where do you fit?

[medhead]

A challenge to ourselves in this newspaper piece. Ignore the cough about politics. Scroll to the end of the story and take the quiz[SUP]*[/SUP]. I was spot on in picking my comparative position.

Wondering how others go[SUP]+[/SUP].

Really, Mr Abbott? $185k not 'especially high'?




* This sounds like a direction, but it's not. You are free to participate or not based on your own desires, as per standard forum rules.
+ Again this is your choice, I don't care if you participate or not, just thought it would be interesting.
& no doubt the validity of the comparison will generate debate. Nothing wrong with such debate, it would be within topic IMO.

 

[RooFlyer]

I got a 'highly accurate' rating. 1.5% off.

You don't really want us to say actual %, I'm sure?

 

[andye]

Very close. Wasn't sure when it said superannuation earning whether to include employers contribution (if it did I would have been bang on).

It's quite easy to get a skewed idea of how you fit in though. Very few families feel they have lots of spare cash once the various bills get paid. It would be interesting to see an average family income for metro Sydney presented rather than just the national/state/minimum wage figure

Personally I think the Prince Philip fiasco was in large part because TA genuinely believed that lots of children did the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme like his did. It's a very worthy pursuit but very much subscribed by wealthier families

 

[Warks]

Going by all the mansions and flash cars around I'd assume that there were a LOT of people better off than me but had no idea how many. Being self-employed I'm not really sure of my income but used what the tax office gets. Wow. No wonder I've never considered private schooling or buying a $100K car.

 

[medhead]

I got a 'highly accurate' rating. 1.5% off.

You don't really want us to say actual %, I'm sure?

No, much too private info. More about the challenge really. I also don't expect anyone who is way off to mention it.

 

[JohnK]

Your standard of living is far different than you guessed!

Don't quite understand how one can determine so much with many key details missing. If you earn ~$100,000/pa but the majority goes on personal loans and credit card debt then your standard of living is the same as someone earning ~$35,000/pa.

The tax department has the same narrow mindedness.

 

[Warks]

It doesn't take into account home ownership which may well be a millstone for some with large mortgages, or a huge benefit for those with either minimal mortgages or houses paid off. Someone on $100K with no mortgage would be better off than someone on $200K with a million dollar mortgage you'd think. I know who sleeps better anyway.

 

[medhead]

Your standard of living is far different than you guessed!

Don't quite understand how one can determine so much with many key details missing. If you earn ~$100,000/pa but the majority goes on personal loans and credit card debt then your standard of living is the same as someone earning ~$35,000/pa.

The tax department has the same narrow mindedness.

I don't think they're trying to judge how you choose to spend your money or the value you achieve for your money. More a comparison of ability to spend money.

 

[rainbowgirl]

I got within a couple of percent of where we were.

 

[clazman]

It doesn't take into account home ownership which may well be a millstone for some with large mortgages, or a huge benefit for those with either minimal mortgages or houses paid off. Someone on $100K with no mortgage would be better off than someone on $200K with a million dollar mortgage you'd think. I know who sleeps better anyway.

the one with the non hot wife