Can You Live off $18,500 Per Year / $350 Per Week?

Windows7forever on 29/08/2018 - 05:26
Last edited 29/08/2018 - 05:28

If you can keep your income down to a low level you can effectively pay zero tax up to $18500 in one financial year. (I believe the government is rumored to increase this to 20k within the next few years which is good news for low income earners).

My situation: I have an investment property which is 100% positive and earns about $15k per year clear. I also work full time on an average wage of $50k per year. I really don't like my job very much and find I'm paying too much tax at the end of the year. Basically, I feel like I'm working to pay the tax man and it isn't fun.

I'm very good at keeping my expenses low and don't need much money to live off. Most of what I earn just goes into savings. My biggest expense is maintaining a vehicle but I am also considering disposing of it and using alternative means of transport. There are many ways to keep overheads low but I don't want to stray off topic.

Maybe I will quit my job and travel or find a part time/casual job and enjoy more leisure time and less working hours. I won't be able to save much money but the extra leisure/free time to pursue other things in life might be more worthwhile than a repetitive, meaningless 9 to 5 job. Unfortunately part time work and other so-called "flexible working arrangements" are far less accommodated in the private sector unless you are pregnant/breeding/have kids.

Poll Options

  • 133
    Yes
  • 276
    No
Financial

Comments

  • whooah1979 on 29/08/2018 - 05:54

    Can You Live off $18,500 Per Year / $350 Per Week?

    Why would you? It’s better to get qualified and make >2x that.

    • Legsweeping on 29/08/2018 - 06:02
      +15

      Did you read the post at all?

      • whooah1979 on 29/08/2018 - 06:11
        +31

        Yes.

        Tl;dr Op has a job that they’re thinking of quitting so that working Australians have to support their lazy lifestyle.

        • Windows7forever on 29/08/2018 - 06:55
          +5

          I support myself. No government handouts. I still pay taxes in other ways. I don't owe the government anything.

        • whooah1979 on 29/08/2018 - 07:13
          +6

          @87andcry:

          I still pay taxes in other ways.

          Yes. You should be in theory pay gst on goods and services. There may also be some stamp duty, levies or surcharges depending on the goods and services. Many of these taxes goes to the states that benefits your local communities.

          What you aren’t paying is income taxes which should benefit all Australians. Spending on national infrastructure, border control, foreign trade, farmer, welfare, etc, depends on these taxes.

        • EightImmortals on 29/08/2018 - 08:06
          +29

          @whooah1979: Umm, dude you need to do some research. a small percentage of taxes go towards those things, the rest gets wasted in a myriad of ways. I'm not interested in another pointless argument about taxation but if you think that all of the tax money that is grabbed by government goes to the benefit of the country then you must not be living in Australia.

        • ThithLord on 29/08/2018 - 08:20
          +20

          @87andcry: When you exist in a society, you benefit from society.

        • Xiaomi on 29/08/2018 - 08:32
          +19

          @87andcry: Ever swiped your Medicare card at your GP? Driven on a road? We all think that general taxes cover this, fact is lots of people pay taxes and catch public transport daily, subsidising the cost of roads, repairs, GPs etc.

          You're 31 assuming by your username, c'on.

        • Ryanek on 29/08/2018 - 09:08
          +8

          @EightImmortals: Small percent? That's a bit of a hyperbole mate. Care to share YOUR research?

          Where is this graph misleading?

        • dcep on 29/08/2018 - 09:42
          +5

          @Ryanek:

          Just one of the examples , aged care $ went to subsidies Bupa.
          https://www.michaelwest.com.au/six-top-aged-care-operators-r…
          https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/big-nursing-home-ind…

          And, other popular topics such as nbn , telstra , malcom turnbull.
          You get the idea. It always end up in the pocket of the rich.

        • Scab on 29/08/2018 - 09:49
          +13

          @ThithLord:

          When you exist in a society, you benefit from society.

          I hope you don't mind but I'm getting this as a neck tattoo?

        • HighAndDry on 29/08/2018 - 09:52
          +7

          so that working Australians have to support their lazy lifestyle.

          Nah that's bullshit. Govt isn't paying OP anything in the hypothetical. OP doesn't have an obligation to work JUST so they pay more taxes.

        • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 09:56
          +38

          @87andcry:
          I am fine with you arranging things so you pay no income tax and live modestly. Enjoy!

          But don't kid yourself you aren't getting a free ride on all the people paying more tax. Your use of transport, law enforcement, product safety, contract enforcement, healthcare, education etc. etc. all has to be paid for.

          I think it is a fine thing to pay taxes and have nice things. I'm happy for you to also benefit as part of the community.
          But fix the attitude that you don't owe anybody. You owe plenty.

        • Diji1 on 29/08/2018 - 10:16
          +15

          @mskeggs: >But don't kid yourself you aren't getting a free ride on all the people paying more tax

          You're worried about one person getting a possible free ride when the 500 wealthiest businesses pay 2% effective tax rate? These are billion dollar overseas owned concerns paying no tax.

          You and every other individual taxpayer is subsidizing the massive use of roads, ports, health etc. while their largest users pay no tax at all and you worried about one person possibly getting a (ha) "free ride".

          So, it's fine to get a free ride in this country provided your a billion dollar business. But not if your an average citizen of the country, oh no, then you're a bum if you don't pay tax.

          The people make very dumb decisions at the polls.

        • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 10:21
          +8

          @Diji1:
          Obviously, what you say is true.
          But anybody denying the ride they get from tax payers means they aren't obligated to pay tax is more cover and smokescreen for the big rorting multi-nationals to hide behind.

          Everyone gets the benefits, we have rules that say you contribute if you earn $x. I'm heavily in favour of ensuring the big corporates pay too.

        • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 11:54
          +13

          @HighAndDry:
          I didn't explicitly ask for a lack of air pollution, but I benefit from it every day. You can argue I am not morally obliged to the people who acted to deliver that to me, but you can't deny that I am receiving the benefit.

          If medicare is abolished and then OP asks for free healthcare? Then he owes something.
          But surely if Medicare exists and he makes use of it, then he owes it to society, as he could have chosen not to seek treatment.

          If I use a road I didn't ask to be built I am contributing to its wear, if my house doesn't burn down because the RFS put out a bush fire without me explicitly asking them to, I am still getting a free ride on others contribution.

          So I'll go along with the hair splitting that "owe" is not the most precise word, but all of us extract massive value from our society whether we ask for it or not. Indeed, some of the greatest value is in the safety net provisions that exist even if somebody denies they want access to them, because it gives them the privilege to change their mind.

          I might say old age care is too costly, and rail against paying taxes for it all my life, but if I change my tune at age 75 I will have benefitted greatly. If I chose to move to Somalia or somewhere to enforce my decision to opt out of societal safety nets I would have no such benefit.

        • HighAndDry on 29/08/2018 - 11:56
          -7

          @mskeggs:

          I didn't explicitly ask for a lack of air pollution, but I benefit from it every day. You can argue I am not morally obliged to the people who acted to deliver that to me, but you can't deny that I am receiving the benefit.

          I don't deny receiving the benefit, I deny that receiving a benefit imposes an obligation so that I would "owe" someone something. Say a marketer gave you a free bottle of soft drink. Do you owe them anything? You're getting the benefit right?

          So I'll go along with the hair splitting that "owe" is not the most precise word, but all of us extract massive value from our society whether we ask for it or not.

          Oh, uh, that was basically my whole point. Getting value out of something is morally irrelevant, if that value is incidental to someone else doing something for their own benefit. I don't think people earn money to pay taxes because they think that's what's best for society - I'm pretty sure 100% of people earn money for their own benefit, and taxes is just an unavoidable burden. (Otherwise they can donate money instead).

        • MementoMori on 29/08/2018 - 15:38
          +1

          @Ryanek: I think the argument is, say, out of the $158.6bn spent on Social Security and Welfare, what % of that ends up in the pockets of eligible people vs how much of it goes to people who shouldn't get it + inefficient administration of the system (i.e. wastage).

          For example, I've heard of figures on car rego. The majority of the funds goes into the system that is used to collect the funds.

        • cktftw on 29/08/2018 - 16:15
          +2

          @domcc1:

          "Social security and welfare represents 35 per cent of the Australian Government’s expenses"
          https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…

          FFS thirthy (profanity) five percent!

        • Pacify on 29/08/2018 - 19:02
          +3

          What. How is anyone supporting him? He's not going on unemployment or anything

        • whooah1979 on 29/08/2018 - 19:09

          @Pacify:

          I am also considering disposing of it and using alternative means of transport.

          Op is considering quitting their job and selling their vehicle. What alternative form of transport isn’t subsided by taxpayers?

        • lunartemis on 29/08/2018 - 21:08
          +2

          @EightImmortals:
          Exactly. I mean look at our current government back stabbing each other every 2 years and our tax is paying the high salary of these clowns

        • EightImmortals on 29/08/2018 - 21:43

          @lunartemis: And this: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2016/02/12/governme…

          And on that graph that was posted it lists almost 90 BN dollars going to interest on government debt (though it's lumped in with 'payments to states' so I'm not sure the breakdown.) That is 90 BN pinched from taxpayers and handed over to the worlds elitists literally for nothing. (If anyone has a problem with that then research 'The Money Masters' or "money as debt" or the 'global reserve bank ponzi scheme'. )

        • lostn on 30/08/2018 - 00:35
          -1

          @HighAndDry:

          I don't think people earn money to pay taxes because they think that's what's best for society - I'm pretty sure 100% of people earn money for their own benefit, and taxes is just an unavoidable burden. (Otherwise they can donate money instead).

          If you lived in a society with absolutely no taxes, they would have no money for infrastructure, and you'd be in a worse off society as a result. No roads. No utilities. Everything you do pay for will be more expensive. Every road will be tolled, every visit to the doctor will cost you money. Do you think you'd really be better off financially with such a system as user-pays-each-time?

          In the US states where there's no income tax, they are leeching off the other states who do pay taxes. It's all one country, so taxes raised from one state and being spent in another, is still money spent within the same country, so Americans generally don't have a problem with that. If their tax money was being given freely to other countries, it's a different matter.

        • stow5920 on 30/08/2018 - 01:19
          -4

          Their (and our) tax money IS being given freely to other countries. Foreign Aid is ridiculous.

        • whooah1979 on 30/08/2018 - 05:48
          +8

          @stow5920:

          We help those that are less fortunate than us no matter who they are.

        • echelon6 on 30/08/2018 - 10:50
          +5

          @mskeggs: Nothing wrong with his setup - he's playing by the rules. The individual's duty ends at satisfying the letter of the law. If society deems this setup unfair, legislate different laws.

        • RocketSwitch on 30/08/2018 - 11:08
          +1

          @EightImmortals: Looks like all that government advertising and persuasion worked on some people lol

          Lets forget about all the expenses our government have. How quick people forget Bishop's three day visit to WA that cost $145,200.

        • EightImmortals on 30/08/2018 - 12:12

          @echelon6: OK, now errm how exactly do we as a 'society' go about that? I know how they do it in democracsies like Sweden for e.g. but how do we do that here? (And no, 'voting' is not the answer you are looking for. )

        • mooney on 30/08/2018 - 17:19

          @Diji1: This is whataboutism at its finest… I don't see ANYWHERE in Mskeggs comments that suggest anything like an approval of multinational corporations tax avoidance. It is possible to hold a negative view of both points.

          I would suggest anyone who wants to avoid paying tax full stop has selfish motivations. Companies dont have feelings, they are entities designed to maximise profits, and so they will always try to find 'legal' avenues to avoid unnecessary costs (often local region taxes) this is where we need politicians to try to not be bent (profanity) and take backhanders (it feels like we are being let down pretty badly here at present)

        • derrida derider on 30/08/2018 - 18:16
          +5

          @tm87:
          Two things:
          - that's only as a percent of the feds. It doesn't include State and local government (who pay for most of those roads others are talking about)
          - the Budget's "social security and welfare" category includes an awful lot of things that are not welfare; childcare rebate to cover part of the cost of women working, Family Tax Benefit that's paid in most countries as a tax deduction but we do as a cash payment, aged care (ie nursing home subsidies), the NDIS, etc.
          - of that which is paid as "welfare", far the biggest bill is for the age pension. The dole represents around 2 percent of all government spending in Australia.

          Goverment spending as a proportion of national income is actually lower in Australia than in the "small government" US - mainly because the US wastes much more money than us on "defence" (defense?) at the federal level and "law and order" (ie prisons) at the state level. Just different priorities.

          I recently retired from a job where I had to calculate all these numbers. It was pretty enlightening - the bulk of taxes don't go where people think they go. In particular, our politicians are very cheap in the scheme of things (though I suppose we only get what we pay for).

        • kreagh on 30/08/2018 - 19:42
          +3

          @derrida derider: I think a lot of people who talk about the Australian government system as being inefficient seem to forget that on pretty much any metric the Australian government outperforms at least 95% of other governments worldwide.
          The evidence for this is that Australians enjoy a quality of living that is at least among the top 10 nations (often top 5) of the world for quality of life and pretty much any related metric for the last 3 decades and more.
          (https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j… https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r… https://www.businessinsider.com/happiest-countries-best-qual… ; https://www.newsweek.com/50-countries-best-quality-life-9659…)
          So I can't see an argument for not contributing to a government well run by global standards.

          That is a different question though as to why the brunt of the tax burden is on middle income earners. No doubt the system needs a lot of tweaking to force the largest revenue earners to cough up their fair share to ease this burden. Unfortunately, instead of that, it looks like the situation with large multinationals is only likely to get worse in the future. I can understand the OP's view from this perspective.

          To his original question, I don't think $18,500 a year is sustainable if he has a large capital investment like the investment property, that can have large expenses from time to time. It might work if he chose to live in a caravan and invested in shares.

        • Raihoo on 31/08/2018 - 10:58

          @whooah1979: Uber

        • whooah1979 on 31/08/2018 - 18:49

          @Raihoo:

          not on a $15k income.

  • whooah1979 on 29/08/2018 - 05:57
    +15

    the extra leisure/free time

    This sounds like being a bum.

    • HighAndDry on 29/08/2018 - 09:53
      +17

      Except OP is making enough to support themselves and won't be drawing any money from the public purse.

      • mysterytal on 29/08/2018 - 09:58
        +6

        From the responses on here I think posters are implying the OP will still be taking advantage of things like free health care.

        • HighAndDry on 29/08/2018 - 10:05
          +30

          Well OP is going to be below a minimum wage level earner - this is the system Australians have voted for, so I see no reason why OP can't take advantage of it. I assume if free healthcare wasn't available, OP would adjust to earn more so he could pay for it too.

          Bottom line is: I don't see "ability to work" as imposing any additional "obligation to work". Either have the welfare system we have, and the income tax threshold we have - and it applies to everyone, or don't. I'd actually prefer to have less welfare and a lower tax free threshold, but in the current system OP is doing nothing wrong by just choosing not to work.

      • jmi on 30/08/2018 - 10:13
        +4

        What OP is suggesting is extremely financially risky.

        Say, if the investment property suddenly has problems finding tenants, or it gets trashed, burned down, or involves major renovation, suddenly that $15K pa disappears. What then? Couple that with a major chronic illness in the family and suddenly OP is up the proverbial ship creek.

        The main problem is OP is relying on ONE SINGLE INCOME source for financial stability.

        I cannot recommend that course of action at all. If OP has at least a diversified portfolio of property/indexed funds/bonds and an emergency fund, I would not be so adverse to the idea of living off that amount.

        Even for people who FI/RE, the majority of them have a backup cash reserve of 2 years to cover times when the market goes south so that they do not have to drawn down on their principal or sell their investments.

        • HighAndDry on 30/08/2018 - 11:48
          +1

          I'm not recommending it at all. I'm just saying it's not a morally irresponsible one.

    • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 09:57
      +6

      If they said they would spend time working at a soup kitchen, and living modestly on their low income, would you still judge them that way?

    • moar bargains on 29/08/2018 - 12:40
      +8

      being a bum.

      being an artist. Fixed it for you :)

  • Quantumcat on 29/08/2018 - 06:05
    +48

    I would rather work full time and be comfortable than be worrying about my next meal full time.

  • Kangal on 29/08/2018 - 06:38
    +41

    A job gives people a sense of purpose and worth. And being able to pay your taxes, save up, etc etc are things you should be proud of.

    I was indoctrinated to think "money is not important" always when growing up, even though I was bought up in the lower side of the pay scale.
    No. Money is important, as it enables you to do do things with it you couldn't otherwise. You should look at your job as "your job"… something for financial source and any entertainment and life-fulfilment you want to achieve are thing you should derive outside of your job.

    I would much rather work+travel 30 hours a week, scrubbing shit from ceilings and earning $90k a year…. rather than work+travel for 50 hours a week, doing the job I love, and earning a measly $45k. Because we are people and we are constantly evolving, so what you think you love now is something you might "meh" later and even come to despise it, whereas there will always be room for money to do something for you or your close ones. There's nothing wrong with a "Dirty Job" that a good shower and a nice paycheck cannot fix.

    • Randxyz123 on 29/08/2018 - 09:16
      +2

      Well said!

    • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 10:13
      +35

      Your personal choices to prioritise cash over happiness in your work are not equal to a moral certitude that it gives purpose and worth.

      If the OP's strongest wish is to spend more time away from work, why tell them that they are wrong because jobs give worth?

      I'm not even clear what you are saying, as you imply you buy fulfilment with the money you earn at a job you dislike.

      I hope you get a more balanced approach in time.

      • Kangal on 29/08/2018 - 10:30

        Here's the problem: what's "of value" is very very objective and it is also very subjective.

        We have two generations of kids growing up, and being told that they don't have to suffer ever, that bad times are a choice. So when a raw deal hits them, they are ill-equipped to handle the situation. They are more likely to leave and look for something better. Now that's a good solution for some problems, but not all.

        Now I'm not blaming Millennials, no it's not they're fault for growing up with this mantra. And I'm not blaming their parents directly. It's more of a culture shift that happened with the rise of media, corrupt welfare systems, and recession of things like reading, volunteering, poetry, and science.

        Spend more time away from work isn't the solution for life. Working gives you money, money gives you choices, those choices enable fulfillment. Like it or not we are humans and accomplishments such as being independent, starting a family, buying a house are things we draw pride from because they are long-term successes. Travelling is a success too. And so is education. Good health too. However, once you shackle yourself to the pressures of money, you are VASTLY limited in what you can accomplish.

        You can "buy" fulfillment if you like, sure. But that will mostly buy you short-term happyness. However, if you are decent like most people are, getting freedom from poverty is going open more opportunities to be happy.

        Money is not good or evil. It is a tool.
        This is what is no longer accepted or taught.

        • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 17:32
          +5

          I understand where you are coming from, but that is a different thing.

          Well brought up kids will recognise that there is a certain amount of money that delivers a measure of security.
          If they maintain very low expenses, then that amount for security is correspondingly lower, and they have much less risk.
          If I could happily live on $350 a week I would have fewer anxieties around job loss or paying the bills etc. because my needs would be so small.

          Note that all the avenues of non-financial achievement are still open to the OP for life satisfaction. If they decide to feed the homeless on Mondays, go fishing on Tuesdays, remove graffiti on Wednesdays, write songs on Thursdays and get blind drunk on Fridays they are likely to have contributed more to society than I did in my office job as a 25 year old.

          I think we are arguing from similar positions, just that I see it is worthwhile to look at alternatives to work if that is suitable, but you seem to feel that money offers an easier path. I'm not convinced.

          And it isn't like OP can't change their mind again on 12 month. Give it a go, see how it works. They already know what working full time is like for comparison.

        • Kangal on 29/08/2018 - 20:01
          +1

          @mskeggs:

          Yes, but here's where your argument falls short… you assume you can control 100% of the expenses you will incur.
          I disagree.
          Sure, the individual has a lot of control of what your spending will be like, however, because we are very social creatures this means the spending and cost of many things will be difficult to coordinate and in cases impossible. With a "liveable wage" this doesn't become an issue, however, the figure OP has put is far from it. And even if OP manages to accomplish this, its only true for a limited amount of days, as his spending habits are likely to be impacted in the future from an unforeseeable event.

          And whilst volunteering sounds great to most people, until they do it they don't really know what they're getting into. And even when people find the thing they love, time changes us and we do change our minds. Its a much nicer ride through life that when you do change your plans, that you have something to fall on like a savings and job security. Regret is a real danger.

          Where I'm coming from is that people are full of regrets, and its the things we didn't do that they regret the most.
          Going and travelling is something the OP wants to do and should do. But he shouldn't write off working as a kin to being a sucker, since there really are great benefits to it. Its short-sighted. Do both, take the good with the bad.

        • mskeggs on 29/08/2018 - 20:41
          +3

          @Kangal:

          its the things we didn't do that they regret the most.

          True. A good reason for OP to try not working and see how they go.
          If they change their mind, they are currently earning wages approx what a retail worker gets paid, so it seems quite possible they could restore their job earnings if it didn't suit them.

          you assume you can control 100% of the expenses you will incur.

          Very true. OP can pick up a fortnight casual work if they need a short term injection. If it is something more serious, they have a paid off investment property, which is pretty good security! In many ways, it is riskier to live a $50k lifestyle on a $50k wage, as you have no easy way to earn more. If you have no work commitments you can pick and choose lucrative opportunities.

          Its a much nicer ride through life that when you do change your plans,

          I agree this is true. It is nice to have a measure of security, but it takes massive discipline.
          When you earn a good income, if a spouse wants a nice holiday, or car, and a kid wants the brand shoes, it all swiftly adds up, and you don't have as much flexibility to change your plans.

          But again, if OP gets sick of not working, they can easily change to an employee again.

    • Pacify on 29/08/2018 - 19:04
      +11

      Working at a shitty job you absolutely hate gives you a sense of purpose and worth?

      Reality is in our current society, most "work" is meaningless busywork that really adds nothing to society, and most of it will end up automated anyway. If you have one of those jobs, does it really matter whether you do it or not?

      • Kangal on 29/08/2018 - 20:17

        Agree.
        But if you're going down that path of comparing "who's the most depressed" a desk jockey or a free spirit… I shouldn't remind you that the highest demographic of suicide rates occur with the unemployed and homeless people.

        I've simply come to understand that a healthy balance of work and play is the best. But if you "had to" lean towards one extreme or the other, definitely lean towards having success. It has way more benefits than the contrary.

        • Beanvee on 30/08/2018 - 11:06
          +1

          Going off your original comparison though, I'd like to see the suicide rate comparison between shit scrubbers vs job lovers.

  • toniyellow on 29/08/2018 - 06:57
    +15

    How would you save for retirement on that income? Or is the plan just to collect a pension from taxes other people paid?

    • chriise on 29/08/2018 - 12:41

      In the UK you need to have contributed a certain number of years National Insurance (a part of income tax) to qualify for state pension, and the amount you receive scales up with the number of years - is there a similar criteria in Aus?

      • IMadeYouReadThis on 29/08/2018 - 13:58
        +2

        is there a similar criteria in Aus?

        No, don't think so..

      • Quantumcat on 29/08/2018 - 21:27

        Everyone gets an aged pension.

      • dp1 on 30/08/2018 - 16:09

        The UK counts the years spent receiving the dole as a 'contribution' for the year. If you claim no benefits (eg older school or uni students) you are judged to not be contributing (I spent 7 years at uni so I have 9 years less national insurance contributions than others my age who went on the dole at 16!)

        • Emerald Owl on 31/08/2018 - 00:51

          I would love to retroactively implement that for people currently going on the old age pension. However, super seems to be a far better system, depending on how much you earn vs working a little.

  • bobbified on 29/08/2018 - 07:32
    +8

    If the property you own is the investment that's generating the $15k/year, where are you going to live?

    There's people that live off less than $350/week and it may get them through day to day, but what happens when you need to pay a bigger bill? For example, if you need an urgent trip overseas for whatever reason? Or if you need to pay for something upfront?

    Going by your username, I'm assuming that you're currently 30 or 31 years old. How are you eventually going to get married and have kids? When you do, you're not going to be able to instantly jump into a high paying job because that takes time to build.

    If you think you're "working just to pay taxes" at $50k ($961 gross and $150 tax, each week), which is a relatively low income, then I think you need a reality check.

    • fantombloo on 29/08/2018 - 07:49
      +13

      How are you eventually going to get married and have kids?

      That's a massive assumption.

      • rockuman_ex on 29/08/2018 - 08:08
        +8

        More like, "how are you going to pay for child support?"

      • bobbified on 29/08/2018 - 08:52

        Well, you're right, but it's just an assumption based on the natural progression of life.

        • fantombloo on 29/08/2018 - 15:33
          +2

          natural

          Perhaps you have a misconstrued understanding of this word.

        • nobro25 on 29/08/2018 - 15:45
          +6

          @thevofa: I'll never understand why people always use the marriage and have kids talk. They always say it like it'll definitely happen sometime in your life. Marriage and having kids is not like hitting puberty, you don't just hit an age wake up one day and be married and have kids. Jeez people.

        • fantombloo on 29/08/2018 - 16:01
          +3

          @nobro25:

          In fact marriage is not natural at all, and is trending to become an outdated invention of society. (Says me who's married.)

          Even though having kids is natural it, like many other natural things, is hardly obligatory.

        • bobbified on 31/08/2018 - 10:59

          @thevofa:

          What's so misconstrued about that?
          Reproducing is part of life's natural progression - although, not everyone chooses to have kids. Work, marriage, etc is everything else that society has built around it.

    • Starlight8 on 29/08/2018 - 09:09

      well said!

    • jerjergege on 30/08/2018 - 07:29
      -4

      $50k ($961 gross and $150 tax, each week), which is a relatively low income"

      Cries in spanish.

      I make more then that but my gross is lower, damn hecs debt.

    • Emerald Owl on 31/08/2018 - 00:52

      ‘Urgent trip overseas’, unless you’re an immigrant, what on earth could that be, remembering he would be unemployed.

  • jar-unit on 29/08/2018 - 07:43
    +6

    Read the book "Vagabonding" it has lots of great tips on how to travel long term while spending as little as possible. You could go to Mexico or Costa Rica and live pretty well off with $350 a week. You could also supplement your income with doing some online work from over there possibly! Sounds like a great predicament as you are not tied down yet with family/child commitments.

  • Mythreesons on 29/08/2018 - 08:03
    +2

    What happens if you get a bad tenant or you get sick, you could lose everything, you still have insurance, water and rates to pay.

  • jellykingdom on 29/08/2018 - 08:09
    +1

    Yeah while I certainly admire the thought process, I think your biggest issue is if your circumstances change at all. If you get sick or injured or do randomly decide to settle down or do something else, you're in a bit of a hole that's going to be hard to dig out of.

    And, in my opinion, the only reason to quit your job and the 9-5 is to have fun, and that'll be pretty tricky on $350/wk

  • Ocker on 29/08/2018 - 08:27
    -4

    After you quit your job go to Centrelink and register for unemployment benefits. List your occupation as a snake-catcher and you are guaranteed to never get a job.
    With all of the tax-payer benefits you will never need to work again, just sponge off society.

    • Pacify on 29/08/2018 - 19:07
      +2

      Hes going to get (profanity) all from Centrelink if hes making $350 off of a property

    • derrida derider on 30/08/2018 - 18:38
      +1

      Purest bullshit. That's not the way the system works. Go into the employment agency and tell them you're a snake catcher and they can and will tell Clink to throw you out straight away - they only make money if they get you a job and they hate timewasters.

      And if you quit your job you're going to have a 12 week wait for payment. And you'd better not have $5k in the bank or there's more waiting. And if you do manage to convince them you're actually looking for a job you'll get the princely sum of $40 a day to live on - you're in for a diet of ramen noodles, hanging around Clink offices (they're not exactly known for customer service), regular homelessness, Vinnies clothes, no internet and walking everywhere.

    • megadeth on 30/08/2018 - 19:44

      Think he'll fail the means test for eligibility for FTB because of owning a ~$500k investment property…

  • hawkeye on 29/08/2018 - 08:34
    +4

    Yep OZB is way over supplied with so many snake fondlers.

  • ausdday on 29/08/2018 - 08:50
    +12

    Why not if you can? Everyone works hard now to retire sometimes. When you can live purely based on your passive income, you are entitled to retire. That's the whole point of invest young, and retire young. If you don't need that much money in your life, why spend your life earning it?

    If you can just live with 350 per week, and spare some for rainy days (no tenant / investment property needs repair work / sick), then why not?

  • hardjards on 29/08/2018 - 08:56
    +9

    Can you sustain life? Yes. Can you live a quality life in Australia… I don't think so.

  • trustnoone on 29/08/2018 - 09:08
    +5

    You can yeah, I used to be on centrelink and living off of $270 a week renting in Sydney, biggest issues are paying for rent, thats where like $200 of that gos if you can find a place cheap enough. Then you have 70 for everything else, which basically meant food and transport etc. You won't be buying kool new things like computers or phones and stuff. But since you're getting paid like a $100 more then me it would be possible to save?

    The other aspects are on centrelink, transport was slightly cheaper as well as medication and free healthcare, so not sure if you need to pay a gap or not still but important for me.

    Other then that it wasn't impossible you just need to be stringent with your money, you'll probably find yourself spending a whole lot less because you don't have to go out for work and stuff. You'll also need to cook more (be more thrifty with paying for food). Careful about falling into the trap of buying unhealthy food, I did it because unhealthy food like buying 3kg of dimsims are like $3 dollars, while you can only buy like 2 peaches for 3 dollars lol.

    • magic8ballgag on 29/08/2018 - 13:50

      I did it because unhealthy food like buying 3kg of dimsims are like $3 dollars

      I bet you I can make a bag of cheap dimmies quite healthy and appetizing!

  • MauTauAja on 29/08/2018 - 09:14

    For me? i cant because i need to saved money for retirement, do you want live in Government housing with dodgy neighbour do you????

  • Nikorasu on 29/08/2018 - 09:18
    +5

    OP: "I have an investment property which is 100% positive and earns about $15k per year clear."
    I'm a bit risk averse… Factor in a dodgy tenant one year who doesn't pay rent for a couple of months while you are organising VCAT to evict them: police fees for the eviction, they leave their junk and crappy furniture there that you have to dispose of and cleaning bills, plus VCAT fees, lost rent, etc. You may have landlord insurance to cover it, but it still costs…
    Your $15K doesn't look so much like $15K anymore. Better stock up on 2 minute noodles!
    My thought is keep working your 50K/year job, realising you could find something better/more meaningful that you get paid to do. Make it part time to start with and see how you go. Good luck!

    • Windows7forever on 30/08/2018 - 05:54

      Thanks for outlining that doomsday scenario.
      It's wise to be prepared for such "tenants from hell" because it can happen to anybody.
      I will consider your advice.

      • buckster on 30/08/2018 - 08:32

        I would think the working part time solution might be your best middle ground that doesn't sacrifice much financial stability but gives you considerably more time to enjoy yourself

  • mysterytal on 29/08/2018 - 09:20
    +6

    I haven't worked for over 10 years. I'm now in my early 40's. $350 a week is easily doable if you do not have any housing expenses such as a mortgage or rent to pay. I don't. In your thread in 2016 you said you owned an investment property but were renting another with your partner to live in. If that is still the case then $350 a week won't be enough to support you and your partner unless you really know how to and don't mind living a frugal lifestyle.

    Don't forget if you have a low income you also get a Low Income Tax Offset which means you can earn a little under $21,000 and not pay any income tax. You also don't need to pay any Medicare Levy until your income exceeds around $22,000.

    I also have a Low Income Health Care card which enables many discounts that I did not get when I was working full time. Half price public transport for example.

    • Windows7forever on 30/08/2018 - 06:00
      +3

      That's nice. Congratulations to you. I hope to be in the same living situation at your age.
      I'm single; attaining such a lifestyle would be exceedingly difficult with a partner/children for obvious reasons.
      I was not aware of the tax offset. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. So that's effectively around $400 p/w in tax free income that the govt can't touch? You're Winning!

  • dust on 29/08/2018 - 09:20

    Do you pay rent? How did you manage to get an investment property on $50k?

    • Oz8argain on 29/08/2018 - 09:25
      +6

      i'm guessing parents gave him the money to get the investment property without any loans, and still living at parents place.

  • pantsparty on 29/08/2018 - 09:23
    +2

    If you live with your parents or pay zero rent some other way and don't plan to do much travelling/shopping then yes, you could definitely live off $350 a week. It depends what you want out of life. I personally could not do all the things I want to do on that income - e.g not live with my parents, travel overseas.

    • derrida derider on 30/08/2018 - 18:43

      Pretty bloody unfair on the parents, stuck giving free food & accommodation for life to an adult child.

  • Oz8argain on 29/08/2018 - 09:24

    I hope you're single…

  • ausdday on 29/08/2018 - 09:30
    +30

    https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican-fisherma…

    An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

    The Mexican replied, “only a little while. The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

    The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

    The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

    To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.”

    “But what then?” Asked the Mexican.

    The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!”

    “Millions – then what?”

    The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

    • HighAndDry on 29/08/2018 - 11:38
      +6

      Great story, but in the beginning, one bad fishing season and the Mexican and his family all starve. In the end, the Mexican can fish if he wants, with no worries about the next meal.

      It's a little thing we're all chasing called financial security.

      • gromit on 29/08/2018 - 15:26
        +2

        Yep while it is a nice story the fisherman is one bad year, one medical emergency, one oil spill, one commercial operation opening in his area away from being destitute and having to move or take up extra jobs cleaning etc to cover the bills. accumulation of wealth is not about living in luxury (at least for many) it is about having the freedom to choose how you live and not need worry about how you are going to cover the next set of bills.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join