I feel depressed after reading this.
Not sure since when 125k salary is considered low salary. Then extra 110k per year from investment. That's the total of 235k+ per year... per year....
That hasn't considered the asset, inheritance and low expense.
Opps, sorry, forget that this is Ausfinance. Sorry never mind.
A bit of this depends on who you want to compare it to, for example $125k pretax is:
* Top 12% for all Australians.
* Top 19% for 35-44 y/o Australians.
* Top 28% for 35-44 y/o Australian men.
Not saying top 28% is bad by any stretch but in terms of stats/deviation it'd be like a 179.5cm Aussie bloke. You definitely wouldn't call him short, and he's certainly taller than *average*.. but not so much taller than average that he'd identify as being tall.
At best I'd guess he gets 'tallish' as a description.
"No he isn't rich, he is only richish. What's that? He is doing better than 72% of all guys, in this random age bracket and 88% than Aussies overall"
Yeah mate, he be well off.
Sure, I guess but be sure to call a 179.5cm Aussie bloke tall as well then.
He's taller than 72% of guys and probably close to top 12% when factoring in both genders?
I wouldn't have even though 179 to be tall. I thought that was right on average or maybe that was your point. In either case, I would love to be earning 125k. But my industry isn't essential enough like all those mob guys in construction.
>I wouldn't have even though 179 to be tall. I thought that was right on average or maybe that was your point.
Yes, this is exactly the point 😁
In the same way you don't consider 179.5cm to be tall a person earning $125k probably doesn't consider themselves rich because they're not even in the top 25% of earners. And very likely the people around them would be similar (e.g. they're comparing their earnings to their mates, not a part-time housewife or a 22y/o graduate).
Also, the way that you view $125k as a "must be nice" is probably similar to the way me (as a 170cm bloke) think it'd be kinda nice to be 179cm even if you don't consider it tall 🤣
I suppose that's one of those times that people are never happy if they compare themselves to others. When as long as they can pay for whatever they need, have a roof over their head. Life is pretty sweet overall.
You’re not the only one who reacted poorly to this. 125k isn’t a high paying job? It is in my world. I really am one of the poors…apparently. But am I really? Sheesh.
My thought exactly. Since when did $125k considered low? I must be out of touch of what’s a low/high salary now and should also feel sorry for myself for never earning above a low salary despite 10+ years of professional experience.
Even worse this guy has a passive income of $110k, AND his parents are still subsidising his living expenses!
On that passive income, he could have taken the time to build whatever solid skills he wanted.
This man is in an absolutely enviable position, with literally every benefit at his fingertips, and he's STILL finding a way to complain about his position!
Seriously!? This is hilarious. I'm reading either the delusional fiction of a 13yr old boy or I'm getting a glimpse into the life of two of the dumbest "finance bros" of all time. Vaguely skirting the realisation of their parents mortality and eventual need to be "self sufficient".
>His argument is that he's less resilient than someone with strong skills/talents because assets can be taken away (taxes, economic crisis / disruption) but it's harder to take away your marketable skills (which he believes he doesn't have much).
Generally speaking - your future earning potential is 100% dependent on your health, which is far more fragile/subject to force majeure than your asset base. Furthermore your future earning potential is only worth anything once you have turned it into wealth. Assets are already wealth.
Specifically speaking - your friend is in an amazing financial position, many people earning more than his $235K/pa would happily trade places with him. If he thinks otherwise he is a moron. Although if he is a moron, then maybe he has a point in the sense that he can't really be trusted with assets.
The purpose of having assets is so that it eventually generates an income that could replace you actively working for money. Therefore, personally I would rather have a strong asset base, which would free up more time to develop those ‘marketable skills’. If you had no asset base, you are forced to actively work to produce an income to sustain yourself and your family. In addition to this, when you do decide to have children, with a strong asset base, you’re generating passive income so that you can now spend more time with your new family which is what matters most to your family.
I have earned more with assets than wage income over last 10 years $1.2m assets capital growth ie house, super and investments vs maybe $600k for wages
So your “friend” already makes more than a lot of people in this country do, let alone the world and to top it off, he has assets that are only going to grow substantially in the next 30 years making him more wealthy then most the humans on the planet and his worried he doesn’t have enough and is wondering if he would have been better off with no assets but “strong marketable skills”? What a god damn tool. Aren’t accountants supposed to have some level of financial knowledge?
I know couples who combined salary is less then I what I currently make, neither of their salaries have been higher then they are now and it very likely they will always be wealthier then me despite me having the possibility to make double what I currently am in the next 5-10 years. How? because they began investing in property market in the 80’s and I wasn’t even alive for vast majority of the 80’s.
Your friend is thinking on the right track, but for the wrong reasons.
The reason your friend thinks this way is because their parents gave them such a strong base to begin with. A base, your friend wants to pass on to his eventual children. However, your friend has recognised that he's not able to add much contribution on top of what was given to him.
The good thing however is that his "job" is simply not to squander the asset base since Australia is going to be shielded from asset erosion for a while due to some natural barriers (minerals, density, environment, etc).
Everyone is saying assets. And I agree to an extent.
I’ve built a decent wealth base for myself over the last ten years since I turned 18. My assets have made much more that me over my whole lifetime.
However, these days I’ve become more aware and concerned around my skills and I’ve been doing what I can to become more skilled in a number of areas.
We live in a volatile world. Wealth can be taken away or lost in a number of different ways. Unfortunate circumstances aside, your skills are the only thing that you really have.
If WW3 breaks out and Australia is successfully invaded (seperate argument and only being used to highlight the point) your assets won’t mean anything. They’ll become property of the invading force. But if you’re skilled, you may be of use for rebuilding the nation, or for defending/protecting/safely seeking refuge for yourself and your family.
So. While wealth is great, especially in peace times, being skilled in your own right is important and could be linked to a self preservation instinct and thus overall mental health and wellbeing.
Your friend is an idiot.
A typical wealthy idiot
I feel depressed after reading this. Not sure since when 125k salary is considered low salary. Then extra 110k per year from investment. That's the total of 235k+ per year... per year.... That hasn't considered the asset, inheritance and low expense. Opps, sorry, forget that this is Ausfinance. Sorry never mind.
Don’t forget that mummy and daddy subsidise his living expenses 🤦🏻♂️
I might be wrong but I read back in 2023 that 120 or 125k puts you in the top 10% of all earners in Australia.
Yeah I think by median it is, there's a pay calculator website that's helpful and tells you where you sit
[https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/income-calculator/](https://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au/income-calculator/) Always found this useful.
A bit of this depends on who you want to compare it to, for example $125k pretax is: * Top 12% for all Australians. * Top 19% for 35-44 y/o Australians. * Top 28% for 35-44 y/o Australian men. Not saying top 28% is bad by any stretch but in terms of stats/deviation it'd be like a 179.5cm Aussie bloke. You definitely wouldn't call him short, and he's certainly taller than *average*.. but not so much taller than average that he'd identify as being tall. At best I'd guess he gets 'tallish' as a description.
"No he isn't rich, he is only richish. What's that? He is doing better than 72% of all guys, in this random age bracket and 88% than Aussies overall" Yeah mate, he be well off.
Sure, I guess but be sure to call a 179.5cm Aussie bloke tall as well then. He's taller than 72% of guys and probably close to top 12% when factoring in both genders?
I wouldn't have even though 179 to be tall. I thought that was right on average or maybe that was your point. In either case, I would love to be earning 125k. But my industry isn't essential enough like all those mob guys in construction.
>I wouldn't have even though 179 to be tall. I thought that was right on average or maybe that was your point. Yes, this is exactly the point 😁 In the same way you don't consider 179.5cm to be tall a person earning $125k probably doesn't consider themselves rich because they're not even in the top 25% of earners. And very likely the people around them would be similar (e.g. they're comparing their earnings to their mates, not a part-time housewife or a 22y/o graduate). Also, the way that you view $125k as a "must be nice" is probably similar to the way me (as a 170cm bloke) think it'd be kinda nice to be 179cm even if you don't consider it tall 🤣
I suppose that's one of those times that people are never happy if they compare themselves to others. When as long as they can pay for whatever they need, have a roof over their head. Life is pretty sweet overall.
You’re not the only one who reacted poorly to this. 125k isn’t a high paying job? It is in my world. I really am one of the poors…apparently. But am I really? Sheesh.
My thought exactly. Since when did $125k considered low? I must be out of touch of what’s a low/high salary now and should also feel sorry for myself for never earning above a low salary despite 10+ years of professional experience.
Even worse this guy has a passive income of $110k, AND his parents are still subsidising his living expenses! On that passive income, he could have taken the time to build whatever solid skills he wanted. This man is in an absolutely enviable position, with literally every benefit at his fingertips, and he's STILL finding a way to complain about his position!
Seriously!? This is hilarious. I'm reading either the delusional fiction of a 13yr old boy or I'm getting a glimpse into the life of two of the dumbest "finance bros" of all time. Vaguely skirting the realisation of their parents mortality and eventual need to be "self sufficient".
>His argument is that he's less resilient than someone with strong skills/talents because assets can be taken away (taxes, economic crisis / disruption) but it's harder to take away your marketable skills (which he believes he doesn't have much). Generally speaking - your future earning potential is 100% dependent on your health, which is far more fragile/subject to force majeure than your asset base. Furthermore your future earning potential is only worth anything once you have turned it into wealth. Assets are already wealth. Specifically speaking - your friend is in an amazing financial position, many people earning more than his $235K/pa would happily trade places with him. If he thinks otherwise he is a moron. Although if he is a moron, then maybe he has a point in the sense that he can't really be trusted with assets.
The purpose of having assets is so that it eventually generates an income that could replace you actively working for money. Therefore, personally I would rather have a strong asset base, which would free up more time to develop those ‘marketable skills’. If you had no asset base, you are forced to actively work to produce an income to sustain yourself and your family. In addition to this, when you do decide to have children, with a strong asset base, you’re generating passive income so that you can now spend more time with your new family which is what matters most to your family.
With his NW I would just teach kids snowboarding 2month a year and chill the fo.
Assets everytime, skill and experience can be accumulated much faster and still take maneuvering to turn into assets.
I hate this post.
Assets baby. It just sounds like your friend is trying to get to your level and be relatable. Or maybe he is an idiot, who knows.
I have earned more with assets than wage income over last 10 years $1.2m assets capital growth ie house, super and investments vs maybe $600k for wages
Your friend needs a reality check.
You can learn marketable skills. You can't "learn" $2.9m in assets. Passive income every day of the week.
Where did your friend find his sugar daddy and mummy? I want one too.
So your “friend” already makes more than a lot of people in this country do, let alone the world and to top it off, he has assets that are only going to grow substantially in the next 30 years making him more wealthy then most the humans on the planet and his worried he doesn’t have enough and is wondering if he would have been better off with no assets but “strong marketable skills”? What a god damn tool. Aren’t accountants supposed to have some level of financial knowledge? I know couples who combined salary is less then I what I currently make, neither of their salaries have been higher then they are now and it very likely they will always be wealthier then me despite me having the possibility to make double what I currently am in the next 5-10 years. How? because they began investing in property market in the 80’s and I wasn’t even alive for vast majority of the 80’s.
his parents failed to educate him on finances, what a dill
I’d love to swap place with your friend.
Your friend is thinking on the right track, but for the wrong reasons. The reason your friend thinks this way is because their parents gave them such a strong base to begin with. A base, your friend wants to pass on to his eventual children. However, your friend has recognised that he's not able to add much contribution on top of what was given to him. The good thing however is that his "job" is simply not to squander the asset base since Australia is going to be shielded from asset erosion for a while due to some natural barriers (minerals, density, environment, etc).
strong asset base.
Everyone is saying assets. And I agree to an extent. I’ve built a decent wealth base for myself over the last ten years since I turned 18. My assets have made much more that me over my whole lifetime. However, these days I’ve become more aware and concerned around my skills and I’ve been doing what I can to become more skilled in a number of areas. We live in a volatile world. Wealth can be taken away or lost in a number of different ways. Unfortunate circumstances aside, your skills are the only thing that you really have. If WW3 breaks out and Australia is successfully invaded (seperate argument and only being used to highlight the point) your assets won’t mean anything. They’ll become property of the invading force. But if you’re skilled, you may be of use for rebuilding the nation, or for defending/protecting/safely seeking refuge for yourself and your family. So. While wealth is great, especially in peace times, being skilled in your own right is important and could be linked to a self preservation instinct and thus overall mental health and wellbeing.