a 2k a month mortgage, they should have planned for the possibility their earnings might go down. People over the last few years here have been expecting the sun, moon and stars, which was just plain wrong.
As I said before, the government should have had tighter regulations in place regarding lending criteria. But at the same time, people have to live by the decisions they make.0 -
I was a bit shocked last night to hear that 55,000 is not considered a good wage to some people. Personally I would consider this person to be a high earner. If I earned that much I would consider myself rich! I'm interested to hear other peoples views on this. Have people gone money mad here?
Sorta depends really, if you done your LC and got a job in Supervalu then 55K is great, if you went to college for 6 years then 55K is probably average0 -
I posted this in the teacher thread but i suppose its as appropriate here
Any teacher on point 14 in the salary scale will be on 60k, in lay mans terms those with 11 years experience, so any 35 year old teacher basically.
2 married 35 year old teachers will probably have 120k as a gross income.
In fact its kind of ironic that the unions want to tax the rich, i.e those earning over 100k but they forget that now because our PS is soooo overpaid that a lot of married PS couples will be "RICH", basically any 35 year old couple who are teachers, nurses, Gardai are rich as defined by the unions and Greens it seems0 -
Advertisement
-
I think plenty of people knew that there was a bubble, yet bought because of fear (if I don't buy now they will just become more expensive), or greed (property prices keep going up so I need to get in on it now).
I'm 28, so maybe am a little wet behind the ears. But I don't see the obsession with property. I mentioned that I'm just back from Australia, and few of my bosses there owned their own houses/apartments. All had good jobs (I'm an accountant), but were happy to rent. Some had ambitions to buy, but were not going to do so at any cost, something that is quite different (I think) to Ireland.
If someone took out a 2k a month mortgage, they should have planned for the possibility their earnings might go down. People over the last few years here have been expecting the sun, moon and stars, which was just plain wrong.
As I said before, the government should have had tighter regulations in place regarding lending criteria. But at the same time, people have to live by the decisions they make.
You might be a bit wet behind the ears:D but certainly not when it comes to property, more specifically a home. If more people had your attitude the housing bubble might never have happened, and we might not be in as big a mess as we are
Oh but wait isn't rent dead money according to the smart people:rolleyes:0
Advertisement