Super? Levies? FTB? Medicare? ... etc. Someone on 200K with two kids will pay $4000 in Medicare levy (or equivalent in private health care). On 100K with two kids they will receive $7,472 in FTB. There's a difference of $11,472 without getting into super.
Housing in Australia has been in a sustained overvalued state for decades. What makes you think that will change? There is solid fundamental reasoning for it. Sure we might see a dip or a prolonged flatline, or both. But 70%? Get real. Housing shortage is in full swing, take advantage of our growing homeless population and buy an investment house!! lol Nah but I too am holding off on another planned investment house. The market is full right now and everything I bid/offer on seams to be going 20-30k over asking/list price. You shouldn't buy in this kind of market, but you never know how long it will last. Several years in the nineties. So DYOR aye.
...which is still less than the national mean income i.e. any given person with a job. Dunno why you said "without even getting into super" since superannuation benefits higher income earners to a much greater extent than lower income earners. But hey, if you're in a position to turn down a $200k/year job because that extra $60k isn't worth the effort then good for you.
I laugh every time i hear this in the media :lol: There is going to be a massive over supply of apartments in Sydney by next year, well unless they start importing more Chinese people faster. (though this is probably what will happen) But back to average wage, i think Australia wide it's closer to 50k. Does anyone know how they calculate the average here? Do they clip the top and bottom 10% to get a more accurate representation.
Dont get me wrong, I am v good earner but after Super ann and tax I lose 53.08%. thats not including medicare etc.
Around Alexandria/ Rosebery/Botany there is massive oversupply due to massive development 5 years back of tiny units in huge blocks that resemble Housing Commission but sell for $550,000 for a tiny 2 bedroom with step sized balcony. Wages, highest in ACT - around $85000 ) quelle surprise). But, if you add in woman and part time/ fulltime " casual" average 50,000.
Sammy , that is from the 70's - most mortgages are 60 + % of salary since 90's. My mother was horrified that her childhood "slum" house in Newtown, in original condition, sold for nearly 900,000 last year. Then again, a house my father bought in Paddington in 1948 for 275 pounds recently sold for $2.1 million. That would have been a pretty good ROI.
Yep but you missed the most dense areas, Waterloo & Zetland. and replace $550,000 with 700,000 for a 2 bedroom, it's a joke. The whole area will be a dump in 5-10 years. Though the Chinese seem to love it, they look at the area with such pride and amazement.
You have got to be kidding Yeah I've heard the stories of people on $200K saying they can't make ends meet :lol:
Well, not to be petty but Waterloo/ Zetland are around Alexandria and Rosebery - in fact it's impossible to find the actual boundaries on a map. Having worked in "Rosebery" for past 2 years, which was under Beaconsfield on the map, but 2 streets from both Zetland and Alexandria, I know the area well. The ones in Waterloo/ Zetland are mainly built in the past 2 years and are larger and more attractive, with lower vacancies and quicker sales. And yes, more expensive.
Seems very clearly defined to me with a quick Google search. https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=zetland+nsw+map or www.google.com.au/maps/place/Zetland+NSW+2017 https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=waterloo+nsw+map or www.google.com.au/maps/place/Waterloo+NSW+2017 You're correct about Zetland, but the large buildings have been going up over the past 10 years in waterloo. I know this very well since I've lived in some.
Heard that Alexandria slowly transforming the industrial areas into residential because the premium price of land on surrounding it. Is that true?
I mentioned super because the way government is going they'll be raiding my super well before I ever reach retirement. You mean the extra ~$45K after you deduct super and Medicare levy $4K, and miss out on $7.4K in family tax 'benefit'. Not to mention $200K jobs usually require that you live in/near an expensive city.
Yea i see some stuff happening there, but it's still mainly industrial area. I'm sure it will ramp up once Zetland and Waterloo are fully developed, which will be in the not to distant future (providing the crash has held of that long). All i know is in 5-10 years you don't want to be living here, i plan to move out in 2.
Well, if and when they do you can come back and bitch about it, but until then someone on $200k is significantly better off than someone on $100k. Look, I'm not saying that being an adult with a full time job is always easy and that some choices in life aren't difficult, but I just find it a bit difficult to feel sorry for people earning two hundred grand a year. If you have the capacity to earn that sort of money, you're doing very, very well for yourself. If you are getting that, you're in the top 5% of income earners in the country. Australia overall earns enough to be in the world's 1% for incomes. Only the typical Norwegian earns a little bit more than the typical Australian. Again, everyone has their own problems, but if you're on $200k a year and money is one of them, you're doing something wrong.
+1 $200K after tax is pretty close to double $100K after tax ($134K vs $73K) Medicare levy can be avoided with a hospital only cover that can cost $1K Family benefits get eroded with income tests so can be neglible even at $100K As for living in an expensive city - you don't bloody well have to live in the expensive areas of an expensive city
In my hypothetical example. The person on $100K with two kids receives $7400 in family tax benefit. While a person with two kids on $200K does not receive any family tax benefit. http://www.familytaxbenefitcalculator.com.au/
