I know it's a naive question. I really am wondering what are these jobs? I've been living in Melourne for less than a year. Economic distribution of wealth is quite fair here in Australia. So, most of the people earn the same as others, but there are rich people. I just want to know, what kind of sector or jobs you can earn that much?
Jobs Where You Can Make over 100K a Year?
LAdiOZ on 11/10/2017 - 19:32
Poll Options
- 60Money doesn't represent life
- 98I wanna know
- 319Yeah.. I earn around 100K
Comments
That's a profession :)
bing lol
Prostitution can't be the oldest profession. How did the customers pay for it? Surely hunter/gatherer is the oldest profession.
@beathy:
Maybe they got the services on credit . Promised the prostitute they would get a proffession and make payment at a later time.
I'll gather some nuts and give it to you later 😉If your hunting and gathering to survive that is not a job, that is called survival.
If you are giving up your time for some benefit (money or goods) that is a job (even a one off or a short period).
If you do it multiple times that is a occupation/profession.
I would argue that hunter gather was a profession, though before civilization and specialization the bulk of humanity was engaged in this activity, the only exceptions being (possibly) mothers and shamen. Hunting and gathering is a specialization, since it requires skill and knowledge. If you stick an industialized man on a deserted island, almost all will be unable to survive more than a month.
In a socity without welfare (which is what ours is devolving into, thanks neolibtardism), having a job is essential to survival. No job = no money to purchase food with = death
Agree with everything except with mothers. Primitive societies actually promote participation of mothers in the "workforce" - that is hunting and gathering. If you see the new age movement of baby wearing, this is nothing but a copy of primitive societies. Women may not necessarily hunt animals, but they do gather herbs, nuts, berries, mushroom and find ways to preserve food.
Hooker, stripper, special massager No degree required. U can retire in few years if u ly off the cocaine.
If you don't check ozb for a year probably can save $50k.
The any normal jobs mostly will give you $50kdon't or do? I think checking ozb actually saves money
You must be new around here.
OzB…."saves" 50K a year….
I did save money…Oh wait….
…………………
haha na mate, OzB definitely doesn't save me money…the amount of useless things i've bought just because FOMO is ridiculous lol
I've never bought anything from ozbargain, no batteries, no power packs, I just watch it for the free financial deals where you open a bank account and get $100. I did buy a monitor but I posted that deal.
@freemoneyhunter: if you have mobile phone and travel out of Sydney, bushwalk, overseas you'll need power bank….
@dragonindespair: I've only been to Fiji, I have a mobile phone, I bushwalk but not overnight camping.
You are right. OzBargain saved me 50K…after I spend 100k…
You are spending only 1/2 on what you normally would not spend.
Huh ?!? Logic fail.
Investment Bankers, Medical Specialists, Corrupt Politicians…
good start..
start with investing into a $80k high performance car
After getting an analyst job at Westpac
Corrupt Politicians…
There is a redundancy for you.
Tautology?
Redundant and tautological are synonyms, so your reply was both redundant and a tautology
The base pay for politicians is around $150k for State or Federal Parliament. No corruption required.
Corruption is required to get there.
And how you stay there
No corruption required
my sidesNo! Corruption required.
Fixed it.
Unhappy with this comment - Thought it said "No Coupon Required"….. When my brain sees "No Coupon Required" it is programmed to immediately navigate to cashrewards.com.au
Working for an energy retailer in a digital analyst role, and the pay is close enough to $100k.
I don't think I'm rich - the more you earn the more you tend to spend. Plus kids are expensive. You can be rich on a lot less income, it's about how you control your spending.
Exactly I agree! Thank you
You still end up with more money in hand…
THIS!!
I have so may people that throw away opportunities to earn a few dollars because they will pay more tax!
I'd prefer to earn an extra $1 and pay $0.35 tax, still taking home $0.65 for whatever effort was put in! $0.65 > $0.00
So would a tax rate of 90% - every extra dollar you earn you'd have 10 cents more in hand. It comes down to time vs reward / risk vs reward. This country says to you the more you earn and the harder you work, the more you deserve to have taken away from you.
@jleno: i don't think that's entirely accurate… obviously across the spectrum people work hard, but tax affects low income earners the most, because they have the least amount to take from. As you move up in income, tax rates increase because you're already surviving/doing pretty well etc., which is why you can afford to pay more tax
@icejester:
What country is this in?Top marginal rate in Australia is 45%, which you will only start to pay once you slave away above $180,001. At $180,000 you will be paying - at the worst - effective income tax of ~30%. You can likely then get your accountant to slash your assessable income using tax reduction options - that is not as accessible to someone on ~$30k pa - and reduce your effective tax rate to something much lower. Maybe a cheeky $25k in voluntary pre-tax super?
@haverford: The 45% quoted "does not include the 2% Medicare Levy". Until 1 July this year it also "did not include the 2% Budget Repair Levy".
So while icejester is about 3 months out of date, that was the arrangement in Australia.
At the top rate you still only take home 53c in every $1.
@Drew22: yeah I notice that too. The only time they matter are for those artificial boundaries governments have set up like "surcharge kicks in at this figure" - happened to me one year I deducted literally just a few more dollars and went from a tax bill to tiny refund!
But otherwise many people then suddenly think going over this or that bracket makes you pay more income tax on all your earnings, instead of the bracket accounts only.
@Seraphin7:
No, at the top rate your marginal tax rate is 47% (including 2% Medicare levy).Your effective tax rate is much less (Includes Medicare levy from $28,000).
@haverford: Thank you, I am aware of marginal rates vs effective rates vs average rates. Perhaps I was remiss in not describing it as "53c in every extra $1".
Just FYI, the chart you have linked to appears to demonstrate average tax rates for various forms of income.
At some levels of income the effective rate of tax can be higher than the corresponding marginal rates. This is because the additional income results in tax being paid at the relevant marginal rate and also causes a loss of social security benefit creating a higher effective rate.
The classic example here is the tapering off of Family Tax Benefit A (FTB-A) for incomes between $52,706 and $94,316. For each extra dollar earned in this range, there is a loss of 20c in FTB-A. This can result in effective rates of tax as high as 59% (37% marginal tax + 2% Medicare Levy + 20% loss via FTB-A).
@Seraphin7: yeah. This has happened to me, in addition to lower child care rebates / benefits. I think I actually come out behind.
Meh by the time you get to that rate, you're not really working for the dollar…
Unless you're a labourer, you're part of a system that gives you the money
oh comon guys.. for every $1 you earn over 80k all the way to $180k you get taxed $0.37 ina dollar.
people are still stuck with this old school notion of not working harder because 50%+ will goto the taxman. Which is far from the truth. How many of those who would rather take the easier way out and not earn more as they believe time/reward doesn't weigh up, actually would earn more than 180k? I'd go out on a limb and say the majority don't, and those that earn more than 180k generally go out and do it and wouldn't be posting about this issue - they just simply make more money.
even if tax was 50% unless your going from 40 hr weeks to 150 hrs just to make $200k versus $120k, then taking home 50% is still a large amount to aspire to.
It's not necessarily about time spent. Yes, there are people who work pretty standard hours and make $100k+ where their skills are rare and in demand. However, to move to the higher rates is often about taking on a great deal more responsibility, more so than necessary a lot more effort. This brings with it greater pressure to produce results, typically through the management of others and not just yourself, and the consequences if results aren't forthcoming.
There are a lot of people who are more than happy to accepts several $10k less … even more … to avoid these levels of responsibility, especially when half of it goes to the government to p!ss up the wall.
yeah true, depends what sort of jump. are we taling about going from 110k to 150k if say your going from a senior to a management position i.e. accountant to finance manager. And in which case you have nights of 10pm as opposed to 6pm, so you may be on an hourly basis earning the extra? Some jobs the difference can be $180, 200k vs 110k. so the differences is more pressure, but i guess it's hard to 'quantify' the line between extra pressure and money.
I'm a fan while your younger and enjoying the job (pressure included) to earn your keep and be frugal and smart about it, then at least you can retire or 'tone down' into a job which you enjoy more later in life.
zalthough for alot of people the idea of going down in pay is impossible to fathom. they just can'ts ee why it is a good thing at times.
Its the deulusion of the top bracket that they 'work' for the dollar.
When you get to top bracket, unless you're a labourer you're really just working the system.
I'm on 186k basic + about 35-40k bonus.
I'm quite comfortable on this income and definitely motivated to take some unpaid holiday every year based on the fact that my earnings above 180k get taxed 45%.
So yes of course you still end up with more money, but given the ability to take unpaid leave, it definitely feels less worthwhile to work every available day, because I only get to keep 55% of the income for the work I do over 180k and 45% (almost half) gets taken away.
When you get to over $100k to avoid tax you buy investment properties.
So much wisdom here.
I am not on a great deal of dosh but I seem to have more in savings compared to my other colleagues who are spending a tenner on lunch a day and another 5 on coffee in that same day.
surprise surprise.@mko75 what does a digital analyst do?
Reads opinions on OZB, collates them all, then disseminates them down to insights but claim them as their own.
Close - collects user feedback on the digital platforms the company operates (think bill payment gateways, forms, the website etc.) then uses these insights to make business decisions on what enhancements should be prioritised next. Prerequisite for the role was having some web design experience, as you need to translate what the customer thinks they want with what the actual solution could be from a design point of view.
You define rich by how much currency you have rather than your total goods and services?
I'm rich in spirit.
I'm rich in karma ;)
I would only consider someone who is rich when they go into a Porshe or Ferrari store and go "yup, I'll have 10 of the best cars each" then walk out to the airplane store to buy a jet.
Username checks out.
This is a very open question.
6 figure jobs can be achieved in almost all sectors if you have the seniority or skills.
Not to set off a hornet's nest but I don't consider someone on 100k rich, reasoning :
1) The average is just over $80k so $20k more per year and considering the progressive tax rates, just isn't that hige amount more.
2) $100k doesn't buy you much in terms of housing in MEL and SYD, ideally its dual incomes of $100k each.
the govt thinks you are rich at $100k though. hard to get any type of help (unemployed son cant even get job search help - I don't mean the dole, just able to use job search programs/centres.
Agreed. Stiffing rules that have a Joe Hockey mindset written all over them.
Be a lifter, not a leaner.
Nope its 150k, where you are considered rich. Thats where most things cut off
Sorry, help for our son for job search is not available. Around 100k a year is deemed too high. I am nowhere near $150k.
@PVA:
Sorry was generalising in regards to every other welfare the Govt gives not jsut yours in particular
such an interesting answer. seem only sons of rich magistrates don't consider a 100k salary rich.
was about to push back on your point, I thought magistrates made $200-250k…. TIL: they get ~~$350k. https://ibb.co/infJQb
A lot of magistrates would (should!) be earning this in private practice. Its like a High Court judge earning $480k per year, if they were in private practice they would be earning at least +$2M a year (probably closer to $4M) - hence why no one complains about a HC judges salary.
Income is not wealth. 100k/year isn't rich; having a million in nett assets is (e.g. if you've paid off your house).
The average is just over $80k
Can I get data on this. I am earning like half of this and I am a qualified person but can't find shit for a job ! WTF am I doing wrong here?
This is average. What about median and all other indicators of distribution? We're measuring the wealth distribution of Australia off 1 indicator. Doesn't seem very reliable.
@BigRedBlackCar: yeah average is highly skewed. Iirc the median is below 60k, which is a much more realistic figure.
Is this before or after tax
The mean is always the one being quoted, I don't know why its the recognised one, but it is. Median is roughly 80% of mean.
Prostitution