$150,000 per annum according to the article below. Not sure if it is referring to combined household income or salary per person.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/middle-class-au…
Salary to Be Considered Middle Class
mrvaluepack on 24/10/2023 - 12:07
Comments
Typical News.com
Who?
Clickbaitrubbish.com
I dunno. It's easy to write her off as a vapid cringemonger by simply pointing out everything she's ever written. But I actually have a lot of awe for the kind of chutzpah required to sit around getting paid actual cash for the 'job' of having ChatGPT write me summaries of things that I saw on Reddit that morning.
haha yeah as long as you got thick skin, it is kind of like living the dream huh.
getting paid to write rage bait.bro here i am giving it away for free on ozbargain :(
There's no chutzpah at all; it's a clickbait position and there's hundreds (if not thousands) of other writers/journalists who would take her role in a heartbeat.
there's hundreds (if not thousands) of other writers/journalists who would take her role in a heartbeat.
And these days, more than a few chatbots, too.
@whatwasherproblem: Yeah, NewsCorp revealed recently they'd been using bots to write local content for a few years (weather, sporting results, usually template stuff).
This is why we shouldn't be regarding this sort of thing as an affront or "cheeky pretend-journo antics", it's an established part of their business now.
It's the same as "how can that person call themselves a labourer if they're using wheelbarrows and dollycarts, we didn't have those when I did it" thinking
@CrowReally: So they are using bots, but still having spelling and grammatical errors?
That is impressive.
@Tiggrrrrr: They've also outsourced their subeditor roles, so all sorts of stupid mistakes and typos are going to print as well (Even 9 years ago the front page of the Australian Financial Review ran "World is fukt" as a front page headline).
So yeah, all sorts of bad results.
NewsCorp revealed recently they'd been using bots to write local content for a few years (weather, sporting results, usually template stuff).
This makes sense if you ever read Fox sports articles on NBA trades etc. They are are super long winded, repetitive, and often just don't make any sense.
chutzpah
TIL a new word and it perfectly describes this "journalist".
Do you have the same awe towards serial killers, petty thieves and people who take candy from babies?
Babies shouldn't have candy and I should. Taking it is easy for a hero like me!
That particular 'reporter' specialises in click-bait nonsense.
I wish they would put the writer's byline on the front page so I know to avoid this person's 'stories'.
The extent of her reporting is 'gossip on socials is X, now let me share my Millenial childhood memories about this thing'…Hehe, yeah i usually read this for 'entertainment' purposes as well. I refer to ABS stats for facts.
has to be a dual income at 150k, so 75k each parent.
i would consider this to be upper middle and not rich in australia.dual income $100k in the usa would be rich, lol. realistically 80k in the usa would be upper middle class. probably 60k would be middle class.
dual income $100k in the usa would be rich, lol. realistically 80k in the usa would be upper middle class. probably 60k would be middle class.
Shirley you jest.
Dual 60K is probably scraping by unless you're in some low cost of living area. Dual 100K is probably scraping by if you're in SFO/Palo Alto.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or know nothing about US living expenses. Stuff is seriously cheap over there if you shop around and/or use slickdeals (closest ozbargain equivalent).
At the same time as that taxes are much lower across all brackets even in Cali, and you’re in a lower bracket to start with thanks to that strong dollar.
There are people scraping by on minimal wages (30k+30k)in SF, LA or SD, so if you’re on 100k x2 you can go rent a house for 4k per month with 2 Tesla's (model 3's not S or X's) in a nicer suburb easily.@Lukas: I have extended family and in-laws that live across the US, from SFO/Palo Alto to middle America to NYC. Some of them are loaded. Some of them are dual income pulling >100K a year, and I would still consider them to be firmly 'middle class.'
I've also lived there, though that was more of a brief work secondment.
There are people scraping by on minimal wages (30k+30k)in SF, LA or SD
Not sure how this is relevant- SFO or NYC on those incomes would not at all be pleasant.
@Lukas: Yeah, I can tell you haven't lived in SF or NY. $300k/yr is about the starting point to live in an area where you won't be shot. The scale goes the whole way down though, you can still buy a decent house in a 3rd tier city in Ohio for $250k.
@freedoom: California has a state based GST on top of federal taxes of +10% right out the gate. Your income then has both state and federal taxes, including both applied marginal and effective rates. All utilities have a state-based additional 22% "green" tax on them, as do many other areas of life there. Cali is roughly about 40% more costly than almost anywhere else in the US and most of that additional cost is purely just the state taxing people to death, which is causing an exodus of nearly 150K people from the state every year now.
This debate never ceases to amaze me , it is a naive way of looking at it . An important term missing in this debate is assets .
Assets are what make you rich , not income . A good stream of income makes you comfortable in life , if you can maintain a good stream of income going on in life , that income can be used to purchase assets( if you are good with money and lucky) that will make you comfortable in life later on .
The other variable is the life stage a person /couple is at. A 45- 50 year old couple , who has his home almost paid off , kids grown and close to moving out ( and probably sitting on a couple of million in equity in sydney), on 160k/year can be considered richer than a 35-40 year old, with 2-3 young kids in childcare/school , with a large mortgage in syd or melb, on a combined income of $300k plus.
For the younger couple :
Male : $250k
Femaile $50k.
2 kids , childcare 3 days /week.
Net income after tax approx $190k
Childcare : with estimated 20% rebate @120/day = $576/week or $30k/year
Mortgage say $ 1.6 million for a $2 mil house = $9500/month or $114,000 ( before you disagree, just look at what houses go for in middle ring suburbs in sydney, and i dont think someone who has done the hard yards to make $300k would want to live in mount druitt or liverpool)
Net income left over : $46k/year or $3833/year. Once you figure in just the groceries cost probably around $1000-120//month,plus a packet for compulsory private health to avoid the medicare levy sting, that does not leave much. I dont think I would call them rich.
The older couple
Male $100k
Female : $60k
Net : $124k/year
Fixed outgoings , next to nil .
So who is rich here?As a devils advocate , take self employed people, say in the younger aged bracket as the 1st couple , business makes $350k/year, they pay themselves $45k, and wife $30k. Then they get the full childcare rebate , all expenses taken care of by business , buy a new car every couple of years and write it off ( why do you need Audis , BMWs and $ 90k utes to run a business?), taxpayers pick up the tab . They look at the PAYG couple on $300k and are laughing at them .
Its not black and white, theres 50 shades of gray, and to say someone's rich on $150, $200, $250k is Naive without considering different factors.
There some truth to this. My wife and I are in the latter stages of our working lives and we are both at our peak earning power - yet our outgoings have never been lower. School fees and children expenses are past and we have little debt - a small mortgage that is roughly 15% of the value of our home and a small car loan that cost me less than two hours of work a week to service. No other loans or credit card debt. Superannuation is solid and is totally on track for a comfortable retirement. Most of our income is saved or invested but we still do hobbies that we love and that are not cheap - me, flying and my wife is into photography (expensive gear). We don't think twice about buying most stuff as we can afford it. Not boasting here but we are just normal working people but I'm fortunate to have skills and experience that are in high demand and are paid for at a premium. It wasn't always this way. Not that long ago we were like the couple in your first comparison and at times, life was hard.
mind if you share what skills you specialise in and what your role is
@chriskq: Electrical and instrumentation design and project engineering - specialising in mining and oil and gas plant and infrastructure. I did an apprenticeship as an electrician and kept on studying. I got into the design side back in the 90s. There's currently massive, almost unprecedented, demand for my skills.
The work can, at times, be boring as batsh1t but it does pay well.
Not to mention the hours you need to spend working to earn such amount. To get 150k, some people need to work 12 hours or more everyday, some just need 8 or less hours, while some can get such income without having to work at all.
Also where you live et
Spot on. I would earn more (and work harder) than many people in my workplace. But they were born somewhere between 10 and 25 years earlier.
No guessing who is richer…
They'd also whinge if they thought they earned less money….
I’m surprised the reporter wasn’t “shocked” by it. Every 2nd news.com.au article is about something “shocking”. My favorite one was “ shocking kfc decision”. It turns out the decision was that kfc didn’t raise their prices this year
I actually feel for the journalists involved with this sort of stuff. There is no way they sought to pursue a career in the field to spend their working lives producing clickbait.
Given lots of those articles are filled with typos and grammar issue I’m guessing those journalists didn’t graduate top of their class
@illusion99: You're not wrong.
I've noticed that the quality of writing has dropped to match the content.
It makes you wonder whether they've done away with editors for the bottom of the barrel news, or if they leave errors in because it spurs people to engage with it.
I dunno but tell me more about this new G-string trend
A double income household with each parent earning $150k is definitely not middle class
Do you mean you need a higher household income or lower household income to be middle class?
A double income household with each parent earning $<insert_figure>k is…
… working class, by definition. They both have to work to earn $, right?
Or in the less roundabout way - why pigeon-hole people or even entertain the concept of class or caste? We're all individuals, why do we need a label? If you are a migrant that works two and a half jobs to earn $200k/year and live in a house with 3 generations under one roof, does that make you "middle class" or are you somehow better than that? What does it mean?
Does engaging with people who push these views somehow validate that type of thinking?
Most of any article written in any publication is written by 'interns' or their like simply for the sake of publishing 'anything' to get viewership in order to sell advertising space.
In other words 99% of any information is complete crap simply to get ad dollars.
Not sure if serious. Rich if comparing to a 3rd world country. Poor if trying to get a home loan in AU.
Lol no
Maybe if they lived in SEA or some other 3rd world country but in Australia not really..
Coming from somebody in that position, i would say $150k is comfortable but not rich.
I look at the houses you can buy and it's still not affordable to buy in the inner city, let alone how cooked it is in Sydney.$100k used to be the benchmark, that's now moved to $150k to be comfortable. IMHO rich is $200k+
When you're in the top 10% of earners in Australia and still would struggle to pay off a house something is broken.Mind you the upcoming high income tax cuts are going to be fun (not that we desperately need at $10k payrise in take home pay).
Even saying $200k is rich is still silly, without knowing anything about their personal circumstances and how many they support, still buying a house solo on $200k is not easy by any stretch. People also forget that if you're earning $200k, you're not actually earning that amount as you'd be paying around $65k of that in tax! Tax cuts are needed due to bracket creep (tax brackets should be indexed with inflation) and rising cost of living.
100% agree that tax brackets should be indexed to CPI, but the taxman is more than happy when it's in their favour.
As long as the pensioners get their pensions fixed to CPI everyone is happy right!?Ok $200K is NOT rich..
Correct me if I'm wrong I reckon there is only 2% of the workforce in australia who earns 200k. So what do we call the rest of 98%? Poor buggers… LOLThe thing is typical wealth are build on 20-30 years of working life and through basic investments.
You don't see it as earning 200k this year.. House prices 1 million, far out I'm poor.
@ttt888: 66% of that 98% owns a property. Even more than 66% if we count future estate.
To be fair, wealth should only be determined by net assets, not income. $200k/year will still take quite of few years of frugal living to buy a house. I reckon half of that $200k/year people are burdened with either dependents, divorce, or their own 200k lifestyle.
@ripesashimi: Wealth is something you accumulate over time, some does better than others through investments etc. Some invest badly.
But if you earn 200k You are definitely well off.Just because you don't own a property outright and earning 200K a year you automatically claim yourself I'm poor or not doing well. One thing for sure if you earn 200K give yourself 10 years will definitely own a property (even with still some loan on it) if not you are just bad money manager.
As for things beyond your control like divorce , disable dependents etc etc. One should see it as lucky I earn 200K a year.. If I'm only on 90K I'm totally screwed.
$100k used to be the benchmark, that's now moved to $150k to be comfortable. IMHO rich is $200k+
The very narrow range of a few thousand dollars difference between what we call "low income" and "high income" each month is a joke.
Mind you the upcoming high income tax cuts are going to be fun
I would not be surprised if, in the May budget next year, they put these tax cuts on hold!
I would not be surprised if, in the May budget next year, they put these tax cuts on hold!
I sure hope so. Putting an enormous and permanent hole in our ability to pay for things as a nation is a shocking idea.
@jrowls: We have had years and years of tax creep. These bracket changes are long long overdue. The government has been feasting off the extra fat that has washed into the coffers from our stagnant tax system.
@jrowls: Yes continuously fuel the sheer waste that is the majority of government spending, why let people keep more of their own earnings.
@LanceVance: I dunno mate, but it feels like it would be more efficient for everyone to pay a little bit for some stuff than for me to try and build my own rail network or hospital for just me.
@jrowls: It isn't a little more to fund those, it is a little more to fund their pork barreling, waste and travel etc. The more excess they get the greater the percentage of waste as they don't feel they need to care. Responsible spending is something every household has to care about, but it is a concept that is completely alien to either side of politics at the moment.
When you're in the top 10% of earners in Australia and still would struggle to pay off a house something is broken.
Looks like what's broken is not the average salary, but the ridiculous house price.
Agreed. $150k salary would make you very comfortable indeed if you could rely on $500pw mortgage repayments.
Very much looking forward to that tax cut next year.
It's going to be very good for the economy.
"very good for the economy." Correction. "very good for rich people like me".
The government is going to lose 26 billion in income per year, which means cuts to programs that help the poor, like Medicare.
@Thaal Sinestro: Correction - I'm not rich but will benefit directly from these tax cuts. being well paid (and paying a shit ton of tax) does not make you rich. Comfortably middle-class but not rich.
Medicare is not being cut - and it helps all of our people, not just the poor. As it should.
Hope this helps.
Medicare is not being cut - and it helps all of our people, not just the poor. As it should.
Medicare, and all social welfare, disproprotionately benefits lower income earners. As it should.
@Thaal Sinestro: And those tax cuts will mean the recipients will have more cash to splash around in the economy, which will fuel inflation and trigger the RBA to increase interest rates again….
Good for the economy but the poor and working class will be screwed even more….
The government is going to lose 26 billion in income per year
The goverment is not going to LOSE $26 billion. They will simply be taking $26 billion less from the hard working people!
@Thaal Sinestro: You can't deny that it will be a relief for people having to pay their massive mortgages.
Next time, they should just link the brackets to inflation and then set and forget, rather than create a political football.
Does middle class mean "be able to buy a house in the inner city of the most expensive city in Australia"?
My impression of par for middle class would be living so as to only have a commute of less than 30 minutes to work/the city each way. Something that Sydnesiders and Melbournians can only dream about. Lower class would be in the realm of 30+ minutes to work.
@Drakesy: Well I mean, is it "have a commute" or "own a property"? If it's own, how big a house?
It seems a bit strange to expect the entire middle class to all own 4 bd houses within 30 minutes of the centre of the country's most expensive city. I don't think that rationale would be employed when compared to other cities around the world like San Fran, New York, London etc.
@Drakesy: As cities grow new development will be further from the CBD, I don't see why this should impact the definition of middle class? I would see middle class as those borrowing to their max to buy a detached house way out in the burbs, or maybe settling for something smaller a bit closer in
@Drakesy: Commute time is a poor indicator.
People purchase houses in locations based on the lifestyle, local amenities, etc.
I live in the CBD and previously had a 5 min commute, but have been WFH since Covid.
Agree. 150k is the new 100k.
It gets you comfort where you dont have to worry about money but you still cant afford luxuries without some tight budgeting.
IMHO rich is $200k+
When you're in the top 10% of earners in Australia and still would struggle to pay off a house something is broken.No, they have the same problem as someone who's on 100k… they increase the price of their House they want to buy.
People get caught up in the 10x salary for a house,
When they were on 100k, they're looking at 1m house…. then on 200k… they want a 2m house
You're unlikely to see someone buying a 1m house when they're on 200k
Whats weird is yankee land, they're fixated on 3x-5x house prices and they're suppose to be having a housing problem as well
5x is the rule i'd work to. It was what was sustainable back in the day. 10x will never be sustainable and would never be a viable mortgage.
People being convinced otherwise are mistaken
150k household income is hardly rich if you live in Sydney, Melbourne or the ACT. 300k household income is rich provided the income isn't a recent thing.
Well said
Full time primary school teachers earn between $110K and $130K ,
No they don't.
Source: Trust me bro
@Phlume: Your average teacher is classified at R3/T9 in their early 30's.
https://www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/p-and-c/employee-relati…
With no benefits, allowances, incentives, bonuses or add-on's at all, that's $109K for full time, up to a base of $135K for relieving instead of having a guaranteed classroom in a smaller state like SA.
It's a base of $124K in Victoria
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teac…
It's higher again in New South Wales. Once you go anything higher than a classroom teacher into being a coordinator, specialist, unit leader, deputy or principal, it's $150K to $220K.
https://education.nsw.gov.au/teach-nsw/explore-teaching/sala…
You can earn more than 50% more than those numbers at every classification as well, if you are willing to teach in a school 75km or more out of the middle of any main city. Not including allowances, benefits, or anything else which add's to the effective salary.
Your average teacher is classified at R3/T9 in their early 30's.
https://www.education.sa.gov.au/docs/p-and-c/employee-relati…
With no benefits, allowances, incentives, bonuses or add-on's at all, that's $109K for full time, up to a base of $135K for relieving instead of having a guaranteed classroom in a smaller state like SA.
It's a base of $124K in Victoria
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/hrweb/Documents/Salary-Teac…
It's higher again in New South Wales. Once you go anything higher than a classroom teacher into being a coordinator, specialist, unit leader, deputy or principal, it's $150K to $220K.
https://education.nsw.gov.au/teach-nsw/explore-teaching/sala…
You can earn more than 50% more than those numbers at every classification as well, if you are willing to teach in a school 75km or more out of the middle of any main city. Not including allowances, benefits, or anything else which add's to the effective salary.
@infinite: You’ve definitely misunderstood these salaries for what average is. In Victoria if you are first year teacher you’ll be on $76k pa and most 10 year plus teachers are on around $101k. Saying the salary is “base” also implies there are additional benefits outside of super. There isn’t.
Teaching certainty makes better than average money but nothing like your making out.
In general this thread is full of sh*t on how much people are earning.
You’ve definitely misunderstood these salaries for what average is.
The salaries are published and public information. There's nothing to misunderstand.
The average age of a teacher is 46. They only earn the $75K to $80K starting point for one year as a 21-22yr old straight out of Uni. Their at the cap more often than not by the time they hit 30 and then move on up into specialist, coordinator and leadership roles afterward (if they have the motivation). They can also keep the job until they decide to retire and there is no age where they are forced to retire.
Teaching certainty makes better than average money but nothing like your making out.
Go read the publicly listed salaries and benefits - I linked to them in 3 different states. It's literally to the dollar amount exactly what they get paid.
In general this thread is full of sh*t on how much people are earning.
Why make up a full of sh*t comment like that where there are direct links all through this thread to what median and capped salaries are for a range of roles and industries ?
Saying the salary is “base” also implies there are additional benefits outside of super. There isn’t.
Again, how are you this ignorant considering you can just directly search and find the benefits on offer. Outer-metro zone allowance payments start at $10K a year in every state, moving and incidental claims for school shifts start at $1k a pop, you have relocation and locality allowances, travel allowances, meal allowances, accommodation allowances, free medical, free dental, free on the job training, paid study leave, paid travel leave, guaranteed cushy metro placements after minimal time in outer-metro or country zones, packing allowance & furniture depreciation allowance for shifting to outer-metro zones, housing rental concessions of 35%-100% for country teaching (the reverse on offer for teachers coming metro after a certain time out country). That's the tip of the iceberg - you can get your HECS/HELP debt completely waived by doing 3-4 years in outer-metro zones and a $50K incentive payment if you stay at any of those schools for 4 years. There's all sorts of other stuff too like the ability to salary-package your leased car, electronic devices, laptop, professional memberships, income protection insurance, etc…..
You can find all this info out with the most basic of googles (https://www.education.sa.gov.au/working-us/careers-education… & https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/making-teaching-free-back-our…)
@brettski: In Victoria:
$112,333 for teachers in their 11th year of teaching or higher, as of 9th October 2023.
$103,845 for those in their 10th year.@brettski: "Saying the salary is “base” also implies there are additional benefits outside of super. There isn’t."
I'd say Base is used given rural incentives for certain roles. e.g.:
Rural teacher incentive (less value of rental subsidy, where applicable) $20,000 per annum
Rental subsidy (deducted from rural teacher incentive, where applicable) 70%
Retention benefit (up to 10 years) Variable
Experienced teacher benefit (12 months of continuous permanent service required, up to 5 years) $10,000 per annum
Stamp duty relief (if applicable) $10,000 one off payment
Rural and remote relocation support payment (if applicable) up to $5,000 one off payment
Here's the actual wages:
https://education.nsw.gov.au/teach-nsw/explore-teaching/sala…
$122K baseline wage for a full time classroom teacher in less than 10 years on the job. Does not include benefits, allowances, incentives, bonuses or add-on's at all. Once you go anything higher than a classroom teacher into being a coordinator, specialist, unit leader, deputy or principal, it's straight up into the $150K to $220K range (again - does not include benefits, allowances, incentives, bonuses or add-on's at all).
You can earn more than 50% more than those numbers at every classification as well, if you are willing to teach in a school 75km or more out of the middle of any main city.
A double income household with each parent earning $150k is definitely not middle class.
That 'news' article is written by someone who specializes in celebrity news and gossip (have a look at their previous articles). Do you really want opinions about financial matters from someone who writes about things like "Outrageous new G-string trend taking over" and "Boyfriend’s ‘typo’ exposes what men want"?