Are you REALLY a middle income household?

[Violet Star]

That was a great forumula to see how work it out.

[Gigi]

i can't work out that formula, but think i know where i would be classed anyhoo.

[AnyDream]

Just bumping this thread as it may be of interest with the current issue around PHI rebates/Medicary levy increases.

[sushee]

It's interesting how they calculate disposable income in that formula. Or that a child is not considered unless they live with you, even if you provide for the child/ren.

[AnyDream]

I'm sure this is only one measure that is used out of a number of things that create an much more detailed picture. I think non-residing children aren't included because this is a measure that is used across populations, and so you'd only want to count each child once (in the household where they live) otherwise it would skew the population figures.

FWIW it probably doesn't address a lot of things, like spouses that work away some of the time, or children that technically still live with you but are actually away at university, or a family member who is in hospital or residential care for extended periods. But as a broad measure, still interesting, I think.

[sushee]

It is interesting. And a little scary, because it apparently puts me and DP in a bracket I didn't think we were in.

We live in a rented townhouse in Brunswick. We own one car - a 2006 corolla. I own an investment property in Perth but also a sizeable mortgage to go with it. We have debt. I have 4 children that I variously support even though none of them live with me.

I would have thought I was comfortably middle class at best. But no, we're apparently rolling in it with the Murdochs and the Rineharts, except I can't see the 'it' we're rolling in.

Who knew?

[Miss E]

I would have thought I was comfortably middle class at best. But no, we're apparently rolling in it with the Murdochs and the Rineharts, except I can't see the 'it' we're rolling in.

Who knew?

Same here... It's definately flawed. But I think where you live has a lot to do with how much 'it' you have to roll in. It really should take into account how much it costs you to keep a roof over your head.

[sushee]

I work in the city and DP in Richmond, and he doesn't drive, so for now Brunswick is the most convenient place for us to be. Though I'm trying to convince him that for what we pay, something in the Eastern Suburbs close to a train would be a better idea.

I agree that you tend to live to your means. I was earning half what I earn just 4 years ago, so I lived on that, but I always paid my bills late, and never had anything spare for emergencies. Now I have a little bit of a buffer, and for once, I'm earning more than I have to pay out in bills. So that's the 'it' for me, I guess.

But having said that, I'm no Gina Rinehart, so to say I'm in the 90th percentile just blows me away.

[AnyDream]

I would have thought I was comfortably middle class at best. But no, we're apparently rolling in it with the Murdochs and the Rineharts, except I can't see the 'it' we're rolling in.

Sushee, that's not what this implies at all. If you think of a bell curve, there's a long tail of distribution at the top and bottom of the curve, so if you broke the top and bottom deciles down into incremental percentiles (eg 90th, 91st, 92nd) the average income figures for each of those would get further and further apart, pretty steeply. That's probably why they don't publish those

And, secondly, this is a measure of what's happening over a large population. There would be people in similar circumstances (supporting children not in their household, to a significant proportion of their income) right across all the brackets for whom this measure wouldn't translate very directly as an indication of their ability to build wealth. Or people in other circumstances. Like us, really, we have much higher non-discretionary expenses (medical and childcare) that are not typical of most families at our incomre or age and stage of the lifecycle.

But given that the government tries to think of the ways they can help the broadest number of families without creating further inequalities, this model does give us a glimpse of the lens they look through to try to work this out. And I think it's good to understand how these figures are calculated because it does give an idea of what sort of income people really are earning out there past our own front doorsteps.

ETA - let me just add from a personal viewpoint, I think the whole area of child support payments is very problematic, and creates all sorts of flow-on inequalities in Australia. The system intends to make things fair and equitable but really hasn't achieved this, not by a long shot.

[~*Niadalla*~]

Low income here. Just over the 20% percentile. A bit scary to think about really.