Inflation has hit, $200K is no longer rich. I'm interested in hearing about people who earn more than $300K/year.
What was your journey? How did you get there?
What Jobs Pay $300K a Year?
pollambo on 13/07/2022 - 14:31
Comments
Designed that way because there is always relationships that calls for one parent should "provide for the family" while the other one complains about not having enough super in retirement due to looking after children. Which just screws single income twice, because they need to pay for 2 in retirement too. (Notice I am agnostic about which gender looks after children)
Agree, but stage 3 tax cuts are coming in a few years which will mainly benefit higher income earners.
@netjock: 7.5%, which is not to be sniffed at IMO.
I think of it as a nice holiday somewhere. Awesome.
7.5%, which is not to be sniffed at IMO
I agree. But back to my previous point. At $300k single income so much stuff goes pear shaped. Your super contribution is one thing.
You’ll generally pay just 15% tax (or 30% tax if your income is greater than $250,000) on superannuation contributions made from your pre-tax salary, including employer Super Guarantee and salary sacrifice contributions
Did you also know that child care subsidy is worked out not on your taxable income but add back in all your salary sacrificed super plus other things like investment losses here
That said. Better off running a business and making $300k than collecting a $300k salary.
Which is about the same as 2 people making $120k each 2x $80.6k take home.
Does not work that way, especially for couples with children. You haven't factored in housekeeping, cleaning, dining out, childcare etc costs when both parents are working full time. A big portion of the second salary will be spent away. It's not worth the hassle from a purely financial point of view.
You haven't factored in housekeeping, cleaning, dining out, childcare
Childcare: if you other half stays at home there is 0% rebate. Only if you are working you'd get a rebate. $300k family income get no rebate (until they change it). Child care without rebate is $30k (48 weeks x $125 a day).
Two people making $120k will get $15k rebate for each child. If you got 2 kids there is $30k of value there.
$15k enough for your house keeping, cleaning and eating out. It is $288 per week.
The government thanks you for making $300k, paying 30% super contribution tax, not getting child care subsidy and looking after kids full time.
Child care without rebate is $30k
will get $15k rebate for each child.That calculation doesn't make any sense. You must first spend $30k to get a $15k rebate. That's a net loss. You are assuming that all children must go to childcare, every day, even when one parent stays at home.
You are assuming that all children must go to childcare
You told me that what about cost of child care?
You haven't factored in housekeeping, cleaning, dining out, childcare etc costs
Don't mention it and then start telling me it doesn't count.
So what you're saying is. One person work for $300k and take home $168k and one person sit at home. Look after a child (assume $30k of value, clean the house etc) is a better deal?
You assume $300k jobs are as abundant as $120k jobs.
What have you got against families with 2 working parents?
Don't mention it and then start telling me it doesn't count.
You should read my comments in their entirety, but I guess you are only writing to win an argument.
So what you're saying is. One person work for $300k and take home $168k and one person sit at home. Look after a child (assume $30k of value, clean the house etc) is a better deal?
What I'm saying is that your calculation is wrong, because it doesn't take into account the extra costs that arise when both parents work.
You assume $300k jobs are as abundant as $120k jobs.
The feasibility of finding jobs is irrelevant. We are comparing 1 person @300K vs 2 people @120k each from a financial/tax perspective.
What have you got against families with 2 working parents?
Too lazy to answer this as it's a dumb question, but it's already answered here.
You should read my comments in their entirety, but I guess you are only writing to win an argument.
So since it was my first reply I assume you wanted to argue with me.
I assume you wrote back because you think there is a point to argue.
What I'm saying is that your calculation is wrong, because it doesn't take into account the extra costs that arise when both parents work.
You think there is no extra cost when only 1 parent works and the other one is just spending money? You don't think the other parents is going to stay at home and looking after children and house work for free do you? Good luck finding a partner that is going to be your servant.
Drug Dealer.
Inflation has hit, $200K is no longer rich.
LMAO!
Not mine.
Marrying and being cheated on by Bezos pays at least 300k a year.
Elon Musk child support recipient
He intended to buy my business but did not proceed.
He such a twitt.
er.. What a twitt…er?
If you think $200k is no longer rich, you have bigger problems.
It never was. Wealth is about assets not income.
200k is not rich. You're paying 65k of that in tax. Look at the cost of a mortgage, raising 3 kids and sending them to activities after school, utility costs through the roof, etc. For some reason the government thinks it's OK to discriminate against breadwinners and offer two parents making 100k each a free ride.
I cannot for the life of me understand how someone on 200k a year can be resentful of a couple on 100k each. Its so backwards, the only reason we give a damn about 120K+ incomes are the property prices are insurmountable as a direct result of government policy.
Well how about this…… As a family we put far less strain on the childcare system, we don't send our kids to school sick to get all other families sick because we've got no option to care for them, we have to have far more stressful jobs than we would otherwise need to. Yet we're still not asking for better tax treatment, just fair treatment. Give me one good reason why a family income should be taxed differently? It's easy to imagine those being resentful when you're paying 20 or 30k more in tax each year for no reason.
Sydney Harbour Bridge Flagpole Builders
Barillaro Flag Co
Mates of politicians
IT contractor 1600 day rate
This.
That's not quite the same as a FT permanent. There are lots of expenses for a contractor that are normally covered by a company. Plus less obvious perks of being an employee of a good company.
But I can see why you would go for the money instead!
what expenses ?
I have none.
other than no sick leave or annual leave or super. but the above rate on a 39 week year is 312k take of 10% for super, still comes to 280k for working 9 months
Expenses like laptops, training, certifications, car.
The extra pay far outweighs that though!I just want to feel better about being an employee…
@Murdrum: laptop : provided by client, no competent company will make you use your own.
certifications / training : haven't paid for any in the last 20 years. so much free material on the internet. Paid for my own master degree but my choice.
car : being a contractor doesn't require you to have a car, your lifestyle dictates that.if you have enough buffer contracting is awesome. more variety, you don't feel trapped, you actually feel less bothered by work polotics you do better
Which IT profiles get that kind of rates? 5-7% of all?
yeh its better than FT employment
no politics, can take leave more often, can simply not re-sign if you hate the place, more variety, no feeling of "this place sucks this is forever"
what are you doing to get 1600 a day?
@fox81: i don't get that much, but good cyber security analysts, solution architects, cloud engineers, project managers that are really good can get 1200+
many jobs at 1200pd+ ~ 300k
some are 1400pd.my old work colleague gets 1600 pd doing cyber security consulting / contracting.
if you can get base line clearance and work for the federal gov you can get more again
You need to be really good at what you do to get this sort of rate, I know few guys who are basically carrying the whole backend in org and getting paid like $100-$150 hour and these are the guys if they quit and there is outage, no one will have any idea what’s going on.
@RobotWizard: If they wrote good code it would be easy enough for someone to work it out quick.
There is always an incentive for long termers to write convoluted spaghetti code as it's an insurance policy, but someone can always learn it
This is surprisingly accessible for people with strong tech backgrounds. Not easy, but definitely possible.
Minus GST, minus Super, minus Pay loss for sick and annual leave + risk of employment loss … Don't always go by the cover of the book.
Minus GST - no gst payable if doing payg
minus Super - yes
minus Pay loss for sick and annual leave - only if you take it
risk of employment loss - every job has this risk, if your good you move on quickly anyway.contractor will come out ahead, but it also gives variety, no feeling of being trapped, more freedom to take longer vacations, random days off
Contracting is good for people who suffer stress from their jobs, especially if you are there for a short time. Don't get as affected by the issues of the place and office politics.
@Yola: I don't suffer stress.
I like variety, better pay, not feeling locked in, getting paid overtime, meeting more people, getting more skills, taking 3 months off when I feel like it.And contracting be a lot more stressful as you need to learn / deliver quicker, you dontnet covered by company insurance, must perform better etc
Sign up for three wfh jobs
…. then outsource offshore. Profit
And here I am thinking "rich" is a function of wealth, not income.
This, yes.
drug dealer…pharmacist
Full time prostitute seven days a week.
you speak from experience? LOL
I wish! May as well get funked and paid for it!
Your legs would be open 24x7
Not if you're good at it.
Unless you're on onlyfans
This is how to lose thousands a week - wrong thread
A high school friend of mine makes 300k + a year.
I remember he was dux of our school and got a TER of 100, or maybe it was 99.95. This was in the late 1990s.
Anyway, he ended up doing engineering at uni and then went to work in Perth for a year. We still wrote each other letters then lol
He came back to NSW and got married. I went to his wedding as we had known each other since primary school.
He was the one that got away! (I'm female btw).
He works for RIO TINTO and gets paid the big bucks to travel and all sorts. He's in Mongolia at the moment and works there sometimes. His wife gave him three boys and every push present is a Chanel hand bag, so I missed out lol If you are willing to travel then the big bucks are there.Another family friend of mine makes $300k a year also. He is an investment banker. When he got married, he already owned his house mortgage free and had just knocked it down to rebuild a new one. His new wife had NO money and he wasn't happy about that but they have two kids now.
We're in our 40s. FYI.
It's possible to earn that kind of money but obviously you have to be somewhat educated.
You can also earn big money with FIFO jobs (fly in, fly out) in the mining industry but it's too sad I think to be away from family for long periods of time. A month working and then 2 weeks at home etc. 16 hours a day too.
It might be worth it if you're still relatively young. However, miners struggle with mental health issues and such a tough job like a lot of industries.
Another friend of mine works in Muswellbrook NSW and earns big money too but he had to relocate there. Mining is where the money is.you can earn 300k a year wfh too. no need to fifo / travel
Another family friend of mine makes $300k a year also. He is an investment banker.
Not a very successful investment banker then. Or is that US dollars.
If you're any good at math be a trader at investment bank, you basically get a good cut of what you make for the bank.
Also if you are any good as a portfolio manager (funds management, not a financial planner)
'A month working and then 2 weeks at home etc. 16 hours a day too.'
Most swings are much less than that. 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off is common, as is 4/3/5/2 days. It's also 12hr days not 16. For many people the lifestyle is great as it gives them, say, 2 weeks at home, enabling them to get a lot done. I've done it but ATM it's not for me but may do it again in the future. No need right now as there is plenty of work in the city (WFH actually).
I really like the FIFO lifestyle but it's not right at the moment for me personally at the moment either.
I'd been working FIFO in mining for 10 years up until 6 months ago when I took a Perth based gig. Very few people would be earning 300k; management, senior supervisors, senior operators and senior technical specialists. Very few people work the sort of roster you describe too. Maybe in FIFO construction but no one would work that in mining these days. 8/6 is pretty much the standard now. I was going to say no one does 16 hour days either, but I did one yesterday flying in and out on the same day for a project.
Why write letters? MIRC was all the rage late 90's, god I wasted so many hours on that thing, maybe why I didn't end up being someone on 300k+
MiRC was awesome
working in Mongolia sounds a bit like FiFO….
No offense to him but someone who got a TER of 100 could do a hell alot better than $300k lmao.
Some of the people I know who got close to that are easily making way more than 1M either as a specialist doctor, IB/PE nerd and a HF trader by the time you hit mid 30s.
I must be the only one who can answer your question seriously!
Maybe the only one who didn't realise it's just a troll question?
I genuinely appreciate your input. Don't mind the trolls
Thanks x
Also, another good job to have is being a Barrister at law. They like to charge a few thousand dollars for a day's work. You will need to be a lawyer first.
Good luck.
A friend of mine is a barrister in his mid 30s who went straight to the bar. He's doing ok last time I spoke to him.
But to get to SC level, it takes years and a shitload of stress.
I thought you had to be a solicitor for 5 years first, but I don't know.
Senior Counsel is ok. You want to be QC (Queen's Counsel) and wear the wig!It's more like you probably should be a solicitor first for at least 5 years before going to the bar. Reason being that you'd be building up your network and skills during this time so that when you need work as a barrister, you know solicitors who will brief you.
SC and QC is the same thing. QC is just the older version of SC so only barristers who got it before 1993 have retained that title.
@tallkid123: I can't speak for every state in Australia but in Victoria you can take the title of SC or QC. At certain point in time there was KC but I don't think there are any of those alive still.
who went straight to the bar.
Yes, practising law can drive you to drink at an early age.
"Also, another good job to have is being a Barrister at law. They like to charge a few thousand dollars for a day's work. You will need to be a lawyer first."
A few thousand? Must not be any good. A mate makes $8k/day and only works a few days a week. Some 'days' he is in court he is done and dusted by 10am…
Like any job, it depends on experience. You can charge $650 an hour or $5,000 a day. More if you have more experience. Barristers give specialised advice, and if you really want and need one… They are not all the same, mate.
Also, I said a few thousand. Not one or two.
You may have to sell your soul though and be pretty shameless about charging clients. Especially if you are in family law where you are often just leeching off naive stressed people who have no experience navigating the dysfunctional legal system here. The actual work involved is mostly common sense reasoning, you just have to know the procedural rules of the game.
Yup.. a lot of work (overcharging) which your heart and morale won't allow. Who likes ripping off people in pain, stress, trouble and sometimes in poverty too!
i cant even get a credit card approved lately
Maybe it's because you're only about 3 years old
And you haven't eaten your peas. Peas are good for you.
No no no, I don't like them eww
Looks like it. The OP will post for $400k jobs next year.
Seems like a good topic to refresh every year.
Any sort of judge, commissioner for something or private high school principal pays about $500,000 per year and a job for life.
The easy big bucks are in the public service or semi-government roles. CEO of a council, Vice-Chancellor at any Uni, everyone at NBN, SES in the public service all pay 2x for 1/10 of the responsibility as private enterprise …. and if you fail, just remember to fall up and you could be the next PM!
Agree, quasi government is the place to be (Authorities etc.)
Private levels of pay, government work levels.
Absolutely agree. The tax system punishes families with a single high income earner.