My last post wasn't a value judgment - just a real "wow, would LOVE to be in their shoes some time", cos, as I illustrated, it's hard for me to imagine it (i.e. cannot fathom - not 'cannot accept') LOL!
Printable View
My last post wasn't a value judgment - just a real "wow, would LOVE to be in their shoes some time", cos, as I illustrated, it's hard for me to imagine it (i.e. cannot fathom - not 'cannot accept') LOL!
I also couldn't imagine living on over $100,000 per year!!!
But I'd like to try... ;)
I just cannot fathom someone who works less than my DH, brings home triple the pay, wife still gets to work, could imply that $5000 makes up for that, and how lucky we are. Adding the $5000 to our income still only makes it $49,000. Gee, were almost millionares... :rolleyes:
Yes, we are extremly lucky, our son needs it.
I would kiss Kev's feet if he came over. :lol:
For this "man" to insinuate that getting centrelink money means were well off enough to blow it on a holiday is just ridiculous and cruel. It must of been extremly embarrasing for poor Ad...
I dont begrude anyone getting some extra help, regardless of income, if the money is there to hand out. I certainly wouldn't be rude to a work mate... :wall:
Your DH should go back tomorrow and say that you've already tied up the money on botox injections? Yes, it's really rude to assume what people are going to 'blow' it on - you just don't know, and the government's not asking for receipts, what's more.
I just told DP about it - he hadn't heard...he'll be wanting to put it all on DS's account, he's a little TOO good with money...
We are putting the $$ into Matilda's account, all of it. And then we are using her account for all the OT appointments we will need in the next year and all the swimming lessons we have to have and gym classes that will apparently make it easier for her at school. If thats what it takes, we will do it for her.
Christy - good one! Just ideal, really, isn't it? That's money you don't have to go looking for :)
I'm still wondering if $1000 can buy me another day in the week...
:clap: Here here Briggsy's girl, well said. As a FAO officer it frustrates me so much all these people who say that we never give a straight answer etc, if you dont understand something the way it has been said or you think it is wrong then ask for it to be explained in another way. If it still doesn't sit well ask to speak to a supervisor. Sometimes all you need is someone to tell you the information in another way to understand it. Nothing wrong with that. There is so much misinformation about FTB that comes from people making comments about things they dont understand and then getting angry because their friend got something they didn't.:
I don't understand how $100,000/yr is not a lot of money? We are currently on $37,000 with 2 kids and one on the way, with a mortgage and we are doing fine. $100,000 a year to me is rich comparied to what we live on! We don't struggle, but we use our money wisely. We don't drink or smoke or even go out for dinner as it's not a necessity.
As i said before, we'll be using the money towards our homebirth. Even though we could have done without, it'll make it a whole lot easier.
As someone who doesn't qualify, I will point out my frustration in the bigger picture. It's not with the decision, so much as the way the powers-that-be decide who is a low to middle income earner. We do earn just over the threshold, but we both work full-time with university degrees behind us. Neither of us earn huge individual wages and I do find it frustrating that a couple earning what we do are considered 'high' income earners whereas in a family where one parent works and earns $90,000 for example, isn't.
Stay with me here.... *L* If we had a mortgage (which we don't - but what we pay in rent for a 2 bedroom unit is higher than some people pay in mortgage repayments), we would have had to buy in a very volatile market in the last 2 or so years. It would be a modest home, but we would owe $300,000 - $400,000 for it as opposed to someone who was fortunate enough to be able to enter the housing market say, 5 years ago. I can say this, because my best friend owned the kind of house we aspire to, and bought it for $120,000 less than 5 years ago. It's now worth just under the $300,000 mark.
So just say, that one-income earning family with $90,000 coming in bought their house 5 years ago, and we earn 'more' than them but could only afford to enter the market in the last couple of years. The government considers the lower income earning family to be doing it tougher than someone on our income, whereas in reality it's potentially something else. We're not currently doing it tough so I'm not really complaining about missing out on $1,000 - it would be nice, who doesn't like free money? - but I do have friends who earn half of what we do who are in a far better financial situation because they were able to enter the housing market many years ago before everything skyrocketted.
I'm not saying there's an easy answer to this and I do understand they have to draw the line somewhere, but sometimes it's just so frustrating. I know talking about buying homes probably sounds like I'm off with the fairies, but I'm just trying to highlight that low vs middle vs high income definitions aren't as clear cut as they get made out to be.
I highly doubt this has made any sense because it's late and considering the number of brain farts I had MUCH earlier in the day....
Antheia, depending on where you live, and how much you have to pay for accomodation and food, some people may be able to live on $30k, and yet others won't be able to live on $100k. If you live in a city where rents are phenomenally high (as it is here in WA), have to pay childcare because you have to work or where the cost of buying a house is among the most expensive in the world, the money doesn't go as far. My family owns one small petrol-miser car, we live in a three bedroom house that cost us half a million dollars to buy (and was considerd cheap for Perth at the time and where the mortgage costs us less than rent) and we don't smoke, drink, eat out either. We're surviving but we're by no accounts rolling in it either.
So personal circumstance plays a big big part. When I vented about my circumstance, I clearly said it wasn't about missing out on the payment (to make it crystal clear yet again, in case anyone missed it) but to point out how the system is a disincentive for working mums to have a go and try to earn more for the sake of their families. Earning more, under the current system, can often DISADVANTAGE working mothers.
Sorry i wasnt actually saying it in regards to the $1000. Just the simple fact i can't understand how 100k can not be a lot of money. And in my situation,it is a lot of money. I have no idea how much house prices are, so i didnt realise it can vary a lot depending on where you live as i have lived in the one place my whole life. I am sorry if my post upset some people, it certainly was not intended that way at all.
You didn't upset me hun, I was just answering your question with some of my perspective. The second half of my post was more in reply to the 'suck it up' statement, not your post.
I agree Sushee and Becka. People need to see the other side too, we are one of the ones Becka mentioned who didn't buy a house when they wre more affordable and now pay just over $2,000 per FORTNIGHT on our mortgage, $440 a fortnight on FDC plus all our other bills so we have much less disposable income than some people who will qualify. Because DH's income is significantly lower than mine I cannnot afford to be a SAHM and since his varies according to overtime we never know exactly how much he will get.
I wil just have to "suck it up" I guess but what annoys me most is what Rudd has decided is middle income and what is not.
dont forget guys that although $100,000 may look good on paper dont forget those people pay a hell of alot more tax than those on $40,000!
LMAO - 'these people" being..... ME!! :P (love the round about way people talk on these forums PMSL):
Well.. I can only speak from experience. I have been given figures, everything makes sense.. trust what I'm told.. go back with my next question, and the next person says no, that figure isn't right.. should be this.. blah blah blah. But I was GIVEN this figure!! Can't tell you how often it has happened.. and it happens with plenty of places where people sit looking up knowledge bases. UGH. the questions aren't that complicated either fwiw. (oh.. and it was when I was working for an accountant.. so it wasn't just me ringing up with personal questions.. so I wasn't the only frustrated one)
And yep - the tax on $100k is ridiculous.. especially when it's from one income. If it's divvied up between 2 people the tax isn't AS bad. Does it allow for this at all with FTBA? Our net income would be less than a couple earning $50k each. Yet we're seen as having the same "income". pfft.
ETA: cos I'm bored I'd figure I'd work out the difference LOL. Two people on $50k each bring home $80,856 and a single income on $100k brings home $72,432. Sheesh, $8k difference in tax, so 2 juniors could bring home more than 1 senior!
(this was a very basic calc, didn't take into account dependents and stuff.. just wanted to see a basic difference :) )
I was going to say the same as Sushee. We're on a combined income of just under $100 000 & we struggle, Aaron pays something like 40% in tax. Aaron's pay (90% of the total) goes entirely on the mortgage & bills with around $150 per fortnight to spare. Mine pays for (& only just) petrol for my car & groceries. As soon as a birthday / special occasion comes up we have problems & the credit card gets a beating.
Exactly! :clap: now that's a fair way of looking at the big picture....:
Just remember everyone that people on mortgages (and yes they choose to have a mortgage just like 'some' others choose not to have a mortgage and prefer to rent and in some areas rent is cheaper than owning a house) have ALOT of monthly payments just to keep up with the repayments and money can be very tight for these people also, so yes $1k would benefit these people too..... as i've said before, EVERYONE can benefit from $1K in some way or another no matter who you are..... whether it be to pay off your home loan and beat the high interest rates, or buy food for your family....
It's rude for anyone to assume that someone on a 'high' income of say $100K or more, would 'waste' that $1k..... because for many people thats simply not true.
I think this is what upsets the "high income" earners the most......
(i'm not going to state where i fit in the picture because it's noones business and TBH i have no idea if we qualify or not but i like to see it from BOTH SIDES)
I just wanted to say... I think its just as rude for someone to assume that people who are on low incomes will blow the money, as it is to assume that people on high incomes don't need it.
(Not aiming this at anyone BTW just saying!)
That's all I'll say.
With the extra $8k we're paying in tax.. I should have had 6 more kids so I could get that $8k back! LOL. Altho that would only cover 1 years worth. Let's not even think about how much extra tax we pay over a lifetime. eeek.