This is a social experiment. :)
Please vote for your relevant yearly income bracket!
Edit: Voting Results for 4/8/2013
[SURVEY] Are there more rich people looking for a bargain than poor people?
MasterNoob on 31/07/2013 - 21:49
Last edited 04/08/2013 - 21:23 by 1 other user
Last edited 04/08/2013 - 21:23 by 1 other user
Poll Options
- 67$200 000 and above
- 27$150 000 to $199 999
- 86$100 000 to $149 999
- 85$80 000 to $99 999
- 126$60 000 to $79 999
- 331$59 999 and below
Comments
- 1
- 2
I'm no economist either but if the marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is your extra consumption measured as a proportion of your disposable income, meaning that as your disposable income increases - consumption increases, but at a decreasing rate. Then as you said - the person who experiences an increase in his disposable income has already got his "needs" covered, but the reason his MPC will increase is because he will begin buying higher quality goods and more luxury items. On the other hand, the reason it increases at a decreasing rate is because as your disposable income increases - you have more flexibility to save.
Guys don't be an idiot like me. I was earning $240,000/year for years. The past 16 months, my business/employment suffered and as a result my income dropped to $40k/year and looking back, I had spent most of my money buying useless things. I bought the latest ipads, iphones, exercise equipments that I never use, repayments on the new BMW, constantly upgraded my PC, etc. All I have to show for this now is outdated things and some overdue tax bills I still need to pay. The only "asset" I gained from all of this a good lesson. If I ever a good salary again, I will definitely put it into "rising" assets that generate passive income and learn to live "low".
Reminds me of what i'm was doing also. Slowly resisting paying the premium for the latest gadgets. Bought nexus 4 instead of S4. Bought Hyundai i30 instead of my dream Disco. I will get there.
Your reply has convinced me. I will do the same.
Thanks for the advice ws83jsb3948d, what you learnt and shared has now helped a lot of people.
Good on you for pointing that out. For many, there are not many "rising" assets left out there. Best bet is to spend on what you need and try to save as much as you can. Put your money in the bank or foreign bank if you have to. Don't risk it on shares or property("investment property" that is)
There's probably a heap of school/uni students which would skew the results for '$59999 and below'
..not to mention all the people who, you know, actually earn less.
No one earns under 60k a year. Ask any politician.
Yep, that's what I meant, which is why there should have been a separate option for students so people don't get mixed up with those who actually earn $59999 and below. Right now, the poll suggests that most people who earn a living earn less than 60k. I'm pretty sure OP didn't want to include students in the poll.
I am a FT student and make in the second upper bracket via my investments (that I earned BTW).
Right now, the poll suggests that most people who earn a living earn less than 60k
So do the public stats. Even if you only count full time work.
Definitely need a separate section for students who havent had a career before- high schoolers and FT students fresh from high school.
well seeing the poorest of the poor don't have computers, internet service or the time to surf at leisure i wouldn't exactly say ozb demographic is reflective of the wider population
Maybe have another category full time students. That should then take care.
So you think < $60k are the poor? A lot of people live on less. Also you don't say whether you mean individual income or family income. That's going to affect your results.
Similarly I'm not sure somebody earning even $200K qualifies as 'rich'. All in the definition I know but I know plenty of folks on $200K that admittedly live comfortable lives but I wouldnt call them 'rich'. Once the mortgage, the car loan/lease and the kids school fees are paid, particularly if they are the sole family breadwinner, a $200K p.a. salaried employee will often be looking for bargains like everyone else.
Additionally, I think looking for bargains is something you learn when you are young. There seems to be some kind of crazy perception going around that if you earn a good living you are obviously some kind of privileged person. Many of the well off folks I know rose from nothing and became wealthy through frugal habits, hard work, good decisions and seeking out the best deals they could afford. I know plenty of folks that started out as those poor students on low wages that rose to be in those high paying jobs working their way up from the bottom.
I am at the upper end of the poll and I go to enormous lengths to seek out the best bargains. I've worked too hard over the years and risen from nothing to go around wasting my $$ on overpriced stuff.
If you choose to have a huge mortgage (indeed, able to buy a house at all), have a car loan that makes a dent in 200K and pay expensive school fees you can suck it up.
I have no tollerance for people at this end of the pay scale suggesting that they don't have money to do what they like, they just choose these life options that suck up their cash.
Of course, this is no reason they can't be bargainers.
Not asking for any sympathy Bruce, I understand there are people much more deserving of sympathy and people doing it much tougher, no contest, I used to be one of them. $150K - $200K buys you a comfortable life where you can pay your bills, get a mortgage, buy a house and a car, go on holidays and send your kids to good schools. I know there are plenty that cannot afford to do these things.
It is however all a matter of perspective. A $200K salary wouldn't buy you Porsches and yachts, apartments in New York and Milan and a private jet to take you there. It wouldn't buy you the freedom not to work nor might it buy you the freedom to live where you want to live or indeed to follow the career or activities in life that you want. Just like everyone else it probably means you have to work and pay taxes just that you can get some of the things above along the way.
By any measure folks on $150 - $200K aren't battling and they don't need your sympathy. They don't need welfare or help. They know they are doing better than most but they probably don't have the enormous disposable income to romp around wasting huge slabs of money. Most would probably still look for bargains.
There is thread about buying Rolex watches in the Forum. This is probably not a realistic goal for somebody struggling on newstart etc. For many this might be a special treat for achieving something or maybe a decadent act saved up for years. Why shouldn't somebody able to make that kind of purchase seek out the best deal? Because they make >$150K should they throw their money around?
When I think 'Rich' I think James Packer, Lachie Murdoch etc, people for whom disposable money is not an issue. I'm sure those guys don't bother with bargains, they dont have to make $$ based trade offs or compromises in their life. The trade offs and compromises might differ depending on how much you bring home I agree but I think Rich is having the freedom to avoid this.
When I think 'Rich' I think James Packer, Lachie Murdoch… I'm sure those guys don't bother with bargains
Two very bad examples as neither of them "rose with nothing" like in your original comment. Also see previous thread here on frugal habits of some of the super rich, and many of them have much humbler beginning.
and send your kids to good schools.
Good and expensive are not the same. Lots of information on this.
Sounds to me like you have a very high sense of entitlement that you have 'earned' all these luxuries and thus should not be considered part of your disposable income.
As Scotty says, the rich never think they are rich enough.
But my point is that these guys are the 'genuine rich' they inherited mega millions and were brought up with a millionaire lifestyle where nothing was too expensive. That is much different to somebody that's risen up from being 16 years old working at a Maccas checkout window to 30 years later being an accountant living in the burtbs driving a Camry to work in the city and earning $150K. Of the two examples I reckon the Murdochs etc are rich and the accountant is just a dude that worked hard to build a career.
And Bruce, mate dont get personal, I've never had a go at you. You have no idea where I live, what car I drive or where my kids go to school. You have no right to say I have a high sense of entitlement. You've no idea what I've done to earn my money but you seem to feel free to judge me for it! Unfair dude! I never said expensive school = better school, I dont live in an expensive inner city suburb (I live in an outer suburb) and I drive a 10 year old holden commodore (that I own outright). I've said time and again that I dont want/expect/need sympathy, I've just tried to make a point and I've tried to avoid making it personal.
send us to private school… my god your talking some utter bullshit.
your still richAre you sure you're getting the best value for money education? :p
And Bruce, mate dont get personal, I've never had a go at you.
Agreed. Whether or not you agree with 2ndeffort's opinion, reading into them and attacking him on a personal level just makes you sound bitter.
I never said expensive school = better school
+1
Look at the Top Schools of for HSC
8 out of 10 are public schools.Ha. I wouldn't say Top Schools of HSC = Better either. Yeah school is about education, but good education is a lot more than getting a good tertiary entrance score.
/Disclaimer I am putting my two kids through private school, but not for academic reason.
and by what evidence are you basing the judgment that private schools provide a more wholistic education on?
Experience. Have lots of teacher friends in both public and private schools.
Edit: I am not saying whether public or private is better, and it also depends on what you want to get out of the education system. However the thing is, when you have more money to spend, you do get a little bit more choices.
i guess my experience differs from yours. i have had first-hand and second-hand experience (i.e. friends and teachers) where kids in the upper spectum of public schools have equally if not more wholistic education (ie. extracurricular, character development etc) while i find some private schools have a less than optimal culture which breeds entitlement and elitism instead of building confidence and character.
this is anecdotal of course as there are always exceptions to generalisations. i'm not disagreeing with you at all but people should be conscious of the fact private school does not always equal better quality, in the same way that top marks does not equal top education
i find some private schools have a less than optimal culture which breeds entitlement and elitism
I think it does depend on the school & A LOT on the children's family as well. My kids go to mid-price range private school with religious affiliation (because we go to church and prefer to pick schools base on similar value system). However I'm always amazed by the fleet of euro-mobile from parents picking up/dropping off kids. Really make my Korean people mover stand out :)
Holistic.
Ha. who needs private schools. Public schools are ghetto, but you learn a thing or two.
Don't agree that $200k/year people aren't "rich". Even statistics aren't on their side. However greed is pretty much part of human nature, and for most people they are never "rich enough". Just ask some of the richest people in this country…
However I do agree that…
I think looking for bargains is something you learn when you are young… Many of the well off folks I know rose from nothing and became wealthy through frugal habits, hard work, good decisions and seeking out the best deals they could afford.
I guess I have just had too many experience of people crying pool when they can't manage their money properly and can't spend wisely.
"crying pool"…….that's a lot of tears!
I find the brackets you post interesting and says a lot about your position on money.
Also note that I would note vote in such a public survey, and it is well known that many people who do lie.
Yeah the starting point is pretty high isn't it?
People tend to lie about their income on the internet alot - check out whirlpool and you'll find Australia's financial elite (reportedly).
I think these brackets are pretty funky too, I see that someone said that uni students would skew the results for $59999 and below. A lot of people make less than that in their first 5 years of their careers, especially in multi-national companies where they are selling their souls for greater rewards. It should also be noted that whilst the average wage of Australians is around $75,000, the mean is around $45,000. This means that half the population of Australia earns less than $45,000.
mean and average are the same. median right?
Yes. Guess it's one of those typos that you make when you get agitated over the ignorance of some people.
Poor was when I couldn't afford anything, sometimes scoring a $50 bank fee because I decided to check my account balance at a third party ATM (to save an extra 20 min walk to the proper ATM), being informed I have zero money, and getting a fee which puts me into debt.
That was poor. Now I can actually pay bills when they come in.
I mean, going from unemployment, saving up money to hopefully buy whatever meat is on special every two weeks to now, on the lower end of the proposed spectrum of wages, but still entirely comfortable, it seems like a slap in the face for someone to inform me that I'm still currently poor. I'm obviously not, it's just the perception of the person who said it.
it's just the perception of the person who said it.
Indeed…. rich/poor are somewhat meaningless terms in the big scheme of things….
'Rich' does not equate to happiness, and 'Poor' does not equate to despair.I totally agree. Apparently if you can afford meat once a week that means you are in the top 5% in terms of world-wide wealth. I remember that whenever I feel bad about how I earn less than $35,000 as the breadwinner for a 7 person family. When I think of "needs" this is what I come up with:
- food
- clothing
- housing
- medical/dental care
- education
- transport
We can afford all those things as well as toys, family outings (movies, beach, etc), electronics (i.e. 2 cars, 2 computers, 2 tables, 2 smart phones, 32" TV). Not to mention that if we didn't spend money on "extras" i.e. vacuum cleaner rather than broom or coffee machine rather than instant we could save for a house rather than rent.
To be honest I think people have confused their wants and needs especially when it comes to branded items and luxuries.
Why is it that the comfortably well-off always quote these cliches?
Here's a couple more:
Money may not be able to buy happiness but it sure beats being poor.
Or, money doesn't guarantee happiness but poverty and misery are regular bedfellows.'rich' and 'poor' are words not necessarily associated with money
Amazing revelation Andy, although in the context of work, remuneration, and the title of this topic, they are.
Average = sum / n
Mean: n/2<= Mean and n/2> Mean
Let say that there are 10 ppl. 9 ppl are earning 1k and the last one is earning 11k.
The average is 2k (20k/10), but the mean is 1k.
mean = average
what you mean is median
You are right!
so
what you average is median
Where you live will also have a bearing on 'richness'…… with varying costs for rental/mortgage payments, etc between states/territories.
High wage does not necessarily equate to high disposable income.In some cases where the work is only available in certain areas this attitude is fair. If living in that suburb is a lifestyle choice then that is what you get.
I was thinking more broadly than suburb, but I guess your comment still stands….
Someone born and raised in Sydney could move to a 'cheaper' state to live and work…. although would also depend on the comparative wages.
I don't earn 60k yet consider myself "rich" in that I have plenty of disposable income.
If I wanted to pay full price for everything I could.. and still have plenty left over.
A person who is smart with their money can often double their income in a way.
There are plenty of people earning twice as much as you who have equal or less money then you.
it also depends a lot on how many dependents you have. if you are the sole breadwinner of a family with children on 60k saving for a deposit for a mortage and have elderly parents who don't have savings or a paid off mortgage who is frail in sickness to care for then you are going to struggle compared to the newly grad living at home with no bills to pay who can spend away almost all of the 60k you earn
I agree however once your child is an adult that doesn't apply, especially when your partner should be working full time once the child is 13-15 years old, probably even earlier.
Rich is a relative term, like beautiful.
The average Australian Income is 69K.
To some with modest life expectations, $69k is nice, for others 6 figures is essential to satisfy their life goals.
Minimum wage is around 34K yet the lowest option is 60K lol.
OP you make a lot of weird forum posts…
Yes, couldn't agree more…
Two observations / comments:
poor people are definatley more generous. This could be seen as them 'taking less care with their money' as they are also the ones with no money the day before payday, but when they have it they are far mor likely to ehlp someone out with money that those who earn more, so they could also be seen as simply more generous.
We are all very very rich in australia. if you don't think you are rich have a look around the world at what most people live on and it is very little. admittedly the cost of living is much lower, but even when you factor this in, we are still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. if you really want to do something nice, even a small amount of money makes a very big difference to people in a developing country who often don't even have enough to buy rice and clothes for the family. an interesting website is: www.globalrichlist.com
Good point. Im with you on this.
Two observations
poor people are definatley more generous
Would you kindly change the word Observations to Generalisations?
Just more accurate descriptor…Cheers.
T. Surfer
point taken, could/should have been clearer. however i don't think observations and generalisations are mutually exclusive. i am talking in terms of groups, so there is no option but to generalise.
i actually don't know how to edit my post, but i would change my response to "poor people are on the whole far more generous"
I don't need you to justify your position.
Just that you will admit that it was a Generalisation is enough.
I have much more to make about Poor people, but I shall refrain.
Interesting to me is that the comments on this post are way more enlightening than the OP's survey will ever be.
As with everything its all relative.
Relative to where you live, relative to who you hang out with.
If you're above average in all those you are essentially rich, its just your so called "needs"/necessities out of sync with what you earn.
I "had" a friend who earned more than twice what i earned, but was always borrowing my money and late/very late paying back.
Delusional, I'd spoken to him plenty of times about what he needs and wants, and that he can keep his 'lifestyle' if he wanted, but that it came with a cost… ie still renting no savings for a house.
People on that 150k up claiming poor, and using 'mortgage' and schools fees as an excuse are just like him. Delusional.
High income does not mean you are rich. Just as low income does not mean that you are poor.
If you earn $200k a year and spend $200k a year then you will never be rich because you will have no savings/investments. However, if you earn $60k a year, can live on $40k a year and save $20k a year then eventually you will be rich.
The only way to be rich (in a financial sense) is to spend less than you earn and save/invest the rest.
If you want to get rich quick then the fastest way is to have a high income AND low expenses.
The beauty of Ozbargain is that it can teach you how to lower your expenses.
I highly recommend all Ozbargainers read the following personal finance classics; "The Richest Man in Babylon", "The Millionaire Next Door" and "Stop Acting Rich".
I think its about how we define rich or poor.If you ear $200k and spend $200k, you are rich but without any savings. Question is rich means people with high income or high networth/assets/savings.
My view is that rich is owning high assets which provide a growing passive income eg interest, dividends and rent.
The question is DOES Ozbargain really lower your expenses? Or does it test your self-restraint against buying things you'll never need :D
^ this.
There is a book called 'Why are Thin People not Fat'.
There should be a book called 'Why are are Rich people not Poor'.
Its the same concept.
Poor people will continue to do things that make them poor.
Give $100k to Jayden from Gosnells in Perth, he will be broke inside 2 years.
Give $100k to Andrew Forrest, he will make it $400k in 2 years.
As one of the older generation I was always taught to learn at school, be polite to your elders, save hard to achieve what you want from life - including trying to earn extra money from outside study time through work - be it baby-sitting,paper rounds, car washing. This paid off. When I married at 22 ( in 1977 ) it wasn't a rented property -it was mortgaged. From there we moved onwards & upwards always working to strive the goals we had set ourselves, working full time jobs + renovating the home & still having a little time out to enjoy life on a holiday now & again. Now close to dotage( ha!) we can look back on our achievements & enjoy life mortgage free.
Basically, set goals when young & work towards them. Refuse to be influenced by others negative attitudes. Trust your own instincts.
Don't give a toss what the other guy is earning- even if it is more than you, he/she could well be squandering it on worthless commodities where you could be a little squirrel saving your nuts for a rainy day. Guess who will come out in front !!Well said sir goosegog…+1 for you.
I agree with you whole heartedly
" be polite to your elders, save hard to achieve what you want from life - including trying to earn extra money from outside study time through work - be it baby-sitting,paper rounds, car washing."
However, it is unfair to compare today's housing market with 1977. The current housing income multiple in Sydney is 9.2 that means that the average house price is 9.2 times the average salary. Saving hard just isn't enough if you want to buy a house near the city ( i don't mean postcode 2000, i mean within 50km of 2000)
In 1977 the ratio was less than half of what it is today. which means in real terms, it is twice as hard to save for a property in sydney than it ever was.i think though, that is not quite as simple as saying, we saved hard and now we don't pay a mortgage, you should do the same. things have changed. during your lifetime, house prices in Australia skyrocketed, a phenomenon that is unlikely to ever repeat it self again. I do however think you have a very good attitude and i agree with what you are saying for the most part. i don't mean to attack you and i'm sorry if it comes across that was. i am simply pointing out, that circumstance for people like myself who would like to buy a house in the near future it isn't as affordable as it was before.
Earn 90k. Taxable is 30k. I am very poor going by this.
Wow. Tax man got smashed there!
An interesting discussion indeed. I am personally in the poor category (confirmed by my recent tax return) however Hubby earns double my income so family income makes more sense to me. However I am the one who mainly seeks out bargains. Unfortunately I dont think housing affordability is anything like 1977. It took 10 years just to save a deposit on a low income. Now we need a bigger home for a family and seem to be stuck.
We worked two jobs + did all overtime available on our main ones to secure a deposit on the first home back in 1977.It took 2 years then to secure enough savings for a deposit of 1,000.00 for a tiny single storey costing 11,000 ( pounds- this was England )From there moved on to a larger home still working all hours available which was renovated & sold @ a good profit to emigrate to Australia where life didn't stop. Our present home of 20years started as a small 3x1 but is now a much larger 2 storey because of continuing to work hard to gain our ambitions.
It is also valued @ over $ 2,000,000. Mortgage free. In addition own 5 cars debt free & have 3 holidays a year.
This was all done by setting a goal & working towards it. When friends were out every night we limited ourselves to the occasional "let the hair down & enjoy " night. Over the years it has paid off. Now we can & also are still fit enough to enjoy everything we planned for. There is only one place where LUCK comes before WORK & that is the dictionary.We are not rich by any means but have managed to get to the level in life of being comfortable & feel reasonably secure for retirement ( if it ever happens)!!
To those of you who feel otherwise - here is a make on the poem by Rudyard Kipling - entitled:
IF
If you work hard & do your best
You'll get the sack like all the rest
But if you laze & mess about you'll live to see the job right out.
The work is hard,the pay is small,so take your time & sod'em all
For when you're dead you'll be forgot, don't try to do the bloody lot
or on your tombstone neatly lacquered will be these three words"JUST BLEEDING KNACKERED "Just so pleased we haven't lived life with that attitude
There is only one place where LUCK comes before WORK & that is the dictionary.
I don't entirely agree. You don't get a 200K job through hard work. You get it though some combination of Luck and Talent.
You can however achieve financial security though work, but this is a different thing.
While I agree there are certain factors which may limit what hard work can achieve (such as education, family background (i.e. drugs, broken home etc) and physical/mental disabilities) if you are an otherwise able-bodied, healthy and sane individual with at least some sort of education (say past college) then there should be no reason why hard work can't yield you riches.
Before I begin my rant, I fully understand that there are certain jobs which can never yield these sort of wages (nurses, social workers for example)
I know plenty of people on $200k+ a year job. You know what jobs they do?
Law/Medicine/Sales/business development/some-other-sort-of-management
You know how many hours they have to work? I've yet to meet anyone in these roles make that sort of money and work just 40hrs a week. Doctors are expected to work 70hr+ weeks and give up most weekends for example
Most of them are not particularly lucky or talented (granted two of these people are in management positions with their parent's companies)
Most of these individuals are old high-school friends of mine who I know for a fact worked their asses off. While some of them were deemed "Incredibly smart" and achieve 100% on every test, these were also the kids that spent all their time in the library and only took breaks during the summer holidays.
If there's ever a trend I see in these people is that they're all incredibly hard working and if I was to chalk anything up to "luck" i would say that they were very lucky to have picked careers in industries that they love and adore very early in their lives; that sort of direct isn't common at a young age.
Lastly, I often find people who complain about hard work not being sufficient are the ones that don't put in the hard work to either improve themselves or those that don't have any sort of goal in life ("I want to be rich earning $200k a year" is NOT an actual goal)
You consider people who are working in Law/Medicine/Management to be 'not particularly talented'? Perhaps you need to look into what 'talent' means. Working hard at manual labour (without requiring talent) does not earn this sort of money.
There are plenty of people who earn a lot less and work just as hard (if not harder) than the people you describe.
Working hard at manual labour (without requiring talent) does not earn this sort of money.
It earns more in some situations, ask any of my FIFO friends who are on $150k+ per year…
Working hard at manual labour (without requiring talent) does not earn this sort of money.
It does if you're a plumber/electrician/some other kind of handyman, or if you work in manual labour in WA.
In fact, the differential wages between blue collar workers and white collar workers in Australia is one of the lowest in the world. In many cases, blue collar workers make far more money than your typical office worker.
You misunderstand me. Blue collar is not the same as unskilled. The examples you are giving are not without requiring skill/talent.
The thing is. How many white collar jobs are 50-60 hours a week? Also most trades are not handymen. Almost like saying all white collar workers are typists.
Blue collar is not the same as unskilled
Mate you're obviously not from WA
"Talented" and "skilled" are very different.
Both of which can be earned with hard work and experience.
And we are all white skinned, heterosexual and without physical or mental illnesses. It's such a level playing field for the smug.
I know plenty of folks that don't fit one or more of your criteria but who do work very hard and do earn large salaries…and I have the utmost respect for them as a result!
And we've all had the same comfortable upbringing and opportunities…..
Wow I only earn 20k I'm one darn rich guy :)
Besides the point, I remember there was this guy in Australia who was known to be the most stingy bugger, was on some tv show, he managed to only spend so little a year, can't recall how much, but he has couple of millions saved if anyone knows where I'm getting at? He never took public transport and walked.
This poll is quite accurate.
Currently there're 102 below $59,999 people.
97 above $59,999The average individual's wage is about $1080 per week = $56k pa
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/6302.0main+fe…So we're no different than the general population?
Nope. Those figures are mean, and are skewed by people earning huge amounts. The 60K figure you are referring to here is a median.
Having said that, I'm pretty convinced the results in this poll are not entirely truthful anyway.
The correct figure to quote is AWOTE $1393 / week, annualised is $72,436.
The Average Australian is VERY well off.
And no that is not skewed.
For every CEO, there is a few thousand burger flippers and street sweepers on minimum.
This is still the mean, which does not relate to the poll here which can only give us a Median.
You hint at this with your burger flippers/CEO comment, but that seems to contradict your 'not skewed' comment.
Bruce I do I really need to spell out that the numbers are not 'skewed by people earning huge amounts'?
If so, I apologise I will be more clear next time.
… but they are. This is the entire problem with the mean. If you think they low income earners corrects for this you should try looking up the figures.
WHAT figures?
Do you have a source which provides a frequency chart by taxable income?
Nonetheless, I am not saying Mean is perfect.
However AWOTE is what this country recognises as the key metric for personal income.
Feel free to choose whatever statistic you wish to quote to suit your argument.
- 1
- 2
Wouldn't this come under the basic economic theory of the marginal propensity to consume/save?
I'm no expert in this, but from memory it states that a person with a higher income would consume more of each additional dollar you give to them since they have their human needs (food, water, shelter etc.) covered which is why they are more likely to spend that extra item on luxury goods (pretty much all these technologies we see on OzB).
In contrast, those on a lower income will tend to have a higher marginal propensity to save or at least spend a higher proportion of that on normal goods.
I'm probably wrong, but it'd be good for someone to correct me - Its always good to learn something new.