- Sep 2, 2014
- 16,668
- 32,003
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Brilliant, two pieces of opposing anecdotal evidence. Guess that settles it.
Business & Finance What is a 'good salary' in Australia in 2022?
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Moderator
- #52
Well you completely ignored the linked empirical evidence as well.
In today's age probably 100k
How people have kids when they make a household income of less than 100k astounds me.
I know my money doesn't necessarily equate to happiness but you need to be comfortable.
Before I think about kids with my Mrs in a few years time I'd like to be making 125k+ super and she makes around 55+ super currently
How people have kids when they make a household income of less than 100k astounds me.
I know my money doesn't necessarily equate to happiness but you need to be comfortable.
Before I think about kids with my Mrs in a few years time I'd like to be making 125k+ super and she makes around 55+ super currently
- Apr 27, 2008
- 64,861
- 78,786
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
I live regionally. Not an urban idea of regionally like an hour outside a city, like 6 hours away from anywhere with a six figure population.
It's possible to live comfortably from 40k onwards, if you are single with no dependents.
But there's a lot of people in industries that earn 120+. They have the potential to retire multimillionaires after the low cost of living is taken in to account. Many actually can afford to have a house locally and a mortgage in the city.
My mate is single. His mortgage for his 3 bedroom house is about 130 a fortnight. He earns 160k a year.
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
It's possible to live comfortably from 40k onwards, if you are single with no dependents.
But there's a lot of people in industries that earn 120+. They have the potential to retire multimillionaires after the low cost of living is taken in to account. Many actually can afford to have a house locally and a mortgage in the city.
My mate is single. His mortgage for his 3 bedroom house is about 130 a fortnight. He earns 160k a year.
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
partly related/tangential to this discussion'
once the kids move out of home (probably still 7-10 years away), i will have no hesitation renting this place out to a large family (as its like 5 beds+office + 2 living areas and decks as well) and rent elsewhere for half the cost of what i will receive in rent. i certainly wont be like many boomers and older generations who feel nostalgic and wont move out of the family home, and they stay there a couple or sometimes 1 person in a massive house
then i can work part time as the other lost salary will be made up from rent differential.
once the kids move out of home (probably still 7-10 years away), i will have no hesitation renting this place out to a large family (as its like 5 beds+office + 2 living areas and decks as well) and rent elsewhere for half the cost of what i will receive in rent. i certainly wont be like many boomers and older generations who feel nostalgic and wont move out of the family home, and they stay there a couple or sometimes 1 person in a massive house
then i can work part time as the other lost salary will be made up from rent differential.
MWPP
Flying High
I hear you
That said, even some regional/rural areas have gone up.
eg I regret not buying in Bendigo (Kangaroo Flat more specifically) in 2020 instead of renting (I was only ever going to be there for a year)
So while I agree with the sentiment, not everyone works in industries that allows them to work in or from a regional location
Having said that, I would rather live in Bendigo (or Bunbury from a WA perspective) than many outer suburban areas of the city if it was a choice between the two and other factors (like distance from family) being equal.
MWPP
Flying High
Again, I understand the sentiment but everyone's circumstances are different
Maybe I'm getting mixed up as I recall you mentioning that you citing an interstate move the reason for your change in club (from West Coast to Gold Coast)
But if that's you, I hear you. I think the first move is always the trickiest
I've moved across the country 3 times in the last 3 years and the first move was definitely the toughest
That all said, as much as I love Perth , I still wouldn't feel tied to there/feel the pull to return eventually if my parents weren't there . I'm an only child too.
So in summary I see where you're coming from but I can also see why some boomers don't want to move away from their supports either
MWPP
Flying High
Billy ray you also bring up an interesting point about rentvesting
I'm doing that more out of circumstance than design because my latest move to Vic (this time to inner city Melbourne) is also not a long-term one, but if my ties were here or Sydney or another city that's much more expensive than Perth was/is to buy even after the latest Perth rises, I would buy further out and rent that out whilst paying a lot less rent to live/work out of a suburb closer to work /friends/family
I'm doing that more out of circumstance than design because my latest move to Vic (this time to inner city Melbourne) is also not a long-term one, but if my ties were here or Sydney or another city that's much more expensive than Perth was/is to buy even after the latest Perth rises, I would buy further out and rent that out whilst paying a lot less rent to live/work out of a suburb closer to work /friends/family
yeh i can see why people want to stay close to supports, but take my family in perth - my folks still live in the large 2 story house just the two of them and in their 70s. their remaining relatives are indeed close by (surrounding streets and suburbs) but there are also townhouses on their street available to rent - they could rent out their place for a tidy profit over renting a 2 bedroom townhouse literally a 5 min walk away.
same as their siblings all in 60s and 70s and 80s.
MWPP
Flying High
Yeah, I see what you mean there ^
Not sure if the pension is a factor (that said, my own parents , who are a little younger than yours but not that much younger, are in a similar boat but I'd say that's because they don't need that extra cash/it's not as if they would otherwise qualify for the pension anyway)
The latter point (not qualifying for the pension by creating additional income flows) is a real factor for some of their friends though, unfortunately
And also unsurprisingly- when you have people as high profile as the barefoot investor encouraging boomers who have otherwise set themselves up for retirement to make themselves eligible for the pension , it's sad
Again to illustrate your earlier point, my own parents do have a strong emotional attachment to the 2 storey family home on a big block, which we built in the early 2000s. But I reckon that sentiment would dissipate in a heartbeat if they felt the needed or wanted that money, or if health/general ageing got in the way of its maintenance.
- Thread starter
- #61
My mum is in a similar situation (living alone in a house way too big for her)
I've been back and forth on the rentvesting option for her, but I've struggled to make it stack up. Initially the rent differential looks attractive, but once you start building in all the costs associated with being both landlord and tenant the financial benefit becomes more marginal (especially since she wants to stay in the same area). Plus in six years she would lose her main residence exemption - at that point she'll be too old to move back in to reset it, which means she's going to have to sell at that point anyway to avoid a big whack of capital gains tax.
Once I compared the financial benefit over the next six years against the return of just plain selling/downsizing/investing the difference, it was hard to justify the disruption of making a 70-something woman deal with the shitty and uncertain life of renting
ultimately we'll leave her where she is until she's genuinely ready to move, and then make a clean break of it
I've been back and forth on the rentvesting option for her, but I've struggled to make it stack up. Initially the rent differential looks attractive, but once you start building in all the costs associated with being both landlord and tenant the financial benefit becomes more marginal (especially since she wants to stay in the same area). Plus in six years she would lose her main residence exemption - at that point she'll be too old to move back in to reset it, which means she's going to have to sell at that point anyway to avoid a big whack of capital gains tax.
Once I compared the financial benefit over the next six years against the return of just plain selling/downsizing/investing the difference, it was hard to justify the disruption of making a 70-something woman deal with the shitty and uncertain life of renting
ultimately we'll leave her where she is until she's genuinely ready to move, and then make a clean break of it
- Moderator
- #62
Having this discussion with the in laws at the moment.
Safe to say i fully intend to rent or sell my current home and downsize/tree change at that time, a house is a house man, youre only a custodian of it for a time.
- Apr 27, 2008
- 64,861
- 78,786
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
I didn't say they can or do, but some do, and others could consider a move if financially security is a priority and there's opportunity, they can stay for half a dozen years and sure themselves up.
My family is comfy, my dad was unemployed for 15 years, still can't get a job in town, works away, so owns two properties and two houses to pay living costs for (him, us) and get by alright. Add to that in his working life he was employed through an agency, not directly, so earned less than being employed directly. His pay went up about 20% when that changed.
Imaging the wealth a lot of regular people out here have. Regular apparent country people. That have managed to stay employed their working life, at home, by the companies.
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
- Apr 27, 2008
- 64,861
- 78,786
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
When it comes to older generations, I don't know about that. The older generations just used to go and extend and rebuild their homes whenever they felt like it, really made things their own, in the day before excessive red tape and regulations. They were not just custodians. The sense of ownership and belonging would be greater.
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
- Apr 27, 2008
- 64,861
- 78,786
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chael Sonnen: Moral Champion
On this though I think this is happening here now. In 2020 we remortgaged with better interest rates (partner was in house before me and on a fixed rate from the late 2000s), it cut the price of the repayments in half. Had to get a valuation and that, all good.
Now a house two doors down is selling and the asking price is DOUBLE our valuation. There's no ******* way his property is worth double ours. None whatsoever. Now whether he gets that or not, could be a different question.
Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
- Moderator
- #66
They still die and leave it behind don’t they… I have an extreme sense of pride in my home, I’d love to one day have the money to leave it to my kids but at the end of the day it’s bricks and mortar.
I dunno. My grandparents lived in the same house for 50+years and my parents still live in the first home they bought 50 years ago.. and I think there is something pretty special about a family having those kind of roots.. yes it is "just bricks and mortar" but they can be so much more than that. My parents have talked about selling and down-sizing but I think it is more their children (me and my siblings) who want them to stay as though we are all middle-aged or approaching it, it is still 'home' in many ways.. maybe that is the difference between a house and a home, or maybe I am overly sentimental.
if you're not pulling in at least $10k a day then link me your World Vision page and I'll send you a few bucko's
- Moderator
- #69
Personally I think the connection is much more about the community you’re a part of (and for some build) than the home.
At a point in time the natural progression of life is that your kids grow up, move out and start their own families with their own homes.
To be perfectly clear if your parents or you at a point can afford to keep your home and you don’t want to move then that’s your right to stay there be it for sentimental reasons or otherwise but the cycle is “meant to” go
- shitty small apartment or share house in your late teens early 20s
- townhouse or larger nicer apartment in your mid to late 20s
- family home in your early 30s
- tree/sea change/apartment in your retirement
Part of the reason we have a housing shortage is cause older people refuse to sell/rent the family homes they bought when they had kids and many of them can’t afford to upkeep those homes too.
If I can afford to keep my current house as my wife and I retire and naturally downsize I absolutely will but that’s fairly unlikely tbh and my wife and I sitting in a 4 bedroom house with 3 bathrooms feels pointless when it will just be the two of us.
The cycle according to whom? Real estate agents? Advertising executives?
I dont understand the idea that people living in the same house for 50+ years are the cause of the housing crisis. Broken systems and the powers that be love to focus the blame at individuals though, and as a society we fall for it every time. Hence the current trends of 'boomer bashing', paper straws and carbon-footprint..
- Moderator
- #71
Did you read the whole post or just the bit you quoted?
According to the cycle of life in the western world. What need does a family of two older adults have for a family home of for 6? I’m not for a second suggesting that’s the only way to live but it is the expectation for the housing market. Buy, rent, camp, have kids, don’t have kids, have 4000 cats if you like, but the housing market was and is still established to have a home commensurate to needs in terms of living space and access to amenities (even though most people are now totally priced out of that).
I didn’t say they were the cause but it’s naive to suggest it’s not contributing.
If every older Australian just held onto their home then the only way the nex gen gets a home is through death (and then your ****ed if you have a sibling or two) or moving further and further out.
It’s not the only cause, it’s not even the most prevalent cause buts it’s absolutely a part of it.
Again, and I can’t stress this enough, if you bought a house, made it your home and never ever wanna sell it or move you have absolutely earned that right, do with your home as you wish, not I nor anyone else can tell you otherwise, but, you’ll still only ever be a custodian of that house during your years living there. Both those things are absolutely true.
Last edited:
Ah yes.. "according to the the cycle of life in the western world".. I couldn't have said it better myself!
- Moderator
- #73
Right so you really are just reading one line of my posts. That’s cool.
Its definitely a contributor hence govts have considered policy to have stamp duty exemptions for seniors downsizing.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #75
The biggest issue currently with housing isn't empty nest couples not downsizing
its all the empty houses that people can't live in, because they're kept empty for holiday homes or AirBnB or short stay accommodation, or just empty because the owner can't be bothered fixing it but won't sell it
same with land banking where people buy land and sit on it until they can sell it for a profit
for profit housing is the single biggest issue
its all the empty houses that people can't live in, because they're kept empty for holiday homes or AirBnB or short stay accommodation, or just empty because the owner can't be bothered fixing it but won't sell it
same with land banking where people buy land and sit on it until they can sell it for a profit
for profit housing is the single biggest issue
