raise your expectations Australia!!!

[NigelW]

The findings of a recent survey of 1000 voting age Aussies has found that:

The pay packet considered to make someone "rich" varies little between Australian states, but Queenslanders set the highest yardstick, with 70 per cent nominating an annual income in the $75,000 to $100,000 range or higher.

The question posed in the survey was: "Just thinking about your own situation, how much money per year would you need to make in order to consider yourself rich?"

The survey found 27 per cent of Australians considered annual pay of $75,001 to $100,000 would make them rich, while 9 per cent went for $50,001 to $75,000 and 14 per cent for $50,000 or less.

Crikey Australia! Lift your expectations. 75-100K per annum is NOT rich. If it were a net passive amount coming to you then you could say you were very comfortable...But gross earning 100K you'll probably take home around $60K in the hand. Not going to fund an expensive yacht and caviar habit ...perhaps a tinnie and a 6 pack...

I am constantly amazed at what people will settle for...

But at least people are on track when they think:

While 69 per cent of Australians believe they have "no chance whatsoever" of becoming rich in their current job

(My emphasis)

Unless you're a CEO of a listed company, a job ain't gonna make you wealthy. A job can provide the necessary fuel to get you where you want to go, but you need the right investment vehicles to make the journey.

The question though, is how many realise that what you do with what you've got is the key to

 

[Aceyducey]

Nigel,

I wouldn't take this survey too seriously.

After all, there are a number of Australian property millionnaires who achieved their success with less than a $50K salary.

It's not the salary level that makes you rich - it's what you do with it

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Kristine..]

Nigel

Just as in The Richest Man in Babylon, in the scene where the collected gathering was asked 'Is your income enough for you', and no one agreed it was and yet the group comprised everybody from day labourers to merchants to land owners etc

No one was 'paying themself' 10% of what they earned - it all got spent. Regardless of how much came in, it all went out!

Some years ago I met a gentleman, a highly qualified scientist, who was lamenting that 'he would never have any money'.

He told me that every year he was further into debt - credit cards and other consumer debt, and that he despaired of having any money to retire on.

That man earned $98,000 per year.

However, his wife did not work. Their married daughter and her husband, both unemployed, lived at home. There was the expectation that at least some of the family would go 'home' (overseas) to visit the relatives each year.

Nigel, 'rich' is a euphemism for 'having plenty to spend'.

'Wealthy' is when there is plenty in reserve.

But 'wealthy' takes planning and effort, and living a comfortable but not a 'rich' lifestyle (at least for the first 10 million).

Regarding your survey - it serves to illustrate - There's Plenty of Room at the Top!

Cheers

Kristine

 

[silverghost]

Yes, Nigel is right - expectations are far too low, although it obviously depends on what you want out of life.

Even $10K per month to spend would need a gross annual income of $200K. If this was just 'spending money', you would be comfortable, but if you're thinking of travelling around the world in some form of ease and comfort, it's peanuts.

My philosophy is to make as much money as possible for the rest of my life (complete idle retirement scares me - my body and brain would rust very quickly), and anything over and above the 'family requirements' would go to setting up the odd charitable trust here and there for those less fortunate than myself, probably all via Navra investments.

SG

 

[duncan_m]

Originally posted by NigelW
[B

The question though, is how many realise that what you do with what you've got is the key to [/B]

Nigel.. Great post! Do you have a URL for the full text of the article?

 

[NigelW]

Hi Duncan

www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/10/1068329488831.html

I think it's been covered in the Age and maybe the Adelaid advertiser as well

Cheers
N.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

I don't think I would answer the question of how much you'd have to earn with a very high figure. It would probably be around $75k.

The question they should be asking should be how would you earn your money to consider yourself rich?

I wouldn't consider myself rich until I'm in a position where my pasive income can maintain a reasonable lifestyle indefinitly. How much I earn is worth almost nothing if something like loosing my job can change that overnight.

 

[Steve Navra]

I've noticed that the wealthiest Australians earn very little income!

After all, income is TAXABLE.

Ever wondered how they do it??

Maybe living of NON TAXABLE capital is the answer . . .

Steve

 

[NigelW]

Originally posted by Steve Navra
I've noticed that the wealthiest Australians earn very little income!

After all, income is TAXABLE.

Ever wondered how they do it??

Maybe living of NON TAXABLE capital is the answer . . .

Steve

are you talking about the cashbond merry-go-round or are you hinting at deeper darker capital/loan account mysteries

 

[Steve Navra]

Originally posted by NigelW
are you talking about the cashbond merry-go-round or are you hinting at deeper darker capital/loan account mysteries

Cashbond ONLY necessary IF you might need serviceability:

"Darker"??? Certainly NOT darker, especially when you see the light

Steve

 

[Lily House]

Hi Nigel,

I think if people raised their expectations as you suggest, it would just mean more disappointment and unhappiness.
How many of those 70% are not going to reach the $75-100k they desire? A lot of them I'd suggest. So to raise their expectaions even more is just unrealistic - it can't happen to everyone. It is just not possible for everyone to be rich.

I think most people would be happy with comfortable anyway. I, for one, don't desire vast riches. The idea of constatnly tripping around the world eating cavier, to me, is a vulgar waste of a life.
The best riches in life have nothing to do with money.

Lily

 

[TheBacon]

Originally posted by Steve Navra

Maybe living of NON TAXABLE capital is the answer . . .

Hi Ya Steve,
I'm intrigued, would you care to elaborate?

Ta.

TheBacon

 

[Aceyducey]

Originally posted by Lily House
It is just not possible for everyone to be rich.

I believe otherwise.

Every human being has the capacity to be wealthy (and by this I mean both monetary & non-monetary).

So many people have overcome physical and emotional challenges, unfavourable circumstances and the hostility of others to achieve their vision of wealth that I do not believe that wealth is beyond any human.

People fail to achieve wealth because of their choices, not their abilities.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[Lily House]

Perhpas I didn't make my statement clear enough Aceyducey. I agree with what you said.

I didn't mean that any individual couldn't become wealthy.
What I meant is that it is not possible for 100% of the population to be 'rich' (in monetary terms) at the same time.
It just isn't logical or feasible.

Lily

 

[geoffw]

Originally posted by Lily House
Perhpas I didn't make my statement clear enough Aceyducey. I agree with what you said.

I didn't mean that any individual couldn't become wealthy.
What I meant is that it is not possible for 100% of the population to be 'rich' (in monetary terms) at the same time.
It just isn't logical or feasible.

Lily

I guess that becomes comparative.

A person working a small plot of land in Bangladesh would perceive most Australians to be far better off than themselves- even if they knew of the struggles of many to maintain a three BR house and three meals a day- they would perhaps regard this as luxury.

But an economy which survives and thrives with everyone becoming better off must be an active economy, with the majority contributing to the good of everyone else.

I've heard it said that the reason that Spain became so poor, in comparison the the rest of Europe, is the vast amount of gold they received from the New World.

The very well off became the idle rich- and bought carpets from Belgium, furniture from France- or whatever mix of goods it was. The people in the countries Spain bought from became rich as they learnt to make things of value to other people. And the people of Spain did not learn such skills.

Sorry, I've really no idea as to the accuracy of what I've been told. But it makes a good story .

I'm not an economist- I'm a geek. So I really don't have anywhere near the knowledge on this matter that many others do have.

But my main point is that a majority people producing in an economy can prehaps make a very large number of those people much better off.

 

[Jas]

Originally posted by TheBacon
Hi Ya Steve,
I'm intrigued, would you care to elaborate?

Ta.

TheBacon

The way steve sets things up, the cashbond itself is a deduction. So, not only is it not taxed, it reduces your taxes.

Jas

 

[Joe D]

I personally believe that the average Australian has such a low expectation, that they are almost certainly guaranteed of achieving their goal.

A contrarian view perhaps?

Rgds

Joe D

 

[always_learning]

It is fair enough, people generally think that twice there current income is "rich". I certainly would be happy with 2twice my current income. However rich for me would be 10times and it all be passive!

 

[Aceyducey]

Originally posted by Joe D
I personally believe that the average Australian has such a low expectation, that they are almost certainly guaranteed of achieving their goal.

A contrarian view perhaps?

Not contrarian at all

Generally accepted I think.

Our education system is not set up to foster dreams of betterment but is very good at helping people become comfortable in their 'place'.

Very Victorian.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[abcdiamond]

Originally posted by geoffw
I've heard it said that the reason that Spain became so poor, in comparison the the rest of Europe, is the vast amount of gold they received from the New World.

Thanks Geoff, that was interesting. I have always wondered why Spain seemed to go downhill, and your comments make a lot of sense of that.

I'm trying to work out what "Rich" means to me. I don't think I can put a purely monetary value on it. Even with millions, you may not have what you need. Am I taking the question to deeply ?