Thats a very hard way to get rich. Maybe as a hedge fund manager.
Most careers plateu at about 150 - 200K per year. Hardly enough to get rich on.
Statistically most people will never earn anywhere near 150 - 200K a year (in today's dollars).
If one wants to earn much more than your figure of 150K - 200K, there are ways - medical specialist, partner in big law or accounting firm, etc. Of course only a small percentage of people will reach these heights, but by definition high income earners are an elite group.
My name is based on a Seinfeld character, not on a belief of a housing bubble.
Statistically most people will never earn anywhere near 150 - 200K a year (in today's dollars).
If one wants to earn much more than your figure of 150K - 200K, there are ways - medical specialist, partner in big law or accounting firm, etc. Of course only a small percentage of people will reach these heights, but by definition high income earners are an elite group.
Maybe for you old farts. For us guys, that will become average. I've got plenty of mates who will hit that pretty quickly, including tradies.
Maybe for you old farts. For us guys, that will become average. I've got plenty of mates who will hit that pretty quickly, including tradies.
Ehhh, sure you do, and sure you will
*pat on head*
I know some successful and well-off people - one thing they have in common is that in earlier times none of them ever went around saying how well-off they would be.
But I guess it's possible that an internet troll will become rich - everything has its first. I guess it's also possible that an internet troll has "mates" - again, everything has its first.
I know some successful and well-off people - one thing they have in common is that in earlier times none of them ever went around saying how well-off they would be.
But I guess it's possible that an internet troll will become rich - everything has its first. I guess it's also possible that an internet troll has "mates" - again, everything has its first.
PS in my thirties and not yet an old fart.
I think Dad's worth 2.5 mill and that's divided between me and brother & sister. So when he croaks, we're sitting sweet. But why cruise for 30-40 years? I'm just trying to be ambitious. That little nest egg is probably worth your average property portfolio.
Can any of you guys tell me how much it'll be worth in 30 years? Shit, we'll be wealthy enough to buy an island offshore of Europe.
I think Dad's worth 2.5 mill and that's divided between me and brother & sister. So when he croaks, we're sitting sweet. But why cruise for 30-40 years? I'm just trying to be ambitious. That little nest egg is probably worth your average property portfolio.
Can any of you guys tell me how much it'll be worth in 30 years? Shit, we'll be wealthy enough to buy an island offshore of Europe.
God I love my nationality.
"When he croaks..."
Good thing you are a troll - I don't think any normal person would speak that way about parents. It's quite sickening actually.
Statistically most people will never earn anywhere near 150 - 200K a year (in today's dollars).
If one wants to earn much more than your figure of 150K - 200K, there are ways - medical specialist, partner in big law or accounting firm, etc. Of course only a small percentage of people will reach these heights, but by definition high income earners are an elite group.
1 in 10 people currently earn over 100k.
1 in 90 people currently earn over 300k
So I'd guess about 1 in 50ish people earn between 150-200k? The thing is, the pointy end of the pyramid gets very sharp.
Someone on 60k will often say "100k is living in luxury, how can those people complain about another 1% tax". etc. What they don't realise is that the extra money, after all the "1% taxes" that have been levied on the supposedly high income earners, it only buys you one lifestyle upgrade - and once you do that, you're just as close to spending all your money as the other guy, and money still feels tight.
The thing is, the difference between 100k and 60k is only 26k per year after tax - and that's before you have to buy stuff like private health cover. So what does 26k get you? Private school for one child? (2-3 if you use cheaper religious schools). A decent overseas holiday? A nicer car? Choose one - but only one.
I'm not questioning that it does make life easier, but it doesn't put you on easy street.
Right, that out of the way... I have no doubt if the OP is already on 100k+ as a tradie in his early twenties, then by his mid thirties, he can retire - *IF* he doesn't want to live life now, and the economy treats him well. Let's say that he's pulling in exactly 100k now. $1400 take home a week. He lives the life of a pauper, living with his parents, bringing lunch every day, and not going out at all (So much for the travel, drinking and rooting). He can put away say $1200 a week, or around $62k a year.
Let's say since we've just had our GFC, we go back to long term averages on the stock market - say 7% CG + 4% dividends, maybe take away 1% management fees. After 15 years, he'll have 2.2 million less tax. Of course if he bought units in a managed fund, and never sold, he wouldn't be liable for CGT until he cached it out, and he'd only be paying 12c tax on dividends (42 - 30 for full franked shares).
Not impossible, but few people have the discipline to do it - and who would want to be a mid thirties, single, friendless man-boy, still living with their parents?
I think Future's dream is a bit of a pipe dream, not withstanding that I don't think he's legit, but I think people totally writing him off, don't understand the power of discipline and a good financial plan. Imagine instead if you married young, two professionals on 80k each, didn't want children for 10 years, and subscribed to a similar, if somewhat less strict plan - It wouldn't be impossible that they'd have a million in income generating assets by the time they wanted kids in their early thirties.
Property speculation is a type of gambling... But everyone knows that in gambling, the house always wins in the end.
So I'd guess about 1 in 50ish people earn between 150-200k? The thing is, the pointy end of the pyramid gets very sharp.
Someone on 60k will often say "100k is living in luxury, how can those people complain about another 1% tax". etc. What they don't realise is that the extra money, after all the "1% taxes" that have been levied on the supposedly high income earners, it only buys you one lifestyle upgrade - and once you do that, you're just as close to spending all your money as the other guy, and money still feels tight.
The thing is, the difference between 100k and 60k is only 26k per year after tax - and that's before you have to buy stuff like private health cover. So what does 26k get you? Private school for one child? (2-3 if you use cheaper religious schools). A decent overseas holiday? A nicer car? Choose one - but only one.
I'm not questioning that it does make life easier, but it doesn't put you on easy street.
Right, that out of the way... I have no doubt if the OP is already on 100k+ as a tradie in his early twenties, then by his mid thirties, he can retire - *IF* he doesn't want to live life now, and the economy treats him well. Let's say that he's pulling in exactly 100k now. $1400 take home a week. He lives the life of a pauper, living with his parents, bringing lunch every day, and not going out at all (So much for the travel, drinking and rooting). He can put away say $1200 a week, or around $62k a year.
Let's say since we've just had our GFC, we go back to long term averages on the stock market - say 7% CG + 4% dividends, maybe take away 1% management fees. After 15 years, he'll have 2.2 million less tax. Of course if he bought units in a managed fund, and never sold, he wouldn't be liable for CGT until he cached it out, and he'd only be paying 12c tax on dividends (42 - 30 for full franked shares).
Not impossible, but few people have the discipline to do it - and who would want to be a mid thirties, single, friendless man-boy, still living with their parents?
I think Future's dream is a bit of a pipe dream, not withstanding that I don't think he's legit, but I think people totally writing him off, don't understand the power of discipline and a good financial plan. Imagine instead if you married young, two professionals on 80k each, didn't want children for 10 years, and subscribed to a similar, if somewhat less strict plan - It wouldn't be impossible that they'd have a million in income generating assets by the time they wanted kids in their early thirties.
Seeing I'm not an armchair commentator, I will speak from experience:
1. Brother in early 30s. Account management for HVAC. Knows Daikin & its technology. Full package close to 170K.
2. Sparkie mate in 20s. Lives in Perth and works at rates close to $120 her hour in the city because too many sparkies in mines.
3. Another mate is mid-20s. On-shore driller. Spends so much time in Thailand twisting his mind. Must me earning over 100K for his short-term contracts.
4. Daddy Future. Pulls in at least a grand from rentals and has string of successful business.
So I'd guess about 1 in 50ish people earn between 150-200k? The thing is, the pointy end of the pyramid gets very sharp.
Someone on 60k will often say "100k is living in luxury, how can those people complain about another 1% tax". etc. What they don't realise is that the extra money, after all the "1% taxes" that have been levied on the supposedly high income earners, it only buys you one lifestyle upgrade - and once you do that, you're just as close to spending all your money as the other guy, and money still feels tight.
The thing is, the difference between 100k and 60k is only 26k per year after tax - and that's before you have to buy stuff like private health cover. So what does 26k get you? Private school for one child? (2-3 if you use cheaper religious schools). A decent overseas holiday? A nicer car? Choose one - but only one.
I'm not questioning that it does make life easier, but it doesn't put you on easy street.
Right, that out of the way... I have no doubt if the OP is already on 100k+ as a tradie in his early twenties, then by his mid thirties, he can retire - *IF* he doesn't want to live life now, and the economy treats him well. Let's say that he's pulling in exactly 100k now. $1400 take home a week. He lives the life of a pauper, living with his parents, bringing lunch every day, and not going out at all (So much for the travel, drinking and rooting). He can put away say $1200 a week, or around $62k a year.
Let's say since we've just had our GFC, we go back to long term averages on the stock market - say 7% CG + 4% dividends, maybe take away 1% management fees. After 15 years, he'll have 2.2 million less tax. Of course if he bought units in a managed fund, and never sold, he wouldn't be liable for CGT until he cached it out, and he'd only be paying 12c tax on dividends (42 - 30 for full franked shares).
Not impossible, but few people have the discipline to do it - and who would want to be a mid thirties, single, friendless man-boy, still living with their parents?
I think Future's dream is a bit of a pipe dream, not withstanding that I don't think he's legit, but I think people totally writing him off, don't understand the power of discipline and a good financial plan. Imagine instead if you married young, two professionals on 80k each, didn't want children for 10 years, and subscribed to a similar, if somewhat less strict plan - It wouldn't be impossible that they'd have a million in income generating assets by the time they wanted kids in their early thirties.
Sunder,
Welcome back! Haven't seen you in a long time and have missed your common sense balanced posts!
I agree with most of your comments - certainly I agree 100K is not living in luxury. And even 200K is not what I would call a high income earner - especially if one has to raise a family. A couple of private school kids, mortgage on a one million dollar house (which as we know doesn't exactly buy a mansion these days), and after tax there isn't that much left over when grossing 200K.
My name is based on a Seinfeld character, not on a belief of a housing bubble.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy